Topic: Yet another analyst :) - page 73. (Read 269580 times)
3rd leg up to the larger scale 3 on its way, i could have sworn the wave count said that we were already there with the previous top. Considering all the corrections from 3 to 4 waves so far have been shallow triangles I feel quite bullish on the price and that the correction from the coming top will not be super deep. When the larger scale 4 to 5 begins the price will go absolutely ballistic. I haven't really observed the "euphoria" of a top yet and the sentiment still have a lot of room to increase. I was extremely sceptical to triple digit numbers on the rise up to this 3 but it now seems completely plausible that we will see prices around 500-600 on the top of the larger scale 5, maybe even higher if it overshoots.
147.85, higher high - breakout
https://twitter.com/PKinbangkok/status/320815342928658434
Does anyone feel difference between "accepting Bitcoin" and "accepting Bitpay"?
Huuuge difference
Quote
"@chanesteiner: Top 5 merchants that accept #Bitcoin by web traffic: 1. @WordPress 2. @reddit 3. @internetarchive 4. @4chan 5. @Namecheap"
Does anyone feel difference between "accepting Bitcoin" and "accepting Bitpay"?
Huuuge difference 
Agree, off Tech. Analyse topic.
I agree with all of this....
You could actually make sense of it? Sometimes the people in this thread make way too many assumptions.
His assumptions (and Lucif's, etc.) are as valid, if not more valid, than many of the other views on this forum. This is one of the best threads in Speculation, IMO. I don't use EW religiously, but it proves very interesting during aberrant moves. And many extremely successful traders (especially those who catch market tops/bottoms) swear by it.
We all know there are compelling arguments for bitcoin's further success and equally compelling arguments for a market top, especially with a last leg. I'm bullish bitcoin and alt-coins, but realize that odds do not favor this parabolic rise for bitcoin. Big news could move us up much higher, of course....but it will take bigger news than we've had in the past (e.g., Western Union integrates Bitcoin). Media, hoarding, and lack of liquidity have played much larger roles in this parabolic move than any change in fundamentals.
Stability, even if it means a downward move is ultimately better for the long-term survival of bitcoin. And I see room for alt-coins. I accept valid assumptions supporting bitcoins rise or fall. What I do not accept are the seemingly popular views held on this forum that phantom millionaires and mythical hedge funds will drive this up $1000.
I'm just not sure what to make of this last leg.....
Here is what he said:
Quote
and it matches up with the S&P which finished potentially the most major top in all of history. The first bitcoin bubble was wave 3 a la 1929, and now we're nearing the big top a la 2000.
All right, so according to him, EW actually accounted for information in 2000 all the way back in 1929, great.
That's the problem I have with some technical analysts/abusers, when your prediction doesn't work you extend the time frame to ridiculous length to make it look like it works, not too much different from many "gonna be soon" "no target but it will collapse" analysts on this subforum.
I'm not a religious fanatic when it comes to TA. It does tend to work best during extreme moves (for me, at least). Herd psychology hasn't changed much over the centuries. I find it interesting that people dismiss charts/TA yet choose to believe in phantoms and unicorns. Anyone with even a hint of a financial background can immediately discount the possibility of a unicorn (e.g., very large mover, institution, etc) distorting the price in such a way.
It applies both ways, no fiat unicorns, but no bitcoin unicorns as well. So neither large upmove nor downmove.
Herd psychology works yes, but when you time frame is long enough to put in a world war, you better make some adjustments to your theory.
I'm not sure what your first sentence means.
No, I think he was simply comparing bitcoin waves to waves in other historical bubbles. Bubbles are bubbles and herd psychology has been around for a very long time.
General analogies are fine, but unfalsifiable predictions are hardly useful, masters at such prediction usually extend the time frame to arbitrary length to fit in market fluctuation that will somehow "support" their original prediction.
Bitcoin unicorn means: Some big time single holders who has been hiding away for the last 2-3years with some more than 200k holdings, and then one day magically show up to dump them all to crash the market.
