i really do not want to talk politics, but i see a lot of big shifts and changes. that will alter BTC bigly
Politics don’t alter the Bitcoin 4-year cycle. The Bitcoin 4-year cycle alters politics. This bear market was coded into Bitcoin more than 17 years ago and has absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump or the Iranian war. It was always going to happen like this…
Well, some people advocate for the powerlaw instead, which seems mathematically cleaner to me as well, but I am no acolyte of this.
Well, the powerlaw suggests that after June 26, the floor of bitcoin price (not the fair value) would be above $59.7K.
I guess that the next few months would be the powerlaw's concept real test.
Reference of the chart:
https://charts.bitbo.io/long-term-power-law/One interesting potential consequence: below indicates that with powerlaw you can safely yearly withdraw $20K of the
$ btc value per
each bitcoin you have (on a monthly basis and with calculation based on today's btc price) and NEVER run out of btc. This is almost 7X of the Bengen's 4% safe withdrawal rate for a 60/40 diversified stocks/bonds portfolio:
https://btcpowerlaw.nl/research/bitcoin-swr/Discussion is here:
https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1sjdz3i/you_can_sell_20000_per_year_per_bitcoin_and_never/EDIT: paradoxically, but understandably, the paper suggests that in the powerlaw situation you could have higher % withdrawal at the bottoms, which intuitively feels correct to me.
Personally, I would like to error more conservatively, and mine is 10% of the 200-WMA, which only would allow the withdrawal right now of right around $6k per year per bitcoin.
I think that I am already being quite aggressive to allow 10% of the 200-WMA, yet it is a pretty BIG mistake for anyone who ends up withdrawing too much BTC too soon.
Error on the side of not selling too much BTC too soon, and so in that regard there should be a preference to make sure that enough or more than enough bitcoin has been accumulated to reach the target level of annual income (annual withdrawal rate), so if we consider right around $6k per year per coin, and if there is a target of $80k per year income, then that would be 13.333 bitcoin as a minimum bitcoin stash size, yet my own formula also allows for a 7% increase per year in the dollar withdrawal rate in order to make sure to be able to adjust upwardly for likely ongoing cost of living increases, and so personally I consider potential errors in any strict formulas, so I personally would be more comfortable (and recommend a bit of a cushion, of perhaps 2 or more BTC... just to be comfortale that the formula is working out and that not too much BTC is being withdrawn from the BTC holdings too soon.. since it surely would be problematic to be knocked out of overaccumulation status.. so we have to make sure that we are ongoingly withdrawing from the ongoing appreciation of the BTC price rather than overly depleting the bitcoin principle.
There are many guys who have historically concluded that they had reached fuck you status too soon, and largely based on using spot price calculations rather than trying to have withdrawal foundations that are based on bottom prices (such as the 200WMA).
i really do not want to talk politics, but i see a lot of big shifts and changes. that will alter BTC bigly
Politics don’t alter the Bitcoin 4-year cycle. The Bitcoin 4-year cycle alters politics. This bear market was coded into Bitcoin more than 17 years ago and has absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump or the Iranian war. It was always going to happen like this…
Lets just buy and wait for end of four year cycle.
You going to buy once and wait? like a lump sum buy?
Are you assuming that normies have lump sums available?
I would suggest that an overwhelming majority of normies, whether they are in rich countries, poor countries or otherwise, they do not have lump sum amounts that they are ready, willing and able to put into bitcoin, so accordingly, it seems way more likely, to me, that they are going to take 4-10 years or even longer, just to build up their bitcoin holdings, and each time that they buy more bitcoin, they would likely be better off to make sure to have at least a 4-year holding timeline for any new BTC purchases.
I don't know where all the money is coming from in which the overwhelming majority of normal guys would be meaningfully able to sufficiently and adequately be able to build up their bitcoin holdings in a short period of time, such as front loading their bitcoin investment.
I think that there may have been some guys in this thread who might have had been able to inject reasonably decently large amounts of money into bitcoin over a short period of time, yet even so, I think that many had to spend several years accumulating their bitcoin rather than being able to reach a decently large stash in a short period of time... and these days, it takes way more dollars to accumulate a decent amount of b bitcoin, even if we might presume that the cost of living likely has 3x ed or more in the past 10 years, I doubt that incomes had also 3xed even if some guys might have had been in their younger working years and able to get promotions in their work (and income) in the past 10-ish years.
Even you, WatChe, you have been registered here for more than 6 years, yet several times, you have celebrated various cashings out of bitcoin that you had made, which surely when guys cash out, they may well profit from such cashings out, yet at the same time, such cashings out will greatly reduce their bitcoin stash size and likely delay their ability to reach overaccumulation status... and some guys will never reach overaccumulation status since they have tendencies to ongoingly cash out too many bitcoin too soon, which they may not be able to reaccumulate that same quantity of BTC or even get their BTC stash to a level that it would have had been if they had not been continuing to deviate from ongoingly accumulating bitcoin through persistent, consistent, regular, ongoing and perhaps even aggressive buying only practices.
First, it was the nukes,
Now it's the Strait of Hormuz.
What was he thinking?
It seems quite difficult (perhaps a losing position) to be negotiating to get things back to how they were before the first days of bombing in which the side negotiating to get things back to how they were is the same side that initiated the bombing.
Here's the negotiating position of Trump and buddies:
"Remember that bombing thing-ie-ma-jiggie that we started to do on February 28 and at various points in time the past 6-ish weeks? Can we just go back to how things were before Feb. 28, and act like such bombenings had not happened?"
Does not seem a great negotiating position or even a winning position.
[edited out]
Yeah.. Your summary or snip-it seems to be correct. The person who is saying that odds are 80% that the price would go below a certain amount, would put up 80% and the person who is betting against their proposition would put up 20%.
By the way, even in a
recent Wolf of All Streets podcast that I heard with Ben Cowen, Cowen was proclaiming that his odds for the bottom not being in were right around 25%, which is close to the same odds that Biodom had been giving, and surely I would bet with Ben Cowen also, if he were willing to stand behind such odds and to put them into satoshis.
Nope, Ben Cowen is saying the EXACT opposite.
He is saying that the chances of the bottom
being in is 25%.
Yes. That is what I said. 25% odds that the bottom is in and 75% chance that we go lower.
Maybe, for some reason, I am not communicating my lil selfie very well in these here times?
BTW, your interpretation of odds and betting contradicts my understanding.
It is going to be difficult for us to come to an agreement in regards to what is bettable (or not) then.
Maybe I need to return to maths and sciences lessons?
If i think that the odds are 80:20, why would i give you exactly these odds?
I already granted you that point based on the idea of wanting a surplus, yet if you really believe the odds, then you should be close to emotionally neutral to give such odds, even if there might not be any surplus to you, especially if you believe that I might be willing to bet odds that would give you some level of surplus.
It defeats the purpose of the bet (to win).
Sure, we like to win bets, yet if bets are structured properly, then we should be more than willing to enter bets that reflect our views of the future.
Bettor bets when he/she thinks that the odds are better than either the person, house, bookie, etc.,
If they are 50/50 odds, that is one thing, and yeah if the odds are screwed in one direction or another, he is betting based on his belief that the odds were miscalculated and he thinks that either he has good chances of winning or if he were to make the same bet 1,000 times (like in 1,000 parralell universes, to the extent such a thing were to exist), that he would end up being profitable in the whole scheme of things.
estimate, not when he calculates the odds as being EXACTLY the same.
Sure, he wants an edge.. no problem, but if he really believes that his estimate is accurate, he would not necessarily need to have a large edge... even though surely each of us likely would not want to enter a bet if we did not believe that we had a significantly material and meaningful edge. I don't have a problem with your assessment that you need to have some kind of edge, even though there is still discretion (and a sliding scale) in regards to how much of an edge you feel that you need to have before you would feel sufficiently comfortable to enter into such a bet.
In this case such person is you, but not me for the following reason: I already disclosed what my 'internal' odds are, so it makes no sense to demand these odds for yourself as those odds are mine.
You may ask Ben, however.
If a guy is making a statement of probability on a podcast (maybe it is true when we make assertions in threads like this too?) then it is fair to propose that he stands behind such bet, and surely you are not betting your whole life on such bet, so the amount need not be a lot, yet an amount will show some level of conviction beyond just saying it. I did not enter my bet with LFC to make money, but instead to make a point and to get him to stand behind his whining, and yeah, he ended up being correct (at least in terms of winning the bet, and he even felt that he needed to cut off the bettors, since there were so many members coming forwards and wanting the same bet terms that I had gotten with him). Each of us believed that our odds for winning the bet were greater than they were for losing, yet the bet had definite terms so that there could ONLY be one winner.. which we know how that went. LFC won.
EDIT: in Ben's case 30:70 or even 35:65 (vs his 25:75) bet that that the low was "in" would make sense, imho.
I don't have any problem with any cushion, yet the more that I am thinking about this matter, it still seems to me that if someone really believes such odds that they had asserted with confidence, then they should be willing to stand behind such odds that they had stated.
Sure, it is better to get a surplus value in possible in any bet, but I don't see any such surplus value as being absolutely necessary before a bet could be entered into.
It seems to me that Ben should be able to enter into a bet with me for his proposition that the odds are only 25% that the bottom is in, and if we were to enter into such bet using a total pot size of 400 sats (for example), then I would put up 100 sats that the BTC price would not go below our current low (using Bitstamp prices of $59,930), and Ben would be putting 300 sats into the pot that the BTC price would go below our current low and make a new low (let's say by no later than the 1st or 2nd quarter of 2027)...
Furthermore, we should be able to enter into such a bet based on his belief of the odds, including that if there is some need to make the bet into a lower amount, then that likely could be accommodated, too. I personally don't see any reason to make the bet for any larger amount, since the amount of money is not as important as standing behind the bet terms in some kind of a meaningful way. With my bet with WatChe, I was complaining a bit that the bet was too small, yet WatChe was claiming that the bet amount was sufficiently large, so I allowed the bet amount to stand in accordance with WatChe's suggested downward adjustment. By the way, there was one point in our working out the bet details that WatChe had stated that he was so confident that the BTC price would never go below $90k (at least in the period of our bet terms) that I don't even need to put any money on my side of the bet... hahahahahaha... I think that I also agreed that I would pay my end of the bet if the BTC price ended up going above $333k prior to the ending of the bet term (which I think was the first or second quarter of 2027.. I cannot remember, exactly).
I remember another bet that I had lost in regards to the BTC price falling outside of the top 100, and we were still in the midst of negotiating the bet, and I ended up having to pay out my side of the bet, yet the odds were something like 90 to 10, or maybe they were even greater than that, so I had the odds on my side... even though the outcome did not go in my favor, since the BTC price ended up falling below the top 100 within the time that we had allotted and I think it was like 20 days or something. It was a fairly short bet period.
Some people proclaim that I just love betting, and I will still say that I do not, except guys sometimes will make outrageous claims that they are not willing to stand behind, just like you, not willing to stand behind your proclaimed 80% odds.
Back to pricing.
Anyone think 80k by may happens?
I give it a chance.
By May (means before or prior to). I think by the 'end of' May it'll likely hit $80k, but definitely by the end of June it will.
Off the top of my nogen, less than 50/50.. for by the beginning of May - perhaps even in the less than 33.33% territories
Hm? By the end of May? Maybe 40%-ish odds?
These tentative probabilities are not easy to figure out, which is part of the reason that any of us HODLers of bitcoin
(BTC price exposure? isn't the same thing) would always attempt to be financially and psychologically prepared for either BTC price direction and including being prepared for erratic price moves within shorter timeframes.
Poll
