I actually meant Bitcoin existing in a global bear market environment (2000-2003, 2008-2009), as opposed to Bitcoin itself having a bear market.
Sorry about that.
Topic: Analysis - page 164. (Read 941582 times)
Funny thing is, we haven't seen Bitcoin in a bear market yet.
I beg to disagree, unless you're talking about the monthly chart and very long timeframes. One could argue that the 2013 $266-$60 action was reaccumulation, but there is little doubt that heavy distribution occurred in Nov/Dec 2013 which unraveled nearly 100% of that bubble. I would call that a bear market
I don't think many fund managers even own Bitcoin nor is it on many institutional radars yet. If they don't have bitcoins to sell they probably won't all rush in to sell short during a bear market, especially after a year long downtrend and a weekly double bottom. For that reason digital currencies seem to me a bit detached from existing markets. On the other hand, worldwide economic fear is what has "driven" many of the past price increases in Bitcoin so a worldwide slump could bump up demand... and in a market dried up of selling after a year of it, that could launch a big trend.
I do believe the larger markets influence Bitcoin's price. Keep an eye out.
Do you believe its an inverse correlation or they generally move in the same direction?
Funny thing is, we haven't seen Bitcoin in a bear market yet. Bitcoin was developed right at the start of our current bull market. So if we're about to enter a bear market, I guess we'll see what happens... IMO, I can't imagine it will be an inverse correlation. Large capital likes to flow together like a large river; wealth managers all have the same ideas usually.
Flow into what though, US Dollar, Gold? It would be so explosive if even some of that capital considered Bitcoin a safe heaven.
The usual: Cash (US Dollar), Gov Bonds, Corporate Bonds, Buyouts, Real Estate, Commodities, etc... a lot of the wealth has already moved over in the past year, take a look at a DXY chart or the cost of real estate... partly why I think Bitcoin has done so poorly in the past year and a half, and why I think there will be a bit more shifting to come.
I think most of them consider Bitcoin to be a high-risk investment still so... probably not. I think a lot of people will convert their Bitcoin to USD actually... just makes the most sense to me risk-wise in that sort of environment.
I do believe the larger markets influence Bitcoin's price. Keep an eye out.
Do you believe its an inverse correlation or they generally move in the same direction?
Funny thing is, we haven't seen Bitcoin in a bear market yet. Bitcoin was developed right at the start of our current bull market. So if we're about to enter a bear market, I guess we'll see what happens... IMO, I can't imagine it will be an inverse correlation. Large capital likes to flow together like a large river; wealth managers all have the same ideas usually.
Flow into what though, US Dollar, Gold? It would be so explosive if even some of that capital considered Bitcoin a safe heaven.
I do believe the larger markets influence Bitcoin's price. Keep an eye out.
Do you believe its an inverse correlation or they generally move in the same direction?
Funny thing is, we haven't seen Bitcoin in a bear market yet. Bitcoin was developed right at the start of our current bull market (2009). So if we're about to enter a bear market, I guess we'll see what happens... IMO, I can't imagine it will be an inverse correlation (as it's been positive since 2009-2015, UP). Large capital likes to flow together like a large river; wealth managers all have the same ideas usually.
I do believe the larger markets influence Bitcoin's price. Keep an eye out.
Do you believe its an inverse correlation or they generally move in the same direction?
S&P 500 dipped under level 1 support today, futures currently at 2025. Last strong support at 1985-2000 (yearly EMA).
If (more like when) trading pushes past that support, things will be ugly.
I do believe the larger markets influence Bitcoin's price (if they haven't already). Keep an eye out.
Yes, the support line in bearish case is somewhere at 160. And next high expected in October. Nothing to do here, no good risk/reward opportunities exept current level will hold - buy then with stop close below 230.
The break down of 230 level (daily, weekly volume close) will open door for further bear market. Until that I suppose there will be a range sideways channel.
Or even bitfinex style sideways
Or even bitfinex style sideways
Hello .
I don't understand technical explains very well but i know in 2013 there was a fork that has been solved by bitcoin foundations guys ..... is that true ? if it is , why fork in bitcoin XT is more danger than fork in 2013 ?
What is difference between this fork and that fork ? and why the foundations can not solve it ?
Fork happened due version mismatch along miners which were not interested keeping old version. So foundation called miners, said there is a wrong version and miners changed software quickly.
Now some miners deliberately keep old version and some keep new. Foundation can't just order miners change their mind, as it is political question. So methods of mind enforcing are political - propaganda, black pr and informational war. Someone already calls xt adopters cia agents lol.
As for XT I keep neutral position (however running bitcoin core so far). Let's people vote for bitcoin future. They say slush pool will launch a check box for miners whether to mine core or xt blocks. This is very right.
Here is the worst fork scenario I see.
AFAIK xt blocks will be accepted by mainstream clients as far as they don't exceed 1 mb limit. New version blocks are not fork dangerous for network until they keep 1 mb limit. So xt adoption, if it will grow - should be painless. Until most miners will be xt and first > 1 mb block will be mined.
Since there should be a hard fork for some time until core miners completely loose hashing power enough to take great losses from mining blocks not accepted by mainstream. Great losses should give them up not too long and submit hashing power to xt.
So the period from first big block (along with network power majotity) till capitulation of core miners is a turbulence time and it is better not to receive transactions during it as double spend possible.
Turbulence period should be short if xt miners will enforce 1 mb limit until they reach hashing power majority.
If some xt miners will mine without 1 mb limit until hash power majority, the series of small chain forks expected. So everything depends on big pools behavior.
Here is the worst fork scenario I see.
AFAIK xt blocks will be accepted by mainstream clients as far as they don't exceed 1 mb limit. New version blocks are not fork dangerous for network until they keep 1 mb limit. So xt adoption, if it will grow - should be painless. Until most miners will be xt and first > 1 mb block will be mined.
Since there should be a hard fork for some time until core miners completely loose hashing power enough to take great losses from mining blocks not accepted by mainstream. Great losses should give them up not too long and submit hashing power to xt.
So the period from first big block (along with network power majotity) till capitulation of core miners is a turbulence time and it is better not to receive transactions during it as double spend possible.
Turbulence period should be short if xt miners will enforce 1 mb limit until they reach hashing power majority.
If some xt miners will mine without 1 mb limit until hash power majority, the series of small chain forks expected. So everything depends on big pools behavior.
Hello .
I don't understand technical explains very well but i know in 2013 there was a fork that has been solved by bitcoin foundations guys ..... is that true ? if it is , why fork in bitcoin XT is more danger than fork in 2013 ?
What is difference between this fork and that fork ? and why the foundations can not solve it ?
As for XT I keep neutral position (however running bitcoin core so far). Let's people vote for bitcoin future. They say slush pool will launch a check box for miners whether to mine core or xt blocks. This is very right.
Here is the worst fork scenario I see.
AFAIK xt blocks will be accepted by mainstream clients as far as they don't exceed 1 mb limit. New version blocks are not fork dangerous for network until they keep 1 mb limit. So xt adoption, if it will grow - should be painless. Until most miners will be xt and first > 1 mb block will be mined.
Since there should be a hard fork for some time until core miners completely loose hashing power enough to take great losses from mining blocks not accepted by mainstream. Great losses should give them up not too long and submit hashing power to xt.
So the period from first big block (along with network power majotity) till capitulation of core miners is a turbulence time and it is better not to receive transactions during it as double spend possible.
Turbulence period should be short if xt miners will enforce 1 mb limit until they reach hashing power majority.
If some xt miners will mine without 1 mb limit until hash power majority, the series of small chain forks expected. So everything depends on big pools behavior. If they enforce 1 mb soft limit until getting power majority - fork should happen smoothly.
Here is the worst fork scenario I see.
AFAIK xt blocks will be accepted by mainstream clients as far as they don't exceed 1 mb limit. New version blocks are not fork dangerous for network until they keep 1 mb limit. So xt adoption, if it will grow - should be painless. Until most miners will be xt and first > 1 mb block will be mined.
Since there should be a hard fork for some time until core miners completely loose hashing power enough to take great losses from mining blocks not accepted by mainstream. Great losses should give them up not too long and submit hashing power to xt.