It's simply an attempt at limiting to two (or few) possibilities and making entry/exit plans (or hedging) accordingly. What can't be falsified are the trades each person makes based on their TA, which is all that matters. Detractors take these predictions/possibilities too seriously. To me, technicals are one part of the puzzle. Of course, during periods of intense speculation TA becomes a much larger slice of the pie.
True, only an idiot would crash the market by dumping 500K coins in a single day. One difference, though, is that there is at least the possibility that a few big holders could dump (perhaps after unforeseen bad news). Conversely, it would be prohibitively difficult for someone to purchase 1,000,000 BTC on the open market without raising this to bizarre levels due to persistent hoarding. The logistics of large movers coming into the market are more difficult than a few large sellers bailing out (at these levels). One can assume that large movers are likely to be investment savvy whereas we really don't know much about the large bitcoin holders.
What I meant by falsifiability is when you give a statement you have to provide the conditions under which it can be proven false, you call it a bubble and it maybe one but there always should be conditions when satisfied you will concede it's not a bubble. A prediction without targets is useless, or FUD.
After unforeseen bad news there is a definite chance that several large holders are going to cash out more or less simultaneously,
though I can't imagine what could be even worse than a chain-fork. When there is no unforeseen bad news this will only happen under the assumption that these large holders somehow coordinate or at least don't play against each other, the chance of which, given that the number of investors controlling other assets is much larger than the number of large bitcoin investors, is probably as unicorny as new large fiat holders joining the market.
I'm confused.....who is making unfalsifiable predictions? I predict we don't go anywhere near $1000 over the next few months (as many have claimed) for fundamental and technical reasons. I said (other thread) we would not hit $200 and $300 by the 9th & 15th. If any of the above occur, my predictions will be proven false.
I think we all know what a bubble is.....if this deflates either before or after another major move(s), we can safely say it was a short-term bubble. If we continue higher, plateauing and never crashing (substantially), then this is not a bubble. If we look look back and say 'can you believe we paid $140 for a bitcoin (expensive)?', then this will have been a bubble. If we crash then recover next year to an even higher level, I will still say that this was a short-term aberration (bubble).
The EW guys are outlining various possibilities, patterns, etc. I don't believe they are chiseling predictions in brimstone. And yes, without bad news I don't see panic dumping. Best case we meander for awhile and taper off. But the chart looks short-term bullish. The bubble talk is tiresome; anxious to see what next week brings. This is the best chart I've seen since 1999......
Okay, then we actually agree with each other about the trend.
That the chart looks bullish and that this might be the last leg of a short-term bubble (up then back down)? Or, we meander and taper off for awhile. Those are my two thoughts. I do not think we go straight up into the stratosphere, where centaurs fly. Alright, maybe we're on the same page.
His assumptions (and Lucif's, etc.) are as valid, if not more valid, than many of the other views on this forum. This is one of the best threads in Speculation, IMO. I don't use EW religiously, but it proves very interesting during aberrant moves. And many extremely successful traders (especially those who catch market tops/bottoms) swear by it.
Thanks mate.
Of course.
I'm confused.....who is making unfalsifiable predictions? I predict we don't go anywhere near $1000 over the next few months (as many have claimed) for fundamental and technical reasons. I said (other thread) we would not hit $200 and $300 by the 9th & 15th. If any of the above occur, my predictions will be proven false.
I think we all know what a bubble is.....if this deflates either before or after another major move(s), we can safely say it was a short-term bubble. If we continue higher, plateauing and never crashing (substantially), then this is not a bubble. If we look look back and say 'can you believe we paid $140 for a bitcoin (expensive)?', then this will have been a bubble. If we crash then recover next year to an even higher level, I will still say that this was a short-term aberration (bubble).
The EW guys are outlining various possibilities, patterns, etc. I don't believe they are chiseling predictions in brimstone. And yes, without bad news I don't see panic dumping. Best case we meander for awhile and taper off. But the chart looks short-term bullish. The bubble talk is tiresome; anxious to see what next week brings. This is the best chart I've seen since 1999......
Okay, then we actually agree with each other about the trend.
