Do you believe that fundamentals of BTC and market dynamics are similar to early 2015?  Do you believe that charts match up, and so we are going to experience similar dynamics in early 2019 as we saw in early 2015?  

Sure, it is possible, but how much weight are you going to give to such a scenario?  How much you going to bet on such a scenario to play out?  Personally, I would not bet much on that, and even betting anywhere close to 50% on such a scenario playing out seems quite imprudent to me, but hey, to each their own.

By the way, I am not suggesting that Bitcoin does not have a fairly heavy burden to get back above $6k and to stay above $6k, I am just questioning the likelihood of painting either doom and gloom scenarios or flat price scenarios for BTC that drag out a long time based on prior charts and attempting to place a lot of credence in previous patterns.

We are not in 2015 anymore, Dorothy. 

I try....         

You are referring to the pessimism of rafandal?

Do you have a practice of pulling some of your profits out of your "trading" funds? 

So, for example, let's say that you have a trading portfolio of about 5 BTC, and you bet about 20% of your trading portfolio on one bet, which ended up being the "accidental" 80x that would amount to 1 bitcoin at $3,400 and then you pulled closed such bet at $4,050. That would be almost  $52,000 ($650X80)  in profits, minus fees - which could also be considered to be about 13.44 bitcoins ($52,000/$3,870), at current prices.

Under the scenario that I outline, you could take more than half of your profits off of the table and still be doubling your trading stash.  You can still be prudent with your trading stash and make a lot of money from it because it has more than doubled.

Of course, your circumstances could be somewhat different, depending on the amount of your initial trading stash that you bet, and the smaller the amount, let's say for example that you only bet 5% of your trading stash (which would be only .25 BTC), then your profits would be only 1/4 of the amounts that I already outlined, yet I still think that you could take a decent amount of those profits off of the table (let's say 50%-ish based on the extraordinary amounts of profits) and still be in a real decent place, trading stash wise, without engaging in too much gambling with your profits, while preserving your principle and adding to it in various ways.

That is what I mean by "prudent" versus "risky" and I am kind of questioning the extent to which you may be leaning towards the risky side with your current perspective (which is a personality trait that can be refined with practice and thought).

Too bad that you don't feel any internal motivation to show source(s) with your ongoing "substantive" posts.

It is not a work product that you have created, even though you are sharing the "substance."

Are you a "glass half empty" kind of a dweeb?

My understanding is that some of the lightning implementations are recognizing down to millisatoshis (which is 1,000th of a satoshi I believe).. of course, if the BTC get sent out of lightning network, then at this point in time, the sub-satoshis are not going to be recognized by the main BTC network, but apparently you could still have a sub-satoshi balance within the lightning network that might not be resolvable with the main bitcoin network until such time that sub-satoshi's are to be recognized on the BTC main network (which surely would not be a difficult concept to reach consensus on the main bitcoin network, at some point in the future, even on the main network that might be currently in its early inspirational days on the lightning network).

Your logic is flawed here, dear sir.

Those Bcash shitcoins are worth less than 5% of Bitcoin, and they are illiquid as fuck.  It does not take a whole hell of a lot of bitcoin or any other asset/currency to pump one or both of those scams.   

You got out of your 80x at $4,052?  

I am thinking that you must have made a killing on that one, and surely the kind of "accidental" trade that could fund a whole fucking hell of a lot of losses, depending on how much you are "gambling" each time that you hedge.

To some extent you are striking me as a bit of a high risk taker, yet if you pull some of your profits out of your trading fund (such as what you made in the "accidental" 80x long play), then you could still be considerably profitable (beating the averages) on a lot of short-term plays.  One of the problems with shorter-term players seems to be that they tend to get greedy, and don't strategically pull enough off of the table and keep it off the table, so they end up losing their previous profits in some subsequent play because they erroneously presume that they can beat the market with their presumptively superior wits.

Why the fuck you shilling XRP, here?  You really believe your own nonsense that XRP is providing something that is even comparable to BTC?  XRP is a sham that is trying to camouflage itself as having use cases and relationships to banks... Sure it might get pumped, but it seems to serve as a distraction to anyone who might attempt to understand what bitcoin is providing rather than providing any kind of "innovation" as you seem to spout out.

There are all kinds of threads on this forum discussing bitcoin distribution, and trying to figure out how many peeps are into bitcoin based on a variety of factors, including bitcoin addresses and accounts on exchanges, and then also trying to figure out how many bitcoins they might have. 

Surely the number of bitcoin addresses is one of the most difficult matters to suss out, and probably in the beginning of bitcoin there was more repeated use of single addresses, but the current recommended best practice seems to be mixing up your bitcoin addresses, including another related dynamic that multiple addresses may also be used within wallets, yet most of the wallets do not give a lot of control over sending from multiple addresses in the one wallet, which can sometimes show bitcoin addresses that are connected (and therefore owned by the same person). 

I personally have probably used in the hundreds of bitcoin addresses (no need to be more specific to make the point), so a lot of mine are completely empty - though showing a few transactions in their history.  Seems to be a bit of a puzzle to figure out distribution, and some reliance on voluntary surveys (people sometimes lie, too) might give some decent indications of whether people know about bitcoin (and what they know might be another challenge?), whether they have participated in buying bitcoin, and/or whether they intend to participate in buying bitcoin in the future.

We have certainly had those cups in cups several times in the past, but surely no guarantee of such.  What seems to happen, sometimes when BTC is on a bit of a tear in one direction (up), then there will be a series of small corrections (of perhaps less than 25%), and then at some, somewhat unexpected, point, there will be like a great correction of more than 30% and sometimes even 50% before resuming up.   that is kind of assuming that our current price dynamics is reversing from bear to bull (which is a pretty BIG assumption, currently).

Seems like the vast majority of HODLers would prefer for the BTC price to just go shooting up, let's say to $10k and further, but those kinds of shooting up scenarios seem way in the minority of possible outcomes, under current BTC price momentum dynamics.

I know that members, such as Majormax, remind us that we have to look at both price movements and the passage of time, and surely I had not agreed with him in terms of what I had considered prematurely calling a bear market or seeming to overly presume how much downtrend has to occur, but there are a variety of aspects of his assertions that seem to make a lot of sense, which I personally would conclude that getting above $6k and staying above $6k for a decent amount of time (including staving off a few challenges to support at that level) would give us some decent ability to conclude that the bear market may be over (meaning the bottom is in).   Of course, I will be willing to consider other possibilities, as well, but tentatively I am still presuming that BTC is in a bear market based on current dynamics (which means that the odds for down are greater than the odds for up), and of course, if BTC prices continue to defy such odds that are against it, and continues to go up, then we might be able to view the market dynamics as something other than bear.

You seem to be just shitting on newbies for the hell of it.  Of course, you are suggesting that there is some kind of pattern with a desire to mine and to print money, but I find the desire to mine (and possibly contribute to the bitcoin space) to be a whole hell of a lot less offensive than people wanting to get into alt coins and icos and all kinds of that bullshit.  So, I have a hard time understanding what is your criticism of people merely making the wrong choice in terms of how to spend their time in the bitcoin space, because in the end, miners are needed, too.  

Furthermore, people are going to have all kinds of weird ideas about how to take their own individual approach to getting involved in bitcoin, and sometimes they just have to work through some of those ideas on their own rather than just following what others are doing or even taking advice from a more experienced bitcoiner (presumably youself).

I suppose that you gotta do what you gotta do.   

Remember fight club rules, and maybe I deviated a bit too much from fight club rules?

Anyhow, if a person creates a goal and then reaches the goal, such as 21 BTC, there may also be a need to surpass such goal, maybe by 50% or so, in order to have flexibility and a likely ability to maintain such goal (and the goal amount might become a kind of cold storage amount) but it still can be used and leveraged, of course, depending on  personal prudences and practices.   

Some guys and gal, will not have any kombunction to sell a decently large portion of their stash, including depleting their goal amount upon certain reached price points, and I don't really have a problem with that because I can understand that the goal stash amount might (and probably) should be downward adjusted at certain BTC price points.. so now there could be considerations of accomplishing such downward adjustments at $10k, $30k, $50k, $100k, etc. 

These price points and the values that seem prudent or reasonable are going to vary from person to person at least based on cashflow, other investments, risk tolerance, view of bitcoin and timeline.

Mostly I agree with you here, bitserve, and for sure, Searing needs a bit of kick in the pants and lecturing on a regular basis on the terms that you just did.

Regarding Searings actual circumstances, just to be more particular, he was in the 100 BTC-ish arena and then cashed out less than 15 BTC and some other stuff(s), and so it is quite likely that he is still in the 85 BTC-ish arena.

Regarding "making it,"  that surely can vary, and there is some relativeness to such considerations about how much of a BTC cushion is necessary to "make it".  For anyone just getting into BTC, getting to 1 BTC might be a difficult first goal, but any of us will need to start somewhere.  Then 2BTC, then 5BTC, then 10BTC, then 21BTC.  Maybe really making it would be to get to over 50 BTC.  I recall when I first started in late 2013, my goal was to get to 30BTC in the next 6 months to year, but I was not rigid with such aspirations because I knew that my ability to reach the goal was partly dependent upon what the BTC price would do in the subsequent months following my creation of such quasi-artificial and personally tailored (and likely moveable) interim goal.

When I was younger, perhaps 5 NG per day might be my outer limit - especially if going on for many days in a row.  However, these days, with more elderly me, probably my tolerance would only be 2-3 NG per day.  

Of course, I am talking mostly theoretical here, because I am sure that rotating NG (meaning new ones each time) would likely be quite more instinctually stimulating than repeatedly same NG (or a smaller selection of NGs).  

This is one of those topics that would be much better for me to take the hit for the WO inquirers here and to personally test, rather than hypothesize.  

Not a donkey -  "like a donkey."