Sorry for the ambiguity.. (perhaps, I am).

Largely, I was just shouting out that yellow dick statement in a general (yelling at the clouds, sort of - actually, I thought that the dude might have misunderstood that I was directed it at him, but I doubt that he is as sensitive as you, cryptotourist) way, and not even intending to direct such statement at any particular person, including uie pooie. 

The statement just sounded like a great random addition to my comments, and of course, very recently, I first was introduced to such statement idea from Marcus - (one of your beloved nemeses) - and my getting that statement idea from Marcus had nothing to do with uie pooie, either - even though you continue to behave like a defensively sensitive little twat.  #nohomo 

 

Do you, jademaxsuy, know about Coin-1's thread that speculates (with a seemingly decent amount of confidence based on algorithmic formulas) regarding which forum members are likely to be merit sources based on how many smerits they are giving out that likely exceeds both how much they were airdropped on 1/24/18 and how much smerits they would have generated based on smerits received?

Sure, we can see that the thread is called "[TOP-200] The most generous users giving merits" but we need not get mislead or distracted in regards to the name of the thread in order to understand and appreciate that such thread is largely attempting to identify and to highlight on a rolling basis which forum members are suspected to be merit sources, as Coin-1 explains in the OP and within other parts of the thread.

Why not both?



You cannot appreciate a situation, drays, in which there is both manipulation of the market and difficulties to manipulate going on at the same time?

I would argue that BTC had much more of a free-market reaction to and recovery from the March 12, 2020 liquidation event than did traditional markets such as equities, gold and fiat systems - however, BTC does NOT live in a vacuum, either.

It's not like BTC is not or cannot be affected by various governments printings of trillions of more dollars on an ongoing basis this year, and seeming injecting those dollars in a variety of ways that are purported to be strategic, but are likely fucking things up more than they are fixing things, especially with the level of non free-market reaction to an overall market correction that was likely needed but at the same time various non free-market reactions that are aimed at saving folks and institutions that likely do not deserve to be saved.

I would argue that BTC is much less attached from those many shenanigans than people like to argue it to be, but of course, in the short term, we are going to see some levels of synchronized price movements... and so my point remains that it seems to me that we can have both manipulation and non-manipulation going on at the same time including ONLY so far that manipulation can happen before free market forces are likely going to cause various explosions in one direction or another and hopefully, each of us is able to adequately prepare for such possible (and likely) explosions, even if we cannot have considerable certainty regarding how they are going to play out with any kind of precision.

Keep your spirits up Globb0.  It's not sooooo baaaaaaddddd.   

The glass remains half full in the case of our lil fiend.


For once... cryptotourist might be onto something.

Some folks need some slappenings (#nohomo dude) in order to cause their lil mousie to zoom out.  

Go suck a yellow dick.... 


I don't know if our current situation is unusual, exactly, and I am not sure whether any kind of upwards breakout is necessary in order to remain bullish about the whole situation, including the fact that in the coming weeks or months we could get some kind of purging of shitcoin/defi/yield farming froth.... I am not suggesting that such purging is necessary, or that down is necessary in any kind of way before up, but surely such purging would not be unreasonable.

Furthermore, I doubt that there is any need to stay on any kind of exact 4-year fractal pattern or even to stay exactly on PlanB's BTC price trajectory for those models to be completely valid - and not broken.  Seems to me that, we could be 50% or more outside of any of the projected price ranges for a decent amount of time and still be largely within parameters of the BTC price prediction model... what bearwhales going to do?  Cause you to believe that the BTC price prediction models might not be true.  AmiNOTrite?  

Additionally, hear a lot of the bullshit talk about BTC price correlation with equities and with gold.  What a bunch of nonsense.. but hey, fucktwat bearwhales can cause a lot of people to buy into those kinds of nonsense theories and cause them to believe that there is such correlation.. while many of us longer term HODLers and observers of king daddy already appreciate that there continue to be a lot of ways that weakhands can be and will be convinced to part with their coins.

And, let's not forget the s-curve exponential adoption based on metcalfe and networking principles aspects of BTC's price trajectory.  In other words, fucktwat bearwhales can manipulate the fuck out of our current BTC situation to keep BTC prices flat or even push them down way beyond any kind of reasonable explanation or expectation, but those same fucktwat bearwhales are likely going to get screwed at some point in which they are on the wrong side of BTC's price momentum.. and surely, I am NOT suggesting that king daddy is currently poised to engage in such face melting punishing of bearwhales who keep playing the down card.

Those are fight words, nullius.... !!!!


Oh?  So you do wear a hat.

You are forgiven.  

Compulsory, #nohomo.  Go suck a yellow dick.


Hey!!!!  I am offended by that characterization.  


I did not realize that the evidence was conclusive on this point.

I agree that government and even traditional banking institutional systems have a lot of incentives to create and to use a variety of financial tools (new ones at their disposal) to manipulate BTC in such a way that causes BTC to NOT appear any different from any other kind of investment (meaning that bitcoin is not necessarily correlated even though they are attempting to make BTC look as if it were correlated), and sure they are going to try and sure they are going to give it every last boyscout effort to accomplish - but are they going to succeed?  

That is the million dollar question.  What do you believe Marcus?

I am thinking that you can keep the BTC price within a range, until you can't.

We have witnessed those same kinds of "keeping BTC within a range" issue several times in the past with BTC... at around $500 in early 2016 and at around $2k in mid 2017.. and surely there are other historical BTC price examples of the bearwhales losing control of the situation and unable to keep BTC prices down any lower for any longer.

Bearwhales tried as fuck to keep BTC prices as low as they can and for as long as they can and below certain threshold points, but they lost control... over and over.. This time is different?  

Sure, they will try again, and they likely are trying as we post these message.  

Concededly, these days bearwhales have more tools that they can attempt to play to push the BTC price down, and if they are attempting to print BTC that they do not have, they make  well find themselves on the wrong side of a trade, too, which could be quite costly, and sure there is also more money in bitcoin now, too, including some BIGGER players like Microstrategy and some other folks who come from the traditional financial sector and who are taking various degrees of long BTC positions.  Are some of those traditional financial players just going to roll over if attempts at BTC manipulation are out of control or based on fractional reserve BTC (rehypothication), and are some of those folks who are investing into BTC continuing to buy BTC behind the scenes, after they have already taken a stake in BTC.   Have the HODLers and buyers of BTC run out of money to buy MOAR BTC?  Are they able, or not, to push BTC prices up and/or to stop BTC prices from being manipulated down, staying flat or going below certain price points... ?

BTC's 200 week moving average, for example, has been going up nearly $200 per week in recent times, and currently it is at about $6,700.  
It was at about $5,500 during the March 12, 2020 crash(dipped below $5,500 for fewer than 8 days).
It was at about $3,100 in December 2018, during the lowest BTC price point on that correction (did not get broken).
It was at nearly $1,200 in December 2017 during the most recent ATH of $19,666.
It was less than $300 in October 2015, at the start of the 2017 bullrun (that largely took two years to play out with a culmination of a blow off top from October to December 2017).

So, sure, the powers that be could attempt to manipulate BTC prices down, keep them sideways, or disallow them from going up to cause such BTC prices to appear as if they were correlated to traditional asset classes, such as equities and gold.  

Surely, I am not ruling out the possibility that they could continue to have short term success.. but how long can they keep it up? 1 year?  2 years?  4 years?  Is it possible?

Personally, I doubt that they are going to be successful to continue to argue that correlation actually exists beyond having some evidence to make short-term claims and for those failing and refusing to zoom out or to actually see BTC's actual price performance rather than what they wish it to be based on short-term charts.

I will concede that gambling by selling on the way up is better than gambling by selling on the way down.

I will grant you that much.

Regarding the ability to remove value from various exchanges, surely there has been problems with both withdrawal limits and even surprise KYC (sometimes referred to as shotgun KYC) in the past, and sometimes people do not even know that they have withdrawal issues (or limitations) or even that new limitations are being put into place until they take actual steps towards withdrawing (presumptively large amounts - or maybe larger amounts than they had previously withdrawn - or even amounts that had not been purchased at that particular exchange).

So, surely could be a problem to ONLY have one way of withdrawing value from an exchange - whether withdrawing the dollar value or even the BTC value if and when such a time to withdraw were to come.

Your post, Biodom, reminded me of another idea, too.

 I am not really opposed to the idea of a thought out plan that even increases the percentage of BTC that would be sold as the BTC price goes up (under the presumption that the BTC might be going up).

Surely, it becomes a bit more problematic to presume the next steps after selling the BTC as the price goes up - that the BTC price might go down - but of course, plan outlines can be made to figure out BTC price buyback points in the event that BTC prices were to go back down.. some people might be o.k. starting to buy back in small increments (such as 10% price drops), and other people might prefer larger price drops before buying back, such as waiting for 30% or more or even waiting for 50% or more before they would buy back.  Those kinds of buy back thresholds could be predetermined (even while maintaining a competing idea in mind that such buy back thresholds might not be reached which will cause any buy back, NOT to happen) and then the buy back thresholds could be later tweaked, too.

Part of my presumption for any amount of BTC that is sold is that the HODLer who sells should be ready, willing and able to consider that act of selling his/her BTC as a complete exit out of BTC for the amount that was sold - of course, if subsequent events happen that allow for a rebuying, then so be it, but the underlying presumption that I like to keep in mind when selling BTC is to NOT be selling any such BTC and expecting to buy back lower - because the lower part of such idea might not happen.. In other words, such seller needs to be committed to the sale and willing to live with NOT being able to buy back at lower prices.

Sorry about the ambiguity of my earlier outline.

I am meaning 10% of the stash at the time of the cashening out....

Of course, you can put the numbers into a spreadsheet projection and tweak your approach once you see it all laid out, to even make the percentage to be variable rather than set - while attempting to achieve your personal objectives (presumably financial and psychological) at various price points along the way.

Let's say that this week (or today) while we are bouncing around in the $10,480 price arena, you project your strategy for BTC prices down to $4k and up to $1million, so of course, in that scenario, you have figured out the "how much" question based on right now circumstances, but since you are calculating this week (or today), you have not really figured out the time aspect, and as many of us likely realize quite a few things can change with the passage of time.  So in some sense, our creation of our BTC plan today, has largely accounted for if the BTC prices were largely going to go shooting (in a short period of time) straight down to $4k (what we gonna do?) or shooting up to $1million (what we gonna do?)

Of course, your whole personality and your whole way of interacting with the world is likely NOT going to all of a sudden change, yet your planning and your living through your plan may cause you some differing perspectives on life, time preferences and even changes in your life circumstances or health.. that may cause you to have to look back at your earlier BTC plan and to make some changes to it.   

Another thing that may cause you to make changes to your BTC plan along the way is that with the passage of time, some aspects of your plan end up getting executed upon rather than being hypothetical, so in that regard, you have executed various parts of the "what you gonna do" aspect of your plan... which would likely cause you to have to tweak your BTC plan to account for the having had carried out part(s) of the plan that had previously been hypothetical.

Let's say you are largely following your BTC plan and your personal circumstances have not changed very much along the way, but as you keep executing aspects of your plan, you have to plug the execution portion into the plan because it is no longer hypothetical... and of course, if the BTC price moves really fast in one direction or another, then it seems more likely that your plan would largely get followed without hardly any tweaks to it because such plan is based on a kind of current assessment of "whatchagonnado" - but if aspects of your plan ends up remaining hypothetical for long periods of time, then along the way, you would attempt to account for any substantive, meaningful and material changes in your life along the way in order to ensure (from your own psychological and financial perspective) that you still are feeling comfortable with each and all of the particulars as they appear in your spreadsheet projection of "whatchagonnado".

Fair enough... I suppose 90% is better than 100%.  I can see that angle - even though personally, I remain worried about the necessity of those kinds of plays, too...  

Accordingly, you will hardly see me compromising in that kind of seemingly timing of the market mindset direction - even though I do appreciate that there could be personal circumstances that might justify a bit of a different approach... even though that selling 90% approach continues to feel like a kind of gambling mindset, rather than an investing mindset.

By the way, I feel that I do compromise in regard to my suggestion that peeps need to determine how much to put into bitcoin, and I suggest starting out with a consideration of 1% to 10% of quasi-liquid assets, and suggesting that a minimum of 1% is a potentially prudent approach... even though 1% also seems a bit whimpy to me, but I have a kind of understanding that sometimes people may need to get accommodated to an investment such as BTC and also to get used to it.... so surely, I am not opposed to considering ways to individually tailor approaches while also even going outside of the suggested range based on personal circumstances....

At the same time, I am just considering mindsets of selling 90% as a road that is a bit too far - and I have difficulties with relating to those kinds of gambling mindsets - unless there is an actual excuse that is based on short life expectations or some exogenous demands, rather than attempts that seem to be merely timing the market... Might be just me, unless there would be some particular circumstances that might be pointed out that would allow me to appreciate that such an approach would not be a kind of gambling.


I am glad that the 1-minute candles were able to convince you to adjust your perspectives.

 


And, training sessions from Bob about how NOT to do it.      (through zoom, of course - because we all (Royal ones) wants to stay safe.)

I am thinking about a formula that aim to NOT sell more than 10% for every range - such as every 100% (or maybe less selling and a greater range?)

But it would go something like this:

Let's say that you started buying BTC at or near the top of the last bubble, but you stuck with it and you kept dollar cost averaging in.  Accordingly, you have a average cost per BTC that is around $8k per BTC, and so you are a bit concerned about what to do.

You decide that you will sell no more than 10% of your stash for every time that the BTC price doubles (if it does)

Therefore, you have authorized yourself to sell 10% of your stash at any point of your own choosing at each point within the below prices ranges:


1) $10k to $20k (10% of total stash)

2) $20k to $40k (10% of total stash)

3) $40k to $80k (10% of total stash)

4) $80k to $160k (10% of total stash)

5) $160k to $320k (10% of total stash)

6) $320k to $640k (10% of total stash)

7) $640k to $1.2m (10% of total stash)

Etc. etc. etc

Reasonable?  Maybe?  Maybe not, but I know that no matter at what BTC price range that I am within, I am hanging onto most (90%) of my BTC within that BTC  price range, and I can plug those numbers into a spreadsheet to project the size of my BTC stash and to consider whether I believe that those sales amounts would be reasonable for my own particular situation.  

I can project, based on the speculation of my particulars, what will be the amount of BTC that I sell at each price point, what my BTC amount remaining after each of those projected sales points, how much fiat will I have raked in from each of the sales points, how such raking in of fiat adds up at each of the sales points (and cumulatively), and am I comfortable with those numbers?

If I am comfortable with the numbers, then I execute my BTC sales in accordance with the plan

If I am not comfortable then I tweak some (or all) of the variables of the plan... and reassess them until I am as comfortable as I can be with such plan in order to feel executing such plan when the BTC price reaches my range (or a specific price that I have chosen within the price range).


Oh my!!!!  I may have been away too long to let you guys get carried away....



Who let the dogs out...





Seems a bit much to be vouching your daughter(s) over to random interweb peeps.  #nohomo


It is most likely to happen when you least expect it (or when you are not watching)

It's the observer effect.

hahahahahaha

I recall at one point, recently, you, nullius, had proclaimed that Phantom of the Opera was "pop" music and not worthy of a listen, and then at one point some random peep from the interwebs (perhaps yours truly?) suggested that you might try listening to such music, and thereafter you became a Phantom of the Opera fanastic.  

Point is that any of us interweb peeps could change some aspects of our preferences, and why not give dee bear a chance? (not that he deserves one.)

 


You guys seem to be into:


BIG numbers!!!!!


Wow, just wow!



Congrats on your rankening UPpity, AlcoHoDL.    

I thought that you were stuck in the reasonableness and plausibility of a kind of $50 to $75k-ish territory previously, philip? 

In recent times, are you becoming more bullish based on recent happenings (or am I misunderstanding you?), or just throwing out ideas regarding the possibility of multiple bullish scenarios and that way you are covered in your multitude of predictions no matter if our next UPpity cycle (presuming it comes) is baby bullish or super bullish?

Oh.  Now you want to proclaim yourself as some kind of expert, even though you made stupid ass and seemingly out of touch kinds of statements.    Difficult to consider you as any kind of expert based on what you have already said, and also your apparent failure/refusal to account for clear analysis and discussion that I pointed out to you.


I was counter responding to your assertion of plausibility of lawsuits against Microstrategy, that you seem to have proclaimed without knowing specifics about how microstrategy had gone about their BTC purchase(s).


Contrary to your assertion here, surely, you seem to be out of touch with the real world, based on your already made statements in your earlier post.


Who said that I am taking that position, you?


Fair enough.  So, perhaps we can either postpone further reaction to the matter for now.   Of course, there is no reason for you to necessarily agree with the analysis of the guests on the podcast.


I doubt that I really need to defend this statement much further than my having had made such statement in response to jaysabi.  I do agree with a seemingly overall presumption of your statement that it would be more difficult to sustain a claim about failure to act rather than sustaining claims for irresponsible actions, but in any event there is quite a bit of additional evidence of mainstream financial personalities making the case for investing in bitcoin and even making the case for having some slight allocation in bitcoin (such as 1% or more).



You probably need to study the specifics about how Microstrategy had gone about their investment and their disclosures to their investors.  There could be lawsuits if companies fail and refuse to make disclosures - especially public companies, and even private companies could get in trouble from partners if one partner breaches fiduciary duties to another partner.



Some of this could change, especially if it becomes clear that certain currencies are losing value faster than other currencies, and the options and tools for investing in bitcoin have become much easier to diversify into.



There could be lawsuits in either direction depending on how disclosures are made and depending on if some companies might not be taking prudent and reasonable actions to protect shareholder value.

Fair enough....

though I cannot guarantee that in the future I might not devolve into loose references that seem to be denigrating on their face, but surely I am not really meaning to denigrate your personal subjective values in that regard.


I doubt that we need to get into specifics because I largely already understood your intended meaning in regards to "lambo".


I doubt that our misunderstanding is very BIG at all.

The only thing that I am suggesting (or perhaps leaning towards quibbling with) is that you are seemingly wanting to weave ideas of both frugality and opulence through your more recent posts in ambiguous ways that seem to be getting off topic in the sense of implying that your involvement in shitcoins has personally paid off.... rather than giving some proper (and likely deserved) credit to king daddy.


Do we really need to get into particulars?  Any of us who have reached some more advanced age (and you are likely in such similar club as me, if not a bit more advanced) have likely built up a variety of cashflow sources, whether we draw upon them or not might be somewhat discretionary, at least in terms of which ones we might choose to draw upon.  So in that regard, there may be some earlier years in our "retirement" in which we do not feel comfortable drawing upon certain resources that we have, but then we also might not have advanced so far that we perceive our life to be approaching dusk years, in terms of any kind of need to really dip into principle (rather than largely attempting to live in a more sustainable way that is not really dipping into principle) - so  maybe in some sense, I am thinking that divestment has more of an "on balance" dipping into principle rather than sustainable aspects of our various overall investments that might still be riding without any dipping into them.


It is possible that I misunderstood what you were saying, perhaps?   But, I doubt it because I have heard you spout out nonsense as if the BTC dominance was some kind of an important metric, including the post in which you used that BTC dominance term in your description of a supposed bitcoin blockalypse (referring to late 2017/early 2018) and a speculated upcoming blockalypse II (based on what you speculate is going to happen in bitcoin's next bullrun), that is referred to in my response that you cited here. 

You seem to have your head in the sand, jaysabi.  Are you doing this on purpose, or what?

There are likely to be lawsuits in the coming years for companies that fail and refuse to take any position in BTC, instead of the way that Microstrategy approached the matter.  Have you listen to the podcast that I referenced in my above post, in order to attempt to inform yourself about specifics of this particular, rather than continuing to blindly post nonsense?

I must recognize that you largely are saying the same thing as me, in my above post from 20 minutes ago, but of course, you said it first, 9.5 hours ago.

By the way, VB1001.... what is going on with your finances?  You have not figured out some way to buy back some sats?  aka stack some sats.

I do appreciate that sometimes, some of us, have circumstances (negative cashflow situations) in which we are not able to save/invest... surely, that would be frustrating.

You have seen the $1 per day thread?   Of course, I speculate that you adequately understand the concepts of DCA.. and doing what you can in terms of investing into BTC and attempting to live within your means to be able to accomplish sat stacking investing... so maybe my post here is just meant to help highlight these kinds of points for any like-situated peeps who might be reading this thread.

$1 per satoshi would be $100million per bitcoin, and that does seem a bit out of reach, even on a 50 year timeline... but surely not impossible.

Even $.01 per satoshi seems a bit difficult to achieve within our lifetime(s), and that would be $1 million per bitcoin, but surely many of us recognize scenarios in which such $1million per BTC could be reached in one or two more BTC halvening cycles, which surely would be reachable.. and I suppose, if we were to reach $.01 per satoshi, then the $1 per satoshi would not seem to far out of reach.. and maybe another two or three halvening cycles after reaching $.01 per satoshi might start to seem as if it may be in reach.

I suppose that we have to cross one bridge at a time and even walk before we run, even while a lot of these crazy-ass scenarios seem a bit out of reach, just like $10k per BTC seemed like quite a bit of pie in the sky in June 2011, when Astro was writing about $10k per BTC in the "this is gentlemen" thread.


Those of us who have been around here for long enuff appreciate the underlying reality that jbreher, dee picnic bear, no doesn't have it.   

He's a faker.   

That is some pretty BIG ASS speculation (in other words, likely an unsubstantiated FUD spreading attempt).

How is such supposed "strangling" of BTC going to take place?  Who is going to do it?  Presumably banks and governments.  Is it going to be a collaborative effort?  Are there going to be Streisand Effect risks? If so, how to avoid such Streisand Effect risks?

Of course, anyone who intended to buy on various exchanges (rather than OTC), as far as we know, would want to buy in such a way to attempt to both minimize upward price slippage and also to take advantage of any BTC price dips that might be inclined to take place during their BTC buying period.

Some might also argue that any large entity adding that quantity of BTC to their investment portfolio would be serving as a kind of BTC price support - which sort of implies that the BTC price may have fallen a bit more, absent such additional buying support.  Surely, the price support theory is considerably speculative since we have difficulties, in the real world, to really compare the difference between what would have happened to the BTC price absent the more than 38k BTC accumulation that Microstrategy employed.