I scalped ~2% out of Cardano last time it dumped. It was a close cut thing and I won’t do it again.
These shitcoins are going on a one way trip and it’s not worth playing the bounces.
Was it a d_eddie scalp (tm) or some other random inconsequential non-name brand variety? |
|
|
|
I think Bob has sold his account to pay for his due taxes. Can't blame him, that's always better than getting rid of some BTC.
Bob could be BTC flustlated, and desperately accepting the temptations of the altcoin savior propagandistas. My sources say that he is looking more like James Brown these days, which may not be a good look for him.  |
|
|
|
As a business owner I wouldn't price anything in bitcoin. Not yet anyway. Maybe after wider adoption it's volatility calms down. But you can still price your products in ounces of gold or silver and take bitcoin as payment. So that whole "bitcoin cant be a currency" thing is dumb. It may or may not ever be a good money. But it makes a fine currency even right now.
(snip) Currently on a system's-wide basis, part of the problem with bitcoin has to do with Gresham's law, but another part is not widely adopted, but bitcoin is way better than pms in terms of divisibility, recognition, trustability and portability.. and perhaps a few more things when it just comes to the currency aspect of bitcoin. We may be solving the tx fee issue soonish. Signs are promising. However, one problem I see with bitcoin as a currency is price volatility. It's unbearable. I think that's what Anon136 meant when mentioning gold. OK, 1 btc = 1 btc - so the price in echo-chamber terms is stable, but How many apples for 1 btc? How much bread, gasoline? How many lambos? Until these questions get an answer that drifts as slowly as gold (or better yet, slower), general adoption as a currency isn't reasonable to expect. You might be correct that Anon136 is referring to volatility, but he did not say that... and even accounting for volatility, bitcoin is probably better than an ounce of gold or silver as currency, even in the presence.. .. My point is that we can deal with bitcoin's volatility rather than trying to figure out how to currently transact with gold or silver... you go try it.. good luck. |
|
|
|
There are a lot of people in the same boat, Wall St. wants those coins nice and cheap.
The pump will come immediately after tax day.
Which is... when's the last deadline? April 17 is the tax deadline this year, but it seems a fairly random date to tie to any kind of meaningful BTC price performance |
|
|
|
If you average out the men and the women in the survey, then overall, it looks like bloomberg is finding about a 6% self-proclamations of ownership of crypto in the USA... and that does seem a bit high, even in the USA... I do think that we are going to get variance in different parts of the world, and I think that there is quite a bit of speculation that puts world-wide involvement (ownership) at something in the neighborhood of .5%... which would be around 35 million. So, yeah, those bloomberg self-proclamations of ownership numbers are a bit surprisingly high, but the seemingly higher number could be factored into their survey too.... or maybe questions about whether bloomberg are surveying americans broadly enough, and even some problems with seeming to fail to define what is a proper "ownership" threshold, something like currently own $10 or more or have transacted with $10 or more in the past calendar year?.. that is if we could deem such a low threshold of $10 as meaningful ownership? |
|
|
|
[edited out]
Geez louise....I cannot tell if you are trolling or not? It should have been obvious that I am agreeing with you here. I merited the post, then I post a picture illustrating that I agree with it. I realize we have been at odds in the past but it should serve as a breath of fresh air for you that I find your opinion to be valid. Your strategy is very similar to mine, very simply, buy on the way down and sell on the way up. -PoolMinor I guess we are just speaking different languages. I will work harder.  |
|
|
|
As a business owner I wouldn't price anything in bitcoin. Not yet anyway. Maybe after wider adoption it's volatility calms down. But you can still price your products in ounces of gold or silver and take bitcoin as payment. So that whole "bitcoin cant be a currency" thing is dumb. It may or may not ever be a good money. But it makes a fine currency even right now.
