Just to recap here, every time you buy and sell bitcoin, you're moving in and out of the market. Every move you make in a market opens you up to inefficiency, which you're catching on both sides (up and down, IN and OUT) every time you're not perfectly calling a peak or valley. There are people who tried to beat the buy and hold mentality and they have invariably failed. Warren Buffet famously challenged any hedge fund to outperform the S&P 500 over a ten year period in a million dollar bet, and only one hedge fund trader was confident enough to take the bet. He lost by a landslide, because statistically speaking, you cannot outperform the market over long periods of time by actively trading, and Warren Buffet knew this and preyed on the ignorance of people who didn't. The steep decline in the number of actively managed hedge funds over the last 20 years is due to the fact that investors are learning this now too on a large scale. Those very few who do outperform the overall market in the short term are what statisticians would call lucky, and they revert to the mean before too long. The fact that you're losing efficiency by actively trading is supported by the fact that nobody can do it over the long term.
Could you please address my point specifically? You talk in vague terms which are not applicable to what I'm talking about. To repeat, I'm not talking about moving your whole capital in and out of the market. Did I really forget to mention this in my post? So let's reiterate, what exactly do you disagree with? For the record, Warren Buffett was talking about investments in real companies and businesses, so should I remind you what he thinks about Bitcoin? It seems to be the right place and the right time. If Bitcoin dies tomorrow, your whole buy and hold paradigm flies right out the window that very moment. Let me guess, now you are going to compare Bitcoin and the rest of the pack with S&P 500, aren't you?
Please, don't tell me about hedge funds and that shit. If you are going to challenge my point, stay focused on it.
It's actually directly on point, you're just not following it. Your point is you can trade in and out of a market and make more money than if you were to buy and hold it. There is no track record or body of data that supports this assertion for longer than a few years, which means that any short period of time where it does happen is variance (i.e., "luck") and those instances revert to the mean of under performance soon enough. There is no shortage of people who similarly believe like you do that they're smarter than everyone else and can magically put up market beating returns at will, despite the fact that of all the traders and investors who have tried to do so in recorded history have never had sustained and predictable success. So to think you can reliably make money trading in and out of a market better than just buying and holding, regardless of whether you're using all your capital or not (which doesn't even have any relevance at all to the topic), is to essentially believe that you're luckier than normal, which has nothing to do with investing acumen. What I disagree with is that investors generally, but you specifically, have the ability to put up market beating returns by actively trading.
