Post: #4601

(06-21-2017 03:06 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  This is coming off like a personal dig.

Nothing personal intended. It's all good.

Post: #4602

I am having a bit of a difficulty considering exactly what is our current BTC price range that should be considered as sideways. There is so much going on right now in regards to the multiple forks and threats of forks... It's confusing the fuck out of me.

As you likely recall, about a week ago (or was it even that long ago?), I was considering about $2,250 and $2,650 to be the BTC trading range and that a break above $2,650 meant that we were going to be testing $3k - but then the subsequent news has kind of screwed up the price range and the seeming likely journey towards testing $3k - and even seems to have increased the possibility of a break downwards... though price still seems to be holding fairly well with fairly high ongoing trade volume, at least at the moment.

Maybe currently, we can define sideways as anywhere between $2,500 and $2,750?

Regarding the segwit2x situation, initially, I thought that news was bullish because likely the market was thinking that we would be getting segwit in some kind of meaningful and certain form and that it was not really the hardfork that it initially presented itself as - however, now, there is some lack of clarity about either getting a meaningful kind of segwit and even if some kind of watered down segwit within segwi2x might involve some inferior code that is not really equivalent to the actual segwit.... and even with all of that whether the situation is going to be able to avert some kind of hardfork?

It seems that hardly anyone is going to run untested code, so it had seemed that getting segwit was going to mean running core code that has already been vetted and tested, but now that is becoming a bit more confusing about what code is going to be run and is there some expectation of inferior code?

So, maybe the market is kind of responding to the first mistaken revelation of positive news that was based on confusing assumptions regarding what they were getting and what code was going to be adopted and seems to be turning out to be a bit more of a shit show than previously expected because there seems to be some lack of clarity regarding what code segwit is going to be implemented first and will the running of such segwit code (or watered down segwit code) be sufficient to cause a form of consensus.. or end up forking in some kind of way.

So even though currently daily signaling 83.3% for segwit2x does not mean the same thing as running a version of segwit code that allows for resolution and actual sufficient hashpower consensus.

In the coming weeks, I'm not ruling out the test of $3k resistance yet, but sideways is becoming a bit more likely than it had been.. maybe they are all a draw? 33% each for up, down and sideways?

or maybe 34.5% up 34% sideways and 31.5% down?

Post: #4603

Why would segwit cause a downward price trend?

If it improves software weakness, wouldn't it be improving the product and causing a price increase?

Post: #4604

(06-21-2017 05:32 PM)monster Wrote:  Why would segwit cause a downward price trend?

If it improves software weakness, wouldn't it be improving the product and causing a price increase?

I think that you are saying the same as me.

Yes, segwit should cause an upwards trend; however, the problem is that there are way too many versions of segwit that are floating out there and way too many scenarios in which it is unclear how it would be implemented, which causes uncertainty.

We know that uncertainty causes either downward price pressures or at least lessens the upwards price pressures.

Post: #4605

Here's a good read about the invention of triple entry accounting in 1989, some history of accounting, the application of triple entry accounting to bitcoin, and some current arguments poo pooing crypto currencies.

https://hackernoon.com/why-everyone-miss...0b0151c169

Post: #4606

(06-21-2017 05:11 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  I am having a bit of a difficulty considering exactly what is our current BTC price range that should be considered as sideways. There is so much going on right now in regards to the multiple forks and threats of forks... It's confusing the fuck out of me.

As you likely recall, about a week ago (or was it even that long ago?), I was considering about $2,250 and $2,650 to be the BTC trading range and that a break above $2,650 meant that we were going to be testing $3k - but then the subsequent news has kind of screwed up the price range and the seeming likely journey towards testing $3k - and even seems to have increased the possibility of a break downwards... though price still seems to be holding fairly well with fairly high ongoing trade volume, at least at the moment.

Maybe currently, we can define sideways as anywhere between $2,500 and $2,750?

Regarding the segwit2x situation, initially, I thought that news was bullish because likely the market was thinking that we would be getting segwit in some kind of meaningful and certain form and that it was not really the hardfork that it initially presented itself as - however, now, there is some lack of clarity about either getting a meaningful kind of segwit and even if some kind of watered down segwit within segwi2x might involve some inferior code that is not really equivalent to the actual segwit.... and even with all of that whether the situation is going to be able to avert some kind of hardfork?

It seems that hardly anyone is going to run untested code, so it had seemed that getting segwit was going to mean running core code that has already been vetted and tested, but now that is becoming a bit more confusing about what code is going to be run and is there some expectation of inferior code?

So, maybe the market is kind of responding to the first mistaken revelation of positive news that was based on confusing assumptions regarding what they were getting and what code was going to be adopted and seems to be turning out to be a bit more of a shit show than previously expected because there seems to be some lack of clarity regarding what code segwit is going to be implemented first and will the running of such segwit code (or watered down segwit code) be sufficient to cause a form of consensus.. or end up forking in some kind of way.

So even though currently daily signaling 83.3% for segwit2x does not mean the same thing as running a version of segwit code that allows for resolution and actual sufficient hashpower consensus.

In the coming weeks, I'm not ruling out the test of $3k resistance yet, but sideways is becoming a bit more likely than it had been.. maybe they are all a draw? 33% each for up, down and sideways?

or maybe 34.5% up 34% sideways and 31.5% down?

Currently, with price moving between $2512 and $2550, we are largely within the bottom of my earlier description of the sideways price range, yet since we are at the bottom of such price range, chances become a bit greater for a further break downwards.

I am not sure whether we would call such further break downwards, if it were to occur, the third leg of the earlier correction or a new correction phase. I suppose that it could be seen from either perspective - however, a third leg would indicate that it has considerable potential of breaking quite below the low of the earlier leg (which was about $2130), yet I think that there is going to be considerable resistance along the way, so even getting to $2130, this time is going to take quite a few coins, and I have my doubts about going that low.

We could have already experienced the bottom, but I would not be too surprised to experience prices as low as $2350. On the other hand, I do think it will be a bit tougher to go below $2,350. So, consider some strategic buys, but don't get too greedy because we may not go as low as you might expect.

Oh, regarding various alts, the correction seems to be in the same general percentage arena as bitcoin, but some folks believe that the negative performance of alts could further drag down BTC - yet I remain steadfast in my perspective that such relationship is not necessarily going to correlate so much - yet I have no real ability to call this except to watch... and maybe see if there is any divergence pattern that seems to begin to be playing out.

Post: #4607

Bitcoin has the userbase, but at current state it is not a high performance currency.
How the community is able to develop the currency without becoming fragmented is the real question.
I used to think of bitcoin as more of a safe currency. But unless they are able to do some successful implementations over the next year, they could easily see themselves bypassed by another currency.

