Do not invest in a way that assumes that your worldview is correct.

The more confident you are on that your worldview is correct, (statistically) the less likely you are indeed correct, and the more likely you are to invest disproportionately in assets whose performance depends on you being correct, and the less their performance turns out to be, if/when you are not actually correct, and the less the good performance in the other assets can help you as you did not buy them in the first place.

If your worldview is paranoid, including concerning your perception of yourself being correct, the more likely you actually are reasonably correct, and the conservative investment strategy also yields good results to you, as it has done to me.

Digging into the nature of the powers that shouldn't be: I think malice is the primary driver.

Whatever is not adequately explained by stupidity must be attributed to malice.

(And: Don't be stupid enough to place all your bets on the premise that your definition of "adequate" is universal.)

The problem with BTC transparency:
Basically it comes down to 2 possible scenario's: blacklisting and whitelisting

Government could on one hand through “whitelisting” obligate bitcoin users  to identify themselves when they purchase bitcoins (this is already happening) and ask them to whom they are transferring these bitcoins (the American website Coinbase is already asking this for some transactions). In the future this could lead to a situation in which only “identified” bitcoins would be spendable at regulated payment processors (bitpay?). As a result, your anonymous bitcoins would only be spendable if you match them to your identity through a regulated authority.

A more aggressive approach is “blacklisting”. This is a system whereby the government obligates the big mining pools (which are verifying and recording transactions in the blockchain) to not sustain certain transactions. As a result, coinjoin-transactions and transactions coming from mixers could be blacklisted whereby it would be very difficult to still perform these kind of transactions. If only a few miners process these kind of transactions, they would at least be very slow. But if the regulated pools decide to not accept blocks with mixed transactions in them, you can’t even use anonymized bitcoins! Also, other (private) miners could be incentivized to enforce the regulation, even if they are not known to the government:
if it is illigal to build on a block with a "blacklisted transaction" and if some big pools would comply, it doesn't really make sense to built on this illigal chain... If you don't comply, this big pool will not build on your chain and you will loose your reward!
edit: I expect a lot of pools to comply, because the individual miners in a pool which does not comply with blacklisting, could be considered doing "money laundering" because part of the reward they receive comes from the transaction fees!

In essence this could lead to three kinds of bitcoins:
-White bitcoins: bitcoins that satisfy the obligation of identification.
-Grey bitcoins: bitcoins that are not yet identified, but which are not actively anonymized.
-Black bitcoins: bitcoins that are banned by miners.

The consequence? Bitcoin will not be fungible anymore: you can’t just use a grey or black bitcoin to buy something from a webshop. If the government is able to discover that you possess black bitcoins or process blacklisted type transactions, you could even be seen as a someone committing a criminal offence.

What would this mean in the short term?

By whom?  When?

Bitcoin is not good enough.  That is the problem.  As a public ledger, it is good enough.  For cash or SOV purposes, it is falling shorter by the day.  Privacy is an essential requirement.

 
FACT: If you squint your eyes, the picture of rpietila looks a lot like Vladimir Putin 
FACT: Russia has shunned and spurned and other 's' words towards bitcoin. 
FACT: rpietila is actually attempting to bring about the ressurection of the Soviet Union through Monero. 
 
Open your eyes folks. 

In the case of an expanding triangle, shouldn't one be able to count a-b-c-d-e as 3-3-3-3-3 ?
I have a hard time counting the move to ~1550 CNY as a 3 waver - looks more like 5 to me.

This is a nice count imo. Valid and fits in quite nicely.

Having said that, the big money has moved for the time being and trading conditions are BAD. Accuracy will be less and whipsaws be be more.

Interesting fight going on for 3rd place right now, rank 3 to 7 are all within only a $2.5 difference.

Giving your money to the market because of what an anonymous analyst says is a bad idea. If they were making such consistently great predictions they'd have no need to post their "trading ideas." What they want is to create a following so their own trades have a greater chance of being profitable. Even if they are wrong sometimes, it's likely that they can get out of a bad trade faster than you, leaving their followers stuck on the wrong side of the market.

Don't be a minnow--learn to read the market on your own or you'll lose when one of these trusted chartists turns out to be wrong.

Nah, Cyprus had nothing to do with it and I'm sick and tired of this nonsense about Greece leaving the Eurozone.

 If you live in the EU and think that the banking system might collapse or that the Euro might collapse, you don't purchase BTC, you try to withdraw as much money as you possible can and keep it in cash. If the government ever implements a pesofication of all depositor accounts you can bet people will be trying to smuggle euros into other, more stable European countries.

What do you guys make of this? I count 3 waves in expected C position, which doesn't seem to make sense unless it's either wave C of a complex formation (implying that the whole rise is (B) rather than (2)), or a WXY (which, if I understand correctly, can occur in Wave 2 position), or I've simply counted wrong

8h rule sucks. How about half it to 4h?