I cannot see that we are arguing about facts.

We seem to be arguing about which facts to consider and how much weight to give to certain kinds of facts.

By the way, that correlation calculator that you linked makes little sense to me, and I had also already shown you charts over 6 years and 9 years to make comparisons between bitcoin, gold and equities, and if you are still striving to witness correlations or to read those kinds of price changes as as if BTC, gold and equities are correlated, then our definitions of correlation seems to be quite different.  

Hard to communicate if we cannot agree on what seems to be basic terms and even visuals about price change differences between assets over such period of time 6 years versus 9 years.  You are not coming up with different facts than me in terms of how much there are differences in the changes of the BTC prices as compared with those other assets classes, are you?

Probably our difference is in regards to the accounting for magnitude.  You already said that magnitude does not matter in your assessment of what is correlation, and that is likely part of the explanation (but surely NOT all of it) for why we are coming to differing weighing of conclusions based on looking at similar charts and how we read the facts in terms of what is the meaning of correlation and how much weight to give to patterns that we might see within the charts.


I seem to appreciate that BTC has had several up and down cycles in there that seem to fall in line with the halvening (even though there could have argued to have been two upward cycles in BTC in 2013).   There have been a few extended price crashes in BTC too, and at the same time, BTC is a new emerging asset class that likely puts it into a kind of s-curve adoption curve, while stocks and gold are more mature assets (though you do not seem to be making any claims about gold, currently).



Well, if you are merely playing short term plays and failing/refusing to make long term bets, then hopefully you will still be able to profit from that.  Hopefully, you do not sell too much of your BTC too soon, merely because you may well be treating it in a similar way to a mature asset class when it likely is not fitting very well (except by force) into that framework.


I agree that the models are descriptive in terms of how they get to where we are at and they are probabilistic in terms of attempting to describe where BTC prices might be going, and probably we can agree to disagree in terms of how much weight to give them.


I think that largely I already preemptively addressed your assertion that some day these models will no longer be valid.  They seem to be currently valid, so sure if you don't want to give hardly if any weight to them, then that is your choice.  I speak of them in combination anyhow because I take each of them with a grain of salt, because in terms of predictive value NO model is going show exactly where BTC prices might go when it comes to specifics, even if they might kind of get directionally correct, somewhat.


I largely agree with you that bitcoin is going to move harder than stocks or even gold, and that greater amount of movement is part of the characteristics of an immature asset class (it takes less capital to move it), but still it seems to me that your downplaying magnitude in your assessment of correlation is likely going to cause a failure to identify and to appreciate the power of the BTC price models that I have already pointed out.  Sure, there might be some other stuff going on too that the models do not quite capture - including some short term dynamics that can end up rippling into affecting longer term dynamics, and I have never claimed to be any kind of expert in getting into too many technical details, anyhow.  I have also been quite opposed to attempting to put too much emphasis in technical analysis, anyhow in terms of mathematical models will frequently fail in certain regards in terms of capturing human behavior - including the fact that sometimes a mere few number of people can sometimes end up changing trajectories that might not have been foreseeable in the models...

At the same time, on an ongoing basis, I do follow the proclamations and the analysis of a number of other folks who analyze BTC price dynamics in terms of a variety of factors, including sometimes what could be categorized into one or more of the three outlined price prediction models... and those models do assist in attempting to understand the information that i am getting and analyzing the strength or weakness of such information.

My clicking on one of Cryptotourist's earlier links caused me to come across the below Phil_S post (perhaps an overlooked classic) - which surely is a better visualization for what I was attempting to say a few days ago in my above post regarding: 1) so many (blended) bottoms and 2) "being careful" boyz.

I am not going to say that it is not possible, but there is a bit of a problem with any BTC price predictions for the end of the year that are between $17,250 and about $23,500 - that is the deadman's zone.. which just means that we are NOT too likely to spend much time there... so sure, you could end up being correct because we are passing through the deadman's zone and it happens to hit on your numbers.

Personally, I believe the more likely numbers are either below $17,250 or above $23,500 - and personally I think that it would be too optimistic to achieve above $23,500 in just 3.5 months - therefore $14k to $17,250 seem more likely by the end of the year...

Anyhow, just a game of probabilities rather than any kind of certainty, that's for sure.

You can proclaim correlation until you are blue in the face.  I don't buy it.

If you are 80% correlated, but it happens that on those 20% of the time, BTC goes shooting up.. that is not correlation, even if you may have some short-term episodes of correlation, the BIG picture is not correlated.

Look at this chart comparing BTC to gold and to stocks.  It only goes out 9 years, but 9 years is long enough to make the point.

You have nearly 300x BTC price appreciation during that time, and you only have 44% and 54% in gold and equities respectively.

Of course, you could choose a shorter timeline and get less disparate price performance, but that still does not rise to the level of correlation, unless you are just making shit up.

Look at this 6 year comparison.

You have almost 12x price appreciation in BTC and merely a 50% price appreciation in gold and a 33% price appreciation in equities.

Yeah, maybe you have periods of 80% or whatever correlation contained within that overall period, but the punchline still does not seem to be anywhere close to actually making some kind of meaningful long term correlation claims.

Sure, go ahead and make short term correlation proclamations, and sure those are going to be true, until they are not.

I am not proclaiming that the future is guaranteed from the past patterns, but the currently existing strong BTC price prediction models are still showing a lot of convincing patterns and evidence that put pretty decent odds on continued upwards growth in BTC that are not correlated to gold or equities.


Just to point out that the three most dominant and convincing BTC price prediction models are the 1) PlanB stock to flow, 2) 4-year fractal and 3) s-curve exponential adoption based on metcalfe and networking principles...


Huh?  That makes little to no sense - even if you might be technically correct, exstasie.  We surely better be considering magnitude if we want any kind of meaningful understanding about what is going on in bitcoinlandia compared to these other assets such as gold and stocks and how we want to allocate our various long-term investments and to play our long term strategies... including not screwing ourselves by attempting to play our short term strategies that end up losing sight of the BIG picture, including the magnitude of chances that could end up trapping someone into selling too much BTC too soon because they are valuing their wealth in dollars rather than bitcoin and they do not account for the magnitude of change that ends up locking them out of BTC and causing them to feel bitter about the whole thing.  We have already seen these dynamics several times in bitcoin's history where some previous BTC HODLers sell too much of their BTC stash (even all of it) too soon, and then the price never comes back down to their selling point and they become more and more bitter and unwilling to buy back at higher prices, which causes them additional opportunity costs in terms of further bitcoin price appreciation.  It happened in the past, and seems quite likely to happen again, especially if current BTC HODLers do not appreciate that  magnitude of change continues to be an important factor to consider when considering baloney correlation claims.

There have been articles and studies on the lack of correlation in BTC going back quite a way.. maybe even in 2015/2016.  Here is one from January 2017.




These surely are far from straight line correlations, even if they are going in the same direction.

You seem to be under-appreciating the power of king daddy and that it is on a bit of a different trajectory in terms of being an asset class that has not previously existed.   Paradigm shifting asset class, which is part of the explanation for its lack of correlation to other asset classes.



Sure, at some point we are all dead, too.  What does that matter?

For now, the BTC price prediction models are doing quite well in terms of showing where bitcoin came from, where it is and also placing reasonable probabilities on where it might be going.

With any price prediction model or combination of models, we should be striving to account for current evidence and any additional evidence that plays out, so the price prediction models may well need to be tweaked in the future or they might show that they are actually broken and they do not explain the story very well in terms of where we came from, where we are at or where we might be going.  Until then, they remain the best game in town in terms of trying to figure out what to do and how to plan based on where we are at and how we got here.

Surely, those chiquitas seem to fit the definition of booth babes.



I feel a wee bit outgunned.



Like I am out of my league.

 

Here is a case-in-point in which a trader might over play the odds from time to time, or miscalculate the odds, and then instead of being a sure deal, it only takes one out of 100 bets, then all of a sudden all of the profits have been lost, or some variation of that scenario, which ends up being a kind of martingale betting rather than strategic plays that are structured in such a way to always be profitable.  The trader ends up getting greedy.

A more reasonable way to lose all the value would be that each bet is prudent, and the odds are supposed to be something like 7/10 wins and for some reason, the streak will keep hitting on the 3/10 outcome, until the total profits (and maybe even principle) is lost - even if the trader might only be playing 1% each time, after 100 losing bets in a row, the profits have long been removed, and there is only so much principle that is left (bet size keeps getting smaller, smaller and smaller), but if a trader is only betting 1% each time, it will take a whole hell of a long time to completely deplete the trading stash, merely that the trading stash shrinks.

Many traders cannot stick to such a system of betting only 1% per trade when the actual amount keeps shrinking, so they frequently will start to bet larger amounts that does not end up being sustainable... especially on a long losing streak... gravitating into a kind of martingale betting approach, which is NOT sustainable.

Of course, there are some traders who stick to a more sustainable system, and they stack away their profits while keeping their trading stash reasonable, and even they might suffer through vary long losing streaks that cause the size of their bets to keep shrinking and perhaps causing them to question themselves in terms of the amount of profit that is even possible upon a win (because the trading stash had continued to shrink by so much on the long losing streak).


You did not show slower and safer in that thread, anyhow, as far as I can remember.  

On several occasions, you did not show your work, either... which surely is problematic if you are trying to get people to become confidence in your abilities to employ a sustainable and profitable approach to BTC trading.



It does not need to be a world reserve currency to be a good investment.


Sure there might be some battles along the way.  They do not control everything now, even though they strive to.  They are never going to control anything, and bitcoin provides an additional tool that removes some of that control (not all of it, but some of it).


Their lunch does not have to be eaten.

Bitcoin is already successful in providing an additional tool, and it will likely continue to provide additional tools in the future.   It could take 50 or 100 years to pass before we might see real large and meaningful changes (and the vast majority of is will be dead), but we do not need to see all of those changes, because we already have more options because of bitcoin... Thank you, king daddy.


There's barter.


I mostly agree about these points.

That must mean that I missed the point?  You are trying to emphasize conciseness?  getting a lot of information in a small amount of space?  I will concede that the WO thread does not tend to provide that.  I will bow out of the discussion, now.. with my tail between my legs.




 

We likely realize that normies will do the wrong thing, even if they can accurately assess the odds, so in one sense, if we take out one of the variables (regarding assessing the odds), then the only step would thereafter to be to set up a system that takes advantage of those odds in order that you are always winning when you let the system play out (because you know the odds).

Sure, in bitcoin we might not exactly know the odds, but many of us who have gotten into bitcoin did so because we had concluded that the odds of it going UP in the long run were greater than the odds of it going DOWN, even though in the short run we might end up witnessing a lot of DOWN and a lot of SIDEWAYS that was NOT our preference, but if we ended up being correct that in the long run BTC would end up going UP, then so long as we were somewhat weighted towards UP, then the whole bet ends up being a patience game to wait out the term.

There are additional strategies that can be employed also, if you add an additional variable regarding taking advantage of volatility.  No asset that is somewhat tied to free market forces is going to go up in a straight line, so in that process we can anticipate that volatility is almost inevitable in BTC, so there are ways to structure your BTC strategy and approach to take advantage of near inevitable volatility.  Again, you are not changing your overall presumption that the asset is going up in price, so in that regard, your whole position is always biased in favor of UPward movement at all times, even if you fairly strongly convicted that the price is going down in the short term, you continue to bias your portfolio towards up, in order that you never lose in the long run, even if in the short term you will likely lose some value if the shorter term down ends up playing out as you anticipated.

So, ultimately, even if you play around with volatility and downward bets along the way, so long as you are continuously structurally biased towards upward BTC price movements, then the only thing that you ultimately need to be correct about is that the BTC price is going up in the long run... and so far in BTC's history, we have witnessed that it has ultimately gone up, even if while there has been some periods of more than 3 years of down, flat and failure to get back to certain previous high price points.. but if you are holding 4 years or longer, so far in BTC's history any single satoshi that you would have bought would have been profitable on that time frame.  

Of course, past performance is not a guarantee of future performance, but many of us still recognize that there remain decent prospects for anyone investing four years or longer in terms of at least having some level of preservation of value and even profits so long as they are mostly betting on up, which largely means accumulating BTC and regular DCA, buying on dips and HODL have been amongst the best of the core strategies (which also means strive to engage in strategies that do not put yourself in a position, at any point, in which you have to sell any of your BTC, except at a point that is completely of your own choosing)..

Unless I am missing something, it does seem that the wall observer thread should be on the list somewhere, no?

Even if WO thread had its own category as trollbox thread.

From my quick glance, the wall observer thread seems to be missing from the various link index threads too (of course, LoyceV cannot take the blame for that), for some strange reason - even though WO ongoingly remains the most popular of BTCTalk threads.

It is too late, toxicmoxic.   





Protip:  We (the royal we, of course) use universal time in these here parts.   


Sucks to be you  too late.... with what could have been a great idea....     


 

Surely, I don't play around with margin, but I still kind of have some ideas about what experienced traders are attempting to accomplish in terms of attempting to assign probabilities to a certain amount of BTC price movement in a certain amount of time.

If the trader realistically assess the odds of a price move - yeah, sure a BIG "if" because frequently the assignment of odds is not very accurate, then such trader can play both sides of the anticipated BTC price direction.

So, for example, if the payoff for betting correctly is 5%, but the loss of betting incorrectly is 1%, but the odds of getting the 5% is 2/5 because the trader has good predictive skills and is able to hit with that level of precision, then surely if the trader has assessed the odds correctly, then largely in the long term for every 5 times that the trader plays those odds, s/he will get 5% twice, and s/he will lose 1% three times, which seems to be decent profits of somewhere in the ballpark of 7% from those 5 trades.

Yeah, I understand that the odds are never going to be that clear to assess, so in that regard, the devil is in the details, because usually the odds are not going to be so easy to figure out.  Accordingly, the more success that a trader has in being able to establish the price direction with confidence, then the more that s/he can reach goals of getting the payouts that offset the losses.. we can tweak the numbers around of the hypothetical, but getting the profits to outweigh the losses seems to be the general idea, and of course, if there are are also some possibilities that from time to time the BTC price will run way greater than the 5% payout, causing the trader to get even greater payouts than 5% from time to time, but the same is true in the opposite direction of incurring more losses than expected, but the hypothetical is attempting to even out those scenarios in a kind of average expected payout that would be profitable in the long run so long as the profits are exceeding the losses.

Also, some traders roll their profits into their trading stash, and other traders will take some profits off the table on a regular basis in order to use for living expenses or just to stack away some of their profits.  


I do personally believe that there are several members who should work on making sure that they are giving proper attributions in terms of making sure that the words ideas of someone else are not appearing to be being claimed as their own.

It does seem that in Paashaas's case above, he was quoting someone else.. especially the chart, and he just failed to give proper attributions.  I would not consider that to quite rise to the level of plagiarism, but sure of course, admins/mods might consider those boundaries differently, so it is usually better for members to ongoingly attempt to be giving proper attributions in order NOT to be accused of plagiarism..... even if they just made an unintentional slip up, which seems to be the case of Paashaas...

From where is that chart?

My comment is not based on wishing; it is instead based on a description from where BTC came and where BTC currently is.  

Sure, my description has an assertion that we are NOT currently in a correlation status, and perhaps the future will lend some more light upon whether we had been in a correlation status, yet I had already been repeatedly proclaiming that mere short-term correlation, to the extent that you had identified it to be happening since February until present, does not actually rise to the level of a reasonable assessment regarding where we are at or from where we came.  

Furthermore, my description does not presume future BTC price direction as you seem to be ascribing to my comment...  You are full of nonsense if you believe that BTC prices would have to reach $50k to $100k in 2021 or alternatively $250k in 2022 in order for me to be correct.  Fact of the matter is that I am already correct based on data that is already in.  Future prediction about BTC price movement remains another category and there are a lot of potential variable outcomes, some outcomes are more bullish, some are less bullish and there are even bearish or flat scenarios that could play out too.  

One thing about the future is that you cannot really know for sure what might happen, until it has already happened.. otherwise the future is based on a series of probabilities, as you already realize that understanding.

Of course, any kind of description of where we are in terms of BTC price or where we had been can be used with a certain amount of prescriptive elements contained therein in order to attempt to ascribe probabilities to potential future paths forward.  

As I mentioned several times already, the three strongest characterizations of BTC price prediction models include: 1) planB's stock to flow, 2) 4-year fractal and 3) s-curve exponential adoption based on metcalfe and networking principles.  

Even though these BTC price prediction models might feel like they are locked into some kind of absolutes about the future, they are still based on probabilities rather than certainties - and people can even disagree regarding how much certainty to assign to various price points contained therein or whether the model might end up needing to be adjusted or end up breaking in the future based on how future data plays out... but they are currently NOT broken nor in need of adjustment based on surprise data points, such as purported short-term correlation.. blah blah blah.

None of those above mentioned BTC price prediction models are currently out of line with the seemingly short-term evidence of BTC correlation with stocks, gold and/or other assets...

Furthermore, there have been a decent number of in-depth analysis of BTC suggesting that BTC has shown historical performance that is amongst the most uncorrelated of asset classes, and even those discussions are not negated by short-term periods of seeming correlation.   Do you need links for any of those studies that have been floating around the space for 5 years or more?

Sure it is possible that the future might not look like the past and any model that is worth its salt should attempt to account for the data as it comes in or if there might be meaningful deviations that might suggest the model(s) to not have as much predictive power, or maybe all of a sudden bitcoin will go from being an immature as fuck asset class to becoming mature, which would likely change the way that it performs in the future.. but currently, there is no real actual strong evidence to suggest that any meaningful or material changes have been happening in bitcoin in order to cause bitcoin to all of a sudden be treated as a mature asset class or to become correlated on a longer time horizon, in spite wishful projections based on such short-term observations of purported correlations.

Yes, the passage of time would provide more data to verify if currently seemingly valid BTC prediction models are still playing out within a range that allows the price prediction models to be true, but why the hell do we need more passage of time in order to figure out what the fuck is going on in BTC?

We have a decent amount of data already. We have more than 10 years worth of BTC price data, as BTC has been increasing in adoption, and its networking effects have been building, but bitcoin still remains pretty damned, immature, no? 

Seems that we do not need to go through such passage of time of future time with our hands in the air and saying that we have no idea what might happen in order to already appreciate that so far in BTC's wee lil short life it is not correlated to stocks, gold or other assets, even though we could look at short snippets of charts and visualize certain shorter term periods and proclaim that such correlation could be argued to be present, blah blah blah, based on incomplete information, as I already mentioned several times.

Sure Phillip, conclude what you like regarding where bitcoin is or where it came from including your need for more passage of time in order to feel comfortable in figuring out where bitcoin might be going, including if you want to believe that there is correlation presently that actually matters in really understanding what is happening with BTC, and if want to believe that you need more evidence, such as the passage of 1, 2 or 3 more years of data and for BTC to reach certain predetermined and seemingly random price points before you would become convinced or comfortable regarding where we are at currently, then that is your choice to have those kinds of beliefs that seem to NOT be based on the evidence that is already here, staring you in the face.  


That's right homer.  Don't plan on taking any shit - a sign of truly reaching fuck you status.  

What about dealing with a "losing one" scenario that STRF had mentioned?

You suggesting that "cool" people do not have the right (if that's an appropriate word choice?) to lose any of those 12, 18 or 24 washers?


Same question to you OOM (ditto) - as I had raised above for homerx (except substitute "creative" for "cool").

What would you consider the odds of "might"? Approximately, .00937182% give or take .00127668% (8 digits for more precision and to appease the likes of nullius) or am I being too generous in my estimations of what you consider as a reasonable understanding of "might"?



Yes, from time to time, we do get to witness a whole hell of a lot of reckening of shorts, and surely we might wish that such reckening happens more frequently than it does.

Personally, I am looking forward to the day when some really BIG ASS players get recked BIG time when they play around with fractional reserving (rehypothecating), and get their asses handed to them because they had not sufficiently covered for the sometimes unexpected UPpities that can happen.  Not sure if it will happen (or be disclosed), but thinking that there are decently good chances that it will happen at some point in our next BTC run (presuming one comes).



It seems to me that there are a lot of more experienced traders that figure out ways to hedge both directions, including shorting and including playing with margin, and surely the smarter ones figure out meaningful ratios to play rather that betting all or nothing or even betting exceedingly BIG - because many of us likely realize that there continues to be nuances in regards to how markets can be played, and there are also a variety of plays that can be made to remain profitable while at the same time, pigs get fed and hogs get slaughtered (or some variation of that expression that suggests incrementalism is o.k. and playing either (both) side is o.k. as long as NOT getting too greedy)

It will be an interesting scenario, if traditional markets such as gold and stocks were to go sideways or down for a year or more and to find out if any of that has any chance of breaking bitcoin from its cycles - which are not long term correlated to those traditional assets, even when peeps attempt to put emphasis on short term correlations, that may well be merely coincidental rather than longer term viable.

Personally I doubt that we are going to find ongoing longer term correlation, even if such correlation might be able to stretch out for 6-12 more months... probably best case scenarios... If we see ongoing correlation for that long (6-12 months) I would be quite surprised that such would even be possible, and if such correlation were to go on longer than that (longer than 12 months), we might have to start considering whether some or all of the BTC currently valid price prediction models might have some flaws therein... Seems quite improbable, even though we cannot really know until such passage of time were to take place with such unlikely ongoing correlation.

BTC already has left the market behind.

The mere fact that you can draw short-term correlation between February 2020-ish to present, hardly means shit.

It's like cavemen looking at shadows in a cave trying to proclaim that they know what is going on outside the cave, when it would be much more informative to look outside the cave and determine directly what is going on rather than relying upon shadow interpretation (aka limited information).

NOT only is that report from mid-2018, so more than two years old and a lot of matters have been changing in the bitcoin/crypto space in two years, but also there may be a lot of gobbledy-gook contained therein, not only in terms of what kind of information some wealth manager might be willing to provide but also financial vehicles that they consider to be practical, and direct investing in bitcoin would probably not be one of the ways that they would recommend HNWI to be investing, even if it is a relatively small allocation such as 1% and would they even be going so bold as to even considering some kind of investment into bitcoin that would be so high as 10%, even though that could be a reasonable and prudent approach for some HNWI.

Another aspect is the cryptocurrency language that is used in the article, which causes me to wonder even if they understand the difference between bitcoin and shitcoins - which is largely a necessary angle of understanding in order to even be attempting to engage in long term investing rather than throwing darts kind of gambling.

On the other hand, there is probably some kind of point to the fact that more and more attention is getting paid to bitcoin and it is leaking to the HNWI - even though many of them are still likely receiving so much misinformation that the information that they are receiving is skewing their thoughts in such a way that they HNWI may at some point realize that they better engage in a bit of their own research rather than being limited and channeled by the supposed expertise of wealth managers, in which likely only a fraction of the wealth managers are providing realistic information, when it comes to what bitcoin actually is, how bitcoin is differentiated from shitcoins and also what place bitcoin and/or shitcoins might play in terms of the broader market, whether referring to the relation to gold and other PMs or stocks and bonds.

I hate to overly generalize, but it seems that likely the more reliant that HNWI are upon money/wealth managers, the more likely that regular peeps are going to be able to front run them in terms of getting into bitcoin before them.  Many of us who are active in this thread have already engaged in a decent amount of front running of such HNWI - and surely, little by little they are going to figure out that some combination of direct investing in BTC might be prudent, even though maybe a lot of them who might be connected to businesses or other traditional investment vehicle limitations might handicap themselves if they are totally reliant on having to go through those traditional investment vehicles that are still developing in the bitcoin space.... oh and some of them will end up getting distracted in some kind of hybrid combination of bitcoin and various shitcoins, which likely is not going to work out as well as buying bitcoin directly, so we surely are going to continue to see a learning process regarding the entrance of HNWI into this space that may frequently be through various investment vehicles that are touted by their wealth/money managers.

Hopefully, you can grow up a bit and become willing to explain rather making patronizing attempts at playing gotcha.  Has grandma not brought down your cookies and milk, yet?

Go on. Ball is in your court to explain your supposed correlation theory that you were suggesting as to being some kind of contrast to what I believe.  You used the word "correlation" and you also used Phil_S's 3 month chart to make your claims about "correlation" that supposedly contrasted with my beliefs about bitcoin and impliedly others like me - if there are any? / cough.

I already understand the concept of a paradigm shifting technology, and surely bitcoin is likely one of those, but i might be understanding the concept of "paradigm shifting" differently from how you understand "new paradigm," especially since you are proclaiming there to be some kind of mystery "new paradigm" that causes you so much purported contrasting enlightenment about your correlation proclamation, so perhaps you need to explain what you mean by your own terms and desires to differentiate your purportedly more enlightened status.  I am all ears.

cough\Zoom out a bit, nutildah, and your nonsensical desire for BTC correlation is likely to be a wee bit less convincing

No one, including yours truly, is not recognizing or appreciating the existence of short-term correlation between BTC and equities or even other assets, even a year or two, here and there is going to be correlation, of course.

By the way you notice that Phil_S's above chart only covers 3 months at best?  What you going to see with a three month snapshot, especially if it comes to any kind of meaningful discussion of possible correlation?  Many of us here attempt to understand our context of where we are in bitcoin in terms of where we have been on a longer scale, which also likely gives us some better ideas about where we might be going.. sure, nothing is guaranteed, but 3 months is NOT a long time in the life of king daddy in order to figure out where we are, what is happening currently or even where we might be going, as you should realize by now, nutildah.

Bitcoin also has four-year fractal theories, as you likely realize, that attempt to appreciate BTC's price dynamics and movements.  Four years is a bit longer than 3 months if you had not realized, in order to attempt to appreciate where we might be within a potentially more meaningful cycle... and if you might want to attempt to make broad claims about bitcoin compared to other assets... Again, NOT absolutely determinative, but seemingly better than a three month depiction.

Do you have some overlays that you would like to make with bitcoin and equities or other assets on a four-year or longer time horizon and still argue purported correlation, nutildah?  Let's see how those might end up playing out.

Here's one that is showing a 6-year timeline comparing gold and equities.. so it is a bit longer than 4 years, and longer should be even better, if making BIG claims, no?

Do you notice correlation between BTC, gold and stocks on a six year timeline?

From the linked chart, you see that during the past 6 years, BTC is currently up nearly 12x... gold is up 50% during that same period and equities are up only 33%.  Is that correlation, or what?

Do you believe that in the future, all of a sudden those assets are going to become correlated, merely because they have some appearance of correlation in the past three months?  You don't really believe that do you?  I thought that you were a bitcoiner, nutildah?  You have some other allegiances?  Do you have coins, or no?

Do you have some other asset that you would like to attempt to compare to bitcoin in order to argue purported correlation?   I am waiting.

I doubt anything that you might hypothetically be able to find to compare is going to be as broad of a market and a concept as bitcoin. Yeah, you might show some collectors art or some piece of property or a business here or there, but I doubt that there are any market classes that you could find that is as broad as bitcoin in terms of showing similar price performance/correlation to bitcoin.  I thought that there had already been a lot of smart analysis to show that one of the benefits of bitcoin is the lack of correlation (of course, longer term), but go ahead, nutildah, if you have some asset or some way of actually showing longer term BTC correlation with some other asset(s).

Sure, you can take those same DCABTC comparison charts that I linked above, and you can make the timeline shorter within that website interface.  The shorter the timeline the closer the correlation appears to exist between BTC and stocks and even gold, but again, no one here is arguing that short-term correlation does not exist, including yours truly... and we know that bitcoin has longer cycles (heard of the 4-year fractal?  of course there are some similar models too that are on longer time horizons and would not be locked into short-term appearances, including 1) Plan B's stock to flow model and 2) s-curve exponential adoption theories based on metcalfe and networking principles).

Furthermore, bitcoin also has had a quite a few number of explosive price periods that happen unexpectedly and on only a few days of each year, and you better have your ass (and your assets) in the BTC on those particular few up performance days, otherwise you will be whining like a no coiner or trying to argue for correlation that ONLY exists when you selectively choose your information and point at others as NOT seeing the light, like you happen to see.  

By the way, I appreciate the charts of Phil_S (I especially like those colors), but I surely doubt that those charts are saying very much about correlation or even long-term happenings in bitcoin when they are only covering a very short period of time.. three months in the above case.