That the chart looks bullish and that this might be the last leg of a short-term bubble (up then back down)? Or, we meander and taper off for awhile. Those are my two thoughts. I do not think we go straight up into the stratosphere, where winged centaurs fly. Alright, maybe we're on the same page.
I agree with all of this....
You could actually make sense of it? Sometimes the people in this thread make way too many assumptions.
His assumptions (and Lucif's, etc.) are as valid, if not more valid, than many of the other views on this forum. This is one of the best threads in Speculation, IMO. I don't use EW religiously, but it proves very interesting during aberrant moves. And many extremely successful traders (especially those who catch market tops/bottoms) swear by it.
We all know there are compelling arguments for bitcoin's further success and equally compelling arguments for a market top, especially with a last leg. I'm bullish bitcoin and alt-coins, but realize that odds do not favor this parabolic rise for bitcoin. Big news could move us up much higher, of course....but it will take bigger news than we've had in the past (e.g., Western Union integrates Bitcoin). Media, hoarding, and lack of liquidity have played much larger roles in this parabolic move than any change in fundamentals.
Stability, even if it means a downward move is ultimately better for the long-term survival of bitcoin. And I see room for alt-coins. I accept valid assumptions supporting bitcoins rise or fall. What I do not accept are the seemingly popular views held on this forum that phantom millionaires and mythical hedge funds will drive this up $1000.
I'm just not sure what to make of this last leg.....
Here is what he said:
Quote
and it matches up with the S&P which finished potentially the most major top in all of history. The first bitcoin bubble was wave 3 a la 1929, and now we're nearing the big top a la 2000.
All right, so according to him, EW actually accounted for information in 2000 all the way back in 1929, great.
That's the problem I have with some technical analysts/abusers, when your prediction doesn't work you extend the time frame to ridiculous length to make it look like it works, not too much different from many "gonna be soon" "no target but it will collapse" analysts on this subforum.
I'm not a religious fanatic when it comes to TA. It does tend to work best during extreme moves (for me, at least). Herd psychology hasn't changed much over the centuries. I find it interesting that people dismiss charts/TA yet choose to believe in phantoms and unicorns. Anyone with even a hint of a financial background can immediately discount the possibility of a unicorn (e.g., very large mover, institution, etc) distorting the price in such a way.
It applies both ways, no fiat unicorns, but no bitcoin unicorns as well. So neither large upmove nor downmove.
Herd psychology works yes, but when you time frame is long enough to put in a world war, you better make some adjustments to your theory.
I'm not sure what your first sentence means.
No, I think he was simply comparing bitcoin waves to waves in other historical bubbles. Bubbles are bubbles and herd psychology has been around for a very long time.
General analogies are fine, but unfalsifiable predictions are hardly useful, masters at such prediction usually extend the time frame to arbitrary length to fit in market fluctuation that will somehow "support" their original prediction.
Bitcoin unicorn means: Some big time single holders who has been hiding away for the last 2-3years with some more than 200k holdings, and then one day magically show up to dump them all to crash the market.
It's simply an attempt at limiting to two (or few) possibilities and making entry/exit plans (or hedging) accordingly. What can't be falsified are the trades each person makes based on their TA, which is all that matters. Detractors take these predictions/possibilities too seriously. To me, technicals are one part of the puzzle. Of course, during periods of intense speculation TA becomes a much larger slice of the pie.
True, only an idiot would crash the market by dumping 500K coins in a single day. One difference, though, is that there is at least the possibility that a few big holders could dump (perhaps after unforeseen bad news). Conversely, it would be prohibitively difficult for someone to purchase 1,000,000 BTC on the open market without raising this to bizarre levels due to persistent hoarding. The logistics of large movers coming into the market are more difficult than a few large sellers bailing out (at these levels). One can assume that large movers are likely to be investment savvy whereas we really don't know much about the large bitcoin holders.
What I meant by falsifiability is when you give a statement you have to provide the conditions under which it can be proven false, you call it a bubble and it maybe one but there always should be conditions when satisfied you will concede it's not a bubble. A prediction without targets is useless, or FUD.