Post: #4608

(03-14-2013 12:20 AM)Cyclone Wrote:  I invested $500 in BTC back in December, back when it was =12 USD.
I bought molly in January, when it was at =14 USD.

Now, it is at =45USD. That far eclipses the profit I made from the molly. Kicking myself!!!

Still waiting for it to crash before investing again.

Have spent about an hour looking at old posts from the beginning of this thread. This one cracked me up.

Looking at these old posts gives great insight as to what's happening now.

Post: #4609

(06-25-2017 01:07 AM)pants Wrote:  Bitcoin has the userbase, but at current state it is not a high performance currency.
How the community is able to develop the currency without becoming fragmented is the real question.
I used to think of bitcoin as more of a safe currency. But unless they are able to do some successful implementations over the next year, they could easily see themselves bypassed by another currency.

Bitcoin is difficult to "develop". It is what is is and changes are difficult to make.

Post: #4610

(06-25-2017 01:07 AM)pants Wrote:  Bitcoin has the userbase, but at current state it is not a high performance currency.
How the community is able to develop the currency without becoming fragmented is the real question.
I used to think of bitcoin as more of a safe currency. But unless they are able to do some successful implementations over the next year, they could easily see themselves bypassed by another currency.

Seems like you are going to be limited in your thinking if you are placing bitcoin in a "currency" category, even though that is one of the ways it can be used, and possibly more in the future.

By the way, are there any cryptocoins that are actually being used more than bitcoin as a currency, currently? thinking about liquidation avenues?

And you should likely realize that bitcoin will have a lot more potential to be used as a currency, once seg wit and thereafter lightning network is implemented - though currently, there are some countries, such as the USA that create a lot of tax and accounting disincentives regarding treating bitcoin as a currency.. and there are some other countries, like Japan that are more less burdensome in that regard..

Probably a little bit of wait and see, but I repeat that it seems a bit premature and maybe even missing material and important aspects of bitcoin to get too much caught up in today "currency" considerations. Value propositions such as secure immutable value storage and remittances and avoiding capital controls would be much more important features, at least at the moment.

Post: #4611

(06-25-2017 02:19 AM)Bill Brasky Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 12:20 AM)Cyclone Wrote:  I invested $500 in BTC back in December, back when it was =12 USD.
I bought molly in January, when it was at =14 USD.

Now, it is at =45USD. That far eclipses the profit I made from the molly. Kicking myself!!!

Still waiting for it to crash before investing again.

Have spent about an hour looking at old posts from the beginning of this thread. This one cracked me up.

Looking at these old posts gives great insight as to what's happening now.

What do you mean?

What is happening now?

Do you think that we are about to spurt up?

We know what happened in earlier price rises, there were some people waiting for the price to drop, and the price never dropped back to their expected levels.

Of course, I personally already feel sufficiently and adequately stocked up, and I do not know what price people should wait in order to begin to invest in bitcoin, so in that regard, when anyone asks, I recommend a more proactive and hybrid plan that may allow for some waiting, but also to get started right away, and don't get so occupied that the price is approaching $3k - get a plan and start right away.

Post: #4612

(06-25-2017 04:58 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 01:07 AM)pants Wrote:  Bitcoin has the userbase, but at current state it is not a high performance currency.
How the community is able to develop the currency without becoming fragmented is the real question.
I used to think of bitcoin as more of a safe currency. But unless they are able to do some successful implementations over the next year, they could easily see themselves bypassed by another currency.

Seems like you are going to be limited in your thinking if you are placing bitcoin in a "currency" category, even though that is one of the ways it can be used, and possibly more in the future.

By the way, are there any cryptocoins that are actually being used more than bitcoin as a currency, currently? thinking about liquidation avenues?

And you should likely realize that bitcoin will have a lot more potential to be used as a currency, once seg wit and thereafter lightning network is implemented - though currently, there are some countries, such as the USA that create a lot of tax and accounting disincentives regarding treating bitcoin as a currency.. and there are some other countries, like Japan that are more less burdensome in that regard..

Probably a little bit of wait and see, but I repeat that it seems a bit premature and maybe even missing material and important aspects of bitcoin to get too much caught up in today "currency" considerations. Value propositions such as secure immutable value storage and remittances and avoiding capital controls would be much more important features, at least at the moment.

Why would I not put Bitcoin in the category with currencies?

More implementations are possible, but trying to gather the bitcoin community to pull in the same direction could be a challenge.

On one side:
Its easier to build from scratch than to update existing, giving altcoins the upper hand.

On the other side:
Infrastructure has already been developed for bitcoin, and moving millions of people could possibly be even harder than to 'fix' bitcoin.

Post: #4613

(06-25-2017 05:11 AM)pants Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 04:58 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 01:07 AM)pants Wrote:  Bitcoin has the userbase, but at current state it is not a high performance currency.
How the community is able to develop the currency without becoming fragmented is the real question.
I used to think of bitcoin as more of a safe currency. But unless they are able to do some successful implementations over the next year, they could easily see themselves bypassed by another currency.

Seems like you are going to be limited in your thinking if you are placing bitcoin in a "currency" category, even though that is one of the ways it can be used, and possibly more in the future.

By the way, are there any cryptocoins that are actually being used more than bitcoin as a currency, currently? thinking about liquidation avenues?

And you should likely realize that bitcoin will have a lot more potential to be used as a currency, once seg wit and thereafter lightning network is implemented - though currently, there are some countries, such as the USA that create a lot of tax and accounting disincentives regarding treating bitcoin as a currency.. and there are some other countries, like Japan that are more less burdensome in that regard..

Probably a little bit of wait and see, but I repeat that it seems a bit premature and maybe even missing material and important aspects of bitcoin to get too much caught up in today "currency" considerations. Value propositions such as secure immutable value storage and remittances and avoiding capital controls would be much more important features, at least at the moment.

Why would I not put Bitcoin in the category with currencies?

More implementations are possible, but trying to gather the bitcoin community to pull in the same direction could be a challenge.

On one side:
Its easier to build from scratch than to update existing, giving altcoins the upper hand.

On the other side:
Infrastructure has already been developed for bitcoin, and moving millions of people could possibly be even harder than to 'fix' bitcoin.

I thought that I already explained that it seems to be an ongoing area in which bitcoin is criticized for supposedly being inadequate - and bitcoin is way too small to be any kind of meaningful currency - even though people try to argue that it should be a currency and should be a better currency.

You can do what you want, but I get a little bit irritated by those arguments that seem to be attempting to prescribe what bitcoin should be rather than already accepting it for many other features that it already is - and sure bitcoin might become a decent currency in the future, but it is a long way from that at the present. Also, people like to compare bitcoin to credit cards.. well go use your fucking credit cards, bitcoin is not currently any where close to a level to be used as a decent credit card, even though there are some folks who are developing bitcoin in the credit card arena.

By the way, which crypto coins do you see possibly coming into the bitcoin space in regards to currency? Ethereum? Some other coin?

Also, as you may know, based on current market cap, currently. bitcoin is ranked approximately 49 in regards to size in the M1 money supply category - but I still think that it has a whole hell of a long way to go in terms of size and adoption before it is even reasonable to be criticizing it for being inadequate in the currency regard. Sure it does some currency functions, but it has better and more important value in other areas as I already mentioned in my earlier post.

Post: #4614

(06-25-2017 05:22 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  By the way, which crypto coins do you see possibly coming into the bitcoin space in regards to currency? Ethereum? Some other coin?

Also, as you may know, based on current market cap, currently. bitcoin is ranked approximately 49 in regards to size in the M1 money supply category - but I still think that it has a whole hell of a long way to go in terms of size and adoption before it is even reasonable to be criticizing it for being inadequate in the currency regard. Sure it does some currency functions, but it has better and more important value in other areas as I already mentioned in my earlier post.

Long-term I see Bitcion fading away. A currency needs to be stable against assets and BTC can't be stable unless it's changed in numerous ways. I think it will be quite difficult to replicate the [attempts at] stablising functions of a central bank in crypto, particularly in a way that is decentralised. I've been making this argument for years to BTC fanatics. They are finally realising it and now prefer to sell BTC as a form of e-gold - preservation of wealth, but I think the problem with that is that the value of Bitcoin is almost wholly the speculation that it will go up in value. It has little value beyond that and there are plenty of other coins that have all BTC's properties and more. BTC has been a store of value since 2009, but I don't think it has the properties to establish itself as such over the next century.

Although I wouldn't buy right this moment I think the best bet to hold for the next 5 years is ETH. ETH has a real economy growing around it and has far more potential utility than BTC. In the long-term coins can't just be something that people are interested in because of the possibility of making money by doing nothing, if crypto is to succeed it must embed itself into the real, productive economy.

I think we will see crypto follow a similar path as the Internet:

Internet:

1985 - First sites
1990 - Used by geeks on BBS, HTML invented
1995 - First serious Internet companies like Amazon
2000 - About 20% of people in The West are online, but in early experimental phases, most of which will failed and many of which people bought into in sepculative craze
2005 - About 50% of people in The West online, about 1% of The West's economy is online, stronger companies are now obvious: Google, Amazon
2010 - About 75% of people in The West have internet access, about 5% of the economy is online
2015 - Many people now work and live online, 10% of The West's economy is online, about 90% of people in The West have internet access

If you want to pan that out to crypto:

2009 - Bitcoin lauched
2014 - Mined by geeks, traded on dark markets, Ethereum developed
2019 - First serious crypto companies - banks?
2024 - 20% of people in The West hold some crypto
2029 - 1% of transactions in The West with crypto, serious players now reconginsed
2034 - 5% of transactions in crypto
2039 - crypto overtakes traditional finaicial sector as share of GDP, 10% of transactions in crypto, 90% hold

I don't think Bitcoin has the properties to survive the rigors that crypto needs to go through to establish itself on a timeline something like the above. Until crypto can attach itself to the real economy - either as a medium exchange, provider of trust, services etc, its value is almost wholly speculative.

My favourite speculative bets: LBC, SJCX, TKS, GOLOS, BAY. Though I expect most of them to die eventually, but don't let that stop you riding the bull wave high:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gfntBEI3Aw

Post: #4615

(06-25-2017 04:49 PM)gework Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 05:22 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  By the way, which crypto coins do you see possibly coming into the bitcoin space in regards to currency? Ethereum? Some other coin?

Also, as you may know, based on current market cap, currently. bitcoin is ranked approximately 49 in regards to size in the M1 money supply category - but I still think that it has a whole hell of a long way to go in terms of size and adoption before it is even reasonable to be criticizing it for being inadequate in the currency regard. Sure it does some currency functions, but it has better and more important value in other areas as I already mentioned in my earlier post.

Long-term I see Bitcion fading away. A currency needs to be stable against assets and BTC can't be stable unless it's changed in numerous ways. I think it will be quite difficult to replicate the [attempts at] stablising functions of a central bank in crypto, particularly in a way that is decentralised.

From my understanding, bitcoin is stabilized on a mathematic algorithm which likely makes it amongst the more market driven of assets. If you believe that it's algorithm is good in the long term, then you buy.

So Bitcoin's success will likely be to the extent that it is difficult to change - aka decentralized.

Surely, we are going to see how these upcoming changes and challenges are going to play out in the coming months - because it is looking very likely that segregated witness is going to get activated through at least a couple of means and meet both the 80% consensus threshold of one group and likely the 95% consensus threshold of the other group.

Bitcoin might be in a bit more of a challenge when it comes to figuring out how or if the 2mb blocksize limit is going to be implemented... still unclear what level of consensus that is going to have down the road.

(06-25-2017 04:49 PM)gework Wrote:  I've been making this argument for years to BTC fanatics.

Sounds like you are negative about BTC, but if someone is positive about BTC they are a BTC fanatic?

(06-25-2017 04:49 PM)gework Wrote:  They are finally realising it and now prefer to sell BTC as a form of e-gold - preservation of wealth, but I think the problem with that is that the value of Bitcoin is almost wholly the speculation that it will go up in value.

Since bitcoin is decentralized, it may take on certain roles and therefore some folks will spin bitcoin in various ways or attempt to describe bitcoin in various ways. Bitcoin is a lot of things, and gold 2.0 has been described a lot in the past, and likely going to continue to be described as one of the features of bitcoin. surely, bitcoin's portability gives it some advantages over gold.

(06-25-2017 04:49 PM)gework Wrote:  It has little value beyond that and there are plenty of other coins that have all BTC's properties and more. BTC has been a store of value since 2009, but I don't think it has the properties to establish itself as such over the next century.

There is some tension in what you are saying here.

We have bitcoin with a rising market cap. Bitcoin is no where even close from diminishing. We have a bunch of alt coins that are trying to find a space, but a large number of them are in very early stages that are much younger than bitcoin. So, yeah some of those alts might find use cases, and some of their use cases might be tact on to bitcoin too, through side chains.

You don't find useful a system of computers that have been built around bitcoin? Sure some of that computing power could be redirected, but for some reason there is still a whole hell of a lot of computing power that is being directed towards mining bitcoin in a free market kind of way... free market means that miners are choosing how to direct their computing power.

(06-25-2017 04:49 PM)gework Wrote:  Although I wouldn't buy right this moment I think the best bet to hold for the next 5 years is ETH. ETH has a real economy growing around it and has far more potential utility than BTC. In the long-term coins can't just be something that people are interested in because of the possibility of making money by doing nothing, if crypto is to succeed it must embed itself into the real, productive economy.

There seems to be a considerable amount of hype and developing going around ETH, at the moment. We are not sure how it is going to play out and if some of the bugginess of ETH is going to play out, either. Surely ETH has been developed to be more flexible than bitcoin, and maybe that will work to its advantage.. and maybe it will displace some use cases of bitcoin... possibly... Bitcoin could absorb some of those ETH use cases as side chains, too.. and it may take a bit of time to verify whether the larger security of bitcoin matters and whether ETH develops better security or has some attacks before its security is sufficiently developed and tested.

(06-25-2017 04:49 PM)gework Wrote:  I think we will see crypto follow a similar path as the Internet:

Internet:

1985 - First sites
1990 - Used by geeks on BBS, HTML invented
1995 - First serious Internet companies like Amazon
2000 - About 20% of people in The West are online, but in early experimental phases, most of which will failed and many of which people bought into in sepculative craze
2005 - About 50% of people in The West online, about 1% of The West's economy is online, stronger companies are now obvious: Google, Amazon
2010 - About 75% of people in The West have internet access, about 5% of the economy is online
2015 - Many people now work and live online, 10% of The West's economy is online, about 90% of people in The West have internet access

If you want to pan that out to crypto:

2009 - Bitcoin lauched
2014 - Mined by geeks, traded on dark markets, Ethereum developed
2019 - First serious crypto companies - banks?
2024 - 20% of people in The West hold some crypto
2029 - 1% of transactions in The West with crypto, serious players now reconginsed
2034 - 5% of transactions in crypto
2039 - crypto overtakes traditional finaicial sector as share of GDP, 10% of transactions in crypto, 90% hold

Fair enough time line ideas.

(06-25-2017 04:49 PM)gework Wrote:  I don't think Bitcoin has the properties to survive the rigors that crypto needs to go through to establish itself on a timeline something like the above. Until crypto can attach itself to the real economy - either as a medium exchange, provider of trust, services etc, its value is almost wholly speculative.

There continues to be a combination of speculation and use cases with bitcoin, and these nonsense arguments about bitcoin being purely speculative have been going on for a considerable amount of time. Even if bitcoin happens to be 95% speculative, there is still 5% use case. I don't know the exact quantity of speculation, but use cases are going to continue to evolve as the development continues and adoption continues. You can look at a lot of metrics to see that bitcoin is being used a lot, and that use is increasing as time goes on and bitcoin remains at the top of it's recent price range and seems to have continuing and ongoing price pressures, whether speculation or not, the trend seems to continue up, and guys can choose whether or not to invest and the timeline for their investment.

(06-25-2017 04:49 PM)gework Wrote:  My favourite speculative bets: LBC, SJCX, TKS, GOLOS, BAY. Though I expect most of them to die eventually, but don't let that stop you riding the bull wave high:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gfntBEI3Aw

Yep you can play these various unknowns, and research into them, and consider both upside and downside and your own strategy in regards to your personal circumstances including how many asset classes you want to juggle and with how much of your capital you want to put into them, if any.

Post: #4616

This 1 hour 13 minute video was recently uploaded, so I believe it is from this week.

It discusses segwit2x and the ETH flash crash. Nice content, informative, and seemingly bullish about bitcoin in both the short term and long term.

Post: #4617

Here's a decent article that gives quite a few reasons why bitcoin is not likely to fade away, as argued by gework.


https://cointelegraph.com/news/five-reas...re-to-stay

Furthermore, I had been giving some further considerations to timeline possibilities, and sure it is good to have 20 or 30 years in mind, or even longer; however, as individuals, even if we might invest for 20 or 30 years, we also make a lot of shorter term investments and probably, at minimum annual tweaks or considerations to our quasi-liquid investments.

Unless you put bitcoin in a trust or have some other restrictions in the way you bought it, it remains a very liquid kind of investment, and since it is very volatile, there is a potential to reassess your own holdings in it several times a year - so all find and dandy to have a 20 year more projection, but I certainly don't lock myself in those kinds of time frames, even though I am bullish in that direction.

I feel that I can pull out at any time, but when trading, there is a certain ongoing monitoring, while having a plan to stay the course that seems to be at least several years, unless some important aspect changes in the immediate future.


Here's a second article bullish on bitcoin and just released.

http://www.newsbtc.com/2017/06/26/ignore...e-bitcoin/

Post: #4618

(06-25-2017 05:03 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 02:19 AM)Bill Brasky Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 12:20 AM)Cyclone Wrote:  I invested $500 in BTC back in December, back when it was =12 USD.
I bought molly in January, when it was at =14 USD.

Now, it is at =45USD. That far eclipses the profit I made from the molly. Kicking myself!!!

Still waiting for it to crash before investing again.

Have spent about an hour looking at old posts from the beginning of this thread. This one cracked me up.

Looking at these old posts gives great insight as to what's happening now.

What do you mean?

What is happening now?

Do you think that we are about to spurt up?

We know what happened in earlier price rises, there were some people waiting for the price to drop, and the price never dropped back to their expected levels.

Of course, I personally already feel sufficiently and adequately stocked up, and I do not know what price people should wait in order to begin to invest in bitcoin, so in that regard, when anyone asks, I recommend a more proactive and hybrid plan that may allow for some waiting, but also to get started right away, and don't get so occupied that the price is approaching $3k - get a plan and start right away.

I was talking about wild price swings and uncertainty. The fact that this guy didn't want to buy at $45 and wanted to wait for a "crash" for it to come back down reminds me of how I'm thinking now.

I personally believe it will go lower as will ETH but I'm not selling off any positions at the moment no matter what.

Post: #4619

(06-26-2017 09:43 AM)Bill Brasky Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 05:03 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 02:19 AM)Bill Brasky Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 12:20 AM)Cyclone Wrote:  I invested $500 in BTC back in December, back when it was =12 USD.
I bought molly in January, when it was at =14 USD.

Now, it is at =45USD. That far eclipses the profit I made from the molly. Kicking myself!!!

Still waiting for it to crash before investing again.

