Why I Think We've Reached a Bitcoin [BTC] Bottom

Why I Think We’ve Reached a Bitcoin [BTC] Bottom

bitcoin has had a crazy past week relative to the slow and steady downtrend we’ve been in. Volume finally started to pick up and notably price pumped $1k in 30 mins before we saw the market start to stall again.

Steemit Post: https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@cryptovestor/why-i-think-we-ve-reached-a-bitcoin-bottom

Last week I started to become tempted to buy bitcoin [BTC] at around $6800. bitcoin [BTC] had been trading around that level for 2 weeks, so mentally I suspect I started to feel like we were at a bottom and I didn’t want to miss out on the next pump. The fact that I felt FOMO while we were trading sideways (especially given my general pessimism) LIKELY means that many other market participants feel the same way. The only reason I didn’t buy is because of trading rules I’ve set where I can’t increase my position size in bitcoin [BTC] until it goes down to $5k.

Furthermore, bitcoin [BTC] dominance is starting to fall which means money is shifting into altcoins again. This is a risk-off trade which shows confidence in the market. My confidence in my 50% BTC dominance prediction is finally starting to wane, which given the level of conviction I had for months despite all the criticism I received for it, is a sign that perhaps the market is ready for more stupid behavior (AKA another nice bull run).

In terms of altcoin trades I’m looking at, I discuss the following:

1) Litecoin at 0.015 BTC
2) Monero below 0.025 BTC
3) Nano at around 70 – 75k Satoshi (yes, the crypto I called a pump & dump – it’s finally come full circle)

What are your thoughts on the market? As usual, feel free to share them with me and the community in the comment section below. Thanks for watching / reading!

================
If you like my content, you can support me through using ANY of the affiliate links below (I receive small compensation). The beauty of affiliate links is that I can pick and choose what I like rather than have companies approach me – everything I linked below (with the exception of Trezor since I like Ledger), I use myself frequently.
================

My Recommended Hardware Wallets:

If you want to store your cryptocurrencies safely, the best way is through a hardware wallet. Seriously – look it up and you’ll find plenty of information supporting this claim. There are alternatives such as paper wallets, but these are convenient and my choice for cold storage (offline):

Ledger Nano S: http://amzn.to/2hZPj0q
Trezor: http://amzn.to/2AxD9TN
Ledger Blue (expensive): http://amzn.to/2hk7xst

I personally prefer the Ledger Nano S, but the Trezor is such a close second that it really doesn’t matter which one you go with. Ledger Blue is premium and convenient, but not necessary.
================

My Favorite Book for Investing in Crypto:

Cryptoassets: http://amzn.to/2zKDdCF

This book is, bar none, my favorite book for investing in cryptocurrencies. It doesn’t bog you down with technical jargon, but instead focuses on all the elements you should understand before you invest.

It’s a comprehensive book for both beginners and experts. Beginners will find information about major cryptocurrencies (not just bitcoin [BTC]) as well as details on historical market events (that you can draw on for future) and events to watch for moving into the future. Experts will find the chapters on valuation particularly useful. For those of you involved in traditional investing, this book is even more of a godsend as finance info is explored (correlations with other asset classes, ETFs, etc).
================

My Recommended Exchanges: Coinbase / GDAX / Bittrex

https://www.coinbase.com/join/5a08b12e305a1401d79d10e0

If you sign up to Coinbase using link above, you and I will both receive $10 each after you buy your first $100 of bitcoin [BTC] using Coinbase. Coinbase is much less intimidating for beginners. Once ready, move up to GDAX for cheaper or zero fees. For altcoins, I recommend Bittrex.
================

Legal Stuff: I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.

None of what I provide in my videos is investment advice. Please do your own due diligence.
================

My Platforms:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Truth_Investor
SteemIt: https://steemit.com/@cryptovestor
Medium: https://medium.com/@Truth_Investor
Seeking Alpha: https://seekingalpha.com/author/truth-investor/articles

April 14, 2017

Core Dev Maxwell: UASF ‘Does Not Measure Up To Standard’

bitcoin core developer Greg Maxwell has newly outlined why he “does not support” a user-activated soft fork (UASF) as it figures in BIP 148.

Maxwell: UASF ‘Guarantees Disruption’

In a circular to the Core mailing list Friday, Maxwell said that although he is not strictly against a soft fork, its incarnation in BIP 148’s UASF does not “really measure up to the standard set by segwit itself.”

The debate over whether to galvanize the entire bitcoin ecosystem into Segwit activation via a UASF has gained considerable traction over the last month.

Proponents say it is the quickest way to move bitcoin on from its current stalemate, yet detractors highlight its disruptive nature as a reason for caution. If a UASF occurred, for example, non-supportive miners would find their blocks invalid after the deadline, and would not receive rewards for their work.

Maxwell too notes that this “disruption” is a key difference between a UASF and segwit activation via miners.

“The primary flaw in BIP148 is that by forcing the activation of the existing (non-UASF segwit) nodes it almost guarantees at a minor level of disruption,” he continued. “Segwit was carefully engineered so that older unmodified miners could continue operating _completely_ [sic] without interruption after segwit activates.”

Time Still Not Of The Essence

Despite the increasingly slow and expensive nature of the bitcoin network, Maxwell still advocates a measured approach without speed as a priority.

…The fastest support should not be our goal, as a community– there is always some reckless altcoin or centralized system that can support something faster than we can– trying to match that would only erode our distinguishing value in being well engineered and stable.

First do no harm.’ We should use the least disruptive mechanisms available, and the BIP148 proposal does not meet that test.

The developer has meanwhile found himself under fire lately from bitcoin Unlimited proponents, notably Roger Ver, who released a dedicated presentation with quotes from Maxwell highlighting alleged errors.

“It’s important the users not be at the mercy of any one part of the ecosystem to the extent that we can avoid it– be it developers, exchanges, chat forums, or mining hardware makers,” Maxwell concluded.

Ultimately the rules of bitcoin work because they’re enforced by the users collectively– that is what makes bitcoin bitcoin, it’s what makes it something people can count on: the rules aren’t easy to just change.

Meanwhile, bitcoin’s recent price spike over $1,200 has been attributed by some to a sharp rise in the number of UASF-signaling nodes. Though this does not necessarily imply causation, the price has also dipped following the publication of Maxwell’s post.

What do you think about Greg Maxwell’s perspective on a UASF? Let us know in the comments below!

Images courtesy of uasf.org, twitter.com, shutterstock

The post Core Dev Maxwell: UASF ‘Does Not Measure Up To Standard’ appeared first on Bitcoinist.com.

Why I Think We’ve Reached a Bitcoin [BTC] Bottom

You might be interested in …

CFTC Publishes Advisory On Listing Cryptocurrency Derivatives

Indian Exchanges pivot to Crypto-to-Crypto trading amid RBI Banking Blockade

Core Dev Maxwell: UASF ‘Does Not Measure Up To Standard’

Maxwell: UASF ‘Guarantees Disruption’

Time Still Not Of The Essence