After unforeseen bad news there is a definite chance that several large holders are going to cash out more or less simultaneously,
though I can't imagine what could be even worse than a chain-fork. When there is no unforeseen bad news this will only happen under the assumption that these large holders somehow coordinate or at least don't play against each other, the chance of which, given that the number of investors controlling other assets is much larger than the number of large bitcoin investors, is probably as unicorny as new large fiat holders joining the market.
I'm confused.....who is making unfalsifiable predictions? I predict we don't go anywhere near $1000 over the next few months (as many have claimed) for fundamental and technical reasons. I said (other thread) we would not hit $200 and $300 by the 9th & 15th. If any of the above occur, my predictions will be proven false.
I think we all know what a bubble is.....if this deflates either before or after another major move(s), we can safely say it was a short-term bubble. If we continue higher, plateauing and never crashing (substantially), then this is not a bubble. If we look look back and say 'can you believe we paid $140 for a bitcoin (expensive)?', then this will have been a bubble. If we crash then recover next year to an even higher level, I will still say that this was a short-term aberration (bubble).
The EW guys are outlining various possibilities, patterns, etc. I don't believe they are chiseling predictions in brimstone. And yes, without bad news I don't see panic dumping. Best case we meander for awhile and taper off. But the chart looks short-term bullish. The bubble talk is tiresome; anxious to see what next week brings. This is the best chart I've seen since 1999......
Okay, then we actually agree with each other about the trend.
What I meant by falsifiability is when you give a statement you have to provide the conditions under which it can be proven false, you call it a bubble and it maybe one but there always should be conditions when satisfied you will concede it's not a bubble. A prediction without targets is useless, or FUD.
After unforeseen bad news there is a definite chance that several large holders are going to cash out more or less simultaneously,
though I can't imagine what could be even worse than a chain-fork. When there is no unforeseen bad news this will only happen under the assumption that these large holders somehow coordinate or at least don't play against each other, the chance of which, given that the number of investors controlling other assets is much larger than the number of large bitcoin investors, is probably as unicorny as new large fiat holders joining the market.
I'm confused.....who is making unfalsifiable predictions? I predict we don't go anywhere near $1000 over the next few months (as many have claimed) for fundamental and technical reasons. I said (other thread) we would not hit $200 and $300 by the 9th & 15th. If any of the above occur, my predictions will be proven false.
I think we all know what a bubble is.....if this deflates either before or after another major move(s), we can safely say it was a short-term bubble. If we continue higher, plateauing and never crashing (substantially), then this is not a bubble. If we look look back and say 'can you believe we paid $140 for a bitcoin (expensive)?', then this will have been a bubble. If we crash then recover next year to an even higher level, I will still say that this was a short-term aberration (bubble).
The EW guys are outlining various possibilities, patterns, etc. I don't believe they are chiseling predictions in brimstone. And yes, without bad news I don't see panic dumping. Best case we meander for awhile and taper off. But the chart looks short-term bullish. The bubble talk is tiresome; anxious to see what next week brings. This is the best chart I've seen since 1999......
I agree with all of this....
You could actually make sense of it? Sometimes the people in this thread make way too many assumptions.
His assumptions (and Lucif's, etc.) are as valid, if not more valid, than many of the other views on this forum. This is one of the best threads in Speculation, IMO. I don't use EW religiously, but it proves very interesting during aberrant moves. And many extremely successful traders (especially those who catch market tops/bottoms) swear by it.
We all know there are compelling arguments for bitcoin's further success and equally compelling arguments for a market top, especially with a last leg. I'm bullish bitcoin and alt-coins, but realize that odds do not favor this parabolic rise for bitcoin. Big news could move us up much higher, of course....but it will take bigger news than we've had in the past (e.g., Western Union integrates Bitcoin). Media, hoarding, and lack of liquidity have played much larger roles in this parabolic move than any change in fundamentals.
Stability, even if it means a downward move is ultimately better for the long-term survival of bitcoin. And I see room for alt-coins. I accept valid assumptions supporting bitcoins rise or fall. What I do not accept are the seemingly popular views held on this forum that phantom millionaires and mythical hedge funds will drive this up $1000.
I'm just not sure what to make of this last leg.....
Here is what he said:
Quote
and it matches up with the S&P which finished potentially the most major top in all of history. The first bitcoin bubble was wave 3 a la 1929, and now we're nearing the big top a la 2000.
All right, so according to him, EW actually accounted for information in 2000 all the way back in 1929, great.
That's the problem I have with some technical analysts/abusers, when your prediction doesn't work you extend the time frame to ridiculous length to make it look like it works, not too much different from many "gonna be soon" "no target but it will collapse" analysts on this subforum.
I'm not a religious fanatic when it comes to TA. It does tend to work best during extreme moves (for me, at least). Herd psychology hasn't changed much over the centuries. I find it interesting that people dismiss charts/TA yet choose to believe in phantoms and unicorns. Anyone with even a hint of a financial background can immediately discount the possibility of a unicorn (e.g., very large mover, institution, etc) distorting the price in such a way.
It applies both ways, no fiat unicorns, but no bitcoin unicorns as well. So neither large upmove nor downmove.
Herd psychology works yes, but when you time frame is long enough to put in a world war, you better make some adjustments to your theory.
I'm not sure what your first sentence means.
No, I think he was simply comparing bitcoin waves to waves in other historical bubbles. Bubbles are bubbles and herd psychology has been around for a very long time.
General analogies are fine, but unfalsifiable predictions are hardly useful, masters at such prediction usually extend the time frame to arbitrary length to fit in market fluctuation that will somehow "support" their original prediction.
Bitcoin unicorn means: Some big time single holders who has been hiding away for the last 2-3years with some more than 200k holdings, and then one day magically show up to dump them all to crash the market.
It's simply an attempt at limiting to two (or few) possibilities and making entry/exit plans (or hedging) accordingly. What can't be falsified are the trades each person makes based on their TA, which is all that matters. Detractors take these predictions/possibilities too seriously. To me, technicals are one part of the puzzle. Of course, during periods of intense speculation TA becomes a much larger slice of the pie.
True, only an idiot would crash the market by dumping 500K coins in a single day. One difference, though, is that there is at least the possibility that a few big holders could dump (perhaps after unforeseen bad news). Conversely, it would be prohibitively difficult for someone to purchase 1,000,000 BTC on the open market without raising this to bizarre levels due to persistent hoarding. The logistics of large movers coming into the market are more difficult than a few large sellers bailing out (at these levels). One can assume that large movers are likely to be investment savvy whereas we really don't know much about the large bitcoin holders.
What I meant by falsifiability is when you give a statement you have to provide the conditions under which it can be proven false, you call it a bubble and it maybe one but there always should be conditions when satisfied you will concede it's not a bubble. A prediction without targets is useless, or FUD.
After unforeseen bad news there is a definite chance that several large holders are going to cash out more or less simultaneously,
though I can't imagine what could be even worse than a chain-fork. When there is no unforeseen bad news this will only happen under the assumption that these large holders somehow coordinate or at least don't play against each other, the chance of which, given that the number of investors controlling other assets is much larger than the number of large bitcoin investors, is probably as unicorny as new large fiat holders joining the market.
Someone buying 1,000,000 BTC driving the price up is not because of hording, it is because one person is trying to buy nearly a tenth of the bitcoins in existence.
We're getting off topic here.....the fact that much fewer than the 11MM are actually circulating and trading (because of hoarding) makes this much more difficult.
The fact that you think the market should be able to handle $140*1,000,000 worth of btc tells me the market is way undervalued.
21 million ever is one of the key features of bitcoin.
You obviously haven't read my previous posts on this or other threads. I find it funny that many on here actually believe that large movers will bid this thing up to $1000. To believe that means that one has to believe that this market could handle this kind of action. It can't. This topic is getting old....
Someone buying 1,000,000 BTC driving the price up is not because of hording, it is because one person is trying to buy nearly a tenth of the bitcoins in existence.
We're getting off topic here.....the fact that much fewer than the 11MM are actually circulating and trading (because of hoarding) makes this much more difficult.
The fact that you think the market should be able to handle $140*1,000,000 worth of btc tells me the market is way undervalued.
21 million ever is one of the key features of bitcoin.
Someone buying 1,000,000 BTC driving the price up is not because of hording, it is because one person is trying to buy nearly a tenth of the bitcoins in existence.
We're getting off topic here.....the fact that much fewer than the 11MM are actually circulating and trading (because of hoarding) makes this much more difficult.
Someone buying 1,000,000 BTC driving the price up is not because of hording, it is because one person is trying to buy nearly a tenth of the bitcoins in existence.
General analogies are fine, but unfalsifiable predictions are hardly useful, masters at such prediction usually extend the time frame to arbitrary length to fit in market fluctuation that will somehow "support" their original prediction.
Bitcoin unicorn means: Some big time single holders who has been hiding away for the last 2-3years with some more than 200k holdings, and then one day magically show up to dump them all to crash the market.
It's simply an attempt at limiting to two (or few) possibilities and making entry/exit plans (or hedging) accordingly. What can't be falsified are the trades each person makes based on their TA, which is all that matters. Detractors take these predictions/possibilities too seriously. To me, technicals are one part of the puzzle. Of course, during periods of intense speculation TA becomes a much larger slice of the pie.
True, only an idiot would crash the market by dumping 500K coins in a single day. One difference, though, is that there is at least the possibility that a few big holders could dump (perhaps after unforeseen bad news). Conversely, it would be prohibitively difficult for someone to purchase 1,000,000 BTC on the open market without raising this to bizarre levels due to persistent hoarding. The logistics of large movers coming into the market are more difficult than a few large sellers bailing out (at these levels). One can assume that large movers are likely to be investment savvy whereas we really don't know much about the large bitcoin holders.
I agree with all of this....
You could actually make sense of it? Sometimes the people in this thread make way too many assumptions.
His assumptions (and Lucif's, etc.) are as valid, if not more valid, than many of the other views on this forum. This is one of the best threads in Speculation, IMO. I don't use EW religiously, but it proves very interesting during aberrant moves. And many extremely successful traders (especially those who catch market tops/bottoms) swear by it.
We all know there are compelling arguments for bitcoin's further success and equally compelling arguments for a market top, especially with a last leg. I'm bullish bitcoin and alt-coins, but realize that odds do not favor this parabolic rise for bitcoin. Big news could move us up much higher, of course....but it will take bigger news than we've had in the past (e.g., Western Union integrates Bitcoin). Media, hoarding, and lack of liquidity have played much larger roles in this parabolic move than any change in fundamentals.
Stability, even if it means a downward move is ultimately better for the long-term survival of bitcoin. And I see room for alt-coins. I accept valid assumptions supporting bitcoins rise or fall. What I do not accept are the seemingly popular views held on this forum that phantom millionaires and mythical hedge funds will drive this up $1000.
I'm just not sure what to make of this last leg.....
Here is what he said:
Quote
and it matches up with the S&P which finished potentially the most major top in all of history. The first bitcoin bubble was wave 3 a la 1929, and now we're nearing the big top a la 2000.
All right, so according to him, EW actually accounted for information in 2000 all the way back in 1929, great.
That's the problem I have with some technical analysts/abusers, when your prediction doesn't work you extend the time frame to ridiculous length to make it look like it works, not too much different from many "gonna be soon" "no target but it will collapse" analysts on this subforum.
I'm not a religious fanatic when it comes to TA. It does tend to work best during extreme moves (for me, at least). Herd psychology hasn't changed much over the centuries. I find it interesting that people dismiss charts/TA yet choose to believe in phantoms and unicorns. Anyone with even a hint of a financial background can immediately discount the possibility of a unicorn (e.g., very large mover, institution, etc) distorting the price in such a way.
It applies both ways, no fiat unicorns, but no bitcoin unicorns as well. So neither large upmove nor downmove.
Herd psychology works yes, but when you time frame is long enough to put in a world war, you better make some adjustments to your theory.
I'm not sure what your first sentence means.
No, I think he was simply comparing bitcoin waves to waves in other historical bubbles. Bubbles are bubbles and herd psychology has been around for a very long time.
General analogies are fine, but unfalsifiable predictions are hardly useful, masters at such prediction usually extend the time frame to arbitrary length to fit in market fluctuation that will somehow "support" their original prediction.
Bitcoin unicorn means: Some big time single holders who supposedly have been hiding away and remain silent for the last 2-3years with some more than 200k holdings, and then one day magically show up to dump them all to crash the market.
BTW, we haven't seen unicorns, but definitely a few manticores, some million dollars single market orders were made on the way up, not sure about their intentions of course.
It applies both ways, no fiat unicorns, but no bitcoin unicorns as well. So neither large upmove nor downmove.
Herd psychology works yes, but when you time frame is long enough to put in a world war, you better make some adjustments to your theory.
I'm not sure what your first sentence means.
No, I think he was simply comparing bitcoin waves to waves in other historical bubbles. Bubbles are bubbles and herd psychology has been around for a very long time.
I agree with all of this....
You could actually make sense of it? Sometimes the people in this thread make way too many assumptions.
His assumptions (and Lucif's, etc.) are as valid, if not more valid, than many of the other views on this forum. This is one of the best threads in Speculation, IMO. I don't use EW religiously, but it proves very interesting during aberrant moves. And many extremely successful traders (especially those who catch market tops/bottoms) swear by it.
We all know there are compelling arguments for bitcoin's further success and equally compelling arguments for a market top, especially with a last leg. I'm bullish bitcoin and alt-coins, but realize that odds do not favor this parabolic rise for bitcoin. Big news could move us up much higher, of course....but it will take bigger news than we've had in the past (e.g., Western Union integrates Bitcoin). Media, hoarding, and lack of liquidity have played much larger roles in this parabolic move than any change in fundamentals.
Stability, even if it means a downward move is ultimately better for the long-term survival of bitcoin. And I see room for alt-coins. I accept valid assumptions supporting bitcoins rise or fall. What I do not accept are the seemingly popular views held on this forum that phantom millionaires and mythical hedge funds will drive this up $1000.
I'm just not sure what to make of this last leg.....
Here is what he said:
Quote
and it matches up with the S&P which finished potentially the most major top in all of history. The first bitcoin bubble was wave 3 a la 1929, and now we're nearing the big top a la 2000.
All right, so according to him, EW actually accounted for information in 2000 all the way back in 1929, great.
That's the problem I have with some technical analysts/abusers, when your prediction doesn't work you extend the time frame to ridiculous length to make it look like it works, not too much different from many "gonna be soon" "no target but it will collapse" analysts on this subforum.
I'm not a religious fanatic when it comes to TA. It does tend to work best during extreme moves (for me, at least). Herd psychology hasn't changed much over the centuries. I find it interesting that people dismiss charts/TA yet choose to believe in phantoms and unicorns. Anyone with even a hint of a financial background can immediately discount the possibility of a unicorn (e.g., very large mover, institution, etc) distorting the price in such a way.
It applies both ways, no fiat unicorns, but no bitcoin unicorns as well. So neither large upmove nor downmove.
Herd psychology works yes, but when you time frame is long enough to put in a world war, you better make some adjustments to your theory.
what do you think about this. what i'm seeing is that every time price stays above the top band for an extended period of time, it retraces, often to the 30 day wma but sometimes only to the 10
drawing channels is ok but i think you're setting yourself up for failure because you know its likely to break out as more and more people find out about bitcoin
bolinger bands seem to work better becuase they're dynamic
(click for larger version)
I used to look at the 18 day exponential avg for drop targets. Put buys in on gox slightly above... Last time that worked was the drop around March 23rd.
Well, it doesn't work no more... maybe. EAVG is now at roughly $100, so maybe it just takes more time this time.
Jump to: