If your point is we had MORE buy volume on Oct. 4th at 275, then I agree with you.  And look at where we are now.  I don't see this as reversal.

A reversal is when you can go to a 30m, 1h, 2h, 4h, 6h, and 12h chart and all see the same thing:  rising price on rising volume.

Pull up bitcoinwisdom and look at finex or stamp on a longer timeframe chart (say 6 hours) and zoom out. Look at the volume! Now compare it with the bottom at 275.

Based on the October event, we may face a similar bear attack once we reach $250 in 24 hours.

I might be going blind, but am I the only person seeing the volume spike to 100,000 this time with peak volume at 20,000 in October?

Judging by the volume of the panic sale, I doubt very few cheap coins are still held by the weak hands.

And of course my 234.4 sell order misses by a few cents...

I've been missing the tops and bottoms by few cents every fucking time lately

Bulls can't even keep the price above 200.
Weak.

According to my research based on mining cost, general interest (not based on exchanges data or Google stats), shy TA divergence and a few things from my trading methodology, from this point we are going up.

Whatever it is, you need to take into account the market background and not simply draw lines around arbitrary support/resistance points and look for pattern matches at investopedia. That is not good TA. The background is that we had a reversal with record volume. That means a lot more than triangles, and is potentially very bullish. Super risky to short this.

Not necessarily. I'm half expecting a revisit to $160-$170 if things get bearish. But it will be on lower volume and act as a way to clear out the few remaining bears and weak hands--however the initial crash did a pretty good job with that--and will act as a spring upwards. Since the weak hands won't be there to dump into a rally, it will be stronger and more sustained. This is why large reversals follow large crashes, and vice versa.

That picture may be comforting if you believe that the future price will be magically determined by what it did over the past year and in 2011.

I would rather believe that each "bubble" in the bitcoin price history was caused by the opening of a new "consumer market" (a new set of people, or a new application).  

That is why they all had similar shape: an exponential rise as adoption spreads through that consumer market, by "contagion" and media reports, amplified by speclative buying;  a crash when the market saturates and the speculative buyers dump; oscillations while the speculators over-react and then over-correct.

When the oscillations end, in most cases we see a plateau: the price remains relatively constant, at some level higher than the pre-bubble price.  The plateau implies that the buyers keep holding the coins that they acquired during the rally, and the miners' outputs are somehow being bought too.

In some cases, however, instead of a plateau we see a slow exponential decay towards the pre-bubble price.  Presumably that happens when the consumers in that market gradually give up bitcoin and return their holdings to the exchanges.

The exponential decay was observed in the bubbles that atarted around Apr/2011 and Nov/2013.  In the tail of the 2011 bubble, the price would probably have dropped to the pre-bubble level, 0.75 $/BTC; but then on Nov/2011 another bubble started, that lifted the price to ~5 $/BTC.

The Nov/2013 bubble seems to be on its way to deflating too.  If no new "market" opens, the price probably will continue decaying towards the pre-bubble level, around 120--150 $/BTC.  It is not certain, but the two smaller bubbles that started at the end of May/2014 and in early Nov/2014 may be deflating too.

This analysis is not useful for prediciting the price, since there is no way of telling whether or when the next consumer market will open up, nor how big it will be.  On the contrary, this analysis claims that the recovery that started on Nov/2011 was probably unrelated to the Apr/2011 bubble and its decay.  Therefore, that fact that the Nov/2013 bubble is nearly undone, like the Apr/2011 one, does not imply that a new bubble is about to start, as happened in 2011.

Isn't the Winklevoss ETF IPO priced around 100 USD/BTC? (Serious question, I could be misinformed by the wrong rumor.)

No overshoot below the mean. A dip towards $100 would be more convincing.

We need a forum only accessible by proof-of-ownership(btc)... too get rid of these dumb trolls.

You want Bitcoin now?



@Afrikoin: don't you mean first?

Ten days ago, Ben Lawsky was on Money Talking, New York Public Radio. He shares a positive outlook on Bitcoin and regulation, and says the BitLicense will arrive within days.

http://www.wnyc.org/story/theres-new-electronic-sheriff-coming-town/

Yeah I wonder when that is going tto be announced....how long is that gonna take who knows

That's no valid trendline. It's violated from the beginning and inaccurate.

Myth #7: We’ll end up just like Weimar Germany or Zimbabwe.
Reality: Hyperinflation in both countries was caused by circumstances far different than ours.

The minute you challenge the assumption that the government should not spend when it has a large deficit, out comes the charge that we’ll get some horrible hyperinflationary outcome like Weimar Germany or Zimbabwe.

Yes, once the economy gets to full employment, then extra government deficit spending can start driving up prices. But what happened in Weimar Germany was very different. During that time, the government was forced to pay extremely large war reparations in foreign currencies which it didn’t have. So it had to aggressively sell its own currency and buy the foreign currency in the financial markets. This relentless selling continuously drove down the value of its currency, causing prices of goods and services to go ever higher in what became one of the most famous inflations of all time. By 1919, the German budget deficit was equal to half of GDP, and by 1921, war reparation payments represented one third of government spending. And guess what? On the very day that government stopped paying the war reparations and selling its own currency to buy foreign currency, the hyperinflation stopped.

In Zimbabwe, the situation is also very different from ours. There, the conditions for hyperinflation were caused by the destruction of nearly half of the country’s domestic food production via misguided land reforms, plus a civil war which eliminated much of the economy’s productive manufacturing capacity. In response to food shortages, the Bank of Zimbabwe used valuable foreign exchange reserves to buy imported food, leading to a lack of foreign currency to purchase essential raw materials. Manufacturing output collapsed, but the government used much of the remaining foreign exchange to dole out political favors, rather than adding to the country’s productive capacity. The end result was inflation and then hyperinflation.

In the US, hyperinflation will not be an issue if the government spends while it has a large deficit because with high unemployment and unused yet functioning factories all across the country, there is plenty of room to cut taxes and/or increase spending to get us to full employment. This is true no matter what the size of the federal deficit. Ultimately, inflation (and then hyperinflation) is about competing distributive claims over real resources, such as oil, gas, water, etc. A “sustainable” fiscal policy, especially with respect to hyperinflationary risks, then, is really about both the establishment of full employment and the implementation of well-crafted policies which deal with the constraints created by, for example, depleting natural resources.

~Marshall Auerback, Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute and Rob Parenteau, sole proprietor of MacroStrategy Edge

MYTH #8: Government spending increases interest rates and ‘crowds out’ valuable private sector investment.
Reality: Banks can lend essentially without limit, and the Fed can hit any interest rate target it chooses.

Ask an economist what determines the interest rate, and she’ll probably mutter something about supply and demand or “market forces.” Ask the same economist what determines the level of saving and investment, and the answer probably won’t change very much. This is because most economists were trained using textbooks that have not been rewritten since the United States went off the gold standard after WWII.

Back then, we had a monetary system that really did limit the growth of the money supply, and too much government spending really could force rates higher and crowd out other forms of spending. It is all based on something economists know as Loanable Funds Theory, which describes a market in which there is some limited pool of savings available to satisfy the demand for credit. Thus, deficit spending required the government to compete (with private borrowers) for a portion of these limited resources. Because the capacity to lend was constrained under the gold standard, the added competition could drive borrowing costs (i.e. the interest rate) higher.

Decades later, the monetary system looks completely different. But economists continue to treat governments as if they are the users of the currency (as opposed to the issuers) and to treat banks as passive money lenders — there simply to broker deals between savers and borrowers. In truth, banks can lend essentially without limit, regardless of what the federal government is doing, and the Federal Reserve can hit any interest rate target it chooses.

~Stephanie Kelton, Associate Professor, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Missouri



Here is more about the subject:
http://my.firedoglake.com/selise/tag/stephanie-kelton/


Here interesting video in short if you don't have time to read much:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGen5o6vAmw

Myth #7: We’ll end up just like Weimar Germany or Zimbabwe.
Reality: Hyperinflation in both countries was caused by circumstances far different than ours.

The minute you challenge the assumption that the government should not spend when it has a large deficit, out comes the charge that we’ll get some horrible hyperinflationary outcome like Weimar Germany or Zimbabwe.

Yes, once the economy gets to full employment, then extra government deficit spending can start driving up prices. But what happened in Weimar Germany was very different. During that time, the government was forced to pay extremely large war reparations in foreign currencies which it didn’t have. So it had to aggressively sell its own currency and buy the foreign currency in the financial markets. This relentless selling continuously drove down the value of its currency, causing prices of goods and services to go ever higher in what became one of the most famous inflations of all time. By 1919, the German budget deficit was equal to half of GDP, and by 1921, war reparation payments represented one third of government spending. And guess what? On the very day that government stopped paying the war reparations and selling its own currency to buy foreign currency, the hyperinflation stopped.

In Zimbabwe, the situation is also very different from ours. There, the conditions for hyperinflation were caused by the destruction of nearly half of the country’s domestic food production via misguided land reforms, plus a civil war which eliminated much of the economy’s productive manufacturing capacity. In response to food shortages, the Bank of Zimbabwe used valuable foreign exchange reserves to buy imported food, leading to a lack of foreign currency to purchase essential raw materials. Manufacturing output collapsed, but the government used much of the remaining foreign exchange to dole out political favors, rather than adding to the country’s productive capacity. The end result was inflation and then hyperinflation.

In the US, hyperinflation will not be an issue if the government spends while it has a large deficit because with high unemployment and unused yet functioning factories all across the country, there is plenty of room to cut taxes and/or increase spending to get us to full employment. This is true no matter what the size of the federal deficit. Ultimately, inflation (and then hyperinflation) is about competing distributive claims over real resources, such as oil, gas, water, etc. A “sustainable” fiscal policy, especially with respect to hyperinflationary risks, then, is really about both the establishment of full employment and the implementation of well-crafted policies which deal with the constraints created by, for example, depleting natural resources.

~Marshall Auerback, Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute and Rob Parenteau, sole proprietor of MacroStrategy Edge

MYTH #8: Government spending increases interest rates and ‘crowds out’ valuable private sector investment.
Reality: Banks can lend essentially without limit, and the Fed can hit any interest rate target it chooses.

Ask an economist what determines the interest rate, and she’ll probably mutter something about supply and demand or “market forces.” Ask the same economist what determines the level of saving and investment, and the answer probably won’t change very much. This is because most economists were trained using textbooks that have not been rewritten since the United States went off the gold standard after WWII.

Back then, we had a monetary system that really did limit the growth of the money supply, and too much government spending really could force rates higher and crowd out other forms of spending. It is all based on something economists know as Loanable Funds Theory, which describes a market in which there is some limited pool of savings available to satisfy the demand for credit. Thus, deficit spending required the government to compete (with private borrowers) for a portion of these limited resources. Because the capacity to lend was constrained under the gold standard, the added competition could drive borrowing costs (i.e. the interest rate) higher.

Decades later, the monetary system looks completely different. But economists continue to treat governments as if they are the users of the currency (as opposed to the issuers) and to treat banks as passive money lenders — there simply to broker deals between savers and borrowers. In truth, banks can lend essentially without limit, regardless of what the federal government is doing, and the Federal Reserve can hit any interest rate target it chooses.

~Stephanie Kelton, Associate Professor, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Missouri



Here is more about the subject:
http://my.firedoglake.com/selise/tag/stephanie-kelton/


Here interesting video in short if you don't have time to read much:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGen5o6vAmw

The US dollar failing means shit has *really* hit the fan.  Until such time (cue third rider carrying scales etc.), I'm fairly comfortable knowing that my interests are defended by the awesome military might of My America!



FUCK YEAH!

If stock market goes well, people invest in stock market instead of BTC.

If economy is bad, people invest less in risky markets like BTC.

One way or another people will have a reason to don't invest in BTC

Could a crash happen in the west that mirrors the chinese one?

It's impressive how the low volumed bull momentum manages to take bearish fib fans level by level  -  There is no indication for a bearish divergence on my screen, too.

Yeah he's wrong, the site is legit.

wall st. has arrived!!! ...

yawn ( tell us something we don't know, who do they think has been fucking with the price for the last 6 months? bitpesa?)

Might be just a correction, but the fact it happened exactly when the the moon countdown reached 0 is too much coincidence for me

This forum needs a button called "Mark as Troll", if enough people mark somebody as a Troll, all their messages can go straight to the "moon" folder where nobody has to read them.

I'm not even sure what pattern it is supposed to be but it looks really the same!

Also it is 6:50 am in China. Dump maystart anytime now. Fasten seat belt.

Hmmh, the drop looks to have impulse structure, at least on Bitstamp. I could of course be wrong (and thus get bear trapped ), but imo this movement doesn't seem very corrective at all.

You compare a gold chart with 20% dips with BTC with 90% dips?
Not to mention the 13 months long bear market.

Nah it went down the moments after they started dumping LTC for btc.

Its way to coincidental. Happened last weekend also.

14:40PM EST 2015-2-1

Anything that I would say would be speculative and unsubstantiated as to why.

maybe this is a good time to CLOSE THE THREAD

Calling short term top here

just take it slow and keep an eye out to anyone trying to pump BTC/alt coin up as that will lower BTC/USD.

However I would not be surprised if we ditch the "Promised Lows" now that the "strategy" that was used has been shared effecting profits and BTC/USD continue to rebound.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MENjFkEAj9g we can always prepare.

the thing about the bitcoin bears is they are the quintessential permabulls, USD fiat bulltards. This explains their hyper-emotional, some might say immature, nasty outbursts, gloating, attacks, etc. They are caught long and supporting the oldest, tiredest bull in existence that has been pumped beyond imagination and staggers around zombie-like looking for only yet another QE infusion to prevent implosion.

USD fiat bulls are the worst, let us be honest here.

Anybody pro-bitcoin is in fact the contrarian bear of the most radical type.

Has anyone else thought that the winklis are opening their "gemini" exchange out of despair because they know that their ETF won´t be approved?

waht do you guys think, will we going down or up?

I don't know whether BitPay is profiting.  

IIRC, when they started, they offered merchants a free entry-level plan, that allowed only some small volume.  Merchants who exceeded that volume would have to upgrade to a plan with a monthly fee.  But at some time they dropped all fees.

Even if they are processing 200 million USD/year of e-payments, and taking a percentage of that somehow, their revenue must be only 3-4 million USD/year.  Their payroll alone must be more than that.  

Didn't they lay off some staff recently? Anyone remembers how much they paid for the Bitcoin Bowl?

So perhaps they are still operating at a loss, burning their venture capital, hoping for a substantial traffic increase.  Which, again, would explain why they are not releasing any meaningful numbers.

Like this 6000 year bubble?




Penny stocks die off because eventually because they fail the 'long term test'. Bitcoin has a lot going for it long term.

Nice steady rise, I guess it has to do with CNNs show last night! Great exposure! Is there somewhere a link of the recording to watch the show by the way?

It went to 245$ but it will likely go down to 220ish again.

week?

Although the past is not always the best indicator of the future, I expect a dump right after the auction. THIS is the pump that comes before

A near-textbook explanation of Austrian Business Cycle Theory. In Austrian economics, the capital structure of an economy is key. Booms and busts are caused/amplified by distortions in the market rate cost of money (interest). The fact that these distortions are intentionally caused by Central bankers implementing Keynesian policy is why Austrians and Keynesians have such animosity towards each other.

The bitcoin economy is currently experiencing a bull market in the fiat asset class due to deflation/ credit contraction in the fiat world. Central banks have hit the zero bound (interest rates can't go below zero or people will just hold onto their money) and have also resorted to outright counterfeiting (quantitative easing), but the consumer still won't spend. They tools they used to boost aggregate demand merely pushed demand forward and now there is little else they can do.

The bitcoin bear market looked at from the other direction is a fiat boom that will inevitably bust, but Keynes was right about one thing: Markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent, which is why leveraged speculating is so dangerous even if you get the fundamentals right. 

Good morning gentlemen!

Well... Good news for the price I suppose...!
http://www.coindesk.com/former-goldman-director-launches-bitcoin-derivatives-exchange/

Thanks, I'm not following Reddit closely, most trolling friendly location on the interwebs.

How do you sieve out the trolls on Reddit? There's no ignore button, and they upvote each other.

I can't read code, but this sounds a lot like what he was taking about a few months ago.

https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-169-set-reconciliation-and-the-block-with-gavin-andresen

He's always pushing his 20 MB block agenda, which I'm not thrilled about, but faster propagation should mean less stales for miners on smaller pools (like myself) - might make for less advantage to larger pools which would help decentralization...

The entire reason for a ten minute block target in the first place was to allow enough time for the entire network to reach consensus before moving on to the next block.

Like I said, I can't read the code, but it certainly sounds like a pretty big deal.

Here:

Something feels much different.

Correct. I am from Norway, thats why I used a period to mark multiples of thousands.


Still, nobody is commenting on my pie charts. I had to convert 200+ currencies manually to make them. But people only care about comma vs. period!
I'm loosing my mind, HA HA HA!!!  <--- (Crazy norwegian laughing in a creepy way.)

The pie charts are here: https://imgur.com/KA8CuED

Something is wrong with that second chart and calculation.  If bitcoin becomes 1% on monetary supply it would be worth a hell of a lot more than 57 USD.

I expect that the requirements differ from country to country.  You would have to find someone from Kenya who runs an exchange there to answer that.

Largely untapped market in Africa as far as cryptocurrncies.  If you can get this off the ground you will probably do well.

If you use a period to mark thousands, what do you use as a decimal point?

How do you write 1,234,567.89?

 

I agree, Inca. If you take a look at my pie charts, I only compare bitcoin to currencies (m2)

I beg to differ, sir. Not all charts are the same.
But if you can link to charts showing that if bitcoin becomes 1% of global m2, 1 BTC will hold the value of 57,000 USD, please do ;-)

I thought we were supposed to sell the news???

Oh well, Monday should be interesting...

Btw, can someone post the text behind the pay wall? Thanks.

What the hell's happening. Does anyone know why we are seeing a rise all of a sudden right now ?
Can't believe this

This is it, the chicken formation. Get ready for some epic conclusions!

The M-Pesa for the world is here

https://www.goabra.com/

You all realise that the whole China waking up thing doesn't hold water. A huge range of people trade on the Chinese exchanges. Apparently most of their clients are in Denmark.

I agree in U.S. Law such a service is absolutely a money xmitter business, but what if the tellers are in the receiving country only? Anyone can legally buy bitcoin in the U.S. and send it to anyone they want (except drug dealers, terrorists, etc). Migrant worker remittances usually only flow one way: from the rich country to families in a poorer country.  It would be foolish for those poorer countries' governments to discourage a more efficient remittance option. It just sucks money out of their economy to do so.

This is China rumor,read my post 5min ago

I'm amazed at how people take triangles on charts seriously.

It's like trying to predict the speed of a vehicle based by watching its speedometer continuously whilst ignoring the actual terrain that it's on.

edit: I feel a bit troll-y for saying that, but....seriously folks.

I use gut intuition (lol).

It's right every time! The only exceptions are when it's wrong.

Boy, I didn't realise it was that straightforward. Can we change the title of the thread to triangle observer?

the only reason it was broken temporarily on bfx was that some shorts got margin called or panic cancelled... so annoying as I had a sell order at 304.1 that was missed :

just reading "elliott wave principle" and came across an interesting point. Market reversals don't happen on high volume and with strong acceleration, they tend to happen when the extremes have finally been exhausted so volume decreases (imagine a bull run hitting it's peak, as we may have done now mid-term, the bull runs out of breath and gets exhausted).

Also key to note is that during final stages of bull markets before reversal, market participants when polled show demonstrably more optimism than at other times in the market. Basically the more you "believe" as a mass, the closer you get to being delusional and running out of steam, after that the law of gravity comes into action. The same would apply to the inverse. For example, once you lose everything, the only way left is up!



RE price, I think bitcoin potential price needs to be totally re-evaluated. For one, the market has matured and the crazy volatility of the past has been gradually decreasing. More importantly, Gox is out of the picture now, and all the previous predictions were based on sentiment and information that has been skewed by a skewed exchange.

Also important to note is that as price increases, the ability to affect the price by adding more money becomes increasingly difficult.

I'm drunk now, and that gives me the power of truth!

adoption bad for bitcoin right?

Funny how Jorge talks about "most people" like he has any kind of data. Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for a demonstration of "any kid with a laptop can double the bitcoins in circulation".

How are miners disincentivized from including lots of transactions? The amount of transactions has not effect on how hard a block is to solve. They are incentivized to pack the block with as many transactions with fees as they can. That could be an issue, as (I read once in /r/bitcoin) a transaction with little to no fees (I remember the fee being like, 100 satoshi) can take hours to confirm.
Another small nugget of truth buried under that guy's bullshit is the centralization of resources. We humans are team workers, we pool together resources to pull a team through. ^Pool That can add up, and like the huge corporations that handle very specific things, and have created local monopolies, bitcoin may see a few mega-sized creatures that seek control and wealth disregarding what people want/need. There is no easy way to solve this. But this is not a problem central to bitcoin, it is a problem we've seen arise in oil, telecommunications (phone, cable & internet), banks, etc.

There may be some support at this level. I'm in for a long trade.

Shorts at 27300..

Deluded shorters keep adding..new ATH

Bfxdata.com

Go to BTC swap, historic, scroll down, chart of number of swap contracts (btc short). Make it all time and you can see that in the last four months shorting has gone absolutely berserk. In fact the drop down from 680 marked a new phase of aggressive shorting not seen before. Big players suppressing the price with retail jumping on for the ride. Now it is retail adding shorts as the price rises.

In contrast long swaps are high but 6million below the ATH.

A good shag may be coming during the next weeks.
Largest spike in transaction fees since November 2013.

I almost placed a 3x leveraged short at 229$, but was too lazy to press the margin sell button.
Thought I had time until tomorrow to reach 229$, but now I'll have to wait a bit and see how this situation develops.

First the Cypress pump now the Grease pump. Is anyone else starting to feel as though Bitcoin is being manipulated to seem like it's responding to current events? We all know the Greeks weren't actually buying. Right?