I think you are misunderstanding the whole point

More specifically, it is not a matter of timeframes at all because if it were, it would mean using the first approach. Basically, as soon as you start talking about timeframes, you are implicitly making your choice (in favor of the first approach). And I don't really know how you can possibly consider the price movement from measly 150 dollars up to almost insane 20k as less volatile, ever. But it is the longest timeframe you can take without losing focus. Indeed, you could take the whole Bitcoin history as "timeframe", but that would effectively destroy the idea of a timeframe (apart from making volatility almost infinite in that case)

Actually, it is not my thought or idea at all

And this phenomenon has even its own name (if anyone remembers it, you are welcome to chime in on this). Simply put, if we know nothing about a certain process, the longer it lasts the more we can be certain that it will go on for at least as long. It has certain application in things like accrual calculations. For example, if a person survives his 20th birthday, there are good chances that he will live up to 50

There are two opposite views on this

Following which you can come to very different, even antagonistic conclusions. According to the first view, prices are set explode (or implode) sooner or later as it has always happened in the past. So technically, we should be counting down the days until it actually happens. On the other hand, the second view suggests that it may not in fact be the case and our counting should actually be in the opposite direction as the longer prices remain stable the more people expect them to be stable in the future

There are basically two approaches in analyzing price action with the purpose of seeing and telling the direction where prices may be going in the future

The first approach, which can be called historical (we can also call it retrospective), is based on the past data as it uses prior history to draw conclusions about future price action. If we use it, we should expect a powerful price action after a long period of stable or stagnant prices simply because it has always been so in the past. In this way, it can be said that we are running on a countdown timer now, i.e. with each passing day we are moving closer to the day when the market will rise and shine (again)

The second approach deliberately discards the past data (like past performance is not indicative of future prices), and on this ground it can be called progressive (or prospective). If we employ it, we may come to a completely different conclusion. Basically, the longer the price stays in its tight range, the higher are the chances that it will continue to stay in that range in the future. Fundamentally, it may mean more adoption and thus less speculative value, which would make this approach quite viable while its conclusions perfectly valid and legit

So which camp do you belong to? If you feel like you don't belong here at all, feel free to post your minority opinion too

Technically, I agree with your reasoning

However, if we thoroughly follow it through, we will necessarily come to a conclusion that once Bitcoin starts falling (and it has already been falling since early 2018), there'll be no way back because "who would buy if they cannot afford it"? Actually, some authors here and elsewhere are in fact claiming something to that tune (they are calling it Bitcoin's "death spiral"). But we had already been there in 2015 (even if today feels different) and somehow still managed to make 100-fold increase in the next two years

It doesn't matter what the majority of people do or not do, whether they care or not. A couple of lawsuits and a dozen of angry dudes (like Bitfinexd one) will do just wonders in this regard in this epoch. The rest will be history. Other than that, people who invest in stocks are buying stocks and they are what they are, even if these are trash stocks only. Obviously, you are confusing stocks with derivatives here, investors with speculators

While the former do care if they buy real value or paper shit


Bitcoin is not gold (and I won't get tired repeating it)

Yes, and I have reasons for that

Personally, I don't think that Lightning Network can hurt Litecoin in any degree. In fact, I constantly hear people mention this argument but I have yet to see any plausible explanation why it should. Lightning Network is not going to promote wider use of Bitcoin simply because people are more inclined to store their bitcoins and not spend them

In this way, Litecoin is more likely to be used as a means of exchange, not Bitcoin itself. Besides, right now we already see that money goes out of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies into Litecoin. You can easily see that by trading volumes spiking recently. In the last days Litecoin is already coming close to Ethereum, with Bitcoin losing momentum

All such predictions are meaningless

Because there are too many factors at play here. First of all, we can't discard altcoins which are mostly doing the same thing as Bitcoin, and while the latter is still the king (and will most certainly remain so in the future), it is unlikely that it will be used as a regular means of payment as it will mature as a store of value, with some altcoin (let's say Litecoin) being its proxy for everyday expenses. Further, there will always be a speculative element in Bitcoin's price, whether we like it or not, and that's another reason why any specific figure will be either a wild guess or wishful thinking

Long story short, can I challenge someone here using this platform?

For example, someone is claiming something which I can't possibly agree with. So I suggest they should put their money where their mouth is, i.e. if they are proved wrong they should pay me (obviously, if I'm proved wrong I pay them). Is it possible with this platform and who is to be the judge and referee in this case? I think it would be a good idea to have a tool with which to make people literally pay for all their bullshit

And what's vicious in these cycles?

As they are not particularly different from commodities. For example, crude oil went from 140 dollars per barrel down to 25 dollars over a few years, but the SEC doesn't seem to be bothered with ETF's tracking the price of crude oil. In other words, we may need more stable growth (and decline, for that matter) if we want to please the commissioners provided they want to be pleased in the first place. But I think they are more than happy with how things are presently (i.e. neither here nor there)

Yeah, the first thread is the one I mentioned

It looks that OP should start reading it (and anyone else interested in this kind of thing) as there is a wealth of information and a lot of pearls of wisdom scattered over there. It looks like the reviewer tried to get his feet wet with ICO's and he wasn't quite happy with the results, so he had to disinvest:


But there was another thread (not the second one you posted) which was a discussion about bankroll investments in general, though it might have been locked too

If anything, the "true" bottom was at 6k

This is to show how all these charts are utterly irrelevant and misleading, while all these predictions and projections are as baseless as they are clueless. The price is a random walk mostly. The things which matter in these circumstances are the overall trend (which is still bearish) and fundamental, long-term factors such as halving and slow but steady adoption of Bitcoin as a store of value and wealth transfer vehicle

It is even worse than that

The "news" is typically already priced in before it even appears. This process is known as taking advantage of the insider information. Needless to say that this practice is almost universally considered illegal, but when money talks no one cares which grammar it uses

So if it ever comes to ETF approval, you can be damn sure people close to SEC commissioners will be buying frantically before the news hits the tabloids. If you are not one of them, though, you will always be a little too late to the party enjoying yourself with leftovers only

It is pretty simple really. If these funds claim that the Bitcoin certificates they are going to issue are fully covered by Bitcoin reserves, you would expect them to actually provide a means of checking that (given that all relevant information about ownership is freely available on the blockchain anyway). If they don't do that, it will raise a lot of eyebrows and accusations of deliberate lies as well as misinformation (probably followed by lawsuits). On the other hand, just one fund actually proving they are what they claim to be will suffice as the rest will have to either do the same or go out of the business

So yes, because "blockchain"


I really doubt that. I guess the next thing you are going to say is that the mainstream investors are illiterate

Actually, I've been telling the same thing for approximately that amount of time. Moreover, I never forget to specifically point out that the longer Bitcoin stays in a certain (tight) range, the stronger will the next breakout be. It is so even purely statistically, as with every passing day we come closer to an abrupt price change simply because such changes are a given (though intuitively many people are in fact inclined to think otherwise)

That's why I can't easily accept this thought myself, i.e. Bitcoin becoming a genuine store of value (in a big way)

It is a vicious circle of sorts

As soon as Bitcoin prices stabilize in a tight range for some time (which could increase the possibility of ETF approval), someone with deep pockets comes and moves the prices like 20-30% a day (either up or down), and then we are instantly back in the loop

On the other hand, the SEC itself as a board of highly experienced and likely as corrupt people may not be interested in doing anything apart from doing everything to keep things where they are. In other words, the SEC accuses Bitcoin markets for being highly manipulative but they themselves may be abusing it

What's happened to the thread specifically about investing in bankrolls?

Apart from that, I remember as a couple years ago there was also a thread run by some news outlet which invested in four different casinos (later they removed some casinos and added a few new). They had been reporting their earnings (as well as losses) every week, and this is what OP should be looking for. Can anyone post a link to that thread? I would be interested to find out what their effort ended with too

Well, it doesn't necessarily mean that he hates Bitcoin

It means that he tries to push his agenda for Bitcoin Cash, but having an agenda already means he is not honest and sincere. You wouldn't really expect true hate from an insincere individual. Anyway, he should be interested in Bitcoin's growth because without this growth Bitcoin Cash won't grow either. Apart from that, he most likely has real bitcoins himself (and probably a lot of them), so it is hardly the case he should in fact hate Bitcoin. He just tries to capitalize off it, nothing more (and nothing personal)

Personally, I can't grasp that

Anyway, now you seem to admit that you are in control of the funds, which means you control the keys. That's good. Well, that's not actually good at all but it is good that you admitted to this fact. So the next question should be why can't a hacker take control over the funds if he steals these keys from you? Are you memorizing them or what? Who has the keys has control over the coins, right?

Bitcoin is also a weapon of economic mass destruction

In fact, there is a conspiracy theory that it was created by government agencies to bring down weak economies (e.g. Venezuelan). Take it for what it's worth, but big countries with strong economies (say, the US) should be interested in Bitcoin as it gives them a tool or even a weapon to disrupt the economies of their enemies. So there is no incentive for superpowers to ban Bitcoin when they can use it to their own advantage