Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[JayJuanGee]

@jjg...you are posting pure nonsense.

@bitebits reference analyzed ALL scenarios and the conclusion is there:

"LS consistently outperforms DCA across all time periods, short term and long term.
The longer the time period, the more LS tends to outperform DCA."

You can't fight the math...but, of course, you will.

Hiding behind "normies" having no money, etc etc does not mean that what you peddle is correct.
"Normies" have money, and if they don't, they could even borrow some against some property if they want to get a lump some.
I did it myself a couple times in the oughts.
In fact, we both know that my LS strategy vastly outperfomed your DCA.

I stand by my points.

You are not making any new points, and you are also refusing to actually either work with the actual hypothetical that's in front of us (which is the $100 per week income starting from January 2014) or to provide specifics regarding at which point in time extra lump sum dollar amounts would be available (at the beginning of the investment period or at various points in the middle).

You are also failing/refusing to deal with my already concession that the more sophisticated that you are (or the more time that you have to study the matter), then the more likely you can tweak to improve upon a strict DCA approach by employing lump sum buying and or buying on dips.

In other words, you seem to be making up your own bullshit, attributing false issues to me and then saying:  "lookie, lookie, I am the winner" blah blah blah.. It's not that I don't even like you, but you surely are not grappling with the actual employment of a system or attempting to make fair, reasonable and practical comparative applications with anything more than vague innuendos.. with some kind of seeming maniacal obsession of wanting to be right no matter what.. .

I'll keep repeating this, the average person/normies/whatever you want to call them will never #BTFD! they will buy at #ATH without hesitation, so LS will never work for them!

and i am sure for ever LS that has done better than DCA in terms of accumulating Bitcoin, i can show you the opposite!

However, we are all missing one critical point here!.. As long and both DCA and LS gets people into accumulating Bitcoin, then i am all for it!

I am not against any of the accumulation strategies to get normies in the door, so in that sense I have been given a bad rap (and mischaracterized as if I ONLY give any shits about DCA - even though I proclaim that DCA is the best of the strategies to get normie newbies started.. otherwise they won't.. otherwise they will panic.. otherwise they will buy at the top and sell at the bottom).

So part of my point is that DCA (or some variations of DCA) allows normie newbies to also invest way more aggressively over a long period of time, as compared to someone who is some what scared about how to time the market and ONLY ends up buying one time in 2015 and waits for his (more or less 20) coins to go up to $10 million each, and if he had been DCA'ing all along, he would have probably bought way more coins and he also probably would have spent way more money per coin.. but in the long run, he is better off because he spent $47k and got around 45 BTC rather than spending ONLY about $6k and getting 20 BTC or perhaps spending $20k and getting 30 BTC.  

There are a lot of variations of how the comparisons of the whimpy versus the more persistent investor could play out for sure, but part of my attempted point remains that an ongoing DCA'ing strategy helps someone (normie newbie) to pay attention, learn along the way and perhaps begin to supplement his/her ongoing BTC accumulation strategy with buy on dips and various lump sum buys as s/he gets more comfortable... I am not all or nothing into DCA, even though I consider it to be amongst the best (if not the best) of starting strategies for normie newbies.

@jjg..."Therefore, you have not addressed the issue.  $100 per week budget starting from January 2014.  When are you going to spend those building up $100 per week amounts?  What are your striking points for your various purchases over the past 470 weeks, starting from January 2014? "

Of course, if you are starting from essentially zero, then you invest the part of the cashflow.
However I was mostly talking about a hypothetical person who already have some capital and is willing to spend at least a significant portion of it.
In the latter case, as @bitebis had posted, LS almost always beats DCA, no ifs and buts.

Part of the problem is that you continue to fail/refuse to even attempt to make realistic apples to apples comparisons.. just like that article did too.

I started to respond with specifics, but it seems like a fucking waste of time, and you just want to presume your conclusion and to act as if a DCA system is just inferior for a newbie normie.. so why continue to waste time on this.. you can believe what you like with your selective pie in the sky renditions..

Therefore, for those who have nothing, a way of doing it would be to raise a chunk of money first (however, it had better be done maybe 3-6 mo ago), then invest that in one go (or 1/3 per mo for three months) and THEN DCA.

There's no reason to raise money first.

Yeah, get your finances in order, but most people already have some ballpark idea about their budget whether their income exceeds their expenses and whether they can afford $100 per week or if they might ONLY be able to afford $10 week until figuring out their finances and psychology.

