I am quite skeptical of your word choice: "random"      In other words, I have my doubts about the accuracy of such word choice.  Please describe or show your work regarding how you employed such purported "randomness" in this here instance?  


Huh?  I had to do a double-take after reading your assessment of the above depicted history, onrise.

In essence, you seem to miss various important areas of the chart with your description of the chart.

For instance, look at 2014 and 2016... the BTC price is pretty close to the same on those two purportedly "random" July dates.  

Doesn't that 2014/2016 BTC price comparison mean anything to you and your assessment based on what is contained in the chart?  

Of course, we have to NOT cause historical BTC price performance to necessarily bias in our assessment of possible future BTC price performance, even though based on totality of various circumstances, BTC price prediction models and seemingly ongoing strong BTC fundamentals, it does seem that $20k or more in July 2021 does seem quite reasonable, even if far from a given. (by the way, BTC price has not had any kind of tendency to get stuck floating around previous ATH price ranges for very long, so it is likely NOT a good idea to presume that BTC might get stuck around previous ATH price ranges, even though it is also possible that this time could be different).

I usually prefer to create 27 words where 18 words would have done just fine, so that tends to be my inclination.      hahahahaha

I doubt that it is really great to venture into political discussions in a thread like this if you are very passionate about your position, or you take strong positions or you have difficulties accepting that others might have reasonable positions that are somewhat (if not completely) opposite to yours, most likely those opposing views come from different reasons whether value or experience based, and some folks seem to be more capable than others in providing a basis for their position - even though most people don't necessarily list all of the reasons for their position and sometimes might not even realize what all of the bases for their position might be.  Controversial for sure, but also does not seem to rise to the level of ignoring someone who might otherwise provide decent BTC related input from time to time, which remains the main reason why I am here.  

In other words, I hardly give too many shits about what you fucktwats believe about politics, here and there (or the extent that I might agree or disagree - but surely sometimes if some member makes a very insightful or comical political post, I may well still send a merit in that direction because such post may have caused me some ting-a-lingies.. #nohomo), and even Ibian, who may well serve as a person who spouted out quite a few nonsense political hate views, did sometimes provide some decent BTC commentary.. much more rare for roach... just to bash on a couple of the worser case of the outright historical haters in this thread.

Sure.    Feels like a kind of Lindy Effect that seems to be developing in this area, and $9k could feel kind of boring and blahze as you suggest, Globb0, and probably part of the reason that we are not feeling very excited about $9k remains that we have been here a lot of times in the past 3 years, and almost as if $9k could transition into a floor or even a sub-floor, even though there are far from any guarantees of even that.

Probably the folks who have been investing into bitcoin for 4 years or more (let's say dollar cost averaging) are feeling a decent amount of comfortableness, even with $9k, and even the dollar cost averagers of 2 to 3 years are likely to be in decent profits as long as they largely kept a DCA accumulating system that did not devolve into too many playing around habits.   We could look at DCA charts and play with the timeline (such as 4 years) to see how various time periods of DCAing would have worked out, and it appears that the longer DCA'ing the higher the percentage of profits and the more that BTC differentiates itself from DCAing into other assets, such as gold and equities or even just holding dollars. 

Of course, front load investing (or even buying on the dip) could have been potentially helpful too, even though it may have cost extra if buying too much BTC in higher price ranges, such as supra $10k.. and running out of fiat to buy on the larger dips, such as dips into the $3ks and $4ks. 

So you would have NOT gone wrong with practices that largely played out as a kind of dollar cost averaging, but there may be some decent number of folks who have been playing around with their BTC investment trying to magnify or leverage their BTC investments and maybe not always playing the price swings correctly and maybe are not as much into profits as the strict DCA-ers, so they could be a bit more anxious for orange coin number go up.

Of course, coinbase has discretion regarding what kind of shit that it pumps and the various business practices that they employ.. I don't really see any need to defend them, even if I might not have been exactly fair to them.. why give any shits about whether they could have still been a profitable business without going so far down the shitcoin road?  I am surely NOT asserting that they do not have the right to do whatever the fuck they want with their business, but I am not going to praise them or try to give them some kind of benefit of the doubt as a  whole... no need for that, ... but sure, just like coinbase can employ discretion in regarding which shitcoins they offer and some of their other lame-ass decisions, you also have discretion to defend them... I suppose.    

jbreher likes to pump them up too, I wonder why that is?      He might want to chime his picnic bear ass into the mix, as well.   

Exactly!!!

There are some theories that bitcoin is designed to pump forever, but that might not be the correct mindset, but instead bitcoin is designed to hold its value forever, so if governments do not UP their game, then their currencies are going to lose out to bitcoin.. and.. surely, many of us know that value flowing into bitcoin from various fiats and even from other storages of value is not matters of if, but moreso matters of when.. so it could take a while to play out, and maybe some fiats and even some storages of value will do a bit better than others. 

It's not like I can live in a bitcoin, eat it or drink it, so I am going to have to spend some kinds of values to get these other goods, so at some point, there might be fewer less valuable cashes available, and then we will need to spend some of our bitcoins to get some of the basics of life.. which might even include those funzie consumption goods too that might not need to be named at this particular point.

Juan cries that franky1 goes into truce status way too easily.  You are such a good and compliant bud.  


Franky1?  You happen to be an understanding kind of a plural?  omg...  


You could not make it more clear that you would like to repeat nonsense until everyone throws up.




It's very weird how much gobbledy gook gibberish you can come up with.


 Do I appear afraid?


 Thanks for allowing me a break.  You are so kind.


Hey, if I were to get a 4 hour break, that would be amazing, especially with your kind of a truce maintenance.  

You agree that coinbase is not bitcoin, but you did not make any comment about the difference between bitcoin and crypto.

You don't necessarily need to read the bitcoin whitepaper in order to understand what bitcoin is, as compared to the rest of crypto - but it might be helpful to have some understandings regarding how bitcoin is distinguishable in order to attempt to address how we attempt to address matters in this thread, which is largely a bitcoin focused thread, rather than convoluting the concept of how some thing in the space (such as the an attempted going public of Coinbase) affects bitcoin specifically.

I just consider analysis to be a whole hell of a lot weaker, when lumping bitcoin into an amorphous crypto concept rather than attempting to figure out bitcoin more specifically.    yes, a lot of companies, including coinbase have gone down a shitcoin rabbit hole because they believe that they can make more money by getting involved in a variety of shitcoins, but that does not mean that in this thread we even want to talk about bitcoin matters by NOT attempting to recognize that some companies, including coinbase have confused their own business model and incentives by getting involved with a variety of shit products.. but still does not mean that some people might still choose to purchase or trade their bitcoins with coinbase.

Coinbase is not bitcoin, and bitcoin is not crypto.... so you do seem to be muddying some of the concepts, Tuco Benedicto Pacifico, which may also thereby lead you into reading too much into one company in the space planning to go public... Bitmain was going to do something similar, and it ended up not going through.. This coinbase situation might have some better chances, who knows..? we will see.

Your representations of the truce are quite weird, franky1.  

Furthermore, I suggested that our truce is likely to be merely that we have been in a kind of static position in which we largely just repeat ideas rather than discussing anything new, perhaps until something else happens related to the case or maybe either of us might gain another perspective over one or more of the potentially relevant material issues related to the case.  

I doubt that we have to wait four months for new matters to come out of this subject - because in part, your boys CSW, Calvin et al are all about playing these matters in the public sphere, and if they could perhaps get any kind of pumpenings possibilities out of any of the developments, they would likely do it.   Accordingly, I doubt that they would even find it in their interest to go into total radio silence for 4 months, unless they are planning some kind of exit scam or something like that...

In other words, I doubt that we need to repeat ourselves, at this point, but maybe I might come back and attempt to figure out what the fuck you were talking about in your post, to the extent any of it might happen to mean something beyond already responded to gobbledy gook, so in that regard, you don't really seem to be saying anything substantially new in your attempt at a rendition of my position because my posts speak for themselves, rather than your spins of them.

And bring your lil butt buddy roach with you.




hahahahahaha



NOT

I don't miss either of the racist socially ineptly malformed twats.

It would really be difficult to expect any kind of immediate effect from this most recent halvening.  In respect to hash power, we did get a bit of what seemed to have been a mining front-running that caused hashpower to go up prior to the halvening, and then a few adjustments on the hashing power downward that still ended up largely continuing to show upward movement in the hashing power over the past 6 months, even though there was a downward hashpower blip there right after the halvening.... so in that sense, bitcoin seems to be working as it was intended to work, and no real hashpower issues presented themselves through this most recent halvening... .so really, that kind of non-issue in regards to mining and mining incentives should be bullish as fuck.

Another thing is that a decent amount of time could pass before the reduction of the new bitcoin supply is really felt (going from 12.5 to 6.25), and even in 2016, it took several months for the upwards BTC price pressures to increasingly be felt - and even with that, we cannot know if this time had a bit more of the havening event already priced in or NOT so we cannot be sure if the up (presuming that it comes) is going to play out similarly as last time around (don't get me wrong, I am NOT much of a "priced-in" theory advocate, but I am just trying to say that we really don't know the pattern of how the price plays out this post halvening as compared with last time).

In other words, we are barely touching upon two months post halvening, and sure we might be largely flat in terms of the BTC price right around the time of the halvening as compared with now - even though there was a decent amount of both up and down BTC price movement within the week before the actual halvening.

Call me a party poop, but I am not even going to be upset if BTC price ends up still being in the sub $10k arena a couple of years from now.  I am just not trying to create expectations that are too great for myself (and something like BTC that is largely outside of my control), even though I still believe that there are pretty decent odds that some kind of upwards exponential BTC price growth is going to happen within the next two years, and probably even less than that, without really knowing for sure and not really even causing myself to get depressed if we were still somewhere between $5k and $9k two years from now, even though there are good odds of higher BTC prices than that... especially given all of the circumstances and the seeming fundamentals.. and I am going to say the same thing to someone just getting into bitcoin about halving a long timeline in terms of expectations.. and don't expect too much from bitcoin in the shorter time frames... because having too high of expectations remains a set-up for psychological disappointment....

Sure any BTC accumulator and HODLer and even newbie into bitcoin might be pleasantly surprised by upwards BTC price movements in the short term, but the surprise remains far from guaranteed... so also in accordance with that kind of mindset, I am quite grateful for already being into considerable profits with my BTC, which would also be true if bitcoin were within a $5k to $9k price range, now or in two years or even longer from now...

Yes.. maybe sounds too bearish.. but, even DCA'ing into bitcoin and marginal performance of the bitcoin asset into the near-term future seems to have great odds of out performing all other investments, even though such projected likely superior BTC price performance remains in the mix while at the same time, far from guaranteed (holding two conflicting ideas in my head at the same time...  go figure? hahahahaha).

Edit:  A couple hours after this above original post, I added a few more words to this post.. hopefully, to attempt to make the substantive aspect flow better, rather than changing any of the actual substance.. even though longer to read and I maybe might be not sorry about that.

He is speaking from the future.

So, he can use whatever numbers that he wants, and if you do not happen to have a time machine, you cannot question those numbers....

Either get a grip, or get a time machine, Biodom.   

Personally, I find single entity theories to be quite lame (including willybot), especially given bitcoin's overall size, currently, but there is also a certain amount of understandability that more than 60% of BTC do not tend to move at all on a regular basis, so in that regard, BTC's price is being determined by a quite lower number of coins that are in a position to be traded (of course assuming that fractional reserve practices have not totally fucked any semblance of exchange volume credibility).

Seems that the earlier stages of an exponential period tend towards gradualness in the beginning until gaining some steam.. so sure, there might be some mini-blow off tops before reaching the GRAND FINALE blow-off-top, so I am thinking that a mini-bllow-off-top is likely to bring us above our ATH any time soon.. and I am thinking that there could be a couple of mini-blow-off-tops before going over the ATH.. and then we kind of start a new phase of UPpity at that point.

But what do I know?

It is not like bitcoin follows any kind of exact pattern, and even if any of us comes up with a kind of tentative idea about how it might play out, a few little glitches could throw a decently-sized monkey wrench into our previous way of thinking about the playing out of the upward momentum matter.

Ok.  I will not try. 


Just recently, I had several things go against me at once, and kind of create a bit of a negative cascade.  Nonetheless, seems to me that there are quite a few people going through something like this in a lot of places in the world, and even worse in some locations, probably.

One thing that you and I have in common in terms of finances is a decent bitcoin hedge, so even though we have quite a bit going against us sometimes, it is likely worse for quite a few people who do not have a bitcoin hedge. 

Sure, some of people might have things that you and I do not have (and yeah youth is one of those things), and maybe some of that is somewhat out of our control, too, but I continue to conjecture that it remains much better to at least have some decent financial hedging - and of course, if we are having health issues because the passage of time is likely only causing those issues to get worse, to the extent that we cannot control or minimize the negative impact of all of the things, and we might be concerned that we cannot really enjoy the financial hedging.. and I only know so much about your own circumstances.  So, if grumpy works for you, let it be so.

**

**Even though I am enjoying my day, so far.   

To be fair, I doubt that it is representative to measure bitcoin from it's earliest adoption phases, in which it had almost no value, even though the point of sound money still holds true for bitcoin... and of course, in bitcoin we are still likely in the earliest of stages of an exponential s-curve adoption phase, yet the more mature bitcoin becomes, the more likely we will be able to compare it to other more mature assets, and sure many of us have seemingly sound conjectures that bitcoin is going to continue to serve as a gravitational magnate for value.. absent some kind of major downfall in the technology or the exploitation of an attack vector that is NOT adequately appreciated or understood at this time.

In other words, still seems that bitcoin continues to serve a great asymmetric bet that continues to provide a lot of upside potential and maybe even no need to really gamble or leverage in order to personally profit stupendously from bitcoin merely by either starting to accumulate or just continuing to accumulate BTC to an extent that is personally reasonable and feasible and maybe NOT investing so much or too much that you may have to sell BTC that is not at a time of your own choosing.

In other words, even though bitcoin seems to continue as a very great asymmetric bet to the upside, there could be periods in which bitcoin prices are manipulated down and continue to stay down for unreasonable periods of time in order to attempt to shake as many HODLers out of their bitcoin as is possible, and in those circumstances, each of us has to be careful that we are not shaken out of some or all of our bitcoin at a time that is NOT of our own choosing.

I am not unsatisfied with your various answers and explanations, but I had been hoping for a kind of short explanation that presents the matter in a kind of layman way.. It could be that I am kind of looking for a chart to show features of various previous systems to show which features each of them have and to see that bitcoin has many of the same features, but maybe even more.  I wonder if such a chart might already exist?

Frequently i hear that with bitcoin, satoshi did not really invent anything new, but instead satoshi was able to combine a lot of different prior inventions and technologies in such a way that no one else had done previously.. so maybe there were not too many new things within bitcoin, but just the implementation and combination of what had largely already existed in one form or another, but there also is a bit of genius in terms of applying those technologies together.. and especially, for example, I had heard of the two week difficulty adjustment as being one of those very powerful mechanisms that might not really had existed in prior systems, so maybe difficulty adjustment every two weeks is not any kind of powerful invention, but it really makes bitcoin powerful in terms of how the difficulty adjustment is applied (and creates incentives).. within the context of other bitcoin features.  

So, maybe there is no real short explanation to what I had been attempting to ask that makes sense when delving into some of the technicalities for what bitcoin fixed at the time of bitcoin's launch and how it was fixed and whether we even knew that certain bitcoin technical features were a fix at the time of launch versus finding out later after bitcoin went live for a while, and then ONLY realize that the bitcoin plane had to be fixed further while it was flying because there were problems with the original set up that needed to be fixed....

If we are mostly trying to figure out what was put into place upon bitcoin's launch rather than how it might have changed after launch, maybe even a synopsis regarding both the deficiencies of certain earlier proposed money systems that bitcoin fixed.  Although, I don't believe that a chart would limit bitcoin development towards only at launch, because some features would have been added to bitcoin at a later date.. or maybe even removed from bitcoin at a later date.. but still could be shown in a chart.

Something like the below, but maybe not everything would need to be in the chart because once the features are shown, then the question of bitcoin fixing it may or may not need to be added to the chart because there are likely variations to the features too, both at the time of bitcoin's launch and down the road:

b-money -  had this, this and this feature and defects, and bitcoin fixed this this and this through these mechanisms

bitgold had this this and this feature and defects, and bitcoin fixed this, this and this through these mechanisms

hashcash had this, this and this feature and defects, and bitcoin fixed this this and this through these mechanisms

Bitcoin had this this and this feature, and maybe a chart would show if the features overlap and whether bitcoin has all of the features of the previous projects and even show if bitcoin chose not to implement some features that might have been present in some of the earlier projects.

Maybe my thinking is too narrow or I am merely a bad student, but summaries of features was kind of how I was thinking about the question when I originally asked it, so even though I got some further history and context for bitcoin's various features, and even though you did describe several of the changes/improvements, GazetaBitcoin, I am still not quite sure if I understand the answers to my question in a way that I could outline the answers in a summary form (to show that I actually learned the answers to my questions) about which projects bitcoin had built upon and fixed and how bitcoin fixed those earlier projects.

You might be correct that we are bordering on a potentially slippery slope when attempting to assert whether the tail is actually wagging the dog and if so if this is the first time that such tail had happened to appear to wag the dog.

First, I believe it is way too early to even proclaim that there is some actual meaningful and lasting price breakout, whether we are talking about the tail or the dog or both... Sure, there seems to be a decent amount of short-term action, and a lot of fanfare, but will such short-term action lead to something that is sustained and meaningful?

Second, there have been plenty of times in which the tail had appeared to have been wagging the dog, previously, but then after taking a closer look, we found out that we had been looking at the situation from the wrong angle and what we thought that we had been seeing was not actually happening as we had previously mistakenly thought.



For now, I will hold my tongue, and sure of course, there could be some budding breakout that is taking place, until there is not.       


Don't beg.  It's not a good look.  King daddy might decide to punish you.      


I admit that I'm no armchair psychologist, but I am not sure whether you are in a good place, bob.

Please no!!!!  need to wait until next Thursday for me to be able to buy some more... haven't had enough time to buy at these prices.