- Aug 28, 2015
- 517
- 1,679
True, liquidity is more important, with no sellers the sky is the limit 
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
Realistically we only really have about 4 orders of magnitude left max before massive worldwide domination of pretty much every use-case.
Two orders of magnitude corresponds with the Winklevoss Twins' "small bull" scenario, would would be absolutely fantastic for opening up use-cases.
Just one order of magnitude bubble followed by like a 68% or 50% retrace and gradual recovery would have a gigantic effect insofar as restoring lay perception of Bitcoin as a real thing.
I'm not any kind of expert on Elliot Wave and what the implications would be, but it seems plausible to imagine that third scenario being prelude to the second.
[doublepost=1461728081][/doublepost]
Right now it seems like we have a mix of some good folks committed to sound money or pompous opportunists looking to control and change direction of this thing ideologically. I think we'll know we've arrived when we're attracting more hyper-competent but non-ideological developers interested in doing the boring stuff that needs to be done (as opposed to the other extreme of sitting on twitter all day long pontificating but contributing zero code like Adam Back).
Two orders of magnitude corresponds with the Winklevoss Twins' "small bull" scenario, would would be absolutely fantastic for opening up use-cases.
Just one order of magnitude bubble followed by like a 68% or 50% retrace and gradual recovery would have a gigantic effect insofar as restoring lay perception of Bitcoin as a real thing.
I'm not any kind of expert on Elliot Wave and what the implications would be, but it seems plausible to imagine that third scenario being prelude to the second.
[doublepost=1461728081][/doublepost]
To play devil's advocate, maybe the market cap is actually hurting us by entrenching these isle of misfits toys type amateurs in Core, and if we're talking a 10x - 100x larger Bitcoin, maybe that kind of more mainstream acceptance and excitement is what it takes to attract the attention of much more professional and competent developers?
Right now it seems like we have a mix of some good folks committed to sound money or pompous opportunists looking to control and change direction of this thing ideologically. I think we'll know we've arrived when we're attracting more hyper-competent but non-ideological developers interested in doing the boring stuff that needs to be done (as opposed to the other extreme of sitting on twitter all day long pontificating but contributing zero code like Adam Back).
Last edited:
molecular
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 372
- 1,391
@albin regarding the unquotable "
I'm not any kind of expert on Elliot Wave and what the implications would be, but it seems plausible to imagine that third scenario being prelude to the second.": I think this can be answered with a "yes".
my favorite elliot waver (masterluc) recently went for a walk (during runup last fall '15): "I decline to analze this. The multi year Great 3 has been started.". He's now back as the hike seems to continue. "Great 3" would probably mean "Historical elliot.wave III" and that would be huge if I understand correctly. (link to a wrapup: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=274613.msg14631226#msg14631226)
According to the "words of the master lucifer", when asked to predict the next ATH:
"Big. 1200 may be compared to final ATH in final wave like 31.2 compared to 1200. But it should be in up to 7-10 years."
So he cautiously puts the next ATH it at 46,302 USD/BTC.
wow, that is quite exaclty two orders of magnitude from current price: "Two orders of magnitude corresponds with the Winklevoss Twins' "small bull" scenario"
So... take it for what it is: wild speculation ;-) and give it time. You heard it boys, up to 7-10 years.
I'm not any kind of expert on Elliot Wave and what the implications would be, but it seems plausible to imagine that third scenario being prelude to the second.": I think this can be answered with a "yes".
my favorite elliot waver (masterluc) recently went for a walk (during runup last fall '15): "I decline to analze this. The multi year Great 3 has been started.". He's now back as the hike seems to continue. "Great 3" would probably mean "Historical elliot.wave III" and that would be huge if I understand correctly. (link to a wrapup: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=274613.msg14631226#msg14631226)
According to the "words of the master lucifer", when asked to predict the next ATH:
"Big. 1200 may be compared to final ATH in final wave like 31.2 compared to 1200. But it should be in up to 7-10 years."
So he cautiously puts the next ATH it at 46,302 USD/BTC.
wow, that is quite exaclty two orders of magnitude from current price: "Two orders of magnitude corresponds with the Winklevoss Twins' "small bull" scenario"
So... take it for what it is: wild speculation ;-) and give it time. You heard it boys, up to 7-10 years.
Dusty
Active Member
- Mar 14, 2016
- 362
- 1,172
I can't understand this part, it makes no sense: if bitcoind would keep in the mempool transactions with inputs used by txs in blocks, a new mined block (created with the txs in the mempool) would bring an invalid blocks, and we know that this does not happen.
For what I know, when a new block arrives the mempool is freed not only from the same txs in the block, but also from all the txs that spend inputs already claimed in the block: that can't be otherwise because those transactions are now invalid.
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
@molecular
Was that brief run-up to barely over $500 in Nov possibly the first bubble target that's lower than ATH that he's referring to?
Was that brief run-up to barely over $500 in Nov possibly the first bubble target that's lower than ATH that he's referring to?
Do you have access to a chart that goes all the way back to the beginning of Bitcoin trading with mtgox? I think I can explain what Luc is saying.
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
8up
Active Member
- Mar 14, 2016
- 120
- 344
BldSwtTrs
Active Member
- Sep 10, 2015
- 196
- 583
There is a thread on BCT where BurtW computed the sustainable price relative to mining power required.
He said that a $10,000 price per BTC wasn't sustainable until the 2020 halving.
So maybe a $40,000 price will required to wait the 2024 halving to be sustainable.
That fits well with Masterluc's prediction.
We can draw this rough growth pattern:
- 2016-2020: price anywhere up to 10,000$
-2020-2024: price anywhere up to 40,000$
-2024-2028: ?????
-2028+: Moon
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
Masterluc and Elliott Wave:
I discussed @masterlucs analysis in a German forum which was founded by the leading Elliott Wave guru in Germany.
http://www.dasgelbeforum.net/forum_entry.php?id=368012
Last edited:
Only if you believe we really are "under Core." Even if Core has any real power, I tend to think keeping Bitcoin small-time is the surest way for it to maintain power. With bigger market caps, the big boys come in and shove the pontificators aside. Especially since things like fork futures (which should really show who is in control: the investors) become much more viable at higher market caps, as there is more money to be made by exchanges.
at least you gave me a source. this one is goes further back and helps explain his analysis better, imo:
those who have followed me and the BCT Spec Forum will remember some of the contentious debates i had with Luc back in 2012. he's an Elliott Wave guy while i'm more of a Cycles guy. i used to do EW way back when but found it unreliable. i never considered myself an expert at EW and still don't. but, fact is, all methods can be unreliable when applied out of context or w/o integrating the fundamentals. TA is not easy and i'm certainly not always right. my edge (i think) is my age and experience investing directly in these mkts. but overall, i do skew more towards relying on TA.
it's interesting to see how Luc has apparently turned into a bull. back then, and apparently recently up until Nov, he was a staunch bear. i remember having intense debates with him back when the price was around $13 thereabouts, iirc. me saying UP, he saying DOWN. in fact, he was a subscriber to my newsletter there for a while. but time has apparently shown him that being a bull has been the right strategy. in that sense, my read of what he's saying above is that we are in an overall bull mkt, according to him. it's important to establish that first so that the wave structure can be interpreted correctly. no wonder he "took a walk" and is posting pics of wounded teddy bears.
the broad overview is that the run to 1200 was a grand wave I. the drop to ~150-200 this past year was grand wave II (i'm using the word "grand" perhaps incorrectly but meant to mean the biggest most zoomed out overall wave structure which will extend years/decades into the future). this latest upswing since last August marked the beginning of grand wave III which could take us to significantly higher values exceeding the previous ATH of 1200. i think his reference to 31.2 meant the price top in July 2011 and he equates that run to that of 1200. both represented maximum blowoffs with subsequent >90% retraces but still in the context of an overall bull mkt. the runs upwards in bull mkts have 5 waves with wave 3 usually being the biggest. both the run to 31.2 and the run to 1200 could be broken down into these 5 wave advances.
anyways, i do rely on a mishmash of different techniques and fundamentals when determining my own strategies. which aren't always right. but so far, so good for me.
Last edited:
so just to deconstruct that graph a little more:
the run to 31.2 was wave 1 within I, down to 1.98 was wave 2 within I, up to 220 was wave 3 within I, down to 50 was wave 4 within I, up to 1200 was wave 5 within I. then, down to 400 was wave 1 within II, up to 660 wave 2 within II, down to ~150 wave 3 within II. then, up to 500 wave 1 within III, sideways to 400 wave 2 within III, finally up to where we are now the beginning of wave 3 within III.
the nice thing about EW is it projects magnitude of waves.
the run to 31.2 was wave 1 within I, down to 1.98 was wave 2 within I, up to 220 was wave 3 within I, down to 50 was wave 4 within I, up to 1200 was wave 5 within I. then, down to 400 was wave 1 within II, up to 660 wave 2 within II, down to ~150 wave 3 within II. then, up to 500 wave 1 within III, sideways to 400 wave 2 within III, finally up to where we are now the beginning of wave 3 within III.
the nice thing about EW is it projects magnitude of waves.
Last edited:
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
@cypherdoc
Elliott wave is also about cycles and about timing. But you are right: It is always subject to what your eyes want to see. There are analysts who are more right than wrong et vice versa on both sides: TA and EW.
EW says that fundamentals lead to wrong conclusions.
The essence of the socionomic hypothesis is that fluctuations in social mood—waves of optimism and pessimism—are a natural result of human association and have consequences in social action. Social mood is not conscious, rational and objectively reactive but unconscious, non-rational and subjectively active. While people almost universally believe that the character of social events determines social mood, socionomics recognizes that the causality is the reverse: social mood determines the character of social activity. The causality of social mood is unidirectional; there is no feedback loop of events back to social mood. Events do stimulate brief emotional reactions, but they are transient and independent of social mood.
I recommend 'history's hidden engine' 1 hour, 6 parts:
http://www.socionomics.net/hhe-part-1/
Last edited:
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
@cypherdoc
They can't raise the interest rate. If they do, the system will crash. Janet prefers to crash harder later.
[doublepost=1461781317][/doublepost]
They can't raise the interest rate. If they do, the system will crash. Janet prefers to crash harder later.
[doublepost=1461781317][/doublepost]
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
Re-usable payment codes (BIP47) - article (with video) of alpha Samourai wallet implementation:
http://bitcoinx.io/news/articles/see-a-reusable-payment-code-in-action-with-this-samourai-wallet-demo-video/
Great work @Justus Ranvier !
http://bitcoinx.io/news/articles/see-a-reusable-payment-code-in-action-with-this-samourai-wallet-demo-video/
Great work @Justus Ranvier !