Buy the DIP, and HODL!

[JayJuanGee]

And in terms of fundamentals, everyone always returns from altcoins to Bitcoin once the bubble pops and the hype is gone. Nobody really believes in altcoins like they do Bitcoin.

That's thanks to the Core developers' contribution to it's growth and development, and being conservative, and safe in their approach to focus on security, self-sovereignty, and censorship-resistance.

That's part of it, but attributing everything to the Core developers would be ridiculous. Bitcoin's monetary policy, first mover advantage, and network effect have a lot to do with it too.

The Core developers are a very large part of it though, maybe the majority. The design-decisions made, to focus on security, to make it robust and safe, and with small, almost close to none attack vectors.

I believe if the network actually forked to S2X, Bitcoin would be dead. I truly believe that. A big part of its success is thanks to Core.

I largely agree with what you are saying, Wind_FURY; however, the s2x dispute was NOT merely some kind of fluffy technical change, even though, sure that technical change would not have been a very good precedent to set forth.

In my thinking the S2X was more about an attempt to change how consensus would have been achieved in bitcoin and therefor an undermining of bitcoin in such a way that would cause it to be much easier to change, and I am not sure if the developers get complete credit for that, but probably a lot of user sentiment that realized that S2X was a kind of bullying attempt ... which likely caused more backlash from the users.. and sure it seems that bitcoin did get stronger from fending off such bullying attack and seems that the users learned that there was a certain kind of need to stand up for NOT allowing changes to happen in bitcoin in any kind of easy-peasy way.

It wasn't only about the technical argument that S2X would have killed Bitcoin, but also it was an attempt to replace the Core developers. The best people, with the most extensive experience to work on the protocol, and who deserves to be stewards of the network.

Who would have become the lead developer for Bitcoin-S2X?

Of course, overthrowing Core developers would have been either an outwardly stated goal or an outcome of the intended changes to the governance changes that included changes to consensus...   They were not exactly secretive about some of those kinds of goals... Governance is a kind of package, anyhow, no?

Probably their whole bullshit of a plan was not very well thought out anyhow,... wasn't there some fuck ups in the code, too that Jeff Garzik was overseeing.. or failing to oversee?..

The plans of the overthrowers likely included a lot of tentative ideas about how matters would work themselves out.. but sure, they also may have had some non-disclosed plans regarding how the development leaders would have played out.. with perhaps some combination of Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn and Jeff Garzik.. .. and really I do not know or follow those various important BIG BLOCKER players well enough to knowing much of anything beyond throwing out a few names in order to attempt to be somewhat cooperatively responsive to your question, Wind_FURY.

[1713445044]

1713445044

[1713445044]

1713445044

[exstasie]

The Core developers are a very large part of it though, maybe the majority. The design-decisions made, to focus on security, to make it robust and safe, and with small, almost close to none attack vectors.

I don't want to downplay the importance of the Core developers and their focus on robustness and security, but I think you might be downplaying the synergy of forces that make Bitcoin what it is.

I believe if the network actually forked to S2X, Bitcoin would be dead. I truly believe that.

I don't think S2X was ever a serious threat. Don't underestimate Bitcoin users. This isn't Ethereum or something.

[Wind_FURY]

And in terms of fundamentals, everyone always returns from altcoins to Bitcoin once the bubble pops and the hype is gone. Nobody really believes in altcoins like they do Bitcoin.

That's thanks to the Core developers' contribution to it's growth and development, and being conservative, and safe in their approach to focus on security, self-sovereignty, and censorship-resistance.

That's part of it, but attributing everything to the Core developers would be ridiculous. Bitcoin's monetary policy, first mover advantage, and network effect have a lot to do with it too.

The Core developers are a very large part of it though, maybe the majority. The design-decisions made, to focus on security, to make it robust and safe, and with small, almost close to none attack vectors.

I believe if the network actually forked to S2X, Bitcoin would be dead. I truly believe that. A big part of its success is thanks to Core.

I largely agree with what you are saying, Wind_FURY; however, the s2x dispute was NOT merely some kind of fluffy technical change, even though, sure that technical change would not have been a very good precedent to set forth.

In my thinking the S2X was more about an attempt to change how consensus would have been achieved in bitcoin and therefor an undermining of bitcoin in such a way that would cause it to be much easier to change, and I am not sure if the developers get complete credit for that, but probably a lot of user sentiment that realized that S2X was a kind of bullying attempt ... which likely caused more backlash from the users.. and sure it seems that bitcoin did get stronger from fending off such bullying attack and seems that the users learned that there was a certain kind of need to stand up for NOT allowing changes to happen in bitcoin in any kind of easy-peasy way.

