Bob used to want to beat me up too (punch me in the face to be more precise), but he seems to have allowed time to heal such negative inclinations, by unblocking me, which is the next closest step to a hug.    #nohomo.


Remember:  Sharing is caring.

Even the dude agrees:

I just teamed up with jbreher and wrote a self-help book on the topic.




(Note:  That is NOT me (nor jbreher - apparently?), so don't go hating on that fellow)

I have a bit of a problem with that Yale study (from mid-2018), and its seeming lack of ability to focus itself on bitcoin, and has this strange concept of "cryptocurrency" that dilutes the message of king daddy by the addition of confusing matters such as Ripple and Ethereum to such cryptocurrency conceptualization.

Makes for a weaker study to not just focus on bitcoin, so it seems.


That too.

How cuuuuuuuttttiiiieeeeee!!!!!!!


Team micgoose .... feeling her oats, today.



 

That list could not be complete (which you said).  Missing the largest one (or most scandalous one of 2019), Quadrigacx, no?  And of course there is BTC-e and WEX in 2017/2018.

Edit.  Xhomerx10 beat me, partly.

Oh gawd!!!!  Not another numerologous?

Making me miss the numerology of Torque.....     At least Torque attempted to include a few more factors, but you, jupiter9, might be in the early stages of developing your numerology theories... ?  Perhaps?   

What is the source of that investment comparison chart, though?


Good point.  The chart is from last year, no?

Hahahaha.  I have only seen Chico on a couple of his video presentations, and I recall seeing him on some earlier one(s) too.  I don't really believe that he is much of a role model for really attempting to understand what is actually going on in bitcoin, at least for me to involve myself with trying to figure out his various ongoing conspiracy theories.

He does make some outlandish statements, similar to what Lambie does, but Lambie surely seems to be a bit of a different cat in terms of perspective, to the extent that we can really rely on the constructed results of internet personas. 

Lambie does not really seem to be into conspiracy theories, even when he is making his dumbass price predictions, because even we know that constructs, such as bargain boyz are merely illustrative attempts to make his point rather than real entities, and overall, Lambie seems to be generally bullish about bitcoin, and exaggeratedly so (but of course this could be a construct, too), though for some reason, he seems to want to be a BTC price sorcerer... in order to be worshiped. 

Maybe Chico seems to have a more modest personality in terms of the desire to be worshiped aspect, if that is possible? I know Chico is regularly on Video so there has be some desire for attention, at least.

Chico, on the other hand, does not seem to be too positive about bitcoin, even though he does seem to make some bullish or accurate statements about bitcoin, once in a while, but he seems like the kind of guy that never saw a conspiracy that he did not want to explore from a negative (or is it titalating?) angle.. and then put together all of the conspiracies in order to arrive at some kind of shocking (or is it revealing?) but discombobulated nonsense.

I am not really opposed to bringing some of these matters to light based on possible new evidence, even though I hardly know shit about a lot of the underlying case.  Nonetheless, if there is new evidence, we cannot keep considering the looking into the matter would merely be a personal vendetta or fishing expedition. 

Sure, having victims would seem to be some kind of necessity in terms of considering impact or even if there would be a damage related remedy, but, they might not even know enough details of the underlying situation to realize that they were damaged, and I keep coming back to the idea that the  extent of damage would have some reflection of the dollar value of the asset at the time of the damage, even if the asset had subsequently appreciated in price (which we know to be the case with bitcoin). 

I see most of the time in 2012, BTC prices were around $4 but towards the end of the time period in question, BTC price went up to $16 before coming back down again to $10-$12 for the rest of the year.   

There seems to be some evidence that OGNasty may have paid off the bigger of the investors, so the ONLY remaining ones would have had smaller investments. 

Of course, in retrospect, we can see that it was a ponzi shceme and too good to be true, but when people are caught up in ponzi schemes they sometimes will still participate based on their considerations that they are not going to be the last person out, so they kind of already know the risk, or could be presumed to be sufficiently taking on their own risks. 

So some of the victims might have been reluctant to make any claims, even if they did not get paid back any of their investment, because there could be some feelings of guilt about making any kinds of claims in such an obvious too good to be true situation, but even if everyone kind of knew it was a ponzi scheme that would not remove fiduciary responsibility from anyone serving as a middleman, including if there was fraud, misrepresentation or conversion that is just discovered. 

There might be plenty of investors who don't give too many shits about chances that they took on a few hundred dollars, so they don't really want to rock the boat if they got paid back some of their amount, given that they knew the whole thing was bullshit, but if they later found out that there were breaches of fiduciary responsibility, fraud, misrepresentation or conversion, then that could raise their concerns (or change their perspectives). 

I still don't believe that any reasonable remedy would purely measure damages in BTC... but we cannot really know circumstances, if we cannot pindown any actual cases of actual victims, can we?  On the other hand, there still could be conclusions of wrongdoing, based on the new evidence, even if the exact victim circumstances are not clarified?

I understand.  I was just razzing you, and I love that Airplane scene.  It was so funny when first seeing it and the various rewatching of those airplane movies.

I understand also that a lot of times we experience BIG down moves before we go up, but I just hate wishing for them, because they are not even necessarily a condition precedent.  Price merely gets stuck down for a lot longer than it should.  In other words, we don't need to have down before we go up, but sure it could happen.. but then again, it might not.

You have been there too, and in that regard, we have situations in bitcoin where a large number of people are expecting and hoping for down before up, and we just end up having up before more up.  I will go with whatever is the situation, while not considering that down before up has to happen, even if the odds could possibly be slightly in its favor, in the short term. Perhaps?

You have to include both time and price in order to get something that is even close to accurate answers.... otherwise assuming that WO folks would answer somewhat truthfully.


I was presuming that you were talking about up.  Down might be a different story.  Some folks are not going to sell, and just will ride it to zero, if need be.




Below $5,000 at some point is probably 40% or so odds.  Below $3k would be less than 25%.  And, below $1k would probably be less than 5%... roughly speaking...   Maybe our odds of breaking the local low are slightly less than 50/50 since we seem to be in a bull market... but hardly anyone believes that we are in a bull market, except me and a few rare others (and I am starting to even question our bull market status, a bit).

Do your best.


 #nohomo


 

(Note:  By the way, you don't need to respond any further.. that is totally up to you.  I won't feel shirked, at all)


Could be that I threw a few extra ideas in there, accidentally.  

I was thinking further that it would be nice if DOWN proclaimers like lambie and jonoiv get punished the fuck out of, but like we already mentioned, it is very difficult to know whether the down is over yet or not.

That would be pretty scary, if it were to happen.  Maybe less than 33.3% odds of happening, and maybe you are rooting for V8 to win the bet (with Hairy) before the end of February, which would be even lower odds, perhaps less than 22.2%?  I am just ballpark guessing on the odds, by the way.

What were the exchanges?  GOX?  Sure was hard to send any money to GOX in 2010... but hey, late 2010 is way the hell more reasonable for a starting point than anytime in 2009 - especially January 2009.   

hahahahaha.... Reminds me of this scene in Airport.  Sorry I could not find a better resolution.

The level of purported "insiderness" that goes to the core of bitcoin itself seems to be a bit much, yet I am surely not opposed to attempts to reveal the various kinds of connections that might be going on behind the scenes and also the need for any scrutiny of actual bitcoin software code that might get introduced. 

I actually am not surprised that BIG players are attempting to engage in whatever levels of manipulation that they can get away with including supply manipulation attempts, that may or may not end up biting them in the ass if the market turns against them (to the extent that they might not control the bitcoin market as much as they are attempting to proclaim).  Time will tell, I suppose, in regards to the extent that BIG financial players and governments are going to be successful in terms of both manipulation of Bitcoin's price value proposition and also whether BIG players are also able to take away from how bitcoin still does seem to provide empowerment avenues to some people who want to hold it and to use it in various kinds of value control and transfer kinds of ways (of course, with any value storage and transfer mechanism HODLers are going to want to asset to sufficiently hold its value during the period of HODLing it, whether used for short term transactions or longer term storage/insurance/hedging).

Yep..  That bounce from April to June was quite lovely, and really should have demonstrated the powers of BTC.  Even if the price corrects all the way back down to the bouncing off level, there remains significant meaning in BTC price moves like that - even if there were some aspects of manipulation contained therein, too.

Just like a lot of misinformation in bitcoin, there are quite a few folks who still want to frame the April to June price rise as either insignificantly important or even as a negative.  Sure, not going to stop those kinds of selective renditions, and in that regard, each of us have to come to our own conclusions regarding events like that and the significance of such events like that.

Oh, and by the way, another lovely aspect of the April to June Bitcoin price rise was that it largely served as a shitcoin purging event.  Surely some of the shitcoins had gotten some of their value back, but the whole situation demonstrated an alternative means to purge a few more snot-nosed 14 year olds out of their delusions regarding the power of fundamentals contained in king daddy.




Surely hard to get euphoric during a significant correction period, that's for sure.

I understand that you want to be shaken in some kind of way during these outrageous BTC price outbursts to shave a bit of coin off the top, but I think what happens is that somewhere in the middle of the process of BTC's price going up stupendously in a short period of time, euphoria turns into paralysis, and the only folks who are not paralyzed are the no coiners and the sold too early coiners who are proclaiming bubble but shown wrong by the facts (until they aren't, then they are proclaiming I told you so, even though they started calling bubble at $6k, for example).

The HODLers, as you suggest, are also concerned about "this is not going to end well" but their (our) mouths are so gapingly open that we don't know when exactly to hit the sell button (at least to shave off a bit of profits, or repurchasing dry powder).




I am probably in a similar boat as you, at least in terms of how many stats I was able to stack up during the past couple of years and considering projections of value including ways in which I have allocated and reallocated my BTC, my fiat related BTC fund and other assets.  I just looked at my apparent BTC balance and fiat holdings as of early November 2017 (when the BTC price was about the same as it is now), and gosh I was a bit shocked by some aspects of my own situation. It's almost as if I could frame my whole matter in such a way that would conclude that I have been spinning my wheels the whole time, but I am thinking that some of my own consideration of the matter has to do with my having had way more incentive to stack sats in a building and accumulation kind of way in the earlier days of my BTC investment, which would have been largely what was taking place in 2014/15 as compared to now.  Even in late 2017, I was likely transitioning somewhat from accumulation to maintenance - at least in the sense that I was disinclined to inject more new money into BTC rather than just using money that was already in my system of accounting for BTC value (which is fiat that was already dedicated to BTC).

I recall that you had some real life expenses that had reduced your ability to allocate more into BTC, but still doesn't it seem, somewhat, that any of us are going to be a lot less reluctant to inject new money into BTC when our BTC holdings are anywhere in the 2x to 15x profits arena, as compared to when we were either breaking even or that we were in a negative equity situation, which was largely my situation in 2014/15 as compared to current and recent BTC holdings evaluations.



For sure we have to prepare for any scenario, whether up or down, but shit are you really going to NOT be in profits if BTC were merely to perform up to $15k rather than going to $50k or $100k or even to $500k?  I would think that you are still quite in profits, even if you might not have become as rich as hoped.  In any event, all of us should be considering if we believe that there are some better places to put our money if we believe that the risk / reward and potential for upside might be better than bitcoin, and surely I am NOT really seeing anything, especially something that I can play around incrementally with the level of my investment and not be subject to various aspects of centralization (third party risk of fucking around with aspects of my investment from the inside).  

Even investments like gold or real estate might be tangible assets, but their markets are affected by dollar manipulations, and of course, if you want to chose a nice place for yourself to live that might be a good investment for yourself, personally, even if it is not very liquid, it sure the hell is practical if it's price becomes subject to manipulation of money availability and other market dynamics that are not always known.. so maybe in some ways similar to bitcoin, but with differing assessments regarding the fundamentals including considering new market versus traditional market, including information asymmetry, which those of us who have been into bitcoin for a decently long period of time seem to enjoy a lot of the information asymmetry in our favor... and we will likely profit from folks coming in who have no damned clue and are learning a lot of the aspects of bitcoin that we largely already learned along the way of our historically actively investing into it.  One thing learning on the sidelines versus being an active BTC HODLer.


Exactly!!!!  What else can you do?  Of course, you don't want to become overly exuberant and risk too much on something that might not happen, yet there are people suggesting to go 100% in and all that kind of bullshit, and even if we believe that the odds of $50k or $100k or whatever are decently high, the evaluations that come even close to 100% seem to be fantasylandia thinking from my opinion, and even assigning values of 80% or higher seem way too damned high.. but there are likely some guys (and perhaps gal) in this thread who are assessing odds at those kinds of levels.. .. but whatever, it takes all kinds of people to make the world go round, and I have a tendency to believe that if guys (and gal) invest in accordance to their beliefs then the ones with the irrational and stupid ass over-exuberant beliefs are going to get weeded out sooner or later.  They might not get weeded out on this particular bet, but if they are overly exuberant in compared to their bitcoin holdings, they are likely engaging in a pattern of behavior that sooner or later is going to cause them to either learn a lesson or to be parted with whatever money they happen to have.    

You must be so relieved, though, bitserve.

Remember the good ole days when you were so capitulating-inclined (like last year around this time, and might have already started in September or October of 2018?... I am too lazy to look it up).

I get the sense that your spirits are UP, even if you might be reluctant to admit it.  


 

That's a ridiculous assertion.  Bitcoin had absolutely no value when it launched, and it took nearly a year and a half to get some kind of idea of possible value (with the pizza transaction), and maybe a couple more years to get any kind of meaningful exchange trading with MTGOX and some of the limited number of exchanges to cause some kind of possibly meaningful liquidity.  

Probably more fair to start measuring BTC price or value from 2012, if not a bit later.. but hey.. we can assess that there was some liquidity and price finding abilities that were starting to occur in 2010 and 2011 - but still seems a bit too damned niche in those earliest of days to even be attempting to compare with start-up companies with some track recored or even mature companies/investments, like the ones listed.

No need to fear, arklan.  Lots of guys (and gal) agree with me on a regular basis, even if some of the peeps might be too fraidie kitties to admit.

Some of them have resorted to reading books to overcome fear(s); I am glad that you did not need to take such measures.