So the period from first big block (along with network power majotity) till capitulation of core miners is a turbulence time and it is better not to receive transactions during it as double spend possible.
Turbulence period should be short if xt miners will enforce 1 mb limit until they reach hashing power majority.
If some xt miners will mine without 1 mb limit until hash power majority, the series of small chain forks expected. So everything depends on big pools behavior. If they enforce 1 mb soft limit until getting power majority - fork should happen smoothly.
My mistake; looks like he covered into the cascade. Probably got some nice $200 coins too and plenty of USD
A bullish market is one that resists repeated tests of lows on declining volume. That means selling has dried up at that level and is when traders buy--not during bullish moves (that's when they sell).
The market capitulated in January. That's where the big volume came in to start the ownership transfer of the supply float. The six months that followed showed higher lows and declining volume and volatility--evidence of accumulation. The swing traders and shorters were long gone by May and the market became dull until the strong rally in July. That rally happening after the dull period is an important signal that most of the float had been locked up, waiting for higher prices. I agree that last night was not capitulation, rather a shakeout that retested the same January lows on low volume. It's meant to dislodge even more supply by unnerving investors, trap the remaining bears and remove selling before a move out of the trading range.
Once you understand how the large market operators work you can make more sense of what the market is doing outside of technical indicators. It gives you context. The point to understand about last night is that it was a small group that caused this cascade under the guise of the XT drama--bad news tends to shake the market out and they know it. to Once the drama blows over a bit the market should be poised for a big move up.
Would you go long here? (It's the weekly chart in reverse that someone posted on reddit.)
A bullish market is one that resists repeated tests of lows on declining volume. That means selling has dried up at that level and is when traders buy--not during bullish moves (that's when they sell).
The market capitulated in January. That's where the big volume came in to start the ownership transfer of the supply float. The six months that followed showed higher lows and declining volume and volatility--evidence of accumulation. The swing traders and shorters were long gone by May and the market became dull until the strong rally in July. That rally happening after the dull period is an important signal that most of the float had been locked up, waiting for higher prices. I agree that last night was not capitulation, rather a shakeout that retested the same January lows on low volume. It's meant to dislodge even more supply by unnerving investors, trap the remaining bears and remove selling before a move out of the trading range.
Once you understand how the large market operators work you can make more sense of what the market is doing outside of technical indicators. It gives you context. The point to understand about last night is that it was a small group that caused this cascade under the guise of the XT drama--bad news tends to shake the market out and they know it. to Once the drama blows over a bit the market should be poised for a big move up.
Would you go long here? (It's the weekly chart in reverse that someone posted on reddit.)
I wouldn't necessarily long there based on that chart, no. But I also wouldn't only look at Bitfinex's chart. Both Stamp and China are both consolidating in a corrective right now. Put more simply, they are in a bear flag after a strong dump. So I wouldn't assume at all that lows are in on the other exchanges..... and bitcoin being bitcoin, I wouldn't even assume the low is in on Bitfinex.
The problem with volume analysis is it isn't so clearcut. Firstly, volume often confirms a move -- the volume doesn't come in until during/after the major move down. So declining volume may indicate that the capitulation hasn't actually happened yet. A high volume spike, on the other hand, generally indicates capitulation, and mean reversion to follow.
I agree that bitcoin, in the mid term, is poised for a strong move up. But it's dangerous to be particularly bullish off this kind of momentum. And there is no way to compare this drop to the first drop to $166 -- that was a clear capitulation with much larger magnitude and volume. So the question is -- will we get a capitulation or not? The trouble with trying to rationalize accumulation in the broader market is that if bulls lose key accumulation levels, there is now very considerable fuel in the form of sellers to push the market down. Most notable in that regard is that $235-240 is the highest-volume trading zone of the entire bear market since $1160s top. So now that we are consolidating bearishly below it, I know that there are a lot of accumulated longs that are now underwater.
A slow grind to $200 or below won't happen unless there are sellers to bring it there. That $3 million short on Finex won't happen again, and he may cover at some point. Scary, climactic action, even if a flash crash (and especially one near the end of a trough accumulation zone) has the effect of removing most of the sellers and remaining weak hands from the market. What kind of move do you think this sets up the market for?
Where does this idea of a $3 million short come from? I was watching swaps after the 10k and 15k (ish) dumps that happened a day and then shortly before the flash crash. It appeared that those were not on margin. Short swaps spiked 8-9k then back down 6-7k well before the flash crash, and I don't believe the majority of those were ever in a position.
I agree generally that a lot of longs (sellers) were wiped out, and that this provides somewhat of a bullish context, although a bit surprised that long swaps only dropped 6 million. I wonder if the drop was heavily bought on margin as well. We also have to remember that China and Bitstamp only reached the $220 level, and appear to be in a bearish consolidation. The flash crash was just a product of Bitfinex's overleveraged longs and illiquidity and doesn't really come off as the rest of the market capitulating. In my view, revisiting $220 is not bullish. A bullish market doesn't return to the bottom over and over to allow bulls to buy on the cheap. It shallowly retraces and leaves them behind. That doesn't mean it is necessarily doom-ish per se, but at best we are looking at a range, and it seems unlikely we are at the bottom of that range in the $230s.
The bottom could be in on Bitfinex, but over the next few weeks I expect longs to be shaken out on the other exchanges as well.
My mistake; looks like he covered into the cascade. Probably got some nice $200 coins too and plenty of USD
A bullish market is one that resists repeated tests of lows on declining volume. That means selling has dried up at that level and is when traders buy--not during bullish moves (that's when they sell).
The market capitulated in January. That's where the big volume came in to start the ownership transfer of the supply float. The six months that followed showed higher lows and declining volume and volatility--evidence of accumulation. The swing traders and shorters were long gone by May and the market became dull until the strong rally in July. That rally happening after the dull period is an important signal that most of the float had been locked up, waiting for higher prices. I agree that last night was not capitulation, rather a shakeout that retested the same January lows on low volume. It's meant to dislodge even more supply by unnerving investors, trap the remaining bears and remove selling before a move out of the trading range.
Once you understand how the large market operators work you can make more sense of what the market is doing outside of technical indicators. It gives you context. The point to understand about last night is that it was a small group that caused this cascade under the guise of the XT drama--bad news tends to shake the market out and they know it. to Once the drama blows over a bit the market should be poised for a big move up.
Would you go long here? (It's the weekly chart in reverse that someone posted on reddit.)
I remember your mistaken bear position about bitcoin masterluc, just before the btcusd pushoff on winter 2013...
That's weird. Because I remember him saying that we were at the bottom of a new bubble going into end of October / early November 2013. And then I remember him saying the rally was over shortly before the major downturn in December 2013. So..... one of us is clearly remembering incorrectly. I'm a bit lazy to look, but I believe it's you.
Its all about the very beginning of 2013 - jan/feb.
But yeah every bubble booms were predicted correctly.
A slow grind to $200 or below won't happen unless there are sellers to bring it there. That $3 million short on Finex won't happen again, and he may cover at some point. Scary, climactic action, even if a flash crash (and especially one near the end of a trough accumulation zone) has the effect of removing most of the sellers and remaining weak hands from the market. What kind of move do you think this sets up the market for?
Where does this idea of a $3 million short come from? I was watching swaps after the 10k and 15k (ish) dumps that happened a day and then shortly before the flash crash. It appeared that those were not on margin. Short swaps spiked 8-9k then back down 6-7k well before the flash crash, and I don't believe the majority of those were ever in a position.
I agree generally that a lot of longs (sellers) were wiped out, and that this provides somewhat of a bullish context, although a bit surprised that long swaps only dropped 6 million. I wonder if the drop was heavily bought on margin as well. We also have to remember that China and Bitstamp only reached the $220 level, and appear to be in a bearish consolidation. The flash crash was just a product of Bitfinex's overleveraged longs and illiquidity and doesn't really come off as the rest of the market capitulating. In my view, revisiting $220 is not bullish. A bullish market doesn't return to the bottom over and over to allow bulls to buy on the cheap. It shallowly retraces and leaves them behind. That doesn't mean it is necessarily doom-ish per se, but at best we are looking at a range, and it seems unlikely we are at the bottom of that range in the $230s.
The bottom could be in on Bitfinex, but over the next few weeks I expect longs to be shaken out on the other exchanges as well.
My position is long 90% BTC and 10% LTC (hardfork was in my mind) since Bitcoin broke downtrend ($240).
Long to 300$ :-)
Repeat half year old post ($230). Price is in safe multi year buy zone. From here to zero. Hehe.
I remember your mistaken bear position about bitcoin masterluc, just before the btcusd pushoff on winter 2013...
That's weird. Because I remember him saying that we were at the bottom of a new bubble going into end of October / early November 2013. And then I remember him saying the rally was over shortly before the major downturn in December 2013. So..... one of us is clearly remembering incorrectly. I'm a bit lazy to look, but I believe it's you.
This really does look ugly. I don't see how anyone could expect higher prices right now. COnsidering all that is going on in bitcoinland, i'd say we have enough to say that lower prices are more probable than higher prices at this point. If i had to give a figure, say 65%.
I am a regular reader of forums here (bitcointalk) and bitcoinmarkets on reddit and can comfortably say, sentiment has turned since the times of Greece when everyone was yelling moon. Now, i would characterize it as ambivalence with uncertainty on what will happen next. The kind of ambivalence that required a breach of maajor support level to shift to full mode bearish. That level, i suspect is $200. That is the level to watch now as we drag gradually towards it.
Even ranges never last long (200 -300) and at some point a decision will have to be made. It is my opinion that we are drawing nearer to that decision point.
I am a regular reader of forums here (bitcointalk) and bitcoinmarkets on reddit and can comfortably say, sentiment has turned since the times of Greece when everyone was yelling moon. Now, i would characterize it as ambivalence with uncertainty on what will happen next. The kind of ambivalence that required a breach of maajor support level to shift to full mode bearish. That level, i suspect is $200. That is the level to watch now as we drag gradually towards it.
Even ranges never last long (200 -300) and at some point a decision will have to be made. It is my opinion that we are drawing nearer to that decision point.
You're missing a key factor surrounding the overall sentiment.
People don't yell "THE SKY IS FALLING" and mean it before they first sold.
"Be greedy when others are fearful." - Warren Buffett
Being greedy when others just start being fearful is going to get you bull trapped, or even rekt if you try to catch a falling knife with a leveraged limit.
That's why I moved my funds from trading to exchange, so I can buy this local bottom (should test again in 3-4 days) without such risk.
After the Silk Road panic there was no secondary test, just a brief higher low. Consider at which point of the price cycle this is happening.
The volume signature of this crash is low when compared to January. That would indicate there's not much more supply below $200 to be had--a classic shakeout/bear trap to end accumulation.
History doesn't repeat itself. This would not happen again exactly for this reason. Can we stop comparing what happened previously and expect the same/similar to happen? It is a different market with different variables now.
"The volume signature of this crash is low when compared to January. That would indicate there's not much more supply below $200 to be had--a classic shakeout/bear trap to end accumulation."
debatable. crash happened too fast ie flash. A gradual grind to sub- 200 would exhibit different market behaviour IMO
A lot of people will disagree with you.
If you study historical charts of stocks, bonds and commodities they exhibit randomness, yes, but the structures do repeat and are always from the same playbook--a playbook of how humans react to price action. The fact that this doesn't change is why markets peak and crash similarly over and over again throughout history. The names and players may change, but the principles of speculation do not.
What happened a year or a month ago is absolutely critical in determining the future trend, because those trends set up a supply and demand imbalance. So on every timescale, each wave in the market sets up the next wave--ignoring the past is ridiculous.
A slow grind to $200 or below won't happen unless there are sellers to bring it there. That $3 million short on Finex won't happen again, and he may cover at some point. Scary, climactic action, even if a flash crash (and especially one near the end of a trough accumulation zone) has the effect of removing most of the sellers and remaining weak hands from the market. What kind of move do you think this sets up the market for?
Looking at https://bfxdata.com/swaphistory/btc it seems like he has already covered.
Jump to: