Yes... squiggly lines.. take them with a decently-sized grain of salt.



Not anything.  Some things are more likely than other things, including by definition, UPpity is more likely during a bull market.



Fair enough.  Everyone is entitled to an assessment... especially if s/he is capable of making an assessment.


Huh?  I wonder why these people did not like your analysis.

Are these "people" in the room with us now?

 



Kind of hard to argue with you if you have such a great track record of being right.

I suppose subscribing to your newsletter might be coming, next?
 

I am having a hard time following.  Sure, I stated whatever at the time.. so is it currently relevant to anything beyond just trying to proclaim some kind of a track record of being right?
 

That's a weird way of assessing the extent to which something that you are asserting has value.. sounds like you might be shooting for "shit-stirring" value, and surely I am not a large fan of valuing something merely based on its ability to stir shit.
 

Hopefully you are sharing for your own reasons rather than being concerned about whether people agree or not.
 

Hm?  First time that I ever heard that expression.. Is that something that you thought about on your own or are you getting it from somewhere?
 

I don't know where you are getting your baloney that I am impatient... seems like you are just reading something into a situation merely to have some kind of a nonsense talking point.. like throwing shit at a wall and hoping that something might stick..
 

We agree that you can never be sure, but you did seems to be emphasizing the down part, and I seem to be emphasizing the UP part.. because last time I checked we were in a bull market.. even though I know peeps come to differing conclusions about whether we are in a bull market or not and then also differing conclusions regarding if whatever correction that we happen to be in is over or not.
 

If you are not trading then not sure what to be cautious about... for example, if you are DCA buying on a regular basis, I doubt that you have to change much of anything that you are doing...unless you happen to be changing something that you are doing for other reasons.
 

Yes.. it is weak until it is not.  Last time I checked we had an ATH that was less than a month ago.. wasn't that on November 10 that we reached $69k... seems like it.
 

Good DCA remains amongst the best of strategies, and surely that strategy can be supplemented with lump sum investing and buying on dips.. at least until feeling that they have bought enough BTC... so surely each person is going to have differing assessments regarding how much BTC is enough.
 

Great.  We are on the same page there.
 

Maybe they are, and maybe they are not.
 

I am not sure if you are saying anything that has any meaning, helpfulness or relevance.
 

I would not have so much confidence in that, smartie pants.   
 

Again, does this have meaning?  Is it helpful?  Is it relevant?
 

You would go there?

You seem to be grasping for straws dragonvslinux with whatever point that you are wanting to make, if any.


Now, you are devolving into a patronizing disposition.. which is hardly becoming of a gentleman soothsayer wannabe.

This interview with Christine Lee reminds me that a couple of days ago, I did a fairly extensive commenting upon Saylor's interview with Tucker Carlson.. which would have been from a day or two before that the Tucker Carlson interview took place.  So, yeah.. I should have put some kind of cross-reference to my post in this thread, so here's a link to my commentary for ease of reference....and so such link also contains a youtube link to the TCarlson interview.

I am going to start out by proclaiming.. horey sheeit.. you are such a damned wordy man...

Amazing..



Not going to deny that things like that could happen.


Let's see then. A 75% to 80% correction from a $100k to$150k top would also be pretty bearish (or giving a pretty high number to DOWNity.  In other words, a pretty whimpy top that only has a wee bit more than a 2x UPpity after our 56% correction and then your 75% to 80%.. holyshit.  That could end up being a correction down to a $20k... and even $30k correction would seem quite bearish to me.

I am thinking that if all we were to get is ONLY $100k to $150k then probably we would not be getting more than a 60% correction, and likely short-lived, at that... .and I thought that you had already acknowledged that large corrections are more likely to be plausible after large UP-runs in the price, if we do not get any kind of meaningfully large uprun nor any kind of meaningful blowoff top then it seems less likely that we are going to suffer from those kinds of 80%-ish corrections.  That's part of the reason that personally, I continue to speculate about the possibilities that our blow-off top price runs could go even beyond some of what PlanB had been considering in the $288k price territory and surely I had given some odds to up to $1.5 million for this cycle, which surely would be a long run and surely even getting to something like $600k would already largely constitute a bit of an overshoot of many expectations that likely would be more likely to be closer or only slightly above PlanB's $288k number...  

Hard to really have any confidence in any of those numbers anyhow, and I surely do not put any kind of meaningful plan in my financial or psychological planning in accordance with those kinds of numbers - except perhaps just NOT really having any kind of rush to spend much of any of my BTC and surely also thinking that we might end up having subsequent BTC price bottoms that really do not go much lower than $60k to $70k.. except maybe short term spikes, which would largely then suggest that our top would at least be supra $300k levels (and $60k would end up serving as a 80% correction from those kinds of levels)... sure there may be a wee bit of pie in the sky in that thinking or at least what might be reasonably possible for this cycle.. even though maybe there is only less than a 25% chance of the top playing out in the supra $300k territory and then to get a 80% correction from that might also not have really high odds of being able to have both play out.. but not out of the question in terms of looking at fractal patterns that  might not exactly match but end up somewhere in the ballpark of previous examples.. because we have BIGGER players coming into bitcoin that can contribute to the patterns playing out in similar ways even while lots of deniers at the same time and we look at a chart and see something similar despite everything going on, including a multitude of human behavior and various game theory and all of those matters all end up washing out to show a similar pattern as previously.



There's gotta be some correlation to the present in order to attempt to be based in reality rather than just starting from some random place.. so we gotta start from where we are at.. and then attempt to figure out where we are likely to go from there...

In other words, I don't know how you can say that your contemplations of the future is not correlated to the present unless you are expecting some kind of outrageously unexpected thing to happen.. such as a black swan event or an Armageddon or some kind of thing(s) like that.



Ok.  fair enough.. we are on a similar page in that regard then.



You have not lost me yet... All of that seems plausible, even if it also seems unusual.. but hey we should not be anticipating that we expect any emerging category asset to perform in exactly predictable ways anyhow... but I don't find anything objectionable in what you are saying.



Sure, that is also plausible that the 200 week moving average would not have necessarily been much different under either scenario, even though we know that the higher the BTC price and the greater the volume of BTC traded at that higher price for longer times, then the more that trading at a higher price does draw the 200-week moving average to move up more, but surely I am not going to argue with you in terms of the overall price being averaged out to maybe end up being something like 5% or maybe 10% difference at best.. so maybe instead of having a 200-week moving average of $3k in late 2018, if BTC prices had not topped out as high ($8k versus $20k), then we end up having a 200-week moving average that ends up being in the territory of $2,700 rather than $3k or maybe even a smaller difference, as you suggested.



I cannot disagree with you that leveling out of the extremes could end up happening, but I would not prematurely predict the death of such extremes because since we are still likely in a war, there are likely going to continue to be extremes... so what you are suggesting seems to be quite a minority possibility rather than anything that would be reasonably likely.  I am not making my statement based on what I want but ONLY based on what I am expecting to our ongoing BTC price dynamic which is continued extremes and continued outrageousness even though it is still getting to be a BIGGER and BIGGER asset class.



Hm?  maybe I am kind of understanding you here?  It's like my expectation that bitcoin could go to $1.5 million this cycle.  I only assign such possibility as something like .5% odds of happening, and I sort of prepare for either the outrageous or even the more normal and average where my BTC might ONLY end up performing mediocre over the coming 4 years or so just like any other asset class at 6% per annum (or maybe 12% is a mediocre performance these days?)...

By the way, you likely already know that when I got into bitcoin in late 2013, I had hoped that my BTC portfolio would merely keep pace with my historical other investments which largely had averaged 6% per year for something like 20 years.. so I had felt that I had done pretty decently... so my bitcoin investment had not really performed up to that level for the first 3 years, but then after 2017's performance and then subsequent performance, I largely can proclaim that currently my BTC performance can be projected over the 8 years that I have been involved and largely show a performance that is averaging about 60% per year for that whole time frame - even with my varying mistakes along the way.. and fees and whatever.





I agree, and I think that there should be ways that we get better at both planning, following our plan and then tweaking from time to time based upon various learnings along the way.



Fair enough.. some rigidity that also should not take away personal discretion to the extent that you might want to override yourself from time to time... but usually there would be no need to overrule yourself because you have already created the plan channel that you would like to be in, and unless you are falling way outside the channel then life is good... no?



That does sound impossible to actually accomplish because even if we might plan for a wide variety of possibilities, there are going to be some things that fall somewhat outside of expectations.. but if we have sufficiently planned we are in a way better position to deal with some of the outside of expectation matters because we have prepared in a lot of ways that the outside of expectation happenings are either immaterial or they are not real major things and can be dealt with on the fly.



Of course, it is good to be prepared for a variety of scenarios.  I am not going to argue with you about that.


I did not say anything about bitcoin currently serving like a reserve currency/asset.. but we should likely already know that bitcoin is successful.. and its success is on a spectrum of getting increasingly more successful with the passage of time.  Who is going to expect bitcoin to go from 0 to 1 without any volatility and even along the way of getting to 1 (are we there yet?) is surely an interesting journey..  and $10 trillion nearly puts bitcoin at around gold's market cap, even though we likely recognize that bitcoin is 100x to 1,000x better than gold, it will take some time for bitcoin to reach such levels.. even though it is still successful on its way towards getting to that 100x to 1,000x level in terms of price.. maybe it will take more than 30 years to get there.??  or maybe 50 years or maybe 100 years?
 We have to take these matters as they come to some extent.. and a lot has happened with bitcoin in the past nearly 13 years since it started and perhaps 11.5 years of having some kind of a established and finding of price.. and growth of price....   Already has come a very long way in a very short period of time and perhaps in the next 1-2 cycles we are going to get greater levels of institutionalization and government adoption which all of those developments will drag retail further too... for sure we are seeing more and more financialization too.. but some of the status quo financial institutions are spending quite a bit of time fighting bitcoin and perhaps believing that some of their current instruments might be able to effectively battle bitcoin if they do not get reckt in the process.. and maybe a lot of these controls around the virus are attacks on bitcoin too.. attacks on the freedoms that bitcoin would be bringing to individuals.  

I am not even going to presume to know exactly how far or how fast these matters are going to move or how heavy some of the battles along the way might become.


I doubt that wealth redistribution is clean or obvious because surely some of the status quo rich are going to be able to figure out ways to transition seemlessly, some of the status quo poor will remain poor and some will be able to figure out ways to benefit from the wealth redistribution. Does not seem that it is going to be clean, and surely some early adopters are in better positions to benefit greatly, but even the early adopters might not figure out how to do it and some of the late comers might still be able to profit stupendously, too.



Maybe more people who have bitcoin are becoming enlightened regarding the value of bitcoin, but that does not mean that some of them are not still going to be shaken from their coins and lured into various shitcoins of the day, ICOs, Defi, NFTs or whatever to get parted from their coins.


I doubt that we know if whatever approach any of us takes in regards to our bitcoin and stash is a good thing or a bad thing... until looking back retrospectively, no?  Sure there are going to be some of us with better abilities and luck and others with the same kinds of confusions that exist with any kind of newly emergent asset class including confusion regarding the values or how to properly allocate/diversify.


Fair enough.  People are going to have differing views regarding where we might be going and how long it might take to get there, and I would not be suggesting that you would necessarily know better than anyone else in terms of how far we might go or how long it might take.. but none of us likely need to be specifically right to be able to profit from being directionally right and that seems to be what you have already asserted for which you were preparing..



Sure.  No argument here.


Even though I agree with a lot of your points, I still get the sense that you are overly generalizing the supposed movements in bitcoin consciousness, and sure the smart people who are learning exist, but also there are a lot of people who are still being manipulated for their ignorances who may or may not learn by going through the process and making mistakes and perhaps being lured and deceived by various shitcoin projects and other scams that take advantage of simple ignorances like unit bias.. smart people will frequently be motivated by dumb preconceptions and it takes time to learn - perhaps a couple of generations (presuming that each generation is around 20 years).. and sure we have gradually and then suddenly but we also have dumbness and exploitations contained within including that dumb people might be wedded to legal systems or to financial systems or status quo institutions and not wanting to let go whether they are motivated by self-interests, denial, ignorance, some kind of valid differing perspective or whatever.  I am not going to presume smoothness in the advancement of knowledge nor a lack of casualities that might come through violence or even considerable differing views about the way forward.. even take the virus, for example, at first it may have seemed like a relatively valid reason to have a lot of controls and lock downs, but after about a year (maybe even less) of such nonsense, it started to become more and more apparent that it is being used for really deep nefarious reasons to cover up various economic issues involving the money and even likely concerns that governments have to control the movements of people to be able to shop around for more friendly (less draconian) jurisdictions.  Part of my point is that these matters can end up playing out kind of strangely in terms of how one thing might motivate other seemingly unrelated things whether it is on purpose or not.. but surely difficult to suss out sometimes or to change direction but hopefully to figure out effective ways to prepare for a variety of scenarios.. and none of us are likely to be able to get it right in all kinds of ways even if we might have employed relatively more effective preparations as compared to what some others had employed (or failed/refused to employ)..


Lots of generalizing going on there regarding what the masses are supposedly waiting for.

One step at a time grasshopper.

 

But I am glad that you have some tentative plans.



Sure $1 million does make bitcoin a pretty decently sized asset, but even at that price it is still ONLY 2x the size of gold.. and the death of various fiats are likely going to have some cascading aspect .. and I cannot see why the dollar would not fail last.. but even its failure at $1 million per BTC is not going to be obvious to everyone.. and that $1 million per BTC is ONLY a mere 20x from here... so I am thinking that a $1 million per BTC is likely to show a lot of people that BTC is strong and here to stay, but even getting a $1 million per BTC may well be a spike with a 70% or greater correction thereafter.. and if we were to get $1 million per BTC in this cycle, we may well get another 85% correction down to $150k or something in that price arena to thereby cause a lot of folks to consider bitcoin as dead or dying or blah blah blah.. sure it could take two or even three cycles for BTC to reach $1 million.. but seems that either this cycle or the next would be more likely than having to wait 3 cycles.. but who knows how the battles of BIGGER players could end up having some varying different dynamics when  the intensity of the information campaigns pick up with also some potential issues with various ways that real world constraints of actual bitcoiners or dumpening of fiat to buy BTC could play out.


It seems better to attempt to argue value in today's dollars rather than convoluting the argument with ideas of the debasement of fiat currencies, even though we know that both will be going on simultaneously.... so anyhow, I can see the $1 trillion per BTC happening.. but I don't see that as a sudden thing.. (that would be something like $1 quadrillion of BTC market cap which would be about the total of current storage of value currently in existence).  Even if we might get gradually and then suddenly, I still don't see bitcoin becoming a kind of exclusive dominance in the storage of value for a couple of generations .. that would be 40 years or more.. but who knows and I doubt that we really need to be that accurate in our predictions but merely to have some directional appreciation of where bitcoin is likely to go rather than getting into specifics which we will find out as the direction evolves.. even though sometimes the talking about some specifics does seem to make more sense than other kinds of discussion of feasibilities...

In other words, I would not accept gradually and then suddenly to be very plausible with a straight up of bitcoin prices to $1 trillion.. that seems like fantasy nonsense.. but I could see such a thing playing out in 50 years or more - give or take 30 years.. and even with that there is a kind of directional expectations and some senses of what kinds of scenarios seem more plausible than others, even if we might presume some extreme happenings along the way.



Yes... some asset classes are going to hold their value better than others.  Of course, stocks have companies behind them so there are property interests contained therein... and even the asset class of property itself cannot completely lose value as a means of storage of value.. at least in the short terms because there is a kind of scarcity that is quite difficult to replicate but its value also ties into whether there is a view, whether there are solid rents, and even the jurisdiction friendliness (or lack there of) for extracting value from the holders of the value.


Bitcoin is going to continue to be following Gresham theory principles just as it has been since its beginning of having a market value... Of course speculation and Gresham theory principles can simultaneously exist and at the same time, in bitcoin's very beginning there were likely some of the nerdy fuck earliest of adopters who already recognized and appreciated Gresham principles within bitcoin and decided to accumulate and hoard bitcoin because of those kinds of motivations.. and normies do not need to know shit regarding what Gresham theory principles are because they naturally engage in such behaviors, and surely some people are more exposed to it than others in terms of their balancing of which currencies and assets are the most valuable.. so they are going to spend their shittiest currencies first and that value (or perception of value) is not static but changes through time and not everyone is correct in terms of how they value each kind of asset or currency but the longer that bitcoin exists, the more and more it becomes recognized in the consciousnesses and in the practices of people... and these changes in perceptions, practices and supporting systems and tools take time too... and unless bitcoin screws up in some kind of royally BIG way, it is already known to be the most valuable of assets/currencies ever created.. and surely it will take time for more and more people, institutions and governments to get that memo... or to understand what they are seeing and what is continuing to happen on an ongoing snowballing basis.



People are going to vary in terms of how they approach any topic and how much work they put into it.  Sure your chosen way of working gives you a certain perspective and thereby information upon which to act, and surely maybe it is superior in some ways and it likely has deficiencies too... but hey don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good.


It seems that we have already batted around a variety of ways that matters could end up playing out.. in the context of maybe we have some assigned percentages of various scenarios such as:

Scenario 1:   37.5%

Scenario 2:   23.5%

Scenario 3:   15%

Scenario 4:   9.5%

Scenario 5:    5.5%

Scenario 6:   3%

Scenario 7 (various other known):   2.5%

Scenario 8 (various unknown):   3.5%

Even if one of the lower percentage scenarios such as scenario 5 ends up playing out, that does not cause our earlier assessment to have become less valid at the time that we had made it.  And, also along the way to getting towards the scenarios playing out, the percentages are likely going to change and surely we might even mis-assess some of the probability assignments along the way (due to factual and/or logical mistakes).. get overly excited about some scenario that is less likely or even considering the highest of scenarios to be like 100% likely even though we know that such a scenario may still not end up playing out.. or at best has a 58% chance of playing out at some given point, even though it had been the most likely of scenarios... and sometimes branches might develop in which we lump together scenarios 1, 4 and 6 and reassign values to scenarios 7 and 8... but then something of very low probability that was already known but highly unlikely within scenario 7 ends up playing out..

and even after saying all of this, I do not find the assignment of probabilities to be futile because from my perspective (which you seem to share) it seems that we should be attempting to plan and act in accordance with the scenarios that are the most likely from our perspective, and don't be wasting a whole fuck ton of time on less likely scenarios even though psychologically and financially we may have well made some smaller level preparations for the various less likely scenarios.




Your statement comes off as hyperbolic because of course, we do our best, but I doubt that we really prepare for every possibility because some things are not knowable at time 1 or maybe we have factual or logical deficiencies.. so we have to merely do our best rather than presuming that we are mentally and/or financially prepared for "every" thing.



Getting a bit too abstract for me.



ok...



Fair enough.. but I still disagree with your suggestion that "$80K-100K whatever" by 2024 is even close to reasonable within the context of the S2F model without having to extensively shift some of its presumptions or even a shifting of the whole price/time assertions contained therein.




That's true that people who attempt to trade have the risk of losing money or even to way underperform what a more straightforward DCA strategy would facilitate, even in a bull market.. which surely on the face we can see is against the odds, and also we know that some people end up using some magnifying instruments that speed up their abilities to lose more than what they might lose through more straight-forward trading techniques.  Some of the ease of trading had not really previously been available to normies.. so the mere availability of a variety of trading instruments (to normies) affects market dynamics in several ways - including that there are more sophisticated traders or marketers or manipulators who are able to take advantages of such changes in market dynamics that surely affect BTC price dynamics.

We also know that some people are way more capable than others in terms of learning how to take advantage of opportunities that might come available to them, so maybe they have only skillsets and experiences of a manual laborer or a truck driver, but they might also have abilities to learn and to end up profiting greater than someone with some other background trainings and experiences.  

And, we also know that risk management can be learned, even when there still might be various kinds of inclinations for everyone to engage in gambling, but some people might end up being able to recognize their inclinations towards wanting to gamble.. but then be able to develop skills that temper their inclinations and create plans and strategies that work to their advantages while mitigating the various risks in ways that are suitable to their own situation and circumstances... which causes them to have opportunities and to be able to put themselves into a way better position than they would have been able to be in without having had learned about bitcoin... even while it is true at the same time that some of those people end up getting reckt or even wrecking their lil selfies because they fail/refuse to learn appropriate risk management skills along the way.

By the way, I had frequently heard about techniques to learn trading by going through practice situations that do not put any money at risk, and I say fuck that nonsense... it is not necessary in regards to some of the trading options that are currently available.  Accordingly, in 2013, 2014, and about half of 2015, I did not have much of a bitcoin plan beyond just accumulating and then if I spent any bitcoin, I would replace the spent amount (and perhaps even more than the amount that I spent) within a few days of spending it.  

When I started out fucking around with trading, which largely I had intended as a downside insurance practice, I divided my BTC holdings into three parts, which included 1) all the BTC that I had acquired below $280 (or some other price point in that area) (which had an average cost per BTC of around $240-ish), 2) all of the BTC that I had acquired after mid 2014 (which had an average cost per BTC of around $320-ish) and 3) all of the total BTC that I had acquired which had an average cost per BTC of around $510-ish.  So for several months during 2015, I had ONLY authorized myself to trade by using the BTC that fit in category 1 above, and around that time, I had a friend who would laugh her ass off because she thought that it was so funny that I was spending a lot of time setting up orders, resetting up orders, creating various trading plans and BTC price projections that would trigger various actions, and each time that some kind of set of BTC orders executed, I would tell her that I made $.50 or $.26 or $1.82 or some other relatively low number.. and she would continue to laugh regarding how I was never going to get richie by engaging in such low profit activities, and I would remind her that the  $.50 or $.26 or $1.82 or whatever that I made was completely "free" and it brought down my average cost per BTC and it also would increase with time both in terms of the BTC price going up and/or my abilities to authorize myself to trade using more BTC that fit in categories 2 and 3, which were larger quantities of BTC but also they required either the BTC price to come down or my average cost per BTC to come down in order that I would be able to authorize myself to be able to include those other amounts into the system that I was establishing.  I also described my system to include a lot of trades that triggered very easily in order to provide me more and more opportunities to both profit and to reflect upon how what I was doing could be improved or tweaked.

So, since I had authorized myself to start trading somewhere in the ballpark of $250 per BTC, it is true that my ability to profit went up something more than 10x when the BTC price went up to $2,500 because the trades also included higher levels of my overall BTC stash.. so maybe the quantity in category 1 was only something like 10% of my overall BTC stash, by the time I got to category 2 (when the BTC price went above $320-ish), I was then able to use more than 50% of my stash for accounting of my trading options... and then when we got above $510-ish (it may have moved down to $480 when I got there), then I was able to use all of my BTC stash, which would have been around 10x the size of the original amount used in category 1.  So by the time that the BTC price was $2,500 I had a 10x increase in the price, a 10x increase in the amount of the stash that I could use and also some other strategies that increased my profits even more by using larger spreads both in terms of quantity but also in terms of percentages of BTC price movement that was being used to trigger trades (because quite a bit of the practicing had already been accomplished)..  

Part of my point is that to me it seems to be way the hell more meaningful to be "playing" with real money, even if small amounts because there is going to be more incentives to learn.. and especially becomes more important as the amounts go up.. and even funny that it seems to me that way more seriousness comes from even profiting in small amounts such as actual amounts of $.50 or $.26 or $1.82 per trade rather than hypothetically profiting or losing... anyhow, another principle is to outline each trade whether buying or selling to be profitable, whether it is the stacking of dollars or the stacking of sats.... and try to have systems in place that allow you to continue to be in the game, even if the BTC price drops 85% or more... .. sure preparations for the other price direction (aka UP) is important, too (which is a common failure of many normies.. and maybe not even normies).



huh?  minimums.. yeah.. right.


Your analyzing is part of your way of expressing your opinion, so don't be trying to assign your opinion more weight than it deserves merely because it is expressed with squigglies.. and merely because someone like yours truly don't get or appreciate some of the points that you are wanting to make through that or through your word descriptions of such..

Regarding getting reckt and supposedly having a need to rely on your analysis.. seems that you may well need some more humbling, no?

Let's say for example, you spot an easy-peasy trading opportunity to have an 80% chance of happening, but someone like me poo poos your information, and just continues to play around with 50/50 odds or even maybe I end up recognizing it as 59/41, but in the end, isn't your information a BIG so fucking what, even if you end up being correct?  especially if I am already in a practice that is working for me, and the fact that there is free money on the table still ends up being a BIG so what if it is not within my practices to engage in attempts to grab that same free money that you are drooling over as being "obvious" with an "obvious" way to play it, no?  In other words, you do you and the fact that you got the free money seems to be a BIG so what from my point of view.

Good for you.. there are a variety of ways to engage in attempts to mitigate risks.  So, I am having some troubles understanding the point(s) that you are wanting to make here.. besides just saying that you error on the side of HODLing..


I doubt that is clear from what you said.


Seems a bit vague if that's what you were wanting to communicate.


Perhaps, but we do not have a teacher student relationship here.  We have someone trying to be propriety about some of his information and/or methods regarding his "floor model".. but does not necessarily mean that he is making shit up.


Well, it seems that at least you and I have already established that a decent number of people are going to mis-assign probabilities to events which would include give too much weight to certain factors such as a BTC price prediction model including trying to trade upon such model with amounts of value that may well be failing/refusing to adequately account for risks.. (aka gambling).  Not going to stop folks from engaging in such behaviors.. and surely there could be ways that bearwhales could manipulate members in that group beyond the employment of usual manipulation strategies and to purposefully cause a decent number of such normies to prematurely conclude that the model is completely broken or some other way of getting them to sell too many of their coins too soon or fail/refuse to adequately prepare their lil selfies for UPpity by buying or continuing to buy.



I cannot see anything as wrong as what you seem to be making it out to be with what PlanB is doing in terms of suggesting that he is not yet prepared to give up on his floor model.   In this back and forth and other places, I believe that I have adequately stated both criticisms of PlanB and aspects of his various models, and in the end, there are various ways to take these models with grains of salt in terms of how helpful they are or they might be in terms of their logic or their rendition of various facts about BTC price history, momentum, where we are at, how we got here and where we might be going.. including that your asserting that PlanB needs to "give up" his floor model.. or that PlanB is fighting the facts (the actual market) too much just seems to come off as more personal than it needs to be.. but whatever, you do you.

Largely, I agree with you.

We could almost proclaim that November was largely flat.. especially read in the context of October.


Holy fucking shit, serveria.

You gotta get ur lil selfie a wee bit more realistic than that, no?

If we read $69k as more or less the current price (even though we are really at $57k currently), then you are proclaiming only 10% chance that we do not breach $69k and 90% chance that we do go above it.  I need some of what you are  smokling, even though it is going to likely put me in a bad place and making bad decisions if I actually were to truly believe that there were 90% odds that we are going UPpity from here (or $69k for that matter).

In contrast.. look at my fantasy numbers that attempt to account for both timeline for the top and price level for the top in various different posts, and even at the time that I made those numbers, my odds for no more up (meaning down) were around 42%.. and surely I don't really see any facts that would materially change my  numbers too much... and I thought that I was being overly bullish by maintaining around 47% odds of $100k or higher, but then when I look at your assertion(s), you make me look like a real woose with a puss... no homo.



That's a good point (or lack thereof).. pun intended...

I am not sure if "rich" would be exactly relevant, but I will say that they are nocoiners... and they are NOT likely to be dumb peeps even though they likely spent fewer than 100 hours studying bitcoin, even while they likely have spent a whole hell of a lot of time studying and learning a lot of important things in life including but not limited to various micro/macro economic dynamics, for whatever that might mean to you.  

Overall, they are not dumb peeps.  Part of the reasons that we know that they are not dumb is because they can formulate pretty strong opinions regarding the direction of king daddy without hardly even studying it.  Kind of like a fast learner that knows things and even quite frequently are right about things.. that's how they became analysts with decent track records about varying economic things...and even able to back up their opinions with facts and decent logic..,. can be quite persuasive, too.


Exactamente... Rich and smart.  Smarter than a lot of (maybe even most) peeps.. that's how they got to be "analysts."

They also might not realize/appreciate that we are in the midst of the largest wealth transerrening in history... but they can figure that out MOAR later


Oh?

We are going down then?

No pumpening impendening?

El Dude is going to end up in the hospitales otra vez.


Yes.. you seem quite likely to be wwwwwwwwwrrrrrrrrrroooooooooonnnnnngggggggg....

again...


Bitcoin no does not do sideways very well...

Especially while in the midst of a war

especially while in the midst of a bull run

especially while being in the midst of continuing to fill top 100 daily weighted BTC prices for two months straight.. absent only a couple of days bouncing out of the top 100.

Haven't we lurnt nuttin over the years?  #nohomo

 


If he were smart (which I am having my doubts that anyone involved in Defi could be very smart), then he would be gambling with less than 10% of his stash.. and if he were at least less dumb, then he would NOT have been gambling with any more than 40% of his stash.. so either he still has 8,100 BTC or he still has 5,400 BTC.

I doubt that he was exercising such prudence.. but hey.. you never know.

And would you be surprised to see a price wick up to $80k to take advantage of the scaredy cats?  

Does not seem convincing to me either way in terms of whether there might be a price wick DOWNity or UPpity.... especially that we have largely been bouncing between about $53k and $61k for slightly more than 2 weeks (while in a bullmarket).. sure with a overall trending DOWNity in the short term, but since when did our lil fiend, aka king daddy care about that kind of technical mumbo-jumbo shit that might last for 2 weeks-ish or perhaps still only about 3 weeks when we are talking about the last ATH?


What a riddle, but surely could not have lower odds of coming true than the mumbo jumbo that dragonvslinux just propagated upon us....

 


Surely, there is a bit of playing with fire in the whole chosen way forward, especially when they are knowingly propagating lies through their evidence and those lies can actually be shown to either directly be known/knowable or otherwise very strong inferences can be made to show that they are purposefully propagating lies upon the courts.

I thought that our initial seemingly semantical quibble was about whether putting value into bitcoin would be considered as "investing," and since you seemed to be battling with the use of such a label upon what you believe that you are doing, I ended up ranting on the idea of what is investing versus what else you might be doing if you considered your approach to bitcoin to NOT be "investing."

I cannot disagree with the suggestion that both value appreciation and censorship resistance are ongoing bitcoin features and each of them (as well as both) can contributed towards motivations to "invest" into bitcoin or to continue to hold some portion of your overall investment portfolio in bitcoin.


oh gawd...  

Wrong.

You trying to act like some kind of a soothsayer.

Of course, in retrospect we can see that BTC prices had gone down in November/December 2018 from about $6k to almost $3k, and then largely got stuck in the $3,500-ish to $4,200-ish arena until late March 2019.

So yes on about April 1, 2019 BTC prices broke above $4,200 and largely entered into a 3 month UPpity journey to reach $13,800 by the end of July without any significant price correction during that time.

Surely, there was some kind of trepidation during late 2018 and early 2019 regarding whether the $3,124 bottom of December 17, 2018 was in.. so no one really knew that bitcoin was going to rip UPpity.. or to have further corrections, and surely there were quite a few people still anticipating or predicting  that the $3,124 bottom was not in and that supposedly bitcoin needed to test sub $2k prices and even sub $1,500 prices (which would have largely been revisiting the price arena of our 2013 top).

Retrospectively you can suggest that you had some level of confidence regarding what to do but largely you are talking nonsense to the extent that a buying the dip strategy was any more advantageous or knowable at that time as compared with any other time... or that you were supposedly somehow smarter than everyone else at that time.  I would suggest that with bitcoin the combination of DCA, lump sum investing and buying the dip are evergreen practices in bitcoinlandia and except maybe having some probabilistically informed ideas about waves, we largely should not be fucking around with either trying to time the market or trying to know where the BTC price is going in the short-term except maybe on the margin so our short-term strategies can largely be merely tweaked from time to time rather than making any kinds of drastic changes because bitcoin seems to continue to be quite decent asymmetric bet.... and yeah, if we are just consistently accumulating BTC with a combination of strategies (DCA, lump sum investing and buying on dip) then we are likely to continue to do well in the long term.. even if it might take a while to build our BTC stash.. depending on if we might have a decent amount of capital to inject upfront.


We are repeating our lil selfies here.

You can fuck around all that you like with your own holdings and BTC strategies... so when it comes to BTC accumulation normies are likely going to be best served by considering the combination of strategies that prioritize DCA but also consider the use of lump sum investing (to the extent that they have upfront capital) and buying on dips (to the extent that they ongoingly want to hold some of their fiat on the side to be prepared to buy on dips when they inevitably happen).  I doubt that I need to repeat more in regards to my never having had said that DCA should be the ONLY strategy, but if there was a need to pick ONLY one strategy then DCA is the best of the three.. especially for a newbie who might otherwise be confused about what to do and does not want to try to fuck around with anticipating whether a dip has happened or not or how much of a dip, how long the dip might last and all that baloney... so if the DCA buyer has at least a 4 year to 10 year timeline, then it likely is not going to matter too much if s/he might have been able to accumulate a few more sats here and there along the way.. and surely something like $10 per week might be a fairly whimpy strategy (but it is better than nothing), and something like $100 per week would be more aggressive for folks who are ready, willing and able to be aggressive in their DCA'ing.

Of course, we could get into individual particulars, but surely anyone who is quite new to bitcoin might well need to study bitcoin while determining how they feel financially and/or psychologically regarding their level of aggressiveness.. so right off the bat, if they are feeling somewhat hesitant, they might want to start with $10 per week as they study the matter, and if they end up learning more and increasing their confidence levels they may well want to increase their invested amount to $100 or more per week.. and surely incorporating lump sum investing and some strategies regarding buying on dips... after they have become more comfortable.

Again, of course, we can look at historical DCA levels to determine if such DCA strategies could have been beat or if we might have had more insight than just sticking with some of the purity...   Whether we look at your forum registration date of May 2016 or my own BTC investing starting date of November/December 2013, and we can see that $10 per week would have put us at $55.5k (nearly 1 BTC) (18.15x appreciation) and $269.5k (nearly 4.6 BTC) (63.5x appreciation) respectively, and of course, we can multiply those same numbers by 10 if we want to assess how a $100 per week DCA strategy would have performed to have been at $555k (nearly 10 BTC) and $2.695 million (nearly 46 BTC) respectively....

Sure, there are ways to fuck around and to end up beating those kinds of results, but do any normies have time for that or to be taking chances with various gambling strategies?

So in essence, I see no reason to be poo-pooing DCA strategy as if it were not smart enough... because it remains the best of the foundational BTC accumulation strategies historically (and likely to continue to be), and sure play around with timing with part of your income or value but you are not too likely to be outperforming DCA, even if you feel that you have the luxury to play around with some of your value (even if you consider your luxury to be a necessity.. which it is not... DCA is a poor and ignorant man strategy that applies to everyone (which is the vast majority of peeps and has almost nothing to do with size) until they become more informed and sophisticated.. and to the extent that you feel your lil selfie to be more informed and sophisticated, then you can fuck around with an incorporate more sophisticated strategies - hopefully supplementing DCA but if you want to skip DCA all together because you believe that it is inferior or it is below you, then that is on you.. but still does not mean that what you are doing is superior to DCA... and including DCA as a foundational strategy that can be supplemented).

By the way, I will admit that when I came into BTC in late 2013, I had already established an overall decently large investment portfolio, so I did have lump sum investment funds that were available to me right from the start, so in that sense, I could take from my overall investment portfolio and to allocate into bitcoin.  But merely the fact that I had the lump sum amounts would not necessarily mean that I should immediately go straight into bitcoin with the portion that I ended up allocating (which was 10%).  When I first came to bitcoin I hardly had any clue regarding how much I was going to want to put into bitcoin in the longer run.. so my initial investment timeline was only 1-2 years.. and I had allocated an initial sum that I would invest over the next 6 months.. so with that initial sum, I divided it up into 26 parts (weekly) and I DCA'd with part of it and tried to buy on dips with the remainder for each week.. but in essence I was spending the whole budgeted amount per week over each of the 26 weeks.  Of course, I had pretty decent confidence of various budget sources that I would have and when approaching the end of the first 26 weeks, I ended up extending another 26 weeks with a similar budget. and by close to the end of the second 26 weeks, I started to get some better grasps regarding the extent that I wanted to be in bitcoin and continued to study what I wanted to do in terms of allocation.. which I determined to be 10% at the end of the second 26 weeks and not at the beginning of my investment into BTC or even after I had been in BTC for a while.. I worked out some of those things through my first year of investing into bitcoin by getting to both know myself better and to know my views about BTC better.

As you suggested that I had been some kind of lucky fuck to have had a BIGGER budget or whatever, but even though I do admit that I had a budget from the start of my BTC investment, I still ended up mostly following a kind of hybrid DCA strategy in which I had engaged in some attempts to frontload my investment into BTC because I wanted to feel that I had a sufficient stake into BTC, but it still took me about a year before I started to feel that I had a decent stake in BTC.. and after the first year I could still relax.. and upon reflection even though I had always tried to NOT be too emotional about my BTC investment or the strategies that I employed.. I do feel that I became much more relaxed about my BTC investment once it started to go significantly into profits..so even then I am not sure that I was preoccupied with amounts because I had already established me stake within the first year but still there continued to be some gnawing aspect that allowed me to become more and more relaxed as my BTC holdings went more and more in profits.. while not really taking away my ability to relate to many others who might not have lump sums that they can invest but instead rely upon DCAing into BTC over several years (maybe even a whole 4 year cycle or longer) before they might start to feel some comfort levels with their BTC holdings  and like you said they may well be able to supplement their DCAing strategy with both lump sum investing and buying on dips along the way (even though you personally seem to want to skip the most important of the investment strategies, which is the DCA portion).


I cannot really disagree with anything you say @temple because you are not really making any points that are much different from my own points in terms of the various kinds of strategies to both tailorize your approach to your own situation while at the same time that tailoring may well provide a certain level of comfort that likely comes more and more after you are in BTC for a longer period of time.. so long as you have continued to invest decently into BTC..

Of course, normies do not necessarily have lump sums of cash that they can just throw into BTC, and that is part of the rationale in which DCA remains amongst the most powerful of investment strategies for the vast majority of normies... and even folks who might have lump sums might not want to just throw it all (or a large portion of it) into bitcoin.. especially if they are either just learning about bitcoin or they are confused by bitcoin's future price direction (which we are never really going to know at the time that we are investing even though we see that over time there had been various times in which it would have been smarter to just lump sum into bitcoin.., but even then, we do not know with any kind of certainty..except after the fact).

You are not sure about how you consider me?


It seems to me that I have continued to make myself more than sufficiently clear regarding the various ways that I suggest that guys can attempt to balance their bitcoin portfolios with their fiat, with their other investments, with their cashflow and their other individual particulars, so your ongoing mischaracterization of my supposed love for fiat surely rises to the level of making shit up rather than really attempting to grapple with various stances that I have actually historically taken through the years regarding fiat versus bitcoin versus other assets versus individual particulars balancing.

For sure, you are correct if you are stating that I am largely against normal or even newbie bitcoin accumulating guys going 100% bitcoin or even anything close to that, but wasn't the initial criticism that I was making about you concerned your criticism of bitcoin's lack of yield.. and you engaged in diversion rather than really grappling with your own dumbass ideas about yield or ways that bitcoin is supposedly lacking?

Anyhow regarding allocation, for sure beginner BTC accumulators should start by getting off zero, and generally speaking a 1% to 10% allocation into bitcoin would be a great starting point, and ultimately we do end up having to particularize to some kind of individual situations regarding where any individuals should start including their own grappling with their own specifics.  

As an ongoing strategy to reallocate out of bitcoin, I have been more into shaving and incrementalism rather than any kinds of wholesale selling of large quantities of BTC.  I have described all kinds of scenarios in which some shaving off of BTC would be prudent.. and even showing how/why it may well be the better of practices.  For sure, there is going to be considerable discretion in BTC portfolio management, and if you have a lot of BTC and even if your BTC allocations are quite high then you have quite a few options in regards to how to shave off BTC.. but if you are still in BTC accumulation, and I have tended to recommend against shaving off of BTC until reaching in high levels of accumulation.. so of course, the devils in the details and maybe we need to talk about some specifics.  Do you have some kind of specific scenario that you would like to present to illustrate your point, Biodom?

On the other hand, my criticism of your asserting that there is some kind of deficiency in bitcoin in regards to its not creating yield (as you say that "others say" blah blah blah).. would likely cause some needs for you to back up those kinds of assertions.. rather than devolving into vague and convoluted criticism of my practices and advices (as supposed by you) in which you have hardly kept any kind of reality foundation in your vague devolutions in that direction.

I don't put anyone on ignore whether they are dweebs or not.



Funny thing to say.  "I am thankful for not being rich."  

I know which kinds of peeps say things like that.

hahahahaha


The same kinds of peeps who say things like: "money ain't gonna make you happy." blah blah blah.


Glad to hear your confirmation of your BTC conviction.

I am surely convinced.










not


Hello to you too.



Speak for ur lil selfie in regards to a supposed "need" to study a shitcoin.    


Of course, yield is not necessary.  Why are you so damned ongoingly distracted about yield when we already know that bitcoin is designed to pump forever, and you should be able to figure out some kind of way to allow ur lil selfie to benefit from bitcoin's price appreciation rather than considering the lack of a supposed "yield" as a negative that is worthy of whining about by asserting what "other people think" blah blah blah.

Wow just wow... that was the first time that I saw Saylor dancing around the topic of Bitcoin's peer to peer capabilities,  and surely it is amazing that either Saylor believes that Bitcoin's peer to peer capabilities can meaningfully be regulated away or challenged in such a way that is NOT going to cause a lot of backlash from individuals who are either wanting to use bitcoin in peer to peer ways or those people who are developing systems around bitcoin's peer to peer powers.

Look at the video starting at about minute 56 that leads up to Saylor's squirminess in terms of talking about bitcoin's peer to peer capabilities (which kind of peeks around the 1 hour mark) and also presuming that bitcoin's peer to peer can meaningfully/substantially get regulated away.... It is kind of funny that TuckerC is trying to get into some of the nitty gritty of talking about peer to peer capabilities of bitcoin and even asserts that he is not so excited about every single human activity (referring to financial transactions, too) should be monitored or captured by some government.  Saylor responds by outlining bitcoin's peer to peer capabilities as if it were some after-thought use case when in fact bitcoin is intrinsically (hesitant to use that word) capable to be used peer to peer by directly saying to another person.,. Hey, I got some bitcoin in this phone, usb stick, other device, piece of paper, memorized by these words, blah blah blah.. would you give me that chicken if I send you those bitcoins (same as saying satoshis or whatever)... so yeah, any of us can do it once we have the capability which various forms of accomplishing such direct transferrnces are increasing with the passage of time and within various creative imaginations in which such varying user interfaces might not have yet been completely imagined, yet.. such as, the 6,913 sats are contained in that picture that I am carrying and you can check it when you get home... since we are neighbors, we are o.k. with making such transfer on the spot...and I get the chicken..and you get the picture.

https://youtu.be/ax7LRJz7VnA?t=3347

Same thing is true when TuckerC makes the humorous comment about putting money laundering and terrorism in air quotes, and they both get a chuckle out of it while Saylor diverts into some way of talking that is likely less risky... (he's been decently well briefed by his lawyers top be careful with those kinds of topics - outside of talking over a beer in which no one is recording the conversation)...

Back to peer to peer power of our lilie fiend (aka honey badger, aka king daddy, aka you know what I am talking about Willis) course, each of us are entitled to develop and maintain our differing preferences regarding bitcoin's varying use cases and also regarding what we believe makes bitcoin valuable.. and for sure, Saylor remains amongst the better of the articulate public advocates regarding varying bitcoin value propositions.... yet it still remains interesting regarding how he actually squirms regarding the peer to peer nature of bitcoin, and maybe his lack of anonymity and his heading of a public company and even his ongoing aggressiveness in his company's use of debt to invest in bitcoin (a kind of attack on the dollar) contributes to his having to be careful regarding how far he is ready, willing and able to go in terms of talking about (or emphasizing) various aspects of bitcoin's ongoing peer to peer powers.. that are not going to go away even if guys like Saylor avoid it, squirm about it or divert into other areas (like spinning the subject matter differently).

By the way, if you really listen to Saylor he is still proclaiming bitcoin to be powerful in the peer to peer transferring capabilities, he is just refusing to frame it in the kind of peer to peer language that we all know bitcoin is capable of doing, so in the end, we should give few shits that Saylor is avoiding talking about direct transfer of bitcoin between individuals because such presumption that we are able to do that cannot be removed from bitcoin merely because someone like Saylor does not want to talk about bitcoin that way.. and likely he stays out of jail by NOT talking about bitcoin in that kind of way.

Likely you do not know too much.



 


Hahahahaha

Along with providing some humour... Torque saved me from: 1) a potentially wordy postening, 2) further devolving into bullshit/irrelevant shitcoins and 3) causing pains upon my brains.

Thanks torquey porkey.   

Yes.. some of us like to distract our lil selfies with irrelevancies...


hahahahahaha


#nohomo


Though I appreciate your nostalgia for a kind of "grounding in" tradition.. but a bit much for this here cat.


I agree with the various points that you mentioned in your post.. but regarding the above snipped part, I still must exclaim: "Holy shit BBunny!"

Doesn't the obfuscation and confusion go way the fuck beyond merely trying to show that they are "more responsible" and reserving capacities to do whatever they want in the future?  It seems to me that another very problematic area is that no one has hardly any clue (except perhaps some of those same insiders like Vitalik) regarding what the supply was in the first place.  So how the hell are we going to know if their cutting of any of the supply has any kind of actual physical impact or whatever because we have no clue about the starting off number.... In other words, they could burn 2 billion ethereum, and if they still have another 4 billion in reserves beyond the actual known supply then what difference would their burning make beyond just the creation of a ploy or an appearance.[/list]

Without getting too much into shitcoin discussions and comparison/contrast of various shitcoins, Raoul Pal does tend to provide decent arguments for both allocation of risks and taking gambles on upside performance, so it can be a wee bit difficult to assert that he is "doing it wrong" - even though on a personal level I have continued to have issues with spending any kind of meaningful time to study various possible Ethereum upside performance scenarios - because I am concerned about various rug pulls that could come at any time and including the fact that so many shitcoins and scams are built upon it, which causes me additional reservations regarding a variety of ongoing risks for crashes or breakenings of the systems underlying that seemingly smoke and mirrors project.. that could even remain sustainable for way the hell longer than anyone would consider to be possible... would we say ponzi scheme upon ponzi scheme but it keeps going and even various semblance of officialdom by having some credible players participating in that crazy-ass house of cards of multiple scammenings.

Of course, bitcoin has way stronger underlying foundations in which its base would not be so easily threatened, even if some scammy projects could end up still being built upon bitcoin too.. but like you summarize PPlayer.. there is a kind of foundational level with BTC that allows a very integral and intimate ability for individuals to be enpowered to be their own bank.. and even if neither banks nor governments disappear, they are likely going to have to adapt to foundational competitive aspects of bitcoin that cannot be stopped in any kind of meaningful or significant way - because of the way that bitcoin is designed, including proof of work in which no other coin or project has that - even if ethereum might try to present itself as the same thing and perhaps part of the aspect that remains so bothersome with Raoul Pal remains that he is part of the problem of obfuscating such differences in his touting and investing into ethereum that likely causes normies to be confused in terms of falsely equating that ethereum offers some kind of similar product (and even sometimes wrongly implying that ethereum is superior based on some possible short term pumpamentals that might actually seem to exist... .which does not take away from it being mostly vapourware that a whole hell of a lot of people are simultaneously pumping up... so surely short-term outperforming bitcoin does happen through those kinds of mechanisms but for many of us does not cause the ponzi-scheme natured crap to suddenly become "investible" merely because a bunch of snot-nosed retards (ok. I am exaggerating a wee tiny bit just to make a point) - including Raoul Pal.. hahahahaha.. are jumping on the bandwagon).

Well like you mentioned, you can call what you are doing what you would like to call it.  You can also establish whatever timeline that you would like, which would also influence your thinking about the matter and your approach  If you are into bitcoin for possible value appreciation or you believe that bitcoin gives you choices/options that you might not otherwise have, then those are your own choices regarding framing of the matter, too.

Of course getting into bitcoin does seem to provide a lot more options, and with the passage of time, part of the seeming value proposition of bitcoin continues to be that its likelihood of down or going to zero becomes less and less the longer that it is in existence - but as an individual, even if you create a 1, 2, 4, 10 year or longer timeline for yourself to be into bitcoin, you have the power to override your earlier decision, change your mind abandon the investment or whatever you would like to do.   

So, yes surely one of the reasons to be into bitcoin would be seeming to have more options, and of course, the better that you play your investment into bitcoin, the seeming likelihood that your options will expand even more.. so part of the reason that I had emphasized the longer term way of attempting to consider the matter - even though surely people are free to just consider bitcoin in some kind of a shorter-term time frame - but seems to me that even the premise of the title of this thread (even though you might not have even been clear about some of the underlying implications upon the creation of the thread) is that it considers bitcoin in a kind of  longer time frame.. that is why you at least used the term "HODL" within the title.

At some point weren't you even considering changing the title of the thread to something more specific and weird that would try to particularize what you individually think about when and how to buy on dips and maybe not always to buy on dips or some other nonsense like that - because 1) you seemed to be trying to get away from my ongoing refrain about the preferability of DCA in terms of when it doubt buy rather then getting caught up about how much of a dip and if the dip is maximized and all those kinds of difficult to actually carry out in practices, and 2) you were worried that sometimes buying on dips could cause the running out of money if buying too soon - especially if we were to prematurely go into a bear market? 

Furthermore, you were also going through a kind of adamant and stubborn phase of NOT wanting to tell newbies to buy BTC or to even go so far as to tell them not to buy (was that occurring for most of 2021, and maybe even ramped up in the May/June/July time... and I am not even saying that you had not been doing that at various times in 2020 too), which I also spent a lot of time battling those kinds of emphasis on HODL and wait ideas, including my considerations that it was advise that was probably more hurtful rather than helpful... and our subsequent BTC price performance has largely been showing that ongoing buying of BTC probably remains as the best of strategies, even if psychologically it can feel better to have some supplemental strategies to attempt to buy on dips, too... and then just HODL when running out of money.. which also can sometimes happen.. and even no matter how long any of us are into BTC, it is ongoingly difficult to know exactly what mistakes people are going to make or even the reality of the difficulties to both determine the extent of any dip or how long such dips are going to last... even if there are a variety of structural ways that people (even newbies) can attempt to plan in advance so that they are not too likely to run out of money for buying, even if the BTC price dips lower than expected and longer than expected.

That's what she said.



Who would've thunk.

Well, I must say that if you hardly have any BTC.. whether a newbie or an oldie or some combination in which you have to start over, it's never too late to get started, and maybe just aim to get 0.21 BTC first, and maybe some day you will reach my supra 0.63 BTC level..

Of course, we want to continue to reach higher and higher, but if you have to start over, then you have to just start with reasonable goals and try not to rush it.

I am thinking that in 4 years, the entry-level target levels are going to have to start somewhere in the vicinity of 1 million to 10 million satoshis.  People have to try to be reasonable when they are either starting out or if they made mistakes along the way.  Even right now, 10 million satoshis is relatively reachable.. around $5,750 as I type this post... and yeah if you are more capable, then you shoot for the 0.21BTC (or 21 million satoshis right out of the gate, which yeah is going to cost right around $12k at current prices.

Remember that latest statistic that the average American might only have less than $500 for an emergency, so if you can scramble anywhere between $5k to $12k to start, that would be good.... and then of course, dollar cost averaging is good.. even though I know it would have been weird to try that before 2013.. Coinbase came on the scene in 2013 and then some other exchanges did make it easier for people to connect their bank accounts and buy BTC regularly.

Don't be getting too excited about some supposed 75% to 80% correction that may or may not happen in the near future.

In other words, you are likely getting ahead of ur lil selfie by focusing on the down before the UP comes first.

Remember where we are at.

We already had a 6.5x BTC price appreciation that corrected down 56%.. that is no damned small or insignificant BTC price correction, so having that extent of a correction likely causes a decent amount of resetting and causing the $28,600 bottom to be in..

In other words, why the fuck would we be wanting to prematurely focus on bottoms that might happen before we see the top that has not yet come...

Yes, yes, yes.. even I have conceded something like a 42% chance that we go down from here rather than UP.. but seems more likely that our top is not yet in, and even if we had a top from here, then how far are we going down.  Think about it.

On the other hand, if you want to engage in what seems to be premature focusing upon DOWNity, then that's all on you.. hopefully you do not shake too many of the rest of us from significantly and preparing for the UPpity that seems to be a wee bit more likely and even if it is not more likely.. it seems good, prudent and reasonable to prepare for it, just in case.



Yes.. nothing wrong with that.. even though it may well be difficult to achieve in reality.



Sure.. fair enough.  Some times things work out well... if you are somewhat prepared and able to identify some signs that end up turning out to have been mostly correct.  Maybe a combination of luck and insight and having had set yourself up in a way that you were able to feel relatively comfortable in how you ended up playing the situation to your advantage.



Sometimes these conditions can present themselves when you think through your own situation.

For example, in about mid-2015 when I initially created my plan and strategies to sell BTC on the way up, there was some vagueness in my outline based on the way that I had set it up with only projecting ahead about 5-8x of the current price, but as the BTC price kept rising, my projection ahead continued to show that I was less and less inclined to sell as much of my BTC as I had initially speculated that I was going to want to be as the BTC prices was going up.  So as the BTC price got into the $2k to $3k range, I could seen that the BTC had already gone up around 10x from the $250 price arena in which I had initially established my tentative selling of BTC on the way up outline.  So I had also considered that if the BTC price goes up another 5x to 10x, then I may well ONLY be left with 70% or 75% of my initial BTC stash.

Accordingly, I thought through my situation and decided to reduce the amount of my BTC sales because I did not want to be in that kind of allocations...... so even though I might have felt some hesitations regarding an ability to have had been able to buy more BTC in 2018 when the BTC price dropped, at the same time I was happy with how I had adjusted my overall strategy to include the selling of less BTC on the way up rather than either sticking with the original plan or even selling more BTC on the way up.  

Each of us are going to balance in differing ways... and the extent to which we might have regrets will likely vary too...


Sure - a fairly common theme.



Doesn't come off as unreasonable.


Of course bitcoin is not an exception to the overall rule regarding both UPs and DOWNs, but the devil still remains in the details regarding how to manage it in regards to both some of its overall flavors and that it happens to both be a paradigm shifting asset class and that it also is likely in the midst (if not the early stages) of an exponential s-curve... so fucking around within that can get a lot of folks reckt not only in their failure refusal to ongoingly prepare for UP.. including some of their short-term taking of profits was not worth the risk of getting left out of the asset class when it does not return even close to earlier price levels..


Still lots of institutions and governments to come... To me, still seems like early stages in the institutional getting in phase.


Some will take profits at the top, and some won't.  Some will just ride it out.  


Fair enough..



You had to go there?  


Hopefully your brain does not start to hurt too much from such distractions.



If you were trying to make it sound legit you might say that.  



Even if $10 per week is not going to cause someone to become a spot-price millionnaire in the next 9 years as it had done in the last 9 years, it seems that just having a fairly aggressive BTC accumulation strategy should still put someone in a pretty damned decent place in 4-10 years, even if s/he is just getting started now.

So you should be way the hell ahead of a lot of folks since you have already been through a full 4-year cycle.  I see little to no reason to get distracted into any kinds of risky behaviors and if you feel that you have not accumulated enough BTC just ongoingly engaging in prudence and practical ongoing accumulation should still keep you in an increasingly building of your BTC.. especially if you already have a 4-year base that has been built.


Traditionally, normies had been engaging in the building of investments for 30-40 years and sometimes even after 40 years, they would not get to any kind of close to fuck you level.. and for sure it seems that bitcoin should be able to cut short such a process so long as normies do not get too greedy and try to rush the process.. so getting to fuck you status in 15 years to 20 years is still cutting the normal path in half... and sure, nothing is guaranteed but having a prudent, reasonable and aggressive BTC accumulation strategy seems to still provide decent odds of getting to fuck you status, even if normies might have to increase their $10 per week up to $100 per week or something more aggressively assertive that is prudent within their means.. there surely are some peeps that can do $200 to $500 per week and still be able to maintain their budget and their expenses and their emergency fund... I still will say do what you can, even if it is ONLY $10 per week, and frequently I am telling folks that $100 per week seems to be quite doable for a lot of people and may well be important to focus on doing such $100 per week.. but people still do not even do that.

Remember earlier I had provided the $10 per week DCA chart that showed $1million spot price (more than 16.5 BTC), and you can imagine that $100 per week puts the more aggressive guy at $10 million of Spot price BTC currently, which surely no one should be sneezing at having had gotten to $10 million spot price (more than 165 BTC), even though I do not recommend using spot price as your way to either assess where you are at, but even using the 208-week moving average (currently at about $18k), 165 BTC is still going to put you at about $3 million valuation.. which should surely be above and beyond entry-level fuck you status for a lot of peeps.... even some folks who consider that they might have a wee bit of a higher budget.


Yes.... You do you with your shitcoin integrations... I am not interested in either playing around with them or talking about them in this thread, unless it is to bash on them, generally speaking.




Ideas regarding cycles predate the stock to flow model. including ideas of blow-off tops... Yes.. there is likely agreement that cycles can play out in a variety of ways including having potentially less of a blow off top.. but one thing about considering that a blow off top might be possible is to better be prepared for it and there is no reason to believe that the blow off top is dead.

One problem comes with bearwhales holding BTC prices down lower and longer than sustainable which contributes to fuel for subsequent blow off tops to take place... surely by now you can recognize and appreciate that within bitcoin there are likely going to continue to be times in which the price gets carried away in one direction or another. and we have not yet seen those getting carried away periods disappear so there should be no real logic in anticipating that they are over.. merely because of the fact that they could be over.. In other words, they are not over until they are... so therefore it is probably better to continue to prepare for them just in case that they happen rather than presuming that they are over or failing to prepare for them and then they end up happening and catch you off guard.




You can believe whatever you want..

It is more likely both.



Of course, they are not completely constant because if they were everyone (who knows about them) would be rich.. .To a considerable degree, there needs to be differences of opinion for the markets to work.




Yes... and it has an effect.


Fair enough.


I think that it tries to show an expectation of where the price is going to go so that any of us can see if the dog is walking above to line or below the line and how far above or below.. within 1 or 2 standard deviations of expectations (as PlanB mentioned in that same S.Livera podcast that you mentioned earlier)... so PlanB is feeling quite good if the dog is walking only within 1 standard deviation rather than 2, even though anything can happen... but if the dog is 2 standard deviations for too long then it starts to challenge the model.

Actually, I thought another point about the S2F model is that planB had determined that $100k is the median price for this upcoming halvening period.. but it seems to me that if he ends up being wrong and the median price is some other number such as $80k or $90k or $110k or some other number, then his whole model might not be broken but instead the part that attempted to determine the quantity of the next leg up may well have ended up being wrong.. so it does not necessarily negate the whole model even if there might be some need for rethinking of the four year jump quantities.  Such model (or a variation of it) is not going away anymore time soon because it is so co-integrated with facts on the ground so sure maybe some unexpected future facts end up having to get incorporated to cause a shifting of the model but would not likely cause the model to be dead.


I am mostly in agreement with you on this point.



Your numbers seem bearish as fuck and seem to want to presume the disappearance of any blow off top before there is much of any logic or evidence for such disappearance of the blow off top beyond your merely asserting it.. but whatever.. you do you.  Hopefully you do not get reckt too badly with such limitations or even such presumptions that bitcoin extremes are going to smooth out... yeah right..    when was the last time that you saw a war without violence and extremes.. let's see how your stable and smooth war plays out and lovely stability lala landia..  

By the way.. if Plan B is asserting that there is an average of $100k during this cycle 2020 to 2024 which means that there is a whole hell of a lot of time to make up in which BTC's prices have to trade above $100k in order to end up averaging $100k.. , and you are asserting that $100k might not get reached until 2024.. which largely seems to presume that our average for this cycle may end up around $50k..  

I personally believe that there are good chances that planB's $100k average for the whole cycle could be reached even if he might be wrong by $20k or more either direction.. and you are wanting to cut his numbers in half, which just seems to be another model that is out of touch with the importance of historical facts and even current macro dynamics even though you are suggesting that your scenario would be similar... blah blah blah



Might not.. I would not count off the ending of the cycle.. but of course, we can surely appreciate that new BTC supply is continuing to be cut in half every 4 years.


Ok.. maybe we were talking passed each other the first time around.


No problem.



I listen to the S. Livera podcast after my last post, and PlanB is not backing away from his floor model.  He  is tentatively calling November an aberration and believes that we will be on target in December for $135k..  He is saying that it is based on 10 years of data.. . which also seems strange to me in terms of suggesting that such supposed upwards BTC price pressures are that damned high.. so I will believe it when I see it... if I see it.

that's what she said.

Oh? Gawd...

There is some humor in that.

You know that if some of us throw out random numbers, sooner or later we are going to be in the ballpark of correct.

Even member jupiter9 was correct several times, until he wasn't.

By the way, LFC.. I hope that you have moved away from your strict calendar year interpretations in regards to considering that the cycle is over in terms of a calendar year.... and not sure if I need to say more because I already said mostly what I had wanted to say in terms of attempting to project out in order to be prepared for aspects that are beyond expectations, even if they do not end up happening, but there should be way more psychological and financial freedom to come from planning it out (even if just roughly) rather than having strict rules that end up devolving into gambling strategies.


Yes... stalker-like bad intentions can end up coming through...  

That is be called koreck.


Surely, you make it decently difficult to resist mentioning even what a very modest DCA strategy would have done..

One problem is that the dca.com website only goes back 9 years, so you could have had around another 1.5 years additional ...

So even a very modest DCA of $10 per week for 9 years would have gotten a guy very close to currently at spot price millionnaire status with a bit more than 16.5 BTC accumulated.


Fair enough.. but as I mentioned in my above response with the DCA.com link, if you had even modestly DCA'ed for something like $10 week (maybe even $1 per day) for 10.5 years, you would surely be above spot price millionaire status by now, you fuck...  #nohomo.

hahahahahaha


You are so sweet to differentiate between tree rats, uninvited guests and invited guest.

Relatively speaking, you must be a great host.  #justsaying.


or the tree ratt.


Wouldn't have been the first time.

 

Hahahahaha

Sometimes I remember past posts.. but still... there is no real ability to assert that some of us might or might not be both gathering information and holding such information in various ways, as you mentioned.

Anyone feeling uncomfortable..

You tend to be decently amorphous vapourminer, and surely inferences can be made from some of your historical posts.. and so surely there is some practicalities in abilities to have some plausible deniabilities.....

I am not sure if what I do is sometimes outside of fairplay.. and surely some members will dredge up old information with more creepiness to the way that they do it than others.. .. so is anyone feeling uncomfortable?.....

Actually, there are some members who delete several of their posts, but then they seem to make very similar mistakes in the future... so who knows about balance.. some of us might end up regretting some of our prior posts and then trying to figure out if we should delete any of them or not... Again, my posts are out there.. and sometimes peeps do bring up some of my posts and then make inferences, but surely it is weird how wrong they can get things, even when stuffs are fairly clearly stated....  so maybe there be some advantages in having a lot of posts, then many of us can see that post at May 2014 contradicts post at December 2018 and the July 2021 post contradicts one made in January 2016.. whether it helps and whether the bots can sort it all out might also be questionable.. did I mean that or not?

Anyone uncomfortable?

Anyone feel like deleting a few more posts from 2015? or 2011?  I was not participating in the forum before late February 2014.. so there is that. 

By the way, I frequently talk about spreadsheets to keep track of things, and many times I suggest that spreadsheets are very helpful for both planning financial information and also projecting out financial information, so surely there can be both financial and psychological advantages in working through some of these kinds of matters... whether it is cashflow, projections of BTC prices, various financial assets held by a member, various abilities to accumulate BTC and what that might personally mean at various points in regards to other assets or the passage of time.

 So, yes.. spreadsheets are good and they can be used for a lot of purposes that are individually helpful... Again, even though I mention things about member posts in the past, I would attribute that to just paying attention and caring.. hahahahaha.. caring.. Sometimes I have also constructed some hypothetical spreadsheets and posted such spreadsheets in order to help certain members (or even the WO thread participants more generally), and if I had ended up making a spreadsheet that was responsive to questions or concerns that any certain member expressed, it might cause me to remember aspects of that member's situation.. even members who may well be disingenuine with some of their representations about themselves, their BTC holdings or their views about BTC.. I could list off some trolls in that regard, but why pinpoint anyone in particular in order to further make some of these points?


Members remember different things too.. so sometimes members will bring up some posting history of another member or they will say x, y or z, and it just might remind some of us about what they might have said previously or even question whether they might have made some fair representations of some other member... so members make representations about me, too.. and some of them are more correct than others, even though it may or may not be healthy to admit or to deny certain aspects.. and just keep it a mystery or even to downplay whether x, y or z point is important or not.