Topic: Denial is fading, fear is approaching - page 2. (Read 6829 times)

I am curious. How did you come to this conclusion?

Hm. As you can see above, I was around for that one. Feels different to me this time, but I could be wrong of course. 380-400 might well be the bottom, but I don't see the bear market as over yet.

By analogy, today feels a lot like when this was posted. I like to look back and reflect on people's attitudes then. Then, as now, there was no real bad news to go with the sell offs... just people giving up on Bitcoin.

I appreciate your "hounding". I find it is how I learn. I know candlesticks pretty well, but not a whole lot else. So, I am learning along with the rest of you.

1) Basically yes. In other words, we have to take context and all the conditions into play.

2) If I understand you correctly, then yes. So, the sellers are selling huge amounts at once. They may break it up, but what gets me is the 5 minutes of silence and then suddenly all these sells go through. Now, maybe they are triggered by the initial sell, but my feeling has been it is the same seller breaking his lot up. The time is exact. But, it can be limit orders being set off. Perhaps it doesn't matter as the picture still makes sense, know what I mean? (Even if I am interpreting things incorrectly, it is still assisting in analyzing this move.  )

3) They do split up their orders but I get the feeling as I said in 2 above. Again, if I am making a fool of myself here, it is worth saying, I don't know a lot about market depth and such. But sometimes ignorance is indeed bliss as a simplified approach (what I think I'm seeing) is correct (or at least suffices.)

4) I really only use the order book to watch the sells go through. I used to use it more to give me an idea of the market (and still do a bit, but more as a trend analyzer than a overall "now" picture).
I watch money flow, but that is particularly a dangerous indicator with BTC. I mean, think about it, the BTC's we see were all mined and not bought. (That happened later). So, unlike a stock, the money flow
can be completely off. I think my thinking here is correct, no?

I'm a candle guy (that sounds weird...) so correct me if I'm wrong...

IAS

ps - I don't really see lots of fear yet, hence as I said in the wall thread. I am thinking 50 is not a bottom, unless huge volume comes then.

maybe my sell at 43,5euro 2 month ago will turn a good move.
It's been 2 month i'm looking the chart thinking: So that's how you feel when you try to catch the falling knife...

loads of poeple still made a very speculative move by buying above 30$ must be painfull to see the chart for them.
so i agree with op fear must be coming for them.

Your incessant cheerleading was a bit much for my taste but I used to give you credit for at least having conviction.  At least I thought you did, but now you're showing your true colors.  Just another noob who got burned by the bubble and is now trying to back peddle out.   

Imo the reasoning here was that we broke the trend of higher lows below 90. A lot of enthusiasm went out at that point. That was my personal cue to sell and boy was i glad i did. Suppose i should have done it sooner but i didnt want to unless we hit lower lows (then only would i be certain the gig is up)

Like clockwork, we touched a 70 rebound

Bull traps are expected but bounces has been quite smallish during the crash from the $90s. I guess the big one will arrive soon... But nevertheless fear is taking over.

Denial is fading indeed, those who were saying "I just buy and hold forever" are starting to ask to themselves why they should be the bag holders, if they can sell and buy back cheaper?

Welcome fear. Lots of future coming today.

No way, Elvis died long time ago.

It's Nixon.

Waiting for a post how this price drop is orchestrated by govs, banks, fed or whatever...

It must be great being one of those people with a huge stack of coins, they can orchestrate all of this psychological warfare and FUD on all the smaller speculators to get them to pretty much do exactly what they want, creating a self fulfilling prophecy while profiting from it and increasing their stack of coins.

I'm cutting down the quote size, hope you don't mind.

I'll try to make my points more clear...

(1) The "three green candles" comment was an analogy, and had nothing to do with volume. The idea was: imagine someone posts "I am experienced in candlestick chart analysis", and then would drop that line about 3 green candles. You would say that that's not how it works, right?

(2) Your "block" size argument rests on the fact that sell sizes are bigger than buy sizes. Since buy side and sell side of any executed trade are by definition equally large, what you mean is that sellers' positions on average are individually bigger than buyers' positions, right? (I'm honestly not trying to nitpick, just want to clearly understand your point.)

(3) If so, then my question is simply: what prevents a whale from splitting up his buy orders, but consolidating his sell orders, to create the impression you described?

(4) The order book is a prime tool for manipulation. So if (a) the order book tells you that the whales are selling while the small guys are buying, but (b) volume analysis would tell you that money flow is overwhelmingly positive (it is not, btw) then those two observations would conflict. And I would always trust (b) more than I would trust (a), because one is easy to manipulate, the other one less so.

The three candles in a row point is just 3 days though, doesn't mention volume or the like. I still am confused by your statement. Also, I listed a lot of points regarding what I look at with TA, the size of the shares being sold, to me, is still significant.

I mean what are the chances that the sell sizes would be consistently larger than the buy sizes? Why not just have more volume down than up? When you throw the larger sizes in there it adds an alarm to me as the moves down like that, can start an avalanche. Know what I mean?

So again, my argument, or rather just a part of the points I mentioned, is not volume based, it is "sell sized" (I said blocks) based.

Deluded or high on hopium.

The thing about parasites is that they need the host to survive or else they die with it.

The rise up to $260 was fuelled by greed: put dollar in get more dollar out was the name of the game. But the price is a very poor indicator of strength because it is a reduction of sentiment, like a 3D cube casting a 2D shadow on the wall, by looking at the shadow only you will never get back to the 3 dimensional aspect.

We need to shake these weak hands out of the market, let the strong hands enter.

I do what I want. If I want to make a thread claiming price will go up, I will do so. If I want to make a thread claiming price will go down, I shall do that too. 
For the last 2 months I have been selling and increasing my fiat position. However, I've only been vocally bearish for the recent past - before that I was accepting that price would go lower but I still "talked the talk" in terms of bullishness, with the occasional bearish comment. I don't feel like I should have to explain this. Listen, there are a smorgasbord of different sentiments, even now. Folks here are slowly turning bearish but you can't expect everyone to be on the exact same page. No need to overanalyze poor bitcoinashley's posts.

For the record, I'm still laughing at the idiots who think we are going down to $0.50. THAT is just as much of an inability to accept reality as the folks who think we are going back to triple digits next week.

Hi IAS,

I believe your observation is correct that the sells come from large early adopters and the buys are smaller common Joes. However, I'm not sure that this needs to be alarming. If bitcoin were to succeed in mainstream adoption a - massive - distribution from few large to many small holders will need to have happened (in contrast to traditional stock & commodity markets). Assuming large holders will try to buy back the same amount of coins they are dumping today, if they would get a chance to buy them back for a considerable lower price, their plan needs to not work out for a distribution to occur. The price not going as low as they expect so that they do not succeed to buy the coins back is one scenario that would accomplish this better distribution.

Another scenario accomplishing better distribution is whales selling too early before the bubble. I can imagine this happened to a considerable amount of whales too in the bubble runup (those selling below $30 for example). However if the price goes to say $10 now, those whales will yet again get a chance to buy all those coins back.

I think bitcoin achieves this wider distribution mostly by going up much faster than even hardcore believers can imagine. Because I think a distribution cannot happen when the price goes lower than imagined as this concentrates the coins more to a few smart, courageous and cash rich investors. So I would think that with the sole exception of a few months during the 2011 crash when it was depressed, all other periods achieved wider distribution.

Many people expect the same to happen today, a crash whereby todays sellers can buy a lot more coins later. But if that would be true no wider distribution would be accomplished. And although this can happen yet again, as it did in the depression of 2011, the odds are lower rather than higher I would think.  

I could be wrong. I have no emperical proof to support my claims about when distribution is happening and when concentration is happening. Just thinking out loud.  

I understand your point, as far as I can tell. unless, when you say "block", you're actually talking about the technical concept. then I didn't understand your argument

Assuming you're talking about size of individuals trades (yes?), your argument makes some intuitive sense. Agreed. So does "three green candles in a row, up we gooooo!". My point was that what you see (small chunks for buying, large chunks for selling) could also be the result of a/several not-completely-stupid large holders covering their tracks. If that's the case, then the immediate observation you described is not able to support your conclusion ("confidence in bitcoin is eroding"). There are more sophisticated methods to gauge if volume and supply/demand supports or contradicts the current trend. I'm not an expert in them, all I was saying is, your volume based argument sticks out somewhat as being slightly, sorry for calling it that, naive, compared to the rest of your points.