Prices to fall below $50

[Wagner2014]

Check out this blog. Here's the chart:



http://afbitcoins.wordpress.com/tag/channel/

[Kazu]

Check out this blog. Here's the chart:



http://afbitcoins.wordpress.com/tag/channel/

What the heck is that supposed upper bound, its utterly meaningless...

Anyways this indicates that the price supposedly doubles every 6 months even if it stays on the lowest trendline? Huh, if I have to wait until we go down to 40-whatever but then we're sure to get $100 in like 8 months and like $200 in a year, I guess I'm k with that.

[ElectricMucus]

I think it is supposed to be the top after the chain fork scare at 50 since that's the only point where it touches a candle wick.

[Kazu]

I think it is supposed to be the top after the chain fork scare at 50 since that's the only point where it touches a candle wick.

IDK, I freaked out about the fork when it was happening, but it doesn't sound like a particularly important technical point IMO~.~

[ElectricMucus]

I think it is supposed to be the top after the chain fork scare at 50 since that's the only point where it touches a candle wick.

IDK, I freaked out about the fork when it was happening, but it doesn't sound like a particularly important technical point IMO~.~

It was important from a fundamental perspective, (dev team not as competent as they should be) but I agree the move was to small to be considered in this kind of TA.
If anything move the upper channel down so it touches the bottom after the pop.

[Einewton]

Check out this blog. Here's the chart:

http://afbitcoins.wordpress.com/tag/channel/

I used to read the AFB, there's some really good points made there. Thanks for reminding me about that blog.

[ArticMine]

What the heck is that supposed upper bound, its utterly meaningless...

...

The February 2012 top.

[Melbustus]

I think it is supposed to be the top after the chain fork scare at 50 since that's the only point where it touches a candle wick.

IDK, I freaked out about the fork when it was happening, but it doesn't sound like a particularly important technical point IMO~.~

It was important from a fundamental perspective, (dev team not as competent as they should be)...

Wow, you're nuts if that was your takeaway from the fork.

How quickly and competantly (and with consensus) it was handled is a testament to how the community can and does operate in the inevitable scenarios where technical (or malicious) issues arise. In sharp contrast to your awful misunderstanding is the correct takeaway; ie, a sense of more confidence in the overall robustness of bitcoin, both from a technical and community perspective.

[worldinacoin]

I strongly doubt so, I think it is rebounding right now

[marvinrouge]

I strongly doubt so, I think it is rebounding right now

Bounces can be made in two different directions   maybe another bounce later from 70s to 50s

[ElectricMucus]

I think it is supposed to be the top after the chain fork scare at 50 since that's the only point where it touches a candle wick.

IDK, I freaked out about the fork when it was happening, but it doesn't sound like a particularly important technical point IMO~.~

It was important from a fundamental perspective, (dev team not as competent as they should be)...

Wow, you're nuts if that was your takeaway from the fork.

How quickly and competantly (and with consensus) it was handled is a testament to how the community can and does operate in the inevitable scenarios where technical (or malicious) issues arise. In sharp contrast to your awful misunderstanding is the correct takeaway; ie, a sense of more confidence in the overall robustness of bitcoin, both from a technical and community perspective.

It's that it happened at all that concerns me.

[humanitee]

It's that it happened at all that concerns me.

Totally. I can't understand why software in beta had some problems.

Mucus you should take up as head developer. I think you got some good ideas.

[ElectricMucus]

It's that it happened at all that concerns me.

Totally. I can't understand why software in beta had some problems.

Mucus you should take up as head developer. I think you got some good ideas.

Since when do I have to be competent on creating a product when concerning myself with using it?

[humanitee]

Since when do I have to be competent on creating a product when concerning myself with using it?

That's too bad you are clearly a genius! Please work on Bitcoin your greatness!

[ElectricMucus]

I merely stated a fact.

[humanitee]

No you didn't.

The dev team is perfectly competent. It's not like Bitcoin has been around 100 years and they are making minor tweaks to it. They are in uncharted territory.

[ElectricMucus]

When something bad happens due to lack of competence (human error always is) whoever is responsible isn't as competent as they should be.
This is not debatable.

[humanitee]

When something bad happens due to lack of competence (human error always is) whoever is responsible isn't as competent as they should be.
This is not debatable.

Who says it's lack of competence? Maybe it could have been solved but it would have been 100x the effort and it's just easier to hard fork. Maybe hard forking is the competent answer.

[ElectricMucus]

Do you actually know the nature of the bug? They used the wrong data format.
This is not chance, it's human error.

[polrpaul]

Speculation at its finest.