What do you mean by half is gone?  I'll give you my vague outline of a remembrance...

In  2014, there were around 600k BTC that were hacked or lost, but then around 220k that were found/recovered.  There were other assets as well dollars, yen and maybe some corporate assets.

Then maybe one or two times a proportion of the stash was shaved off to cover administrative costs, but I am having a memory that would have been less than 20% (not 50%) and maybe included selling some of the Bcash...

Maybe I just need a link to a more recent rendition of the various happenings to see how you get to an assertion that 50% of the BTC is gone (presumably you are referring to whatever the quantity of BTC that had been recovered as of 2014-ish as a starting point?).


Of course, the summary post of JohanM below is more important than the history of how the quantities of assests happen to be whatever they happen to be.. because JohanM's summary gives the bottom line punchline of the distribution.



I will note another memory that I have about some of the dynamics of this whole situation that likely contributes to the concept that BTC dumpenings are quite likely.  I would suspect if all the original individuals had their claims, then they may or may not dump, or they may just dump some portion that does not add up to much if anything; however, in this case, there seems to be a decent amount of evidence that some scalping companies have come into the mix and have bought the individual claims and so therefore own a large number of coins, and also they will likely dump as soon as they get the coins because it is part of their business model. 

Hopefully, they are at least smart enough to attempt to be strategic about their dumpening in order to NOT affect the BTC price, but we cannot necessarily expect such benevolence so they could dump in a way to attempt to push the BTC price down, including couple their dump with some kind of FUD spreading and coordinated with others.

Personally, I give few shits in respect to what the BIG players do even if they end up having 100k BTC to dump, and the BTC market will absorb those coins one way or another whether the BIG players who have become the owners of several claims decide to dump their coins in a manipulative way or they end up dumping them in a more "responsible" way.

I actually have been thinking about creating a trust to fund a developer or something like that.. but such a thing might be a bit complicated, including having instructions to manage the trust.. it is a budding idea, and I am not sure how far my idea would be able to get beyond just thinking about the matter...

Surely a learning process to manage your coins, and a few days ago, I was talking with some friends about bitcoin, and these friends are repeat players (in terms of the bitcoin conversations), and we must have been shooting the shit for several hours about bitcoin, and sometimes mixed in with some other topics, but shit every once in a while I had to get quite assertive and just say, when you or you do not even know what the fuck you are talking about, but you still have a strong opinion regarding how bitcoin is too risky or some other seemingly half baked talking point inspired by mainstream clutterings of topics and scaring folks to death about all the troubles in the world.. which might not be a don't invest in bitcoin justification but instead a justification that says that maybe you should take a small position while you figure it out... I can ONLY hold your hands so much during the world's largest wealth transfer in the history of man.

But anyhow, yes, sometimes I did stumble a bit, including that there could be some difficulties to pass down the bitcoins when that mac truck hits the HODLer who has not properly written down instructions to the spouse and/or to other heirs, and surely there could also be a problem that if such good husband ONLY shares such info with such good wife, but the two of them get taken out by the same mac truck, then that might mean that such HODLer has inadequately accounted for weird things that could happen in terms of successorship, and there can be other problems or risks as well for when the house burns down, but the back-up happens to be in the house rather than in another building.. or if the other building is so god-damned close to the house, that they both burn down, and then there could be one fucked HODLer who has not adequately pee pared his/her lil selfie.

I am NOT even saying that I have these matters covered with even 95% certainty either.  I have some various systems and then back up systems and instructions, and then gosh, just going over some scenarios causes me to consider that my various systems and back up systems are not really very good for if "that random and surprise thing were to happen".. .maybe one of the reasons for sticking with bitcoin ONLY.. because shit, there are so many things to learn that it could become even MOAR complicated when adding a few shitcoins into the mix.

Personally, I believe that I am sufficiently nice to every single member, even members that I do not like... which actually I try not to hold grudges, so if members share good ideas, I don't mind recognizing those kinds of substantive contributions.

Of course, some folks (readers of the thread versus members who might actively participate), might perceive that some of us longer term bitcoiners are being too meanies to some of the members who are seeming to throw out random bitcoin naysayer theories or even purposefully engage in tactics to avoid substantive interactions - so maybe they might be trying to sell some kind of idea, shill a product or just derail the thread with off-topic nonsense, so I believe that it is likely a good thing to "call out" such members even though the interaction can seem to cause more clutter in and of itself.