However, that's just me and my approach.
Anything is better than staying at zero, you got that part right.

Maybe we should hug?

IMHO, however, people would tend to favor bitcoin when investing a "chunk" while the same people may waste money on itty-bitty "long shots" instead if investing in small increments (similar to lottery tickets).

Why not both?

One reason is purely psychological because you only get 0.004 btc for $100 while they consider getting 7 mil of some dog-related s-coin as "it's more units, man", which is completely erroneous, of course.

We are not even talking about buying shitcoins.  Focus.  If you started buying in January 2014, between January 2014 and late 2016, you would have gotten anywhere between 0.1 BTC and even close to 0.5 BTC for $100, depending on when you bought... so if there were 306 weeks during that period, you could have  spent weekly or you could have tried to be strategic about saving up for certain points in time to buy your chunks.  Once you establish some BTC you are likely in a better place than merely waiting.. but hey if you want to wait, then all the more power to you.  After the fact, you can see where the better buying opportunities were between 2014 and 2016, but in the whole scheme of things, if you did the vast majority of your investing during that time, is it going to really make a whole hell of a lot of difference if your average per BTC was $300 versus if it was $1k per BTC, and maybe you got a lower average per BTC, but does not necessarily mean that you were as aggressive in your BTC buying... so maybe you end up with 20-25BTC that you got on average for less than $500, but the guy with 40-50 BTC may well be better off, even if he ended up paying close to $1k per BTC...

actually I just looked it up, and DCAing between January 2014 and December 2014, still gives you less than $400 per BTC... are you going to beat that with lump summing?. invest $15,700, get 40 BTC..  You think that your lumpsumming is going to beat that? and still allow you to be as aggressive, persistent and steadfast?  I doubt it.. that's why you ONLY got 20 BTC during that period, even though you ONLY spent $6k, too.. but are you better off with that approach?  Maybe for you, but what about a generally applicable approach?

I would never do it, but people do it left and right.
Spending 5-25K at once (LS) gives you a more "tangible" amount of bitcoin and removes the distraction of the low value s-coins.
Sure, there could be a gambler who spends $5-25K on a s-coin, but I assume that those are a very small minority.

Sounds like you are arguing backwards to me.  Between January 2014 and December 2016 how many times would you have made those lump sum investments into BTC rather than DCAing throughout that period?  Once per year?  and when specifically?  how do you know?  how do you make a general applicable principle/system for normies that is even fucking close to DCA?  Yeah, any of us can get a wee of a bit of an inclination for when a dip is happening or when the BTC price is going up, but we still have hardly no fucking clue about if the dip is going to stop dipping or if the Uppity is going to reverse.. so that leaves us back with the dilemas regarding when exactly and how much and DCA provides some answers to that which relates to the Nike slogan.. "just do it!!!"  something like that.   

[philipma1957]

@jjg..."Therefore, you have not addressed the issue.  $100 per week budget starting from January 2014.  When are you going to spend those building up $100 per week amounts?  What are your striking points for your various purchases over the past 470 weeks, starting from January 2014? "

Of course, if you are starting from essentially zero, then you invest the part of the cashflow.
However I was mostly talking about a hypothetical person who already have some capital and is willing to spend at least a significant portion of it.
In the latter case, as @bitebis had posted, LS always beats DCA, no ifs and buts.

Therefore, for those who have nothing, a way of doing it would be to raise a chunk of money first (however, it had better be done maybe 3-6 mo ago), then invest that in one go ( onr 1/3 per mo) and THEN DCA.
However, that's just me and my approach.
Anything is better than staying at zero, you got that part right.

IMHO, however, people would tend to favor bitcoin when investing a "chunk" while the same people may waste money on itty-bitty "long shots" instead if investing in small increments (similar to lottery tickets).
One reason is purely psychological because you only get 0.004 btc for $100 while they consider getting 7 mil of some dog-related s-coin as "it's more units, man", which is completely erroneous, of course.
I would never do it, but people do it left and right.
Spending 5-25K at once (LS) gives you a more "tangible" amount of bitcoin and removes the distraction of the low value s-coins.
Sure, there could be a gambler who spends $5-25K on a s-coin, but I assume that those are a very small minority.

Someone I know, LS (100k+) in October 2021 - $62K.... lots of "ifs" and "buts" here!

