Hopefully they get fucked when BTC price moves against them (meaning up), but yeah, might just be engaging in too much wishful thinking.  Of course, we know that BIG ASS financial players are going to try to bet against BTC and to cause their bets to happen, so the billion (or is it trillion?) dollar question remains whether they are going to be successful in their manipulation and/or attempts at murder?

Surely the tools are becoming more sophisticated, but of course, HODLers are betting against them, but surely we don't really know with any meaningful level of certainty, do we?

Seems to me that you need to narrow down a date.. unless you are suggesting an average which is really not a very good way to think about it.  or to try to pin down an actual meaningful price prediction.

Of course, you could pick the middle of the year.. such as July 1...

I believe that I understand what you are saying, bitserve, but you better tone down the bullishness a bit.   

What I am suggesting is that two years in a row of 10x would still be a 100x, and even the most bullish of bitcoin prognosticators are not projecting anything like that... gosh that could put us in the $300k to $600k price range in two years (depending on foundational BTC price bouncing off point).



Yes.. I recognize your rhetorical point.... In other words, you don't really expect a disappearance of bitcoin price overshooting.  I know that you are just making such world view assertions in order to fantasize a little.   

I am somewhat content that some of my behavior gravitates towards predictable... and surely, each of us needs to arrive at our own conclusions, so taking the assessments of any other member with a decently LARGE grain of salt would be reasonable and prudent.. even if that other member, such as yours truly, happens to be correct 97.2184393216% of the time, which is pretty damned high... (that last clause of my sentence happens to be joke, for clarification of the germanying-inclined speakers).

Seems a bit absurd to be attempting to pull out ancient charts in order to prognosticate about bitcoin's current price performance dynamics likelihoods.

In some sense, 2012 is ancient history regarding who was in bitcoin and what the fuck bitcoin was in terms of its potential impacts on society and increasingly broader awareness and even theorizing about what bitcoin was and/or its potential (as well as limitations).

How many nerds knew about bitcoin in 2012?    A handful...   How much meaningful price performance history did bitcoin have in 2012?  2 years if you are lucky?  Yeah, right, bitcoin had been conceptualized since the 2008 white paper, and theorized in some ways before the 2008 white paper, and mined since 1/3/09, but still, not even any kind of monetary uses of bitcoin until about mid-2010 and very rudimentary attempts at exchanging it prior to 2012.. sure MTGOX existed and a few other ways to acquire bitcoin, but still, who the fuck was going to wire money to Japan.. a rare fucking nerd, indeed, no?

So fuck 2012 as any kind of meaningful price dynamics comparison point...     I am not asserting that bitcoin's price performance dynamics of 2012 are completely irrelevant, but we need to be attempting to give some weight to market maturity considerations .. and yeah, maybe in the end, patterns can be identified all the way back to the beginning in which BTC had a price, but we surely have to take some of those earlier patterns with a larger grain of salt in terms of whether they present our modern situation with meaningful comparison points regarding what is likely to happen and what is possible to happen in BTC's short and medium terms.. and even longer terms.

You don't sound smart enough to have made a lot of money in bitcoin (you refer to it as "crypto", so right there shows your seeming lack of understanding) trading, especially if you have been betting down and asserting that bitcoin is never getting to another ATH...   You seem to NOT understand what the fuck is bitcoin.  But, hey, do what you gonna do and show us all how smartie panties you happen to be.    Teach us a lesson.  


I doubt that there is any need to give such a wannabe expert too much benefit of the doubt.  Yeah, of course, he could end up getting lucky and being correct, but so what?  That does not mean that he really knows anything or is making any kind of meaningful assessment, just because he says he is such a smart "shorter" and he barely has even participated in this thread in the past, so I doubt that he was "as correct" in the past as he is proclaiming to have been. Comes off as a "smarter than the rest of us" disingenuous posing dweeb to me.  But what do I know?   

I doubt that the matter is so clear as some supposed enlightened philosopher king shedding light on this particular matter.

The change of user names matter cuts both ways in terms of transparency and in terms of attempts to balance interests of individuals and the community as a whole.

I personally don't get any kind of hard-on to give tools to folks who are abusive of these kinds of information systems, yet I stick by my earlier assertions regarding the possible necessity to start a new account as being a feasible and practical avenue...   

Sure, it is nice that theymos and/or other admins are NOT necessarily lightly allowing for the changes of usernames... and surely I hope that those admins are NOT getting duped also by allowing for some change(s) when it might not be justified.. but sure, those are administrative balancing considerations that are discretionary and not necessarily clear cut.. and not even needing to be public... and any member who errors on arguing this subject on the side of transparency and disallowance of such username changes would not necessarily be in the wrong... even if they also might not have enough information in any particular case to know what were the various factors considered for any particular case.

I have heard this kind of seemingly negative talk coming out of your keyboard previously, and such pessimisms did not seem to play out as negatively as you had been preparing yourself.  

I heard the opposite from you, too, even recently.. was it last week or two weeks ago?...hahahahahaha.. about "all in" and all that.... go figure?  (your all over the place, mindrust... hahahahaha)

Hey, nothing wrong with preparing both financially and psychologically for the worser-case scenario possibilities.


I just doubt that attributing too much weight to chart lines (and triangles or whatever other shape you can identify therein) should get you all in a tizzy about "likely price direction" towards the down or sideways or how long it could take to surpass previous ATH or to reach new ATH for next cycle.

I largely agree with the seemingly relevant and material facts as you highlighted them..... In that regard, yeah, it took a year to go down from prior ATH to consolidation arena in both 2014 and 2018... so very similar there regarding how long it took to for BTC to apparently get to the bottom of the cycle (that is presuming that December 2018 and $3,124 is the bottom of this particular cycle).

So far, the 2015 and 2019, consolidation periods seem to be playing out differently from one another, meaning that 2019 is ahead of what had happened in 2015.  The mere seeming fact that 2019 is coming out ahead of 2015 or that it has been a bit more bullish and less painful than 2015, does not automatically imply that more correction or consolidation has to happen before BTC can resume with up and to reach the earlier ATH or to make new ATHs of our next upward's cycle (presuming such a cycle is going to come).

Again, I am NOT proclaiming to know anything meaningful about BTC's future price direction, and I am just a bit more bothered by what had seemed to have been your attempting to assign some kind of value regarding what seems to be necessary to happen that does not even logically make a lot of sense (unless you are listening to people who are failing and refusing to understand BTC fundamentals and some of the upwards power that it has).... which in essence, you seem to be suggesting that because we had so much UP in recent times, we need to experience more DOWN or SIDEWAYS before BTC prices are capable of resuming UP... and such logic seems almost opposite of what seems logical to me.  

To me, it seems that the various bullish spurts upwards justifies that either surpassing our old ATH or making new ATHs could end up playing out ahead of schedule, and I am NOT even putting a lot of weight into those "ahead of schedule" or "front running" hypotheses, but only highlighting those ahead of schedule or front running hypotheses as equally plausible theories to what seems to be your either "down before up" or "sideways before up" hypothesizations.



Fair enough that none of us wants down before up and that we prefer up, and sure continuing to buy BTC remains a good practice...  including employing ongoing dollar cost averaging and even seeing that we could get more down or even be close to the bottom or prudent thoughts to have in terms of recognizing buying and stacking sats as likely to pay off in the long run... whether it takes 6 months in a more bullish scenario or more than 36 months in a less bullish scenario.

Even a less bullish scenario, of reaching ATHs again in 2023 would still give good overall returns from our current price because that is about 2.4x increase from our current price.  None of us should be complaining about those kinds of levels in terms of relative returns, even if it seems a bit bearish, currently.... and I still cannot really point out any other asset that I would rather be "in" in terms of upside potential when projecting out 2-4 years from today.


Does not look tiny to me.  but maybe in a few years, it might look tiny.. especially if we get any kind of price rise that is even close to the one that happened between late 2015 and late 2017....  which was around 78x...** ... even if we get half of that... which might be too optimistic.. but still within realms of possible... .. maybe 10x to 20x would still cause the 2013 to 2017 bowl to begin to look small... perhaps?  Perhaps?  Depends, in part, upon how long it takes to play out, and I would agree that it can be quite difficult to really conjecture with any kind of meaningful confidence, while we are in the midst of figuring out where we are going, exactly...  

** Note:  By the way, I frequently, like to use $250 as my late 2015 bouncing off point because I consider that $250 price to be a fair foundation for where we started in 2015 rather than the actual low that was something like $152.... and fuck $152.. even though there were a couple of sub $200 BTC price spikes in early and in late 2015... I still consider $250 to be a more fair representation of our 2015 jumping off point.. and the beginning of that particular bull market.  Regarding our next jumping off point,  I doubt that we can know that yet, because we are in the midst of still figuring out whether the bottom is "in" and where the fuck we are going, exactly.. are we in a bull market or a bear market, and even though since about May 2019 the evidence seems to support that we had transitioned into a bull market, that tentative assertion NO longer seems to be as strong as it had seemed to have been in May/June-ish... and sure, we are witnessing a lot of assertions that we currently are in a bear market, and I still don't find those assertions to be convincing, but future price performance will clarify these matters and thereby clarify what to consider for our reasonable BTC price jumping off point for our next exponential BTC price rise (presuming that one is coming at some point).

What happens in deleted files, stays in deleted files.

Aka.. trade secrets.

I understand that when you are engaged in a live conversation with anyone and you are trying to be genuine, you need to attempt to listen to what others are saying and to attempt to give them some benefit of the doubt that they are trying to make valid and reasonably genuine points.  Nonetheless, I considered almost everything that each of them said in response to you was leaning towards absurd, but surely there can be a little bit of reasonableness in some of the absurd points that some of them were making. 

O.k.  Thanks for clarifying that, MagicByt3.  I was able to find it based on your clarification that showed that the there was an hour difference between the clip that you had mentioned and the link that you provided... so when I went back an hour on the link that you provided, I was able to find your appearance, which was between 1h:50m and 2h:19m.   Yes, you made a lot of reasonable points, and even attempting to give a lot of benefit of the doubt to those diptwats in several ways.  So, maybe you were even too nice, but perhaps if you had been more aggressive, they might not have allowed you to speak at all.. so anyhow, there was a lot of cognizant dissonance from each of the other participants who spoke while you are on - in terms of trying to deny court documents and to say that the court documents that you mentioned was fake news even though fucktwat craig wright's legal team had submitted that evidence with the signature of fucktwat craig wright on the document.

So additionally, yeah a little bit of irritating that they spent a few minutes trying to figure out who you were or getting you to provide a link.. ridiculous.. and wanting to devolve into personal attacks...... but you were not really giving them too much to attack except largely sticking to your original point to provide discussion of the irony of the document that Wright submitted to the court.... 

So, yeah, I appreciated that you largely stuck to your points and you were the only one who seemed to be reasonable and attempting to deal with reasonable points, even when they were suggesting bitcoin stagnation and supposed transactions on bcash SV... lunacy... .

I pretty much had to stop watching after you got off of the call.... but the portion that you were on the call was actually decently worthwile... so yeah, it can make quite a bit of difference just having one person, like yourself, who is actually grappling with reality and attempting to be genuinely reasonable rather than just making shit up, which seemed to have been the circumstances of every single other participant on that call that I heard in the portion to which I listened.

Lots of responsibilities in attempting to be your own bank, and even possibly starting out with custody solutions and moving to non-custody solutions, while at the same time worrying about whether you should attempt to hold your coins in more than one location.. balancing those practices and maybe learning along the way.

Mistakes were made, and sometimes we might not even want to discuss specifics too much in public threads, even if one of the ways to learn about better and best practices is through the bad experiences of others and through public threads.   

Hackers can be smart as fuck too, and can learn from some of the disclosures that are made in public threads - even while we might be trying to share seemingly innocuous and helpful information... for example, disclosing which exchanges that you might use for trading or gosh that trip to Las Vegas was fun, even though I mostly spent fiat or some inferior medium of exchanges that the hookers were willing to take..  but they took all of it that I had at the time.... what vices we might develop along the way.... I maxed out my credit cards, and then a few weeks later, I have to figure out how to resolve my various accounts.. lucky for some of us who have credit.. which is also difficult in some locations in which banking options are more limited.

I clicked on that YouTube link, MagicByt3, and I listened to a bit more than 20 minutes of it (can I get those minutes of my life back?).  I did not hear any challenge to anyone on that call or even any reference to GOX coins including at the point that you flagged at 2Hr's 50 Min....

Very painful listening to them for more than a few minutes, especially when they start to refer to Craig as if he really were satoshi or had any credibility at all...  He is referred to an alpha male who knows things, instead of the narcissistic self-absorbed lying nutjob that he is. 

Sometimes it seems that nobody can really believe those kinds of things, but hey you hear the nonsense coming out of their mouths and the level of dumb within that video even while they are proclaiming everyone else to be dumb.... except for the Craig acolytes and Craig's team. 

Gosh, people surely want to be on the "correct team," so there is that kind of wanting to be on the correct team dynamics of wanting to stick to your team.. and maybe us bitcoiners are like that too?  I hate to believe that bitcoiners are attaching to the team in the same kind of way, but listening to those guys, it just seems that they are suggesting that they are the ONLY ones in possession of the truth.

Of course, many of us into bitcoin, and who established a good quantity of our BTC stashes before April 2017, had purchased a good amount of our BTC for under $1k, and some BTC HODLers had either purchased all of their stash below $1k, or even the BTC that they bought above $1k after March 2017 would NOT have came even close to causing their average cost per BTC to go above $1k. 

My point is NOT so much about a lot of the acquisition of BTC below $1k or even the various strategies of the earlier adopters to accumulate BTC while keeping their costs below $1k per BTC, but just that to me (and likely several others who had been into BTC for a decent amount of time before April 2017 - hey I kind of even consider the BTC accumulators who came into BTC in mid 2015 or later to have been a bit spoiled, relatively speaking because their BTC had likely had a lot more UPwards movements in price rather than extended periods of down and even being in the negative) it would feel quite devastating to revisit those kinds of sub $1k price territories, and even revisiting the current lowest bottom of this particular cycle of $3,124, would be a bit of a downer... and you know if we go anywhere back below $4k the odds become pretty high, at that point, that there would be attempts to revisit that $3,124 bottom.

Cannot really know before-hand how I personally would react, even though I believe that it is prudent to continue to prepare for extreme scenarios, even the ones that seem to be within the low ends of probabilities.

Sure, there are a decent amount of folks who came into BTC after March 2017, so their costs are likely quite a bit higher than $1k, even though there might be some (probably rare) folks who have been able to engage in BTC accumulation strategies and tactics to bring their costs per BTC down to below $1k, the most likely of scenarios for those who came into BTC after March 2017 would be the prudent dollar cost averaging ones, even including buying around the time of the $19,666 top and continuing to dollar cost average and accumulate BTC, which still might end up bringing costs of per BTC into a $6k to $9k range, which would ONLY be slightly profitable currently, but still seeming (to me) like a great long-term investment, as long as the investment time horizon is at least 4 years, and if the person(s) are still accumulating BTC, currently, then having a longer time horizon for establishing a decent BTC stash/stake should allow for even greater likelihoods of appreciable profits that out perform other assets into the future.  A good tool to look at historical DCA performance of bitcoin compared with gold and the Dow Jones Industrial Index fund, can be done here, link courtesy of biodom......


No actual human being (or even algorithm written by humans) is free from exit scamming, so I don't believe it is healthy to consider any one to be free from exit scamming - even if the odds are low and even it the starting premise a "gift" or a "give away" - even with a decently long reputation getting established, especially on the interwebs.. and even if some peeps have met you in real life or can figure out who you are.  Of course, long scams involve building confidence to be put into a position to be able to exit scam with larger amounts of money, and surely folks who have been put into positions of trust in the past would be more likely to be put into positions of trust into the future with larger amounts of money.  Anyone might be considered to NOT be engaging in a long scam, until it happens... then fuck.  Happens a lot in bitcoin, even though I am NOT specifically accusing you of such, no one is immuned from being considered in such light as being possible, under certain conditions.

Of course, you have demonstrated a historical track record for following through with your promised payments, and that is reflected in trust that several forum members have already left for you, and no one publicly accuses you of having had screwed them out of coins or anything like that, and the opposite has been claimed in terms of your paying for promises and debts, so yeah, you do not have any of those kinds of blemishes, as far as I know.

Yeah, it could be true that you personally are either incapable of an exit scam or that you are much more self-less than the average saint, but does not seem to be healthy to consider people as self-less and one of the presumptions of bitcoin hinges on people having ongoing incentives to act in their own interest.....

Funny thing about bitcoin does continue to be the combination of trust that still seems to be part of the ongoing space, even when we are getting down to fundamental design issues from satoshi in which there was a presumption that people were going to act in their own self-interest and even attack the bitcoin system up to a certain point (including satoshi anticipating a lot of snake oil salesmen, and surely those anticipations have played out in reality) - and some of those balances of trust and trustless continue to be ongoing in design issues in bitcoin, including whether it might be better to allow bitcoin's code to ossify rather than to improve...

I mean there is a certain kind of value that is placed on both the difficulties in changing bitcoin (which is a feature and not a bug in bitcoin, even though frequently criticized by bitcoin naysayers and alt coin pumpers) and even a kind of banking upon bitcoin will NOT change - so if any of us were to go into a 10-year coma, we should still be able to recover our coins as long as we could get access to our private keys upon coming out of our coma.... The same cannot be asserted regarding the vast majority of shitcoins including the stupid ass hardforking preferences which seems to cause real issues for anyone who might go into a 10 year coma and might not be able to retrieve his/her coins, and the shitcoins also have greater degrees of centralization and even folks who might not be counted upon - even if they might seem to be saints... and I suppose in bitcoin, there are built in mechanisms that strive to NOT allow any one person or group of people to have too much control in bitcoin, and to default to NOT changing if there is disagreement or if overwhelming consensus cannot be reached, even blockstream - while they have been frequently accused of having more control and influence over the direction of bitcoin and its software than they deserve to have, but those proclamations about the purported power of blockstream are frequently exaggerated since there still remains abilities for anyone to challenge and check code that have been proposed and adopted into bitcoin through them or any of their agents (principles, staff or employees). 

Surely, we have to be careful about granting too much authority or credibility to any person or group in bitcoin, and of course, more young people learning to code and getting involved in bitcoin is likely to help to keep eyes on the code and not allowed any bugs to be slipped in ..... not fool proof, but ongoing healthy skepticism... and ability to adapt to adverse behaviors of individuals that could happen, even with anyone (or team) holding themselves out as a potential saint.   

 I would not proclaim that my method of investing is ONLY DCA, but I do like that website in order to assist with considering and brainstorming how dollar cost averaging into bitcoin would have brought varying returns depending on how much you invested and when you started. 

I also like that through the website you can compare dollar cost average investing into bitcoin with in DCA into gold or the dow jones industrial average index stocks. 

Beggars cannot be choosers, but I would have liked the website to allow the importation of more than one method, and for example changing strategies part way through.  So for example with me, I front loaded early on, and then the amount that I invested turned way down, and I am not able to input the changed strategy into the site.

My own investing differs a bit from what is capable of being seen, because I largely did most of my initial DCA in my first three years between late 2013 and late 2016... and maybe even a quite a bit of front loading and attempts to buy on dips that kind of scaled down as my stake in BTC had largely gotten established in my first year or so.. and a more modest DCA the next two years, and then later, starting in about late 2015 starting to sell small amounts of BTC on the way up and using those proceeds to buy back when BTC's price dipped.... so DCA has only been one component of my overall approach to BTC investing...  though I am a strong advocate of DCA.. especially as a starting off approach for anyone who is either just getting in or just too overwhelmed to study too much into any more complicated timing attempts, which timing approaches (in contrast to DCA) have tendencies to screw people who don't stay vigilant and systematic about their approach.

In other words, we are all fucked if we expect los dude to be saving a paper wallet for such going to zero purposes.

I would say that I don't expect los dude to exit scam for anything above $1k.. but jeez, even $1k would be pushing expectations for any of us BTC HODLers to be paying off promises.. we would all be a bit screwed in those kinds of circumstances.

 I would expect him to exit scam at the zero price, or even anything below $1 (I would not even blame him to exit scam for anything below $100..... fuck that shit.... I am NOT going to be very happy with anything below $1k.. but I expect los dude to pay... hahahahahahaha (double standard)..   

Below $1k would be outrageous, and I might even stop buying BTC at a certain point of down.. and below $1k could be one of those scenarios (depending on context), not sure about what point that would be the stop buying point as I type this emotional reaction.. to your ostentatious "cool, calm and collected."    I would NOT believe that I would be selling, but I might NOT buy at certain points.

I proclaim to be relatively unemotional about BTC investment and even willing to ride it to zero... but still, we have already been through very low triple digits in 2014, 2015, 2016.. (mostly 2015).. been there done that, and even $3ks in late 2018 early 2019 were no cake walk, even though I was somewhat emotionally / financially prepared to get close to $1k or even quickly dipping below.. within the momentum of that price move...   

However, seems that I have been a bit spoiled with the passage of more time, and maybe the Lindy effect is real in terms of how low any of us even consider to be feasibly within outrageous reason, and below certain prices just seems a bit of going too far in the speculation of realistic possibilities..

Hey.. I am even prepared to visit $3,124 again.. but I believe such odds are realistically getting to the below 10% arena, currently... maybe if we were really giving lots of benefit of the doubt to bear scenarios, we might come up with some benefit of the doubt thoughts of odds of 20%ish... perhaps? perhaps?.. but sub $1k.. jeez, those odds must be much below 5%, no?  Maybe even below 2%?  Gotta be some pretty dark and black swan and Armageddon type shit to go below $1k.

Time to get out... grandma in the mountains asking about it.   

 

Fair enough.   I am likely exaggerating a bit regarding the book-talking.. and surely, none of us really know which way the BTC price is going to go in the short term.. and whether there really needs to be further down, such as below $6,424 or even as low as the $5,600 that dragonvslinux is targeting, and there would likely be only slight marginal benefits to changing the opinions of others within forums like this... I would presume... but hey, maybe this thread is MOAR powerful than I would have previously thought?
 
Surely, I would, personally prefer up (or at least NO further downs below our local low of $6,424), and I get a bit bothered by the "down before up" proclamations that frequently come off as more certain than they deserve because I have witnessed those proclamations being wrong so many times in bitcoin's historical price performance circumstances that seemed to have been very similar to this.  We can only get so much down... or squeeze so much juice out of this lemon...

In other words, continuing to expect a decent amount more down, when there has already been quite a bit of down, seems more like wishful thinking rather than anything that might be beyond 50/50 odds.. or maybe if there is some luck, the odds of further down could be 60/40.... but they are no way near the level of certainty that seems to be expressed in the way that dragonvslinux typed out his proclamation... so I suppose I am making fun of those seeming certainties in the proclamations... while wishing for the gratuitous opposite of REKKT bearshorts.

Sometimes placing an order (or a short) can change an otherwise seemingly reasonable person's perspective, even though the facts may not have changed as much as the fact as their book has changed.   Hahahahahahaha  ..

TLDR:  pre-emptive "sorry for your loss dragonvslinux" (ditto whiteboy420).(not really). shouldn't be shorting king daddy in a likely bull market.  

Personally, I get a sense that we are seeing too much froth in the altcoins in order for bitcoin to experience a proper pumpening...  But, hey, what do I know?  The last pumpening from a few days ago, had some froth of altcoins in the beginning of the pump, but as the pump went on, the altcoins started to fall off a bit, so it is possible to start out with both bitcoin and shitcoins pumping together and then at some point the altcoins either start to dump or to go stagnant while bitcoin pumps.. those shitcoin laggings while bitcoin pumps would be the most healthy scenarios for sustainable pumpenings of bitcoin, in my current thinking. 

But, we know that bitcoin and crypto can do quite irrational and weird things, too.. there is a lot of dumb money out there and there is a lot of desperate money that wants to attempt to show shitcoins as equivalent or superior to bitcoin, which is possible to sustain in the short term, but less possible to sustain in the longer term.