I am going to start out by proclaiming.. horey sheeit.. you are such a damned wordy man...
Amazing..
Some misunderstandings of my wordings to clarify...
Not going to deny that things like that could happen.
By the way, I heard some interesting discussion recently regarding some of us having almost no way to even come close to being able to acquire similar amounts of BTC that we had accumulated earlier.. so if we had been able to acquire $20k worth of BTC and we end up with 20 BTC, after 4-5 years those same 20BTC now cost more than a $million.. so having had been able to acquire 20 BTC with $20k of capital now costs more than $1 million... Similar is true for some individuals who may have been able to acquire $1million at $1k each, then that would have been 1,000 BTC, which would now cost $56 million to buy those same quantities of BTC... .
Well yes, with the $ price consistently increasing, this is obviously true, but only to a certain extend. Another bear market with a 75-80% downside doesn't mean accumulation is simply based on $ value, there are many who will no doubt be selling high in order to buy back for less.
Don't be getting too excited about some supposed 75% to 80% correction that may or may not happen in the near future.
In other words, you are likely getting ahead of ur lil selfie by focusing on the down before the UP comes first.
Don't worry I'm not getting too excited about the idea of a bear market, as requires a lot of patience, nor focusing on down before UP.
I've been clear about believing in $100K-150K by end of bull market, likely early 2022, rather than end of 2021.
Let's see then. A 75% to 80% correction from a $100k to$150k top would also be pretty bearish (or giving a pretty high number to DOWNity. In other words, a pretty whimpy top that only has a wee bit more than a 2x UPpity after our 56% correction and then your 75% to 80%.. holyshit. That could end up being a correction down to a $20k... and even $30k correction would seem quite bearish to me.
I am thinking that if all we were to get is ONLY $100k to $150k then probably we would not be getting more than a 60% correction, and likely short-lived, at that... .and I thought that you had already acknowledged that large corrections are more likely to be plausible after large UP-runs in the price, if we do not get any kind of meaningfully large uprun nor any kind of meaningful blowoff top then it seems less likely that we are going to suffer from those kinds of 80%-ish corrections. That's part of the reason that personally, I continue to speculate about the possibilities that our blow-off top price runs could go even beyond some of what PlanB had been considering in the $288k price territory and surely I had given some odds to up to $1.5 million for this cycle, which surely would be a long run and surely even getting to something like $600k would already largely constitute a bit of an overshoot of many expectations that likely would be more likely to be closer or only slightly above PlanB's $288k number...
Hard to really have any confidence in any of those numbers anyhow, and I surely do not put any kind of meaningful plan in my financial or psychological planning in accordance with those kinds of numbers - except perhaps just NOT really having any kind of rush to spend much of any of my BTC and surely also thinking that we might end up having subsequent BTC price bottoms that really do not go much lower than $60k to $70k.. except maybe short term spikes, which would largely then suggest that our top would at least be supra $300k levels (and $60k would end up serving as a 80% correction from those kinds of levels)... sure there may be a wee bit of pie in the sky in that thinking or at least what might be reasonably possible for this cycle.. even though maybe there is only less than a 25% chance of the top playing out in the supra $300k territory and then to get a 80% correction from that might also not have really high odds of being able to have both play out.. but not out of the question in terms of looking at fractal patterns that might not exactly match but end up somewhere in the ballpark of previous examples.. because we have BIGGER players coming into bitcoin that can contribute to the patterns playing out in similar ways even while lots of deniers at the same time and we look at a chart and see something similar despite everything going on, including a multitude of human behavior and various game theory and all of those matters all end up washing out to show a similar pattern as previously.
My discussion of the future isn't correlated to any present.
There's gotta be some correlation to the present in order to attempt to be based in reality rather than just starting from some random place.. so we gotta start from where we are at.. and then attempt to figure out where we are likely to go from there...
In other words, I don't know how you can say that your contemplations of the future is not correlated to the present unless you are expecting some kind of outrageously unexpected thing to happen.. such as a black swan event or an Armageddon or some kind of thing(s) like that.
Remember where we are at.
We already had a 6.5x BTC price appreciation that corrected down 56%.. that is no damned small or insignificant BTC price correction, so having that extent of a correction likely causes a decent amount of resetting and causing the $28,600 bottom to be in..
In other words, why the fuck would we be wanting to prematurely focus on bottoms that might happen before we see the top that has not yet come...
Yes, yes, yes.. even I have conceded something like a 42% chance that we go down from here rather than UP.. but seems more likely that our top is not yet in, and even if we had a top from here, then how far are we going down. Think about it.
On the other hand, if you want to engage in what seems to be premature focusing upon DOWNity, then that's all on you.. hopefully you do not shake too many of the rest of us from significantly and preparing for the UPpity that seems to be a wee bit more likely and even if it is not more likely.. it seems good, prudent and reasonable to prepare for it, just in case.
I think you've completely misunderstood me here. I made it clear previously that I considered a 75-80% drop with a multi-year bear market, only if price goes parabolic with a blow-off top. The usual 80% drop would be based on the usual parabolic top, ie it's conditional of such an event. I've also been clear about a much lesser correction if say $69K were the top, which is far from parabolic, but would simply be a recovery that failed to move much higher. In this sense I completely agree that $28K would therefore likely be the bottom, with the exception of a fake-out lower to trap bears, mirroring $69K trapping bulls.
Ok. fair enough.. we are on a similar page in that regard then.
Hence why I'm much less concerned about the idea of a multi-year bear market if $69K were the top, unlike others in this thread, as I think $30-35K would therefore become the new bottom in a years time, based on the 200 Week MA trajectory for a bottom, that will continue to rise as 2018 candles between $6K-10K get replaced for much candles at a much higher price. This would effectively mean consolidation for a year between $28K-69K for approximately 20 months, which wouldn't be out of the question for an emerging market.
You have not lost me yet... All of that seems plausible, even if it also seems unusual.. but hey we should not be anticipating that we expect any emerging category asset to perform in exactly predictable ways anyhow... but I don't find anything objectionable in what you are saying.
For example if price topped out in 2017 at $7.5K or $10K, as opposed to $20K, I still think $3/4K would of ended up being the bottom, ie the 200 Week MA, which would have largely remained unaffected.
Sure, that is also plausible that the 200 week moving average would not have necessarily been much different under either scenario, even though we know that the higher the BTC price and the greater the volume of BTC traded at that higher price for longer times, then the more that trading at a higher price does draw the 200-week moving average to move up more, but surely I am not going to argue with you in terms of the overall price being averaged out to maybe end up being something like 5% or maybe 10% difference at best.. so maybe instead of having a 200-week moving average of $3k in late 2018, if BTC prices had not topped out as high ($8k versus $20k), then we end up having a 200-week moving average that ends up being in the territory of $2,700 rather than $3k or maybe even a smaller difference, as you suggested.
I also wouldn't have an issue with such a long consolidation period within a close range, probably have to go and get another job in order to simply DCA again, as I imagine shorting the market would be a bit of a nightmare without (m)any crash-like events.
I cannot disagree with you that leveling out of the extremes could end up happening, but I would not prematurely predict the death of such extremes because since we are still likely in a war, there are likely going to continue to be extremes... so what you are suggesting seems to be quite a minority possibility rather than anything that would be reasonably likely. I am not making my statement based on what I want but ONLY based on what I am expecting to our ongoing BTC price dynamic which is continued extremes and continued outrageousness even though it is still getting to be a BIGGER and BIGGER asset class.
Personally, I plan for the present as well as the future.
Hm? maybe I am kind of understanding you here? It's like my expectation that bitcoin could go to $1.5 million this cycle. I only assign such possibility as something like .5% odds of happening, and I sort of prepare for either the outrageous or even the more normal and average where my BTC might ONLY end up performing mediocre over the coming 4 years or so just like any other asset class at 6% per annum (or maybe 12% is a mediocre performance these days?)...
By the way, you likely already know that when I got into bitcoin in late 2013, I had hoped that my BTC portfolio would merely keep pace with my historical other investments which largely had averaged 6% per year for something like 20 years.. so I had felt that I had done pretty decently... so my bitcoin investment had not really performed up to that level for the first 3 years, but then after 2017's performance and then subsequent performance, I largely can proclaim that currently my BTC performance can be projected over the 8 years that I have been involved and largely show a performance that is averaging about 60% per year for that whole time frame - even with my varying mistakes along the way.. and fees and whatever.
I always have a plan for the future, that I then implement when if/it comes the present. Not having a plan for the future often leads to making irrational decisions in the present based on emotion, which is what I try and avoid at all costs, as usually it leads to costly mistakes.
I agree, and I think that there should be ways that we get better at both planning, following our plan and then tweaking from time to time based upon various learnings along the way.
I otherwise try and plan for every eventually possible, so that my decisions in the present aren't influenced by the present that's usually overloaded with emotional and irrational sentiment, rather than pre-determined decisions I made in the past.
Fair enough.. some rigidity that also should not take away personal discretion to the extent that you might want to override yourself from time to time... but usually there would be no need to overrule yourself because you have already created the plan channel that you would like to be in, and unless you are falling way outside the channel then life is good... no?
And yes, I have taken into consideration every single eventually possible and how I would react to, despite how exhausting that concept might sound to you or anyone else. This is what I've done for years now to remain prepared.
That does sound impossible to actually accomplish because even if we might plan for a wide variety of possibilities, there are going to be some things that fall somewhat outside of expectations.. but if we have sufficiently planned we are in a way better position to deal with some of the outside of expectation matters because we have prepared in a lot of ways that the outside of expectation happenings are either immaterial or they are not real major things and can be dealt with on the fly.
Please don't get confused by me otherwise being prepared for every eventually possible, as I'm well aware 99.9% of those won't occur and only 1 scenario I've accounted for will actually take place.
Of course, it is good to be prepared for a variety of scenarios. I am not going to argue with you about that.
For me it was also simply based on the theory of gravity and Bitcoin's previous price movements. What goes up must come down, and what goes up with sheer velocity with go down with that same velocity, kind of at least. It is how markets generally work, with Bitcoin not being an exception to that rule either.
Of course bitcoin is not an exception to the overall rule regarding both UPs and DOWNs, but the devil still remains in the details regarding how to manage it in regards to both some of its overall flavors and that it happens to both be a paradigm shifting asset class and that it also is likely in the midst (if not the early stages) of an exponential s-curve... so fucking around within that can get a lot of folks reckt not only in their failure refusal to ongoingly prepare for UP.. including some of their short-term taking of profits was not worth the risk of getting left out of the asset class when it does not return even close to earlier price levels..
Personally I don't think Bitcoin is quite there yet, being worth $1 trillion is peanuts to the idea of a reserve asset, unless you want to make a cheap joke at a party, or a your a rocket scientist wanting to take a shot. For sure I believe this will happen in the future, but I think much more likely around the $5-10T mark it will be taken and treated seriously in this manner, which still wouldn't quite be a $1 milion Bitcoin price either.
I did not say anything about bitcoin currently serving like a reserve currency/asset.. but we should likely already know that bitcoin is successful.. and its success is on a spectrum of getting increasingly more successful with the passage of time. Who is going to expect bitcoin to go from 0 to 1 without any volatility and even along the way of getting to 1 (are we there yet?) is surely an interesting journey.. and $10 trillion nearly puts bitcoin at around gold's market cap, even though we likely recognize that bitcoin is 100x to 1,000x better than gold, it will take some time for bitcoin to reach such levels.. even though it is still successful on its way towards getting to that 100x to 1,000x level in terms of price.. maybe it will take more than 30 years to get there.?? or maybe 50 years or maybe 100 years?
We have to take these matters as they come to some extent.. and a lot has happened with bitcoin in the past nearly 13 years since it started and perhaps 11.5 years of having some kind of a established and finding of price.. and growth of price.... Already has come a very long way in a very short period of time and perhaps in the next 1-2 cycles we are going to get greater levels of institutionalization and government adoption which all of those developments will drag retail further too... for sure we are seeing more and more financialization too.. but some of the status quo financial institutions are spending quite a bit of time fighting bitcoin and perhaps believing that some of their current instruments might be able to effectively battle bitcoin if they do not get reckt in the process.. and maybe a lot of these controls around the virus are attacks on bitcoin too.. attacks on the freedoms that bitcoin would be bringing to individuals.
I am not even going to presume to know exactly how far or how fast these matters are going to move or how heavy some of the battles along the way might become.
You are completely right though, most will simply get rekt or otherwise miss out on a lot of weath preservation, as this is exactly how markets work. The majority lose when trying to trade or be a "smart investor", while the minority succeed. After all, if it was that easy to make money out of this market or others, everyone would be doing it and nobody would have to work for a living.
I doubt that wealth redistribution is clean or obvious because surely some of the status quo rich are going to be able to figure out ways to transition seemlessly, some of the status quo poor will remain poor and some will be able to figure out ways to benefit from the wealth redistribution. Does not seem that it is going to be clean, and surely some early adopters are in better positions to benefit greatly, but even the early adopters might not figure out how to do it and some of the late comers might still be able to profit stupendously, too.
Especially not now it has become institutionalised.
Still lots of institutions and governments to come... To me, still seems like early stages in the institutional getting in phase.
Yes this is true, it's only the beginning in this sense.
\
My rambling point is there will be many doing the same, taking considerably profits near the top, even if most likely fail to re-invest at lower prices.
Some will take profits at the top, and some won't. Some will just ride it out.
I think these days it's more likely that most will ride it out, and some will take profits, unlike in the previous cycles.
Maybe more people who have bitcoin are becoming enlightened regarding the value of bitcoin, but that does not mean that some of them are not still going to be shaken from their coins and lured into various shitcoins of the day, ICOs, Defi, NFTs or whatever to get parted from their coins.
At least earlier investors much less likely to take profits these days IMO, unless actively trading.
I doubt that we know if whatever approach any of us takes in regards to our bitcoin and stash is a good thing or a bad thing... until looking back retrospectively, no? Sure there are going to be some of us with better abilities and luck and others with the same kinds of confusions that exist with any kind of newly emergent asset class including confusion regarding the values or how to properly allocate/diversify.
Many investors these days are doing so on the basis that Bitcoin could become the dominant global currency and therefore no.1 reserve asset, therefore selling isn't really an option.
Fair enough. People are going to have differing views regarding where we might be going and how long it might take to get there, and I would not be suggesting that you would necessarily know better than anyone else in terms of how far we might go or how long it might take.. but none of us likely need to be specifically right to be able to profit from being directionally right and that seems to be what you have already asserted for which you were preparing..
People are much more aware of a 10 year history of profit taking being not only very difficult to do, but 95-99% regrettable in the long-term unless the intention is to re-invest, which usually it's not. Most aren't studying this on a daily or weekly basis for years, they have simply done their X/XX amount of hour of due diligence and taking a leap of faith.
Sure. No argument here.
Which is obviously also a good thing for the price stability for Bitcoin as well. At least these days those I come across invested in Bitcoin aren't evangelists like those in this thread, they are simply taking the advise of them in order to invest money in a smart manner.
Even though I agree with a lot of your points, I still get the sense that you are overly generalizing the supposed movements in bitcoin consciousness, and sure the smart people who are learning exist, but also there are a lot of people who are still being manipulated for their ignorances who may or may not learn by going through the process and making mistakes and perhaps being lured and deceived by various shitcoin projects and other scams that take advantage of simple ignorances like unit bias.. smart people will frequently be motivated by dumb preconceptions and it takes time to learn - perhaps a couple of generations (presuming that each generation is around 20 years).. and sure we have gradually and then suddenly but we also have dumbness and exploitations contained within including that dumb people might be wedded to legal systems or to financial systems or status quo institutions and not wanting to let go whether they are motivated by self-interests, denial, ignorance, some kind of valid differing perspective or whatever. I am not going to presume smoothness in the advancement of knowledge nor a lack of casualities that might come through violence or even considerable differing views about the way forward.. even take the virus, for example, at first it may have seemed like a relatively valid reason to have a lot of controls and lock downs, but after about a year (maybe even less) of such nonsense, it started to become more and more apparent that it is being used for really deep nefarious reasons to cover up various economic issues involving the money and even likely concerns that governments have to control the movements of people to be able to shop around for more friendly (less draconian) jurisdictions. Part of my point is that these matters can end up playing out kind of strangely in terms of how one thing might motivate other seemingly unrelated things whether it is on purpose or not.. but surely difficult to suss out sometimes or to change direction but hopefully to figure out effective ways to prepare for a variety of scenarios.. and none of us are likely to be able to get it right in all kinds of ways even if we might have employed relatively more effective preparations as compared to what some others had employed (or failed/refused to employ)..
They are mainly all waiting for $1 million, which at a $20T+ market value, roughly speaking, wouldn't be the worst time to take profits either - as by that value fiat probably won't exist anymore anyway, it'll simply be considered as spending money.
Lots of generalizing going on there regarding what the masses are supposedly waiting for.
One step at a time grasshopper.
But I am glad that you have some tentative plans.
I'm personally of the opinion that there is not much price above $1 million BTC, that's simply when fiat currencies become redundant, as I fail to see how they would compete.
Sure $1 million does make bitcoin a pretty decently sized asset, but even at that price it is still ONLY 2x the size of gold.. and the death of various fiats are likely going to have some cascading aspect .. and I cannot see why the dollar would not fail last.. but even its failure at $1 million per BTC is not going to be obvious to everyone.. and that $1 million per BTC is ONLY a mere 20x from here... so I am thinking that a $1 million per BTC is likely to show a lot of people that BTC is strong and here to stay, but even getting a $1 million per BTC may well be a spike with a 70% or greater correction thereafter.. and if we were to get $1 million per BTC in this cycle, we may well get another 85% correction down to $150k or something in that price arena to thereby cause a lot of folks to consider bitcoin as dead or dying or blah blah blah.. sure it could take two or even three cycles for BTC to reach $1 million.. but seems that either this cycle or the next would be more likely than having to wait 3 cycles.. but who knows how the battles of BIGGER players could end up having some varying different dynamics when the intensity of the information campaigns pick up with also some potential issues with various ways that real world constraints of actual bitcoiners or dumpening of fiat to buy BTC could play out.
You could argue that it will continue to go to $10 million, $100 million, $1 trillion price in a short matter of time, but that's simply because $ will be worth toilet paper and no longer utilized so the gain won't be realised.
It seems better to attempt to argue value in today's dollars rather than convoluting the argument with ideas of the debasement of fiat currencies, even though we know that both will be going on simultaneously.... so anyhow, I can see the $1 trillion per BTC happening.. but I don't see that as a sudden thing.. (that would be something like $1 quadrillion of BTC market cap which would be about the total of current storage of value currently in existence). Even if we might get gradually and then suddenly, I still don't see bitcoin becoming a kind of exclusive dominance in the storage of value for a couple of generations .. that would be 40 years or more.. but who knows and I doubt that we really need to be that accurate in our predictions but merely to have some directional appreciation of where bitcoin is likely to go rather than getting into specifics which we will find out as the direction evolves.. even though sometimes the talking about some specifics does seem to make more sense than other kinds of discussion of feasibilities...
In other words, I would not accept gradually and then suddenly to be very plausible with a straight up of bitcoin prices to $1 trillion.. that seems like fantasy nonsense.. but I could see such a thing playing out in 50 years or more - give or take 30 years.. and even with that there is a kind of directional expectations and some senses of what kinds of scenarios seem more plausible than others, even if we might presume some extreme happenings along the way.
If will only be comparable to the likes of Gold or the stock market, which I imagine it would still be able to outperform for a while, especially with more stocks & Gold sold for Bitcoin etc.
Yes... some asset classes are going to hold their value better than others. Of course, stocks have companies behind them so there are property interests contained therein... and even the asset class of property itself cannot completely lose value as a means of storage of value.. at least in the short terms because there is a kind of scarcity that is quite difficult to replicate but its value also ties into whether there is a view, whether there are solid rents, and even the jurisdiction friendliness (or lack there of) for extracting value from the holders of the value.
I guess the gold reserves being liquidated into Bitcoin will maintain it's steady growth, but the general adoption by Western counties of Bitcoin as it's national currency will be a lot more relevant.
Just my theory anyway
Bitcoin is going to continue to be following Gresham theory principles just as it has been since its beginning of having a market value... Of course speculation and Gresham theory principles can simultaneously exist and at the same time, in bitcoin's very beginning there were likely some of the nerdy fuck earliest of adopters who already recognized and appreciated Gresham principles within bitcoin and decided to accumulate and hoard bitcoin because of those kinds of motivations.. and normies do not need to know shit regarding what Gresham theory principles are because they naturally engage in such behaviors, and surely some people are more exposed to it than others in terms of their balancing of which currencies and assets are the most valuable.. so they are going to spend their shittiest currencies first and that value (or perception of value) is not static but changes through time and not everyone is correct in terms of how they value each kind of asset or currency but the longer that bitcoin exists, the more and more it becomes recognized in the consciousnesses and in the practices of people... and these changes in perceptions, practices and supporting systems and tools take time too... and unless bitcoin screws up in some kind of royally BIG way, it is already known to be the most valuable of assets/currencies ever created.. and surely it will take time for more and more people, institutions and governments to get that memo... or to understand what they are seeing and what is continuing to happen on an ongoing snowballing basis.
It's kind of like trading with fiat-based shitcoins, but with more volatility and only really possible with low risk in a bull market. So for me it's always about accumulating more Bitcoin for sure, but not simply with $ DCA or lump sums, but also considering market conditions as well as speculating on the latest hot topic for more satoshis.
Hopefully your brain does not start to hurt too much from such distractions.
It does hurt sometimes, but I've never considered hard work to be easy. I take regular breaks, that's the important thing, as otherwise hundreds of charts can literally blind me from reality when I'm "in the zone". Often I'm simply reluctant to pay attention, which has it's ups and downs. At least with good risk management you can simply "ignore" and not have to worry about anything, only loss of income. As I've mentioned it before, I don't do research and fuck around with that nonsense, too many unrelaible variables, I just do it all statistically via risk/reward analysis. Some weeks are busy, other months there's no work to be done and it's already done. Ideally a solid trend in one direction or another limits the amount of labour. Ideally I'd be a good programmer and have a bot do my work for me
People are going to vary in terms of how they approach any topic and how much work they put into it. Sure your chosen way of working gives you a certain perspective and thereby information upon which to act, and surely maybe it is superior in some ways and it likely has deficiencies too... but hey don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
Next week is important isn’t it. I feel like if we don’t start going up by the end of next week then the bull could be over. I’m prepared either way, obviously heavily leaning to wanting up but there are positives to both. Let’s see what happens.
Whoaza, LFC.
You are really caught up in this calendar year nonsense.
Whatever...
You do you.
I am going to remain skeptical regarding bitcoin having to conform to some kind of a calendar year schedule....
I'm also not tied to the doctrine of the calendar, despite so far not seeing the 4 year cycle broken, and considering it to remain relevant today. Until proven otherwise.
Yeah.. but how strict are you going to be? There needs to some flexibility in terms of deviating outside of the calendar, no?
This is also because I'm anticipating a top in January/February, definitely not December, given the cycle has generally been 49 months as opposed to 48 months (4 years). One small factor that many have overlooked. A lot can happen in 3 months, as we saw from October-December in 2017 when price increased by 300%. Even a top at $70K in three months wouldn't invalidate the idea of a 4 year cycle for me either, it would only further reinforce it, but likely with much less downside than previous years, if there is a lack of parabolic blow off top.
Why are you even talking about $70k.. it's irrelevant, no?
No. $70K is exactly $1K higher than $69K, therefore it would be an ATH.
We have already been there done that. $69k is more or less the same as $70k.. so if you are talking about BIGGER numbers for this year, we need to talk about something significant, no?
In reality I mean any price above $69K as an ATH, within the next 2-3 months being the point here. I don't believe the top has to be significant for the cycle to remain in tact, this is the common confusion here influenced by S2F model / log growth.
Ideas regarding cycles predate the stock to flow model. including ideas of blow-off tops... Yes.. there is likely agreement that cycles can play out in a variety of ways including having potentially less of a blow off top.. but one thing about considering that a blow off top might be possible is to better be prepared for it and there is no reason to believe that the blow off top is dead.
Now we're on the same page. I still see a blow-off top happening, as there's simply no reason not to have one this time as I don't see anything relevantly different, yet.
I'm also not ruling out the idea of that it doesn't happen either, but not having one and $69K being the top is much less of a concern to be honest.
It seems that we have already batted around a variety of ways that matters could end up playing out.. in the context of maybe we have some assigned percentages of various scenarios such as:
Scenario 1: 37.5%
Scenario 2: 23.5%
Scenario 3: 15%
Scenario 4: 9.5%
Scenario 5: 5.5%
Scenario 6: 3%
Scenario 7 (various other known): 2.5%
Scenario 8 (various unknown): 3.5%
Even if one of the lower percentage scenarios such as scenario 5 ends up playing out, that does not cause our earlier assessment to have become less valid at the time that we had made it. And, also along the way to getting towards the scenarios playing out, the percentages are likely going to change and surely we might even mis-assess some of the probability assignments along the way (due to factual and/or logical mistakes).. get overly excited about some scenario that is less likely or even considering the highest of scenarios to be like 100% likely even though we know that such a scenario may still not end up playing out.. or at best has a 58% chance of playing out at some given point, even though it had been the most likely of scenarios... and sometimes branches might develop in which we lump together scenarios 1, 4 and 6 and reassign values to scenarios 7 and 8... but then something of very low probability that was already known but highly unlikely within scenario 7 ends up playing out..
and even after saying all of this, I do not find the assignment of probabilities to be futile because from my perspective (which you seem to share) it seems that we should be attempting to plan and act in accordance with the scenarios that are the most likely from our perspective, and don't be wasting a whole fuck ton of time on less likely scenarios even though psychologically and financially we may have well made some smaller level preparations for the various less likely scenarios.
One problem comes with bearwhales holding BTC prices down lower and longer than sustainable which contributes to fuel for subsequent blow off tops to take place... surely by now you can recognize and appreciate that within bitcoin there are likely going to continue to be times in which the price gets carried away in one direction or another. and we have not yet seen those getting carried away periods disappear so there should be no real logic in anticipating that they are over.. merely because of the fact that they could be over.. In other words, they are not over until they are... so therefore it is probably better to continue to prepare for them just in case that they happen rather than presuming that they are over or failing to prepare for them and then they end up happening and catch you off guard.
Well yes, this I completely agree with and what I've been preaching, being prepared for every eventuality possible, in order to be positioned for every eventuality possible
Your statement comes off as hyperbolic because of course, we do our best, but I doubt that we really prepare for every possibility because some things are not knowable at time 1 or maybe we have factual or logical deficiencies.. so we have to merely do our best rather than presuming that we are mentally and/or financially prepared for "every" thing.
The cycle is based on time, it has nothing to do with price.
You can believe whatever you want..
It is more likely both.
Ok well price is the variable, time is the constant, to put it differently. It's both, but price doesn't effect time. Time does affect price however.
Getting a bit too abstract for me.
The only correlation is time has previously determined price's up and down movements, but it hasn't determined
precise tops or bottoms so much.
This would moving averages for example, or other metrics, that combines both time & price factors. These I like
ok...
Even S2F model doesn't attempt to predict a "top price", only a "fair value". Whatever that's supposed to mean...
Actually, I thought another point about the S2F model is that planB had determined that $100k is the median price for this upcoming halvening period.. but it seems to me that if he ends up being wrong and the median price is some other number such as $80k or $90k or $110k or some other number, then his whole model might not be broken but instead the part that attempted to determine the quantity of the next leg up may well have ended up being wrong.. so it does not necessarily negate the whole model even if there might be some need for rethinking of the four year jump quantities. Such model (or a variation of it) is not going away anymore time soon because it is so co-integrated with facts on the ground so sure maybe some unexpected future facts end up having to get incorporated to cause a shifting of the model but would not likely cause the model to be dead.
The whole floor price model nonsense doesn't negate S2F at all no, as I said previously, reaching that median price even only by 2024 ($80K-100K whatever), would confirm it. Many people seem to think these models are dependant on each other, but this couldn't be further from the truth. The floor model was dependant on S2F, but S2F isn't dependant on the floor model as it were.
Fair enough.. but I still disagree with your suggestion that "$80K-100K whatever" by 2024 is even close to reasonable within the context of the S2F model without having to extensively shift some of its presumptions or even a shifting of the whole price/time assertions contained therein.
What can I say, people are easily confused, hence they often lose a lot of money or value in this market
That's true that people who attempt to trade have the risk of losing money or even to way underperform what a more straightforward DCA strategy would facilitate, even in a bull market.. which surely on the face we can see is against the odds, and also we know that some people end up using some magnifying instruments that speed up their abilities to lose more than what they might lose through more straight-forward trading techniques. Some of the ease of trading had not really previously been available to normies.. so the mere availability of a variety of trading instruments (to normies) affects market dynamics in several ways - including that there are more sophisticated traders or marketers or manipulators who are able to take advantages of such changes in market dynamics that surely affect BTC price dynamics.
We also know that some people are way more capable than others in terms of learning how to take advantage of opportunities that might come available to them, so maybe they have only skillsets and experiences of a manual laborer or a truck driver, but they might also have abilities to learn and to end up profiting greater than someone with some other background trainings and experiences.
And, we also know that risk management can be learned, even when there still might be various kinds of inclinations for everyone to engage in gambling, but some people might end up being able to recognize their inclinations towards wanting to gamble.. but then be able to develop skills that temper their inclinations and create plans and strategies that work to their advantages while mitigating the various risks in ways that are suitable to their own situation and circumstances... which causes them to have opportunities and to be able to put themselves into a way better position than they would have been able to be in without having had learned about bitcoin... even while it is true at the same time that some of those people end up getting reckt or even wrecking their lil selfies because they fail/refuse to learn appropriate risk management skills along the way.
By the way, I had frequently heard about techniques to learn trading by going through practice situations that do not put any money at risk, and I say fuck that nonsense... it is not necessary in regards to some of the trading options that are currently available. Accordingly, in 2013, 2014, and about half of 2015, I did not have much of a bitcoin plan beyond just accumulating and then if I spent any bitcoin, I would replace the spent amount (and perhaps even more than the amount that I spent) within a few days of spending it.
When I started out fucking around with trading, which largely I had intended as a downside insurance practice, I divided my BTC holdings into three parts, which included 1) all the BTC that I had acquired below $280 (or some other price point in that area) (which had an average cost per BTC of around $240-ish), 2) all of the BTC that I had acquired after mid 2014 (which had an average cost per BTC of around $320-ish) and 3) all of the total BTC that I had acquired which had an average cost per BTC of around $510-ish. So for several months during 2015, I had ONLY authorized myself to trade by using the BTC that fit in category 1 above, and around that time, I had a friend who would laugh her ass off because she thought that it was so funny that I was spending a lot of time setting up orders, resetting up orders, creating various trading plans and BTC price projections that would trigger various actions, and each time that some kind of set of BTC orders executed, I would tell her that I made $.50 or $.26 or $1.82 or some other relatively low number.. and she would continue to laugh regarding how I was never going to get richie by engaging in such low profit activities, and I would remind her that the $.50 or $.26 or $1.82 or whatever that I made was completely "free" and it brought down my average cost per BTC and it also would increase with time both in terms of the BTC price going up and/or my abilities to authorize myself to trade using more BTC that fit in categories 2 and 3, which were larger quantities of BTC but also they required either the BTC price to come down or my average cost per BTC to come down in order that I would be able to authorize myself to be able to include those other amounts into the system that I was establishing. I also described my system to include a lot of trades that triggered very easily in order to provide me more and more opportunities to both profit and to reflect upon how what I was doing could be improved or tweaked.
So, since I had authorized myself to start trading somewhere in the ballpark of $250 per BTC, it is true that my ability to profit went up something more than 10x when the BTC price went up to $2,500 because the trades also included higher levels of my overall BTC stash.. so maybe the quantity in category 1 was only something like 10% of my overall BTC stash, by the time I got to category 2 (when the BTC price went above $320-ish), I was then able to use more than 50% of my stash for accounting of my trading options... and then when we got above $510-ish (it may have moved down to $480 when I got there), then I was able to use all of my BTC stash, which would have been around 10x the size of the original amount used in category 1. So by the time that the BTC price was $2,500 I had a 10x increase in the price, a 10x increase in the amount of the stash that I could use and also some other strategies that increased my profits even more by using larger spreads both in terms of quantity but also in terms of percentages of BTC price movement that was being used to trigger trades (because quite a bit of the practicing had already been accomplished)..
Part of my point is that to me it seems to be way the hell more meaningful to be "playing" with real money, even if small amounts because there is going to be more incentives to learn.. and especially becomes more important as the amounts go up.. and even funny that it seems to me that way more seriousness comes from even profiting in small amounts such as actual amounts of $.50 or $.26 or $1.82 per trade rather than hypothetically profiting or losing... anyhow, another principle is to outline each trade whether buying or selling to be profitable, whether it is the stacking of dollars or the stacking of sats.... and try to have systems in place that allow you to continue to be in the game, even if the BTC price drops 85% or more... .. sure preparations for the other price direction (aka UP) is important, too (which is a common failure of many normies.. and maybe not even normies).
My targets were minimums, not maximums. I don't see how having an infinite and undetermined possible value of a Bitcoin top is bearish?
huh? minimums.. yeah.. right.
I'm starting to learn why so many people do get rekt in this market when misinterpreting analysis to be honest though, no offence.
Your analyzing is part of your way of expressing your opinion, so don't be trying to assign your opinion more weight than it deserves merely because it is expressed with squigglies.. and merely because someone like yours truly don't get or appreciate some of the points that you are wanting to make through that or through your word descriptions of such..
Regarding getting reckt and supposedly having a need to rely on your analysis.. seems that you may well need some more humbling, no?
Let's say for example, you spot an easy-peasy trading opportunity to have an 80% chance of happening, but someone like me poo poos your information, and just continues to play around with 50/50 odds or even maybe I end up recognizing it as 59/41, but in the end, isn't your information a BIG so fucking what, even if you end up being correct? especially if I am already in a practice that is working for me, and the fact that there is free money on the table still ends up being a BIG so what if it is not within my practices to engage in attempts to grab that same free money that you are drooling over as being "obvious" with an "obvious" way to play it, no? In other words, you do you and the fact that you got the free money seems to be a BIG so what from my point of view.
Many people make the mistake of selling short-term strength as opposed to longer-term weakness, I do not however.
Good for you.. there are a variety of ways to engage in attempts to mitigate risks. So, I am having some troubles understanding the point(s) that you are wanting to make here.. besides just saying that you error on the side of HODLing..
By the way.. if Plan B is asserting that there is an average of $100k during this cycle 2020 to 2024 which means that there is a whole hell of a lot of time to make up in which BTC's prices have to trade above $100k in order to end up averaging $100k.. , and you are asserting that $100k might not get reached until 2024.. which largely seems to presume that our average for this cycle may end up around $50k..
Again, I'm not. I clearly said
by 2024, not
until 2024. So for reference sake that could be today, tomorrow, end of year, next year, 2023, or even 2024 itself.
I doubt that is clear from what you said.
Again, a complete misunderstanding of what I said. I merely explaining what would invalidate Plan B's model - nothing until 2024 at earliest basically.
Seems a bit vague if that's what you were wanting to communicate.
Furthermore many have been confused by Plan B's floor model it seems (completely misunderstood it), which isn't based on stock to flow, but his own understand of it.
yes.. he seems to be wrong about that floor model, and he really has not given details either.
As they say in the world of math: "I don't care how you got your answer, without the workings out it's useless".
Perhaps, but we do not have a teacher student relationship here. We have someone trying to be propriety about some of his information and/or methods regarding his "floor model".. but does not necessarily mean that he is making shit up.
His $98K by November is merely pulling a number out of hat based on his own interpretation of the market, like many speculators have done so. S2F merely anticipates
$83K being a fair price for Bitcoin by 2024, or
$122K by 2024 depending on which upgraded version you look at. On average, a target of $100K by 2024, NOT 2021. He has also made it clear that price not reaching $98K by the end of the month, which now looks considerably less likely, doesn't mean that his S2F model is invalidated, but that his floor model is broken. They are independent models after all.
I am not really disagreeing with you, and I doubt that there was very much emphasis to his floor model anyhow, even if it ended up largely being true in the end of August, September and October... but falling quite short for the end of November.
Hopefully not, but if some disciples want to panic-sell over it then they are welcome to. The floor model definitely did establish a pattern of being accurate, but alas it didn't last long.
Well, it seems that at least you and I have already established that a decent number of people are going to mis-assign probabilities to events which would include give too much weight to certain factors such as a BTC price prediction model including trying to trade upon such model with amounts of value that may well be failing/refusing to adequately account for risks.. (aka gambling). Not going to stop folks from engaging in such behaviors.. and surely there could be ways that bearwhales could manipulate members in that group beyond the employment of usual manipulation strategies and to purposefully cause a decent number of such normies to prematurely conclude that the model is completely broken or some other way of getting them to sell too many of their coins too soon or fail/refuse to adequately prepare their lil selfies for UPpity by buying or continuing to buy.
I listen to the S. Livera podcast after my last post, and PlanB is not backing away from his floor model. He is tentatively calling November an aberration and believes that we will be on target in December for $135k.. He is saying that it is based on 10 years of data.. . which also seems strange to me in terms of suggesting that such supposed upwards BTC price pressures are that damned high.. so I will believe it when I see it... if I see it.
Plan B is starting to sound like a denialist. He had a model that worked for 10 years of data, good for him. it's useless now though so best to move on. 75% accurate is poor quality. He's basically trying to blame the market as being wrong, as opposed to a model that has clearly failed him. His S2F still works, he should stick to that if you ask me. Or just make another model, ideally.
I cannot see anything as wrong as what you seem to be making it out to be with what PlanB is doing in terms of suggesting that he is not yet prepared to give up on his floor model. In this back and forth and other places, I believe that I have adequately stated both criticisms of PlanB and aspects of his various models, and in the end, there are various ways to take these models with grains of salt in terms of how helpful they are or they might be in terms of their logic or their rendition of various facts about BTC price history, momentum, where we are at, how we got here and where we might be going.. including that your asserting that PlanB needs to "give up" his floor model.. or that PlanB is fighting the facts (the actual market) too much just seems to come off as more personal than it needs to be.. but whatever, you do you.
Poll
