Hey buddy How about a nice 10k green candle tonight crest us over 70k
Can’t sleep, looking @ charts & thinking, hmmmmm. This dip kinda sucks, I’d love to see the pump start up again, $70,000 by Halloween would be fine for me.
I appreciate this response, LFC... it seems to me that if we had a bit of change in the BTC price momentum to at least pause the UP and maybe go sideways and maybe go down, the more likely short term spike would be down, if any.. not sure.. but getting a spike to the upside would take a bit of time to play out.. even a few days to start to get the momentum to change, and then the spike, if it were to come... Of course, we are getting a bit more down since your two posts (above)... ... so even could take a bit to get a spike up.. hate to say it.. and not even really saying that much more down is "needed" even if we are getting some ongoing short term downity pressures in the past few days.. .. ATH was only $67,017 was only 4 days ago, even if it may well be seeming like a "long time" when we are in a process of failing/refusing to resume up... .. I am still bias towards staying in noman's zone, and I doubt that the noman zone thesis is negated merely by correcting below $55k.. but would get put into to question somewhat - even if there were to persist some decent levels of lacking of resistance between $55k and $80k - that is currently being negated.. in the short-term.
I doubt that either you and/or Torque are saying much of anything in regards to your criticisms of the stock-to-flow model, cAPSLOCK. Sure, the model might break to the downside or it might break to the upside or the model might not break, at all.. So fucking what?
Well, let me put my PlanB zealot hat on discussing this.
I disagree when you say the model is not going to break.
I cannot see a state of the world where this model is not breaking.
I appreciate that you and I have gone back and forth in our discussion of the stock2F model, so my comments might not really be so much directed at correcting anything that you say, but attempting to flesh out some of my thoughts in this area - in terms of whether maybe I had been misunderstood in what I was attempting to say to both Torque and cAPSLOCK.... and I am not even really disagreeing in great detail with either Torque or cAPSLOCK - but sometimes, it just seems to me that ideas need to be fleshed out a wee bit more, especially when attempting to address something that is so attempting to be data driven like the S2F model.
Again, I may just be quibbling with the word "broke" too.. because we could either proclaim that the whole model is broken, or we can just proclaim that the price ends up breaking to the upside of the model or to downside of the model.. and of course, with any good scientific model (or scientist), PlanB already attempts to assert that the future BTC price can vary quite a bit from the parameters of the lines (such as his suggestion that the model suggests an average BTC price of $100k-ish for this 4-year cycle), and still end up NOT being broken... just ends up being a wee bit off if the average ends up being $90k or $110k for example.. still within very acceptable parameters, without actually breaking the model... how far we might be able to go in such deviation from the mean (or the expectations) would be other questions that could be asked..
Of course, we already know that short-term price spikes can go all over the place for short periods of time, and those price spikes could become problematic if they last for extended periods of time, but still might not end up breaking the model if they end up bouncing back after being pushed to extremes for a period of time beyond what the model would have expected to have been within the realms of possible happenings.
So, for example, as you seem to be suggesting, I have been ongoingly reluctant to accept too many conditions in which the model becomes broken, and I have frequently asserted that the S2F model is currently the best model that we have, and sure we can attempt to account for a few variables (or to emphasize) some aspects that the model does not seem to capture in order to explain short/medium/long term price moves
(I consider those other supplemental models as four-year fractal and exponential s-curve adoption based on network effects and Metcalfe principles), so instead of conceding that the model would be broken under certain extreme factual scenarios, I have frequently proclaimed that the newly acquired data would merely cause the curve to shift (up down or whatever) based on new facts.
This model is either going to break on the downside, with the model price being too above the real world. Essentially meaning that bitcoin has failed to appreciate as the best SoV the human kind has ever considered using, beating the only other SoV that retained such a function for the last few millennia: gold.
You have said nothing disagreeable here, fillippone.
Actually, I will reiterate that there is surely something that is already broken about the S2F model in that we already know that it wrongly draws parallels to the mining of new gold, and there are no new bitcoin because we already know that they run out and we know exactly when the run out.. so PlanB puts the issuance of bitcoin as a parallel to new supply.. when it is already exactly known as an issuance rather than a creation... so yeah.. there is something that is already broaken about thinking about the matter in terms of actual new supply rather than an issuance of already known supply ..
... so in that sense, I agree with you that the model works for now..
The other possibility is that the model breaks on the upside: people start factoring future halving and start front-running the model, until it breaks. Now, if it is bitcoin breaking on the upside or US dollar breaking on the downside it will be difficult to assess. But this is the scenario.
The model would be pretty good if the odds are similar of it playing out wrong/broken to either the downside or the upside, no?
I really cannot see bitcoin being considered a reliable SoV and people not frontrunning halving appreciation cycles, meaning the model hold true for more than a few halving.
Surely part of the already known aspect of the shrinking new "issuance," and for sure the new issuance becomes a smaller and smaller portion of the already existing supply.....yes exactly a knows "problem" and even the shrinking to zero in 2140 is a known problem.. but surely there is a kind of presumption that the "problem" of the shrinking new issuance of supply id not going to take until 2140 to be felt.. like you already mentioned that a few more halvenings and it may well start to become obviously a factor that messes up a key underlying component of the S2F model.
ditto
Poll
