Bitcoin is continuing to pile on the gains.

The number one cryptocurrency by market value rose to a three-month high of $9,859 during the U.S. trading hours on Thursday and was last seen trading at $9,801, according to CoinDesk's Bitcoin Price Index.

With the surge to multi-month highs,bitcoin has recovered a significant portion of the ground lost in the secondhalf of 2019.

Bitcoin's bull move from the April 2019 low of $4,100 topped out at $13,880 at the end of June. The bears seized control in July and ended up pushing prices to below $7,000 by the end of November.

December, therefore, began on a negative note with prominent analysts calling for a deeper drop to $6,000 or below on miner selling of the digital asset.

The decline, however, was cut short at the seven-month low of $6,425 on Dec. 18. Since then the cryptocurrency has risen sharply by more than $3,300.

The speed of the ascent has been impressive nearly 46 percent of the decline from $13,880 to $6,425 seen in the 25 weeks to Dec. 18 has been reversed in just seven weeks.

With the bulls in control and momentum looking quite strong, the cryptocurrency could soon rise into five figures.

The daily chart looks constructive with the cryptocurrency printing bullish higher highs and higher lows with each passing week.

Confirming the uptrend are the ascending five- and 10-day moving averages (MAs) and a bullish crossover of the 50- and 100-day MAs. The MACD histogram, meanwhile, is printing higher bars above the zero line, indicating a strengthening of bullish momentum.

Importantly, the market is showing no signs of bull fatigue. The 14-day relative strength index is yet to cross into overbought territory above 70 and the cryptocurrency continues to print solid green candles with small wicks, a sign there is no hesitation among buyers while pushing prices higher.

So, the odds appear stacked in favor of a rise to the October high of $10,350. Pullbacks, if any, could find take the support of the ascendingfive- and 10-day MAs located at $9,526 and $9,445, respectively.

Bitcoin has faced rejection near $9,850 two times in the last 24 hours. Another failure might see some buyers opting to take their profits, leading to a minor price pullback to $9,635 (horizontal support line). Acceptance below that level might bring in deeper losses toward $9,500.

Disclosure: The author does not currently hold any digital assets.

The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk is a media outlet that strives for the highest journalistic standards and abides by a strict set of editorial policies. CoinDesk is an independent operating subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which invests in cryptocurrencies and blockchain startups.

The rest is here:
Bitcoin Has Erased Over 45% of 2019 Sell-Off in Just 7 Weeks - CoinDesk

Thanks to a significant uptick in Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) stock since the start of 2020, a new narrative has emerged: Tesla stock isapparentlythe new bitcoin. But is there any truth to this beyond a trivial analytic link?

The chronicle of Teslas price surgeand its kinship to BTCis being picked apart by nearly every analyst of late. One of the most recent speculators to highlight the quasi-relationship is Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Mike McGlone.

Speaking on an episode of Charting Futures, McGlone observed that Teslas stock price seems to be mimicking its 2013 performancea year that witnessed TSLA explode from $32 to $190 in the space of nine months:

On the long-term chart, [TSLA] trades just like it did in 2013, which was one of the biggest years ever. And by the way, that was the biggest year ever for Bitcoin and it looks to me like youre seeing a little bit of Bitcoin catching up.

McGlone certainly isnt alone in his thinking. A variety of crypto (and some non-crypto) commentators have also noted the TSLA-BTC connection. Crypto trader Scott Melker even suggested that Tesla stock was imitating bitcoins infamous 2017 bull runprompting somewhat of a sell signal:

You cant blame people for drawing comparisons. TSLA has gone on a parabolic streak since late October, climbing from $254 to a peak of $887 in early February. That marks a massive 250% increase in a little over three months. Remind you of anything?

Given this integral turning point for Tesla, its understandable why many are making the bitcoin-Tesla connection.

According to McGlone, while the assets charts appear to be lining up, the primary correlation between the pair remains their disruptive nature:

Theyre different assets but theyre the worlds most significant disruptive technologies with name recognition all around the world.

McGlone is right. Tesla is an undoubtedly innovative company. Its intention to supersede outmoded gas guzzlers makes it a highly relevant disruptor, especially in the age of environmental awareness.

Rather than cornering the market, as disruptive innovations typically dooften by producing a cheap and effective productTeslas success has instead drawn in multiple competitors. For example, the Chevrolet Bolt, Hyundai Ioniq, and Nissan Leaf, among others, come in at a more palatable cost compared to the Tesla Model 3, with its lofty $39,490 price tag.

Nevertheless, there is unquestionably a demand for Tesla. Last year the firm managing to seize 16% of the electric vehicle market despite established competition.

As a world-renowned pioneer of the electric vehicle industry, Teslas demand will likely continue to grow.

And then theres bitcoin.

Once touted as the death knell for the traditional financial industry, bitcoins allure as a disruptor has all but dissipated in recent years. Despite being a pioneer of blockchain technology and digital payments, a deficiency in adoption has curbed bitcoins goal of financial dominance.

For the most part, Bitcoin losing its disruptor status arises from a trifecta of woes: regulation, innovation and categorization.

A lack of cohesive regulation has left BTC adoption staggered across multiple jurisdictions. In the U.S., while the SEC continues to debate over security classifications of specific cryptocurrencies, the IRS defines bitcoin as property for U.S. federal tax purposes,andthe CFTC considers digital assets commodities. All of which contribute to the confusion.

Constant disagreement as to its use case has similarly buckled bitcoinwith no real consensus as to whether its a store of value, a medium of exchange, or both. As a consequence, the markets have become saturated. The cryptocurrency markets are now chock-full of bitcoin derivatives, each touting a sounder use-case than the lastproviding further dilution in bitcoins mission toward disruption.

Perhaps most damning of all is the argument that blockchain is a better disruptor than bitcoin.

Bitcoin, not blockchain is an adage typically used by non-believers. From Goldman Sachs President Gary Cohnto U.S. defense agency DARPA, those who rank BTC lower than its underlying tech appear to be winning the debate.

Last April, Forbes released its Blockchain 50 lista round-up for billion-dollar companies employing blockchain tech. The list included big shots such as Amazon Web Services, BBVA (Spains second-largest bank), Citigroup and, of course, Facebook. All of which tend to turn a blind eye toward bitcoin itself.

At the end of it, despite what analysts say, bitcoins relationship with Tesla is negligible at best, and downright ridiculous at worst.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of CCN.com.

This article was edited by Sam Bourgi.

Last modified: February 7, 2020 3:19 PM UTC

Read more here:
Is There Any Truth to the Tesla-Bitcoin Parallels? - CCN.com

Pseudonymous researcher Hasu has discovered a new twist on a well-known potential attack on the bitcoin network.

The researcher posted a description of the attack, which he named "Purge" after the B-movie franchise, to the bitcoin developer email list last week. It's a variation on the so-called sabotage attack, in which malicious miners try to wreak havoc on bitcoin for the sake of wreaking havoc, rather than for profit.

Purge attacks probably dont constitute a bigger risk than other known forms of sabotage attacks, but seem like an interesting spin," he wrote.

In the dystopia of the "Purge" films, the U.S. government legalizes all crime for one night every year to unleash a sort of national catharsis. Hasu said he chose the name "because the attacker doesnt (primarily) steal money himself, he makes theft legal in the network for a short period of time."

In short, the attack opens the possibility that in very particular circumstances some users could spend their bitcoins more than once, something the unique technology behind bitcoin is supposed to prevent.

To be clear: The scenario is hypothetical, like many others bitcoin researchers have identified in their efforts to steel the network against real-world sabotage attempts. Anticipating the danger is a first step toward preventing or at least mitigating it.

In order to execute a purge attack, a rogue miner would replace an already accepted block with an empty one, pushing transactions that were previously seen as final back into the "mempool," which is like a waitlist for transactions. Then, anyone who sent a transaction during that time can spend the same coin twice.

The new type of sabotage could be used to "undermine trust in bitcoin's assurances," such as the assurance that transactions are after a time "final," meaning irreversible. "Possible attackers could include nation-states hostile to bitcoin as well as terrorist organizations," Hasu added.

Further, Purge is different from other sabotage attacks because the users who are suddenly allowed to double-spend could get incentive to go along with the attack.

"Because Purge gives normal users a way to benefit from the attack, the attacker hopes that it will be harder to coordinate a response quicklybecause whoever benefited from the attack has an incentive to defend the attack chain," Hasu told CoinDesk.

But while Purge is a new idea, its not necessarily worse than other known attacks. Hasu also points to a couple of lines of defense: One, the risk to the attacker of losing block rewards, which are expensive to win and could decline in value if the attack shakes confidence in bitcoin; and two, the strength of bitcoins pre-coordination.

The full report (on bitcoin futures exchange Deribit's blog) dives into much more detail.

The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk is a media outlet that strives for the highest journalistic standards and abides by a strict set of editorial policies. CoinDesk is an independent operating subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which invests in cryptocurrencies and blockchain startups.

Go here to read the rest:
Crypto Researcher Hasu Flags Attack That Could Bring 'Purge'-Style Mayhem to Bitcoin - Coindesk

Bitcoin was trending higher through the early European session on Thursday as a very rare bull signal flashed for the first time in 10 months.

Dubbed asIchimoku Cloud, the technical indicator turned green to identify a long-term upside trend shortly after bitcoin surged towards $9,769.70 on Wednesday. It also hinted at the imminent formation of a Golden Cross a popular candlestick pattern that predicts an upcoming bull market.

History of Ichimoku Cloud rollovers | Source: TradingShot

Analysts at trading signals provider TradingShot called out Ichimoku Cloud for its historical accuracy in the past three years. They noted that the indicator correctly determined trend directions. On October 11, 2019, for instance, the Ichimoku Cloud turned red that soon followed the formation of a Death Cross the opposite of Golden Cross.

Bitcoin fell by circa 25 percent shortly after the bearish signal.

Similarly, when the Ichimoku Cloud rolled over to green on April 20, 2019, bitcoin soon established a Golden Cross on its daily charts. The cryptocurrency later swelled by circa 170 percent to mark its year-to-date high towards $13,868.44. TradingShot explained:

As you can see on the chart, after every bearish Ichimoku roll-over, a Death Cross follows shortly after. Respectively after every bullish Ichimoku roll-over, a Golden Cross follows. Since the new Ichimoku Bullish roll-over just took place, a new Golden Cross in pending (see on the chart how the MA50 and MA200 have already started to converge).

The prediction came in tandem with similar bullish expectations all across the bitcoin market. Experts, including billionaire investor Michael Novogratz, the CEO of Galaxy Investment Partners, said the cryptocurrency is eyeing a bull run towards or above $10,000 in the coming sessions.

TradingView.coms top analyst Jacob Canfield also noted that bitcoin is trending upwards in an Ascending Channel and there seem to be no breakdowns in views as of late.

Bitcoin was looking modest during the Thursdays trading session, trading above $9,650 while holding a major portion of the gains it registered yesterday.

BTC/USD testing Rising Wedge resistance | Source: TradingView.com, Coinbase

But the cryptocurrency remained locked inside a bearish continuation range defined by the redded Rising Wedge. The channels resistance clearly capped bitcoins upside attempts that raised the possibility of a deep pullback towards the support (or towards the blued 200-DMA wave).

Moving forward, a bull run continuation could see bitcoin invalidate the Rising Wedge pattern altogether. That would also lead the cryptocurrency towards $10,000 a psychological resistance.

Conversely, a pullback would strengthen the possibility of a breakdown below the Rising Wedge formation, with a downside target towards the blacked 50-DMA wave.

More here:
Bitcoin Explodes as Rare Bull Signal Flashes For the First Time in 10 Months - newsBTC

Source: iStock/simarik

Bitcoin is stale. Early champions such as Jon McAffee have been describing the original cryptocurrency as the "true Shitcoin," while to make matters worse, it also recently witnessed the creation of another 'stale' block.

But why is a stale block a problem? Well, for those who don't know, a block is 'stale' when it's accepted onto the Bitcoin blockchain, but then cast off soon after, because the nodes that had added it to their versions of the chain ended up forking away to a longer, majority chain that doesn't include it.

For some, the fact that a 'stale' block can be cast off proves that Bitcoin isn't actually immutable. And given that the recent stale block detected by BitMex resulted in a double spend worth USD 3, critics also claim it proves that Bitcoin isn't a viable digital monetary system.

However, Bitcoin developers argue that Bitcoin is immutable, insofar as 'immutability' was ever really achievable in the first place. They also point out that double spends are practically impossible on Bitcoin, since most exchanges and payment processors tend to wait for multiple confirmations on the blockchain before confirming a transaction request.

On January 27, BitMex Research tweeted that it had detected a stale block on the Bitcoin blockchain.

As developer Eric Wall explains, this means that two nodes on the chain (perhaps located at opposite corners of the globe) solved the computation for the next valid block at the same time.

"Every Bitcoin node has its own local copy of the blockchain. So does every miner," he tells Cryptonews.com. "When two blocks are found by two different miners at the same time, they're sent across the planet. For a brief moment, ten minutes or so, there can be disagreement in the network about which block was actually found first."

Watch the latest reports by Block TV.

Wall adds that some nodes in the network will favor one of the competing blocks, while other nodes will favor the other.

"This situation usually resolves itself with the next block that's found, which means that the nodes that accepted a block that didn't end up getting continued on by the next winning miner will have to throw their last block out. This block is thus 'stale'."

As for why some nodes might decide to 'orphan' a block, Bitcoin developer Ben Woosley explains that it's because nodes tend to favor the 'majority' chain that's the product of the most computational work.

"It's essentially discarded in favor of the chain that continues to have more blocks mined onto it (the 'most work' chain)," he tells Cryptonews.com. "In Bitcoin, the valid chain is always the 'most work' chain, and as each block is mined, it effectively 'buries' the prior blocks under its work."

So far, so ordinary. However, some observers used the creation and discarding of a stale block to claim that Bitcoin isn't really immutable. John Adler a self-professed "Blockchain skeptic" and a co-founder of the Ethereum-based Fuel Labs was one of these, essentially arguing on Twitter that immutability has to be absolute, otherwise it's not immutability.

However, Bitcoin developers argue that this is a naive view of immutability. Such immutability has never existed and never will exist, and not only for Bitcoin but for other cryptocurrencies.

"Bitcoin's claim of immutability is that an increasing number of confirmations makes it exponentially harder to reverse a transaction," says Bitcoin Core developer Bryan Bishop. "At some point, this becomes so exponentially difficult as to be impossible. That point isn't when the block is buried by one block, but rather by many."

Other developers second this view of immutability. Woosley notes that 'immutability' should be understood in terms of probability, and in particular in terms of increasingly low probabilities.

"Mathematically speaking, there aren't any immutability guarantees in Bitcoin, just exponentially decreasing probability of blocks being dropped out of the blockchain as new blocks are found," he says.

Under normal network conditions (i.e. if a chain isn't being attacked), a block is extremely improbable to drop out of the chain after just a few blocks, Woosley adds. "After a dozen blocks, the probability becomes so low that it's more likely that your head spontaneously explodes."

As developer Nicolas Dorier explains, "Technically speaking you can't speak of finality. Practically speaking you do."

So, "practically speaking," how many confirmations on the chain are sufficient to provide 'immutability' for all intents and purposes? Well, given that immutability is really about probability, there's no hard answer to this question, although there seems to be general agreement that the number is anything between two and six.

"Exchanges traditionally wait 6 confirmations," Dorier says. "If I were an exchange I would accept 2 confirmations (for Bitcoin)."

Wall conveys a similar picture, noting that the risks of one-block confirmations are already common knowledge."Some exchanges require 2, 3 or 6 confirmations because 1-block confirmations are known to not be very reliable," he says.

"Because this blockchain behavior is not unexpected, not many services will release any irretrievable goods or services with just 1 confirmation."

As reported, for an average transaction, only one or two confirmations (in theory, it would take c. 20 minutes) are needed to be requested by the recipient so the double spend strategy wouldnt be profitable, according to calculations by two mathematicians.

Given that most exchanges wait for several confirmations before processing a transaction, it's unlikely that double spending is even an insignificant problem on the Bitcoin blockchain, let alone a serious one.

Read more here:
'Stale' Block Reminds the Importance of Bitcoin Confirmations - Cryptonews