Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 2398. (Read 26713542 times)

Explanation

Explanation

Explanation

Explanation

Yes.

I heard about that theory, which seems to boil down to selling low and buying high?  How did the employment of that theory work for you in 2017?  You still were able to profit that year? or at least not to get totally reckt?

By the way, how's your Decred (DCR) investment doing?  Was it 2018 that you were excited about that?  I cannot recall exactly.  Remember how Decred was going to take over the world?  You're kind of used to throwing money down the drain, right?

Generally, I tend to agree with you (and also with TrustedBitcoiner... are you guys acquaintances, by the way?) that sooner or later the BTC price is going to correct.  Have you thought about shorting BTC just to add a bit more umph to your DOWNity bet?  might not be a bad idea.  And might help to reckt you a wee bit moar faster, since you seem inclined to have fun staying poor.


You are still learning about this no?

Ordinals are merely the ordering of numbers, so if BTC has 2.1 quadrillion satoshis, then each of them have a number.

The other aspect that builds upon the idea of "ordinals" is to attach an inscription, so within the inscription NFTs/JPEGs or other forms of data could be included.. so ordinals and inscriptions are not exactly the same thing, even though there is some relation since they were kind of launched (or promoted, or went live) at the same time through the coding arrangements (on top of bitcoin's base layer) that Casey Rodarmor introduced....

so, wwwwwwweeeeeeeeee indeeeeeeeeeeed!!


That's what she said.

Bitcoin can never be sold in this bear market. Because there is a bull market ahead for Bitcoin. Currently everything is the opposite of speculation that Bitcoin will be 100k sure but 10k is wrong. No problem you sell shit coins but never sell bitcoins. Very soon we are heading into a bull market that will be the biggest yet.

BITCORN ORDINALS SOUND ORDINARY I MEAN WHO COULD HAVE WANTED NFTS ON /\BTC MAINNET ANYWHO? :-D Lel Reeee 1OOK close~~~hodl this is gentlemen~~~

Explanation

Explanation

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

Explanation

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

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).


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.


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.


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? 


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.


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.

Explanation

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).

@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.

Explanation

Explanation

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.


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).


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..

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