Have spent about an hour looking at old posts from the beginning of this thread. This one cracked me up.

Looking at these old posts gives great insight as to what's happening now.

What do you mean?

What is happening now?

Do you think that we are about to spurt up?

We know what happened in earlier price rises, there were some people waiting for the price to drop, and the price never dropped back to their expected levels.

Of course, I personally already feel sufficiently and adequately stocked up, and I do not know what price people should wait in order to begin to invest in bitcoin, so in that regard, when anyone asks, I recommend a more proactive and hybrid plan that may allow for some waiting, but also to get started right away, and don't get so occupied that the price is approaching $3k - get a plan and start right away.

I was talking about wild price swings and uncertainty. The fact that this guy didn't want to buy at $45 and wanted to wait for a "crash" for it to come back down reminds me of how I'm thinking now.

I personally believe it will go lower as will ETH but I'm not selling off any positions at the moment no matter what.

O.k. Thanks for that clarification. Even though I am well over 3.5 years of involvement in bitcoin, I do experience uncertainties from time to time, and I find it necessary to tweak my position a bit in order to feel a little bit better. Sometimes when I tweak, I might buy or sell a little to feel more comfortable, and other times, I just make a more solid plan regarding buying and selling points in order to have a plan for scenarios that at an earlier time I felt were not likely but have become more likely because of the passage of other events.

Bitcoin is certainly one of the most volatile of assets that I have ever invested in over the long term, and I have become more of a trader because of that volatility both to profit from the volatility and more importantly to attempt to hedge my bets a bit.

It is my belief that ETH and several of the other alts, including ICOs are likely to be much more volatile than bitcoin - and that is why as a percentage I am much more leary to involve myself with them or to spend time identifying entry and exit price points. Sometimes an entry or exit price point might become obvious to me, and then I do have some resources in place to take a position in some of those, but certainly, there is a lot of action in the space, so every RVF guy is going to be somewhat limited in what kinds of actions he is ready, willing and able to take because there are only so many hours in the day and only so many things that a guy can monitor at once, and still attempt to have a decent life outside of the seemingly fast pace of crypto.

By the way, with bitcoin, I am somewhat prepared for a third correction leg down to $1,500, but with the passage of time, I am considering that downward leg to be less and less likely and even to be less severe. I do have a regular plan that involves buying incrementally all the way down, but I do like to prepare for BIG MOVES, too, so I am thinking that I am likely to get stuck holding the fiat that I have that is available for such severe downward leg purposes, if such a third downward leg were to occur.

Post: #4620

(06-25-2017 11:12 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  Sounds like you are negative about BTC, but if someone is positive about BTC they are a BTC fanatic?

Bit too much for me today on my scheduled, but this: No. I am positive about BTC, mainly that you can make money if you buy the bear market we seem to be moving into. It's possible that some large-scale use will arise, though I am doubtful. But I know people who are hard BTC fanatics. They pushed it as a currency and my arguments against that were meet with non-arguments and bad arguments, like the limited supply makes BTC a good currency, when the opposite is true when looking at historic examples. Now, the e-gold angle is being pushed and it's true for the recent past, we can only wait and see.

Then I know other people who are big into STEEM and GOLOS. Their fanaticism for these coins is they can make lots of money by posting often junky articles or voting up some articles. Some people with a lot of STEEM power have been making $100 or more / day, just for voting up a few articles. This is reminiscent of the dot-com boom when money was being thrown at things, which if examined would be obvious economic dead-ends. People who are economically illiterate have entered a mania they don't want to question, in which they think pressing a few buttons online could net an decent annual income. The wealth in the world is physical items and services built on them. The valuations of these coins has come through people working and producing things, then transferring the $ value to speculative coins with little to no fundamental activity supporting their value. Once it hits mania, smart money pulls the trigger and due to the thin order books, there's not many people who can get out with the mania prices. I just dumped a few thousand dollars of one coin and it's shaved $1,000,000 of the market cap. Hollow prices are quickly revealed in a correction.



About $30,000 will take it to $0.

Then it starts to become obvious to people you can't earn a living just holding coins or pressing buttons on the internet.

These are the fanatics, who often tend to get angry when you provide logical arguments based on something realer than mania. So I was not referring to you. Your comments seem to be pretty measured with a combination of conservative and liberal sentiment.

(06-26-2017 10:05 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  By the way, with bitcoin, I am somewhat prepared for a third correction leg down to $1,500, but with the passage of time.

Also looking for quite a big move down. BTC hit $4,500 in South Korea and is now at about $2,700. As it goes lower there will be more people who can't take the pain dumping into the thin books.



On technical we see the price has been following the upper Bollinger band pretty consistently since the March bull wave. When it did go sideways it never fell out the bottom band until recently. Now fallen out of the bottom BBand on 1D, which it's not done since March
On 1W we have three red candles
12H-1W RSI all pointing down and yet to reach 30 RSI
Long-short positions are showing an increasingly strong sell sentiment
USD margin funding is falling though still showing decent support around this $2300 level
1W + 3D MACD about to cross and just crossed

I sold all my shitcoins and am resting in BTC to see how big this bounce is. Then I think I'll rest as the technicals and sentiment suggest a prolonged move down.

My guess is bounce to around $2,500-2,700 then continue the same relatively low volume and slow movements down to testing sub-$2,000 range. More and quicker if we see some big dumps, which haven't happened yet.

On BitStamp the first bubble popping was $260 -> $60 (77% drop), $1,170 -> $340 (71% drop).

60-70% drop this time would be to $1,200 and $900 respectively.

Post: #4621

(06-26-2017 05:15 PM)gework Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 11:12 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  Sounds like you are negative about BTC, but if someone is positive about BTC they are a BTC fanatic?

Bit too much for me today on my scheduled, but this: No. I am positive about BTC, mainly that you can make money if you buy the bear market we seem to be moving into.

Wow!! You made a lot of very decent explanatory points, so thanks for that.

It is possible that I misread some of your words and your sentiment, and surely there is no problem that guys are going to have varying levels of information, give differing weight to some evidence and arrive at varying conclusions. In that regard, it can be helpful to bat around different perspectives, even if there are considerable areas of disagreement.

Regarding your suggestion in the above sentence that we are moving into a bear market, you seem to be considerably premature in such a calling.

Sure, later on you may prove to be correct, but I doubt that you can really reasonably and reliably call the beginning of a bear market because there are way too many things going on in bitcoinlandia and they cryptospace at the moment - all of which affects short term and longer term prices.

Furthermore, I know that you can look at the charts as easily as I can, but it is fairly obvious that BTC prices have been on the run (upwards) for a bit less than two years; however, it was only a tad more than two months ago that BTC prices were pretty solidly below $1200. So, in that regard, I hope you appreciate that prices would have to go and likely stay below $1200 for a considerable time in order for a bear market to be realized.. yeah, sure there are other ways to arrive at a correct conclusion that we have entered into a bear market, but mere price corrections and multiple corrections don't really seem to suffice in such bear definition conclusions.

(06-26-2017 05:15 PM)gework Wrote:  It's possible that some large-scale use will arise, though I am doubtful. But I know people who are hard BTC fanatics. They pushed it as a currency and my arguments against that were meet with non-arguments and bad arguments, like the limited supply makes BTC a good currency, when the opposite is true when looking at historic examples. Now, the e-gold angle is being pushed and it's true for the recent past, we can only wait and see.

Yeah, but individuals are all over the fucking place with their perceptions, and sure there are likely trends that you identify in which certain use case arguments are made - but so what? Can't we already recognize that there are a few fairly solid use cases that already exist in the present including secure storage of value, remittance vehicle, vehicle for ameliorating or even avoiding some capital controls... and sure there are some other minor additional use cases, and there is also future potential of use cases, which all bring present value and speculative value both in terms of present value and future value.

(06-26-2017 05:15 PM)gework Wrote:  Then I know other people who are big into STEEM and GOLOS. Their fanaticism for these coins is they can make lots of money by posting often junky articles or voting up some articles. Some people with a lot of STEEM power have been making $100 or more / day, just for voting up a few articles.

Well, isn't this getting a bit anectdotal? Of course, in the past year, we have witnessed all kinds of attempts at use cases in the crypto space, and some of it is on paper and some aspects have been put into practice too. So, yeah, there may be a future in a lot of coins, and even a bit of seeming fanaticism - but at the same time, aren't we dehumanizing people when we describe their fews as fanatic?

Sure, some folks go all into something or even they overinvest, but in any investment there are going to be people who take a variety of approaches, and even gamble and even take advantage of the alleged "fanaticism" of others (or at least the seeming fanatacism of the market in general)

(06-26-2017 05:15 PM)gework Wrote:  This is reminiscent of the dot-com boom when money was being thrown at things, which if examined would be obvious economic dead-ends. People who are economically illiterate have entered a mania they don't want to question, in which they think pressing a few buttons online could net an decent annual income.

Yeah, sure, but we may still get another year of boom in the crypto space, or we may be at the top, as you seem to want to argue.

(06-26-2017 05:15 PM)gework Wrote:  The wealth in the world is physical items and services built on them.

I suppose there is some truth in what you are saying, but there is also wealth in a lot of intangibles, too, including good will and credit and confidence that exists in certain areas about investing in perceptions of present and future value.

(06-26-2017 05:15 PM)gework Wrote:  The valuations of these coins has come through people working and producing things, then transferring the $ value to speculative coins with little to no fundamental activity supporting their value.

I think that if we try to define value too narrowly, then we are going to get into trouble no? Sometimes value is can be "as much as someone is willing to pay for it, at that time." So, we may have fundamentals, speculation and perceptions and momentum that causes prices to move, and then the fact that the price moves can create value, too that creates more momentum.. Does not mean that momentum is stable value, but it is still value that can evolve into something more than originally perceived and even evolve into fundamental value..

(06-26-2017 05:15 PM)gework Wrote:  Once it hits mania, smart money pulls the trigger and due to the thin order books, there's not many people who can get out with the mania prices.

Of course, both smart money and people with a lot of capital are going to be able to play in ways that are favorable to themselves and also to take advantage of momentum that they create or even momentum that they perceive that they are able to create.. but also sometimes the momentum evolves beyond the ability of BIG players to manipulate because there are other BIG players in the space, and even sometimes SMART money is forced to go along with momentum and price directions that they did not expect.

(06-26-2017 05:15 PM)gework Wrote:  I just dumped a few thousand dollars of one coin and it's shaved $1,000,000 of the market cap. Hollow prices are quickly revealed in a correction.



About $30,000 will take it to $0.

Of course there are all kinds of coins and exchanges in which you may be able to identify thin order books, and possibly profit from pumps or dumps, and even though I don't attempt to play in those areas, I am sure that there are many people who play those areas and have varying strategies to play thin order books.

I am not sure what you are arguing, here, except that there exists thin order books in the crypto space and there are ways to attempt to profitably play the thin order books or to get played if you don't account for others playing them.

(06-26-2017 05:15 PM)gework Wrote:  Then it starts to become obvious to people you can't earn a living just holding coins or pressing buttons on the internet.

These are the fanatics, who often tend to get angry when you provide logical arguments based on something realer than mania.

I doubt that a fanatic would necessarily be someone who has figured out a way to make a living by clicking buttons on the internet? I think that a lot of guys would like to be able to figure out a way to have mostly passive income; however, frequently we are going to recognize that in order to achieve a high enough level of passive income you have to build up a certain amount of value in your holdings and even hedging and even realistic future projections of value and income stream.

Fanatacism is likely more on a sliding scale and relative, rather than any absolute definition - because some people might seem like fanatatics even you only take a snap shot or only see them at a certain angle.

(06-26-2017 05:15 PM)gework Wrote:  So I was not referring to you.

hahahahaha... unless you are directly attacking, I try not to take matters too personally on the interwebs, even though sometimes, it may seem like I am going on the attack and surely some guys take my level of response to be too strong.

Certainly, guys attack, and I try to be somewhat measured in the level that I might go tit for tat, yet at the same time, I understand that the tit for tat can become ambiguous concerning who started it, and even get lost in the context - so yes, I will readily revert back to substantive discussion with someone who seems to want to engage in such substantive discussion regarding bitcoin related matters.

(06-26-2017 05:15 PM)gework Wrote:  Your comments seem to be pretty measured with a combination of conservative and liberal sentiment.

Thanks. I try to not let my investment get into the way of my commentary - or my raising of questions, and even though I profit more from BTC prices going up, I do attempt to prepare for both price directions and just attempt to be as neutral as I can be regarding commentary that I find persuasive or less persuasive.

I understand also that sometimes it can take quite a bit of effort for guys to back up what they are saying, and I might perceive an RVF guy to be overly bearish, and I understand that sometimes it might be difficult for a guy to set forth all of his arguments, besides maybe a mere feeling that the price is going down in timeline x, y or z.

(06-26-2017 05:15 PM)gework Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 10:05 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  By the way, with bitcoin, I am somewhat prepared for a third correction leg down to $1,500, but with the passage of time.

Also looking for quite a big move down. BTC hit $4,500 in South Korea and is now at about $2,700. As it goes lower there will be more people who can't take the pain dumping into the thin books.

I understand that if the BTC price is moving a lot in a short period of time, such large movements cause the order books to thin, yet today there are more than 150 exchanges and locations in which people trade bitcoin and affect the BTC prices, one or two order books may not influence the price - yet at the same time, some exchanges seem to have more influence over price than others - while at the same time, there seem to be pretty big players that continue to push the price with ongoing higher and higher levels of trade volume, that is not too likely to dry up in the very near future. In other words, there seems to be continued and ongoing passion about the current price, disagreement about the price and no real clear ability to call the direction one way or another - even though I still, personally, am a bit more inclined towards up.. but yeah, I might need to discuss and clarify my position too, because prices have recently dipped below what I had called as the trading range, while at the same time we continue to have really decent ongoing buying pressure.

(06-26-2017 05:15 PM)gework Wrote:  On technical we see the price has been following the upper Bollinger band pretty consistently since the March bull wave. When it did go sideways it never fell out the bottom band until recently. Now fallen out of the bottom BBand on 1D, which it's not done since March

We have seen over and over again that bitcoin will frequently defy technicals - so even though arguments can be made based on technicals, those technicals remain far from conclusive in terms of giving a strong and even persuasive sense of downwards direction from our current price range today - largely between $2300 and $2550..

(06-26-2017 05:15 PM)gework Wrote:  On 1W we have three red candles
12H-1W RSI all pointing down and yet to reach 30 RSI
Long-short positions are showing an increasingly strong sell sentiment
USD margin funding is falling though still showing decent support around this $2300 level
1W + 3D MACD about to cross and just crossed

For consistency, we have been using bitstamp in this thread to describe and argue various market dynamics. Sometimes it will make a difference and sometimes not, but in order for guys to be able to grasp more easily it seems to be better to attempt to use bitstamp for analysis.

Over the past 13 weeks, Bitstamp has three weekly red candles (This week's candle is starting out red, but only one day into the weekly candle is way too early to call).


Regarding some of your technical analysis conclusions, I think that you are calling way too many of these too early. Surely, at the moment we seem to be experiencing a bit of a dumping in the alt coin space too, which is having an affect regarding whether folks are dumping into bitcoin or dumping into fiat.

Maybe you and I could argue about various price factors until we are blue in the face? Yet, in the end, I likely will not have strong sentiments, either way because I am prepared either way. At the moment I am slightly more inclined to believe that we have upwards pressures and going to go up.. but maybe, as I type, my sentiment is really only in the 55% up / 45% down arena... So you are not going to get me to be too passionate if you happen to be 80% down and 20% up.. but if you are approaching 90% or 100% down, then I might get a bit more passionate to inquire how the fuck you know with such confidence? hahahahahaha

(06-26-2017 05:15 PM)gework Wrote:  I sold all my shitcoins and am resting in BTC to see how big this bounce is. Then I think I'll rest as the technicals and sentiment suggest a prolonged move down.

My guess is bounce to around $2,500-2,700 then continue the same relatively low volume and slow movements down to testing sub-$2,000 range. More and quicker if we see some big dumps, which haven't happened yet.

You and I seem to be reading trade volume differently. You seem to have the impression that trade volume is low and shrinking, and I think that it continues to be high.. sure trade volume levels can change, but as I type, I believe that they are relatively high.. and I believe that it takes a while for them to dry up, and I cannot really imagine trade volumes shrinking in any kind of meaningful way in the near future based on how much is continuing to happen in the space...

there continues to be so much happening in the cryptospace, that is it is kind of wearing me out..

(06-26-2017 05:15 PM)gework Wrote:  On BitStamp the first bubble popping was $260 -> $60 (77% drop), $1,170 -> $340 (71% drop).

60-70% drop this time would be to $1,200 and $900 respectively.

O.k. that is fair enough. If we are ready for a bubble popping, then your numbers, here, seem to be reasonable.

I think that we have to see how this bullish segwit2x scaling plays out, but it seems to be developing positively in the interim, which allows for three potential UP ranges, the lowest of which is $4k to $6k, second possible range is $9k to $12k and third range is $16k to $20k.

I kind of sense that we have decent possibilities of breaking up, but you are correct that we would have to break above $2700 first, and then break above $3k before those further price ranges even become reasonable to predict.. so maybe I am thinking odds of about 35%, 20% and less than 10% respectively for those various uprange scenarios to play out prior to any likely 70% plus downward correction.

In other words, up before down.. but surely nothing close to certainty with my tentative prediction...

Post: #4622

I think a zig-zag drop down to around 2000, even 1800, is very possible. It would be good for BTC to take a breather and consolidate at those levels before trying to break the ATH again and heading up to 4-6k.

JJG, don't freak out if it goes down there, keep your head on straight and hodl. If it does consolidate, it's because it needs to.

I don't think a 70% drop is in order yet because those ATHs of old were truly huge breakouts from previous ATH in % terms. I think both ETH chains are more liable for such huge drops. BTC has only doubled its previous ATH. 2x indicates a wave up not an entire move up to a new ATH which could be $4-6k but also could go to $10k. ETH chains by comparison have done 20x or whatever and that is more of the type of move after which we see those huge corrections. BTC has only just beaten its previous ATH of a few years ago, so this move up is relatively new.

Post: #4623

(06-28-2017 02:26 PM)Skank_Hunt Wrote:  I think a zig-zag drop down to around 2000, even 1800, is very possible. It would be good for BTC to take a breather and consolidate at those levels before trying to break the ATH again and heading up to 4-6k.

JJG, don't freak out if it goes down there, keep your head on straight and hodl. If it does consolidate, it's because it needs to.

Hey Skank - even though I "liked" your substance, your analysis and your backing up of your points, I think that your assignment of downwards probabilities to bitcoin prices is a bit too skewed in the downwards direction.

Yes, I recall that you were making a similar kind of downward price prediction when we were in the $900s, and you were suggesting a very decent chance that bitcoin prices were going to go below $700 and such correction was needed.

I know that it is not easy to escape from thinking about the need for price corrections, but for a bit more than 2 weeks we have been experiencing price corrections from the $2900 territory, and we even could go back nearly two months and see that we were receiving price corrections from the $2700s.

What I am trying to say is that a price correction is not "needed" in order to go to the next stage - whether that is to the $4k to $6k territory or even more bullish uprisings such as $9k to $12k territory or even though most bullish of the $16k to $20k arena.

Yeah of course, the higher up, the less likely it becomes, but you are getting me wrong if you think that I am emotionally attached to any of these kinds of price direction probabilities, because my portfolio is certainly prepared for sub $1500 prices, but I am just thinking that it is becoming less and less likely that we are going to experience such a price correction.

Sure it is possible, and that is why I have not blown my whole wadd, or anything near it, on a bet upwards... but anyhow, we still have a lot of upwards price pressures including how this whole segwit2x matter seems to be facilitating a scenario in which it is starting to feel almost inevitable that the real deal segwit portion of the matter is going to implement... that is bullish as fuck.. even though I am only tweaking my own views about upwards because I know that there can be a lot of manipulative dumps and FUD spreading that can cause prices to go opposite of what seems to be the more reasonable direction.

And, this trade volume is not letting up, and that is not telling me that folks are going out there and buying bitcoins, but it is telling me that the bears are struggling to keep prices down and they are using a lot of coins and they are still having troubles getting the price to go down.. Their downward attempt do not seem to be working too well.. and sure we could get some cracking and breaks downward, but the odds are seeming a bit less than 50% for such downward breaks, at the moment.

(06-28-2017 02:26 PM)Skank_Hunt Wrote:  I don't think a 70% drop is in order yet because those ATHs of old were truly huge breakouts from previous ATH in % terms.

hahahahaha

Oh yeah... we certainly are going to have a likely 70% downward break in BTC prices at sometime soon in the future, but absent some kind of falling through of segwit or some other major event like that, I doubt that such 70% downward break is going to come before reaching one of the three upwards stages that I already mentioned (either 1) $4k to $6k, 2) $9k to $12k or 3) $16k to $20k).... thereafter, we are likely going to get a 70% or so correction.. but right now, absent some pretty decent bad news, we are just not in the bubble territory, especially given the fact that I already mentioned.. experiencing several corrections in the past 2 months..

Sure I could be wrong.. but does not seem to be a good bet to be hoping for down and even hoping for anywhere near that level of down based on the current situation.

(06-28-2017 02:26 PM)Skank_Hunt Wrote:  I think both ETH chains are more liable for such huge drops. BTC has only doubled its previous ATH. 2x indicates a wave up not an entire move up to a new ATH which could be $4-6k but also could go to $10k. ETH chains by comparison have done 20x or whatever and that is more of the type of move after which we see those huge corrections.

I agree with you that the violence of any downwards potential in ETH seems to be a lot greater than in bitcoin, but it is really difficult to write them off in terms of only expecting down.

ETH still has the potential to achieve a flippening and even to go way beyond BTC's market cap - even potentially achieving unit price parity with bitcoin or greater.

So, yeah, ETH could have greater price volatility than bitcoin and maybe remains likely to have grater price volatility.

ETH and ETC are not the same thing, so ETC is no where nearly as volatile as ETH, and not likely to be as volatile as ETH - unless for some reason, ETH folks begin to recognize some value in ETC and begin to move in droves over to ETC - which seems a quite unlikely scenario.

(06-28-2017 02:26 PM)Skank_Hunt Wrote:  BTC has only just beaten its previous ATH of a few years ago, so this move up is relatively new.

This is a BIG so fucking what? I mean, just because bitcoin is new ATH territory does not mean that its fundamentals are out of line with the current price. This move up for bitcoin from late 2015 to present, from $250-ish to $2,900 - has been pretty gradual, and even if you want to focus on breaching the previous ATH of $1,163 to $2,980, this portion has been relatively gradual too.. - like over 4 months.. which is relatively gradual given the amount of adoption and development of bitcoin since late 2013.

I just don't appreciate your view that a move into the 2.5x price territory over 4 months for bitcoin (from $1,163 to $2,980) constitutes some kind of unsustainability, given the ongoing trade volume that we have been experiencing, the already existence of several corrections from the upper $2ks, and a seemingly decent and strong resolution of critical aspects of the scaling debate through the at minimum implementation, activation and locking in of seg wit.

I guess the punchline here (TLDR) is that I believe that the odds of up are greater than you are placing them to be, and the odds of down are less than you are placing them to be, and even though I don't agree, I appreciate that you explained how you arrived at your conclusions.

Post: #4624

I admit that especially in Crypto, you can't rely on wave counts or technical analysis anywhere near as much, so maybe one of my suggestions previously didn't occur, that's not out of the ordinary. I just go by the shape of the waves and make the most plausible wave count as anyone would do. Of course there are two scenarios, that on the weekly the big red candle constitutes a 'simple' correction, or that the correction will be more complex as in down-up-(down). First two have occurred - now it needs a down wave extending beyond the previous low of around 2100. Assuming the lengths of the down waves are similar, that leads to around 1800 or thereabouts, which is also near a Fib support making it a bit more likely.

Your post seems a bit defensive in that you think I'm saying "DOWN!" "DOWN!" No man chill out, and if BTC reaches $20k in the next leg up I will eat my own shit and post it on this forum. I'd like BTC to go up 20x like ETH and agree that the move has been relatively gradual compared to ETH.

I think the so-called "flippening" is gay and it should not happen. Whatever hype is around the forked chain of Ethereum it's preposterous to think it could be bigger in mcap than BTC. That means either forked Ethereum needs to go down or BTC needs to shoot up. I still think there is a hell of a lot more value in the original Ethereum chain aka ETC because it can do much of the same shit but is at like 6% of the cost. The context is the insanity of Dogecoin shooting up 20x for no reason, that is a pisstake coin. Sometimes it feels as if ETH forked is a pisstake coin as well in the sense of ridiculous valuation. It's like if the Bitcoin Unlimited guys succeeded with a hard fork and they took over the BTC name because miners voted for it, while the original chain for all this time was forced to call itself something else and keep only 6% of its value compared to the artificially forked chain. Ethereum is ETC, ETH is a fork of ETC. ETH should hopefully go down to more rational levels but who knows in this market. So with your bullish statements about ETH, I am assuming you just bought some ETH or something? I thought you were only in ETC only small % with most still in BTC.

The thing about BTC is as always: as it gets higher, it gets harder to move just as a penny stock can go 10000% quickly but big blue chips reach a point where they're just too big to make those huge moves like before. I guess that's why as a speculative investment Dogecoin or the other copycat coins made better sense to pump. I'd love to see it at $20k but it takes a lot of new money coming in to move a $2500 to nearly 10x that. Not saying it won't happen but it's going to be hard.

Post: #4625

^ Why do you think ETC is better than ETH?

I was under the impression that ETH is a huge improvement over ETC, and that was the whole point of their hard fork.