The previous cycle high was the *last* piece of TA that BTC chart had not violated previously. ... It was an almost religious symbol to some ppl.
....
or 2. ' No form of TA applies anymore, so HODL as an act of pure faith'
yup. glorious isnt it!  havent felt like this since 2011 when i started what a time to be aliveI hadn't considered the price move that way, but It's true, the most exciting time is the early stages of a project/business/journey, when hope has to be strong and uncertainty is at its highest. |
|
|
|
The amount of time we are taking on these levels which are below 200 MA is what scares the shit out of me.
+1 to that. But to be fair it is a weekend. Which is why they dumped in the first place. We were already in a channel more or less under 200 WMA, between about that and ~10% below. IMO, it had been doing that for long enough to be teetering on borderline breakage. I had been hoping for a scenario like August–September 2015—scraping along just below/just above for a month, then recovering. At this point, since we crashed even below the previous cycle top (even in nominal dollars, never mind real value!), I think that 200 WMA is quite dead. Not “Bitcoin is dead”: Excessive reliance on a technical indicator is dead. Gold had a two-decade extreme bear market. Anyone who bought gold at the wrong time had to wait an awful lot longer than four years to be not underwater. I also think that was a politically motivated economic attack, though I don’t want to get into off-topic discussion here that will derail into other matters. (I have mentioned this in some prior post, a few weeks ago... Something about gold-producing countries under international sanctions.) Only fools declared gold dead. Smart people bought gold as low as ~$260, not so very long ago. If we can escape from erroneous thinking about Bitcoin as “like a stock”, and really start treating it as digital gold, then there is ample precedent for shrugging off much worse crashes and bear markets than I now anticipate. As bad as this one is. Even if we are still nowhere near the bottom—maybe; maybe not; I am realistically pessimistic, but not prepared to make a call either way.
The amount of time we are taking on these levels which are below 200 WMA is what scares the shit out of me.
Low IQ Finds TA = Astrology. FTFY. As an inveterate pedant, I could not resist.  The previous cycle high was the *last* piece of TA that BTC chart had not violated previously. ... It was an almost religious symbol to some ppl. Now that violation has happened, individuals have to make their decision... either say: 1. ' this indicates some serious imminent unknown, so BTC is broken in some way' or 2. ' No form of TA applies anymore, so HODL as an act of pure faith' Gold historical comparison is a helpful justification for (2), which is probably the line most WO posters would take. |
|
|
|
Saylor isn't the person I'd choose to introduce someone to Bitcoin with. He has some good talks about finance, but I don't think he knows as much about Bitcoin as most think. He also isn't the most captivating speaker when it comes to crypto.
If I were going to recommend a more fun and knowledgeable way for you to introduce someone to Bitcoin, I would go with Pomp's Best Business Show podcast. It's a lot of fun to watch and they have some really great analysts and guests on there quite frequently. I think it's entertaining and educational, as well as being a bit more youthful and likely to catch your friend's attention.
Yes... There are few captivating speakers who really know every angle. The learning process is usually quite a long journey, and there are many ways of beginning, as well as progressing through. Saylor has influence for his reputation and following because Microstrategy has always interacted with a wide variety of other business models. In that sense I would think he is more of a generalist, and would maybe just motivate listeners to find other sources, looking from their own specific point of interest. |
|
|
|
I think that bitcoin cycles are already largely diminished, therefore the price dynamics will follow a random trajectory with a trend up, but we are not going to get an average of 200% per year anymore (maybe 50-100%).
I, too, a few months back suggested that the halvings are getting less and less relevant. Of course I didn't have this insight myself - it's something I read during the 2017 bull run. I got picked by a few fellow WOers, and there was a little discussion - quite civilized actually, no flame wars. After all that, however, I'm still not sure how "relevant" the last halving is going to be. I definitely agree with this: over time as more coins are minted the relative impact of the halving reduces and so I think it is reasonable to expect the effect of the halving to reduce over time - probably resulting in lower peaks and a "rounder" more smoothed top. If you consider in the first epoch, 10.5 million coins were issued. In the second epoch, half that, so 5.25 million - but that is still roughly a third of the whole available supply (total 15.75 million). Accordingly the impact of the first halving was large. In the third epoch, half again so 2.625 million coins, 14% of the available supply (18.375 million) In the fourth epoch (ie where we are now) 1.312 million coins will be issued, by the next halving that will amount to just 7% of the available supply (19.687 million). So as each halving occurs its influence on the total supply will get smaller and smaller and so I would expect we will see a steady smoothing out of the halving impact, like a wave decaying over time. That is a good explanation of the chart-pattern we have been seeing over the last year. The lack of an exponential peak was leading many observers to conclude that this bull run was only in an early stage. However that does not fit the pattern very well. It would seem logical that, as the market matures (and stock/flow, halving influence is part of that maturity, as well as adoption) the chart patterns will evolve and change. There will still be waves, but they are changing and flattening. |
|
|
|
https://blog.ethereum.org/2021/11/10/arrow-glacier-announcement/Arrow Glacier Upgrade Announcement Posted by Tim Beiko on November 10, 2021 "The Ethereum network will be undergoing a scheduled upgrade at block number 13,773,000, which is predicted to occur on Wednesday, December 8, 2021. The exact date is subject to change due to variable block times and timezones. Please upgrade your node before Wednesday, December 5, 2021 to account for the variable block times." A lot of upgrades are scheduled for the next year or so. Possibly the institutional interest in ETH may be holding back until Fees/Scaling issues are solved, and glitches in that process (which are perceived as inevitable) are ironed-out. |
|
|
|
The number of validators in the Ethereum 2.0 network has exceeded 200,215 currently the betting platform contains 6,406,811 ethereum, or more than $15 billion in value.
The number of validators on ETH network is bigger than what Binance Smart Chain has. Binance Smart Chain is centralized by Binance but Ethereum network is more decentralized. Your screenshot and given stats on that page demonstrate that ETH network is actually decentralized. If I choose one between Ethereum and Binance Smart Chain, I would choose Ethereum. It has longer history and better decentralization. Transaction fee is not the only thing to consider and assess one project. I wouldn't say that Ethereum is fully decentralized. Only partially perhaps. There is this developer team with an uknown premined stash, who decides what to do with the bloockchain. This is done without asking the users, including reversing transactions in case they don't like something. This is what happened in 2016, after the DAO accident. Since then the project has been compromised and nobody can state that it is truly decentralized. Now we see a switch from POW, which was the only decentralized element, to a POS, which is like the fiat money. So with time instead of going more decentralized, ethereum is going even less decentralized. It is like a fiat money blockchain, which allows ponzis to be made on top of it, like DAO, Icos, Defi, etc. So everyone investing in ethereum must know, that they are trusting their money to a team that makes all decisions on their own and may split and abandon the project anytime. One of the inventors has already left the project. And finally, nobody knows what is the supply and what it will be after the POS switch. So it is not about bitcoin maximalism as Vitalik is trying to defend his project. This is the truth - that the only fully decentralized blockchain is bitcoin. There is the Core's team of course, who is changing with time but they always ask the community for each change. The users and miners vote and then the change is implemented. And we are talking about small techical soft forks like segwit and tarpoot, which are expanding the decentralization. I do not agree with you. After the DAO was hacked, a vote was taken and a hard fork was carried out. Consensus has been reached. https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/06/24/dao-wars-youre-voice-soft-fork-dilemma/I understand that a lot of coins were created in the genesis block, but you can't talk about the project if you don't compare it with competitors. Ethereum is the most decentralized protocol after Bitcoin. The degree of decentralisation is partly a matter of definition. A blockchain can have excess centralisation or control by the miners or the holders, or a number of other factors. It is still the case that large amounts of fiat money could give control of mining or stake. Large finance corporations already hold significant amounts of BTC and ETH, and would perhaps also move to control mining but for the environmental concerns. That is perhaps the 'downside' of POS, in that it would facilitate Big Finance to become more involved (although some would argue that is good). Ultimately the test is in the real world outcomes, and we can only wait and see. |
|
|
|
In the end it is pretty simple the as the money supply has to be
large enough such there is a ready supply of capital in economy for the free efficient optimal exchange of economic goods and services
restricted enough such that the currency is not devalued as what happens when the supply of money exceeds the current demand, this fuels Inflation - Wikipedia which is bad
large enough such that the currency is not appreciating as what happens when the supply of money cannot satisfy the current demand, this fuels Deflation - Wikipedia which is bad
There are many so called 'definitions' of inflation/deflation nowadays. Your quote gives a true statement but does not tell the whole story. The velocity (flow) of money is always perceived as the way it can influence price levels. If we think of money as merely a ledger (which is all it is) , showing the balances of debtors and creditors, then price levels will be influenced both by transactions, and by the confidence levels engendered by stock of debt or credit. The confidence (or fear in the case of debt) gives rise to changes in quoted price levels, but the actual transactions can be different (compare with say, the stock market system). |
|
|
|
Testing the merger of the PoW and PoS network in the ether network with the participation of the node clients Teku, Lighthouse, Nimbus and Prysm (eth 2.0 side) and geth, Besu and Nethermind (eth1 side). The test simulation of the merge started normally for a certain number of blocks, but quickly disintegrated into numerous forks. The symbolic name of the simulation is Steklo. According to Diederik Loerakker, developer of eth 2: "The test network is now in a rather unstable state, and it looks more like a developer tool for debugging node clients. In the coming weeks, we will launch more user-oriented test networks as soon as the situation stabilizes sufficiently." https://www.trustnodes.com/2021/05/01/ethereum-2-0-merger-devnet-completes-successfullyOf course, upgrades and changes carry a significant level of risk... also leading to (hopefully substantial) long-term improvement. Developer running comment notes are unlikely to reveal much information about the eventual success. The ETH price is responding in the normal way to this : Looking at medium term (of the order of months) prices on any major project, anticipation of an upgrade is nearly always bought strongly. After the event, there is usually a pause or retracement , notwithstanding the degree of success, or problems. |
|
|
|
It took so long to invent Bitcoin because no one before Satoshi managed to make a truly decentralized system without any single trusted entities. Your system seems to introduce them again, because someone will have to organize this whole process. Only a tiny fraction of the total hash power of the network is saved in the block that gets accepted. Maybe there's a more fair and efficient way to mine.
You're misunderstanding mining. The point of mining is to generate blocks every 10 minutes without any third parties. It's not about "protecting the network" or "backing bitcoins with energy". Open Competition creates the difficulty, security and decentralisation that is the founding metric of the whole idea. Without it BTC would be a different project. That said, the community could effectively 'vote' to change it, but that will never happen because it would enable new possible means of manipulation by a single (outside or inside) entity. |
|
|
|
The way I see it is they aren't really that interested in the crypto industry in the first place but they saw that some other companies took the opportunity way ahead of them that is why they shifted their heads on the competition. Companies like Grayscale, CoinShares, and BlockFi are all centered in the investment side of cryptocurrencies and I think it bothers them that they aren't part of it and this is also a threat for them as some of their high risk-tolerant clients might be shifting their money away from their company which may have probably begun that is why they are taking actions now. Huge loss for them not pioneering the crypto industry in terms of investment but it is good news for us that they are also here to take part of.
Yes. That is an effect which has become peculiar to the Investment Industry. It is of course related to Index/Sector tracking funds: Once competitor funds start generating higher returns from a sector, there is pressure on their competition to acquire a weighting. Not just because they expect profits, but also because they need to fall in line with their immediate competitors (in this case the more maverick funds) so as not to attract criticism in case they miss something important. |
|
|
|
There just are not enough sellers left to push the market down in any meaningful way.
There are 15 million BTC. Each of them have own value. When $30k will be to low for them price will move up. But every coin have its price. Some will sell at $40k some at $50k some at $100k. All 15 million BTC have its price. Oh and dont forget that those that will buy at $40k will then again have its own price when will sell. So these 15 million BTC never decrease. There's a target price on every Bitcoin hodlers or even traders, there's no fix price on the market. Whales knows what to do, and knows when to take profit, while the small time hodlers are just depending on the market situation same thing with the traders. The downtrend is normal scenario of any market, there's a lot of things to be considered, look at the bigger picture, we are still growing in terms of market adoption. Not sure that whales have a target price. Having watched this market through every peak and trough, I would say many hodlers from the early days that have refused to sell for so many years at what would have seemed immense amounts of money, are not looking at fiat value at all. Being a stock futures trader myself, I always have a target, but have tried to be an impartial observer of BTC as far as possible. I think there are many people who would have sold out at every conceivable stage on the way up. Only the crazy die-hards are still whale holders, and why would they ever sell ? |
|
|
|
the main problem with the BETI as I mentioned earlier in this thread is it needs to account for the dilutional effect of all other crypto's
A rough real BETI would be BETI x BTC market dominance.
Yes, that has an effect, but does not change the overall form of the graph , unless BTC loses its dominance entirely (ie below 30%, say). A loss of dominance for BTC is only likely to happen if another crypto were to take its place in the adoption order. |
|
|
|
All Bitcoin forks are counterfeit derivatives of original bitcoin (BTC). Including, Bitcoin Cash, BCH, BCHN, BCHA, ABC, BSV etc. A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me. It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in. If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version. If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version. This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.
I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.
...snip...
Bitcoin is BTC at https://bitcoin.org I can see why you felt the importance of pointing this out. Now that these forks/counterfeits/competing versions are out there, isn't the 'ugly' scenario Satoshi referred to, virtually inevitable in the long-run ? The problem (probably unforseen) has always been that a fork effectively creates a large number of holders with a significant stake in supporting both chains, in the same way that airdrops kick start projects. I'm not sure how that can be democratically mitigated. |
|
|
|
All Bitcoin forks are counterfeit derivatives of original bitcoin (BTC). Including, Bitcoin Cash, BCH, BCHN, BCHA, ABC, BSV etc. A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me. It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in. If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version. If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version. This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.
I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.
...snip...
Bitcoin is BTC at https://bitcoin.org That is a significant quote you found. It underlines the nature and concept of the digital currency projects. It also indirectly indicates the importance of BCH, giving a democratic choice, like a free vote, and political opposition. There is always some probability that any project (even BTC) will fail , but of course, the larger the community, the less likely that is. Even governments could well see some potential usefulness (to them) of independent digital currencies, and there is no telling which one they may choose to back (for whatever reason), giving a range of possible negative or positive consequences. |
|
|
|
does anyone know how much interest were banks giving to people who want to deposit gold before fiat ?
would like to know how much will we get from bitcoin savings account in a bitcoin standard world
The long term rate of interest has tended to converge around 2 1/2%. This rate has been found by natural 'price discovery' over 100's of years, without the setting of rates which we take for granted nowadays. edit : The long term rate is complicated by the fluctuations in inflation, which obviously affects the real interest rate drastically. Before fiat money, inflation was uncommon but began to appear in response to money issuers ie Sovereign Rulers , needing additional finance, and thus using their influence to debase currency. Possibly one could argue there was no need for an interest rate before the institutionalisation of money. |
|
|
|
ll they need to do is to increase the number of tests, and turn up the replication factor, and suddenly we have 5 times ad many infections
I disagree with the rest of your post, but your point about number of positive cases being dependent on the extent of testing is of course valid, and it infuriates me when I see media reports that don't take this into account. Of course testing is much higher now than it was back in April/May, and this means more confirmed cases. Charts such as the below are overly simplistic and very misleading. I don't know if this is sensationalism or incompetence - perhaps, probably, a bit of both.  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/28/covid-cases-and-deaths-today-coronavirus-uk-mapThe similarly-based chart of deaths shows a trend and figure so low as to suggest the pandemic is over. Obviously its not, but the real future threat-level is now impossible to ascertain. The argument has moved on to what actual measurable damage (to lives and health, ignore the economy) the response to the pandemic is doing, versus the true threat from the virus. I don't know the answer to that. Statistics have now virtually ceased to be a vehicle to show truth, but rather a means to persuade from a particular point of view. This was inevitable once the digital age became fully-fledged, because there are an infinite number of ways of presenting the same 'raw' data. When you start with a particular goal you can always find a graphic or chart to back it up. Going back to the evidence of ones own senses, actual physical interactions, and logical commonsense seems to be the only way to get a balanced perspective. It is unfortunate to have turned out this way, because digital data should have ushered in a golden-age of genuinely helpful statistics. Most people just seem to be confused, and there are really no political points to be scored in the long-run. |
|
|
|
masterluc May 29 comment : All right, price doesn't respect short term trend line. I see it likes triangles now. Okay. Hit or miss. Resolution is close.  The pennant formation is a classic leader to resolution. The end of the pennant often seems to take longer than it should. That overhead resistance is very strong, with 10 months of lower highs and classic failures at 13500, 10500 (twice) and 10000 (twice). It should worry potential long traders. If there is a breakout to 11k+ that would be the first bullish sign. 14k cleared would negate the bear trend. An alternative likely scenario is a breakdown towards 6500, which should hold for at least the rest of the year, to build proper support. As far as consensus goes, yes, I feel the bulls are most hopeful atm, but that could be changed by a decent breakdown from here, as the hopes of 10k+ are very strong. |
|
|
|
|
TBH , I've read endless analysis on this subject for months (as have a large % of the world's population) and it seems to me there will never be a definitive answer on whether the total life damage/years lost will be worse or better under various 'remedies'.
Each country in the world has its own peculiarities , to do with culture, population density, mobility, demographic and vulnerabilty. Add to that political and social agendas, and most statistics cannot be compared. The same may well be true in different states of the USA.
Unfortunate as it seems, any action taken may make little difference to the overall long term outcome.
|
|
|
|
I think we can agree on that. It has been great swing trading for sellers at 10k. The major resistance was at 10.5k , now it looks like there's another hard wall at 10k. I would like to think the floor is where you put it, 7200, but there is room for a little more of a drop. It might be helpful to look at it this way : like waiting for all the Covid19 rules to fade away before seeing 5 figures again. I cannot put a time on it ! |
|
|
|
May 14 : Updating aka Cpt Obvious. Short-term bullish trend. Breaking this trend down will likely send price back to 5500 support. In other side if price following this trend break up long term descending trend line, we will likely see new ATH.  Thanks for the update. My trend line is actually closer to $11,300 but I'm not sure it matters. What I'm primarily concerned about is the yearly pivot at $10.5K. If the market breaks that to the upside it should be meaningful. I agree with him, this is a potentially huge inflection point. If bears maintain the yearly downtrend, then this triangle idea remains intact. Typical Wave (e) target is $5,700. This is a tense situation. The price action looks bullish, the OBV looks bearish, the stock market is weak. We probably have a very interesting week ahead of us. Yes, 10500 is one of the most important levels from a number of points of view (many previous post about this). I only look at simple volume/work areas, and not wave analysis. A break of 10.5k might take a lot of work, but would be a great milestone if it happens. On the bear side, the run-up from 3800 could accommodate a retrace to 6400, which is another busy area. ..Interesting that you have 5700 as target for completion of a downwave. I would have thought that getting as far as that was signalling a downtrend resumption. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
