Option A.
Bitcoin will not leave current channel reaching $130,000, ends the bull.
So, with this option, you mean that the highest we get is $130k? and then how long would that last, and do we get the $130k prior to the end of the 1st quarter of 2026
(asking for a friend)I am not going to say that this scenario is a far our scenario, since there could be a variety of world (or even bitcoin) happenings that could end up contributing to the playing out of such a scenario. It does come off as a bit weird, especially since if the top were to be $130k, then it is difficult to see enough exuberance in order to contribute to anything greater than a 50% correction, and even 50% would seem to be a lot since I am having a lot of doubts that even sub $75k has any meaningful likelihood of happening - even though surely $75k could be re-tested at some point, that would currently not be out of the question - even though I also have had an outstanding bet proposal asserting that sub $80k will never be experienced again, and no on (so far) has been willing to take the other side of that bet. I likely would retract such bet proposal if we were to spend any meaningful time (such as more than a week) below $95k.
Option B.
Bitcoin leaves the channel maxing out $160,000 - $200,000+
I go for option B because Bitcoin still missing the fase going vertical with a blow- off pump. It's part of the bull martket dynamics and it could extend into Q1 2026.
That does seem to be a more likely scenario and it could even potentially drag past Q1 since historically in bitcoin it has tended to take a bit of time for a blow-off top to end up playing itself out - even a few months, and even though we have already had decent uppity from November 2024 (referring to Trump pump until now), so we could get some continuation of the UPPity, yet at the same time, it is hard to imagine going into some kind of a variation of a blow off top without some rampening up... and even if the rampening up might end up being November and December and then some kind of a correction and then a finishing off of the blow off price movement in February and March.. . .but yeah, it can be difficult to outline in advance, even though surely guys (aka chartalists) project out in those kinds of ways on a fairly regular basis.
As I am typing this, I am thinking that perhaps your two options largely capture the main possibilities - even though surely tehre could be some variation of what ends up happening that is not really captured by those two options... but yeah, it does seem a bit crazy (probably especially to a no coiner or a low coiner) to suggest that option B seems to be the more likely scenario.. It is like our expectations are too high.... even though Option B is likely the base case (it could have 37.93275% odds and still be the base case.. even though you ONLY gave two scenarios, so something is wrong with my own maths in order to fill in all of the possible scenarios so that we can reach 100% in regards to all of the possible scenarios. Go figure?
By the way, if you are saying that there are only two options and you want to get 100% out of the totals of the scenarios, then you must be assigning something greater than 50% odds to scenario B.. and going through the process of assigning actual numbers, you should be able to see that there is a gap in your scenarios since one (A) has a maximum top of $130k (and allows for all down from here scenarios) and then the other scenario starts at $160k and goes up, so there is no way that there is some scenario that has the gap that is a zero scenario, so the scenario that has the top from $130,001 until $159,999 must have some value that is higher than zero. AmInotrite?
I do like your scenarios, but the more I wrote about them, the more that I could not overcome the seemingly $130,001 to $159,999 gap. Are you assigning zero to the $130,001 to $159,999 gap?
So we expect another win for JJG here?
I think members knowledge will increase only after they lose bets with JJG.
It is not over until it is over, and surely I am not even expecting that my odds are close to certain, even though there is some benefit in having 5 months to see if it happens... but yeah, if we go below $85k I will start to think I lost for sure (even though I probably would not pay before then end of the timeline, since even some fairly bad set of circumstances might not completely rule out a new ATH prior to the end of the 1st quarter of 2026.
Even staying below $95k for any extended period of time, such as more than a couple of weeks, might bring the top for this cycle (and whether it is "in" - in line with LFC's proposition) into question.
The positive thing about Bitcoin price is that it's price is closing above 100k for almost last 6 months. That's an indication of stability.
But Bitcoin price is very uncertain to predict. I remember Dec 2019, it was fully bullish and we saw Bitcoin rising to it's ATH of 19k that month. The price prediction for 2018 was 100k but we saw Bitcoin at 3500$ in Dec 2018.
We all would love to see Bitcoin rising to it's ATH in first quarter of 2026 but for that our dearest and nearest JJG has to pay some bucks (which I am sure is not an issue for JJG).
In several senses, we should be able to learn from the various fakeouts of the past, and that momentum can go in one direction and then suddenly (and sometimes not so suddenly) change.
I doubt that we are either over fake outs, sudden changes in directions and/or even extreme price moves - since sometimes the market players will engage in behaviors that contribute to those kinds of dynamics, especially when there continues to be so many things going on around bitcoin, so the market players are not necessarily going to agree to bitcoin's fair market value, and some market plays love to play and/or take advantage of volatility and to push the limits, when possible.
Regarding mine and LFC's funding of our side of the bet, I get the sense that neither of us is really bothered by the bet size and/or if we might have to pay the other guy in the event that we were to lose our side of the bet. It seems prudent that we would make sure that we hold that money so that if we were to have to pay it, then we make sure that we have enough bitcoin to pay it.. or otherwise, sure we could have to source the BTC at the time of paying off the bet if something were to go wrong with our own securing of our coins to cover the bet size.
Even with my historical proclamation that I have at least 0.63 BTC, a bet of 0.001 BTC would ONLY be about 0.16% of my stack size, so it is less than 1/5th of a percent of my previously admitted stack size.
Now, sure it is possible that I don't have as many BTC as historically I have claimed to have, and surely boating accidents happen all the time, so largely I most inclined to ONLY give my word (for what good that is) and I am also o.k. that LFC does not need to show me proof that he has the ability to pay or that he would be unwilling to pay in the event that I were to win the bet. So yeah, anything could happen, and we merely have a 50/50 bet in this situation... meaning that each of us is paying the same amount in terms of BTC, even though if the BTC price goes up, then the amount I get in terms of dollars goes up if I were to be paid, and if the BTC price goes down, the amount of BTC that LFC would get (in terms of dollar value) would go down.
I am pretty sure that each of us (LFC and I) have adequately accounted for the fact that we had denominated our bet in BTC rather than denominating such bet in dollars, and recall that even in the situation of my bet with you, you were quite thrilled about either side of the bet in term of the BTC costing you less if you lost the bet which suggested that they could end up costing me much more if I lost the bet, especially if I would have had to pay my side of the bet upon the BTC price going above $300k. Yet, of course, our bet could have had been settled by either the passage of the price over the bet thresholds or the passage of time, which is also true in regards to my bet with LFC.
Option A.
Bitcoin will not leave current channel reaching $130,000, ends the bull.
Option B.
Bitcoin leaves the channel maxing out $160,000 - $200,000+
I go for option B because Bitcoin still missing the fase going vertical with a blow- off pump. It's part of the bull martket dynamics and it could extend into Q1 2026.
I would like to go for
Option B because that's what I am HODLing for i.e. 200k$. It's not a matter of if, but when.
I hate to ask very much, but how much of your stash are you selling at $200k-ish (if we were to get there within 5-ish months or less)? You planning to sell 25% or more?
There are many of us who don't sell even close to those quantities, even though surely some guys do not say - even though my own system allows for the selling of 10% for every doubling, i doubt that I will end up selling even 2% at before or around $200k, if we were to get there in the coming 5-ish months... but yeah, even with me, I could shave 2% off at any time, and I would not even be bothered either way. Surely better to sell 2% at $200k rather than sending 2% at $80k (if we were to be going to $80k rather than going to $200k). In that regard, I cannot proclaim that I am completely neutral in terms of the potentials of my having to (or wanting to) shave off some corns here and there along the way.
I hope you like the results, and I hope they help you change your mind if you were thinking of selling your corn!
I like it, but I am not sure if such squiggles within a new presentation style, informs me about what to do, if anything, in regards to whether I should buy, sell or neither.
Actually, this war of the USA does not mean a direct stance against Bitcoin. I have explained that since the whole world trades in the US dollar. If the USA starts holding Bitcoin, then the reaction of fiat currency with Bitcoin that has been going on for so long will no longer exist. Bitcoin will gain universal acceptance through the holding of the USA. However, it is true that I have not seen the USA government directly holding any Bitcoin so far, but I understood without fully verifying the news shared by @Yorubek above that they are making some arrangements to start holding. Although that was my mistake, I should have been more careful.
Since Trump became president, a big change has been coming in the US and Bitcoin in the whole world. It is true that the USA holds the most Bitcoin individually and institutionally. However, having the hashrate means having full control. This seems a little different to me. A lot can change depending on the economics of mining, electricity prices, policy changes, and the price of Bitcoin. I would like to Thank you for raising and clearing up some misconceptions.
There tends to be value to be skeptical of what governments say and what they do and also not to get too caught up in regards to any particular leader or certain claims. There were promises of showing proof of reserves for gold and for bitcoin, and the information on those fronts was ambiguous at best. There are surely a lot of balls in the air at once, so even if we might be trying to figure out what the USA is doing, other countries (and companies) are acting and reacting with their own overtness and covertness in terms of what they are doing and/or claim to be doing. Some countries, like Bhutan seemed to have had been attempting to stay covert with its own accumulating of bitcoin on the side (including their seemingly extensive operation of mining of bitcoin), but then they were discovered through the 2022 (or was it 2023?) revelations that came out through the public disclosures in the bankruptcy filing.. and maybe they would have had kept their operations secret if they had not been found out through such bankruptcy filing.
Maybe part of my point is to just take some governmental claims with a grain of salt and attempt some analysis on them rather than just parroting them out as if they were news in and of themselves.. especially without at least attempting to assess some of the context, whether you believe the public announcements or not..
Sir I understand what you are saying. In fact, the government often tries to understand the reaction in the name of the announcement. Another thing is that if something related to Bitcoin is indicated, it has a lot of impact on the market, that is why they may make such announcements, but most of them may not have any real truth. Many times, the heads of government divert the attention of the people by making various misleading statements. So if the head of government or high officials of a country declares that “we are accumulating Bitcoin” or “our reserves are safe”, then we should not take it as the final truth but consider it as their trick. Another thing I understood from your words is that we should find out why the government of any country is saying it, instead of focusing on what it is saying.
In part, I was criticizing your earlier post for seeming to just post some articles that had lame and/or questionable ideas, yet you failed/refused to put your own ideas to any meaningful depth.. So if you know that governments are sometimes lying or exaggerating, then it might be helpful to make some kind of a comment.. ..and yeah, ultimately you can do what you want.. .but guys here might form opinions about you based on the kinds of things that you are posting and/or the extent to which you are helpful in any comments that you might choose to make about the substantive contents that you are posting.
We also have a decent number of newer members (perhaps even approaching 50%)that are either bots or overly relying on bots, and yeah we already have a lot of mediocre posters, but now they are mediocre posting with the use of bots. I don't really appreciate interacting with a bot, even though it seems that the use of bots is becoming more difficult to figure out.
Poll