It wasn't only about the technical argument that S2X would have killed Bitcoin, but also it was an attempt to replace the Core developers. The best people, with the most extensive experience to work on the protocol, and who deserves to be stewards of the network.

Who would have become the lead developer for Bitcoin-S2X?

Of course, overthrowing Core developers would have been either an outwardly stated goal or an outcome of the intended changes to the governance changes that included changes to consensus...   They were not exactly secretive about some of those kinds of goals... Governance is a kind of package, anyhow, no?

Probably their whole bullshit of a plan was not very well thought out anyhow,... wasn't there some fuck ups in the code, too that Jeff Garzik was overseeing.. or failing to oversee?..

There were, that was why I said Bitcoin would be dead with S2X, OR the community would have started a hard-forking attitude like Bcash. Look at them, they are forking again, and would end with four Bcash,

Bcash Clashic
Bcash ABC Miner Tax
Bcash Faketoshi Version
Bcash ABC No Miner's Tax

[JayJuanGee]

And in terms of fundamentals, everyone always returns from altcoins to Bitcoin once the bubble pops and the hype is gone. Nobody really believes in altcoins like they do Bitcoin.

That's thanks to the Core developers' contribution to it's growth and development, and being conservative, and safe in their approach to focus on security, self-sovereignty, and censorship-resistance.

That's part of it, but attributing everything to the Core developers would be ridiculous. Bitcoin's monetary policy, first mover advantage, and network effect have a lot to do with it too.

The Core developers are a very large part of it though, maybe the majority. The design-decisions made, to focus on security, to make it robust and safe, and with small, almost close to none attack vectors.

I believe if the network actually forked to S2X, Bitcoin would be dead. I truly believe that. A big part of its success is thanks to Core.

I largely agree with what you are saying, Wind_FURY; however, the s2x dispute was NOT merely some kind of fluffy technical change, even though, sure that technical change would not have been a very good precedent to set forth.

In my thinking the S2X was more about an attempt to change how consensus would have been achieved in bitcoin and therefor an undermining of bitcoin in such a way that would cause it to be much easier to change, and I am not sure if the developers get complete credit for that, but probably a lot of user sentiment that realized that S2X was a kind of bullying attempt ... which likely caused more backlash from the users.. and sure it seems that bitcoin did get stronger from fending off such bullying attack and seems that the users learned that there was a certain kind of need to stand up for NOT allowing changes to happen in bitcoin in any kind of easy-peasy way.

It wasn't only about the technical argument that S2X would have killed Bitcoin, but also it was an attempt to replace the Core developers. The best people, with the most extensive experience to work on the protocol, and who deserves to be stewards of the network.

Who would have become the lead developer for Bitcoin-S2X?

Of course, overthrowing Core developers would have been either an outwardly stated goal or an outcome of the intended changes to the governance changes that included changes to consensus...   They were not exactly secretive about some of those kinds of goals... Governance is a kind of package, anyhow, no?

Probably their whole bullshit of a plan was not very well thought out anyhow,... wasn't there some fuck ups in the code, too that Jeff Garzik was overseeing.. or failing to oversee?..

There were, that was why I said Bitcoin would be dead with S2X, OR the community would have started a hard-forking attitude like Bcash. Look at them, they are forking again, and would end with four Bcash,

Bcash Clashic
Bcash ABC Miner Tax
Bcash Faketoshi Version
Bcash ABC No Miner's Tax

Faketoshi version will probably fork a few more times too in the coming years... Remember faketoshi is engaged in a campaign to show that he is the rightful owner of a million or so coins, even though he does not have the private keys... Remember in faketoshi's view of the universe, having the private keys does not matter, so his devotees are going to agree (well maybe not all of them) to a forkening in which faketoshi gets his rightful million coins or so... that he "deserves".. Couldn't be a more "deserving" guy than faketoshi, could there be (oh yeah, calvin is pretty damned deserving, too, right?  and of course, the faketoshi team will get some spoils, too, right?  how else would they stay devoted through thick and thin?)?

[pooya87]

It wasn't only about the technical argument that S2X would have killed Bitcoin, but also it was an attempt to replace the Core developers. The best people, with the most extensive experience to work on the protocol, and who deserves to be stewards of the network.

Who would have become the lead developer for Bitcoin-S2X?

Of course, overthrowing Core developers would have been either an outwardly stated goal or an outcome of the intended changes to the governance changes that included changes to consensus...   They were not exactly secretive about some of those kinds of goals... Governance is a kind of package, anyhow, no?

using terms like "replace" or "overthrow",... and this whole comment chain sounds like you two are centralizing bitcoin yourself. all the while agreeing with bcash and Ver without even realizing it.

bitcoin is not some centralized company to have 1 owner or a owning team that can be replaced just because someone made a different proposal that the first team didn't accept. and changing the max weight to 8 MB is hardly "replacing core team"!

Probably their whole bullshit of a plan was not very well thought out anyhow,... wasn't there some fuck ups in the code, too that Jeff Garzik was overseeing.. or failing to oversee?..

bugs exist in any code that has ever been written.
look at Schnorr BIP which is a proposal that has been around for more than a year and the whole optimization idea was based on a fuck up in the code that was benchmarking it wrong. would you also say that Pieter Wuille was failing to oversee it?

[JayJuanGee]

It wasn't only about the technical argument that S2X would have killed Bitcoin, but also it was an attempt to replace the Core developers. The best people, with the most extensive experience to work on the protocol, and who deserves to be stewards of the network.

Who would have become the lead developer for Bitcoin-S2X?

Of course, overthrowing Core developers would have been either an outwardly stated goal or an outcome of the intended changes to the governance changes that included changes to consensus...   They were not exactly secretive about some of those kinds of goals... Governance is a kind of package, anyhow, no?

using terms like "replace" or "overthrow",... and this whole comment chain sounds like you two are centralizing bitcoin yourself. all the while agreeing with bcash and Ver without even realizing it.

bitcoin is not some centralized company to have 1 owner or a owning team that can be replaced just because someone made a different proposal that the first team didn't accept. and changing the max weight to 8 MB is hardly "replacing core team"!

We might be speaking past each other or I don't really understand the point.

I thought that I was trying to suggest that there were varying kinds of attempts to overthrow core developers, and sure I might not even know enough about whether it is an achievable goal or whatever, so you, pooya87, might be taking this whole subject matter to a place that is beyond anything that I was trying to say.. or even that I know the repercussions of the matter.

I surely don't proclaim to be any kind of expert, and I am not even very familiar with BTC governance beyond my arguments in regards to what various of the segwit opponents and the BIG blocker proponents were trying to achieve, whether we are referring to bcash hardforkers or segwit2x proponents or some other camps that were in the then opposition forces.

I do understand that characterizing something as bitcoin core developers may well imply some kind of unification which was not really my intention.. even if my phraseology may have come out that way.

Probably their whole bullshit of a plan was not very well thought out anyhow,... wasn't there some fuck ups in the code, too that Jeff Garzik was overseeing.. or failing to oversee?..

bugs exist in any code that has ever been written.
look at Schnorr BIP which is a proposal that has been around for more than a year and the whole optimization idea was based on a fuck up in the code that was benchmarking it wrong. would you also say that Pieter Wuille was failing to oversee it?

We seem to be on a different plane, pooya87... I was merely remembering that something like a segwit2x went live in November 2017 or something like that and then the first block failed.. like there was something basically wrong in the code that could have likely been caught or fixed if there had been more persons involved in looking at the code, besides Garzik. .. I have not clue about the other code oversight issues that you mention regarding Schnorr .. which likely goes beyond my pay grade and my ability to stir up shit grade.

[pooya87]

We might be speaking past each other or I don't really understand the point.

I thought that I was trying to suggest that there were varying kinds of attempts to overthrow core developers, and sure I might not even know enough about whether it is an achievable goal or whatever, so you, pooya87, might be taking this whole subject matter to a place that is beyond anything that I was trying to say.. or even that I know the repercussions of the matter.

I surely don't proclaim to be any kind of expert, and I am not even very familiar with BTC governance beyond my arguments in regards to what various of the segwit opponents and the BIG blocker proponents were trying to achieve, whether we are referring to bcash hardforkers or segwit2x proponents or some other camps that were in the then opposition forces.

I do understand that characterizing something as bitcoin core developers may well imply some kind of unification which was not really my intention.. even if my phraseology may have come out that way.

my point is that there should not be any centralized governance in bitcoin in any form. whether it is centralized mining, centralized nodes or centralized development. just like miners, the bitcoin core developers should also be seen as employees that are working and can be fired or replaced or just move on. and the team has already changed significantly during the 11 year course of bitcoin core's history too (Garzik was a core dev too).

i think what you meant to say was that these groups of people (the "big blockers" if you will) were trying to push bitcoin protocol into a different direction that could very well centralize the network. which i agree with.

We seem to be on a different plane, pooya87... I was merely remembering that something like a segwit2x went live in November 2017 or something like that and then the first block failed.. like there was something basically wrong in the code that could have likely been caught or fixed if there had been more persons involved in looking at the code, besides Garzik. .. I have not clue about the other code oversight issues that you mention regarding Schnorr .. which likely goes beyond my pay grade and my ability to stir up shit grade.

SegWit2x didn't reach community consensus for its second part (the hard fork) so it never happened. and i believe the "fail" you are referring to was because as a hard fork there was a rule that the first block after the target height must have had a bigger size (8 MB weight) to "lock in" the hard fork which obviously never happened  because 100% of the hashrate was mining bitcoin (SegWit) and there was nobody left to mine a bigger block so those SegWit2x nodes were rejecting anything smaller hence being stuck.
maybe there was something else that i can't remember though, 2017 was chaotic and the internet was filled with misinformation and it is hard to go through all of it to find the correct ones specially about something that is dead.

[Wind_FURY]

And in terms of fundamentals, everyone always returns from altcoins to Bitcoin once the bubble pops and the hype is gone. Nobody really believes in altcoins like they do Bitcoin.

That's thanks to the Core developers' contribution to it's growth and development, and being conservative, and safe in their approach to focus on security, self-sovereignty, and censorship-resistance.

That's part of it, but attributing everything to the Core developers would be ridiculous. Bitcoin's monetary policy, first mover advantage, and network effect have a lot to do with it too.

The Core developers are a very large part of it though, maybe the majority. The design-decisions made, to focus on security, to make it robust and safe, and with small, almost close to none attack vectors.

I believe if the network actually forked to S2X, Bitcoin would be dead. I truly believe that. A big part of its success is thanks to Core.

I largely agree with what you are saying, Wind_FURY; however, the s2x dispute was NOT merely some kind of fluffy technical change, even though, sure that technical change would not have been a very good precedent to set forth.

In my thinking the S2X was more about an attempt to change how consensus would have been achieved in bitcoin and therefor an undermining of bitcoin in such a way that would cause it to be much easier to change, and I am not sure if the developers get complete credit for that, but probably a lot of user sentiment that realized that S2X was a kind of bullying attempt ... which likely caused more backlash from the users.. and sure it seems that bitcoin did get stronger from fending off such bullying attack and seems that the users learned that there was a certain kind of need to stand up for NOT allowing changes to happen in bitcoin in any kind of easy-peasy way.

It wasn't only about the technical argument that S2X would have killed Bitcoin, but also it was an attempt to replace the Core developers. The best people, with the most extensive experience to work on the protocol, and who deserves to be stewards of the network.

Who would have become the lead developer for Bitcoin-S2X?

Of course, overthrowing Core developers would have been either an outwardly stated goal or an outcome of the intended changes to the governance changes that included changes to consensus...   They were not exactly secretive about some of those kinds of goals... Governance is a kind of package, anyhow, no?

Probably their whole bullshit of a plan was not very well thought out anyhow,... wasn't there some fuck ups in the code, too that Jeff Garzik was overseeing.. or failing to oversee?..

There were, that was why I said Bitcoin would be dead with S2X, OR the community would have started a hard-forking attitude like Bcash. Look at them, they are forking again, and would end with four Bcash,

Bcash Clashic
Bcash ABC Miner Tax
Bcash Faketoshi Version
Bcash ABC No Miner's Tax

Faketoshi version will probably fork a few more times too in the coming years... Remember faketoshi is engaged in a campaign to show that he is the rightful owner of a million or so coins, even though he does not have the private keys... Remember in faketoshi's view of the universe, having the private keys does not matter, so his devotees are going to agree (well maybe not all of them) to a forkening in which faketoshi gets his rightful million coins or so... that he "deserves".. Couldn't be a more "deserving" guy than faketoshi, could there be (oh yeah, calvin is pretty damned deserving, too, right?  and of course, the faketoshi team will get some spoils, too, right?  how else would they stay devoted through thick and thin?)?

Which he's trying very hard in court to convince a judge to close the case in his favor, to which I believe, will set a legal template for other people to make untruthful claims, which then might open a Pandora's Box.

Its true purpose is not about money.

[bangkecol]

Sure . For not missed the good moment , We must buy every dip of bitcoin. Because the trend of bull run will coming soon.
The adoption of cryptocurrency will more big in the future. This is best moment to collect bitcoin.

[stomachgrowls]

Sure . For not missed the good moment , We must buy every dip of bitcoin. Because the trend of bull run will coming soon.
The adoption of cryptocurrency will more big in the future. This is best moment to collect bitcoin.

Are you sure that you would definitely do such thing? Lets put up the current price, do you really believe that this would be already the dip? Arent you having second thoughts that the price might go down even more?

It sounds simple but wont really be that easy to be done regardless if you do just buy for long term then you wouldnt matter but for active traders like me that do deal with shorter time frames then
identifying the bottom will always be a question mark.

Buy every dip kind of behavior doesnt fit out on anybody.

[JayJuanGee]

Sure . For not missed the good moment , We must buy every dip of bitcoin. Because the trend of bull run will coming soon.
The adoption of cryptocurrency will more big in the future. This is best moment to collect bitcoin.

Are you sure that you would definitely do such thing? Lets put up the current price, do you really believe that this would be already the dip? Arent you having second thoughts that the price might go down even more?

It sounds simple but wont really be that easy to be done regardless if you do just buy for long term then you wouldnt matter but for active traders like me that do deal with shorter time frames then
identifying the bottom will always be a question mark.

Buy every dip kind of behavior doesnt fit out on anybody.

Buying every dip works for the people who are not fucking around trying to guess where the BTC price might be going, so sometimes pulling the buy trigger has to be thought of as a thing that has already been done, rather than either second guessing it or regretting it.

Over the nearly 7 years that I have been in bitcoin, I could have gotten all kinds of BTC for much lower prices (than I did), but I don't give any ratt's asses about that, even that I could have been able to buy multiple times as many BTC with the same amount of cash that I ended up using because over the years, I have accumulated a lot of BTC by just buying regularly and not given too many shits about the price. 

And, overall those BTC have gone up in value quite a lot.. especially zooming out how great BTC has performed overall over the longer term.

Of course, if I get a bit of a weekly or monthly dip or even a longer term dip, then that does tend to be a bonus.. and of course, if the BTC price keeps going down after I already bought some, there might be some "could of" "would have" or "should have" in my short term thinking, but really all of that nonsense has tended to be water under the bridge, especially for anyone trying to seriously accumulate a decent stash of BTC for the longer term and has a bit of a higher time preference rather than feeling some kind of desperation regarding every time they might have been able to stack 10k more sats, when they’ve had already been able to stack decent amounts of sats along the way without giving too much thought to the matter.. and overall still doing quite well.. especially, with the passage of time.

Too many people seem to miss out on buying BTC or even to stack enough because they are too busy waiting for the dip to be BIGGER.. which causes even more psychological pressure and paralysis when the price goes up rather than down.. so in my experience it seems to be much better to act rather than to be paralyzed or to out psych your lil selfie with too much greed, analysis or guessing.

[bitcoinisbest]

Sure . For not missed the good moment , We must buy every dip of bitcoin. Because the trend of bull run will coming soon.
The adoption of cryptocurrency will more big in the future. This is best moment to collect bitcoin.

Bitcoin price has fallen a bit and now it is at 11350$. So before again it bounces back to 12k level and those who want to make some profits, it is good time to do it now. Buy some at this price range before again some of them miss it and later will say it is already high and awaiting of the price dip. On falls it is always a good time to keep buying it.

[Wind_FURY]

Sure . For not missed the good moment , We must buy every dip of bitcoin. Because the trend of bull run will coming soon.
The adoption of cryptocurrency will more big in the future. This is best moment to collect bitcoin.

Are you sure that you would definitely do such thing? Lets put up the current price, do you really believe that this would be already the dip? Arent you having second thoughts that the price might go down even more?

Zoom out, see what path Bitcoin is currently taking. The current price will be like a missed opportunity once Bitcoin is valued in six digits. Or more.

It sounds simple but wont really be that easy to be done regardless if you do just buy for long term then you wouldnt matter but for active traders like me that do deal with shorter time frames then
identifying the bottom will always be a question mark.

Buy every dip kind of behavior doesnt fit out on anybody.

The current price is one of the "bottoms" we'll encounter.

[naikturun]

Sure . For not missed the good moment , We must buy every dip of bitcoin. Because the trend of bull run will coming soon.
The adoption of cryptocurrency will more big in the future. This is best moment to collect bitcoin.

Bitcoin price has fallen a bit and now it is at 11350$. So before again it bounces back to 12k level and those who want to make some profits, it is good time to do it now. Buy some at this price range before again some of them miss it and later will say it is already high and awaiting of the price dip. On falls it is always a good time to keep buying it.

but still the price will continue to rise, the meaning of the OP sentence is to buy bitcoin as fast as you can, for example you have a little money then buy and wait for a few years because it will be good for the long term, don't look at the daily price because it will make you uneasy.

[onecall123]

Sure . For not missed the good moment , We must buy every dip of bitcoin. Because the trend of bull run will coming soon.
The adoption of cryptocurrency will more big in the future. This is best moment to collect bitcoin.

Bitcoin price has fallen a bit and now it is at 11350$. So before again it bounces back to 12k level and those who want to make some profits, it is good time to do it now. Buy some at this price range before again some of them miss it and later will say it is already high and awaiting of the price dip. On falls it is always a good time to keep buying it.

but still the price will continue to rise, the meaning of the OP sentence is to buy bitcoin as fast as you can, for example you have a little money then buy and wait for a few years because it will be good for the long term, don't look at the daily price because it will make you uneasy.

Same feeling. Been buying! Waiting for a further dip now to buy more! It would appear that crypto just went on sale for us buy and hodls. That’s not too much drops. We get 30% or even more pull backs frequently in a crypto bull market. Hopefully this will be the last dip before the next bull run.

[glowing10]

I think its not an easy strategy to follow .At the beginning time of trading i thought it is an easy to do a trade but i made always loss .It's went more deep .So i think we should need more analysis before trading this way .So its so tough to say every deep will give you profit .

Not everyone can trade and make profits. It required learning, knowledge and skills to read an make profit. If one can learn and over time has gained experience chances are that can become a good trader but with crypto since it is highly volatile so not many can become successful in it. Ensure what you can afford to lose only trade it as you are not good at it.

[STT]

It dipped, it rose and then we have some test for these hours into the morning and next days trade.    Its not a big move but it was a falter there for sure and some have bought into the dip.



Above is weekly average but the more important part might be to maintain the lower average which is a rough monthly average, this has caught up with us and represents momentum and 'stall speed' to price movement perhaps.   My speculation is we are in part of the a bigger pullback, the difficulty to dip buying is judging the size of the move.  We have a bias to sideways and its breaking upwards so maybe thats not over yet.

[Wind_FURY]

I think its not an easy strategy to follow .At the beginning time of trading i thought it is an easy to do a trade but i made always loss .It's went more deep .So i think we should need more analysis before trading this way .So its so tough to say every deep will give you profit .

Not everyone can trade and make profits. It required learning, knowledge and skills to read an make profit.

But not everyone can be part of the elite-whalecumulator-club. 90% of active pleb-day-traders consistently LOSE money. Fact.

If one can learn and over time has gained experience chances are that can become a good trader but with crypto since it is highly volatile so not many can become successful in it. Ensure what you can afford to lose only trade it as you are not good at it.

Buy the dip, and HODL is us pleb's way. It's not exciting, but it will be when Bitcoin starts surging to 6 digits.

The red parts in the chart are the only times when someone lost buying Bitcoin,

[bitbunnny]

I think its not an easy strategy to follow .At the beginning time of trading i thought it is an easy to do a trade but i made always loss .It's went more deep .So i think we should need more analysis before trading this way .So its so tough to say every deep will give you profit .

No one hasn't said it was easy. You need to be prepared for trading an not only with skill, knowledge and experience but you also need to have enough funds to buy when it's favourable price. And you will not see results at once, it takes some time and most of your investment will be returned on long term. And not all of us have enough patience for that

[Arkann]

I think its not an easy strategy to follow .At the beginning time of trading i thought it is an easy to do a trade but i made always loss .It's went more deep .So i think we should need more analysis before trading this way .So its so tough to say every deep will give you profit .

No one hasn't said it was easy. You need to be prepared for trading an not only with skill, knowledge and experience but you also need to have enough funds to buy when it's favourable price. And you will not see results at once, it takes some time and most of your investment will be returned on long term. And not all of us have enough patience for that

In order to receive a large enough income from cryptocurrency trading, of course, you need to have a large enough start-up capital. But in order to learn how to trade and gain some experience, even 50 or 100 dollars is enough. Although it is not so easy to learn how to do technical analysis and every beginner has to go through a lot of mistakes. It seems to me that one of the best training options is to use the demo version for trading.