So basically I remember JJG fucking around and saying there is no 4 year cycle (at least 2 years ago)
Doesn't sound like the same JJG that I know.
Sure any of us sometimes might make arguments that might seem self-contradictory or even arguing from various stances, but if you might think about my posts have never really wavered very much from assertions that BTC price dynamics have a lot to do with 1) stock to flow, 2) 4-year fractal and 3) exponential s-curve adoption based on Metcalfe principles and network effects (referring to those espoused by Trace Mayer).
So sure, there might be times when I might take some counter-positions, but frequently I had gone back to those same points, and I have not really stopped saying those kinds of things even if there might be some problems with the various squigglies that Plan B wrote out, but I am not against the idea, even if the exact numbers might not be correct.
I don't tend to be a big fan of supercycle or nonsense about bitcoin's price following hashrate, but that does not necessarily mean that I am consistent in terms of all of my posts or that some of my other ideas might seem to contradict from time to time..
I also don't tend to take for granted short-term price moves, and even that anything is close to guaranteed, so if someone is even arguing something that I agree with but describing it as a certainty rather than a probability set, then that could also cause me to take the opposite position... or at least seem to take the opposite position, because I frequently will fight back with assertions that I perceive to be too rigid, even if I might agree that whatever had been asserted to be the most likely scenario.. because even most-likely scenarios rarely have confidence levels that would even be higher than 60% or so, unless maybe some kind of a real short term set up.. but even then, I tend to be a wiffle-waffler when it comes to many aspects of BTC price matters, even though it is an ongoing topic in these here parts..
When I look at the reward to fee next 3 ½ ings if miners keep force fees to stay at 30 stats
10 percent fee per block now
18 percent fee per block 2024
31 percent fee per block. 2028
47 percent fee per block 2032
what does all of the above mean for supply shock?
say
6.95000 now
3.82500 2024
2.26250 2028
1.48125 2032
if fees flatten out at .7 btc per block. the ½ effect ends by 2036 or sooner if fees go to a steady 1 btc a block
You come up with some doosies, sometimes... and yeah there are going to be changes in the ratios in which miners are more dependent upon fees rather than subsidies.. so yeah, each halvening we will see the extent to which the BTC price goes up which would be at least doubled ever four years for the halvening to have the same effect on the reward... so surely, it is difficult to predict that many legs in advance without necessarily knowing price, and if BTC price doubles every 4 years, then perhaps that is enough to have the subsidies to have the same effect, but we know adoption is going up too.. so usage and fees are likely to go up, as you project... so in the end ? what is the punchline?
Are you suggesting that something is supposed to be anticipated from this? I am anticipating the BTC price to continue to go up.. and likely the halvening will continue to have effects for the next 10-20 years.. and sure maybe more, but can't we just adjust our theories as we go instead of trying to overly concretize whatever we believe is going to happen 20 years or more? Does it matter very much? We have some tentative ideas about what is going to happen, so what good does it do to attempt to get even more specific in regards to our wannabe sorcery in regards to the future?
The country where I live (Pakistan), 100$ per week (or 400$ per month) is not a small amount. Here average income is around 300$ per month.
There is no need to get too caught upon the particular amount that I used in the example
I try my best to accumulate as much as I can but investing 100$ per week is not in my reach TBH. If you are from developed country like USA where average income is 8000$ for such people investing 100$ in Bitcoin or any other asset is not a big deal.
Exactly, $100 a week is not a big deal in many parts of the western world, but people still don't regularly save into anything, and it is a stretch if they might save in a kind of 401k plan or perhaps save up for a house, yet many times, people in the west (including all people) would likely put themselves in a much better place by creating some kind of a modest bitcoin investment strategy, even if the amount that they invest might not be up to western standards, and perhaps they are struggling to put $10 to $50 per week into bitcoin, so whatever, the amounts do not matter as much as figuring out if you are even able to invest in the first place (which means that you are able to generate cashflows that exceed your expenses while maintaining some kind of an emergency fund that might be 3-6 months in advance, too).
Rest I do agree that there can be resistance at 50 or 55k rather with current dip we can inferior that Bitcoin has its first resistance at 44/43k before it make its way to 50k.
I don't know about whether the mere fact that the BTC price ended up correcting rather than getting above $45k would rise to the level of meaning that there was a lot of resistance at $45k rather than just difficulties that sometimes might exist for buyers to keep up when the BTC price keeps going up, then the buy demand has to be able to keep up with such upward movement of the price, so sure then we end up getting some kind of a BTC price correction.. which is barely into the 10% territory so far.. as OGNasty already mentioned.
But yeah, it still could be that we end up bouncing in a range that is from $35k to $55k for a while, and maybe we could try to hone in upon whether our new "don't wake me up zone" might end up fitting into these kinds of parameters, even though having $20k as the range does seem to be quite large - but part of the idea of "don't wake me up zone does become a kind of area in which the price movements within that area may well not be really BIG significances, but if we start to get to the edge of the zone (in either price direction), then it starts to get interesting about whether a break out might occur in one direction or the other.. and sure, if we move within the don't wake me up zone a lot, then that might also trigger a waking up even though maybe in the whole scheme of things it could be questionable whether waking up is justified as long as we are within the newly create don't wake me up zone.. if it might become reasonable to conceptualize such a zone and maybe tweak its boundaries a bit in order to attempt to take into account our current contextual realities.
mmh ok.. gox coins seem to be coming..
I hope I'm wrong but my guess is we go down to 35k at least, maybe testing 30k. Bears have been slaughtered recently so they will cling to any fud they can. Apart from an ETF denial, which is unlikely, this will be their last big chance.
Again, I hope I'm wrong. But on the other hand, a good shakeout has always been positive for a parabolic event afterwards. And people are just a bit too bullish right now, imo.
What you are saying doesn't seem totally unreasonable, and so if $40k consitutes right around a 10% correction, then $35k would be a bit over a 22% correction, and $30k would constitute about a 33% correction. So none of them seem totally unreasonable... Whether they are going to happen or not, might be another story.. I am not going to count on either of them happening, but I am also not going to be surprised if such things were to end up happening, either.. either down to $35k or even down to $30k.. they are just not givens.. but things that reasonably could end up happening.
Poll
