Arthur Hayes is a pretty smart guy, if you ever heard him speak, and if you ever read any of his stuff.

Sure you do not need to agree with everything he says or his predictions in order to learn a lot from him.

There are a lot of people who I don't agree with, and they likely are not lying merely when they are wrong or they assign higher probabilities to events.. and surely there sometimes could be some hidden agendas too..


And just think about it.. bitcoin is about 1,000x better than gold, and regarding copper, it may well have more utility value than gold.. even though gold does have some utility value..so it won't be going to zero, and it may well retain a bit of its monetary value while bitcoin is eating its lunch and reaching fair market value that is 1,000x more valuable than gold.. or maybe even more than that.. but could take 20-50 years to play out or maybe even 150 to 200 years to play out.

Don't blame me if you end up screwing it up.

because I have split mine into three, but I have several places that I have put them in terms of having more than one copy of the threes, so that if the house burns down there is a back up.. so you might have a more than one set of three that are in 2 or 3 locations.. .. so that if you lose any one part, you are not screwed.

 I know it is a lot of work, but you don't want to lose one of the three parts and then you are totally fucked because you don't have enough information to get at the keys. 

For sure there are a few ways to screw things up by providing too much information, by not providing enough information and then also by having your keys vulnerable.. and no one knows if their house is going to burn down (for example), but if all of the keys are in the house that burns down, or even if ONLY one of the three parts of the keys is in the house that burns down, then hopefully you have a back-up of that lost key somewhere (that did not simultaneously burn down) in order to still be able to get access to your coins.

You gotta be careful trying to spend too much time trying to persuade others to buy bitcoin when they do not understand and/or appreciate bitcoin's investment case irrespective of what you are doing yourself and what you are telling them.  In their minds, they believe that you are the crazy one.

I frequently tell people that everyone should get at least a little bit of bitcoin and even start out with a small amount, and even if I know them well enough to know that they could easily afford $100 per week, I will tell them that $10 per week is better than nothing, even though they should be spending $100 per week.. but whatever, they have to do what they want or what they believe is right for their own situation.  And, sometimes, I will also suggest that even though it is good to get started with some kind of bitcoin buying routine and even to commit to 4-10 years, I don't really give any shits about what they do .. it is their choice.  I will tell them that they probably will end up buying bitcoin later, but it is likely going to be at a higher price.. but whatever, at this time they believe that it is not going to help them, even though it is a great hedge against a lot of the injustices in the world in regards to the governmental abuses of power in connection to the money printer and the ongoing degrading of the money, which they cannot do to bitcoin and bitcoin will benefit from the government's ongoing desperation to print money and their irresponsibility.. and bitcoin does not do those kinds of things.

You can also ask them questions about their own investments, but also that might not help and frequently people do not like to talk too much about their financial details, but sometimes if you can frame the question in delicate ways in which you are not necessarily asking specifics, then at least you might have some ideas about what they invest into, if anything.. or if they are just struggling and they hardly have any extra cashflow, even if they do seem to go on elaborate vacations a couple times a year... and of course, those are choices that people make.. in regards to how much they are spending and if they could end up saving/investing more than they do.


I still believe that you are underestimating bitcoin's power, and bitcoin already reached more than $1 trillion market cap last cycle, which was around $55k.. so if bitcoin gets to around $280k, then it will be a $5 trillion market cap.. and about 1/2 of gold's market cap.. so many folks already know that bitcoin is better than gold and the fact of the matter is that bitcoin is likely 1,000x or more better than gold, but I doubt that gold is going to completely lose its market cap, so there could be a variety of ways that bitcoin reaches some of its fair market value by getting to be 1,000x the price (market cap) of gold, yet it could happen in 20-50 years or maybe it will take longer, even 150-200 years to get to that kind of relative pricing.

Anyhow back to my assertion that bitcoin is not a mature asset class or a mature value, and in that regard, you are underestimating bitcoin if you are merely considering that it will go up 10x from here and then stabilize, when ONLY about 1% of the world's population is actually invested into bitcoin at this time, and perhaps even those who are invested into bitcoin do not even realize the extent to which they are underinvested into bitcoin, so bitcoin is still a very immature market and there are still a lot more people to come into bitcoin, and network effects and even metacalfe principles are going to continue to justify that BTC values (and prices) continue to go up exponentially with the playing out of those kinds of networking effects and metacalfe principles.

Well yeah.. you can just keep plugging away, so each person is going to have differing goals.. and so maybe since you have been in bitcoin longer, you might have had been able to accumulate more bitcoin than some others who are brand new to bitcoin, and some guys might consider that they would like to get to 2 BTC in the next 10 years.. and so along the way they might have several targets, such as first reaching 1 million satoshis.. then reaching 21 million, then reaching 50 million.. and then 1 BTC.. and then 1.5 BTC and etc, etc. etc...

so like you mentioned, there could be times in your life where you end up getting some extra cash come your way.. such as $2k that you did not expect, and maybe you decide you are going to use $1,200 to buy bitcoin and then you have some other personal plans for the other $800.. but your level of aggressiveness and consistency can pay off, and if you clearly consider yourself in an accumulation phase, then you should not be wanting to engage in behaviors that might be screwing up your plan.. but you also don't want to act so aggressively that you have not adequately planned various expenses in your life.

Another thing with bitcoin price dynamics, the longer that you are in bitcoin, and if you are able to exercise prudent and reasonable practices, then you can surely engage in practices of buying on the dip or even shaving off a little bit of bitcoin at various points in which the BTC price rips UPwardly a lot.. and sure the BTC price might not correct back down, but if you figure out how to sell small amounts of BTC, then you should not necessarily be concerned if you ended up being correct or not about anticipating a correction.. and surely it is not easy to get ahead of the BTC price and that is frequently why some guys will refuse to sell any BTC at all while they are in their accumulation phase until they get to a certain level of profits and also a certain level of accumulation... so sometimes any sales of BTC will end up falling into a category of spend and replace within a fairly short period of time.

Surely I am not going to claim to know if the satoshi might start to have enough of a value that it would be better to continue to recognize further subdivisions of it by the time that the mining reward splits in half down to such an amount that more digits become relevant.  2048 is quite a ways off, but I could imagine sats having a decent amount of value by 2048, even though surely we cannot have a lot of confidence until maybe we start to get closer to such date, and maybe there would become a kind of sense of necessity to be able to recognize value beyond 8 digits, especially if the accuracy of the mining reward might seem to justify it..

You are not going to get away with trying to point fingers to peeps who are even more whimpy, if such a thing is even possible.

I started out in my response to your post by looking at the bolded part, and I did not see anything controversial with that statement and/or any disagreement between us..

so maybe we are not clear about what each of us is saying.

I had largely been attempting to say that the longer that you invest in bitcoin, then the more likely that your BTC holdings are going to be in profits in terms of their dollar value, and maybe your BTC holdings would go up and maybe they wouldn't depending on if you continue to buy bitcoin after your initial purchases... . but the mere fact of buying and holding bitcoin for a long time is likely to put you into profits, especially if that is all that you do with your bitcoin.. as contrasted with trying to trade them.

So I was largely just elaborating on the expression "time in the market is better than timing the market."

I don't mind if you disagree with me. 

We have more interesting discussions if people do not necessarily agree and if they are trying to make points that they really believe to be true.. so which part of what I said is disagreeable?

I know that mistakes can be made.. so if someone buys BTC and tries to secure BTC for the long run and they are in bitcoin for several years, maybe even a couple of cycles, so they have a lot of money, maybe even 20x profits, but if such longer term BTC HODLer/accumulator person does not know what they are doing, then they may not end up making any money from their having had been in BTC because they screwed up their ways of securing their bitcoin.. is that where you are disagreeing with me? or something else? 

Another thing could be that past results does not guarantee future results, so I know that, even though I did not say it.. but frequently we cannot necessarily say all things inside of each post, even though from time to time, I try.

There are no guarantees in bitcoin.  Even if you use the term "pretty much" that is too high of expectations to be acting like you are guaranteed to profit, which is not true.

Bitcoin is an asymmetric bet to the upside, so you have good chances to be able to increase the amount that you invested by more than the amount that you invested.. while at the same time, it is not guaranteed to go up... but if you lose,  you will only lose the amount that you invested.. so it surely should be a good reason to invest into bitcoin knowing that it could go either way, but if it goes down, you are ONLY going to lose the amount that you invested... so be careful not to invest more than you are willing to lose.

So part of the question for anyone investing into bitcoin as compared with placing their value (their discretionary income) in some other place, is that they have to determine the extent to which bitcoin may well out perform some other assets, or at least to be reasonably competitive in terms of where to put my value over the period of time that I want to try to preserve (and perhaps grow) such value.

Maybe we just need to be directionally correct, and surely some people do not even have a whole lot of options.. maybe they only have dollars and cash, and sure they can get involved in shitcoins because those do not seem to have many barriers to entry, but it does not mean that it is a good idea merely because it is available as an option.

It seems to me that one of the better things is just to think in terms of yourself in terms of how much you are willing, ready and able to allocate to bitcoin, and then build that over time, and hopefully your investment will end up giving you more options in the future as compared to other options that you might have had available to you... and surely it is not necessarily an all or nothing play and surely along the way you could make withdrawals of some of the value that you had put into bitcoin, but you still might want to consider how much to withdraw and what are your purposes in withdrawing in terms of if you believe that you have built a large enough stash in order to transition into a stage in which you feel that you are able to start withdrawing some of it from time to time.

You surely do not need to cross the future bridge in the present, since you are going to have to see how it plays out, and at the same time,  it does not hurt to consider various possible outcomes in order to be able to be prepared to cross certain bridges when the time comes, even if you might currently be in more of an accumulation stage rather than a later maintenance stage and then an even later liquidation stage... and surely there are transitions between those three stages that are not going to be the same for everyone who builds up his/her bitcoin portfolio in order to have the options in the first place.

We are not talking about trading in this thread, so trading may well not be a way to have any honeypot with bitcoin especially since the vast majority of traders suck and historically buying and holding bitcoin has proven to be a quite lucrative approach to bitcoin and there is no real evidence that buying/holding has changed as a good approach to bitcoin.. which you seem to somewhat understand from the contents of your post... in which you are recognizing the current period as a likely dip period.

Even though a weakening dollar may well end up contributing to bitcoin getting to $1million faster, it seems safer to be making predictions in terms of today's dollars, and yeah, it ends up screwing up some of your later predictions, so for example, if the dollar is normally cut in half every 10 years, but such cutting in half is accelerated, then it may well ONLY be worth 10-20% of its current value in 10 years, so an evaluation of $1 million is only worth $100k to $200k in today's dollars.. .. which is more bullish for the BTC price, but we should still be careful in terms of determining how we are thinking about  reaching our own entry-level fuck you status.., and how much BTC and/or anything else that we might need to be invested into based on such calculation attempts..


Bitcoin was not $40k in September 2020... maybe in September 2021.

Hopefully no one is going bancrupt from being bullish on bitcoin, especially since bitcoin is more of a longer term play rather than something that you fuck around in the short term... so anyone dollar cost averaging into bitcoin for the last 3 years, since September 2020, may be right around break even prices, but it should be a better position to be to have had been dollar cost averaging into bitcoin rather than not getting into it or just starting out right now...

So far in bitcoin, time in the market has tended to pay off better than attempting to time the market, so surely that means that the longer that you have been in bitcoin, then the more likely that you are in a better place than if you had not gotten into bitcoin.

You have been registered on the forum since April 2015 coolcoinz.. so if you had been buying $100 per week worth of bitcoin you would have invested $44,200 and you would currently have around 29 BTC... so hopefully whatever you have been doing in the past 8.5 years in regards to bitcoin or not has been able to at least match those kinds of levels of returns.

I am not sure how fruitful it might be to get into discussions of common law versus civil law because SBF is currently being tried in the USA.. so sure, it seems best to attempt to figure out what is the system in which he is being tried, and you are suggesting that the judge is in charge, and I am not sure if you understand the role that the jury plays.. yet I think that we can say that the jury and judge have powers in various kinds of ways, but in some senses, juries can engage in kinds of behaviors that the judge cannot stop.. both in terms of their determination of facts and their ability to sometimes be able to nullify laws (which doesn't happen too often).. so I suppose that I am just quibbling with your trying to suggest that the judge can still decide certain matters opposite to what the jury finds.

Pretty much the judge instructs the jury in regards to what is the applicable law, and when it comes time for the jury to make certain decisions regarding some of the facts, the judge cannot overrule the jury.. so sometimes the jury can end up nullifying the law based on their factual findings... and the judge would most likely not be able to do anything about that, absent some kinds of unusual circumstances.

The judge might instruct the jury that this allegation number 1 needs to show criminal intent to use client funds and it needs to show conduct of the defendant that led to negative consequences of the funds getting lost.. but then he might say that allegation number 2 has all the same elements as allegation number 1, but intent does not need to be shown.  Juries are supposed to be following the judge's instructions in terms of finding the elements of the crime, and if they don't find intent in allegation 1, the judge cannot tell them that they are wrong and make them go back and rethink the matter, even if he believes differently about the evidence in the case.  And if the jurors are spending time talking about intent in element 2, the judge might re-instruct them that they do not need to consider intent in terms of allegation 2 because it is not required in order for there to be a violation of the law... Maybe my examples are not very great, yet I am just making the point that the jury can sometimes even purposefully defy what the judge says or wants, especially if they make sure that they are expressing what they are doing in terms of finding facts.

Whether it is good or not may be another story.. it is what it is in terms of the system in which Sam is being tried, currently and the system  under which he may or may not get convicted.. and sure there is quite a bit that needs to happen yet prior to his actually getting convicted, and in the meantime, it still seems that he is spending his time in jail during the trial... even though I would imagine there is quite a bit of times that attorneys are getting access to him while he is "in custody" but he surely does not have the kinds of liberties that he would have if he was not "in custody" during the trial.


SBF's lawyers have legal duties to argue vociferously for SBF.  They could get charged with malpractice if they do not make as many strong and good arguments as they are able to make, even if they are favoring certain facts over other facts and presenting matters in the best light for SBF... and yeah, it goes to show that they don't have a lot to work for if they are not able to present very convincing arguments... based on more and more facts that are likely to ongoingly come out during the trial.. especially if the trial goes the full length, we might be hearing quite a bit of dirt, and even continuing to hear a decent amount of surprising and/or shocking drama in the process.

I am not going to deny that part of the dilemma is likely trying to figure out how much does any of us need to know prior to taking some kind of action in regards towards taking some kind of a stake, even if it is a somewhat relatively whimpy stake.

So yeah, if you had already had $25k that you could have invested into bitcoin in 2016, then it probably would not have had been a whole lot of skin off of your back to just somewhat blindly put $5k to $8.5k into bitcoin without a whole hell of a lot of studying and then just studied it along the way in order to figure out if you were going to take any kind of further stake, rather than taking no stake.. but sure, hindsight is 20/20.. and I am trying NOT to slip into that kind of a fallacy in terms of knowing what to do based on what had happened after 2016... so in that regard, DCA'ing might have been better, even if you had a $25k reserve that was then available to you... but in order to know how aggressive that you would have had been able to be, you have to take into account a lot more about your own situation, including at minimum your cashflow, your other investments, your risk tolerance, your time line and a few other factors.

I was actually in a similar situation in late 2013 when I had gotten into bitcoin.  I had some extra cash that I had already started to invest starting in about September/October 2013, and so by the time that I got into studying bitcoin in November 2013, I was already ready to put some of my extra money to work.. but there still was a bit of a problem in regards to how I was going to enter.. and so surely I was a bit worried at the time that I had first seen coin because it was approaching a 100x price increase for the whole year, so almost anyone can end up coming into an investment like that with hesitation at least in terms of the lump sum investing angle.. so therefore, I just decided to start out with DCA'ing and buying on dips rather than lump-summing .. but by the time we got towards the end of 2014, I was also trying to consider ways of lump-summing too... because I had ended up holding some of my cash coming in on reserves and even some of my investments from late 2013 were coming to their 1 year time frame by the end of 2014, so in that regard, I considered that I could use some of that money at the end of 2014 to lump sum into bitcoin.

But still it is a matter of proportion and when anyone gets started, there likely needs to continue to be learning along the way, especially if you might have done a quickie study in the beginning rather than an in-depth study when first starting out.


I don't disagree with anything that you are saying, but for sure, the vast majority of people have difficulties investing for long periods of time, especially 100 years, and sure I understand that you are mostly just making a point that bitcoin is likely good for 100 years or more, but normies are likely going to be thinking in much shorter time periods, and it is difficult enough to suggest that they invest into something like bitcoin for 4-10 years or longer, and surely depending on how someone invests, whether DCAing, lump sum or buying on dips, there are likely going to be some preferences to stay into bitcoin for at least a couple of cycles to really start to be able to feel some of the likely ongoing compounding growth effects.. while at the same time,  some of the devils in the details in regards to some personal details in regards to how much value they are able to invest into bitcoin, and many times, people do not really have lump sum funds available to them and they might also not have their shit together very well in terms of making sure that they have their cashflow covered (their income versus their expenses.. and also having an emergency fund in place)... ..so even if we might consider that bitcoin is a kind of asset that will likely continue to grow, then a somewhat prudent (even though aggressive) investment style into it might still end up accelerating options for retirement and even early retirement... but it still could take many years to play out, and surely if someone is already at retirement age  then they have less abilities to enjoy the possible and potential compounding effects of bitcoin that are not guaranteed, but are part of the factors to consider when determining how aggressive to attempt to be in terms of both bitcoin accumulation methods and position size target considerations.


Fuck shitcoins.

You need a whole other level of analysis if you are going to talk about shitcoins in this thread or figuring out if you should invest into that crap.

You did not use the word bitcoin once in your post, so if you are talking about bitcoin then your analysis and need for studying into particulars is going to be from a different perspective versus if you have hardly any clue regarding what is bitcoin, so you are using dumbass and vague terms such as "crypto" in order to talk about bitcoin, which likely demonstrates that you have hardly any clue about what you are talking about.


For sure 1% would be way too whimpy of an allocation into bitcoin if someone is saying that he had $25k in cash that he could have invested into bitcoin in 2016...

When someone is suggesting to invest 1% to 25% into bitcoin from your investment portfolio, usually your investment portfolio is not going to be 99% cash.. and even if you choose 20% to 40% in cash (or cash equivalents), there are likely going to be other quasi-liquid assets in your investment portfolio.. sure a personal residence is not very liquid, but there could be some level of quasi-liquid value that is represented by it.. especially in terms of equity that might be available through it.


Anyone who might have concluded that s/he has some kind of an investment target to start into bitcoin right now will still have to make the various calculations regarding how much to invest and the methods and timeline to accumulate BTC in order to reach his/her BTC accumulation targets, whether s/he wants to reach 1%-25% allocation or some other allocation, and over what period of time does s/he want to engage in such an accumulation process. 

The answers are going to vary, and even if many of us consider the current BTC price to be relatively low (for a variety of reasons), it could take a bit of time for a newbie to come to similar conclusions in terms of weighing the values of lump suming versus various forms of DCA'ing and/or buying on dips (if any).

I personally would attempt to make plans that involve each of the types of BTC accumulation of DCA, lump summing and buying on dips, and surely someone with $25k today might be able to divide it into 3 and put 1/3 in each of the categories, or maybe s/he might attempt to error on the side of being more aggressive and lump summing a higher portion of it, which surely would depend on his/her current cashflow situation and the status of other investments and even having an emergency fund.

You may well be correct, and maybe even the milli-satoshi on the lightning network is not necessary or helpful, even though it seems that some people already had decided to add such feature because they thought that it might be useful to add an additional three digits in order to divide satoshis into 1,000 pieces.

So sure, maybe I took it too far... but surely starting in 2048, all of the digits of the block reward are not going to be recognized if the current system stays at ONLY recognizing 8 digits instead of the 9 digits that would be needed to recognize all of the block reward, and every 4 years an additional digit would be needed merely to recognize the block reward.. but yeah, if it clearly does not have any value, then sure, maybe it is not a problem to fail/refuse to recognize any digits beyond the current 8 that are recognized on chain.. and the 11 that are recognized off chain, but those recognition of 11 digits off chain would not affect onchain, unless onchain started to recognize more digits.

I don't presume to know the answer for sure, but it does seem that with the passage of time, that bitcoin is likely going to continue to go up in value (designed to pump forever), so it seems that there could be some justificiation in terms at least minimally recognizing the block rewards all the way down to the proper number of digits, which would mean starting to add one additional digit every 4 years starting in 2048.


I did not consider anything that I was saying to be related exactly to what dollar value that the satoshi might have, but sure there is a bit of a presumption that if more digits are needed, then the sub-units represented by those extra digits would likely need to have some kind of a value. .even if only fractions of a penny, just like a satoshi is fractions of a penny currently yet some folks using the lightning network believe that there is some kind of value in terms of adding three more digits to recognize 1/1000 of a satoshi, even though that is currently pretty damned small values in terms of current dollars.. and so yeah, the less valuable the units representing the further digits down, then the addition of digits might not be necessary and merely taking up band-with (space) as vjudeu had mentioned... so I suppose that there is a bit of a presumption that the dollar value of bitcoin, satoshis, milli-satoshis and any further digits added thereafter are going to go up sufficiently in order to justify their being represented, and that was part of the reason I mentioned adding 8 more digits every 32 years to merely make sure that the mining rewards are accurately depicted.. but at the same time, if those micro-units further down do not really have any value, then even my proposal to add 8 more digits every 32 years may well not be something that is worth putting into practice.

I know you guys are trying to be funny, but surely there is a serious point here too.

I know that some people suggest that you can never have enough bitcoin, but that truly does not really seem to be true.

So let's say that in 2016/2017 your entry-level fuck you status is $1 million, and so by 2017, you had already accumulated 500 BTC, so when BTC price crosses over $2k, you already have reached your entry-level fuck you status based on then BTC prices, but  you are still worried about using spot price as any kind of indicator, but since BTC prices went all the way up to nearly $20k in 2017 and dropped back down to nearly $3k at its lowest in 2018, but you had already had gone from your entry-level fuck you status all the way up to 10x your entry-level fuck you status and at most dropped down to 1.5x your entry level fuck you status.

To me it seem that largely you can just be selling coins whenever you like, as long as you are kind of attempting to maintain some kind of a stash, so even if you shaved off 10 BTC at $10k in 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020, you still have 460 BTC, and let's say in March 2020 you become a bit jaded about how much you need for entry level fuck you status, so you move up your consideration of entry-level fuck you status from $1 million to $2 million, you still may well have continued to have been o.k. shaving off 10 BTC for each of the years of 2021, 2022 and 2023.. and maybe you shaved 10 for each of those years off at $20k.. .so then now you are down to 430BTC.. and do you think that you might need to start to be a bit more frugal.. even assuming that 10 BTC per year is not really very sustainable. so you start to feel that you need to reign yourself in a bit better....

I guess my point is that there are quantities of BTC that are enough, and you may well not feel any kind of regrets for selling some of them from time to time, and probably my example of selling is not the greatest.. but it still does seem to show that some people might be in positions in which they likely have enough BTC...

Even right now using the 200-week moving average as the value determination price for a $2million entry level fuck you status, our current price is largely at the 200-week moving average (at $28k), so we are seeing that there is ONLY a need for 71.42857143 BTC in order to be at entry-level fuck you status, so if you have more than that amount, then you should be able to shave them off at your own discretion while keeping in mind that you might want to be careful not to go below that amount, but our guy who has 430BC likely has quite a bit of enough of a cushion to feel comfortable shaving off 5-10 BTC or more per year for several years.. but maybe someone who ONLY has around 100 BTC might want to be more careful in terms of budgeting how many BTC to shave off each year or even each quarter or month depending on how frequently s/he is shaving off coins. and/or the extent to which s/he is trying to be strategic in regards to such BTC shavings.


Trading and/or maintaining your stash through selling and buying back is another kind of story.


I was with you all the way until the end, Mr.suevie, when you used that dumbass term cryptocurrency and then suggesting that you are using that term but you really mean BTC.. so why the fuck use that term?  why not just say BTC?  Are you trying to sound smarter? and more objective? or like you have identified a category that has meaning?  and you are so brave because you specified BTC as being the thrust of your point. 

To me, it does not seem necessary to use the term cryptocurrency unless you might be talking about shitcoins or including shitcoins into your discussion, including if you might be talking about bitcoin too.. but as long as you are mostly wanting to talk about bitcoin, then you probably should say bitcoin. .. but there might be some points in which you might say.. this includes shitcoins too.. are you  pumping them or denigrating them might be optional...so mentioning shitcoins still might be topical, even in a thread that has bitcoin as its topic.

fuck shitcoins.

Position yourself according to a variety of possible scenarios in which you already have a plan what you are going to do for each scenario.. . and surely, there might be some movements that go beyond your expectations, but if you have a plan, then you should still be able to tweak your plan in order to account for such deviations versus if you had overly planned for one direction or another.


I doubt that you are as non-biased/impartial as you are trying to make yourself out to be.  So whatever, if you believe that you are largely prepared for any direction, then you will need to live with the consequences... yet it seems to me that you are largely just preparing to say I told you so rather than really preparing for a variety of possibilities, because it really should not matter very much if you end up being right or not in terms of your base case scenario.


If you like to believe that there is correlation despite the longer term trends, then that is on you.  You seem to have picked some recent data from the last 3.5 years which seems to be somewhat selective and you are trying to tell a story of correlation from that.


If you look at bitcoin in 2018 and 2019 compared to stocks and then you try to graph correlation over that 5-6 year period what do you get?  You get a hell of a lot less correlation because at best, bitcoin is around 3x -8x stepped up from those price points... and yeah you can dance around and try to argue correlation. blah blah blah.. good luck with that.

Now if you add in another cycle and go out another 4 years and you go from 2014 to 2015 and you compare bitcoin and stocks as compared to where they are now, and you have bitcoin around 30x to 50x up from those points, and are you going to want to describe correlation from that data?

We could go back even further and adding another few years (such as looking at 2011-2012(, but sometimes it is not as fair to be going back to data in Bitcoin's very first cycle because bitcoin hardly even had a price, so for sure the correlation is even worse, and it just goes with bitcoin going around 1,000x to 14,000x from then to today.. depending on the starting measuring points.

Yeah, bitcoin has an ongoing unfair advantage over traditional systems because it is still in its early adoption phase which means s-curve exponential adoption rather than the comparing of one mature asset class as compared to another mature asset class, so if you want to continue to make dumb-ass mistakes and try to act as if bitcoin is in some kind of a quasi-mature asset class and blah blah blah, that is your choice to decide to completely ignore that bitcoin is ongoingly likely inside of an early s-curve adoption phase, and even if bitcoin is not guaranteed to continue to prosper within such an exponential s-curve, you are making mistakes by trying to downplay and/or ignore the matter by looking at selective data and trying to act as if correlation exists through your looking at shadows (reflections of reality) rather than at actual light (reality)... but hey, whatever.. you do you.

I guess that we are largely saying the same thing - especially since I was initially triggered with the same date being in each of the categories, and I had been considering them to each be 4 year periods too, so I had thought that you had intended them to be 4 year periods, as well, even though it can be a bit ambiguous if the same date overlaps in each of the categories.

I hate to have future expectations to be a lock-in based on what has happened in the past.. but it does seem to be a bit of an inconsistency to deviate from the past when there is no other model saying otherwise for the future - even though we might be able to anticipate that cycles are likely going to change somewhat in the future, but until they actually change, we don't really have any examples of them changing - yet...

So if we are talking about potential top prices for any cycle, the price dynamics of bitcoin has so far been very consistent based on calendar years, and it is so consistent that it is likely going to break.  We have so far ONLY had three tops and each of the tops are closer to 18 months after the halvening rather than 12 months after the halvening, so if historically you had been using 12 months in order to give you some kind of a rough guidance for BTC price peaks for the cycle, you would have been right around 6 months premature ejaculation for each of those three already happened cycles... In 2013, the cycle top was the beginning of December, and then in 2017 and in 2021, the cycle top was right around 17th of December for each of those two years.

Accordingly, even though we should not be wanting to lock ourselves into any timeframe that the peak should happen (like LFC likes to do and he has so far been right each time.. hahahahaha), it just seems way more straight forward to go towards the end of the calendar year for each of those future anticipated cycles (even though the halvening is also happening less than exactly 4 years too.. so has been moving to be sooner and sooner and sooner in the calendar year.. at least so far.... so therefore the end of the peak seems more logically to be the calendar year for each of those years (2025, 2029, 2033). Alternatively, if you don't want to do that, then you probably should specify the month that you would want to use for each of those years.. so that the categories are not overlapping.


And 2030 would either be earlier in that particular cycle or just that the 2026-2029 cycle would end up extending out further.. which I guess I don't have any problems with those ideas, and surely we are just kind of guessing anyhow.

The more I think about the matter, it just seems that $1 million might be one of those "don't stop here it is bat country" kinds of zones - like $100, $1,000, $10k and what $100k is likely going to be.. . at least the first pass through seems more likely to be a kind of "don't stop here it is bat country"... yet again caveats should be thrown out there.. because it is difficult to really know how dynamics are going to actually end up playing out.. and sometimes reversals do end up happening right in the middle of what should have had been pass through zones, and even though I talk about them a lot, I mostly don't change much substantively about my buy/sell orders in such zones - except a wee bit on the margins.. 

After further reflection.. I think that AlcoHoDL's dates are mixed up.. and we should be trying to capture the cycles rather than mid-cycle, so it is problematic to state "before 2025
" for the first category and it would be better to say "before 2026" by "by 2025"

then the next categories would be

"2026-2029"

then

"2030-2033"

"After 2033"

"never"

After the fix.. that may or may not be acceptable to others, I am more inclined towards that 2026-2029 cycle.. including that we have to get through this cycle.. which I guess there is a bit of a presumption that this cycle ends by the end of 2025.. which may or may not play out like that... but we should not be trying to make estimations or predictions that overlap the presumptive cycles that are largely already in place.. because it gets too confusing to be mixing between cycles.

So gosh.. we have this whole cycle to finish.. which may well be a bit of a stretch to get $1 million  out of it, but $1 million still would not be out of the cards.. even as early as 2025 or even earlier...

So then it seems that we should get pretty decent chances of reaching $1million or more in the 2026 to 2029 cycle.. .. and yeah, I am not trying to get overly excited or overly bullish, but still to get

$1 million / $69k = 14.5

To only get less than 14.5x in the next two cycles (this one and the next one) is seeming overly bearish to me.. even though on a personal level I hardly even give that many shits about $1 million.. since I am already having trouble spending enough money... and I likely have to figure out how to spend more on my BTC spending game.


Oh gosh--- it only get's worse..

Meaning even more bearish... .even though I like your ideas about diminishing return rates.. which seems to be incorporated in several of the various formulas that bitcoin soothsayer wannabe persons (including yours truly) have tendencies to try to project out in the longer terms... but I still think your diminishing return rate is a quite a bit too whimpy (I know you don't like that word.. but I like pushing your buttons, even when somewhat inadvertently/unintentionally)  hehehehehehe.


Now we have the entrance of Mr. Morbid.. .or would it be Mr. Pessimistic.

 

I am not even sure what your above predictive numbers mean, Phil.  

Oh edit: Based on my maths and sciences capacities to divide 1/32, I think that 32x would be 0.03125 BTC per ETH... so yeah that might be even a bit more optimistic than me.. if you read my further response below.. and then consider my own nervousness to be attempting to predict too much in terms of getting my hopes up in regarding the crappiness of ETH should actually be reflected in its price respective to bitcoin, as it was in 2019-ish when ETH had gotten below 0.02 BTC for a decent amount of time, before ethereum ended up getting pumped relative to bitcoin at some point (maybe that would have been its mid-2021 pump)

And sure, I don't even have very much confidence that I am able to give much trust to various ETH prices.. based on questions about the overall outstanding ETH supply being not even close to transparent (in order to really be able to make meaningful rather than merely made up bullshit approximations), yet still in my earlier post I was largely going by this week's ETH/BTC rate going as low as 0.05915 BTC, but in the last two years, it had gotten down to 0.04989 BTC..

...so I was considering that maybe if the ETH/BTC rate continues to drop, then it will get down to that 2 year low of  0.04989 BTC or maybe even go lower than that.  

I don't really know what to expect, even though I have some appreciation of the ETH/BTC price direction that was being expressed this week.