Apparently, Fidelity is about to submit an ETF for approval really soon.
https://twitter.com/DeItaone/status/1673705284223614978 (planB retweeted this)
The original source was probably this:
https://www.theblock.co/post/236588/fidelity-preparing-to-submit-spot-bitcoin-etf-filing-source

Gawd, i thought our (US) tax rates are complicated, but by the looks of it....everyone's is (except Germany, perhaps).
BTW, in US is 20% only for a certain range: above $492300 for singles ($553850 for married).
Below that: 0% (!!) for less than $89250 (for married or below $44625 for singles) and 15% for 44626-492300 for singles or $89251-553850 for married.

say, you got a a nice 200K in long term (more than a year) cap gains and you are married, therefore your cap gains tax would be:

200000-89250=110750X0.15=16612.5=about 8.3% effective tax initially(not bad!).

After 200K (or 250 for married) of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI), though, you get hit with NIIT (3.8%), so maybe total would be a bit more.

TL;DR take less than about 89K in cap gains (long term) per year in US while being married and have total income (cap gains+business+work) less than 200K and you pay zero cap gains.

Whatever effect brrr has, it takes years if not decades to play out.
With the electorate that cannot put two and two together, the effects are unclear.
Of course, 'hiding' in bitcoin provides some solace.

Gov debt is at 30+ tril, right?
Now, imagine it at 40 tril...basically the "same" thing.
Then, 50 tril....same vibe.
It works until it doesn't....but it is unknowable when that happens.

I can see some situation developing in maybe 10 years, though, as by then the Trust fund for social security would be depleted (google it, projected numbers are from 2032-2034) and boomers would "suddenly" lose 20-24% of their social security payments. That would be a "joke" millennials could play on them in lieu of "making" most of real estate unaffordable.

TL;DR You are basically saying that because bitcoin increased 15% recently it means that it would be at 73.3K in December 2023. There is a reference to some article that predicts 36.6K, but the rest of your post replaces it with 73K. Is this it, pretty much?

Yes, nice find, but I would like to state the following:

"Any market trend rule, once publicly revealed, stops working."

Perhaps, there is a rule like this on the books, I don't know.
I would just call it a market prediction fallacy conjecture (MPFC).

As a result, i wouldn't count on that -6 to +18 rule as it could very well become a -10 to +14, which means the time is NOW.

Actually, the second spot indicated by an X was, indeed, the safest place to enter to achieve the most gains in the shortest period of time.
I remember Willy Woo also posting something along these lines. Granted, it was only about 4-5X, but in a short order and without sudden catastrophic plunges.
It was a great place for a small leverage, too. Sure, you could have bought at 6-7K (indicated by a start of the bull run), but if you did anything else, but a straight cash buy (no leverage), your position would have been eviscerated. We had one glaring example like this here-a mindtrust guy, who became "famous" for an aggressive accumulation between, maybe, 3k and 10K, and then selling all in panic at around 4-4.5K during the Covid crash. You might think that this kind of a sudden plunge would never occur again, and you could be right, but it is unknowable.

Bitcoin is far from the bubble of any sort, but I am turning cautious on the rest of the market:

1. Speculative names had peaked, witnessed by ARKK showing a nice summit.
2. SC will render a decision on student loans on Tue. If they reject student loan forgiveness (as most expect), then the logical direction is down for a bit.
3. Fed reserve would not "like" to have a continuation of the bull into rising rates (which they will probably do in July). I expect a small bump in some inflation number, which would give them the "go ahead" signal for 0.25 or maybe even 0.5 ("one and done"). BOE went for a 0.5% increase recently.

Haven't decided if i want to actively "play" these developments or just stay put.

Very well may be, but you are making an unproven conjecture.

In the best case scenario you would be dealing with progressively declining volume of available bitcoin. Granted, each unit can 'blow up" and each satoshi can be worth $1000 many years from now, but to me, it would be a gross distortion of a fixed supply idea.
Personally, I would be much more content if bitcoin can actually maintain the total available btc at 21 mil (or whatever current issued number beforehand).
I don't know what could be the mechanism, but progressive and large shrinkage of supply is unattractive to me.