Bitcoin as a currency is way fucking more understandable than ounces of gold or ounces of silver, because no one knows what the fuck those pms are. Part of the reason for the move to the dollar was to make matters much more easy to calculate and recognizable. Currently on a system's-wide basis, part of the problem with bitcoin has to do with Gresham's law, but another part is not widely adopted, but bitcoin is way better than pms in terms of divisibility, recognition, trustability and portability.. and perhaps a few more things when it just comes to the currency aspect of bitcoin. So merely because bitcoin is not being used on a general system's wide basis (and you specifically say that you don't want to use it in your pee brain pie in the sky ideas because gold/silver are supposedly better) does not mean that bitcoin is not already a better form of currency than those two pms that you mention, so long as you find a ready, willing and able second party to do the exchange. |
|
|
|
I was listening to the Adam Meister show today on the World Crypto network, and he referred back to his show from one year ago, on March 17, 2017, in which Vinny Lingham came onto his show, unannounced and predicted that bitcoin was going to then hardfork and go down to below $500 or some other such nonsense. I think that Vinny lost quite a bit of credibility from the strength of his conviction on that date, but the strength of his conviction did cause several bitcoin HODLers to sell and to fail to buy more bitcoin during what ended up being the 2017 low price of bitcoin at about $890-ish. 2 hour YouTube presentation of Adam Meister show from March 17, 2017 - with surprise guest Vinny Lingham who predicted BTC prices were going to crash to below $500 after hardfork Even though it is a 2 hour video, it has a certain importance in bitcoin history, and shows that credible folks can make strong predictions and stir up disagreement that end up being wrong. |
|
|
|
YaiYuanZhe tends then spek beyond nis experience, even thanhuh not lauds hes seets that arrive from heath moters bassement.
Waitress! I'll have what he's drinking.
Speak for yourself ... fuck tits.  |
|
|
|
I can see 8000 where I will purchase another $100k Of BTC. What is your plans?
On top of buying drinks for the entire thread, I'll suck your dick if we see $8,000 USD/BTC this year. You can quote me on that. Saw this joke some time ago....Interesting - do you answer in your own words .. looks like bears are not so optimistic (March 15, 1btc / $ 7665.1 on bitfinex) We usually use bitstamp for these kinds of price measures but good find. Seems like most guys, and perhaps girl, are not asking about getting their dicks suck. I think that each of us are afraid of having Bob suck our dicks (in the event that we have one), but getting a drink might not be a bad idea.  |
|
|
|
@birr... The first part of your discussion of dollar cost averaging lends some insight to the practice because you are indicating that there is something wrong with employing an opposite strategy... however, then your suggestion largely devolves into a kind of recommendation of a reverse dollar cost average strategy.
NO matter if you are in a BTC accumulation stage, or a maintenance stage or a liquidation stage, your strategy should be to attempt to sell BTC on the way up and to buy BTC on the way down. Of course the more you are on one spectrum or another remains a personal choice but it also effects how you may employ the strategy. So for example, if you are in a BTC accumulation stage you might buy more on dips and perhaps sell less on rises because your goal is accumulation, but that should not cause you to sell on the way down or buy on the way up.
Usually, if some one who is employing a sell on the way up and buy on the way down is panicking because they screwed up and did not sell enough, so the strategy probably would be to attempt to make up for the screw up by selling a decent sized chunk and then returning to the strategy of buying if the price goes down with the proceeds that were generated from the sale.
Continuing to sell on the way down or creating a plan that continues to sell on the way down is not a good strategy nor is it equally good as buying on the way down... and perhaps making and emergency sell because of a screw up and then maybe even going back to HODL, if not feeling comfortable enough to buying on the way down.
 What's wrong with my post? I am merely describing a practice, and my disagreement that a kind of incremental selling on the way down that has been described as dollar cost averaging is a good plan.. In essence, I think that largely it is stupid because it seems ill thought out because it contradicts the more important strategy, which should be buying on the way down (not selling on the way down). |
|
|
|
Below is a copy of my earlier attempt at a response to the matter (although my nested response is directed at birr, it is also intended for Rosewater, and I am not sure if he read it), and in essence I am saying that reverse dollar cost averaging is stupid.
Sure you can sell a chunk of BTC if you are nervous about whatever situation you have gotten yourself into, but you need to go back to the strategy of buying on the way down and selling on the way up because it does not work to attempt dollar cost averaging the other way around... and sure, sometimes when in doubt an alternative plan (especially in BTC) would just be to HODLCRAEFULly through the situation.
But what you are arguing there is that it is basically a wrong idea to exit low. Which we all agree. But he was especifically asking if it was better to exit (now) in a single trade or to dollar cost average the exit. The intention to exit was thus a premise in his question. Here is one time that I will concede (it does not happen very often) that the wordiness of my response may have caused a loss of the thrust of what I was attempting to say. Pretty much I was attempting to say that if you believe that you have fucked up, and you want to feel comfortable because you believe the price is going to go down, then you should figure out a way to sell a chunk that will cause you to become more comfortable, and then continue with a strategy of buying on the way down and selling on the way up (and that would not be dollar cost average selling on the way down because that makes little fucking sense in light of the more grande principle that calls for buying on the way down and selling on the way up). I understand the premise and intention of his question, and I think that the strategy goes against the overall principle that I would be advocating. Of course, we are kind of mixing two principles here, because dollar cost averaging does not really have anything to do with price, and dollar cost averaging is a time thing... so following a pure dollar cost averaging strategy would be to just buy or sell an exact amount (perhaps once a week) no matter what the price was at that time, and I am not opposed to that kind of strategy; however, the way that Rosewater was using the term, he seem to be referring to selling an incremental amount on the way down (irrespective of time), and just to be clear and repetitive, I think that is a stupid and even a strategy that is contrary to MORE GRAND principles to buy on the way down and sell on the way up. As such, it is better to do it averaging the exit for exactly the same reasons it is good to average the entry.
For reasons already outlined above, I don't think so. I also suggested an alternative way which is scalping the volatility for liquidity (you basically assume downtrend and act accordingly in the staggered trades using the volatility to get an additional profit ie: sell double on each daily pump and buy half on each daily dip). But it all depends on the deadline someone has to complete the full exit.
Actually, you are describing a little bit different of a principle, and I cannot really disagree with this kind of mitigation/compromise strategy because you can tailor such an approach to make the downside less painful than it might otherwise be, and thereby cause you better downside protections because you are attempting to ensure that you are not selling at the absolute bottom... so I agree with that kind of attempt at mitigating damages to the best of your ability (that kind of is hoping that the bottom is close to being in). |
|
|
|
Hehe, it would be nice, wouldn't it? However, I'm too much of a newbie at trading - and what's more, I'm kind of ignoring on purpose the intricacies of proper TA. That's why, if I came up with something like this, it must be already a well-known technique, and I'm quite confident it already has a name. If I knew its name, I could look it up and learn about possible pitfalls.
Could you recap what you're up to? I used the last dip to lighten my safety short and profit a bit. The dip was welcome, because my short entry point was drifting towards unprofitability as the price raised. Now I'm waiting to rebuild the missing part a bit at a time, scalping the small waves as we get back to where we were, around 8.5-8.6k. When will it be? I don't know, of course. That's the unnerving nursing/babysitting part. My ultimate goal is having a short that tracks the current price, ideally an inch higher up from it (wishful thinking, and impossible on maxima. I know). When I'm set or near-set, let them moon it - I'll drop it when the pain exceeds my threshold. Let them swamp it - I'll get richer than I were without my safety short. Certainly, one thing that you are attempting that is quite different from me (and jbreher I believe - and quite a few quys and perhaps gal are leery of such) is that you are incorporating margin dynamics into your plays that make them more complicated. Therefore, if you are able to describe systematic ways to employ margin, then you will be able to contribute to the space in your own unique ways. By the way, I have concluded that in bitcoin it can be very very very profitable merely playing with strategies that involve straight trading and no margins, so therefore margin trading is not necessary in order to get very rich from bitcoin. It would take quite a bit to convince me to employ margin trading or that I would acknowledge that such is necessary - however, if you are able to present clear and simple techniques that are easily understandable, then I for one might be willing to attempt your strategy, if it makes sense to me and seems that there is a way that I can use it to make myself feel more comfortable (rather than less comfortable because of such employment of it). |
|
|
|
A 200-250$ dip down, almost instant. We won't see BMB/Rosewater for some time, I'm afraid.
Last time we heard from him he was mumbling something about exiting in stages (dollar cost averaging). Hope he is ok and didn't sell more than enough to have some peace of mind and restored confidence in his hodling abilities. Exactly.. we should refer to that strategy of "mumbling" because such a strategy is dumb for exiting on the way down, and I already as much responded to that nonsensical assertion. So, hopefully he has not been following such a dumb plan in the way that he had outlined it. Well, I specifically told him my opinion that dollar cost averaging is in fact also a good idea for exiting positions... when you don't know if the price is going to pump or dump next. Of course if you knew it was going to dump, then go all out inmediatelly, and if it is gonna pump, go all in.... but who really knows that for sure?? Below is a copy of my earlier attempt at a response to the matter (although my nested response is directed at birr, it is also intended for Rosewater, and I am not sure if he read it), and in essence I am saying that reverse dollar cost averaging is stupid. Sure you can sell a chunk of BTC if you are nervous about whatever situation you have gotten yourself into, but you need to go back to the strategy of buying on the way down and selling on the way up because it does not work to attempt dollar cost averaging the other way around... and sure, sometimes when in doubt an alternative plan (especially in BTC) would just be to HODLCRAEFULly through the situation. I'm about ready to capitulate myself. Is it best to dollars cost average your way out as well?
PS. I have no complaints, have done well.
Consider that in dollar cost averaging, you convert dollars at a steady rate into another asset. It works, because when the asset is expensive, your dollars buy less of it, and when the asset is cheap your dollars buy more of it. That's exactly how you want to go about buying something. Now consider selling an asset. If you extract dollars at a steady rate from your store of the asset, it means that when the asset is expensive, you sell less of it, and when the asset is cheap you sell more of it. That is most definitely not how you want to do it. Instead, to wind down your position in an asset, you should sell that asset at a steady rate; e.g., sell the same amount of bitcoin every month. By doing it that way, you are getting more dollars when bitcoin is expensive, and less dollars when bitcoin is cheap. Another way to think about it is this: when you acquire an asset using dollar cost averaging, in effect you're selling dollars, and by selling those dollars at a steady rate you get the best results. Winding down an asset's position is the mirror image that process. You're selling bitcoin, and selling those bitcoins at a steady rate denominated in bitcoin (not dollars) gives the best results. @birr... The first part of your discussion of dollar cost averaging lends some insight to the practice because you are indicating that there is something wrong with employing an opposite strategy... however, then your suggestion largely devolves into a kind of recommendation of a reverse dollar cost average strategy. NO matter if you are in a BTC accumulation stage, or a maintenance stage or a liquidation stage, your strategy should be to attempt to sell BTC on the way up and to buy BTC on the way down. Of course the more you are on one spectrum or another remains a personal choice but it also effects how you may employ the strategy. So for example, if you are in a BTC accumulation stage you might buy more on dips and perhaps sell less on rises because your goal is accumulation, but that should not cause you to sell on the way down or buy on the way up. Usually, if some one who is employing a sell on the way up and buy on the way down is panicking because they screwed up and did not sell enough, so the strategy probably would be to attempt to make up for the screw up by selling a decent sized chunk and then returning to the strategy of buying if the price goes down with the proceeds that were generated from the sale. Continuing to sell on the way down or creating a plan that continues to sell on the way down is not a good strategy nor is it equally good as buying on the way down... and perhaps making and emergency sell because of a screw up and then maybe even going back to HODL, if not feeling comfortable enough to buying on the way down. |
|
|
|
Are you currently putting all your money into bitcoin? If you say this, you show you believe it by your actions. I am putting all my money into bitcoin - I see a possibility of $50-$100+ per coin this year. Just think, once the "bankers" and hedge funds find out about this, we are going to the moon. Once my bitcoins are $1,000+ I will be able to pay off my growing college loans and maybe get an apartment, and my first car  I'm only a teenager. I could only scrounge up so much despite my 1000+ BTC loss. I have 95 BTC incubated so far. Wow, after almost 8 years you are now a millionaire if you continue to hodl your bitcoin. This only shows that if you believe in you coin, just give it some time to appreciate because for sure it could make you a millionaire. There are no guarantees, and past performance does not guarantee future results. Nonetheless, if you still continue to study and attempt to understand bitcoin, you should be able to appreciate that bitcoin's fundamentals remain strong and bitcoin remains a good investment, especially if you have a longer time line and a strategy that considers BTC accumulation to be a good ongoing approach. |
|
|
|
A 200-250$ dip down, almost instant. We won't see BMB/Rosewater for some time, I'm afraid.
Last time we heard from him he was mumbling something about exiting in stages (dollar cost averaging). Hope he is ok and didn't sell more than enough to have some peace of mind and restored confidence in his hodling abilities. Exactly.. we should refer to that strategy of "mumbling" because such a strategy is dumb for exiting on the way down, and I already as much responded to that nonsensical assertion. So, hopefully Rosewater (I am not convinced that BMB and Rosewater are the same peeps) has not been following such a dumb plan in the way that he had outlined it. |
|
|
|
We are managing to stay out of the Swamps of Anger.  Although the price line seems to have changed Dark Forest to Dank Forest. Where exactly is the dungeon of capitulation? Negative prices? It begins somewhere between 7500 and 5000. Which would be a lovely problem to have for a lot of us. If we have been into bitcoin for any period of time, then I would not characterize a drop between $7500 and $5k as any kind of a "lovely" problem, even though it may be a manageable problem in which we could make lemonade out of lemons. Furthermore, if you have been in the BTC space for any kind of significant period of time, even if you may be decently prepared for further downwards price movements, you have had plenty of opportunities to accumulate bitcoin at lower prices, so there really does not seem to be any "lovely" reason(s) to experience further downward price movements, except merely some of the additional purging of weak hands that is likely to occur and also the possibilities of some of the additional purging of some of these alt coin and scam ICO projects that would also be likely to occur with further downwards price plays. |
|
|
|
Visa is not going to go down that easy and without a fight, so they are likely going to have to play dirty - and likely also be forced to lower their fees, too.... |
|
|
|
I admit that it can be a bit of a pain in the ass to attempt to find your comfort zone, and even to experience levels of temptation emotion to deviate. Furthermore, the market can play out in ways that are a bit beyond expectations and new preparations need to take place to ensure that you remain prepared for either price direction.
In the last month, I made a couple decently-sized tweaks, and I designed each of my tweaks in order to feel more comfortable for either direction rather than attempting to increase my profits. And, in November/December, I had to make a couple of decently-sized tweaks, too, because the price was performing more bullishly than anticipated.
That's it. It's about being comfortable. As in almost any tight game, upping the worst case outcome requires worsening the best case. And that's what I'm doing right now. I believe that I understand what you are saying here. I might characterize what I do a little bit differently, and that is that I structure buys and sells in order to attempt to profit from what are the most likely scenarios, so even though I am prepared for the more extreme scenarios, those more extreme scenarios are not the center of my planning. Further, as more extreme scenarios begin to play out (which does happen in bitcoin from time to time), then I have to adjust my earlier plan to account for the happening of the more extreme scenario. To me, it sounds like you are in the middle of doing this second thing... you are adjusting your previous plan in order to become more comfortable within a new scenario that is currently playing out, and as the BTC price goes up and down and up and down, your plan is likely going to cause you to become more and more comfortable because the price is going to come to you in one direction or another within your new plan, which does not get you out of a likely necessity of having to tweak again later down the road in order to become more comfortable again. Hehe, it would be nice, wouldn't it? However, I'm too much of a newbie at trading - and what's more, I'm kind of ignoring on purpose the intricacies of proper TA. That's why, if I came up with something like this, it must be already a well-known technique, and I'm quite confident it already has a name. If I knew its name, I could look it up and learn about possible pitfalls. I think that the longer that you engage in this process and reflect upon it by writing it out or whatever, the more likely that you are going to develop some plans that you can call your own - even if others happen to engage in some variation of such practices... and maybe instead of calling it the d_eddie scalping-ladder method, you may come up with a new and more daring method that you decide to name as the d_eddie avoidance of suicide method..  Regarding TA, fuck it!!! or at least take TA with a BIG ASS grain of salt, and use which portions you believe might be helpful on the margins rather than centering your approach around such seeming nonsense. |
|
|
|
You notice the Bitcoin.com stickers in the pictures in the article, and sure bitcoin.com is that the "real bitcoin?" Those fucks. Calm down, son, it's a stock photo. Of course... it is part of the article, you patronizing fuck wannabe... You have the makings of an excellent mainstream journalist.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