Regarding some shitcoiners who come to bitcoin threads and then they might try to relate their shitcoin to the thread, and sometimes those kinds of attempts to present shitcoin ideas are considerably off-topic, even if they might be tolerated for a while, but sure it could lead to a bit of hostility and confrontation because they are off topic and largely derailing.

On the other hand, there may be some claims that bitcoiners are too meanie to shitcoiners, and in some sense they might be wanting to ploy bitcoiners into recognizing their shitcoin as if it were a plausible alternative or even for the bitcoiner to acknowledge that their shitcoin scam is acting in good faith.  If they get the bitcoiner to treat their shitcoin in such a mutual respect and equality kind of way, they have won half the battle.  

We see this kind of nonsense with Ethereum on a very regular basis, but Ethereum is not the ONLY shitcoin that attempts to just put out nonsense talking points to suggest that it has a right to being talked about as if it were some kind of mutually respected equivalent product that is merely offering something different (but equal blah blah blah).. so to suggest nonsense about equal but different... ... and I personally am not even going to concede that much when engaging with those kinds of talking points because those shit projects that are barely even working (except to perpetuate scams) do not deserve such concessions..   I am not even saying that you might not be able to make a shitton of money, especially in the short term when that illiquid nonsense is pumpening.. but merely having pumpening potential does not cause a shit coin to become valuable.. especially for long term HODLers.. and sure similar ideas exist with doggie coin or the various bcashes, various ethereum competitors and way to many to name, for sure.. getting into ICOs and purported Defi and NFT nonsense, too.. oh my?  oh my?..  

Oh there are also nonsense propositions that if you recognize and diversify into various shitcoins because they happen to be the top 5, 10, 20, 100, or whatever on Coinmarket cap, then you are actually filtering out less valuable projects and presuming merely because such shitcoin might be showing up in the top whatever of the Coinmarket cap that it means something of potential value or that it is within a similar camp as bitcoin, just whatever fraction of value based on whatever market cap it happens to show.. .. in other words, various ways to deceive and to create misleading impressions of false equivalencies in comparison to bitcoin.  


Of course that is another problematic area in which quite a few shitcoiners do end up employing paid persons to propagate their nonsense, and sure we might not even be able to know who is paying some of the accounts spewing out nonsense, whether it is some shitcoin, some shitcoin consortium or maybe a government or a bank.. and one of the weirdnesses (or maybe awkwardnesses) would be that these various deceiving and misleading entities may well find alliances with each other because they want to topple or at least try to slow down dee king.



That is true, but I believe that sometimes there still can be some value to spend some time to attempt to clarify the record or just not to leave some of those misleading statements out there on public threads.

I am pretty sure that there are not too many examples where Satoshi was actually showing some level of impatience - but there are also ONLY so many hours in the day, too.

Of course I was not even participating in various Bitcoin forums in 2010 or earlier, and I only started looking at Bitcoin forums in late 2013 - yet even with me, I can appreciate that there is so much more quality information that is available in various forums, b ut still sometimes it can take a while to figure out which sources of information are  better than others, which can be quite a task for newbies, and sometimes newbies end up getting mislead and confused if some subjects are not at least attempted to clear up (or to attempt to show another point of view).


Sometimes guys like that do end up coming around, but sometimes they do not, so some members could get thrown off -- and I understand even with my own style, some members will sometimes get confused by the length of some of my responses.. so I do try to show that I am open to discussion and try NOT to get emotional about responses of other members because that would likely even make the matter more confusing.

Surely, I would not mind finding out if there might be some way that I am getting confused by the concept of hedging, and surely many of us already know that there can be advantages with having some volatile assets in our investment portfolios.. and surely one of the problems (if "problem" is the right word choice?) with bitcoin is that over the years of its existence so far, it has a vast majority of days in which it is volatile to the downside, so anyone investing into bitcoin has to be careful in terms of making sure that s/he is "in" during those volatile days to the upside because they are very difficult to know when those upside days are actually going to come and come and come and then fail to correct for a decent period of time.  

Another volatility "problem" with bitcoin is that if you zoom out, you should be able to fairly obviously recognize that historically and in the long term, bitcoin's volatility has been so much disproportionate to the UPside that there ends up being almost NO other asset class that even comes close to it, especially the longer that you zoom out.  Even though there is no guarantee that bitcoin's future price performance is going to look like its past price performance and even if it seems that the evidence quite strongly supports that with the passage of time, bitcoin's volatility is going down, but at the same time, bitcoin seems to continue to be a very great asymmetric bet.. with ongoingly great upside performance possibilities (even though again, not guaranteed).

I understand. #nohomo

Yes.  Of course, you are amazing.  Humble, too.   



Oh wow.  Learn something new everyday.  It is only possible to hedge an asset by choosing/using a less volatile asset.  That makes a lot of sense.



It is unknowable and nearly irrelevant.

One thing that is almost guaranteed with bitcoin is that it is going to be volatile for a considerable amount of time.  You could almost bank on bitcoin being volatile, rather than it not being volatile.



What a lame theory.  But hey, peeps have rights to their theories and they can strategize and allocate their finances in accordance with their theories, and see how it plays out.

By the way, sometimes someone might have a lame theory regarding why bitcoin is not a good investment asset (opinions vary of course), and then if that someone decides to NOT invest in bitcoin because of such lame theory, that would be worse than just reducing their allocation.  So, frequently we talk about getting off zero, when it comes to bitcoin, and personally I suggest that beginners consider a 1% to 10% allocation, and then as they are investing and working towards reaching their BTC investment allocation target they can study their own personal financial and psychological circumstances as well as studying bitcoin and thereafter tweak their BTC allocation in accordance with what they learn or begin to believe about bitcoin as an investment.. .accordingly, concerns about volatility would be a reason to reduce allocation towards bitcoin, gravitating more towards the lower end of the 1% to 10% allocation or perhaps taking certain kinds of trading actions rather than justifications to go to zero in their BTC allocation.... 

Who is that?

I am pretty sure that he will know who he is though, amiNOTrite?



Of course, you are NOT a drug dealer.  


















NOT  

Some of my best friends are drug dealers.  #nohomo


Sounds like you have been using ur time very productively NOT Capslock  (or should we say "un" Capslock?)



Whoaza!!!!... nice pic.    

As to your question?  could have been almost anything, or perhaps nothing.

Glad to be helpful.  

Seems too early for that "level of celebration," but who am I to say?


You're pretty loud, and wrong a lot too.  #nohomo[/size


Wow!!!!!!!!

$40k  - holy fucking shit!!!!!!!!

That’s bullish as fuck.

The fat little fuck.


Surely, that is an interesting Nigerian anecdote that also shows that various kinds of erosions are ONgoingly occurring all over the world, and the erosion remains a concern for governments, struggling to figure out various ways of dealing with our world as it is developing and increasing in bitcoin adoption and usages.

Sure, some countries are considering that it might be better to figure out ways to join them rather than fight them, and surely none of these transitions between fighting and joining are going to be easy to follow or even to be able to realize how gradually did end up becoming suddenly - even if we cannot even figure out what the timeline for the suddenly part is either.

Hahahaha

I agree that you never know what is going to happen tomorrow, but still we should not be putting very much weight or even considerations and preparations into 1/million scenarios.

Seems to me, @Shasha80, that your framing of the El Salvador situation as opening up foreign connection opportunities (which surely is not untrue), under-appreciates the elephant in the room, which is that the mere creation of BTC transactional options within El Salvador is likely creating value in and of itself, in spite of whether money comes in from the outside, and sure, no matter what, the increasing of BTC adoption and use cases within a country, is not going to be able to isolate impacts as ONLY domestic - because even if El Salvador decides to facilitate BTC mining (governmental and/or private sector), BTC mining does not happen in a domestic vacuum - even if there may well be attempts to try to channel internalized El Salvador BTC mining in a way that builds and grows the local (ES) BTC infrastructure - but surely such ES BTC mining development would have a back and forth impact and probably result in a growing economic pie rather than merely moving one piece of pie from China (for example) over to ES.

Of course, attempting to analyze any financial instrument is going to differ in terms of from which point of view it is being looked at.  The company is surely in the cat's bird seat in terms of designing various kinds of financial instruments, and of course, if the company ends up miscalculating the terms then they could undermine their own position in regards to the "generosity" level of the financial instrument that they ended up offering.


I personally believe that jaysabi chose to take my post personally in order to avoid responding to the substance of it and my assertion of how ridiculous his position is.  Accordingly, does anyone really believe that a hedge has to be inversely correlated in order to serve as a hedge (whether she are referring to long term or not), and of course, if we are assessing a "hedge" utility matter in terms of selectively choosing some self-serving period in order to make some kind of nonsense claim that bitcoin is not a good hedge because its price went down, then seems that we are living in a fantasy land rather than either attempting to assess what is actually going on or to even attempt to account for actual considerations that institutions or individuals might be making when the choose to allocate some portion of their overall investment portfoloio to bitcoin (whether we are referring to some kind of modest hedge amount, such as 1%-10% that I recommend for beginners) or some kind of more aggressive approach, like Saylor/MSTR .. holy shit does not seem very prudent to be allocating so much proportion of an investment portfolio to bitcoin, and then he further double/triples down in terms of using a variety of debt instruments. 

So, sure maybe Saylor/MSTR graduated from hedging to speculative betting, but that seems to be a matter of degree to me rather than a matter of kind.  In that regard, each individual or institution should be in a position to assess the totality of their own circumstances to attempt to figure out how much they want to allocate towards bitcoin in comparison to other assets and investments that they have and then if they want to attempt to use debt to bolster their BTC investment position, then surely they are UPping the level of their game - and maybe their hedging might graduate into speculation, but we can still consider what they are doing as a form of hedging.. whether BTC is a relatively small percentage of their holdings or becomes a very large portion of their holdings - which also sometimes could end up happening due to oversized BTC price appreciation rather than taking an initially large allocation into bitcoin...

Maybe we end up devolving into semantical arguments at some point when we try to figure out how much is being allocated into bitcoin in contrast to other assets and investments, and of course choices are also made in terms of whether to go harder (higher) in terms of initial investment sizes and whether to let winners ride (in terms of considering whether reallocation from time to time is a prudent practice - and also in terms of what might have started out as a hedge investment graduates into a vast majority of the HODLings of the individual or the institution.

I appreciate that now I am making quite a bit of a different point from jaysabi's assessment that if some asset is moving down in the short term that it cannot serve as a hedge because it is NOT providing any value security or whatever other nonsense assertion that he was making that seemed to get caught up in short-term assessments rather than appreciating some kinds of real dynamics that may well end up continue to happen in bitcoin.. even considering some kind of short term such as between September 2020 and April 2021 in which we end up experiencing a 6.5x price appreciation (from $10k to $65k) in our potentially hedging asset (I.e bitcoin) and even with the 53% correction, we still have a price appreciation that is bouncing in the 3.75x arena (current with our BTC price of $37,500 as I type this post), and to me it seemed that jaysabi wanted to focus (or would we call it whine?) about a recent 53% price correction rather than accepting actual facts on the ground that should not be so difficult to recognize or to appreciate... and such facts become even more apparent if we zoom out 8-9 years when bitcoin began to establish its price.

And, so yeah, seeming to be in an ongoing exponential s-curve in regards to BTC price and adoption does also skew some bitcoin price discovery in a quite UPpity direction and even the appreciation of the strong BTC "fundamentals" dynamics can allow for ongoing appreciation that bitcoin remains a great hedge in regards to almost any other asset class - even if BTC seems to be unfairly advantaged in terms of quite decent likelihoods of still going through relatively early stages of exponential s-curve adoption.


I believe that I am trying to talk about substance and I give little shits about personalities.. but I do believe that sometimes strong language might be necessary to attempt to make certain substantive points - and maybe sometimes the strong language gets in the way of attempting to resolve differing perspectives, and it seems that some peeps get emotional and believe that something personal is going on when it is not.

Surely, you have the right to label my framework attempts as "maximalism" hostility or non-endearing, yet I consider my approach as attempting to call a spade a spade rather than any kind of attempt to frame my ideas based on getting attached to any hoped-for one outcome versus another. If my ideas about hedging are off or incorrect, then I am open to hearing about that.  I still stand by the positions that I had already attempted to make in regards to what appears to be jaysabi's inadequate and inferior ways of attempting to consider hedging, and sure if I misunderstood what I considered to be largely lame-ass points, then please let me know what that misunderstanding might have been.  I have no attachment to having to be correct, even if I may well not apologize if I ended up taking a tone that was considered to be too strong by some members who might have thought that a more delicate approach might have been more appropriate.

Surely, we can differ in our assessments regarding where we believe BTC related investment dynamics might be going whether we are referring to the investment motivations of institutions, individuals or governments might be going, and some of our beliefs of where we are at might also affect our ways of attempting to frame or understand current dynamics - whether we are referring to price direction or the motivations of individual, institutional or even countries.

I do understand that if you observe that the BTC price is deviating a certain magnitude from a price prediction model, such as 50% below such model, and the deviation endures for a certain period of time, whether that is 3 months, 6 months, a year or longer, then likely the model need to be adjusted to take that long standing and relatively large deviation into account.

At the same time, I personally doubt that we should be giving too many shits about how far or how long that the BTC price might be deviating from such line (or expectations that are shown in the model), and any good model will just attempt to take that into account and to adjust accordingly.  Sure, one thing would be to conclude that the model is broken, and another thing would be to attempt to take into account of new facts (to the extent that they are sufficiently material and sustainable) to tweak the model. 

I give very little weight to any model having high degrees of certainty to future performance of something like BTC price dynamics which includes a variety of factors (including somewhat game theory plays of human behavior) that go beyond merely assessing historically how those various factors have affected BTC price... even while at the same time the stock to flow model does seem to contain a lot of extractability powers to show likely future performance by already had happened past happenings.

Of course, one question remains regarding how much deviation and for how long would be necessary in order to justify a BIG ASS tweakening of the model.. and even the worse case scenario of conceding that the whole model is broken.  Of course, Plan B does like to frequently and regularly plot new data points into the model in order that we are able to see how far we might be deviating from where the model says we should be and we should also be able to figure out long such deviation has been taken place - including attempting to assess whether such ongoing deviatening rises to a material and substantive level that justifies tweakening or completely reassessing the model in terms of maybe a shift in the line might become appropriate, at a certain point, and sure maybe there is some math that can be applied in terms of if the model is deviating for x quantity for y amount of time then a tweakening or rethinkening is justified. 

Any of us who attempt to appreciate the model can surely proclaim that it is the worst model out there, except for all the other models, and surely, I like to reduntantly describe the necessity to give weight to the four year fractal (which of course is already in the model), and considerations of how well is exponential s-curve adoption based on metcalfe principles and networking effects coming along - which is not contained in the model, but who cares, we can still assess the model in terms of thinking about those kinds of additional considerations.. and perhaps even saying that the model should be adjusted up or down because demand is higher or lower than we had thought--- blah blah blah... demand is not in the model, but still does not break the model to tweak it a bit, if necessary.. we do not seem to be close to being there.. but maybe I don't know... how long do you think that our staying 40-50% of the model or even going down from here and reaching higher levels of deviation would justify some kind of "oh sheeeiiittt, maybe we need a tweakening?"

Sure, the answer could get addressed, if the BTC price were to recover back into the upper $40ks and even into the lower $50ks, and we could proclaim, hey even though the price is still below where the model says it should be, at least we are not 40% to 50% where the model says we should be, so then the urgency of the need for a tweakening becomes less compelling to carry out.

Of course, I prefer UP to DOWN, so it would kind of suck to end up either having $64,895 serve as the high for this cycle resulting in a long period of down below what the model says that lasts for a year or longer, right where the model says we should be going UP, then we either go sideways or end up experiencing further correction that lasts well into the period where the model shows that we should be UP higher or going UP.  I personally still proclaim that it is a BIG so fucking what.  Don't get so goddamned attached to models predicting future performance and just try to plug those new facts into the model and see if some variation of it still works or could work.. in order to both account for facts.. and to give some kind of expectation of "where this thing might go." 

I know that I am rambling a bit, but I still think that we are going to need a pretty decently sized deviation from the model to take away our hopes and dreams of UPpity.... while at the same time, each of us better be taking these kinds of models with a large enough grain of salt in terms of both our financial and psychological expectations.

Who gives any shits about Ethereum..?

This thread is about bitcoin.

Oh my jaysabi.  I don't want to be patronizing, but you are nearly asking for it.

My post, right below your above-referenced The Pharmacist post largely responds to the concerns raised by The Pharmacist and also you jaysabi, seem to be reiterating The Pharmacists points without even attempting to account for the ideas contained my response.

I surely am not claiming to be any kind of genius on the topic, and also it could be that I have not made my points very well, but it still seems that you should attempt to account for the points of my post before just ill-informedly reiterating and even almost amplifying a kind of dumb that suggests that a hedge (such as bitcoin) has to be completely oppositely correlated (to the dollar in this case)  - even on a short-term basis, in order to serve as a hedge. 

By the way, this post is not meant as a personal attack, even though i use strong language.. I am talking about the ideas contained in your post, not you specifically.

I thought that there were some ideas to attempt to make lightning more seemless in terms of moving back and forth.. Surely, I am mostly getting this by osmosis rather than actively researching into the matter.


That's about right.. and describes "us"... yes.. using that word on purpose.


Thanks to Paashaas -for putting a name to a face.

By the way (I seem to be into "by the ways" in recent times), my current BTC order spread is $7k between sell orders and buy orders, and my increments are $1k once the first buy/sell order is executed.. In other words, if the BTC price were to keep going in the same direction, then another buy/sell order keeps executing every $1k.  My increments are pretty much the same (after the first order is hit) whether the BTC price is going up or down.  ... So once the order fills, let's say a sell order for example, then a new buy order would be set $1k up from the highest buy order in the spread (which is also $6k down from that same executed sell order), and the next sell order, if the BTC price were to continue UP, would execute (or get filled) upon the BTC price going up and additional $1k.  I  wonder if any of this makes sense to anyone else besides those who are attempting to employ similar kinds of somewhat consistent staggered laddering practices?

I have maintained $6k/$7k spreads and around $1k increments for quite a bit of time now (even though I had graduated to $3,333 increments, I also got demoted back down to $1k increments), and so what that means is that since the price had been into the $50k/$60ks, the spreads and increments did not feel too far apart (as a percentage), but with a near halvening of the BTC price (down to $30k-ish), both the spreads and the increments are feeling a wee bit moar BIGGER (relatively speaking).. and since I am largely trying to ballpark this anyhow, that is o.k. with me to end up having less filling of orders activities, even though some feelings of boredom does creep in from time to time, too..  

Sometimes I am thinking.. patience, patience, patience (young padawan) - let the BTC price come to me.. let the price come to me.. ... and surely there have to be some advantages to the non-triggering of BTC orders, right?  

This is what I have been aspiring to, right?  

Aspiring to a kind of "stability" and aspiring to having to work less, but still having value to draw from the pot (of BTC) at any desired time, right?

"We"(royal of course) have made it, no?  

"We"(royal of course) are winning, no?

Surely can hear what you are saying...


when you got coins, you got options... .. so sure picking up a few more coins as the cashflow comes in would not be a bad thing, but not really a BIG deal either way.

By the way, I was doing some calculations, and I am just feeling kind of fucked, in some sense.  Don't get me wrong, either, but there are some price points that I am thinking that's just way too much money.. I gotta think of something to just spend more.. I have some ideas in mind, and maybe they will become more clear at some point.. but it seems that once a guy gets to a certain range (whether talking about 0.21 BTC, or whatever).. it can have some kinds of difficulties in figuring out what to do, exactly... but still could say, oh my, this is a 53% dip, sure I do not really need any more BTC, but hey does not hurt to pick up a few.. they are like on sale.. and just can get rid of them at any random point down the road, anyhow and the price is likely to be more...

Another by the way, the various pocket change "pick ups" of coins, are likely to be way more value than the "purportedly aggressive" investment stance of various no coiners.   I already told a few stories about some of my recent discussions of my "pocket change" considerations and discussions to a few different no coiners, and each time the no coiner eyes would be kind of bugging out in terms of my not giving hardly any shits about amounts of value that would be their whole budget...

And a final by the way: it is not even like I cannot relate to the idea of NOT having a big budget, especially when starting out,.. because I also told the story of one of my friends laughing her ass off at me, even on a repeated basis because in 2015, when I first started selling any BTC on the way up and then buying BTC on the way down (if the price were to go down), there were a lot of times that I was making like $.50 on a trade, or maybe a BIG back and forth movement might result in $3 of profits, and I said that I did not believe in employing trading programs that were free and just practice and had no value at stake, so I started out trading and trying to learn with values that were so low that even if I screwed up a whole lot of them, they would not really break the bank.. I mean maybe if I really screwed up I could end up losing a few $100, but I was trying to NOT lose anything because I was trying to set them up to be ongoingly and unflinchingly profitable no matter which way the BTC price went... or at least something that I would be happy with.  Another point that I tried to make, which seemed kind of pie in the sky theoretical to both of us, was that the amounts would automatically go up and up and up with increasing BTC prices, and so if the BTC price was only around $250 to $500 for a long time, until May of 2016 while I was engaging in my earliest stages of learning and spending a lot of times with stacking very small profits along the way.  She was having difficult times visioning the BTC price rising beyond 3 digits, and even though I had visions that were going into the mid-4 digits, my mental framework regarding where bitcoin might go were not really that much higher than hers, but I was also thinking that it was not really realistic for me to be considering prices beyond 3 digit and 4 digit areas that we had to cross first, so even if maybe I was thinking that $3k to $5k would be a kind of top area for the 2017-2018 price run, I still considered both to cross that bridge when I got there (if I got there) in terms of the how far that it might go considerations, and also even if there were a price rise into the theoretical $3k to $5k arena, that would likely (at least in theory) cause my trading numbers (and thus my profits) to get to 10x of what they were at that time, which even if we are playing around with seemingly small numbers, getting another 10x out of it started to add up to quite BIGGER numbers.. including that when the  BTC price went up, I could also envision that some of the practice and aspects of my portfolio could 3x to 5x the amounts of the value that I could use, so 10x could become 30x to 50x, but then if I wanted to put less of my value at risk, I could cut back because going to 10x and then 30x-50x might have started to feel way too aggressive (or dealing with too BIG of numbers and scary), even if it was still ONLY working with the same percentage of my BTC portfolio, overall... so, it can take quite a bit of time to get used to dealing with BIGGER numbers, merely because they are BIGGER.

That's for sure.. how many times can we touch $30k or almost $30k or in the ballpark of $30k before interest in that area starts to wane or it is no longer even a possibility of touching.

One problem (if we can realistically call it a problem? rather than just calling it a fact of life) continues to be that anything can happen within reason with our king d, and price movement possibilities (and ultimate happenings) are dependent upon a lot of factors that cannot be measured with any kind of "for sure" kind of assessment... so can be part of the reason that some of us might have been considering cousin BeerHoDL to be a bit of a fool, but if his order ends up filling, then all of a sudden a fool is converted into a genius..... even though probably there is a bit of luck and hopium that ends up allowing for a convergence into happenings ...

So for example, the $6k bottom of 2018 was tested 5-6 times between February and November, and some of us, including your truly, were starting to presume that our ongoing then $6k support (bottom) was invincible - until it wasn't.

I personally won't even proclaim that I started to mentally assign almost a certainty to $6k holding forever - even though I new better, so I was not shocked when it broke, even though I was kind of shocked, if that even makes sense... Maybe I could say it like this, the probability of $6k support breaking was becoming increasing and increasing improbable in the real world of what the fuck is probable, so maybe the first few times it was feeling likely to break.. so it may have gone from 65% probable of breaking, then 55%, then 50%, then 40%, then 35%, then 30%, so by the time it broke below $6k it was like less than 30% and maybe even less than 25%.... I am kind of pulling these numbers out of my ass, but hopefully you can relate to what I am saying.  And, yeah, I know that a lot of guys throw around numbers that are between 90% and 100%, but they are fucking brainwashed in how they speak... because a lot of normies speak like that too.. but anyhow, what I am trying to suggest is that even something like less than 25% is starting to seem pretty damned improbable (maybe I am getting my number wrong), so when the the thing that was not supposed to happen ends up happening, there is a kind of shock but not complete shock... Another thing that happens, is that the less than 25% odds all of a sudden turns into 100% because it actually happened, so then a lot of other considerations have to be juggled around because there are new factors that are in play, so there could be a considerable amount of time juggling to figure out the new perceptions of the world and the other things that now become more or less likely because an "important" consideration has changed.  How could any of that be "priced in"?

Anyhow, I suppose that the main point being responded to right now is that a break down to $30,066 has not happened yet (which would include passing through BeerHoDL's $30,100 - which kind of makes his number even seem more problematic.. but whatevers), and yeah we got that $31,025 from just 4 days ago... so damned close, but no cigar.



Sounds like you have been drinking too much AlcoHoDL, AlcoHoDL.


Depends on how it happens, no?  For example we have a lot of buy orders at $30k, and they get eroded away, and then more get place, and then they get eroded away.  At some point one side or the other is going to run out of money, so your hopes would be that there is a spike down to $30k or whatever, but then there might not be any more existing orders below $30k and then not enough people who have any money left to put orders below $30k.. at that point the bearwhales got their wish to come true.. because maybe they were running out of BTC to dump, too.. so after a while... they are finally able to recover all the coins that the sold in order to get down to $30k in the first place.

And, some peeps wonder why I walk around so frequently with 50/50 in my thinking, even if I am starting to feel like 51/49 or 49/51.. but sometimes not wanting to say it.



I did that too... like around $10,200 in September 2019. I had been following my regular system but really NOT injecting in any more cash into my BTC holdings, and I was largely building up cash and felt like I was building up too much cash that might as well put to work.. rather than just having it sit there....   Who would have thought that largely that extra cash that I injected in September 2019 would have taken a year before it became more clearly profitable... I don't preoccupy too much about that but sometimes we can feel that we are jumping in a decent point that takes so long to play out.. and surely I would not want a year or more for $30k to become profitable again..

Actually, I am feeling like a debby downer.. or a negative nancy because I surely do consider that we are in a great buying location, and maybe I should go out an do some hard sales (preaching) to many of the still no coiners that I know because we still seem to be in a bull market and there was a 53% correction that is still kind of hovering close to that.., at least around 45%.. .... but I am thinking that part of the reason that I do not want to go on any kind of preaching spree is because i kind of want some of those continued no coiners to get punished some more.. I mean some of them  have been getting punished ever since about $400.. so this is just some more punishment for them.. it's not like they do not know my position - even though it could be that if I held the hands of some of them a wee bit more, they would end up getting more than just a symbolic amount into BTC.. ... at the same time, I am still thinking:  "why should I be going out of my way to help out these folks who are so ongoingly reluctant to help themselves?", and holy shit if we were to go flat or down from here..  don't I just look like someone who is invested and trying to get folks to buy at the top, even though I truly believe that the top is not yet in for this cycle.  

It feels almost like a no win situation if these no coiner dweeb twats (aka normies who are not bad people) are not actually actively trying to do something and they merely want some guidance... I have been kind of thinking of a recent one, too, and gosh I spent so much time with her when BTC prices were in the $50ks.. and surely I was thinking that she was actually starting to act.. and she was even kind of asking me without my really pushing this on her, but the fact that i have not heard a peep out of her since our 3 weeks ago drop into this price arena.. causes me to believe that she is not acting to "take advantage" of this seemingly "great" spot...an especially great spot for a no coiner compared to those of us who already have a decent number of coins so we don't really have reasons to give too many shits either way if we get more coins or we don't.. either way, we likely have more coins than we really need to have... but we are not hurt by picking up a few extra here or there.. as compared with a no coiner.. who does not have shit, in terms of coins... and is likely to stay poor peep for a long time.. especially since things not going to get better without no coins.

 

Ps... I'm not calling no one.  

I am not sure what that means, exactly.

You could say that the odds for down are higher than the odds for up, and sure, I understand that the stated number of $50k is quite high for ONLY a few days from now, but if we might suggest that our current bouncing around range  (don't wake me up because I am not concerned), is something like $31k to $43k, then if we get to the outside parameters of the range on either end, then a break up or down of 20% would not be out of the question....

Maybe I look at some of these matters differently, but I am not really having any stronger senses that either direction is more likely, except maybe still leaning slightly bullish.. but gosh not even sure about how much., anyhow, I will tentatively consider price movements between about $31k and $43k as largely and materially flat.. and not really enough to write home about.

Well I can confirm that when I count the numbers of days, 10 days can go by pretty damned rapidly when a farm animal is betting upon BTC staying below or dipping below a target price, whether we be talking about $35k or $37k, so in that regard, the little maths and sciences target-shenanigans of such farm animal may well need to be adjusting its target numbers to stay below UPpity and in a relatively soonish^tm basis.

Probability theory (if you heard about it?) is a division of maths and sciences and has confirmed such yours truly thinkenings on the topic.