So I take it your attention span matches the life expectancy of your accounts, eh?

[soapbox]

What I\m writing below is hardly a novel thought. A similar idea was pointed out in here a long time ago already by someone much smarter than me.

The 'halving' dynamics and their market effect, unclear as they may be in detail, should not be simplified to the point where their analysis matches that of the many other external events, i.e. that of other, supposedly "important news", like, say, the opening of a new exchange.

Every time you, as a trader/predictor, evaluate "news" you need to distinguish the anticipation of the event, and the actual, 'hard' effect of the event.

In the case of many of important news events, there is nothing but anticipation. That's what you can rightfully call "pump & dump" then, or at least, accuse it of being an "unjustified hype" upon hearing the event being discussed.

But in case of the halving, it is only the first part that bears similarity to other events. The anticipation phase for the halving, in which we are now, is purely based on human emotions and expectations, spinning the news, etc. In other words, it's a 'soft' effect, just like anticipating other good or bad events, and you are absolutely permitted to call it 'hype' or suspect it shares some similarity with a 'pump & dump'.

But the second part of the event, the 'hard' effect, is a bit different in this case. For one, it is (effectively) guaranteed to take place, as opposed to other events where some amount of uncertainty surrounds the event.

More importantly though is the relative lack of ambiguity of interpreting the effect. I have seen arguments why a drop in inflation could actually lead to a sharp drop in price, but these arguments are based on very flimsy premises that hold little weight against the much stronger basic supply/demand dynamics and its effect as we know from every market on earth.^*

What I'm getting at is this:

If your analysis of the halving event is only based on evaluating the 'soft', anticipatory effects, but fails to account for the 'hard', the actual effect of a sudden change in the global supply situation -- namely: a drop of yearly inflation of almost 9% to about 4% -- then you are oversimplifying your analysis to a point where it becomes inappropriate as a tool of prediction.

[/soapbox]

---

^* Note that this is not the same as saying "price surely will go up". There are a few, not exactly impossible scenarios, in which the (positive) effect of the hype will have outweighed the (neutral) effect of the actual change in supply, and price stagnates, or potentially even falls. I don't assign too high a likelihood to thatoutcome, but it seems at least plausible to me. That a sharp cut in inflation, seen as a stand-alone factor, would lead to a devaluation is extremely implausible on the other hand.

Out of curiosity (and w/o asking you to disclose your strategy or signals in detail), are you going to declare and use profit targets, or are you planning to play this as a purely signal-based entry/exit method?

Also: looking forward to following this thread.

ITT too many guys in here have been out of university for a bit too long.

One day at an average, current day math, physics or biology department would cure them of their adorably outdated misconceptions about "emotional, mother instinct-driven womenfolk".

These girls would wipe the floor with your inferior cortex before you had a chance to tip your fedora.

I don't have much time to follow the news or price at the moment (also: low volatility), but if there's one place I like to stop by once in a while, it's this thread.

Thanks for your insights, Morecoin, MatTheCat, RyNinDaCleM, (apologies to whoever I'm forgetting here)

You don't post much, but whenever you do, it pretty much always makes sense.

Like a clockwork.

I guess we'll now find out whether it's hard resistance or not

Look at that. I'm away for an hour, and at least 5 pages filled up with senseless posturing of smalldickblockians.

By the way, just saying: go and read what 'consensus' actually means. Hint: it's not "100% agreement, or 95%", despite what that grand political theory you cooked up in your mom's basement might tell you.

Cute. If you think miners will accept an "oh, by the way, but when our agreement included a reference to 2-4MB maxblock, that was more like a bone we were throwing to you, not really something we were going to do", you'll almost certainly find out that Classic will upgrade from 'credible HF threat' to, well, HF

You seem awfully cheerful for someone who I didn't expect to be too stoked about "more than 2 MB and less than 4 MB", "within three months after the release of SegWit" :3

Posting here 'cause I like the thread. Hope you don't mind OP.

Short-term momentum (by price and price+volume) still looks solid to me, i.e. on sub-daily to daily.

(Bearish) divergences? No idea. I suck at spotting divs

$450 is likely resistance by my count, but no idea how strong it might turn out to be. At least the DSMA50 seems 'conquered', so to speak.


Any thoughts on where we're heading, Morecoin?

You know what I like best about the smallblockers? How remarkably well they succeed to contain huge cognitive dissonance without blowing apart.

For them it's all about 'preserving the original vision', and never to rewrite the initial social contract, otherwise: chaos, loss of integrity, the banks win.

But then, they somehow also have to deal with the fact that in the white paper, Moses Satoshi mentions the terms "Electronic Cash" twice, "payment" (in a non-technical sense) 6 times, but the term "artificial scarcity driven clearance network" exactly zero times.

I guess it's not so much about preserving the original social contract after all, and more about locking in those parameters, that at some point were introduced rather arbitrarily, that define the social contract they personally like best. Supreme court ideological battles, anyone?

^2

I think I can see Mircea Pompouscu's shadow in the background there, right?

Turns out, you guys become increasingly funny when things get a bit catty. Don't let me disturb you, please.

Guys, you need to learn when to bluff, and when to fold. And right now, it's time for you to do the latter or you risk being laughed at.





When the biggest chunk  of the above is ready to switch to Classic after testing, and the second biggest chunk "welcomes, but not necessarily supports" Classic, the signs are kind of clear where we're heading.

But it's okay. Continued tantrums on the forum are always a source of entertainment.

Nah, agreeing with adam here. Technical qualifications of Todd notwithstanding (which he doesn't need to prove anymore), he comes across as pretty sleazy in that interview.

They're talking about blocksize increase, around 10 min in. I'm paraphrasing most of the below, can't find a transcript of that damn interview.

Interviewer
"So what's your thought on blocksize increase?"

Todd:
"Not a great idea. Should we hardfork whenever the network hits capacity limit? What's your long term plan? Let's accept there are scaling limits to the network. Also, segwit is rolling out very soon."

(So far, no objection, even though I don't agree with him on the "the network can't scale indefinitely" point. I believe he's wrong, but it's a coherent position to believe otherwise. But from here begins the sleazebaggery...)

Interviewer: "So, you think segwit is better than a blocksize increase in terms of scaling the network?"

Todd:
What he means: "Well, it is effectively a blocksize increase."
What he says: "Well, it is a blocksize increase"

Interviewer, clearly confused, and doesn't seem to know the landscape that well, otherwise he'd know the answer to his own question is 'no':
"Oh, okay, so it's both?"

Todd, hesitating for a split second:
"Yes"

Simply put, that's where he decided to go for transparent rhetorical tricks, rather than being honest and clear in choice of terminology. I get what he's trying to do ("Re-framing the context of the discussion: Why do we only think of blocksize increase as being tied to the 1MB constant?"), but as an engineer / scientist, that's just raw shit.

Well, not really all (or even: most) of his forum personas / alts, but in principle:

Starting at ~380, meaning: target ~455-475 (EDIT: unless DSMA50 turns out to be resistance over the next day or so).

Just the usual 'hunting for patterns vs. imprinting patterns where there are none', but I thought this one could turn out to be mildly interesting maybe:





Last one is the current position, and flipped, so assuming patterns are direction invariant (which plenty of traders seem to do), and the similarity is not just superficial, I kind of expect another "breakdown" in the 20% range from here, only in the other direction this time.