In fact it's a good idea to buy into large sellwalls, because you don't drive up your own buying price  

I am having trouble with all of these various predictions too.. because surely once we get above $55k then that is no man's land between $55k and $82k.. so  there still could be some resistance to actually get into $55k, but it is hard to say.

By the time the halvening comes the 200-week moving average will likely be right around $33k, so I am having trouble imagining that BTC spot prices is going to come that close to the 200-week moving average absent just a quick dip.

So, for sure, any BTC price theory that I have right now is jumbled and full of contradictions.. including that usually we do not test the previous ATH until around half a year after the halvening, but for a lot of reasons these are not normal times. ... so even if we might say that we get stuck in the $80k to $100k range, but that makes no sense either because the BTC price does not tend to get stuck at the top.. we will go to tops and then come back down a bit, so it could be the case that BTC prices go to almost $100k and then get stuck in the upper $70ks to lower $80ks for some time... and no matter what I consider, it seems difficult to really put it into a reasonable framework, and maybe it makes more sense to go to $120k and then come back and get stuck between $80k to $100k... all within this calendar year.. and that seems overly wishful thinking but it does not make sense to me to get stuck in no man's land and it also does not make a lot of sense to stay in this $40k to $55k range, either.. especially given how many BTC the ETF providers are continuing to have to buy in order to cover demand.. so it kind of makes sense that the BTC price goes up to accommodate that level of demand on liquidity.

I am not going to be surprised by anything, yet like you I am trying to consider more likely and less likely scenarios, and I just have troubles considering what I consider to be less likely scenarios whihc is BTC prices getting stuck in noman's land - even if that might be what ends up happening.

There's lots of evidence that cannabinoids are effective in treating numerous conditions, e.g. epilepsy and COPD.

Cannabis extracts play a big role in keeping my COPD under control, under the watchful eye of my respirologist and in addition to the bronchodilators he prescribes me. He was impressed with the improvement that came with my starting fairly large daily doses of cannabis extract (equal parts THC and CBD) buffered with cacao butter and administered rectally. Rectal consumption bypasses the liver so I don't get high.. If I consumed 200mg of that extract orally, I'd be a vegetable. Of course you can treat my experience as anecdotal as I don't know if there have been any double-blind, controlled studies made of this use of cannabis.

The treatment of epilepsy with CBD on the other hand has been well documented.

https://nyulangone.org/news/study-reveals-how-cannabidiol-counters-epileptic-seizures

Unfortunately the entire subject of cannabis treatment of diseases has been clouded by the fact that it gets people high. Some people who are principally motivated by a desire to get high will want to attribute wonder-drug cure-all powers to cannabis while also touting all the wonderful uses of hemp fibers and seeds. Other will react to this zeal with skepticism and discount any real value as mere fanboyism.

It's important to keep an open mind.

 Okay, without getting too specific, he's well into his 80s and he has a long list of medical issues but diabetes is not a concern.  My dad is always reading me the side effects of every medication he takes.  I'll same the same to you - what about the positive effects?  Without the prednisone, he doesn't walk.  If he can't breathe due to asthma, he needs a puff on his inhaler.  The side effects of lack of oxygen, are much worse that any of the negative side effects of the puffer (osteoporosis).  He's on blood thinners too and the side effects make a nasty-looking list but a stroke could be devastating.  He's s a tough old bird and still wants his independence so mobility is key.  While I don't like to think about it, how many years has he got left?   Side-effects be damned.  Those are for young people to think about.

  I think the purpose is simply to inform the world of a scam being perpetrated on them essentially led by one individual with a PhD who is publishing fraudulent research.  It's not my NIH pouring your tax dollars on into it so fill your boots.  It's not just about money though, this story had a profound impact on me - I was downright angry after reading it.

I don't like to give this much personal information but in this case, I think it's necessary.  

  My parents are not young.  I'm happy that they're still able to live on their own with limited support from the rest of the family but about 2 years ago, my dad was suddenly having trouble getting up from his chair or out of bed and barely able to walk.  He was diagnosed with severe rheumatoid arthritis by our family doctor who immediately started him on a high dose of prednisone.  The transformation was amazing and immediate and he got his mobility back almost instantly.  Since the markers for arthritis in his blood were off the charts, the family doctor wanted my dad to have a consult with a specialist (here you have to be referred to one) but it takes forever to see them and covid protocols made things worse some doctors, this one in particular, was only doing phone consults.  Meanwhile, our family doctor began the process of slowly ramping the dose of prednisone down to a tiny 2mg per day and everything was good.  Then after an over-the-phone consult, the specialist wanted him off prednisone, first taking him to 1mg per day.  At 1mg per day, he began having some pain again and when he was totally off it, more pain and less mobility.  He was no longer walking around the block each morning so I made him call the specialist - I was fucking livid when she called and told him to begin taking 500mg of curcumin daily because I had already tagged it as a fad and fuck her replacing a drug that works with some unproven spice especially at my dad's age.  It did nothing for him - NOTHING - now fast forward about two weeks when I took his morning coffee over he was sitting at the kitchen table telling me he didn't know if he could drink a coffee because his hands hurt so much he couldn't move his fingers.  I immediately had him call the specialist who, without a consult or any tests, said, "Well it's not related to what I was treating you for so call your GP."  I'm not a violent man but if it were possible to punch someone over the phone...  Now he's back on 5mg predisone as prescribed by our family doctor and doing his daily walk once again.  He was doing well on 2mg so this is a setback.  The specialist wanted to see him again so I took him in expecting she would apologize for brushing him off but no... she wants to take him off prednisone... again.

 Why would a licensed rheumatologist recommend curcumin to treat a known condition?  What would make her think it's a viable treatment for any condition?  Why would she think long term high dose of spice would be better than long term low dose of prednisone for that condition?  If not prednisone, why not a proven, effective, NSAID instead?  Why Biodom???  WHY?  I don't even care how much they spent researching this fraud it's the far-reaching implications of the fraudulent research that's at issue.  When a specialist swaps a known remedy for a fraudulent fuckin' fad, we're all in trouble.  I have the unfortunate advantage of first hand experience.  

 I have to get moving.  I'm on my way to my parents' place with coffee and a printout of the article.  They can read over it while I vacuum the floors.

https://reeserichardson.blog/2024/01/30/the-king-of-curcumin-a-case-study-in-the-consequences-of-large-scale-research-fraud/

"Curcumin doesn’t work well as a therapeutic agent for any disease.

...hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, countless hours spent toiling by junior scientists, thousands of laboratory animals sacrificed, thousands of cancer patients enrolled in clinical trials for ineffective treatments, and countless people who have eschewed expensive and invasive but effective cancer treatment in favor of a store-bought spice, encouraged by research steeped in lies."

 Well I suppose it still makes chickpeas palatable.

Whoa! Compared to average joe geography merkan mentality, you're a genius.  

 I did a half-assed overlay for the geographically-challenged.  I must admit, I still can't find Holland, Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia.  Maybe I need glasses?

 

I think Cathie Wood gets a little too much credit for her ability to see investments.  Her performance with her managed funds has been absolutely horrible.  The only reason she was popular at all was because people were piling into her funds causing her to invest too much in small companies at bubble valuations absolutely destroying her clients' portfolios when things came back down to reality.  Even Jim Cramer was making fun of how she was running ARK investments...  I'm glad she's got good things to say about Bitcoin, but if it does go to 1.5 million you can bet she sold right before the rally started.

fireworks expected this week. Enjoy the ride and HODL

I would say at least… For me, it’s 0 debt, multimillion dollar home, vacation home, and $30K/month in passive income.

That means 2.5 million for a house and car + another 1.5 million for a vacation home.

In order to get $30,000 per month in passive income (dividends) you’d need about $12,000,000 in stocks with a diversified portfolio.

That’s 16 million after taxes, and around $20,000,000 if you’re talking Bitcoin capital gains and $40,000,000 if you were married without a prenup.

You could do away with the vacation home and scale down the house a bit while living off $10K per month, but that would still cost you 6 million and $10K a month with property taxes/upkeep on a 1.75 million dollar house would likely mean living on a budget.

Anything less than 6 million and you’re looking at retirement with declining assets (the 4% withdrawal method mentioned above) or potentially a below average quality of life depending on your age as your rising costs exceed $10K per month (car replacement, health issues, kids college, grandkids college funds).

Anything less than 3 million and in my opinion you’d (not just potentially like above) have a below average quality of life in retirement OR eventually exhaust all your assets with continued drawdowns due to a budget deficit (what most people do).

I should also add if you’re old enough and fine with being a renter, you can live for far less, especially if you have social security. Many retire with nothing at all and just live frugally (not fuck status).

The only firms that Cantor analysts expected to maintain profitability following the halving — assuming an average price of $40,000 per Bitcoin and no drastic changes in hash rate — were Singapore-based miner Bitdeer and the United States mining firm CleanSpark.

Usually my dangles come at the end, rather than in the beginning.

I will have to make a mental note.

No more "in"s in the beginning.,.. even if I am starting out by saying "in the beginning,"  I should figure out another way to say it.


You frequently come up with various theories in regards to "how can I stay as whimpy as possible," which is likely one of the reasons that you only have 20 coins and continue to fail/refuse to recognize and appreciate bitcoin's ongoingly immature status.

Maybe you keep trying to recognize dee cornz as grown up, while failing/refusing to recognize that we are still in early days?

Yeah, sure there are limits in terms of how much bitcoin can grow, so those earliest days were the most explosive because they were starting from zero, so sure maybe we still have tapering of the explosive possibilities, yet there is more money and participants coming into bitcoin at the same time.  

I heard the same dumbass assertions about bitcoin at various points in the last 10-ish years, which yeah, maybe people are not directly saying it, but they are presuming a kind of maturity and forgetting about exponential s-curve adoption based on network effects and Metcalfe principles... the TA dweebs have the same problems and the ones who are trying to focus too much on supposed macro relationships also have the same problems (you likely fit in the second camp rather than the first).. many times seeming to be distracted by comparing various stocks and macro trends, etc etc etc.

Don't get me wrong, we are both likely pretty damned conservative in our ways of investing, but you are even more conservative than me based on your seemingly ongoing and persistent distractions into macro factors and thus discounting the paradigm shifting power of bitcoin and the fact that we are still real earliy in terms of the various adopters.. .think about it, sure there are institutions and governments involved in bitcoin and there are even individuals involved, and some of us earlier bitcoin adopters are hoarding and overly accumulating bitcoin (such as Michael Saylor and MSTR, and Saylor is not even that early of an adopter even though he will make it through a whole cycle this year).


You are not completely wrong, but people still can ONLY do what they can do.  I frequently suggest for people to be as aggressively as they can in their BTC investment without ending up getting themselves reckt, and some people are not going to get into bitcoin unless they DCA into it, so if that means that they ONLY start with $100 per week, then that's their choice... and other people do not have lump sum amounts available, so they ONLY have the choice of DCA.

The more I write this response, the madder you are making me, because I doubt that the ONLY goal is to get rich, but also to stop getting so poor, and if people are already either not saving very much or not used to saving because they know that their cash is losing value, so they are not incentivized to save in cash or to invest into assets that are debased by cash.  

So why are you poo-pooing on the guy who invests whatever he can even if it is a small amount on a regular basis, and yeah in 2013/2014, we did not realize that $10 per week would result in $5,330 invested and 4.66 BTC, and part of the reason that I am suggesting $100 per week instead of $10 per week because $10 per week is hardly even anything, but if that is all that a person is able to invest, even now, they are going to need to do what they can.

In 10 years, there are still going to be people coming into bitcoin for the first time, and some of those folks might have already known about bitcoin since today, but they failed/refused to act, but they are still going to benefit from getting into bitcoin rather than not getting into it, even if they might be investing at somewhere between $250k and $500k per BTC, and yeah maybe a good number of them will have to be thinking in terms of buying satoshis rather than planning on getting whole BTC... but the whole society is likely going to be better too, so even those who are not directly benefitting as much by buying bitcoin, they are still going to benefit from the implementation of more fair money.


The rich are going to continue to have advantages over the poor, but if you had not realized that one of the advantages of a sly and round about way of transferring wealth is that the less informed are not going to realize that their wealth is being transferred to them, and therefore some of the current status quo poor are going to end up gaining a lot of advantages over the current status quo rich.

Maybe an example is warranted?

Status quo poor begins his investment today with $10 per week, and after 6 months moves to $100 per week and maybe is able to figure out how to get up to $200-$300 per week over the next 10 years, so maybe after 10 years, he invests close to $100k into bitcoin and he is able to accumulate nearly 2 BTC.  

If the status quo rich (or at least well to do) refuses to get involved in bitcoin, and maybe only starts to recognize bitcoin after 10 years, then the status quo poor might have gained some ground on him, and surely the status quo poor who invested in bitcoin is going to pass up a lot of the folks who did not get involved in bitcoin, even if 2 bitcoin is not quite yet getting him to western standards of entry-level fuck you status, and maybe the status quo poor guy might have to spend another 5-10 years to accumulate another 0.5 BTC, but he may well end up making it to entry-level fuck you status, even in western standards, and he surely has a much better chance of getting to entry-level fuck you status or even higher by investing into bitcoin rather than not... even if he only ends up getting up to 1 BTC instead of my description of his getting up to 2.5 BTC.. but I was also trying to show an example of a status quo poor person who is consistent, persistent, aggressive and maybe even just maniacally focused on BTC accumulation but also attempting to manage his situation in such a way that he lessens the odds of losing coins, too.


But we are talking about bitcoin here.. so fuck off with your macro and/or traditional investment distractions.  Sure, I am not against them, but they just are not very relevant to this thread... it is almost like you are getting into shitcoinery.. even though surely there can be some placement of those kind of investments into an investment portfolio, especially maybe once one has spent some time accumulating bitcoin (for the sake of diversification and blah blah blah), but really we are talking about bitcoin here so pumping traditional investments seems off topic, a distraction and probably not even advisable.

For example, let's go back to the newbie investor, as you seem to be o.k. with talking about newbies, and suggesting that a newbie is not going to get anywhere by trickling money into bitcoin, and so that is even more true if he fucks around with traditional investments or even dilutes his bitcoin investment by getting distracted into various traditional investments.

There is no reason that the newbie cannot build his bitcoin investment for several years before any diversification would even be necessary or justifiable... and I am not sure exactly what level of income that we might suggest that if the guy might have an income of $2k per month, so sure he is relatively poor in western standards, and maybe he has expenses of $1,400, so he has $600 left over.. and if he chooses to invest $100 per week into bitcoin (that is nearly 20% of his income) and then he can build his emergency fund with the other $200 per month, and he can go like this for several years, and if each year he ends up investing a bit more than $5k after 4-5 years he would have had invested close to 1 years salary/ expenses, and maybe at that point he might decide to start to diversify.  I don't see any reason to diversify earlier than that, even though surely guys are going to make these decisions at different points, and maybe some guys (including uie-pooie) think it is necessary to diversify after merely having a few months of expenses/income of an investment portfolio.


Yes I can.

We are talking about whimpy in regards to his investment to bitcoin, and the topic of this thread is about bitcoin, so it is not necessarily derrogatory to say someone took a more whimpy appproach to bitcoin and other took a more aggressive approach to bitcoin, and the rest of what he did happens to be his own choices, but in regards to bitcoin (which is the topic of this thread) he had been either whimpy, aggressive or some state in between.

Why the fuck should we care if he is a whimpy or aggressive investor?  That does not matter.  We are talking about bitcoin?  Aren't you talking about bitcoin?  This is not the how to invest your money and get rich thread.  This is the what do you think about bitcoin and other topics thread (not shitcoins or trying to pump other products.. including Phil's earlier pumping of Ibonds.. fuck ibonds).


It does not matter.   This is NOT the how do you get your best portfolio performance thread... I mean holy fucking shit Biodom, you have been here pumping things other than bitcoin for nearly 10 years and you still have not figured out some ways to try to stay somewhat focused on bitcoin?

You want to do some compare contrast of other things that might have beaten bitcoin?  Sure maybe that is somewhat relevant if it is presented in non-pumping and non-distracting way, but doesn't it get us away from our topic, even if you might be all hot and bothered about various other "opportunities" that might exist in the investment world.

Observing 42,145@Stamp.


Posting this image here, in case someone needs a reference.

in

<snip>

Let's see what happens under $ 37K.

$ 34K would liquidate and stoploss many traders so it seems likely we'll go there in the short term.

5 kg potato for 250 Pak Rupees.
1 USD = 280 Pak Rupees.

5 kgs of Potato for 0.9$
 
Cheap? Or is it more cheap in your country?

Photo credit : WatChe