Yet another analyst :)

[lucif]

Even solid state drive cant handle such database where this curve points to. I dont talk about CPU and RAM speed. So we have the situation where regular participant cant be a full member of decentralized network. So we run to unpredictable point in future with such database.

About unspent transactions. Sure the client has not to verify them, just keep. But in this way he will not know whether transaction valid or not.

In current Bitcoin client there is DoS protection, which banning remote node if it relayed invalid TX one or several times (i tried to craft invalid TX and relay it and my node was banned).

So if client will remove the TX verification, it will be vulnerable to DoS. The fork trap again: kill your HDD or be vulnerable to DoS.

Of course, Gavin's magick alert key for all doors will salvate our asses when we all be in long position. But not too much power for one person?

Oh dear, you thought Bitcoin is decentralized? I am sorry for disappointment

[pent]

So, if you are right ,
ask you alter-ego to design new Bitcoin 3.0,
with much less disk I/O.

I plan to work on distributed chain database within DIANNA project. But still no programmers here ))

Lucif, you shitting ppl pants, as always. Bravo.

[lucif]

pent, I draw a problem - you try to find a solution. That was a deal, no? My part is complete. Go ahead with your round. But not here )

[lucif]

But fuck this technicial. We got a situation here. The short term triangle off the 1374 high isnt broken so far. As the volume didnt confirm that - it is still low. I'd say that is abnormal triangle as regular one has constantly decreasing volume on its way to breakout which should be bold.

So that I was pointed as "e" of "B" looks now as "c" of "B". So we may have some more time stagnation awating d and e. If this is a triangle at all - it has outstanding volume stick in the middle. This is abnormal. So it may break in irregular way at any time.

Daily RSI and Macd still hinting down move and already drew a Head and Shoulders figure (for slowpokes).

That is why I prefer break down.

[flipperfish]

Even solid state drive cant handle such database where this curve points to. I dont talk about CPU and RAM speed. So we have the situation where regular participant cant be a full member of decentralized network. So we run to unpredictable point in future with such database.

About unspent transactions. Sure the client has not to verify them, just keep. But in this way he will not know whether transaction valid or not.

In current Bitcoin client there is DoS protection, which banning remote node if it relayed invalid TX one or several times (i tried to craft invalid TX and relay it and my node was banned).

So if client will remove the TX verification, it will be vulnerable to DoS. The fork trap again: kill your HDD or be vulnerable to DoS.

Of course, Gavin's magick alert key for all doors will salvate our asses when we all be in long position. But not too much power for one person?

Oh dear, you thought Bitcoin is decentralized? I am sorry for disappointment

I expected the down-move, too. But this looks like FUD.
With the current implementation of "Ultraprune" the pruned copy of the blockchain is about 100MiB (vs. 3-4 GiB unpruned). The size of this pruned copy does not grow as fast as the blockchain itself, because addresses, that currently do not hold any coins are removed. In an extreme case, the size of the pruned copy even can go down (this already happened, as you can see here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=117216.msg1257750#msg1257750). However, the block history has to be kept somewhere to bootstrap new nodes from zero. You can imagine this as the pruned copy being the current state of the system and to recreate this state the block history has to be replayed. But this also means, that the block history only needs to be stored on some large drive and there is no need for highly performant IO throughput (well, except that the faster the storage, the faster a new node can be bootstrapped from zero.).

[vssa]

I have published this same analysis a day before you on the 15 of December :
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=130935.0

 on my website....

very interesting 

[lucif]

What do you call the same? http://www.btcwallet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/2012-2013-Bitcoin-Price-Analysis-end-of-one-year-circle1.png

Your waves C,4,5 do not feet in any known EW count variant - they are truncated. But thanks for affords.

In my count we are still in B of your 4. In my oppinion we have not seen neither B, nor 4 so far.

We are tracing B and C/4 is somewhere around 5.

[vssa]

Ok , we will just wait and see.....

[lucif]

What do you call the same? http://www.btcwallet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/2012-2013-Bitcoin-Price-Analysis-end-of-one-year-circle1.png

Your waves C,4,5 do not feet in any known EW count variant - they are truncated. But thanks for affords.

In my count we are still in B of your 4. In my oppinion we have not seen neither B, nor 4 so far.

We are tracing B and C/4 is somewhere around 5.

Of course, C around 5 ruins vssa's upper count - it will not be 4 and 1540 was not a 3.

[myself]

Ok , we will just wait and see.....

I will like to see a sub-count for the wave 2 and 3 on your chart

[vssa]

wave 1 and 2:
http://imgur.com/SK6wy

wave 3  :http://imgur.com/1HidP

4 on this chart is A sorry for the mistake ,

and all together :http://www.btcwallet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/2012-2013-Bitcoin-Price-Analysis-end-of-one-year-circle1.png

[myself]

wave 1 and 2:
http://imgur.com/SK6wy

that wave 2 i dont consider to be so easy i looks more like a complex correction under format flat+3w+triangle
so where your 2 ends is a W then 3 w up to X then triangle abcde where e is Y on the May 29 hammer

wave 3  :http://imgur.com/1HidP

your count do not explain the move from the end of wave 2 and sub-wave1(wave3)
from your 4 to 5 u get nothing even if there was a  correction

[lucif]

I hear the voice of Market. It says "Lucif, fuck you. I'm tired. Need to rest".

Now I understood what that voice did mean  

Bulls are failing to break d/middle BB, d/sma20,10 resistance.
Bears are failing to break 1310 and previous ascending trend line support.

Price stuck between two evils.

[lucif]

Trendline support looks like sitting in good tank. For a last week it was attacked five times and survived.

Bug now here is some RPG: h/sma200,240 (same as d/sma10). Also middle BB and d/sma20 walking behind against that tank also.

Lets see whether it will survive.

[lebing]

are you implying an uptrend?! 

[adamstgBit]

are you implying an uptrend?!  

well for like 2 months we have been in a up trend...
now the market must either continue up, or start a down trend.
resistance and support are both strong, its anyone's guess....
I guess down, maybe alot, at least a little

[Seal]

are you implying an uptrend?!  

well for like 2 months we have been in a up trend...
now the market must either continue up, or start a down trend.
resistance and support are both strong, its anyone's guess....
I guess down, maybe alot, at least a little

+1 for a downtrend

[lucif]

I honestly dont see way up from here. Either down or sideways.

I see good way up from mid-11s/sub-12s.

[lebing]

I honestly dont see way up from here. Either down or sideways.

I see good way up from mid-11s/sub-12s.

Quoting this for use three days from now

[lucif]

I honestly dont see way up from here. Either down or sideways.

I see good way up from mid-11s/sub-12s.

Quoting this for use three days from now

I'll explain. Here is a large move up required to compesate forming bearish divergenses on RSI and MACD.

And large move up from here doesn't fit to any EW count variant I know.

The easier way to move up from here is to follow div's and move down first.

Volume continues to decrease from 1540 top. So to move up from here market needs a miracle.