Some background: There is a theory in physics that attempts to explain the interactions and dynamics of all forces, including gravity, in the universe with one simple mathematical structure known as the E8. Presented in a paper titled, "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" by Garrett Lisi in 2007, it still remains unproven.

Couple the unsolved status of the E8 theory with the equally unsolved mystery of the exact identity of the person(s) who brought bitcoin – with its supply cap of 21 million coins – into existence, and you get the hypothesis that "21e800" isn't just some random string of numbers and value. In fact, the theory seems to suggest, it is a "vanity hash" purposefully placed by the creator of bitcoin himself/herself/themselves, Satoshi Nakamoto.

Starting to get goosebumps yet?

As discussed below, all the subsystems of this design have already been shown to be experimentally realized. Furthermore, if such a quantum blockchain were to be constructed, we will show that it could be viewed as a quantum networked time machine.

Deep dive beyond bitcoin and what I think might be the greatest gift of this technology.

   The long term benefits of this technology might be this...for the first time when we look backwards in time, at history if you will. We will have cryptographic proof that the information contained is not tampered with. This is such a simple statement that I hope you all take the time to truly understand the profound impact of what it is that I am insinuating. True wisdom comes with understanding the space that you are observing, by accurately "mapping" a space..you gain more understanding of it. Having a map that stays consistent over time is a game changer on so many levels I have a hard time wrapping my thoughts around it.

Can anyone please explain what is this list about? and how its generated?

there it is...perfect timing

I didn't even have to read to guess that after that 5% rise the forum would have gone full bulltard. Should I even read the last 5 pages. I think my head will explode looking at all the nub charts.

I am lost. 

Perhaps I am missing a variable, or the math is beyond me.

I am referring to the right here, right now situation. In the past few weeks Bart is up and running. I said I'm here for the long run many times, no need to explain further. Simply warning that there are green candles and green candles.
DYOR, always 

EDIT: two upperbarts...

Still some Barting activity. I don't buy it sorry.
Sad to admit a few people are making a shit-ton of money due to this self-evident manipulation.

Most divorces don't end on friendly terms. Out of curiosity, what did you end up being forced to pay to her and how old were your kids when the divorce happened?

So...I think the big question now is....is the bear run this time around like 2013



or 2014-2015


Or will this be totally unique?

Bitcoin is the path to lambo. Lambo leads to women. Women lead to marriage. Marriage leads to...suffering.

Naw, women lead to getting laid which leads to dumping that nasty golddigger. Unless she's that one in, quite literally, a million who is worth a fuck beyond fucking. Better odds playing the lottery. Even better playing the roulette.

It seems nearly impossible at this point, but I seriously want to see Doug Polk win his bet.  Not just because I don't want to see it drop more, but also because I am a shadetree poker player, and also because Vays has been so smug recently.  It would be fun to see it bounce off 6200 and never go back.

They state transactions not revenue so BCH is 859 dollars each and a doge is one fifth of a cent each.     So triple the transactions would not seem much when its likely far less revenue in value terms, less significance.   If thats what they meant by the graph

vs

39x the revenue in BCH favour.   This is why people dont trust graphs and statistics I guess.    Maybe their point was people, not value so doge is more widely used but I cant tell that


6639 to beat for btc and 6200 base is my rough view

-edited-

Might have some relevance.

University of Texas at Austin finance professor John Griffin and graduate student Amin Shams just posted a paper suggesting that cryptocurrency prices are manipulated.  The paper has received a great deal of attention in the media, but there is a disconnect between the paper and the press coverage in terms of quantification.

For example:

    The authors suggest the cryptocurrency exchange Bitfinex buys bitcoin with another cryptocurrency -- tether -- to push up Bitcoin prices. How much? Four basis points per 100 bitcoin. With Bitcoin at $10,000, for example, that means Bitfinex spends $1 million to push the price up to $10,004.
    The authors assert that the purchases are not random in that they occur more often after Bitcoin prices have fallen. How much? After the biggest drops in Bitcoin price, 1  Bitfinex buys 72 extra bitcoin. More than 100,000 Bitcoin frequently trade in an hour, and often much more during periods of high volatility.
    The authors examined the 87 hours with the largest flows of bitcoin and tether and found that the hours following them accounted for 50 percent of the "meteoric rise" in bitcoin. That sounds impressive, but the rise over the period discussed was from about $1,000 to $8,000. The authors used compounded returns, which mean returns in those 87 hours averaged 1.2 percent. For the S&P 500 Index, a 1.2 percent move is a big hour. For Bitcoin, not so much.

To an academic, it's often more important that a result have “statistical significance,” which is to be clearly something other than random noise, than “practical significance,” which is to be of a size that would interest a trader or regulator. But, here too, the results are less than impressive.

    The four basis-point increase in Bitcoin prices explains less than 1 percent of the variance. While it technically meets normal standards of statistical significance, given the guesswork the authors had to do to collect data and the complexity of the analysis, I consider it more likely to be noise than signal.
    The authors have only 20 data points to support the claim of 72 extra Bitcoin, and they fit them using a model with six parameters. The usual rule of thumb is you want 30 observations per parameter to rely on the results, and that's not taking into account the data and complexity issues mentioned above.
    The 50 percent "meteoric rise” claim is declared significant because the authors picked 10,000 sets of 87 hours at random, and none of them averaged a 1.2 percent return for Bitcoin. That is indeed strong evidence that the 87 hours following the hours with the largest Bitcoin and tether flows are not random. But we already knew they weren't random, they were times of high transaction volume, which would be expected to have more volatile prices than average, and trading volume was much higher on the upswings than the downswings.

I don't mean to be completely negative on the paper.  I've played with the data the authors use, and it is very frustrating. There is a lot of work -- including a lot of guesswork, unfortunately -- to compile numbers that can be used to test hypotheses. The tests themselves are complex. Moreover, it's likely that the phenomena under study are evolving rapidly during the study period. As a result, any conclusions have to be taken as suggestive only. But in areas as little understood as cryptocurrency trading dynamics, even suggestions are valuable. (Full disclosure: I own Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.)

I've only touched on the headline claims of the article. There is a lot more substance in it. Some of the claims that got less attention have better support. Anyone seriously interested in these issues should read the paper, not as an authoritative last word, but as a plausible account backed by some data.

I also don't mean to deny that cryptocurrency prices are manipulated. I'm a crypto-believer, and am impressed by the huge amount of honest developer talent and innovative vision improving the crypto code base every day, whether prices are soaring or crashing, more for love than money. That is where I put my faith. But there are plenty of crooks and profiteers as well. It would be extraordinary if some of them weren't trying to manipulate prices -- and worse.

Moreover there are obvious inconsistencies in the complex and novel cryptocurrency markets. That makes it unclear whether behavior is manipulation or rationalization. This paper is a small step in improving our understanding, not an indictment of tether or cryptocurrencies.
 

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

    Specifically, the paper looked at all three-hour periods from March 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018 and found that after the 5 percent with the largest declines, Bitfinex bought an average of 72 bitcoin in the following hour.

According to Lee, Bitcoin usually sees a drop of around 18 percent in 10 days before futures expiration, with prices generally recovering by six days afterward. Lee explained that if a trader is long on Bitcoin and short the futures, holders may sell large shares of BTC at the volume weighted average price as contracts move closer to expiring.

Near expiration however, they may sell the remaining Bitcoin, which causes the price to drop, and leaving the short position in the futures they close “with a handsome profit.”