Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[JorgeStolfi]

I don't think upside down 'cup and handle' really means anything

Well, I asked here, some weeks ago, whether the TA patterns are suposed to be symmetrical -- that is, if pattern XYZ on the logscale plot suggests that the price will go up (or down), then the same pattern but upside-down suggests that the price will go down (resp. up).   

The conclusion, if I recall correctly, is that it depends on whom you ask that question to. 

[JayJuanGee]

Looking out for a cup and handle pattern to form on the 6h charts (should reach 620 sometime the first 8 days of august)

Could be the beginning of a bubble after that

Isn't there an upside-down "cup and handle" from May/30 to Jun/26?

Don't be using reality to rain on our potential parade!!!   

[ensurance982]

I checked the history of the 6h MACD on bitstamp and I can say it's been very loyal lately!!
I really recommend buying now!

The MACD is never wrong! It is our faithful companion in otherwise stormy waters, we call the Bitcoin price!

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[aminorex]

I don't think upside down 'cup and handle' really means anything

Well, I asked here, some weeks ago, whether the TA patterns are suposed to be symmetrical -- that is, if pattern XYZ on the logscale plot suggests that the price will go up (or down), then the same pattern but upside-down suggests that the price will go down (resp. up).   

The conclusion, if I recall correctly, is that it depends on whom you ask that question to. 

In pairs trading, the inverse of one pair is just another pair.  However, if you think the USDBTC pair, it trades more like a stock market, with long slow upward grinds when the USD is in a bull market, punctuated by short, sharp downward plunges when the USD is in a bear market.  This observation suggests that patterns applicable to shares markets might be better applied inversely in BTC.  Patterns which apply well to shares markets ambidextrously should apply well to BTC ambidextrously, and patterns which apply well only chirally, should best apply chirally.

[Newbie1022]

I don't think we are done going down quite yet. There hasn't really been a substantial expansion of the base, leveraging is being reined back in (and is abut to pop), sentiments aren't so rosy, and the order book, notwithstanding seeming stacked for lift-off, keeps falling apart at the whiff of a downdraft. Also, the manipulators are trying to move the centerline of expectations so that when they enter a bigger position into the market they can do it on the cheap. It's not all bearish, but don't expect a lot for a while.

[Newbie1022]

I don't think we are done going down quite yet. There hasn't really been a substantial expansion of the base, leveraging is being reined back in (and is abut to pop), sentiments aren't so rosy, and the order book, notwithstanding seeming stacked for lift-off, keeps falling apart at the whiff of a downdraft. Also, the manipulators are trying to move the centerline of expectations so that when they enter a bigger position into the market they can do it on the cheap. It's not all bearish, but don't expect a lot for a while.

Put another way... feel free to buy (you don't have to find the absolute bottom if you think we are there or close enough), but realize that the market has been more screwy than normal and don't bet the farm one way or another.

[esse83]

Seems like a lot of people here ignore the reality of what MtGox did. They created the price, and guess what? It was inflated for years through manipulation. Sorry.. but the truth is that btc is not worth that much. Over time you guys will see that. I find no joy in saying this, but its true.

Quote from the willy report.

Mt. Gox was always, always, the first mover. BTC China seemed to react within 1 or 2 minutes, sometimes leading to a higher proportional rise in price, sure, but it was NEVER the first mover. In my eyes, this means Mt. Gox and not BTC China was leading the market.

[ensurance982]

Seems like a lot of people here ignore the reality of what MtGox did. They created the price, and guess what? It was inflated for years through manipulation. Sorry.. but the truth is that btc is not worth that much. Over time you guys will see that. I find no joy in saying this, but its true.

Quote from the willy report.

Mt. Gox was always, always, the first mover. BTC China seemed to react within 1 or 2 minutes, sometimes leading to a higher proportional rise in price, sure, but it was NEVER the first mover. In my eyes, this means Mt. Gox and not BTC China was leading the market.

Hasn't the whole Willy theory been debunked before? I mean, there are so many good arguments against it. I'm no expert by all means, but those people familiar with the Willy theory say that it isn't Willy who led the Bitcoin price.

[esse83]

Seems like a lot of people here ignore the reality of what MtGox did. They created the price, and guess what? It was inflated for years through manipulation. Sorry.. but the truth is that btc is not worth that much. Over time you guys will see that. I find no joy in saying this, but its true.

Quote from the willy report.

Mt. Gox was always, always, the first mover. BTC China seemed to react within 1 or 2 minutes, sometimes leading to a higher proportional rise in price, sure, but it was NEVER the first mover. In my eyes, this means Mt. Gox and not BTC China was leading the market.

Hasn't the whole Willy theory been debunked before? I mean, there are so many good arguments against it. I'm no expert by all means, but those people familiar with the Willy theory say that it isn't Willy who led the Bitcoin price.

I have yet to see any good arguments against this report. The worst one was that it was somehow a private API that bought hundres of thousands of btc. They ran a ponzi scheme for years. Do you honestly think btc price would be in the hundreds if it was not for MtGox? The perception that bitcoin is this crazy train with bubbles was manifactured by MtGox. In reality it never was.

[esse83]

This is the latest update from the willy report, please read it.

I want to start off by saying I agree with a lot of the criticism on this article that’s appeared the Web; my conclusions were a bit too opinionated and perhaps exaggerated, and didn’t really fit the tone of the rest of the report, which was intended to be an objective account of my findings. I’ve corrected that with this update. Still, I stand by the most significant conclusion made: Willy was the cause for the November bubble. Sure, it didn’t do it all by itself, but it was the catalyst, and prevented price from coming down by effectively removing all selling pressure with its extremely constant buying (why market sell when you can place an ask order, and know it will be eaten into anyway?). In financial markets, sentiment is driven by price, much more so than the other way around. People see price skyrocketing, get euphoric, forget all the negative and assume the asset must be something absolutely amazing for people to place so much value in it (that, or they see an opportunity to “get rich quick”). It gets media attention, and sparks this whole positive feedback loop thing. A classic bubble in every way, really; but something has to light the fire, and subsequently prevent it from petering out.

Willy was the cause for the November bubble. So yeah, there it is.

[aminorex]

Monkey thinks there is a chance that we are up 10 in 8hrs, continues to see the ceiling as 602, the floor as 577 (but weak).

On a daily chart, monkey thinks we are experiencing an atypical bottoming process and recommends a long bias, but it could take until the weekend to prove the turn.

On a weekly chart, monkey has gone from bullish to ambivalent.  He seems to think we need a shallow dip yet before any fireworks.

[Sandia]

I think the major criticism was this: incomplete, possibly tampered with, trading records were released by a hacking group.  It was complete with malware installed.

Based on a post by some guy on the internet and what he says are in these hacked records, people claim that there was no bubble without buys from a Gox bot.

We are not exactly talking about a peer-reviewed paper.

[roslinpl]

Explanation

And it's slowly looking at the top and it is trying to get there
Maybe this summer heat is too much to climb up there.

A little sweat will be needed

Regards.

[Wandererfromthenorth]

This is the latest update from the willy report, please read it.

I want to start off by saying I agree with a lot of the criticism on this article that’s appeared the Web; my conclusions were a bit too opinionated and perhaps exaggerated, and didn’t really fit the tone of the rest of the report, which was intended to be an objective account of my findings. I’ve corrected that with this update. Still, I stand by the most significant conclusion made: Willy was the cause for the November bubble. Sure, it didn’t do it all by itself, but it was the catalyst, and prevented price from coming down by effectively removing all selling pressure with its extremely constant buying (why market sell when you can place an ask order, and know it will be eaten into anyway?). In financial markets, sentiment is driven by price, much more so than the other way around. People see price skyrocketing, get euphoric, forget all the negative and assume the asset must be something absolutely amazing for people to place so much value in it (that, or they see an opportunity to “get rich quick”). It gets media attention, and sparks this whole positive feedback loop thing. A classic bubble in every way, really; but something has to light the fire, and subsequently prevent it from petering out.

Willy was the cause for the November bubble. So yeah, there it is.

This update doesn't add anything new and still doesn't show any proof whatsoever.

Also, the primacy of Gox is not true. Especially during the last bubble to $1200 Gox was becoming less and less relevant and with pathetic volume, while the chinese at BTC China started throwing hundreds of thousands into BTC.

Some argue that the major cause of the november bubble was basically the chinese and their trillion dollar shadow currency speculation game finally entering the BTC market, but no, now we are supposed to believe that a single bot on a single exchange with dead volume compared to Bitstamp was the major cause just because some dude on the internet without concrete proof (at least for his conclusions) told us so.

Maybe the BTC price IS a bubble and will collapse, but for other reasons (chinese pumping and dumping it, various problems, early adopters exiting etc) not because of a single bot on a single exchange.

[DjPxH]

This is the latest update from the willy report, please read it.

I want to start off by saying I agree with a lot of the criticism on this article that’s appeared the Web; my conclusions were a bit too opinionated and perhaps exaggerated, and didn’t really fit the tone of the rest of the report, which was intended to be an objective account of my findings. I’ve corrected that with this update. Still, I stand by the most significant conclusion made: Willy was the cause for the November bubble. Sure, it didn’t do it all by itself, but it was the catalyst, and prevented price from coming down by effectively removing all selling pressure with its extremely constant buying (why market sell when you can place an ask order, and know it will be eaten into anyway?). In financial markets, sentiment is driven by price, much more so than the other way around. People see price skyrocketing, get euphoric, forget all the negative and assume the asset must be something absolutely amazing for people to place so much value in it (that, or they see an opportunity to “get rich quick”). It gets media attention, and sparks this whole positive feedback loop thing. A classic bubble in every way, really; but something has to light the fire, and subsequently prevent it from petering out.

Willy was the cause for the November bubble. So yeah, there it is.

Gox is not true. Especially during the last bubble to $1200 Gox was becoming less and less relevant and with pathetic volume, while the chinese at BTC China started throwing hundreds of thousands into BTC.

I have my doubts about the Willy report as well, but concerning the volume: It doesn't matter if the volume was rather low or the volume only accounted for 8% or whatever of coins traded on Mt. Gox because if Willy really only ever bought coins, it wouldn't drive the volume up that much. Coins get sold and re-sold and re-sold over and over again. If Willy is simply buying, that low volume is enough to push the price up.
If this should really be true... Wouldn't we now sit on a vastly inflated bitcoin price that is about to collapse at any time?

[JayJuanGee]

This is the latest update from the willy report, please read it.

I want to start off by saying I agree with a lot of the criticism on this article that’s appeared the Web; my conclusions were a bit too opinionated and perhaps exaggerated, and didn’t really fit the tone of the rest of the report, which was intended to be an objective account of my findings. I’ve corrected that with this update. Still, I stand by the most significant conclusion made: Willy was the cause for the November bubble. Sure, it didn’t do it all by itself, but it was the catalyst, and prevented price from coming down by effectively removing all selling pressure with its extremely constant buying (why market sell when you can place an ask order, and know it will be eaten into anyway?). In financial markets, sentiment is driven by price, much more so than the other way around. People see price skyrocketing, get euphoric, forget all the negative and assume the asset must be something absolutely amazing for people to place so much value in it (that, or they see an opportunity to “get rich quick”). It gets media attention, and sparks this whole positive feedback loop thing. A classic bubble in every way, really; but something has to light the fire, and subsequently prevent it from petering out.

Willy was the cause for the November bubble. So yeah, there it is.

This update doesn't add anything new and still doesn't show any proof whatsoever.

Also, the primacy of Gox is not true. Especially during the last bubble to $1200 Gox was becoming less and less relevant and with pathetic volume, while the chinese at BTC China started throwing hundreds of thousands into BTC.

Some argue that the major cause of the november bubble was basically the chinese and their trillion dollar shadow currency speculation game finally entering the BTC market, but no, now we are supposed to believe that a single bot on a single exchange with dead volume compared to Bitstamp was the major cause just because some dude on the internet without concrete proof (at least for his conclusions) told us so.

Maybe the BTC price IS a bubble and will collapse, but for other reasons (chinese pumping and dumping it, various problems, early adopters exiting etc) not because of a single bot on a single exchange.

Yep!!!!!   The Willybot theory of BTC price bubbles remains way too simplistic.  There have been a lot of causes for these various bubbles over the years, and there is considerable potential that willybot may have contributed towards a November 2013 bubble, but that does NOT mean BTC in November 2013 should have stayed at $100-ish.  Maybe BTC prices should have only gone up to $800?  In any event, trying to ascribe the behavior(s) of a multitude of persons and institutions to one bot, seems like fantasy-land in the making.

[JayJuanGee]

This is the latest update from the willy report, please read it.

I want to start off by saying I agree with a lot of the criticism on this article that’s appeared the Web; my conclusions were a bit too opinionated and perhaps exaggerated, and didn’t really fit the tone of the rest of the report, which was intended to be an objective account of my findings. I’ve corrected that with this update. Still, I stand by the most significant conclusion made: Willy was the cause for the November bubble. Sure, it didn’t do it all by itself, but it was the catalyst, and prevented price from coming down by effectively removing all selling pressure with its extremely constant buying (why market sell when you can place an ask order, and know it will be eaten into anyway?). In financial markets, sentiment is driven by price, much more so than the other way around. People see price skyrocketing, get euphoric, forget all the negative and assume the asset must be something absolutely amazing for people to place so much value in it (that, or they see an opportunity to “get rich quick”). It gets media attention, and sparks this whole positive feedback loop thing. A classic bubble in every way, really; but something has to light the fire, and subsequently prevent it from petering out.

Willy was the cause for the November bubble. So yeah, there it is.

Gox is not true. Especially during the last bubble to $1200 Gox was becoming less and less relevant and with pathetic volume, while the chinese at BTC China started throwing hundreds of thousands into BTC.

I have my doubts about the Willy report as well, but concerning the volume: It doesn't matter if the volume was rather low or the volume only accounted for 8% or whatever of coins traded on Mt. Gox because if Willy really only ever bought coins, it wouldn't drive the volume up that much. Coins get sold and re-sold and re-sold over and over again. If Willy is simply buying, that low volume is enough to push the price up.
If this should really be true... Wouldn't we now sit on a vastly inflated bitcoin price that is about to collapse at any time?

I understand that this is a BTC speculation thread; however, you are speculating too much without specifics.  give us some specifics.   Possibly Willy caused a certain amount of BTC price inflation; however, that potential price inflation would dissipate over time, no?  If we were at 20% price inflation in November 2013, does it follow that we would still be at 20% price inflation - likely NOT...... give some numbers to support your speculation in order to make it meaningful - otherwise you are just spreading and/or encouraging the spreading of near baseless FUD.

[justusranvier]

How and Why to Build an Unbanked Bitcoin ATM

...in which I combine electrical engineering, economy theory, and trading strategies.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation