Richy_T
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2534
Merit: 2245
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 01, 2022, 07:21:46 PM |
|
Slow crawls up, fast slaps down. Prognosis: up.
|
|
|
|
dragonvslinux
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1694
Merit: 2213
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 01, 2022, 07:25:46 PM Merited by JayJuanGee (1) |
|
Probably my main criticism would be the presumption that the upwards slope is flattening as much as you are depicting it to do or that it is inclined to do.. I'm not depicting that the upwards slope is flattening, or presuming such a idea. Bitcoin's price has depicted such a fact, no-one else. Either that, or logarithms are a failed form of mathematics, despite being universally accepted since the 17th century. It's been developed over the centuries but otherwise remains a relatively simplistic equation, and yet to be proved wrong. Nuff said. You can proclaim it as maths and sciences until you are blue in the face, but I see that your chart has upside limitations on king daddy of about $280k until the early part of 2023 and your more drawn out chart does allow the amounts to continue to rise, and it is not exactly easy to read what those limitations into late 2025 and even 2026/2027 would be, but those limits seem to be quite a bit more restricted than I would consider them to be. [...] If you were able to zoom in on 2023 to 2027, I would be interested to see those numbers more clearly, and I will bet that my opinion of our range is broader and my opinion about the upside is higher, and I could give less than two shits about your supposed math and sciences that are supposedly driving your supposed version of truth. Ok, as requested, based on the TV indicator "log growth cruves", here is a zoomed in version of 2023-2027. As well as is possible to achieve at least. ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fs3.tradingview.com%2Fsnapshots%2Fr%2FrSHjMMhA.png&t=665&c=IOa4eQ3GRGNnmw) Since it's still near impossible to accurately identify the upper band, here is the rounded data from some crudely drawn lines (roughly identified): 2022: $148K 2023: $232K 2024: $360K 2025: $558K 2026: $838K 2027: $1.29M 2028: $1.9M For sure this log growth is only as accurate as when Bitcoin's price remains within it, as it has been the case for the past 10 years. If it were to break above or below and stay there, for example above ~$250K this year, and continue higher, then for sure it'd be invalidated. With the three touch-points from the peaks, it wouldn't be possible to re-calculate the upper band without missing a peak out, or "shifting it" as you put it. One thing about locking in a chart would be that the chart is what it is at that particular time, but I imagine if our lillie fiend, aka king daddy, ends up performing too much at the top of the parameters in the chart, then such parameters will be shifted up in later charts.. and the same is true with the range that appears to be narrowing.. they can be tweaked to account for the subsequent data. Not the case anymore no. Price will remain within it until it no longer remains within it, to put it simply. Previously with only two touch-points there was no accurate log growth, as the curve could merely be "shifted" to fit such a narrative, but since the 2017 top there is no shifting left that is possible. Ultimately this is why I like this log curve, because while it may not be right forever, like Bitcoin, this curve of logarithmic growth is immutable. For context and reference sake, the above chart is an exact replica of the zoomed-in version previously posted: I see it as more than possible that Bitcoin shifts away from this structured adoption and into a macro-sized bubble that eventually pops, in the same way the adoption could end and lead to a multi-year bear market, but so far I see no evidence of either event happened. It was close in March 2020, but alas price recovered quickly enough to return to the adoption trend.
|
|
|
|
cAPSLOCK
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3766
Merit: 5146
Whimsical Pants
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 01, 2022, 07:27:10 PM |
|
For all you ham radio enthusiast, a 97 year old station powering up and transmitting, amazing old technology. SAQ Grimeton Christmas Eve 2021 Transmission on December 24th https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ecg2UrKvNr8Edit: "SAQ is transmitting on one frequency only; 17.2 Khz, as the radio wave is generated mechanically and the rotating alternator cannot produce any higher frequency. The transmitter was installed in 1924 and it was in operation 24/7 for several years. During WWII it was used to communicate with sub marines, as the low frequency allows the radio wave to be recieved under water, down to about 6 meters (18 ft). We are on air 2-3 times a year. See our website alexander.n.se and subscribe to our newletter and you will be noticed in time before any." The antenna is 2,2 km long, that's a hell of an antenna. Fascinating well presented video, enjoyed that more than most of the crap I've endured over Christmas holidays. Don't know that cAPSLOCK's transceiver would pick up VLF as low 17.2Khz. Bitcoin price still hovering at mid December levels, no tears to shed. Optimistic for 2022. Arriemoller and all of WO Happy New Year and many more of them. I am not a radio expert by ANY means. But no, I am certain that under NORMAL circumstances my radio could not pick up a a 2km+ wavelength. Ha. It can RX down to 30k, but of course only in amateur ranges. I thin there would need to be some sort of converter and the right antenna, then I could do it. Perhaps when the time comes for a future TX I will see if I have the energy to put together what I need to receive. I am MOST interested in CW just on the basis of how far one can communicate on the amount of energy in a lightbulb. But I have exactly zero morse code skill whatsoever. It's one of those bucket list things I doubt I ever get around to. For those who want to get lost in the signal this is a fun site: http://websdr.ewi.utwente.nl:8901/
|
|
|
|
xhomerx10
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3962
Merit: 8553
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 01, 2022, 07:38:14 PM |
|
Nice! Giffed it for those who don't click links. ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4IuKH21.gif&t=665&c=0VkJv1jozQV7mg)
|
|
|
|
OutOfMemory
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 3309
Man who stares at charts (and stars, too...)
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 01, 2022, 07:38:59 PM |
|
I think you cannot get MOAR accurate than this! Perfect find! Marmolada was my closest guess, however. So is the formation in the background the Langkofel/Plattkofel group?
|
|
|
|
Febo
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2730
Merit: 1288
|
|
|
|
|
ChartBuddy
Legendary
Online
Activity: 2296
Merit: 1801
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/lamp.gif) |
January 01, 2022, 08:01:28 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
Richy_T
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2534
Merit: 2245
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 01, 2022, 08:01:36 PM |
|
But now they are literally stealing from Edgar Rice Burroughs and that pisses me off. ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi1.wp.com%2Fthejohncarterfiles.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F12%2FScreen-shot-2011-12-03-at-8.36.12-PM.png&t=665&c=TRjVxbNn3iYjtg) Star Wars always stole from a bunch of stuff so I wouldn't really hold that against them. What I do hold against them is that they're producing shit.
|
|
|
|
JayJuanGee
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3836
Merit: 10792
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 01, 2022, 08:15:23 PM |
|
JJG, I don’t know what has gotten into you but damn, I like it. Short and snappy. Calling out bullshitters. Weeding out faulty thinking. Demeaning hidden socialists. I’d love to see this continue in 2022. Happy New Year to everyone ![Grin](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/grin.gif) Thanks, but I am thinking that such phenomena is likely not sustainable. Happy New Year to you too. @jjg "A false irrelevant and unimportant indicator that you would like to cause to be relevant, when it no doesn't mean shit."
I think it is quite important, and if you think that it doesn't than you are delusional. To go in one year from 73% to 40% is not nothing. In actuality, i was actually cheering it UP, not down and you got enraged by a mere mentioning of the word. What's wrong with you?
Still irrelevant, even if you want to reiterate how you believe it to be important and that you are cheering for our own good..blah blah blah... does not cause it to become more relevant than its already irrelevant status. @jjg Regarding our bet-I would like to call your bullshit on this.
Here are my odds and conditions:
Since you give 25% to above 200K, I would bet 0.4 btc that it won't exceed 200K until 1pm EST Sept 1, 2022 and YOU would bet 0.1 btc that btc would be above 200K at some point between now and the date mentioned here earlier. 4:1 odds in YOUR favor. I don't care betting on exceeding 30-65K range and I would not accept any other conditions.
uie-pooie says what?
Last I checked, 3rd quarter goes through the end of September not the beginning of September. Aside from the amounts, which I already stated that I was not too excited about your earlier suggested amount of 0.31 BTC, I am not that much more encouraged about your reduction of that to 1/3 (on my end)... Your supposed charitable 4 to 1 odds are like around my break even odds, so why the hell would I want to engage in a break-even odds bet? do people actually take bets with break even odds?. .. especially when you had been putting 99 to 1 odds on a similar framing of the thing... so uie-pooie want to place all of the potential surplus value of our differing perspectives into your hands..... and sure maybe I am feeling uncomfortable about the exactness of 25%, and so in that regard, I am more inclined to attempt to take advantage of some of the surplus that comes from your assertion of 99% odds that $200k would not happen within 12 months.. didn't you initially say you dweeb?... So I think a lot of this whole matter, from my perspective, would be challenging the outrageousness of your assertion that the odds are ONLY 1% in a year, and then you are not even close to wanting to stand behind anything close to your own assertion but trying to get the best of the scenarios and surplus value from my quite likely way more reasonable assertions.. or if you really believe that I am being outrageous, then even splitting the baby in the middle of 1/20 odds or 1/40 odds should not bother you since you conceive the whole matter as less than 1% odds.. .. and surely if you were giving me 1/99 odds, you surely would be a whole hell of a lot less inclined to be wanting to bet .4 BTC on your end when 99/1 odds would cause me to only have to put up 0.004 BTC to cover such a 1/99 odds bet, right? So I already asserted that I may well be willing to compromise in terms of attempting to figure out ways to split the surplus value rather than your seeming to strive to take any such surplus value for ur lil selfie. So, don't be trying to assert that you are trying to call my supposed "bullshit" when you are trying to shave all of the surplus value in seemingly three ways (maybe even four?) regarding 1) the dates ( 1a) was that a mistake on the end of the quarter? and 1b) did you not originally assert 12 months for the BTC price not going above $200k? not that an additional 3 months changes a whole hell of a lot for me, but you are the one who originally proclaimed no supra $200k for 12months.. originally you said "none at all" then later you downgraded that to 1%), 2) the odds of your wanting to harp on my 25% assertion when you are the one who stated 1%.. so there is a pretty damned big difference between 1% and 25%, last time I checked and 3) the amount of money at stake that I already suggested that I did not need any such bet to be a lot of money.. and you sticking with unnecessarily high bet amounts.. which you persistently showing yourself as a dweeb.. Just to flesh out the aspect of the money, like I already suggested, I may be willing to agree to higher bet amounts if the odds were to be more acceptable.. and even though I would not mind holding you to somewhere in the ballpark of your original proclamation of 99/1 odds. Sure, I believe that I would be willing to compromise with your own assignment of odds in some kind of way.. and I am already saying that I am not that passionate to try to defend my own earlier assignment of 25%-ish odds.. because I do not consider my already existing odds to be outrageous yet, at the same time, I don't exactly feel passionate about if my assignment of percentages might be off by even 50% (such as having a variance in my odds of 12.5% or 37.5%), so probably in that regard, I would not start to feel inclined to even want to bet if I am not getting at least outside of some kind of a reasonable variance from my already asserted numbers.. such as getting more than 50% outside of my already assignment of probabilities.. and of course, it would be better to get even more than my variance.. especially since you had already stated numbers that I consider to be outrageous and that your own odds are ONLY 1% for a year for going over $200k.. how much variance off of your percentage do you need... apparently from your own harping on my assignment of 25%, you need something like 25x variance in order to feel comfortable.. or can you be a bit more solid in describing how much variance you might need, and then at that point, maybe we could split the difference from the point of figuring out our variance? Anyhow, you are also easily just wanting to be stubborn about your supposed bet terms, even though I am going to attempt to try flexible about your own earlier stubborn assertions to keep open if we cannot figure out reasonable terms regarding the $200K question, then there still could be some room for your assertion that you believe that we are staying in $30k to $65k for the next 12 months, even though I can see that the differences in our assignments of probabilities to that seems to be quite a bit smaller, so we would not have as much to work with regarding that one, even though by definition supra $65k would end up playing out way sooner than any supra $200k question.
|
|
|
|
Biodom
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3878
Merit: 4285
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 01, 2022, 08:30:58 PM Last edit: January 01, 2022, 08:57:27 PM by Biodom |
|
OK, 9mo is Oct 1 3:30pm now, indeed. Apart from this, you just want to weasel out, do you? You don't even have the funds or the courage, so fuck off or take 4:1 odds (which you implied) like a man (whatever).
Well, it could be 0.31 from you and 1.24 btc from me if you want this. ...I am going to enjoy it (taking about half of your s-t).
no other terms and no terms about your 30-65K betting bullshit. take the odds in your favor or stfu.
|
|
|
|
Richy_T
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2534
Merit: 2245
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 01, 2022, 08:34:28 PM |
|
I used to think kitesurfing is the most entertaining thing you can do with clothes on, but I was wrong, apparently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jknFd8oidZY
|
|
|
|
bitserve
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1477
Self made HODLER ✓
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 01, 2022, 08:59:21 PM |
|
MicroStrategy.
124,391 BTC
~
$5.9 billion
Stock market-cap of the company: $6.251 billion
The stock price seems undervalued considering before they started to buy BTC MicroStrategy's market-cap was already $1.5billion.
For anyone not wanting to own BTC directly for whatever reason (storing keys or whatever) buying MS shares seems a safe bet at the moment.
You know you need to substract the current debt, don't you? All in all considered... it is still a bit OVERvalued. Check your maths.
|
|
|
|
ChartBuddy
Legendary
Online
Activity: 2296
Merit: 1801
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/lamp.gif) |
January 01, 2022, 09:01:36 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
Richy_T
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2534
Merit: 2245
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 01, 2022, 09:03:39 PM |
|
I swear, that video has fucked up my life today. I'm going through doors thinking "there is a more efficient way".
Because that guy's way IS more efficient. UG! All those wasted years!
It only works if there is space to slide into by the side of the door which is not the general case.
|
|
|
|
strawbs
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 868
Merit: 1340
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 01, 2022, 09:12:18 PM |
|
Happy new year to you all!
Wishing you all colorful caps, happy haikus, cheerful choppers and delightful dildos (green, of course) in the year ahead. Hold on tight, anything could happen...
|
|
|
|
serveria.com
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2352
Merit: 1189
Privacy Servers. Since 2009.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 01, 2022, 09:12:19 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
serveria.com
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2352
Merit: 1189
Privacy Servers. Since 2009.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 01, 2022, 09:15:17 PM |
|
Yeah, inflation is gonna eat his billions. Should've bought bitcoins when he had a chance.
That wealth isn't in filthy fiat. He'll cash it out suspiciously just before a bubble burst and leave the plebs holding their bags. Speaking about filthy fiat... today is the birthday of EUR currency. ![Shocked](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/shocked.gif)
|
|
|
|
JayJuanGee
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3836
Merit: 10792
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 01, 2022, 09:25:47 PM |
|
Probably my main criticism would be the presumption that the upwards slope is flattening as much as you are depicting it to do or that it is inclined to do.. I'm not depicting that the upwards slope is flattening, or presuming such a idea. Bitcoin's price has depicted such a fact, no-one else. Either that, or logarithms are a failed form of mathematics, despite being universally accepted since the 17th century. It's been developed over the centuries but otherwise remains a relatively simplistic equation, and yet to be proved wrong. Nuff said. You can proclaim it as maths and sciences until you are blue in the face, but I see that your chart has upside limitations on king daddy of about $280k until the early part of 2023 and your more drawn out chart does allow the amounts to continue to rise, and it is not exactly easy to read what those limitations into late 2025 and even 2026/2027 would be, but those limits seem to be quite a bit more restricted than I would consider them to be. [...] If you were able to zoom in on 2023 to 2027, I would be interested to see those numbers more clearly, and I will bet that my opinion of our range is broader and my opinion about the upside is higher, and I could give less than two shits about your supposed math and sciences that are supposedly driving your supposed version of truth. Ok, as requested, based on the TV indicator "log growth cruves", here is a zoomed in version of 2023-2027. As well as is possible to achieve at least. ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fs3.tradingview.com%2Fsnapshots%2Fr%2FrSHjMMhA.png&t=665&c=IOa4eQ3GRGNnmw) Since it's still near impossible to accurately identify the upper band, here is the rounded data from some crudely drawn lines (roughly identified): 2022: $148K 2023: $232K 2024: $360K 2025: $558K 2026: $838K 2027: $1.29M 2028: $1.9M For sure this log growth is only as accurate as when Bitcoin's price remains within it, as it has been the case for the past 10 years. If it were to break above or below and stay there, for example above ~$250K this year, and continue higher, then for sure it'd be invalidated. With the three touch-points from the peaks, it wouldn't be possible to re-calculate the upper band without missing a peak out, or "shifting it" as you put it. One thing about locking in a chart would be that the chart is what it is at that particular time, but I imagine if our lillie fiend, aka king daddy, ends up performing too much at the top of the parameters in the chart, then such parameters will be shifted up in later charts.. and the same is true with the range that appears to be narrowing.. they can be tweaked to account for the subsequent data. Not the case anymore no. Price will remain within it until it no longer remains within it, to put it simply. Previously with only two touch-points there was no accurate log growth, as the curve could merely be "shifted" to fit such a narrative, but since the 2017 top there is no shifting left that is possible. Ultimately this is why I like this log curve, because while it may not be right forever, like Bitcoin, this curve of logarithmic growth is immutable. For context and reference sake, the above chart is an exact replica of the zoomed-in version previously posted: I see it as more than possible that Bitcoin shifts away from this structured adoption and into a macro-sized bubble that eventually pops, in the same way the adoption could end and lead to a multi-year bear market, but so far I see no evidence of either event happened. It was close in March 2020, but alas price recovered quickly enough to return to the adoption trend. Most of your descriptions are fair, and so maybe there is not as much room for disagreement to proclaim that the projection describes many of the more likely scenarios, even though I continue to have some concern about how some of the attempts to place this kind of bitcoin performance matter in terms of math does ascribe way more certainty to a variety of scenarios than they likely deserve.. as I believe I already attempted to outline in my earlier description of an outlier out performance situation that could end up playing out, but I concede it to be an outlier and the model seems to nearly completely negate it.. even your own description of the model and possibilities seems to negate it.. until it were to happen (if it did), then you say.. o.k. we will adjust the model to account for the new data. By the way, as I already mentioned the $232k max for the beginning of 2023 does seem to have some inadequacies, as I had already outlined in my earlier response, and maybe the beginning of 2027 has similar limitations with its $1.29 million number, but even I am not going to attempt to proclaim how the next cycle might play out until this cycle progresses further along.. but I surely already mentioned scenarios in which that $1.29 million could end up getting exceeded in this particular cycle, so it would be silly considering $1.29 million as a limit for the beginning of 2027... and sure, going through BTC price performance that underperforms the various lower limits such as through 2022 and even into 2023 could also end up causing some similar kinds of concerns regarding what numbers (for the next cycle) are still seeming reasonable... and sure, there can be some value in terms of having those numbers projected into the future, but the playing out of each cycle can end up causing reconsiderations and even adjustments to the curve whether from my own attempts at modeling or your asserted mathematical and scientifically correct approach... so yeah, at some point, it might no longer make sense to talk in terms of cycles, but I am not going to stop talking in terms of cycles until it becomes a wee bit more clear about how this cycle is actually playing out and wether we might call cycles as dead if we do not end up getting a blow off top in the next 1-9 months.. or soon thereafter if a kind of outlier scenario were to play out that still might be considered to fit within a kind of "cycle" framework. Regarding March 2020, for sure we could have ended up having a 6-12 month sticking at the bottom of the range and below the range.. and then all kinds of shit could have happened to either cause the BTC price to either quickly bounce back into its previous range or go above its previous range or even go into a lower orbit of a range.... so yeah, maybe that could have ended up like a shifting of the curve.. and the model has difficulties accounting for those various scenarios so in that regard, there may well end up being less utility in terms of needs to be prepared for extremes, even if there may end up being scenarios where we revert back to the mean... but in the meantime, everyone of those who had relied upon the model are dead because they did not adequately prepare for a scenario or set of scenarios that were foreseeable but almost completely not contained in the model. OK, 9mo is Oct 1 3:30pm now, indeed. Apart from this, you just want to weasel out, do you? You don't even have the funds or the courage, so fuck off or take 4:1 odds (which you implied) like a man (whatever).
Well, it could be 0.31 from you and 1.24 btc from me if you want this. ...I am going to enjoy it (taking about half of your s-t).
no other terms and no terms about your 30-65K betting bullshit. take the odds in your favor or stfu.
I already stated my various concerns, way better than your various absolutisms. You are not even close to trying to stand behind your previous BTC price assertions for the coming year, which was largely the issue that I was challenging... You don't even seem to believe what you post.. not even close. I never came out with such bold-ass bullshit like you, even though I am more than willing to stand behind my numbers within the variance that I had already stated..... but I had never made bold assertions, as far as I can tell... anyhow, part of my motive had been to attempt to hold your feet to the fire a wee bit moar better in terms of some of the outrageousness that you were proclaiming, and you are not even close to being willing to stand behind your nonsensical claims of 1% odds that BTC crosses over $200k in the next year or even some variation.. which I attempt to give you some wiggle room to get out of.. but like any of the disingenuine trolls, you try to put the whole burden on me.. which again, I don't consider myself to be making outrageous claims. even though I mentioned that I would likely need to have a 50% variance for myself to feel comfortable in terms of taking a bet that is for me to stand by my numbers; however, it seems to me that you stubborn lil fucktwat only want to get a 25x variance on your earlier asserted claims or some thing that is way off into ridiculous land and shows that you have nothing even close to conviction regarding your earlier nonsensical assertions. By the way, I do like my 25% numbers with a 50% variance.... and even if I took my earlier assertion of 29%-ish.. my 50% variance would still allow me a 14.5% to 43.5% range.. which helps me to think through what kind of a odds that I would want to have in order to feel that I am working through my variance too... so that makes my comfort even better regarding how to frame a bet with some dweeb like you that I would be willing to take. hahahahahaha.. so at least you helped me to think through that idea, you otherwise nearly worthless dweeb (#nohomo)... haahahahahahaha ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif) Of course, none of us should be completely locked into our numbers, and surely I was attempting to consider my comfort levels with some of the numbers that had foundations on December 16 when I made the assignment of probabilities post for various price ranges and timelines... At some point I will be updating my numbers, and surely if we were to get close to framing any kind of a bet (which does not seem that we are even close to that), I might well want to update my numbers, even though in some sense I am tentatively thinking that my numbers have not really changed too much from December 16, even though I know there has been some deflating of bull bubbles since December 16 and even a certain amount of depression from some of the bitcoin bulls in regards to how the BTC price has been failing/refusing to get back above $52k since December 3... so some dispiriting short-term aspects have been developing, and there could be some needs for me to reconsider some of my December 16 projections at some point.
|
|
|
|
Biodom
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3878
Merit: 4285
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 01, 2022, 09:31:57 PM Last edit: January 01, 2022, 10:02:23 PM by Biodom |
|
@jjg...i hope EVERYONE has seen now that you weaseled out from a straight bet with a VERY favorable odds. To me, it says a LOT. Here is something for you to put your hat on now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H5a-l9-hqUto me, this sounds ridiculous, but the 'weasel party' would like it. a small question: if it goes to 2023, then why it is even a cycle?
|
|
|
|
ChartBuddy
Legendary
Online
Activity: 2296
Merit: 1801
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/lamp.gif) |
January 01, 2022, 10:01:27 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|