Your doom and gloom speculation is greatly overstated (in other words seems to be pure speculative fantastical exaggerated nonsense)

Since about mid-2014, my personal policy has been to not disclose the quantity of BTC that I have; however, I do not mind describing some specifics regarding my holdings and my BTC trading strategy in order to be able to discuss trading/HODLing strategies.

Because I am mostly bullish about BTC, and I have other dollar related investments, I only trade small portions of my BTC holdings. 

In October 2015, I divided my BTC holdings into three and then I just traded a portion of the holdings that I considered to be profitable (because I bought them in the $200s).  This was likely more of a psychological tool because my total holdings were in the red at that time, but it did allow me to conceptually get over my mental block about selling coins at a "loss,"  yet as BTC's price continued to rise in late 2015 (and then kind of get stuck largely in the $360 to $460 range during late 2015 and early 2016 (through May), I was able to reconceptualize my trading strategy in order to authorize myself to trade a percentage of my whole BTC holdings and reconceptualize my whole trading strategy in terms of working with percentages of my whole BTC trading portfolio.


Currently, I have about 95% of my BTC trading portfolio funds in BTC and the other 5% in fiat,  and at this time, I have a created tentative authorization levels that are in this kind of a range.



BTC Price           BTC Allocation
200-350                   97-99.5%
350-450                   96-99%
450-550                   92-98%
550-650                   90-96%
650-850                   85-94%
850-1250                   84-92%
1250-2000                   83-91%
2000-3000                   82-90%
3000-5000                   55-84%
5000-10000           50-80%
10000-20000           48-78%
20000=30000           45-75%
30000-50000           43-73%


Of course, I have the power to reconsider these allocations at any time and to even make bolder moves within the strategy if I have a decent belief that the BTC market is going to move in one direction or another.

I consider my whole trading strategy to be a lot less risky than other trading strategies that are employed;  however, the most important part of my strategy is that it is tailored to my own financial situation, risk profile and personal preferences.

I am more interested in being secure in my strategy rather than getting rich, yet my trading strategy still has built in presumptions that BTC prices are going to rise in the long term.

 Additionally, even though some guys might quibble about my BTC trading strategy and say that it is not as good as some other BTC trading strategies, I don't really care that much because it is my own personal trading strategy, and in fact my strategy has allowed me to stack fiat and bitcoin on both ends (which brings considerable security to my holdings), and really my BTC holdings have increased by about 8.5%, even at this current price point, while I am selling BTC as the price goes up and buying BTC as the price goes down.  There is a bit of a moving target because my BTC/dollar funds are spread across several accounts, yet my rough calculation is that I still have about 8.5% more bitcoins than I had when I started trading at $250 factoring the same investment amount and the fact that BTC prices have risen by about 165%, and my BTC holdings have gone from about 50% in the red to about 50% in the black (or green as some folks say).







 

You are either reading too much into what I am saying or mischaracterizing what I am saying if you believe that I am characterizing the status quo as something that happens to be changes in progress.  Surely, it seems quite likely that seg wit is going to become the status quo, but of course it is currently a work in progress in terms of how it is being developed and how it is going to unroll and the extent of support that it has.... and surely the level of support on an ongoing basis seems to be overwhelmingly in favor of seg wit going forward and conclusions that overall seg wit is going to bring lots of utility and power to the bitcoin space.

Generally when I refer to the status quo in my various posts on this blocksize limit raising topic, I am frequently asserting that both XT and Classic have failed to meet their evidentiary burden of production and persuasion in order to convince the status quo to adopt them or to work on their adoption.  Saying that XT/Classic have failed in this regard is not the same as saying that seg wit has succeed in this regard, even though likely I have said both, and even though of course, all of us should continue to recognize that seg wit remains a work in progress that is advancing little by little and continues to enjoy overwhelming levels of support demonstrating that its chances of becoming part of the status quo is quite likely (even though that outcome remains part of the future).





Why does it matter so much about what I say?  Anyone can take what I say with a grain of salt and also anyone can read the level of support that I give (or not) for my various positions and decide for themselves whether they agree or not.  I don't claim to be any kind of expert, and I give whatever level of support that I decide is necessary under the circumstances.

Sure, maybe you believe that I should back up my statements more, but that does not mean that I agree or that I am going to back them up any more than I already decide within my artistic and posting discretion.



Yeah, we disagree.  So what?




Again, we disagree, and why does it matter?




To some extent I am making snapshot observations to describe the present, and surely I have already conceded several times that blocksize limit issues can still come up, but so what, they are currently largely discredited as being more FUCD spreading than reality, and some of this realization is demonstrated by bitcoin's price passing above $300 and then later $500 when on both occasions, a multitude of XT/Classic FUCD spreaders were proclaiming the end of bitcoin and the end of BTC price rises unless blocksize limits are increased...  despite these FUCD spreading proclamations bitcoin is becoming stronger, more robust and prices are continue to resist going below $500 and $300 respectively, which largely r3ckt those blocksize limit FUCD spreading positions, and there is a thread on this R3ckt status, too.. hahahahahaha

Sure the argument is going to keep coming back because it is a common theme with anything like this, but doesn't really mean anything regarding any emergency status in bitcoin or any actual need to raise the blocksize limit at this time, even if the blocksize limit may get raised in 6 months or maybe in 6 years, I don't really have enough technical knowledge or even predictive powers to know exactly how this blocksize limit raising matter is going to play out and when a limit increase will go into effect, if ever, but currently, the XT/Classic arguments are largely discredited by a large majority of the bitcoin space and folks that matter in the direction of the debate.



Good for you, and we still disagree, and why does it matter?

Even though I have not read the book:

Digital Gold,


it seems to be a very informative book related to bitcoin.


Also, if anyone has a free link to the movie, "the end of money as we know it," I would be interested in watching the free version of such movie.  

Below is a link to the trailer:


 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUF6klWuB38
 

I think I kind of understand what your monkey is pronouncing, yet monkey likely needs to get slapped upside the head a few times to provide a few more specifics.  

For example, how does monkey characterize the following:

1) was the BTC price move from about $230 in September 2015 to lower $400s in much of early 2016 a "slow-ish uptrend"? if not why?

2) was the BTC price move from lower to mid $400s in late May 2016 to our current price of about mid $600s  a "slow-ish uptrend"?  if not why?

3) Does a slow-ish uptrend in the next 2-3 months bring BTC prices passed $720, or passed $750, or passed $770?  

Regarding point # 3 above, I'm afraid to ask whether monkey believes prices to be going passed $850 because, likely even monkey realizes that going passed $850 would likely cause a kind of transformation in current  BTC market dynamics, and the difference in BTC market dynamics could possibly be triggered at lower BTC price points, possibly in the lower $800s.

In the end, thank you to monkey, even though half the time he needs to be spanked, but in times like these, it is appreciated to get any kind of feedback, even when the feedback comes off as a bit disagreeable. 

I have no problem conceding that we are at logger heads, and we have been at logger heads for some time.

Accordingly, each of us largely speak in conclusions in respect to the facts upon which we rely. 

I assert that seg wit is a decent developing next step that is in the process of unwinding and is largely non controversial, and I assert that so far there has been inadequate facts, logic or support to push XT/Classic or any of the other blocksize limit raising changes forward, therefore those proposals are largely dead at the moment, even though the arguments could be raised again. 

More or less, you take the opposite position to suggest that the blocksize limit debate is still alive and well (supposedly) and to assert that there is some kind of seg wit controversy (supposedly).

Whenever new facts develop, each of us picks the facts that support our view and emphasize those facts, and neither one of us either wants to engage in additional research or to provide additional explanation for our positions, except maybe to the extent that we stumble upon such evidence or logic in our normal course of the day (in other words, we are not going out of the way to research or to respond to one another).  That seems to be a kind of loggerheads.

You said that you want to keep calling my supposed "bullshit", and I could give a ratt's ass that you feel such necessity, except I guess I need to respond to you to the extent that my responses may seem necessary to clarify some matters from time to time, even though it seems to be a repeated dialogue and a kind of waste of time.. maybe for both of us, if i give you some benefit of the doubt that you are actually being genuine in what appears to me to be largely nonsense?

Maybe you are making my point for me?

Yesterday, you were asserting that the "ONLY" way is up, and now it appears that the "ONLY" way is down.   

Look at your language in the above sentences.  It says, I want to be correct no matter what.  Nothing wrong with that, but you have a tendency to attempt to divert into non issues and to just strive for combat for the mere sake of it.

When you assert that raising the blocksize limit would have been much simplier, so therefore it is logical that the blocksize limit should have been raised, you are continuing to attempt to argue about an issue that was rejected. XT and classic were rejected, or better put, they failed to achieve adequate support in order to be implemented... in other words, they are ded, at the moment.  Surely, they may come up again or some variation of raising the blocksize limit may be entertained, but at this point, there is no meaningful evidence that either a blocksize limit is necessary or that logic is convincing.  You are the one that is stubborn and want to keep on beating a ded horse... yes yes yes.. let's see how seg wit plays out first, and maybe revisit the blocksize limit matter later, if the blocksize limit is an issue at such a later point, oooooo kay?  okey dokey?  can you go along with what is currently happening or work on contributing to what is currently happening rather than just arguing about spilled milk and what you believe should have happened (you, BJA and your friends at reddit rbtc)?



Yes, the argument persists in some circles, but does not make the argument material and important, especially if neither facts nor logic is adding any additional reason to reopen the already mostly closed and ded topic.  The argument persists also regarding aliens landing in roswell, too, but we are not continuing to pursue such arguments because roswell alien arguments are largely being made by marginalized groups and not part of mainstream policy and thinking and discussing, even though a small number of folks continue to vocalize that subject matter.

Yes, jbreher, we've been over some variation of this topic, and we disagree mostly because you are making shit up and not really attempting to have any kind of civilized conversation.

In fact, Seg wit is largely a non-controversial and upcoming implementation and supplementation of bitcoin protocol features, and accordingly. largely, seg wit is an agreed to change (by all of the powers that be in bitcoin, and even naysayers such as Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik).  It was proposed in late 2015, and the code was written and put on testnet in about May 2016, and it is continuing to be tested and is nearing time for implementation in a more active form into the protocol and live, yet as many of us actively researching bitcoiners realize (even if we do not have a technical background regarding specifics), seg wit has not been completely implemented yet or gone live (and some of us may not even know the exact process or the timeline for when seg wit is going live), but in any event if there are some objections along the way of seg wit's going live and if there are controversial aspects about seg wit, then it seems quite likely that any of these kinds of problems or controversies can continue to be discussed, because seg wit seems to be a kind of work in progress in terms of everything that it achieves and how it is implemented into the existing protocol and how consensus and adoption is achieved by miners, as well.  

Anyhow, surely there is going to continue to be discussion of seg wit at various points during the process of its going live by persons who are more technically involved with testing and identifying bug issues to the extent that any bug issues might exist, and we will continue to learn about seg wit, too... to the extent that we may need to learn more about technical aspects or other aspects that are relevant to it's success or failure.

So I don't understand why you are attempting to confuse matters by attempting to suggest that there is some kind of controversy in respect to the implementation path for seg wit when you have little to no evidence of such controversy (except perhaps to the extent that you may start citing either yourself, folks at reddit r/btc, or maybe BJA, all of whom seem to be caught up on desires to have XT or Classic, which have both been rejected and are largely DED, at the moment)

It was beginning to seem as if we were approaching a truce, and then you come out with this blowtorch, hand grenade chaos launcher of a statement.   


The above statement comes off as very judgmental, and also seems to assume some facts that are not in evidence.

I would not characterize my position as trapped, exactly, because even though I invested quite a lot into bitcoin, I really did not invest beyond my ability to easily lose such investment.  I did not leverage, I did not take anything from my living expenses, and I also maintained quite a few other of my mainstream investments.
 
I'm not sure what else I can say without reiterating my whole investment history, but in essence, I did not materially increase my investment or continue to double down.  In fact, I allocated a certain amount that I was going to invest in the first 6 months, between late November 2013 to early June 2013, and I pretty much stuck to my allocation and then when I used those funds, and then I would reassess the situation.

By about mid-June 2014, my average cost per BTCV was around $630.

I will grant you that I did invest quite a lot around upper $300s in late 2014, and I was pretty much "all in" with my reassessment and my allocation of what I had intended to invest into BTC, yet my average cost per BTC in late 2014 was in the mid $500s.

I don't really call any of this trapped because I just continued to dollar cost average invest from late 2014 to early 2015; however in early 2015, I had run into some cash flow issues, so I could not buy BTC for a few months, until about April/May 2015, but I did not sell any of the BTC that I held, and April/May 2015, I resumed dollar cost averaging.   

By October 2015, when I set up a plan to begin to trade BTC, my average cost per BTC was about $502, and so I began to trade, and today my average cost per BTC is about $440.  Furthermore, I have dollars and BTC stacked on both ends, so I hardly feel trapped.  I keep saying this, but stubbornly, you continue with your own seemingly judgmental narrative.

I have given you quite a few details, but still even this level of detail does not describe my whole financial situation, and how I do not feel trapped in spite of your ongoing suggestions in that direction.




I still think that you have this wrong.  I don't believe that I was coerced, and I never really claimed to be doing anything other than I was doing.  My first phase was to accumulate and to buy on dips, and that is what I did.  I never sold BTC, and I just continued to buy whenever I had money, and sometimes I would strategically attempt to time some of the purchases in order to continue to accumulate, largely this strategy through late 2014, but continued through most of 2015 too, and to this day, I still continue to buy BTC with some of my extra cash flow, to the extent that I have any.

I did not claim to start trading or even try to trade BTC until October 2015, and that is when I began to post about trading.  In fact, through 2014 and most of 2015, I kind of continued to assert that I was not a trader, because I never sold any BTC, which was true (up until October 2015, whenever I sold BTC, I always replaced within days).



I appreciate that you have a right to have your own views and to argue that your views are applicable to your own actions; however, I do not appreciate that you would think that I should subscribe to such views or expect that other readers of this thread would necessarily agree with such thinking, at least not necessarily in the way that you frame it.



That's a bit too fatalistic for my thinking, but I have no problem with you coming from that point of view or even believing that the world is such.  Surely, I believe that individuals have some limited abilities to control things in society, but we also have levels of control and  our choices have ramifications, as well (on us and sometimes on other people).


Agreed.. too much farting around on the forum could interfere with possibilities of getting laid.

I don't object to your making a prediction or the substance of that prediction, yet I just hope that I don't have to sell some of my BTC merely because of the possible kicking in of the reverse adam indicator (RAI) that seems to happen whenever you emphasize certainty in your BTC predictions (especially in respect to the future).    



Oh yeah, thanks.  That helps. 

You are coming across as a nitwit libertarian (nothing against normal libertarians) who expects that they have to consent to everything otherwise it does not count.  Fuck that stupid shit.  We are born into systems that have a lot of rules, and the status quo has some power.  There is no problem to disagree with the status quo and to attempt to change it, but trying to act like it does not exist comes off as pure fantasy.

Yeah, I saw your stupid ass attempts to fight the status quo likely soft fork situation in bitcoin and attempting to argue that a hardfork is preferable... additional, one-sided nonsense, fantasy and propaganda attempts.

The "we" that Adam refers to is likely just a recognition that seg wit is pretty much a done deal without any meaningful resistance.



Nope, not so crucial.. Seg Wit is pretty much a done deal, and the overwhelming majority largely agrees to it, in spite of some loud mouth and stubborn trolls in various bitcoin forums... eg. reddit   r/btc and your nonsense fantasy propaganda attempts.

You are still seeming to frame the future in terms of inevitability, and sure, after it already happens, then we can describe the future in terms of what has already happened, and the past only becomes inevitable because it already happened; however, before it actually happens, there are a lot of different trajectories that are possible, and going down one trajectory could preclude another trajectory and accordingly change history (and the future) forever.

Maybe I am talking in riddles, and maybe even preaching the obvious, but in the present, we cannot project any one future.  We have millions of possible futures, but only one of them is going to take place.

So, when we are looking at the present, and we are looking at the future possibilities, we are going to attempt to project and predict the most likely set of events, and we are going to find some issues to be more important than others.  Likely, it is not going to make a difference in respect to the bitcoin's price whether I eat beef or pork for lunch; however, it could make a difference if some big whale, such as Roger Ver, decided to cash out his total stash of bitcoins and to publicly rage quit (and invest all of it in Ether) or it would likely make a difference to bitcoin's prices if Coinbase get's ddosed and attacked and assert that they lost 500k coins.  We chose which events we believe to be more important and to give them weight, and my choosing to drink coke or pepsi also is not that important in the scheme of things.

Maybe in the long run, the above kinds of material events will kind of become a wash, but some events can cause trajectories and change history in a permanent way, and some events are results of a few individuals or a few strategically placed individuals or even the contagion of a few large institutions.

So, maybe you have highlighted some differences in our thinking because there is no way that I consider the future in some kind of fatalistic manner, even though in retrospect, it may seem as if it were obvious, after it has already happened... but it is no way obvious before hand or even in the present.. just a bundle of probabilities with some probabilities being more likely and more important than others.

I'll take this as a form of humor.


Many intelligent investment circles (or maybe referred to as smart money... just kidding)... refer to this methodology, and warren buffet is known to preach such a technique, including his famous statement about buying when there is "blood in the streets."






Our overall approach may not be too different, even though our tweaking by learning may end up being applied a little bit differently based on our reading of the market.  Of course we are not going to want to buy a whole bunch if we are fairly certain that the price is going to continue to go down in the short term, nor are we going to want to sell a bunch if we are fairly certain that the price is going to go up in the short term.  Yet, we also may not want to miss some smaller swings, either... yet these are kind of judgement calls.  For example, if the price appears to be moving up quickly and seems to be on a 10% upwards trajectory, I still would likely to sell smaller amounts every 2% or so and then maybe bigger chucks when it reaches close to a 10% adjustment.  Trying to play a little bit of both, and each of us is going to come to different conclusions regarding how to approach these kinds of movements, yet I personally am not competing with anyone to make more profits, I am just trying to feel comfortable with myself, even if I leave a bit on the table, here and there, which actually happens from time to time (actually regularly).



I remember that sale of yours to be around $420, and yes, that is an example of a preemptive strike, and I find nothing really wrong with making those kinds of preemptive strike decisions, if that makes you feel better under whatever is the then current market conditions that you perceive.




I think that I am a lot more comfortable with an ongoing analysis of the situation, and trying to predict a year in bitcoinlandia is nearly impossible because we really do not know what cards various actors have up their sleeves, if any.

Take for example the most recent price splurge above $500.  Each of us who are watching BTC prices and how things play out kind of had our theories regarding whether prices would go above $500 and how it could possibly play out.  For me, it has kind of played out how I was thinking, but at the same time, it is quite a bit different with how I was thinking as well, so I have to adjust my thinking regarding how it actually played out versus what I had previously been thinking.

Previously, I thought that once BTC prices went passed $500, it would kind of shoot up passed $600 and maybe even passed $700 and then likely correct back down below $500... I mean the way that the price performance played out was quite a bit different from what I expected, I went up on lower volume and it took longer to get up, and then the corrections were not as severe (at least not yet), and in the end, even though BTC prices did not reach into the $800s, the way that it played out was much more bullish than I had anticipated... so I needed to adjust some of my thinking.. and sure, it is still possible that the price could correct below $500, but the odds are seeming greater and greater, and the costs (and resistance) in which to achieve such an objective to get prices into the sub- $500s seems to be much higher... I try not to see bitcoin's future prices and the bitcoin world in terms of absolutes (until after something maybe have already happened), but like you, I do try to weigh probabilities and go with trends - even though my conclusions regarding probabilities may not be the same as yours and therefore my actions are going to be affected.

So in respect to the next year, we gotta just see how it plays out and to continue to make our predictions based on how things are playing out, but in a general sense I agree with you that there are a lot of BTC fundamentals in place at the current moment to allow for the likelihood that a bull market could continue to endure for a year or even longer... could be slow or could be fast or could be a combination of ongoing and onward bullish and upwards price pressures that the bears are unable to stop without expending more capital than they want to expend.

O.k.... Maybe my bad? 





There is some truth in how you are describing my investment approach, but it is also a bit inaccurate, over simplified and seemingly unnecessarily judgmental as well.


I have no problem with adapting my investment style to the extent that I determine is necessary to my needs and situation, and surely I have learned a variety of techniques over the past years. 

In any event, my style is tailored to my own specific situation and my learning curve at the moment (what I know or believe at the moment), so anyone who tries to summarize my trading style in a few lines is likely going to get it wrong because it is also dependent on my view of risk and my other investments and my sense of the news, but yeah it has some consistent components, and even though I frequently praise my own investment style and attempt to share it, I doubt that I am really attempting to be dogmatic about my style even though I could give a ratt's ass if other guys follow it or reject it, but I still don't mind brainstorming about possible better approaches for my circumstances.

In any event, I am not trying to sell my approach on anyone or to say it is objectively "the best" for anyone, or even myself..... but I do attempt to tailor my approach to myself, so subjectively, i am attempting to play with an approach that works for my evolving situation, so for example, if I learn something different, I will adapt to the extent that I recognize that learning and believe that employing changes because of that learning is good for me at that time.

There is some truth that I am not attempting to predict, especially short term BTC price movements, but my BTC investment remains mostly stacked for long term upward BTC price movements.   Whether it is "the best" or not does not really matter too much to me.  For example, if I feel really good and secure in my investment, I may only make 6%, but then I may feel more comfortable with that secure 6% than if I were putting too much of my holdings at risk with the potential of making 20%, even if the 20% has a present expected value that is greater than the 6% that I am getting....

Anyhow, these kinds of considerations can evolve over time depending on the extent to which portions of my various portfolios are in the red or green and how my views may adapt over time. 

By the way, I think that you personally have a bit of a difficulty too with my approach of buying on the way down and selling on the way up because sometimes you are suggesting to do the opposite and to pre-empt, and that just is not my style  even though a lot of folks engage in attempts to preemptively strike, and it does not matter to me if they are more profitable than me in that approach, and I don't even really care if they do that approach, I am going to stick with my approach because I think that my approach is better for me - even though there may be some ocassion, here or there, that I may decide to attempt to preemptively strike with a portion of my holdings (but that would be the exceptional circumstance rather than my regular practice).

If you actually knew how to read or at least took some time to attempt to comprehend some of my posts in this thread (and other posts on this forum), you would likely come to realize that I provide sufficient numbers and probability predictions to the extent reasonable to make my points... Yeah, sometimes they could be made more precisely or concisely, but I make my own choices regarding how much time and effort to put into posts (in other words, my discretion).

  I have  never claimed to have any kind of insider information, yet sometimes I might claim to have a perspective that is different from other perspectives.  Anyhow, I am just attempting to provide my understanding of facts, logic and opinions based on my looking at various aspects of the BTC market (likely no different from any other genuine and non-troll poster).




You can believe whatever the fuck you want regarding what is a troll, and surely some folks (even real genuine folks) are ready, willing and able to spend more time on bitcoin than others...   Further, if you attempt to look at content of posts and to comprehend the content of those posts, then maybe you would come to more sound conclusions in your apparent emotional and probably just fake rants, possibly?  I have probably said enough because I am definitely having my doubts, at this time, about whether you are either capable or willing to contribute meaningful substance to this thread.

Look at you?  seeming to not be able to resist getting in a kind of non-substantive ad hominem attack.  You don't even explain what was wrong with my approach.  Are you saying (in retrospect monday morning quarterbacking) that there was something fundamentally wrong with my approach?  Do you know enough about my approach?   I don't really want to get caught up on this, except to suggest that you really don't have anything here, except some desire to get in a bit of a digg, for some reason?




Yeah, of course, we know that what you are saying here is a fairly accurate representation; however, we also know that folks come into bitcoin at various stages, and they act with the knowledge that they have at the time that they enter (lots of variation).  Also, we likely understand that bitcoin continues to occupy a kind of niche, and yeah, more and more folks are finding out about it, and finding out about bitcoin has an effect, and also pumping in itself has an effect  in which even the folks pumping can lose control..

So yeah, I agree that the price of bitcoin has likely been artificially suppressed for a kind of extended period of time, and there is a lot of upside potential in which both pumpers and dumpers lose control.. which each of us is looking forward to witnessing such irrational upwards price movement (in the near future, if possible)




That is way too absolutist of a claim.  Sure, you can bet that way, but I am not going to bet that way, and I don't even care if you are correct.  I mean I even hope that you are correct because I profit much more from upwards price movement rather than downwards price movement.

I prepare for both up and down, but since currently about 95% of my bitcoin dedicated funds is in bitcoin as opposed to fiat, yeah, UP works a hell-of-a lot better for me personally.



I tend to agree, but I still sell as it goes up, and for example, if the price goes up 15%, I may end up selling 2.5% of my BTC holdings, but still it seems that I end up buying some of that back too, when the price corrects.. but yeah, let's say that the price does not correct anymore and it goes shooting up 5x or something like that (which seems a bit unrealistic that we are not going to get some more corrections), and maybe in that case I end up selling 15% of my BTC holdings, or maybe i get overly excited and I sell around 50% of my BTC holdings, there is nothing wrong with having such a profit's taking plan.. which may even allow for buying back in at various corrective price points, that seem almost inevitable, as well.





That's a dumb thread and poll that has the maximum score at $1,000..The premise of the thread is completely lacking in insight.  Sure, maybe BTC prices could languish below $1000 for a considerable amount of time, including several years, but we already should have a pretty good idea that prices will likely go up in exponential ways once we get into the upper $800s... so flawed premise in the above cited thread.



I don't disagree with you about these matters, and there will likely various kinds of unknowable FOMO behaviors at various price points both below and above $2k.



I'm not sure about the odds of this $32k in the near future, but yeah, we got a lot of good things lining up in the bitcoin space.

You have a tendency to be really fully of shit, Hyperjacked, so the more appropriate assessment of the situation would be something like this:

"when you see others spreading around shit, and they admit that they are spreading shit, you agree with them."  That's what I did in my above earlier response.        

As you know, Adam, I have approached my bitcoin investment from a dollar cost averaging strategy.  Surely, if I was just getting into bitcoin now, my approach would likely be similar, but certainly my BTC/fiat position would be different, merely from the fact that I have already been buying and accumulating BTC for about 2 and 2/3 years now (wow time flies!!). 

I mean I get your point that currently bitcoin is likely more of a "buy, buy, buy" than it was in November 2013 (hindsight is 20/20); however, since I am already have largely invested and taken my position, it is not like I can go out and start to leverage in bitcoin  or changing my strategy merely because I believe that bitcoin is more of a "buy, buy, buy" now than it was in November 2013.

In other words, already largely in.. buy on the way down and sell on the way up... that is my current and ongoing position in BTC... and ongoing strategy.

I am happy with my total BTC accumulation, my average price per BTC and my having had stacked up fiat for the way down, just in case the price goes down and it feels like plenty of BTC (in comparison to my total wealth and liquid assets) in case BTC prices go up. 

Anyhow, you seem to be asserting that the fundamentals are very strong and should be buying, buying, buying right now, but that is not going to work for some folks, unless they are maybe just getting into BTC or maybe they had sold a bunch in the $700s or even upper $600s or for some other reason they have come across extra cash.   

I already have gotten to know you sufficiently to understand that you sometimes will exaggerate a bit, just to make your points, yet I also believe that you are a bit more of a gambler than me.

Surely, each of us has our investing style. 

I personally would rather play the whole bitcoin thingie ma jiggie more conservatively and make less money than to take chances on betting one way or another or stacking too much fiat into BTC when my BTC investing portfolio is already in a pretty decent position with currently about 95% in BTC and 5% in fiat...

In other words, I am not going to change my investment to 96% BTC or any higher amount unless BTC prices go down and more or less force me to allocate a higher percentage of my portfolio into BTC.   

Your dates are a little bit off.

The Brexit vote (and the surpise outcome thereafter) took place more than 24 hours after the dip to $540, after the price had come back up into the $620s, and the results of the Brexit vote seemed to have caused (or at least correlated) with bitcoin prices rising after the vote from the $620s to $684... and then BTC prices came back down into the mid to lower $600s thereafter (including another attempted, but failed test of sub $600).