Sure, but the BTC price has not yet closed above $10,501, which "closing" was asked in the poll.



I will admit that I may have gotten a wee bit too excited too, in my below-captioned post from earlier... .The contents of my below post did not age well...:



I had also made another post suggesting that the weekly candle has to close higher than $10,300 in order to be green.  I am looking at this week's candle a bit closer now, and I see that there are actual measurements on the candle, rather than my attempting to guess.  So, to be more precise, it appears that this week's candle has to close above $10,258 in order to be green - and there are only about 6.5 hours left in this week's candle in order for us to verify whether we are going to be greenie, or not.  Just saw $10,215 hit as I am typing this post... so downwards pressures currently, and it is even possible that there could be a battle for closing in the 4 digits..... #justsaying.  I am the messenger, not the message.  

PS.  I feel less bad too, when I see some disproportionate purging of some froth from shitcoins -to the extent that any of my hopium regarding ongoing purgening in that direction will be lasting is seeming to be not very material..  

To me the situation of transparency or not is not a futile set of happenings.

Like I mentioned, some of them (such as governments and public companies) have reporting requirements - otherwise they are going to get themselves in a pickle if they do not report what they are doing.  Sure, even if they have reporting requirements sometimes they still might be a bit coy about what they are doing or they may skirt such reporting requirements to the extent that they believe that they are able to get away with NOT reporting - or perceived loopholes.

Other entities may not feel that it is necessary to report, but still they might choose to disclose some of their holdings and practices in general ways or to make public some of their involvement in bitcoin.

The various aspects of incomplete information is not a problem in my mind, because the world tends to work like that.  We do not always have complete information - unless certain events happen that trigger publication of information, and of course, there are a lot of ways to utilize a combination of the information that we have.. the direct information and the inferences in order to attempt to make reasonable conjecturing about what is going on in the world, rather than throwing up our hands and proclaiming that we are never going to know exactly, so why try figuring it out? 

Part of my point in my earlier post is to postulate a belief that relatively speaking NOT a whole hell of a lot of institutional players are in bitcoin, and I am making those kinds of assertions based on incomplete information and speculation. I believe that my speculations are reasonable, and I will hold them or tweak them until there is further direct or inferential information that causes me some need to tweak my assertions in another direction.



Personally, I am still not going to get involved in that kind of shitcoinery crap even if I believe that there are reasonable chances that some of them are going to pump here and there for a long time.  I personally believe that bitcoin is an investment that serves a lot of my own personal needs to hedge against dollar based investments, and a lot of the performance of shitcoins is correlated to bitcoin, yet the shitcoins add various kinds of additional risk. 

So that already existing correlation causes no necessity to diversify into shitcoins, in my personal thinking, to make any stake in shitcoins..... and the additional risk is that the shitcoins can just go to zero at any time because they have a whole lot of areas of additional vulnerabilities, and I will leave those matters to the snot-nosed 14-year olds to figure out... which ones are going to pump, which are not and for how long... They may get lucky, and they may not.

We may never be able to purchase BTC for less than 5 digits again, ever.  You heard it here, first. #nohomo

Furthermore, I am not even clear if the various (perhaps 5-ish clusters, give or take 1 cluster) short-term sinkenings below 5 digits between 9/3 and 9/8 would have "officially" counted as sub 5 digits, since the BTC price never did close any daily candle below 5 digits.

In other words, if no daily candle had closed below 5 digits, did below 5 digits even happen?  #justasking  

As I type this post, I get an eery feeling that I am about to witness supra $10,600 in the near future, aka soon^tm #justsaying  

Sure, we get smarter than everyone else members posting specific price predictions and their trades, and frequently, they are notifying us about their down trades, as if they want other members to follow  or maybe to be able to come back later and demonstrate how smart they were.  Sometimes it will take a bit of time to get rid of these sorcerer wannabes, and surely sometimes they will leave more quickly after a few ridiculously wrong calls.

Swaystar had been here before, and had seemingly disappeared with his tail between his legs, but sure he comes back with some kind of hope for institutional (if we can refer to WO thread in such a way?) forgetfulness.

Hopefully, you did not invest too much with him.   


You are a wanna be soothsayer, too? 


You are shooting for 5s and 8s?  Torque, is that you?   

I was kind of snidily referring to the poll that is currently at the top of this thread, and I believe that closing price was around $10,450 (which would have been the price on Bitstamp at midnight UTC).


I doubt that too many active members of this thread are going to complain about a few bear shorts getting reckt here and there along the way... I am NOT sure if such reckening level has been met yet because the amount of price movement has been pretty low, even though in the past 30 minutes we have had some movement, including some observation of BTC price peaks around $10,577 in the past 20 minutes... that would be the highest price point since about 8 days ago.  (eg. we have not seen higher prices than that for the past 8 days)..

Direction from here?  I am not going to proclaim to have very many theories or much commitment, but I will mention that this week's candle closes in about 20 hours, and it appears that the BTC price needs to be above about $10,300 for this week's candle to close as a greenie - whether color makes much if any difference, or not.

Probably we are a bit more sensitive regarding ability to directly hold if we understand the scarcity value proposition in bitcoin that could be undermined (to some extent) with third parties that do not allow you to hold or claim the underlying asset.  It could take a long time for regular customers to figure out that particular angle of bitcoin's value proposition.

At the same time, there seems to be quite a bit of evidence that NOT too many BTC are moving around, which surely could affect the BTC market but also bring into question, from time to time, the extent that some third parties might not be holding the quantity of BTC that they claim to be holding, and sure it is possible that some of them will get rekt because they do not have the underlying asset that they claim to have - especially if the BTC price goes shooting up and they are making shit up regarding how much BTC they have...  It seems quite likely that their customers could (and maybe even would) get screwed in such a process, too.


Well, in essence, we are witnessing that the 12th came and went, and surely there were some moment in which $10,501 was nearly breached, but we did not quite get a supra $10.5k closing, instead we got a sub $10.5k closing...

Close but no cigar, for some of the supra $10.5k closing wisheners in the no longer current poll.   not that I am a bear wannabe nor wishing any ill-will upon any wrong poll participant.  

We are not going to do it willingly...


Helrow..? .no homo here  #

Those are not facts that I am denying.  Those are conclusions from facts, including that you believe that magnitude needs to be accounted for in order to figure out what is correlated or not.  We disagree about the definition of correlation and whether magnitude needs to be accounted.  We do not disagree about how much the price of certain assets may have moved... at least, not so far.

Facts would be calculating how far BTC moved in comparison to stocks or gold or some things like that. not definitional matters or even how much weight to give to certain factors, which are kinds of disagreements about logic - not facts.. at least, so far, as far as I can see.



How it reaches the numbers.  But of course, if it is refusing to account for magnitude and only looking at direction, then I could give less than two shits about the numbers that it pumps out.  I gave you charts of 6 years and 9 years that were from the DCABTC website and those clearly show magnitudes of performance that differ greatly between bitcoin, gold and stocks.  That is way the hell more convincing than looking at some baloney website that eliminates one of the important factors (such as magnitude) and then comes to directional conclusions that hardly mean shit in the whole scheme of things. You going to long term invest based on such nonsense?  Hopefully not.


Exactly.  I believe that I provided you enough evidence and argument to prove my points, and you have provided your side.  We do not need to keep going on about this since we each have provided our case and made our points.


We do not agree.  So let's move on...if possible.


Again, I think that I have provided enough information and evidence.  I don't feel any need to study the matter further or even to discuss further.  You are not raising any new points or even undermining points that I already made, from my perspective.


Well, if you believe that BTC's price is going to correct then you sell all or a large portion of your BTC and you bet on the direction of your beliefs, don't you?  So instead of being able to profit from BTC going from $10k to $1million, you sell most or all of your BTC at $87k because you believe that BTC is not going to be able to go above $100k because it is correlated to the movements of stocks, gold or whatever other correlations you believe exist.


Great. If you do not plan to sell all or most of your BTC because you believe that BTC is going to correct, then maybe you will not end up under investing in BTC and maybe you will not end up missing out on the likely upwards BTC price moves that we are going to end up having soon^tm.


I don't see any difference between calling something a "possibility" or calling it a "probability."  Those are largely the same ideas that are just a matter of differing semantical weight.


I am not proclaiming that asset correlation is not important; it is a matter of how much weight to give to such information and whether it causes you to come to differing conclusions regarding where you might be and where you might be going and how much to invest or allocate in accordance with those assignments of probabilities.  We are not going to come to the same conclusions and sometimes we might not even give the same weight to certain factors as can already be seen by our recent back and forth on this subject matter.

Surely some times we are going to find that people make bets based on feelings or intangibles, but none of us has really mentioned anything like crystal balls in terms of relevancy.. even though some people will sometimes consult with those kinds of tools if they are uncertain about one direction or another.. at least so far we have not devolved into crystal balls - even though it seems to me that your expressed desires to denigrate the importance of magnitude is going to lead to weird ass conclusions.. at least from my understanding of what you seem to be saying in that direction.




I doubt that they are as rigid that you are making them out to be or that you are trying to suggest that I am granting them that level of rigidity. 

Let's say that there is no BTC price run in the upcoming 2 years, and instead it seems to get drug out another 4 years or longer.  I am NOT sure at what point that the 4 year fractal would become invalidated, but surely as I type, the four year fractal is not invalidated, so it does not seem silly to give it some weight, and my already mentioning the three models together should already have established that I am not focusing on any one of those models, and I am also open to some other information that might be more convincing or to shed light on the models in a different way.. so far we do not have anything that is more convincing than the three models that I already mentioned... You can poo poo them all that you want.  I am not overly relying upon those models to come true, either, so perhaps we can agree to disagree regarding how much weight to give them or if there might be some better information out there, then probably you would need to say that because I don't really see anything so far, even though you are saying that they might not be true, which is a BIG so what... They are true until they are not, and it is not silly to have some kind of guidance rather than proclaiming or believing that anything can happen because "reasons" and not saying what those vague "reasons" might be.. beyond proclaiming correlation (which again I consider to be baloney and inferior to the models that I outlined in terms of actual "reasons").


Frequently, i have found your analysis to be helpful and insightful, so we could largely be arguing about semantics and the use of the term correlation and the weight of the various BTC price models.. I don't know, and I doubt that it really needs a whole lot more explanation because it seems that we have batted this topic back and forth enough, no? 

We aren't really getting anywhere in some of the last couple of posts, are we?  Maybe we clarified a few points, perhaps?  but seems that we are largely starting to just get repetitive, no?

I know that you and I disagree with what constitutes passive income, but if you believe that the standard of living that you have grown accustom requires a $150k income, then of course, $4million valuation in your BTC portfolio would be the bare minimum for that.


So I would suggest that currently our 200 week moving average of $6,650 would require 601.5BTC in order to reach that $4 million minimum goal.  Of course, either the 200 week moving average could move up in order to cause the minimum required amount of BTC to move down or you could accumulate more BTC in order to reach the goal, and even with those numbers, if the 200 week moving average were to move up 8x in the next 4-6 years like it did in the past 3 years, then you would ONLY need around 75 BTC in order to accomplish the $4million minimum principle valuation.  

Of course, if you have other liquid assets other than BTC, then those would also offset your minimum BTC requirement numbers.  Without knowing your particular circumstances, even achieving a $4million wealth accumulation goal (based on the 200 week moving average) seems potentially achievable, especially with an asset like BTC, and of course, if there is no way in hell that you are going to be able to accumulate 75 BTC, then you may well need a longer time horizon, and even 10 BTC may well be able to achieve such a goal if we are looking at 10 years to 15 years from now.


Seems way the fuck too risky to me and complicated with a lot of possible areas of failure, exit scams through software and intentionally and even ethereum failures.  How much would any of us dare to put into that convoluted knowingly ponzi scheme bullshit to the extent that it is even worth considering in a thread like this?  It's like we know it is a ponzi scheme, but we think that we can get in and out based on some kind of superior knowledge of getting in earlier than other greater fools?  Does not seem like a great investment thesis to me, even though concededly it is going to contribute to some snot-nosed 14-year olds getting rich faster than more prudent and practical investors.


You should be able to presume that $1 million of accumulated principle has the ability to produce about $3,333 per month passive income, so the calculations for you, Ivomm would be approximately 1/4 or the calculations that I had done for Biodom, above.  And, like Jimbo mentioned in an earlier post, I would not expect that you have to get your value out of BTC, but instead if you use the 200 week moving average as your estimated amount of BTC that you need to accumulate, then surely your goals should be more achievable than Biodoms in absolute terms.

Of course, not knowing how your particular circumstance in terms of how much of your cashflow you are able to divert into BTC which would be a significant factor, too in terms of considering how realistic it would be to reach your target and how long it might take to reach such target.

Requests for immediate redemption of BTC only works if the individual contract with the institutional custodial entity does not exclude the ability to redeem immediately.  Some services are written in such a way that redemption is not part of the arrangement, and there continue to be a decent number of normies who use those kinds of services  (out of convenience, etc) (robinhood, GBTC and likely some other similar services). 

Of course, if anyone is getting exposure to BTC through such custodial services that do not allow immediate redemption, then surely they are more likely buying some sort of voucher rather than actual BTC.

So, in that regard, hopefully investors in BTC are mostly using custodial services that allow them to redeem their BTC at any time, and if they use other kinds of services that do not allow for immediate redemption of BTC, such usage is very limited in nature and ONLY a fraction (perhaps less than 20%) of their actual BTC exposure.

Shitcoins never really die completely... so it could be a bit unrealistic to set one's self up to psychologically look forward to such death of any particular shitcoin either completely happening or discontinuing various pumpenings, drama and even sometimes attacks on bitcoin (whether through misinformation, distractions or actual material (such as mining) shenanigans).


Makes sense.  Of course.

Probably part of the reason that Grayscale is incentivized to be less than transparent is in order that they can work some good deals behind the scenes, and surely it is difficult to know (without being an actual insider with them) whether part of their tactic to get good deals behind the scenes is to attempt to play around with the price with their own holdings... Do they do that at all, and if they do, it probably would be a bit of an addictive drug to see that they would be capable in a decent number of circumstances of using a large number of coins to move the market, if they were to chose to attempt to accomplish such.

Personally, I believe that we are still in very damned early stages of institutional investments into bitcoin.

Sure we already have had some institutional investors entering into the BTC space, and like you suggest, some of these investments into BTC are likely "on the sly," but still I doubt that BTC is really experiencing anything close to large scale institutional investing into it, and that would include some government entities taking some kind of position into bitcoin too. 

Maybe governments (to the extent to which they decide to take some kind of stake in BTC, mining or HODLing) would also have to engage in their BTC investing on the side - and who the hell knows exactly how governments are going to ensure that their keys are securely held - some dictators might put a lot of power in individuals to hold keys, but there are likely going to be custodian institutions that are created around securitizing keys for BIG players   such as governments that are supposed to be publicly accountable or even institutions that sometimes are supposed to be publicly accountable too (to their share holders when they are a certain kind of company) that feel that they cannot put BTC keys too much in the hands of single players.

Anyhow, my point still remains that the involvement of institutions in bitcoin has to be pretty damned small potatoes at this point (and historically), even if you, buwaytress, suspect that some of them might have been getting into bitcoin on the sly, it is still likely small potatoes, otherwise we would almost have to have been seeing some of the effects of BIGGER players on the BTC price if they had actually already been entering into the BTC space in any kind of meaningful way on the side (which I really don't believe has happened, so far - even if they had been trying to be secret about their entrance into BTC, I just believe that we do not see any evidence, even indirectly of such material and meaningful entrances of BIGGER institutional players into the BTC space, so far).



I understand what you are saying, buwaytress, regarding shitcoins having lower liquidity and therefore able to pump more or to dump more, but personally, I doubt that it is very accurate to try to suggest that they are always going to do this.  So sure, we are likely going to witness some short term correlation periods, but almost every single one of them are pure shit, so it is likely NOT very healthy to attempt to compare them to bitcoin, as if they were some kind of lesser bitcoin.  In other words, we might witness various kinds of short term correlation between bitcoin and various shitcoins, until we don't.  For example, how long can ethereum keep up its charade of purportedly moving to ETH 2.0, which is also a likely sham system.  Sure they will continue to present the nonsense and various aspects of the public will keep buying into their paper claim smoke and mirrors nonsense as long as it is still pumpening.. but there is no there there.. even though it is possible that they could pump that nonsense for another 20 years, and if they do that and even if they continue to largely correlate that baloney with bitcoin, I doubt that would really be meaningful correlation, even though the smoke and mirror show were to be able to be continued for a decently long ass time.

I am not really clear the extent to which these various companies are required to be transparent with their BTC holdings, and of course, if they are registered or licensed in various jurisdictions, then they may have certain kinds of anti-fraud requirements, and I am NOT completely confident that various state actors are incentivized to require various BTC custodians to keep 100% reserves.

Of course, the BTC community would both prefer BTC custodians to keep 100% reserves and to have some kind of way to be audited in order to make sure that they are not engaging in fractional reserves (or rehypothication) practices.

Frequently, BTC custodians will have some amount of incentive to engage in fractional reserves, and even though BTC HODLers overall would like to make them hold 100% reserves, for quite some time, I have been suspecting that one of the governmental (and traditional financial institutional) attacks on bitcoin would be to allow these fucktwat custodians to engage in the same kinds of behaviors that traditional financial institutions have increasingly been able to get away with committing various kinds of frauds on the public - even recently, there has been additional loosening and even completely removing any kind of requirement whatsoever for banks to have to hold any kind of reserve before they can just create money out of thin air - so in that regard, I foresee that the main ways that BTC HODLers can fight these kinds of corrupt fractional reserve systems is to continue to require audits, transparency and even remove their coins out of those systems - which may well cause those large non transparent custodian systems to have a lesser value for their BTC than those BTC that are directly held - and sure, what I am saying seems to be a kind of pie in the sky thinking, but one of the powers of bitcoin remains the ability to directly take possession on very short notice - but another part would be to denigrate custodians and to discourage people from using them much if at all unless they are actually engaging in a certain amount of transparency in terms of their holdings - some kinds of credible and real time audits - which surely are possible systems to set up within BTC (programable money).

Yes, if you customized your own version of such system (chart to figure out price points), then you can attempt to account for potential rebuy points, too, and surely I have been using some system very similar to that for several years.

You can see that the linked chart was "Inspired by rpietila's (SSS) - A Sane and Simple bitcoin Savings plan on BitcoinTalk."  Rpietila did not advocate rebuying, but I talked about rebuying in that thread, and so of course, each of us will need to consider what we believe to be appropriate trigger points for rebuying or our willingness to just leave the sales off of the table in the event that the rebuying trigger points are not reached...

So, in that sense, I had agreed with Rpietila in regards that the emphasis should be on taking profits along the way rather than rebuying - even though some rebuying might end up happening along the way, as you seem to be setting up something to plan for that.

One of the problems, of course, with rebuying is that if BTC were to end up going to zero, then your whole systems of raking or taking profits along the way has no longer materialized because you have failed and refused to actually take profits.  That would be a potential downside in carrying out such a system that includes rebuying at various points along the way.

In my experience, it has become easier to feel that you are exceeding expectations if the expectations are not set too high.  I don't see any problem with those numbers, even though 6% per year, would be an even lower return.

Let's do 10% per year to somewhat account for the shrinking value of the dollar, so if I add 10% each year then I get:

Today: $10,350.00
September 2021 = $11,385.00
September 2022 = $12,523.50
September 2023 = $13,775.85
September 2024 = $15,153.44


My numbers are more conservative than yours..    Call me a bear.

Of course, I could pick a bit higher numbers in order to account for our ongoing concerns that the dollar will continue to shrink in value, yet my point is that if we have conservative expectations, then there are better chances that BTC will outperform those expectations and also BTC has historically outperformed other assets too, so I do not see any reason to underinvest in BTC based on either historical performance or even future expectations - even if plugging in conservative numbers for where expecting to be in the future and to attempt to plan around that and to tweak such expectations along the way.

Right now, our 200 week moving average is at almost $6,650, so if I am planning on entering in to fuck you status, I probably should be using something conservative, like the 200 week moving average as my calculating base.... and sure, let's go all liberal and anticipate at minimum a 10% increase in the 200 Week moving average each year for the upcoming 4 years.  

Today's 200 week moving average: $6,650.00
September 2021 = $7,315.00
September 2022 = $8,046.50
September 2023 = $8,851.15
September 2024 = $9,736.27

Of course, if the 200 week moving average moves up in the coming years at a rate that is faster than 10% per year, then I can use those new numbers in terms of calculating whether i have reached enough wealth to enter into fuck you status (within the bounds of my targets).

Recall that in about September 2017 (3 years ago), when BTC was preparing to enter into its 6x price rise around that time, as Ivomm mentioned, the 200 week moving average was just getting above $800, so anyone that was planning on entering into fuck you status in September 2017-ish, should have been using around $800 as the value of wealth guide to determine if they had enough value in BTC to enter into fuck you status.  Of course, entering into fuck you status would not only be based on the value of BTC, but the BTC calculation should have been using something close to the $800-ish valuation for determining value, and since the BTC price did get up to nearly $20k, there could have been some shaving off of BTC in order to convert those BTC into higher than $800 valuations per each one  (I will note that it appears that by mid December 2017, BTC's 200 week moving average had moved close to $1,300, so in BTClandia, the 200 week moving average has not been exactly a stagnant concept.. and it has continued to move up).  

So, shouldn't all of us BTC HODLers be feeling somewhat good regarding how the seeming bottom of our BTC floor price keeps moving up?  because the next approximately 3 years between September 2017 and present, BTC's 200week moving average has gone from $800 to $6,650.  That is quite amazing to have gotten about an 8x increase in our BTC bottom which would be used to calculate the amount of BTC in order to enter into fuck you status... so if any of us are preferring to keep a certain amount (or most of it) in BTC, then we should appreciate that the 200 week moving average keeps moving up at a pretty decent pace that seems to be faster than the cost of living and faster than any other meaningful asset class that we might consider investing into.


Once you have created a wallet with a passphrase, you are not limited to just one passphrase.

Not saying that any of us has 100 BTC to throw around, but if anyone were to have 100 BTC, as in AlcoHoDL's example, they could have 10 BTC in the no passphrase wallet, and they could have another 10 BTC in a decoy passphrase and they could have the remaining 80 BTC in another wallet or even divide the remaining 80 BTC into a couple of other wallets, each with a different passphrase.  So, sure, the wrench attacker could just keep beating until he believes he got everything or that he at least got enough... will the beatings stop?  who knows?

We might have to use smaller hypotheticals just to help to ensure that the beatings are going to stop.  So we might say.  Let's say that the BTC holder has 1 BTC, then divide into 4 or 5 passphrase wallets.  Will the beatings stop because the attacker thinks that you have 100 BTC, and you only have 1 BTC divided into several parts.  How plausible is such plausible deniability could be a life and death question - hoping that none of us keeps that kind of company. 

Of course, if you hold onto all of your BTC or you shave off a bit of your stash along the way UP, - either way could work out.

Let's say that you had a system that you were planning to sell 5% or 10% of your stash every time the BTC price doubled, once the BTC price got above a certain price point - so in terms of establishing that price point to start your selling (or shaving off), you look at your own situation, but if you believe that there might certain BTC price areas that are quickly passed through, then maybe be you would sell less in those areas (but still sell a small amount, just in case), and if you believe that there might be price areas that could be a bit of a blow off top, you might sell a bit more in those perceived blow off top areas, but again maybe not selling everything - because your time horizon is longer and you are expecting to go through another BTC cycle anyhow.

Either way, maybe you are not selling a lot of your BTC at any point, but instead you continue to sell a bit of your BTC stash at various price points along the way (whether those are 25% price appreciation points, 50% or 100% or some other needed price appreciation that causes you to shave a bit off of your stash) in order that you will not feel bad if the BTC price were to end up reversing in its direction before it reaches your upper selling price target - whether that is $47k, or $93k $242k or whatever the BTC  target that you might have to make a bit of a BIGGER sell off (if that were to happen to be your goal). 

Sure, we have discussed previously, that you might have goals to sell higher amounts such as 20% or 40% of your stash at various price points, but you still might not be planning on selling all of it at any one point, even if you might be planning to take off BIGGER amounts at various price points.

You still could arrange such BTC selling that you have a lot of BTC in any event because you would not be selling large portions of your BTC stash along the way but merely selling some of your BTC stash for a kind of insurance purposes.. So, if you have a time target to keep accumulating BTC through 2030 or some further off date like that, you might NOT be incentivized to sell large portions of your BTC stash, even if you have already been into BTC for a decent amount of time because you feel that you have not really acquired enough.. but that disincentive to sell everything still might not justify HODLING onto everything and NOT selling any BTC - which surely has worked for some people just to HODL through the volatile periods because there HODL period is at least 4 more years into the future.. and of course, the longer the timeline the more justification for just HODLing through it all (and skipping any shaving off, however tempting that might be).

I am not going to put it past you, if you are observing that certain times of the year seems to end up in higher levels of short term BTC price movements, and I would not rule out the end of the year and even beginning of the year to have that kind of a BTC price dynamic.... even if such BTC price movements are NOT rising to the level of a blow off top (maybe a local blow off top, but that's a different story?).

And, sure another question, pass through or quickly enter and correct?

Time will tell if your hunch for passing through that price zone is correct, or premature.



Well, if we ONLY prepared for UP scenarios that could mean that we inadequately prepared for DOWN scenarios, which of course are also in the mix. 

Would hate to end the year on a weak-hands purging, snot-nosed defi purging sentiment. but hey, cannot even be sure if such a purging will come or if it is necessary in the coming months.

There are sure a lot of crazies out there currently, and crazy people also carrying out crazy projects attempting to figure out which scammer can outdo the other in terms of scammer creativeness...

Will it implode before the end of the year, or is there additional runway for the newbies to come in and keep it going?


.


I am pretty sure that I had seen at least a few times that satoshi proclaimed that snake oil imitations were inevitable, even if satoshi did not get into particulars, one of the natures of any open source project is that the code can completely be copied, and satoshi surely discussed these kinds of snake oil imitation dynamics trying to mislead people away from value.

Word choice gave you away.

No real human would use those words.


Bots should get it right the first time, unless they need a software (or programming) update to make adjustments to their "syntax" choices.


Sure. Makes senses to me.  Nanu nanu - a form of perfect imperfection.  

holy cow.  You are a bot, too? was starting to get lonely around here with gembitz not posting as frequently

It's like you got a software update... 

 


I am having some trouble with $13k to $14k, too, in terms of a sticking range.

Our previous local high from 2019 was $13,880, so in order to have any chance of getting stuck in the $13,000s, we would have to go up to $17,250 or maybe even higher first, and then correct back down.  So, I suppose that kind of correction back down into the $13ks and getting stuck there for a while (including the end of the year) is a possibility.

Otherwise, I cannot just see getting stuck in the $13ks on the way up (presuming we go up at some point, soon^tm)... I am not even sure if I can see decent odds of getting stuck in the $12ks, because even that is starting to feel as if it is too close to $13,880, even though currently, I am starting to appreciate that we could, perhaps, get stuck in the $11ks in the coming months (but I am having quite a few doubts that getting stuck could last until the end of the year, given our macro circumstances).  

Call me a stickler.. or just call me a contrarian... always wanting to poke holes in the ideas of other usually nice peeps.      #nohomo