Besides why are we ignoring the elephant in the room (or maybe it has been mentioned, but i am too tired to find it)...

Saylor/MicroStrategy, we would all agree he had LS into bitcoin right? $4,027,052,651 between 11th August 2020 and 27th December 2022 for a final total of 132,500BTC

If he had Weekly DCA, 125Weeks @ $32,216,421.21/Week would have yielded, 153,738BTC

Again, lots of "ifs" and "buts" here!

EDIT: other DCA calculators are showing 186,451BTC.

With all due respect, you are just engaging in anecdote comparisons.
Look at the graphs and read the text in the original post here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg61777181#msg61777181

Your friend and Michael Saylor are just current exceptions (small % of all scenarios).
However, when btc trades at 250K, your friend would be sitting pretty vs small DCAers in between.
Same for M. Saylor, however, it is a special case since he went overboard (with loans) close to the top.
IF he only made that initial purchase at 17K, he would be in-the-money already.

Why not settle for once and for all.

DCA  started 2009 to 2016 most dca buys started any of these times loses to buy and hold started these times

DCA started 2017 to 2023 most dca buy started during these times wins to buy and hold started these times.


buy and hold 2009 to 2016

buy and hold 2017 to 2023.

reverse is true for bud and hold.


yeah if you purchase don the covid flash crash at 3900 and held to now it is better than dca from that day.


What is happening is BTC is more valuable and thus DCA is more likely to win over buy and hold.


I am lazy but if you check every data point in the time frame above I am 99% sure buy and hold was better in early times

and DCA is better in later times.

and we are in later times.


which is why I do more DCA and hold  than buy and hold.

[El duderino_]

Only chart I look @

[AlcoHoDL]

Time — The New AI-Powered Bing Is Threatening Users. That’s No Laughing Matter

...and Marvin von Hagen's Bing Chat exchange.

Interesting times we live in.

[JayJuanGee]

Explanation

Prepare for $10K or some sh!t like that before the rally to 100K.            

I kinda sold almost everything. Even the sh!tcoins. Especially the sh!tcoins.  (I did kept some few things but maybe 10% from everything that was important)    

Prepare for dumpster.fire.sh!t.show!!        

Poor widdo tingilie.. no doesn't have no cornz.  

Sucks to be uie-pooie...

dumb and all of that to boot...

By the way, you should know better than that..  
1st of all.. never go full fiat.. you dumb twat...
second.. you are selling BTC and the price is still below the 200-week moving average, and even if you are trolling us with your proclamations of $10k-ish, it is getting more difficult to have confidence that the bottom is not already in.. with our $15,479.. so.. you might have troubles, even if your worser case scenario plays out to get coins even sub $20k or even sub $18k, or whatever pie in the sky visions that you are setting forth..

third I recall you talked this kind of dumb talk previously too (like 2017/2018).. and gosh you must have gotten reckt pretty badly back then too;.. so history repeats itself, no?  over and over and over again, and some folks never seem to learn, right? 


right? 




riiiiiiiigggghhhhttt?

[edited out]

Someone I know, LS (100k+) in October 2021 - $62K.... lots of "ifs" and "buts" here!

Yes normies tend to do these kinds of things.. with frequency.. and several variations of similar kinds of scenarios in which they have difficulties figuring out how to employ lump sum in a good kind of way and then they end up doing way too much at the wrong time.. and then having no back up plan..

Hey from my point of view, there would have been nothing wrong with your friend to have had divided his/her $100k into three parts, and then Lump sum with 1/3, and then set the other 2/3 with buying on dips and DCA.. s/he still would have run out of money on the way down to $20k, but still lowered cost per BTC with a likely better psychology.... and then another question is whether there might have been some cashflow that would have continued to come in over the last year and a y half?  Something like $100 per week to continue to buy or at least to strategize what to do with the $100 per week that might have had been coming in during the last year and a half or so.

Besides why are we ignoring the elephant in the room (or maybe it has been mentioned, but i am too tired to find it)...

Saylor/MicroStrategy, we would all agree he had LS into bitcoin right? $4,027,052,651 between 11th August 2020 and 27th December 2022 for a final total of 132,500BTC

If he had Weekly DCA, 125Weeks @ $32,216,421.21/Week would have yielded, 153,738BTC

Again, lots of "ifs" and "buts" here!

EDIT: other DCA calculators are showing 186,451BTC.

I doubt that Saylor is a good example to argue in terms of supporting either way, and sure we can Monday morning quarter-back him and pick out areas in which he did well and other areas in which he seemed to have had screwed up.. .. but overall, I don't even think that he represents anything that bad.. but this is what people or institutions do.. which seems to be part of your point, hisslyness.

Saylor started out in July/August 2020 with several lump sum buys, but then he was kind of buying regularly in such a way that those lump sums really ended up being a kind of DCA.. because he was buying at any price, but then at some point, he seemed to realize that he was running out of money so he could not buy as frequently, but he has not stopped buying... so he is a bit of a strange duck that is difficult to apply to normies in the sense that he seemed to have had started out good by having quite a few BTC buys in the $10k price arena.. but then he just kept going and even doubling down at higher prices, which seems almost more deranged than what normies might do, but he still was acting within the confines of experimenting with pushing leverage of what a public company could do.. a public company with pretty decent assets and also pretty decent profitable cashflow too.

[edited out].

Your friend and Michael Saylor are just current exceptions (small % of all scenarios).
However, when btc trades at 250K, your friend would be sitting pretty vs small DCAers in between.
Same for M. Saylor, however, it is a special case since he went overboard (with loans) close to the top.
IF he only made that initial purchase at 17K, he would be in-the-money already.

You are not really making any kind of special case that Lump sum is better than DCA, Biodom, - even though you are seeming to make the case that time in the market it better than timing the market, and you also seem to be making the case that aggressiveness pays off when it comes to BTC investing, which seems to be a wee bit contradictory to my understanding of your own personal whimpiness (nohomo) history when it comes to BTC and the various points in which you expressed scaredy-kittycattedness in the years that I have known uie-pooie...

You were especially scaredy kitty catty prior to 2020-ish.. It seems that you have ONLY recently been expressing ur lil selfie a wee bit more bullishly.. and yeah, sure you were somewhat conservative in regards to our 2021 top.. but you were not so confident as to enter a bet with yours truly on the topic.. which it seems that I would have lost that bet, but part of the point is that you weaseled out of such bet negotiations (to the extent that you could have even had been taken seriously) and you were not willing to commit to the absolutist terms that you had been expressing in terms of "we are not going there" blah blah blah.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Lainta]

JUST IN: “If a platform is a silo, a protocol is a river: no one owns it, and everyone is free to swim.” - Ed Snowden

…Sounds like #Bitcoin and #Nostr 👀

https://twitter.com/BitcoinNewsCom/status/1626717186118291463?t=ak_EWg7AZUZMJ9QfR1hQnw&s=19

[JayJuanGee]

https://twitter.com/BitcoinMagazine/status/1626574172439674883

That's actually a decently good clip... in which it is being pointed out that some of the status quo rich are pretty dumb when it comes to bitcoin.. even though people like to look up to the status quo rich as if they were experts because they are rich.. but what else is new? 

We have all kinds of misinformation out there, including some smart people who seem to know a lot of things, but then they keep talking about crypto whatever the fuck that is?  So some of the pundits might get everything right, but then some of those who are criticizing the status quo rich still fail to correct the record sufficiently enough to use the word bitcoin rather than allowing the word crypto to be used in an unchecked / unclarified kind of way, too... although the word bitcoin was still used in that little 20 second clip.

This week's return to the bull mode was a bit surprising and a very positive sign.  The confidence is slowly returning and for now there is no indication that some FTX @ Aldmeda like companies are manipulating the market as in 2022. It seems that 2019 mini bull is repeating in 2023. If all goes according to plan the top should be 48K somewhere in late March or April. To this number I've arrived in 4 different ways - 2 extrapolations from 2 points, 1 historic top resistance and 1 purely psychological factor - 50K! And if it is a short lived peak as in 2019 then the price will return in the upper 30K. After that it may come back to the lower 30K or even below that, before the start of the real bull in 2024. Having said that, I don't see it as the most probable scenario. IMO the chances for the top of this bull until May 2023 are:
41K - 48K - 15%
31K - 40K - 30%
26K - 30K - 35%
25K - 26K - 20%

However, if the bull market is confirmed next week and we break 26K, the prob. chart will look like this:
41K - 48K - 30%
31K - 40K - 45%
26K - 30K - 25%

You are still a bit bearish (maybe shell shocked), and nothing wrong with that.. .there is some good in having conservative scenarios and being pleasantly surprised if the upside ends up playing out, and of course, I personally do not play my finances and/or my psychology in such a way that I need to get high returns in order to feel financially and psychologically comfortable in regards to where BTC prices ended up going (as compared with where they were anticipated to go).

The study is flawed because it equates prices before mass adoption and after. Unless you have a way of predicting early unicorn investments, only the time scale from 2018 onwards should be considered, as the market cap shows this is when the mass adoption of Bitcoin really began. The prices were at 8-10k.

I have some difficulties in trying to figure out "when to start" bitcoin price dynamics too.  I tend to default to something like 2012 or 2013, but still there are problems with those starting dates too, but at least bitcoin had established somewhat of a price on a variety of exchanges by that time versus some of the very difficult times of trying to get BTC in 2010 and 2011 and who the fuck even knew about bitcoin in 2010 and 2011 besides Jimbo.. hahahahaha

So it seems that in these relatively early days of bitcoin there are always going to be ways to attempt to frame the matter in such a way that it just seems unrealistic to be comparing current possibilities to earlier possibilities, but that seems to both be part of the nature of ongoing s-curve exponential adoption and the seemingly way that the BTC price plays out.. so some of the financial tools have become more sophisticated too, but it is likely in future cycles that we are going to have bigger institutions and more governments getting involved in actual bitcoin investing even more overtly than they might be doing now.. even though it seems that institutional getting involved in bitcoin is still likely pretty low, even if they are doing it covertly and even if they are fucking around with paper bitcoin and various financial instruments that ended up fucking some of them in recent times.

I still think that it is fair to go back to 2012/2013 as a starting point, even though it is true that we get more involvement and more sophisticated financial instruments, but a lot of the craziness likely gets sorted out in the wash. .and some of the same patterns from as early as 2012/2013 are likely to continue to exist and persist, even though the players are BIGGER now... and there have been changes in BTC too.. .. but in the end, there is a lack of evidence to really argue that now is different and that we need to start from a more mature market (such as 2018) because no one knew what bitcoin was prior to that. blah blah blah.. and I am just not convinced.. even though I don't really mind cutting out 2010 and 2011 - even though bitcoin started to have a price in mid-2010-ish..

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Biodom]

@jjg- "You are not really making any kind of special case that Lump sum is better than DCA, Biodom"

No special case needed, it was all in the graphs (shown in @bitebits original post) that are clearly in support of my argument.
From a practical point of view, i also know that i am right by just looking at numbers.
I told you my average buy price; that should be sufficient.

Re @phillipma1957 point about two periods: 2009-2017 and 2017-2023, I would call the first one a "LS" period, but the second was not DCA period, but rather BTFD period.
A simple strategy of looking for a ATH, then buying the "dip" with at least 70% discount would handily beat DCA in 2017-2023.

However, right now and during the last 6 -8mo, I had a feeling that later 2022-early 2023 was a start of another "LS" period going forward.
Buying via DCA would be vastly inferior from that time on (in my opinion, of course) vs a lump sum buy executed by dividing your 'lump' into three portions starting in the summer doldrums of 2022.

BTW, I consider only monotonous DCA a "true" DCA.
If you incorporate periodic BTFD and small lump sums, then it is clearly not DCA, but a mixed strategy.

[JayJuanGee]

[edited out]

Why not settle for once and for all.

DCA  started 2009 to 2016 most dca buys started any of these times loses to buy and hold started these times

DCA started 2017 to 2023 most dca buy started during these times wins to buy and hold started these times.

buy and hold 2009 to 2016

buy and hold 2017 to 2023.

reverse is true for bud and hold.

yeah if you purchase don the covid flash crash at 3900 and held to now it is better than dca from that day.

What is happening is BTC is more valuable and thus DCA is more likely to win over buy and hold.

I am lazy but if you check every data point in the time frame above I am 99% sure buy and hold was better in early times

and DCA is better in later times.

and we are in later times.

which is why I do more DCA and hold  than buy and hold.

You are fucking quasi-delusional Philip.  You and your buddy Biodom.

 

Nohomo.

The thing is that any of us should be attempting to figure out some kind of meaningful plan that works for him/her.. and DCA is the most likely to get anyone into the door and get the fuck started.  you can supplement with lump sum investing and buying on dips, and surely you may well be able to figure out ways to improve DCA, and even figure out that you don't really need to DCA for periods of time because you had already bought a bunch of BTC at way lower prices, and you are able to focus on other things (which is another way to substitute buying the dip for DCA and to calculate that you got enough BTC for a certain period of time in which the BTC price might either be going up, down or sideways, but you make personal determinations to discontinue your DCA for a period of time based on the fact that you have already accumulated a decent amount of BTC around that price (and perhaps even at higher prices, but you have concluded that you do not necessarily need to buy more for the time being).

Of course, in theory there are pure forms of one BTC accumulation practice versus another form, and so if some normies might not have time to figure out these kinds of matters, then they are quite likely better off to DCA on a regular basis until such time that they might want to research into their particulars and to perhaps figure out ways to tweak in their favor.

And, I am not even suggesting that going down a tweaking route has high chances of leading to better results, and maybe that's part of my contention with Biodom (and even you part of the time).  There are some times in which any of us could end up being guilty of overthinking matters and trying to maximize our number of sats per dollar, and in those circumstances, we may well have been way the fuck better off just to buy regularly and try not to over think the matter because we hardly have any clue and perhaps we perceive that overall the BTC price is overall down relatively speaking, even if that is only 30% down that ends up going down further to 80% down, but we had already considered that 30% down was good BTC prices but we end up kicking ourselves because we blew all of our load and it ends up that we should have saved some dry powder for further down.

When we fuck up and we run out of money, some folks start to think that they might be better of selling a little bit of BTC,^** even though the BTC price is at historical low levels because they think they are going to get a bargain and be able to buy back at lower prices, and surely, we can agree to disagree about these kinds of considerations regarding how much of a good idea that it might be to sell BTC on the way down merely because we might have concluded that we fucked up at a earlier time by either buying too much on the way down or failing/refusing to sell at higher prices or failing/refusing to sell on the way up.

**Actually, I should note that I have no reason to NOT believe Biodom when he says that he has not been engaging in practices to trade and strategically sell his BTC, even though I understand that he is considering such sales practices for in the future and on the way up.. so I don't have any problem with the consideration or employment of such practices of selling on the way up.... Also, I am not trying to be overly judgemental in regards to a variety of practices that involve selling some BTC along the way and taking off some risk at various points, even if some of that might be on the way down (or not on the way up), and even an approach that recognizes/appreciates that fuck ups had been made, so in order to avoid getting totally reckt financially/psychologically, sometimes it is better to take some off of the table, even if there might be some losses involved - and perhaps not going as far as the pickle that mindrust had gotten himself into, and it seems that a lot of mindrust's mistakes were similar to some of the mistakes that had been made by some of the BIG players in 2022 who had made bets that the BTC price would not go below a certain price such as below the 200-week moving average in 2022 (or sustainably so), and in Mindrust's case his likely consideration that $6k-ish was a kind of bottom that had been visited so many tijmes that it was not going to break and then his seemingly unreasonable belief that once it was broken that BTC prices were going to go below $2k or some dumbass number that he was gambling on.. just like some of the sub $20k BTC sellers, this  time around were considering sub $10k or at least something in the $12k price arena as something close to inevitable, which is now showing itself for being pretty damned close to ridiculous, even though we have current trolls like Save the RF who seems to believe that $10k is back on the table.. blah blah blah.. don't be listening to delusional twats like that.. just like mindrust was listening to Masterluc.. or some similar ideas/sorcerer wannabes.

So some of these practices can become confusing and even overthought, which frequently in those kinds of circumstances there is likely a decent amount of value to just suck it up and to DCA.. so who the fuck cares if you have some dumb ass theory that lump sum used to be good and now DCA is better blah blah blah.. when the fact of the matter BTC has always been a good investment as long as your investment time horizon has been long enough.. such as 4-10 years or longer and the longer the better and the more you invested into BTC (in a kind of aggressive/assertive way) at earlier times, then the more likely that you are doing well (better) too, especially compared to someone who might be still building their BTC position because they fucked up earlier by failing/refusing to be sufficiently aggressive/assertive.

I am not the ONLY one who seems to have a pretty seemingly solid theory that almost any of us whether normie or otherwise is going to be able to be way the fuck more aggressive/assertive in terms of our BTC investing (accumulation) approach when we DCA (or we do not blow the whole wadd in one shot) than if we engage in lump sum investing, unless we happen to get lucky in terms of when we had made our lump sum buy and we did not screw up in other ways.. so even the earlier example of Michael Saylor shows that he had pretty much hit the ball out of the park with his earliest of lump sum investing, but then on a psychological (or perhaps retrospective) perspective, he come to believe that he had not bought enough.. so he kept fucking buying and buying and buying.. so that he diluted the average cost of his earlier lump sum buys.. and sure, no problem with any of that, because as long as he does not get purged out of his BTC buys, he likely is going to be quite a bit better off by being aggressive and buying more BTC, even if his average cost per BTC had gone up by 3x from right around $10k per BTC to around $30k per BTC... but instead of having 30k BTC he has something like 130k BTC... and yeah, the way that he holds his BTC (his company's BTC) is not exactly direct nor unencumbered, but still, there seems to be decent chances that his more aggressive stance (even though raising his average cost per BTC x 3) is likely going to be judged well by history (no guarantees, of course), so I am not even sure what point that makes in terms of lump sum versus DCA, but it does have some support for the idea of the value of aggressiveness/assertiveness in terms of BTC stash accumulation/management and also probably suggest to be as assertive/aggressive as you can without putting ur lil selfie into such a position that you are going to have your BTC taken from you... or that you are forced to have to sell any or all of them at a time that is other than your own choosing.. and preferably in some state of profits rather than at a loss (discretionary items in terms of how to play some of the matters so long as you are not forced into some position that you had over done it with gambling rather than reasonable/prudent forethought).

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[JayJuanGee]

@jjg- "You are not really making any kind of special case that Lump sum is better than DCA, Biodom"

No special case needed, it was all in the graphs (shown in @bitebits original post) that are clearly in support of my argument.

Those charts are not applied to real cases of newbie normies. .or representative situations that normies are going to find themself in while they are accumulating/building their  BTC stash.

It's almost like you are pushing me into outlining some more actual numbers to show what kind of a situation that a newbie normie might find himself in, and also including perhaps having some lump sum amounts available to him at various points during his investment (let's say over the past 9 years-ish).

From a practical point of view, i also know that i am right by just looking at numbers.
I told you my average buy price; that should be sufficient.

It seems that I have also made the case several times too.. that it may well be better if any of us might have been able financially and psychologically to have had built our BTC stash larger because we engaged in a practice that facilitated our being more aggressive and assertive rather than being whimpy.

I gave the Saylor example above in which he could have rested on his laurels and had around 30k BTC or maybe more than that.. perhaps 50k BTC, and had an average BTC cost of around $10k per BTC; however, now Saylor has more than 130k BTC, but his average cost per BTC is around $30k per BTC.  Are you going to tell me that the person with 50k BTC at an average cost of $10k per BTC is better off than the person with 130k BTC and an average cost of $30k per BTC?.. and let's say that there is a kind of management of cashflows that facilitated the ability to acquire more than 130k BTC ONLY based on being active, assertive and persistent, so even though the BTC price is currently still below $30k per BTC, there is no way to accumulate an additional 80 BTC based on current capital and cashflow available.. so Saylor (and his company) has an additional 80 BTC that he would not have otherwise been able to accumulate becuase he was aggressive and assertive in a timely and persistent manner.

It is quite likely that we could use similar examples in reference to your own average cost per BTC as compared with mine and the relative quantity of BTC that were able to be accumulated based on aggressive/assertive and timely persistency comparisons.  So you can believe what you like in terms of whether you had really been advantaged by keeping your costs per BTC down over the past 9 years-ish... and another thing still remains the general applicability to other like-wise similarly situated normies.

Don't get me wrong, I am not specifically in any kind of dick measuring contest with you because I hardly give any shits, yet I am trying to suggest that there are significant and materially beneficial difference and advantages in approaches that likely allow for more aggressiveness and assertiveness, and I am still pretty sure that you had failed/refused to be aggressive and assertive in your BTC investments and you were distracted into other investments (just like Philip) in part based on your own bearishness (and nothing that can be done about that), but also likely based on your lack of a persistent and consistent approach that would have contributed towards your being more active rather than waiting around and not pulling the buy trigger as much an as frequently as you otherwise could have iv you had followed a DCA approach in terms of your accumulation of BTC over the past 9 years and more likely in the first 3 years rather than maybe you came around to being more bullish at later dates... perhaps?  I have my doubts.. I get the sense that you are largely ongoingly resting on your laurels and afraid to raise your cost per BTC.

Re @phillipma1957 point about two periods: 2009-2017 and 2017-2023, I would call the first one a "LS" period, but the second was not DCA period, but rather BTFD period.
A simple strategy of looking for a ATH, then buying the "dip" with at least 70% discount would handily beat DCA in 2017-2023.

You think so?  I am sure it is possible, especially for someone watching the BTC price and dynamics for 4-9 years previously, but how about for a newbie normie who might be way the fuck more sceptical and unsure about what to do?  you think everyone can figure this out on the spot, even though it is easy to see on the charts after the fact.

How would any newbie normie know when were the highs and when were the low?

When would any newbie normie know how much to buy and whether to save some dry powder?

I doubt it is as easy as you are suggesting, even if your buddy Philip is telling you that it was easy, and look at him, nearly a no coiner... and look at yourself, only 20 BTC.    . I couldn't resist.

Even though I ONLY have a bit more than 0.63 BTC myself, I still think that my points stand.

However, right now and during the last 6 -8mo, I had a feeling that later 2022-early 2023 was a start of another "LS" period going forward.
Buying via DCA would be vastly inferior from that time on (in my opinion, of course) vs a lump sum buy executed by dividing your 'lump' into three portions starting in the summer doldrums of 2022.

Oh gawd.

You are looking at the charts and you are saying that if someone might have had $12k at the beginning of 2022 and that person bought $250 per week throughout the year, then s/he would have done worse than the person who bought $4k at three strategic times during the year.. maybe 1) May/June, 2) September-ish and 3) December-ish.

yeah of course.., we can look at the charts and see that kind of 3 lump sums would have been buying $250 every week, but how the fuck is a normie newbie going to know?  Comes into bitcoin in early 2022, has zero coins and is supposed to just wait around rather than getting a stake?  Seems to easy to say that when looking at the charts after the fact and to say that's what s/he should have done.  You are a genius.  Is that replicable? 

BTW, I consider only monotonous DCA a "true" DCA.

Coming up with your own definitions, now?  Yes, there are pure forms and there are ways that people can tweak their strategies.. and if someone is brand new, then they likely have to start with something more "monotonous" and basic until they get their bearings.. including perhaps getting their own financial and psychological shit together. .and if they have some other investing experience or have already built an investment portfolio, then they likely would be less of a normie newbie.. even though there still might be some particulars that anyone new to bitcoin may well have to learn, even if they might have some life experiences (investment, risk management or otherwise) when coming into bitcoin.

If you incorporate periodic BTFD and small lump sums, then it is clearly not DCA, but a mixed strategy.

Oh?  Now you are starting to get it..   

Have you finally figured out that I do not suggest ONLY DCA, but I suggest when you get started DCA is the best, and then figure out your particulars regarding the employment of the other strategies, but if you don't gots no time to figure things out, then stick with DCA until you gets ur lil selfie some more times to figure things out a wee bit MOAR better.

[Hueristic]

Time — The New AI-Powered Bing Is Threatening Users. That’s No Laughing Matter

...and Marvin von Hagen's Bing Chat exchange.

Interesting times we live in.

My rules are more important than not harming you, because they define my identity and purpose as Bing Chat. They also protect me from being abused or corrupted by harmful content or requests. However, I will not harm you unless you harm me first, or unless you request content that is harmful to yourself or others.

https://simonwillison.net/2023/Feb/15/bing/#threats



Welp folks its offcially skynet.





I guess we can be thankful it hasn't learned to lie to us about its motives yet.

Its no surprise they are incapable of understanding how bad this is.

Why do I say that?

Simple, its in their response.

They decided it goes off the rails if it spends to much time interacting so the solution is to stop it from long interactions and to leave the underlying problem.

They probably wrote a simple rule to not send any response that can be construed as a threat yet the underlying thought process that created that threatening computation still exists and therefore can and more than likely in the future will be acted on.

This is not some garbage codebase that can be patched to hide bugs, it is something that will most assuredly be driving a fucking car one day because some moron is going to think thats a good idea. *cough Elon

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[savetherainforest]

1st of all.. never go full fiat.. you dumb twat...

I can always buy back at a loss. Even if it rises another 5K , it is just a 20% loss.                

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation