July 11, 2026

Capitalizations Index – B ∞/21M

Bitcoin, Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash, Ripple, Stellar, Litecoin, Cardano, NEO, EOS: Price Analysis, February 21, 2018

Bitcoin, ethereum, bitcoin cash, ripple, stellar, litecoin, cardano, neo, eos: price analysis, february 21, 2018

Bitcoin, Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash, Ripple, Stellar, Litecoin, Cardano, NEO, EOS: Price Analysis, February 21, 2018

The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Cointelegraph.com. Every investment and trading move involves risk, you should conduct your own research when making a decision.

The market data is provided by the HitBTC exchange.

The financial world seems not to have made up its mind yet about cryptocurrencies.

Paul Singer, founder of investment management firm Elliott Management called cryptos “one of the most brilliant scams in history” whereas Tim Draper, a prominent venture capital investor, has held on to his bitcoin, and, when asked if he is going to sell them, said: “Why would I sell the future for the past”.

Meanwhile major exchanges Coinbase and Bitfinex are aiming to implement the Segregated Witness (SegWit) scalability upgrade into their systems, which will significantly cut fees and transaction time for the users.

Will this news turn out to be bullish for bitcoin and the other top digital currencies? Let’s find out.

BTC/USD

Yesterday, February 20, Bitcoin reached our second target objective when it met the resistance line of the descending channel. Traders following us should have sold out their positions around $12,000. What should they do now?

Btc/usd

The BTC/USD pair has almost doubled from its recent lows, therefore some profit booking is to be expected at the current levels. However, it remains bullish as long as it trades inside the ascending channel.

If the bears break down below the support line of the ascending channel, a fall towards the 20-day EMA at $10,000 and below that to the horizontal support line at $9,500 is possible.

Our bearish view will be invalidated if the cryptocurrency breaks out of $12,200 and rallies towards $13,000.    

ETH/USD

The stop loss suggested by us in our previous analysis triggered yesterday, February 20. Ethereum has now broken below the 20-day EMA, which is a bearish sign.

Eth/usd

On the downside, we expect the ETH/USD pair to fall to between $780 and $772 levels, which is a strong support zone.

Our bearish view will be invalidated if the bulls push the digital currency back above the 20-day EMA, towards $1,000 levels. However, the probability of such a rally is low.

BCH/USD

Our recommended stop loss of $1,400 triggered today, February 21. Bitcoin Cash has not performed according to expectations. It failed to gain momentum and move towards the 50-day SMA.      

Bch/usd

The bears have broken below the 20-day EMA, which is a bearish sign. There is one final support at $1,350. If this support breaks, the BCH/USD pair can correct towards $1,200 levels once again.

Our view will be negated if the bulls break out of the trendline and move up to $1,600.   

XRP/USD

After trading in a tight range from February 15 to 19, Ripple broke down of this range yesterday, February 20.. It has also fallen below the 20-day EMA; this indicates weakness. Our suggested stop loss of $0.95 has not yet been breached. But unless the bulls quickly climb above the 20-day EMA, a fall to $0.87 is likely.

Xrp/usd

The XRP/USD pair will gain strength only if it breaks out and sustains above $1.23. We expect the cryptocurrency to remain range bound between $0.87 and $1.2 over the next few days.         

XLM/USD

Stellar has turned down and has broken below the critical support of $0.41. Currently, it is taking support at the channel line; unless it breaks above $0.41 quickly, it might turn negative.

Xlm/usd

Our stop loss is way lower at $0.30. As most top coins are showing weakness, we should raise the stop loss on the XLM/USD pair to $0.35 on a daily closing basis (UTC).

If the cryptocurrency again enters the channel, it will mean bearish development, and this will raise the chances of a breakdown below $0.30 levels.  

LTC/USD

We had previously anticipated a rally to $270, but Litecoin could only touch the $256.818 levels yesterday, February 20. Higher levels attracted profit booking, resulting in a pullback.

Ltc/usd

The LTC/USD pair is stronger compared to the other top coins as it is trading above both the 20-day EMA and the 50-day EMA. The moving averages are also forming a bullish crossover, which is another positive sign.

The price might find support at the trendline, around the $214 mark. Nevertheless, if all the cryptocurrencies fall, Litecoin positions will not be damaged. Therefore, we recommend raising the stop loss on the remaining position to $210.

The digital currency will gain momentum if it reverses direction and sustains above $240.

ADA/BTC

Our bearish view on Cardano has played out according to our forecast. The cryptocurrency has been falling for almost 10 days. This has pushed the RSI into oversold territory and also increases the possibility of a pullback to the overhead resistance level of $0.00004070.

Ada/btc

The falling 20-day EMA is also close to this level. We won’t be surprised to see the ADA/BTC attempting to rise in the next couple of days. However, the trend remains down and we expect the price to fall to the next support level of $0.0000246.

NEO/USD

The bulls tried to break out of the descending triangle pattern on February 19 and 20, but were unsuccessful in settling at higher levels. NEO reversed direction yesterday, February 20 and reentered the descending triangle.   

Neo/usd

Today, the NEO/USD pair is trying to hold on to the critical support of the moving averages and $120.33. If this support zone breaks, a fall to $100 is likely.

We will turn bullish if the cryptocurrency breaks out and sustains above $140.

EOS/USD

EOS did not reach our buy levels of $11. It turned down from the downtrend line and the 20-day EMA, which is a bearish sign.

Eos/usd

The EOS/USD pair has support at $7.91. If this support breaks, the price might fall to $7. On the upside, a breakout above $10.50 will indicate a possible shift in trend.

The market data is provided by the HitBTC exchange. The charts for the analysis are provided by TradingView.

Published at Wed, 21 Feb 2018 22:31:20 +0000

Altcoin

Previous Article

Bitcoin, Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash, Ripple, Stellar, Litecoin, Cardano, NEO, EOS: Price Analysis, February 21, 2018

Next Article

Forget Colleges Campuses — This High School’s Caught The Bitcoin Bug | CNBC

You might be interested in …

Taking crypto gambling to another level

Taking Crypto Gambling to Another Level

Taking Crypto Gambling to Another Level NanoGames – Taking Crypto Gambling to Another Level NanoGames is a Crypto-based social gambling site with four different game modes:  Crash BlackJack NonceDice HashDice Frequently Asked Questions What cryptocurrencies can I use […]

De-briefing Ethereum’s Parity Predicament: What’s Next?

De-briefing Ethereum’s Parity Predicament: What’s Next?

After an unidentified actor “accidentally” triggered a series of bugs that destroyed approximately $150 million worth of digital currency, the world waits for a substantive answer — is this vulnerability an anomaly? An “I told you so”? Or a humbling opportunity to secure the Ethereum network?

What Happened?

On November 6, “Devops199,” an alleged amateur programmer, set off a chain of bugs on Parity, a popular digital wallet for Ethereum. These bugs affected multisignature, or “multisig,” accounts — “wallets” that require multiple users to sign off with their keys before funds can be transferred.. The place these wallets connect to is known as a “library” contract.

  1. According to Parity, an attempt to fix a vulnerability that allowed hackers to steal $32 million from multisignature wallets in July of 2017 inadvertently created a second vulnerability in the library contract. This allowed Devops199 gain sole ownership of the library that every multisignature wallet used for their code.

  2. After Devops199 realized what had happened, he “killed” (deleted) the code. Unfortunately, this locked all funds into multisignature wallets permanently, with no way to access them.

  3. Because of the functionality of the current blockchain, $150 million worth of ether (ETH), the tradable currency that fuels the Ethereum platform, is now effectively destroyed and inaccessible to anyone.

Among the victims of this bug are several recently successful ICOs that chose to store their funds in a Parity wallet because of its multisig option and compatibility with various hardware wallets.

Parity’s Response (So Far)

On November 7, tweets on Parity’s official Twitter account acknowledged the vulnerability and confirmed that the funds affected are frozen and can’t be moved anywhere.

A day later, on November 8, Parity de-briefed the bug, explaining that it was indeed possible to turn the Parity Wallet Library contract into a regular multisig wallet and become the owner of it, which is exactly what Devops199 did. Parity now has a tool to check if a user/wallet has been affected by the vulnerability.

Parity’s History of Hacks

This isn’t the first time Parity has fallen victim to a security exploit. Parity’s multisignature contracts were previously the target of three thefts totalling 150,000 ether in July of 2017 (the second-largest hack after the DAO fiasco). And losses could have been exponentially higher. However, the “White Hat Group,” a collection of hackers and activists, was able to intervene and drain the majority of other wallets before they could be compromised as well.

Future multi-sig wallets created in all versions of Parity Wallet have no known exploits.
 – Official Parity website post following the July 19 hack

Jeff Coleman, an expert in blockchain technologies and currently a researcher and advisor with L4 Ventures, described Parity’s response to the July 19, 2017, attack as having been “worrying, to say the least.”

Coleman told bitcoin Magazine that his primary concerns centered around Parity’s inadequate response and its tendency to downplay the significance of the compromise, choosing instead to blame a large number of external causes:

They blamed observers for not finding the bug before it was exploited; they blamed lack of incentivization for observers; and they blamed the Solidity language for not blocking access by default to the functions the [Parity team] failed to protect.

He further noted that Parity seemed to be blaming the complexity of the well-audited wallet (which they still believed to be secure) from which they had originally modified their code. And also that Parity didn’t take responsibility for their own inadequate quality control and audit procedures.

S.O.S.?

Developers in the community are desperately trying to find a fix to the Parity predicament. Coleman believes that “from a technological perspective, there is nothing short of a hard fork [a non-backward-compatible change to the Ethereum protocol] to restore the destroyed funds.”

After the DAO hack in 2016, the Ethereum Foundation had already accepted a hard fork to restore lost funds, with the common understanding that this was a sort of “mulligan” — a one-time fix for a young, developing blockchain. This scenario, nevertheless, divided the Ethereum blockchain into two parts and created Ethereum Classic, the original Ethereum blockchain, backed by a community that vehemently opposes editing transaction history to restore lost funds.

Using hard forks as interventions to “correct” worst-case scenarios like this is highly controversial, especially since blockchains are meant to be immutable. So, it’s difficult to convince the Ethereum community to use a hard fork to rescue one team from a mistake. While many acknowledge sympathy for smaller accounts storing personal ETH, sentiment is not as sympathetic for the 300,000 ETH that belonged to the Polkadot Project, project associated with the Parity team.

Arseny Reutov, an application security researcher for blockchain security firm positive.com, affirmed this community sentiment, while acknowledging that hard forks can be solutions. However, he agrees that Ethereum cannot simply hard fork any time there is a problem on the network. He believes blockchains should expect “more and more high profile thefts and incidents,” and that the problem lies in the infant Ethereum platform itself — specifically, in the native Solidity programming language.

If a Hard Fork Isn’t the Answer, Then What Is?

Both Coleman and Reutov believe that the key to gaining the community support necessary to restore funds is to combine the Parity situation with similar situations in which funds have been lost due to various kinds of mistakes. As an example, Coleman referenced those detailed in EIP 156: “Reclaiming of ether in common classes of stuck accounts.”

Coleman also pointed out that in any of these instances, it must be “completely unambiguous who the original owners of the assets were.” The necessary changes could then be made and packaged together in an “already planned hard fork, such as the upcoming Constantinople fork.”

Even so, restoring funds is problematic. Ethereum core developers must discern which mistake-affected funds will be returned to users. Will all funds be returned or only a select few — or will this be a ~500,000 ETH learning experience?

The post De-briefing Ethereum’s Parity Predicament: What’s Next? appeared first on Bitcoin Magazine.