Next big dip in 5-10 minutes, if not, expect a bounce up (but won't last)

And Satoshi did not even dump his stash.

Might just have been the Korean bitcoin cards new actually.

Next 1h30 actually 

FXCM

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-15/new-zealand-currency-broker-closes-on-losses-after-swiss-shock.html

Something is happening in the fiat markets, fasten your seatbelts

BitLicense application spectrum looks quite broad to me
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1147913.msg12091268#msg12091268

It affects any entity that deals with virtual currencies (not just bitcoin) and that falls under the NY finance department, which includes all the usual financial services as well as "service providers" (not necessarily financial, just needs to have a contractual service agreement)

Indeed, and regular nodes are not incentivized in any way, unlike pools which get block rewards.

Increased block size can just be one leg of bitcoin going forward, the other leg has to be "pruning full nodes" of some sort.

I personally think the limit to block size is not the one in code, but mining and propagation.

Larger blocks are slower to propagate, and have a greater chance of being orphaned. SPV mining and 1 transactions blocks are already regular.

IMHO that's where there is the greater risk in terms of bitcoin scalability: it is currently risky (in terms of profit) to pack too many transactions in a block, as block rewards go down, all low-fee tx will be filtered out by miners, and they will strive to make small blocks packed with high fee tx.

It just does not make sense (from a miner PoV) to have large blocks (higher risk of orphans) unless fees are sufficient.

So  the blocksize may ultimately be irrelevant in terms of fees, propagation speed will be the name of the game (at least for profit-oriented pools).

Beware of a Chinese reversal: HSCEI has been bouncing on 9000 level every year since 2011

http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/HSCEI:IND

True, but also completely irrelevant

Charts are not about what happened, or why, or if they are correct, or if they bear any relationship to reality, but about how other people and trading bots that read them react.

In that case, it's a perfect alignment of 3 lows separated by months, meaning some bots or people, are/were watching that trend line. That the first point is pointless in the real world is itself pointless, bots and people reacted to it, and that's all that matters.

IME "real traders" do not share their charts, the only ones that do are pros with a view and baseline amateurs (like me).

This trend happened, and interestingly enough the low spike before it was on a trend as well


I was lucky a few month ago (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=839312.0), my crystal ball gives a a target at $230 on early November/late October, and $250 around March 2016, with some movement in between, including a possible new low near $150. Feel free to disbelieve and laugh if I am wrong

Rate of progress drastically slowed lately:
* 2000: 200 MB
* 2004: 2 GB (x 10)
* 2008: 1.5 TB (almost x 1000) <<< this is the oddity that gave everyone the wrong impression
* 2012: 4 TB (x2.7)
* 2016: 10 TB (x2.5)

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hard_disk_drives#1980s.2C_the_PC_era)

Short of a new tech breakthrough, we won't get Petabyte drives soon, and SSD + cloud storage mean that people usually make do with less HDD storage these days than in 2010.

You mean http://cointelegraph.com/news/115203/ukraine-may-soon-legalize-bitcoin ? Misleading title.
It looks more like a rumor of a possibility of an hearsay, basically some officials got a presentation by an enthusiast and found it interesting (or did not reject it outright at least)

IIRC she has always been quite bullish about bitcoin.

Between bitcoin halving and ethereum movements, the only thing sure is that some serious amount of value will change hands in the next weeks.