I'm like that too, sometimes, meaning that sometimes it seems that the buy orders are not really adding up to be very much and then there are also questions about whether new money can be injected.  Sometimes it might be questionable about how much new money to inject, if any, even though I don't have any  kind of meaningful RL cashflow issues, at this time.   On the other hand, if BTC prices were to go down to below $5k, again, then there could be some perception of cash flow issues and needing to conserve, and those would surely be scary situations, and that is what bearwhales would like to achieve, if they are able to achieve it.

It seems to me that we should be bringing up any topic that we want without threats of getting red tagged for bringing up topics, but I do agree with you, Lauda, that the topic is nonsense and it is an attack vector that is propagated by trolls, including a banned member going through others... so yeah, the topic is surely exhausting because it seems to be an attempted attack vector and to make it seem as if it were an actual valid concern.  I don't claim to know technicalities about it, so I can see why some members would get confused including AlcoHoDl, and you are correct, Lauda, that quite a few WO members seem to have gotten confused about this matter too.. but many had gotten confused about the blocksize debate too, and that comes up from time to time, even by well-intended WO regulars.

You are quoting the ideas of a banned user who had been spouting off such nonsense for the last two years.  If everyone moved their segwit address coins to legacy addresses then such behavior would make such an attack more likely and more plausible... just what they
FUDDingly wished that all of us would do.  Fuck them.  Keep using Segwit.  It's a superior product.

I had not realized the Copernicus connection, and I suppose that sometimes little facts like that could be tests about how much of an expert someone is on a topic.  I am merely familiar with the general principle that people tend to be incentivized to spend their most shitty money first and to HODL their money that is most likely to go up in value or to maintain its value.  Makes a lot of sense, and surely many of us have become more enlightened on such topic from the diptwats who are suggesting that we should strive to make bitcoin more spendable as if making bitcoin more spendable should be amongst our primary concerns - which does not make logical sense, and even people who are without much education are going to gravitate towards following gresham like behaviors if they have any kind of appreciation of the comparative value retention attributes of any kinds of monies that they hold.   Of course, some people give it no thought, but anyone who consciously attempts to achieve the most bang for the buck will frequently subconsciously engage in these kinds of behaviors without anyone teaching them... about gresham or having to explain any of the underlying theories.


For sure there is already a certain high degree of victory, even if bitcoin were to get squashed into the ground from here on out, the idea has been birthed and the idea has also been shown to have some functionality, so in that regard, there is a certain segment of the population that have come to better understand how money works including being better able to distinguish between sound money practices and not so sound money practices, and these kinds of ideas get into the heads of a variety of people the longer that bitcoin stays around, which assisted to become more powerful by Schelling point principles.



I don't know about fitting like a glove, but there can be a tendency for matters to kind of work themselves out in a way in which individuals gravitate in a direction to make things happen, and some of the nice things about bitcoin happens to involve how a lot of the built in incentives have a great way of playing out, which causes a lot of people to conjecture that the balancing of incentives with code and difficulty adjustments and proof of work and monetization came from a lot of deep thought, rather than merely getting lucky, even though there might have been some aspects that were lucky, too.


I hate to go down the road of speculating about their various plays, whether it is government, financial institution, rich people because there are a combination of things that they can attempt, yet part of the problem still ends up being that bitcoin gives hardly any shits because it has been designed to prepare for these kinds of attack attempts, so lucky for us that bitcoin has gotten off of the ground, and the longer that it exists the stronger it becomes, getting back to Schelling points  - so surely, attacking bitcoin would have had greater likelihood of success to nip it in the bud 5 years ago or more - so even if there might be some successful efforts to burden people more and more and to try to attack bitcoin in various regulatory  or prohibition ways,  there might be success in getting the price to go down for even extended  periods of time, and so in that regard there will develop stronger underground systems and even wacamole issues because even governments are not able to cooperate to attempt to get what they want because they do not agree upon what they want, and that is part of the genius of the incentives built into bitcoin including the fact that some governments might need to begin to attempt to develop their mining and acquisition of bitcoins rather than trying to bash bitcoin or create nonsense competition projects that are  likely to get swallowed by BTC in the longrun anyhow.

I don't even understand the Copernicus reference.







It's likely that we cannot exactly attribute meaning to overall market behavior.  Of course, there are motivations to make money and there are also motivations to attempt to destroy the asset, if possible.  So the negative motives and the positive motives balance out to a battle, and sometimes there can be profits in other areas that are made by keeping BTC low.. for example if BTC is a threat to your business model or even some governments (to the extent that they are able) might engage in tactics to attempt to push the price down through rulings, prosecutions, FUD spreading, etc.



Sure there is likely some of that going on, too.


Of course, the motivations are going to be diverse, and surely frequently even the bearwhales might not understand how far they can push matters, and surely it is more profitable if they can dump early and cause a contagion in which others end up going along with it while they are slowly acquiring back their position without pushing the price up (which acquisition might take place OTC while dumping may occur on exchanges to cause the most negative influence as possible), and surely sometimes even the bearwhales lose control and may switch sides to start to buy when they figure that they are no longer able to push the price down.. the trend is your friend, as we know.


There is a mixture of the employment of old tools, but of course, bitcoin and other crypto is bringing about some different dynamics in trading, too, including more abilities for laypeople to get in which contributes to more extremes and manipulators trying to take advantage of way broader amateur traders.  Of course, there is some wild, wild west aspect, too in terms of trying to figure out what the asset is and attempting to figure out whether it should be regulated or not, so the extent to which any regulation exists in bitcoin and other crypto is a developing area - that also creates some new dynamics that likely play out differently from a more mature market.

Certainly there remains differences of opinion (and some people are going to bet correctly and some will get it wrong) regarding whether bitcoin is an actually new asset class or if the old tools will apply, and furthermore, there is differences of opinion regarding whether the four year fractal patterns are good predictors of BTC's likely price performance, and also disagreements regarding whether bitcoin is in a s-curve exponential adoption curve including what stage of the curve it is in, if it happens to be in such curve.  Some folks will be right and others will not, but does not stop the ongoing attempts to battle and to attempt to physically force the BTC price to go much further than expected and for much longer than expected, but part of my own personal theory remains that status quo institutions and whales are having quite a difficult time to try to keep bitcoin prices down, and sure they might have some more tricks up their sleeves, perhaps? perhaps?

There seems to be a decent number of ways to consider the matter, Jet Cash.  Of course, if we are talking about effect of the actual physical coins, then we are talking about more of a hard effect rather than the soft effects of expectations, so I personally believe that it could be presented either way, and sometimes physical alone can be considered and sometimes expectations of future issuance and whether bitcoin is actually on schedule regarding issuance (which seems pretty concretely set  when it comes to bitcoin).

Of course, bitcoin is amongst the first of asset classes that is being attempted to be used as money and to have a solid scarcity.  Sometimes, I was taking issue with some of the stock to flow discussions because from my reading, sometimes I was missing the parallel that was being attempted, so they were trying to suggest that bitcoin is mined and new coins come into existence, and sure there is some truth to that, but we also know what that is going be with a decently high level of certainty, even accounting for the various scenarios in which consensus could be changed to inflate the BTC supply.

Many of us have also noticed another phenomenon and that is before bitcoin halvenings there is all kinds of pressures to attempt to keep BTC prices down, and even to spread FUD suggesting that bitcoin halvenings were going to cause the opposite effect than what logic would dictate, including the dumbass death spiraling of mining power based on loss of incentives to mine.  Anyhow, what seems to happen is the various powers that be in the bearwhale space push the BTC price down for as long as they can and as low as they can.  And it seems to me that part of the reason that we end up having such an explosion in the price that ends up happening a decent amount of time after the halvening is because the actual physical supply of BTC ends up being so constrained that there has to be a kind of physical resolution that does not even matter so much about what people think about the future, but then the explosion will cause a kind of piling on, too.  So the physical and the psychological will surely play off of one another, even when sometimes one or another might seem to be more of a driving factor under certain circumstances that are trying to be described or explained.

Hahahaaha...

You are correct Loyce, and the whole point about striving to achieve "in line" merit system is ludicrous at best, at least in terms of considering the trajectory in terms of percentages.

Currently, there seems to be a decently low threshold for members to get started in achieving some kind of rank by having low thresholds to get started.  They get some skin in the game by achieving some rank relatively quickly, as long as someone finds enough value in their post(s) to send some smerit love in their direction, but yeah as a percentage those values are pretty great between member and full member, even while there should seem to be no real desire to line up the percentages because then, as you imply either the earlier ranking would have to become more difficult, even while phillymogul seems to be suggesting that upper ranking could be made easier.

In other words, even though percentage thinking might make sense in terms of how you allocate the value of your bitcoins versus shitcoins versus other investments, and in might make sense in terms of considering BTC price movements, it makes a lot less sense in terms of ranking up, so in that regard the current ranking up system does seem to strike a decently aligned balance to allow contributory members to rank up to regular member status fairly quickly but then necessitate the garnering of a lot more merits, in substantive terms (even though not really in percentages) in order to achieve the higher ranks.

In other words, we are fucked.   

Oh?  So you believe that we are not having an intelligent and or "legit" conversation if the response does not follow some of your expected parameters?  Didn't I attempt to respond to all of your points, to the extent that I thought that I understood them to be?


Nothing wrong with that, I suppose.


i suppose if you believe that bitcoin is not meeting its objective, then you are free enough to invest in snake oils, if you believe that they might be able to do better than bitcoin.  I personally believe bitcoin is living up to its initial hype, and maybe even beyond expectations.  Of course, I did not get involved in BTC in the earliest of days, so I only started to study it in late 2013, within the context of my first beginning to develop a BTC related investment plan and attempting to continue it and to tweak it along the way.  Personally, I believe that bitcoin has met if not exceeded my initial expectations, and surely has become a lot more involved in my life than I though that it was going to be, especially in my earliest days of looking into it.  Surely, each person is going to have a different opinion regarding his/her life experiences, the extent to which s/he has studied into bitcoin as compared to other possible investments and/or whether s/he is actually content with what bitcoin has delivered in light of initial expectations (and whether those initial expectations were accurate or even if the present expectations are accurate).



I believe that I am fairly tolerant of differing views, so whether you are getting emotional about it or whether you believe that I am disrespecting you, that is upon you.  You said whatever you said, and I responded within my discretion regarding how I thought, at the time, that I should respond.  We may or may not end up agreeing, but if you believe that there is some kind of standard regard that you deserve, then we might end up not being ready, willing or able to figure out the extent to which we might agree or disagree about some of these matters or the extent to which our disagreement even matters, because each of us is free to conclude his/her own ways, to invest accordingly or to share or not, such ideas in the various threads of this forum.

Yep.  "pop" might not be the best of word choices in this situation.



Link or it didn't happen.  

This below graph is more recent update that shows our more recent correction from $13,880 to our current doldrums and within the upthread of the tweet that you provided, VB1001:

Huh?


Would the "pop" be: 1) up, 2) down, or 3) sideways?

Why you peeps (teams included) censor ur lil selfies based on artificial man-made constructs, such as day of the week?



It's not a good look.   

 

Great.  Don't use bitcoin then, if it going to be a potential issue.


Are you saying anything different from me?  You think that bitcoin's primary use case is to compete with those payment mechanisms?  Do you think that bitcoin serving as a payment mechanism adds much value to why people actually currently want bitcoin?

Get real.  Sounds like you are brainwashed by some shitcoin ideas about what actually brings value to bitcoin and what bitcoins actual innovation was.. 11 years ago and still building.



Bitcoin  is the most sound money ever.  What do you mean by "best"?  Do you even understand gresham's law? 





How well do you believe that the USD is going to hold its value against bitcoin in the coming years? 

How well has the USD held its value against bitcoin in the past 11 years?

Of course, the USD has a lot of liquidity, and there are some ways that USD is better than bitcoin, but in terms of holding its value, good luck if you are going to invest in the USD and not invest in bitcoin in the coming years.  You might be correct, but I think that the odds are against you, in terms of concluding which one is going to have more value in the coming years.  Of course, investing in bitcoin does not need to be an all or nothing proposition, and if you already are used to having dollars, you might want to consider how much to hedge in bitcoin.. Don't overdo it, either way.  Good luck, sounds like you are going to need it if you are getting distracted into love of the dollar in comparison to bitcoin.



Do I have any problems with the dollar?  How about you try transporting $1million worth of value over the border and compare doing that with bitcoin or the dollar?  Sure it is a hypothetical, but there are use cases for bitcoin, too, and maybe you need to consider that before getting all high and mighty about whatever seemingly lame dollar loving points that you seem to be attempting to make.



When it comes to sound money, we are going to see how this plays out in the coming years.  I can see that you are trying to narrow in on some nonsense points which don't really tell us much about what is the value of bitcoin as compared to the dollar and how individuals might chose to allocate their holdings depending on their own situations, including their cash flows, other investments (or options), risk tolerance, timeline, skills and research abilities etc.



You could argue, but why should you?


Anything wrong with that?  Bitcoin might not be the same for everyone in terms of their various use cases and the extent to which they might want to hold some of it for the present or for the future.


Yes.  Lightning network is one option within bitcoin that is still being developed, as you seem to know, but you want to get scared about some nonsense point.  You can use lightning or not.  It is your choice, so no need to get scared, especially if you chose not to use it.



Who gives any shits about Monero?  Does that somehow relate to bitcoin? 

Yeah, if Monero has some features that bitcoin wants to incorporate, then maybe that could be relevant to bitcoin, and those features might be absorbed into bitcoin, and on the other hand, if Monero provides some utility that you value, then you could do that, too, if you want.  Otherwise, who cares about Monero?



Seems to me that there are going to continue to be various onchain developments as well as second layer and even third (or more) layer developments in bitcoin.  Rome was not built in a day, and bitcoin seems to have a lot of options and a lot of development, so we seem to be in quite early stages, so your wish about multi-layered seems likely to remain a reality in bitcoin and likely even to get quite expanded in the years to come, from my largely non-technical understanding what seems to be bitcoin's ongoing development direction.


Of course, bitcoin is like a plane that is continuing to be built while it is flying, including some disconnection between various player that are building it along the way.



I doubt that there is any kind of generational complication here, beyond normal changes that happen in society with passing down traditions or creating new traditions and practices.  Of course, with anything new, it takes a while for society to adapt to it and for use cases to evolve and for problems to be identified, to the extent that they exist, but there are social interactions too about what is going to be acceptable and accepted and what is not, so there are different concepts of "acceptable" in different parts of the world. 


Hard to disagree with Andreas on many things, and so in some sense, he seems to be saying that bitcoin does not give any shits because things just happen and things just change with the passage of time.

Again, you are trying to rationalize away that it is a good idea to engage in certain kinds of Opsec that others would not want to do.  Yeah, maybe someday, everyone would have a rollercoaster on their arm, and sure maybe you are leading the way to a new future of everyone gets a long and has good morals (including peeps that are met on the interwebs, including how to screen peeps that end up knowing or assuming more about your finances than they should), but that still does not mean it is good Opsec to either brag about your choices or to attempt to influence other people into creating weaker opsec because it feels good man.

It seems to me that part of my problem with the term manipulation is when it seems to being used to ascribe a fairly narrow set  of players or events and then to assert that BTC prices were moved because of those events, and in essence, I was kind of latching onto the correlation that you were attempting to assert in regards to the BAKKT trade volume going up and coinciding with downward BTC price movements - and thereafter suggesting that BAKKT players were causing the BTC's price to go down through their manipulations.




Yeah, but isn't there a kind of desire by all BIG players to want to be able to use their resources to make more money?  Of course, if you are a kind of true believer in BTC, you might not want to take such risks that your manipulation attempts might end up ruining your investment, but true bear whales do not likely have any such attachment to BTC and/or they may even rationalize that they are providing a kind of service to the whole price finding mechanisms to push the price as far as they are able to do it.. and of course, bitcoin is much more of a wild wild west as compared with a lot of other markets, so the tools available and the limitations (to the extent that they exist) are going to cause a different weighing of how to attempt to play the market to your advantage if you have the means to do so and are willing to attempt to do it.



Even the manipulators are not necessarily evil, and they likely have ways that they can rationalize away their behavior.  You know that there are so many inexperienced people in the bitcoin and crypto space, and more experienced traders can recognize the trading in bitcoin to be part of the school of hard knocks, and if you get into the pool with sharks, you better bring the right equipment, otherwise you are going to get yourself into a world of pain.

By the way, I am not really suggesting that all whales are even engaging in legal or fair means, and there might be some whales that are able to work some of their inside positions to play in a way that might be illegal, if they were caught or even could cost them in large ways if they were caught, too.

Surely there is a lot of imperfect information too, and sure none of us really know how far the BTC price can be pushed in one direction or another and many of the smaller players are going to have fewer resources available to them to attempt to figure it out which way the BTC price is going to go.  And, there may even be a decent number of BIG players who end up getting burned BIGGLY because they overplay their hand in one direction or another.  So sometimes even if you are BIG, you might not consider it to be in your interest to attempt to play some avenues of possible "manipulation" because it might not work... then you are fucked with less value or sometimes even losing your whole stash because of overplaying your hand.


Yeah... in the longer run, bitcoin is going to do what it does, and sure it is possible that we are all on a kind of ride, and bitcoin is going to zero, but if we have been studying the space long enough, we are not so fooled by what seems to be quite an unlikely direction - but there are a large number of other people who are fooled by such proposition that bitcoin is going to zero and even place their bets on some variation of such, and end up getting screwed.   Of course there are going to be winners and losers, and surely it can feel a bit painful if either you are the loser or you know people who end up losing or getting screwed, but there is frequently a lot of those kinds of injustices in the world, and it seems quite likely to me, that bitcoin is a whole hell of a lot more biased in favor of the little guy than a lot of other systems, but even the little guy has to somehow figure out to not attempt to engage in certain kinds of gambling strategies, and there are ways for the little guy to win the fuck out of this whole situation if s/he engages in decently prudent balancing including a lot of the basics that many of us here tend to preach such as: not gambling, dollar cost average buying, accumulating and HODLing, don't invest more than you can lose, get your finances and psychology in order, etc etc.


I am not concluding that you are wrong with your various assessments, including the fact that many whales might go down a road of dirty that is much LARGER than you consider to be acceptable or relateable, but in the end, the world works like that, so the best that we can do as individuals is to attempt to prepare our own positions for various kinds of likely outcomes, even extreme outcomes that seem way beyond what is reasonably possible.    So, yeah, you are correct that propaganda, misinformation is going to be coupled with dumping or whatever is possible to push the BTC price way further in a direction that us little fishes might consider to be outrageous, and we have to be prepared financially and psychologically for such extremes.  It is possible that the four year fractal that many of us here are on and on about, ends up NOT playing out like we had thought that it would, and BTC prices end up going below $3,122, which could even bring such prices below $2k - and then a lot of us would become quite deflated by such an occurrence that does not seem to be very likely, but there are probably a decent number of large players, such as financial institutions and governments that would love to achieve such an outcome, but just because they want it, how likely is such a scenario, and should we be spending a lot of time on such a scenario when there are more likely and better scenarios that we should be preparing for (even though we should prepare for negative extremes, too).

So, yeah, a lot of us can become negative feeling, merely from the price where we are at right now, and we were contemplating that we would be in the 5 digits rather than 4 digits with several dweebs - people talking about $6,400 and lower, but bitcoin works like that.  I mean it is decently possible that bear whales get us down to our most recent low of $7,293 and then all of a sudden an exchange is hacked or china bans bitcoin or some other nonsense, and we have been there before, but if you recognize the bullshit, you realize that you should be either buying or HODLing as a preferable practice, even though some of those scenarios could happen, they are far from guaranteed, and we could end up having another BTC price spurt upwards, right when you got greedy and sold some of your BTC stash in order to prepare for $6,400 that never even comes close to happening.

Yeah, but do you really believe that anyone, whether Masterluc or anyone else, really knows much of anything about the BTC price one year in advance?    Yeah, they might be able to provide some probabilities of X, Y or Z happening, and alternative theories of A, B or C happening, but in the end, those are probabilities that may or may not play out.  AmiNOTrite?

Sure, Masterluc has reached a kind of sorcerer status within parts of the BTC community (to the extent that there is any BTC community) because of some of his earlier BTC price predictions had come true, but so fucking what?

Shouldn't we be taking these kinds of proclamations (whether Masterluck or anyone else) with a decently large grain of salt, and shouldn't we be attempting to assess the extent to which overall factors still exist a year later and whether some factors might have changed in the interim and shouldn't we also be attempting to assess that the BTC market frequently will be purposefully manipulated opposite of what peeps expect it to do, especially in the short term, which can cause a very large amount of additional profits from those engaging and able to carry out such short term manipulations (even if they might not be able to sustain such manipulations over a longer period, the manipulations in themselves could sometimes have some kind of medium term impact in BTC price direction or even BTC price stickiness).

If you choose to mix your on-line and your personal life then that is a choice that you make, and surely you have discretion regarding how you want to do it.

Still there are opsec issues, and there are a decently large number of folks who prefer not to roll like that... and maybe sooner or later, these real life encounters are going to cause a decently large number of the encounters to become public faces in the bitcoin space, whether initially wanted to be the case or not.  

If you are willing to take chances that you might become a publicly known person in the space, then of course, you can do that and many people prefer NOT to have such a life, even though there are a lot of publicly known people in the bitcoin space, and they likely have decent lives and they may or may not have intended to go down such a road... Actually, there are people who started out having an online persona that later became public, and whether they are happy about it or not, frequently it will be harder to undo something like that than to do it.  

So all good and fun if several of you want to juggle with these chainsaws, and it is all fun and games until someone's eye gets poked out.

So, even though you have a preference to potentially go public or potentially screw up your opsec, stop trying to suggest that everyone should be making the same kinds of opsec decisions, because that is pure irresponsible to be suggesting such norms, when the world does not work like that, especially in a space in which there could be decently high risks to screwing up OPsec in unwitting ways and NOT properly personally assessing some of the negative consequences of either purposefully or accidentally creating Opsec holes.



Does it matter?  Are you attempting to suggest that there is more validity to coming out as either a public person or a quasi-public person?  Are you trying to suggest that members or lesser if they choose to attempt to exercise meaningful Opsec?  

Get real, and again, it is a bit irritating if you are trying to suggest that your chosen level of Opsec (or lacking thereof, or choices to share your relative lack of opsec) is preferable, merely because you believe that you are getting value from it and other peeps that you met in real life that happen to be WO members are also perceiving themselves to getting value from these kinds of mixing the meat space engagement decisions.

Kind of reminds me of the analysis of the methodologies of the Nigerian scammers.  The theory is that the Nigerian scammers had such a high success rate (maybe 1/1000 or whatever) because they would be able to sort out the smarter people by purposefully having grammar errors and logical inconsistencies in their sales pitch, and so in that regard, they are appealing to 1) the dumbest of the dumb 2) the greediest of the greedy 3) the most desperate of the desperate or 4) the most hopeful of the hopeful.

So however fucked up are the Bcash SV believers in order to follow and believe such a fucked up nutjob or in some other ways try to rationalize why Bcash SV is a sound investment - hoping for a pump, hoping for a pump, hoping for a pump.,. whatever, delusional fucktwats are going to follow such a ragtag scamming team is likely to have a decent amount of delusions, even if they otherwise appear to be normal peeps.