|
this thread should be deleted
|
|
|
|
Somebody's making pretty patterns on the exchange.
512, 512, 512, 256, 512, 512, 256, 256...
If the ask depth movement over the last 20 minutes does not prove a few people control it I do not know what does. they control their own asks/bids. the massive walls are gone now, and most of what's left is probably genuine. they control what the shape looks like but i would advise you to use a ticker like clarkmoody's to watch the individual orders. |
|
|
|
well ill be damned. seems like someone is using my predictions as a contrarian indicator...
we're still going up, but the correction to this wave is going to be scary without the wall at $5.00.
You're not important. The market doesn't care what you think. is that how i seem? |
|
|
|
|
well ill be damned. seems like someone is using my predictions as a contrarian indicator...
we're still going up, but the correction to this wave is going to be scary without the wall at $5.00.
|
|
|
|
|
we're going down one more time, but then up to the moon. the market reversal is evident in the indicators, and the rearrangement of market depth in the past 24 hours is telling; but there are some tough times ahead. i predict a continuation of the rally we've seen these past few days, then crash to no lower than the support at $5.00, and then expect new monthly highs.
|
|
|
|
|
i too notice opposite trends in the 12-hour (bull) and 24-hour (bear). based on depth alone, we're watching a rocket takeoff. but going down more from here would be easy.
|
|
|
|
|
why did you trace peaks on the volume bars?
|
|
|
|
too predict that it will either go up or down, and then maybe back a bit Up Subscribers to my spam earn some money!  i always find naima's diction thoroughly entertaining, and at times perfectly ironic.  |
|
|
|
i wonder if what he said in russian is any less ridiculous  |
|
|
|
it's nice to see that you're familiar with what the scientific consensus is regarding the issue.
oh wait... you didn't mention it at all.
The scientific consensus is dictated by the Rothschilds to enslave humanity obviously. Right now, there is so much unscientific BS going on with the AGW claims that you might as well declare it a state religion rather than hard science. From major climate change centers fudging numbers (and then conveniently losing data), to bad models, to government appointees that aren't scientists rewriting articles.... What is the scientific consensus? That a lot of people think we're causing change, or that there's change and we're not sure what exactly is causing it or what will happen next? The true scientists will almost universally agree with the latter. But instead, big government steps in and offers massive funding to ANYONE that will support their ideals of social engineering and wealth redistribution, so we get a "consensus" supported by billions and billions of dollars in funding. That is NOT science. it's funny how you STILL haven't mentioned scientific consensus. you should probably stop spewing things you think you know and do some research; that was what the first not-so-subtle hint was for.  this is what scientific consensus looks like. "97–98% of the most published climate researchers think humans are causing global warming.[35] Another study found 97.4% of publishing climatologists and just under 90% of all earth scientists think significant man made global warming is occurring.[36]" [35]^ Anderegg, William R L; James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider (2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". PNAS. Retrieved 22 August 2011. [36]^ Doran consensus article 2009 |
|
|
|
Just wait, Oldminer. You are a fool and remind me of the people who find climate change a lie because it’s been a cold winter this year.
Climate change is a lie actually lol Well, climate change isn't a lie per se, but anthropomorphic global warming is a complete and utter scam. You get funded if you say humans are causing all the heating, and you get no funding if you say otherwise. The big governments are happy to push this lie with "science" to support their ideals, namely, that all the rich countries need to stop polluting and using fossil fuels, etc. Meanwhile, we've had much higher temperatures in the past, we've had much lower temperatures in the past, and we have ample proof of this. But there's no money/power to be had by saying that the sun, atmosphere, earth, etc. are all doing their own thing. So instead, let's shoot ourselves in the foot to "save" the planet. Yawn. it's nice to see that you're familiar with what the scientific consensus is regarding the issue. oh wait... you didn't mention it at all. |
|
|
|
|
agree with this analysis. calling the bottom at $4.
|
|
|
|
Random reinforcement still seems to be the order of the day.
This tells me that profits from trading will remain easy pickings in the foreseeable future.
maybe sharing your charts added stability to the market?  |
|
|
|
More downside? Why aren't rallies so aggressive too?
because it becomes more and more expensive to sustain them |
|
|
|
Yeah, bitcoin will die soon anyway.
some perspective: PRICES BACK TO WHAT THEY WERE 10 WEEKS AGO
RIP BITCOIN
|
|
|
|
 if a falling knife, bad news on the exchanges, and chicken little screaming about a 94% correction is not panic then i don't know what is.  at this point, we've completely deflated the bubble to $7.20. the Accumulation/Distribution Line is precisely at the level it was at the eve of the rally. in fact, this analysis: Interestingly enough, if you compare the magnitudes of each rally and assume that they will drop as much as the first rally as a magnitude of the percentage, you get a "perfect" estimate of a 33% drop from our high of $7.22, bringing us down to $4.81.
...God damn 33% percent retracement rule.
Damn I'm good. Let's see if this holds... ...echoes my observation. bull market ahead! and i know there will be naysayers because that's what PANIC means. but i've already capitulated, so i'm just letting you guys know just how far ahead of the market im trading |
|
|
|
 short squeeze imminent |
|
|
|
I kinda like Atlas. He's passionate about sharing his ideas. He's an example of why I wish the peer review system was obliterated.
can't tell if serious? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