It turns out, Satoshi had an omission in his code (that allowed for cycles to restart in 256 years), but who knows, maybe it was something subconscious on his part. It is in a way quite similar to Einstein's cosmological constant. Einstein introduced it to make the Universe stationary (in simple terms, introducing something that prevents collapse of the Universe into a singularity via gravity), next he set the value of it to zero because of Hubble, but it turned out that the value of that constant is a positive number (albeit a very small one), resulting in the acceleration of expansion of the Universe.

My analogy is that we need to find/encode a 'residual' bitcoin add-on after all bitcoin is issued, perhaps, or maybe even earlier (if the loss is linear and and not decreasing as value increases) to maintain btc volume close to or exactly at 21 mil. Mathematically, if bitcoin loss is a certain number of coins per year (and not a % loss of the current), then, with no issuance after 2140, the total number of available bitcoin will be trending to an inevitable zero.

Additionally, I was struck by the fact that P. Wuille felt that it was important to institute BIP-42, even though, Satoshi's "omission" would not come to play until year 2265, yet, the large apparent loss of bitcoin and, especially, a complete lack of knowledge as to what the current rate of the loss is, did not elicit any response so far.

Btw, this is all long term stuff, we all would probably be gone when it comes to play, totally irrelevant to the current vigorous bull market.
I just thought that, intellectually, it is an interesting area to talk about, but I am pretty much done talking about it.
Let's enjoy the "spoils" of a much appreciated strong bull run.

Not sure why they are in such situation with EU being right there and positive demographics.
Could be temporary, i dunno. All "strategists" are saying that Turkey would be a significant "player" going forward.

"250K median, with 180K-320K being the range for the next ATH"....a super-bot whispered in my ear.
True story.

@JJG...sooner or later...developers would have to address concerns like mine.
Some others state that the loss rate is maybe even 4% a year now, which is kind of high (https://blog.trezor.io/what-happens-to-lost-bitcoin-71eb5a80cc74).
I think that it is inevitable that some solution would be advanced (once we find out the actual rate of loss).
Could some solutions cause a fork? Hopefully not, but we shall see.

However I see most of bitcoiners solidly supporting the idea of no more than 21 mil btc, but maybe not the idea of a constant decrease in that number (or what is actually available).
To me, personally, the idea of supply shriveling to a few bitcoins and then dealing with fractions of satoshi to buy houses sounds positively Kafkaesque.
EDIT: btw, that hisslyness post you fondly refer to does not 'work' if we lose a set number of bitcoins per year (around 286K or 1.36% of the whole supply). He actually made a distinction between 75 years (in his calculation) counting as a fixed number lost/year OR 1231 years if a fixed % of current supply is lost for a year. I was talking about the former, but it flew over your head somehow. Sometimes you just need to read stuff more carefully.

I thought that my original post clearly said that it is 1.36 % of the original supply of 21 mil, but let me reiterate the numbers;
Assuming 21 mil supply, apparently lost 4 mil in 14 years, therefore 4/21=0.19; 0.19/14=0.0136=1.36% (of 21 mil or 285714.286 btc/year).
If we currently have 17 mil maximum available supply (17=21-4), then 17000000/285714.286=59.5 years.
So...check your maths, buddy. You assumed % of the current when I talked about a linear loss of certain # of btc per year (which I indicated as % of the overall bitcoin issuance for simplicity).

My point was that BIP-42 was already implemented in 2016, which is 249 years before an additional "cycle" would have begun.
Absolutely nothing is being said about much earlier (maybe in 60 years) possible event depicted above.
Sure, maybe the rate of the loss is lower (or higher?) now.
We just don't know. Maybe we should find out?

Well, if BIP-42 took care of a problem that would not have occurred until 256-7 (in 2016)=249 year from 2016, then why not determine how much is actually lost and the rate of the current loss (which could very well be a fraction of 1.36%/year), maybe each 10 years going forward?

Knowing this parameter, you would project when all would be lost and then count backwards and start putting in those "future BIPs" you are talking about.

It's very well may be that this needs to be done rather soon (maybe 10-20 years).

I wish you were right.
However, if we continue to lose 1.36% of all btc a year, then it is a problem, isn't it?
Now, that you found that quote, it looks like that the 256 year 'solution' was really an omission from him than intent.
I can only think that he wasn't aware of the scope of the problem back in 2010, because the argument that "Lost coins only make everyone else's coins worth slightly more" holds water only until all are lost, which is a finite amount of time, especially if it is that much a year (less than 60 years).

Whatever solutions I wrote in-I don't care about them, just a small suggestion, it could be something else, but the eventual "evaporation" problem is real and cannot be dismissed easily, and even mathematically as long as the loss is material and there is no add-ons after 2140.

Perhaps it was not his intent, albeit we would never know, I assume, but, then, how to deal with bitcoin "evaporation"?
We, as a humanity, seem to have lost about 20% of ALL bitcoins that would ever be in a short 14 years.
I know that people dismiss it and say that the rest are just getting more valuable. True, but only in a short time.
However, think about it long term: a complete loss is inevitable within relatively short historical time frames.
So far, we were losing btc at a 1.36% 0.286% (of the total supply) a year.
With the same rate of loss going forward, it would be 59.5 350 years until all btc is lost.
If the loss would decrease by a factor of 10, then it is 595 3500 years.

I find it amusing that the original code of Satoshi had in it a "revitalization" of bitcoin by a new issuance cycle after 256 years.
As 256 is < than 350 (my original number), but > than 59.5 there might would still be some non-zero btc remain when the new "cycle' would supposedly start, according to the original code, therefore, bitcoin never 'evaporates' fully and instead, revitalizes. If the rate of loss remains at 1.36% a year, all bitcoin evaporates before even the original Satoshi's solution (or omission/caveat) can work.

There could be another solution (but I like Satoshi's better):
1. Change to the address system so everybody has to send their btc every, say, 50 100 years.
2. From that, surmise the actual "losses" and make a small random seepage of new btc, so total number never exceeds 21 mil. Not sure how to do it in code.

TL;DR All bitcoin will eventually "evaporate" according to the current code and historical human behavior. BIP-42 might have been detrimental to the future (hundreds of years from now).

EDIT: the math is even worse: 1.36% loss a year, see correction. We would need to know the average loss per year pretty soon, maybe in the next couple of decades.

I found this story fascinating:

Apparently, there was a 'bug" (or rather technically undefined area) in the original bitcoin code that would produce ANOTHER 21 mil btc starting in the year 256 from the get-go.
The "bug" was eradicated in BIP-42, which was done post-Satoshi.
Without BIP-42, rewards of 50BTC would restart in 256 years, then halvings would continue again (from 50btc/reward to down).

A bit of 'conspiracy' theory on my side, but how do we know that this was not the Satoshi's intent?
I keep reading about 4 mil 'lost" already in just 14 years.
What if Satoshi surmised that this loss in 256 years (with issuance stopping by year 2140) would bring available bitcoin numbers too low and actually designed the "bug" to revitalize bitcoin about a century after. Interesting, but would not affect things in our lifespan, perhaps.

See the discussion of BIP-42 here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4r878s/in_case_you_missed_it_two_years_ago_bip_42_is/

To me, it is risky to assume that 70+% downs will continue. They probably would if we peak at 500K, though.
If the large declines continue-a short calculation: assuming that we underscore the prior peak by the same % as in 2022 means the next LOW (after the ATH) would be 55.42K, making the 2024-2025 ATH at 222K (if decline would be 75% vs last of 77%) or 184.7K if the followup decline would be 70% (most likely scenario as we seem to lose about 7% decline "potential" every cycle: 77 vs 84 the last two.

TL;DR The peak might be $185-222K, then low of 55-60K. This means buy now and don't sell..ever, apart from when you must (or you are @JJG with a buy/sell excel-driven strategy  ).

Btc is above 50% domination even WITH stables...on the way to 70-80%.

Took a look and almost spilled my coffee...30.66K?
Where is the choppa???

What a nice story..congrats..we all need some luck from time to time
From prior trading, people were speculating that wicks like this are made to 'show' the traders the ultimate reachable target.
If so, 138K sounds plausible for some kind of a peak (not sure if it is the ultimate for this cycle or intermittent).