Topic: YAWN - page 3. (Read 4522 times)

I second this proposal.

Well there is one person who is right about 99.99% of the time "proudhon", just because he uses the child psychology which means everything he says just do the opposite does not mean he not almost always right.

Just look at his post on this thread, we are all but guaranteed to hit 34 now that he made his prediction (again).

Maybe people who get it wrong so consistently should be limited to their own forum. Kinda like we do with the newbies 

I'm scared of the triangles. 

However the stars are pretty.   

10-4 Houston




To the moon!!

so, it will stay at 33 for the weekend and then retreat to what? 13?

just bought another 300 since it's obviously the bottom.

This is probably the top.

desperate bear logic

… or your witch doctor

Yawn. More technical analysis voodoo from arepo. My witch doctor told me to sell at $20 because there was a crazy divergence in one of the indicators. TA is total bunk.

Nice channel.. very simple. So simple its genius, many satoshis for you good sir.

Let's ask a monkey... since most idiots trying to make sense of the market here are always wrong...

Quite some time, yeah, close to a month and a half.

This situation is absolutely fascinating to me. The uptrend has not been broken and we have significant acceptable downside. Back to $16, actually. Although that window is fading FAST. I think the market is short-term hot but long term this is just the trend we have been seeing for quite some time.

First of all, its not a news-based, rapid-adoption rally. Look at those long periods of sideways consolidation, first around $5, then around $12. We're in an uptrend: sideways leads to up. Until otherwise (ie downtrend) there's no reason to suspect that sideways will lead to down.

Secondly, you're using an oscillating indicator again (ADX).

But thanks for the quote about the King Effect (didn't see that before). At first glance, I can see that it's another mean-reversion statistic. Such economic models (mean-reversion long-term predictions based on historical precedence) were shown to be insufficient by the superbubble in 2008. That's because economic systems are social systems, not natural systems. Social systems are subject to reflexive effects, which means they won't behave like the natural, biological/physical laws which restrict the populations of countries. (google George Soros, his slogan is "the market is always wrong". or decent intro video convo).

The mean-reversion assumption (implicit in oscillating indicators) makes the same mistake that led to the 2008 superbubble. "Because house/asset prices always have gone up in the past, they will always go up." You're just applying it to bitcoin a little bit differently: "Because bitcoin has been worth $0.10 in the past and gone down in the past, it will go down and be worth $0.10 again."

Such mean-reversion models work for physical systems because science studies physical systems that come to equilibrium in the duration of an experiment (actually, in many experiments). But social/economic experiments do not come to equilibrium in time for us for us to conduct many experiments (unless you want to look at the MACD crossing over on the 2-hour and 6-hour scale).

So, the King Effect may hold on true on a long enough time scale (Zero Hedge slogan: "On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero"). Therefore, eventually, you'll be right about bitcoin. But you'll be calling the top at 3-digits, at 4-digits, at 5-digits...

So you unless you want to do that all the way up..  you still have to find the "different means" to call the top. Both ADX and the King effect are mean-reversion statistics.

Needs a magic wand.

How about my analysis?

That's very nice of you to sum up your entire post with the thread title.

Here's a graph with a line on it.  Look at the line.  LOOK AT IT!!!!!11111111!!!!.  This line tells us about the past, therefore the future will be ...