Explanation
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 2399. (Read 26713548 times)
February 18, 2023, 12:01:16 PM
February 18, 2023, 11:55:53 AM
Prepare for $10K or some sh!t like that before the rally to 100K. 
I kinda sold almost everything. Even the sh!tcoins. Especially the sh!tcoins. (I did kept some few things but maybe 10% from everything that was important)
Prepare for dumpster.fire.sh!t.show!!
I kinda sold almost everything. Even the sh!tcoins. Especially the sh!tcoins. (I did kept some few things but maybe 10% from everything that was important)
Prepare for dumpster.fire.sh!t.show!!
Poor widdo tingilie.. no doesn't have no cornz.
Sucks to be uie-pooie...
dumb and all of that to boot...
By the way, you should know better than that..
1st of all.. never go full fiat.. you dumb twat...
second.. you are selling BTC and the price is still below the 200-week moving average, and even if you are trolling us with your proclamations of $10k-ish, it is getting more difficult to have confidence that the bottom is not already in.. with our $15,479.. so.. you might have troubles, even if your worser case scenario plays out to get coins even sub $20k or even sub $18k, or whatever pie in the sky visions that you are setting forth..
third I recall you talked this kind of dumb talk previously too (like 2017/2018).. and gosh you must have gotten reckt pretty badly back then too;.. so history repeats itself, no? over and over and over again, and some folks never seem to learn, right?
right?
riiiiiiiigggghhhhttt?
[edited out]
Someone I know, LS (100k+) in October 2021 - $62K.... lots of "ifs" and "buts" here!Yes normies tend to do these kinds of things.. with frequency.. and several variations of similar kinds of scenarios in which they have difficulties figuring out how to employ lump sum in a good kind of way and then they end up doing way too much at the wrong time.. and then having no back up plan..
Hey from my point of view, there would have been nothing wrong with your friend to have had divided his/her $100k into three parts, and then Lump sum with 1/3, and then set the other 2/3 with buying on dips and DCA.. s/he still would have run out of money on the way down to $20k, but still lowered cost per BTC with a likely better psychology.... and then another question is whether there might have been some cashflow that would have continued to come in over the last year and a y half? Something like $100 per week to continue to buy or at least to strategize what to do with the $100 per week that might have had been coming in during the last year and a half or so.
Besides why are we ignoring the elephant in the room (or maybe it has been mentioned, but i am too tired to find it)...
Saylor/MicroStrategy, we would all agree he had LS into bitcoin right? $4,027,052,651 between 11th August 2020 and 27th December 2022 for a final total of 132,500BTC
If he had Weekly DCA, 125Weeks @ $32,216,421.21/Week would have yielded, 153,738BTC
Again, lots of "ifs" and "buts" here!
EDIT: other DCA calculators are showing 186,451BTC.
Saylor/MicroStrategy, we would all agree he had LS into bitcoin right? $4,027,052,651 between 11th August 2020 and 27th December 2022 for a final total of 132,500BTC
If he had Weekly DCA, 125Weeks @ $32,216,421.21/Week would have yielded, 153,738BTC
Again, lots of "ifs" and "buts" here!
EDIT: other DCA calculators are showing 186,451BTC.
I doubt that Saylor is a good example to argue in terms of supporting either way, and sure we can Monday morning quarter-back him and pick out areas in which he did well and other areas in which he seemed to have had screwed up.. .. but overall, I don't even think that he represents anything that bad.. but this is what people or institutions do.. which seems to be part of your point, hisslyness.
Saylor started out in July/August 2020 with several lump sum buys, but then he was kind of buying regularly in such a way that those lump sums really ended up being a kind of DCA.. because he was buying at any price, but then at some point, he seemed to realize that he was running out of money so he could not buy as frequently, but he has not stopped buying... so he is a bit of a strange duck that is difficult to apply to normies in the sense that he seemed to have had started out good by having quite a few BTC buys in the $10k price arena.. but then he just kept going and even doubling down at higher prices, which seems almost more deranged than what normies might do, but he still was acting within the confines of experimenting with pushing leverage of what a public company could do.. a public company with pretty decent assets and also pretty decent profitable cashflow too.
[edited out].
Your friend and Michael Saylor are just current exceptions (small % of all scenarios).However, when btc trades at 250K, your friend would be sitting pretty vs small DCAers in between.
Same for M. Saylor, however, it is a special case since he went overboard (with loans) close to the top.
IF he only made that initial purchase at 17K, he would be in-the-money already.
You are not really making any kind of special case that Lump sum is better than DCA, Biodom, - even though you are seeming to make the case that time in the market it better than timing the market, and you also seem to be making the case that aggressiveness pays off when it comes to BTC investing, which seems to be a wee bit contradictory to my understanding of your own personal whimpiness (nohomo) history when it comes to BTC and the various points in which you expressed scaredy-kittycattedness in the years that I have known uie-pooie...
You were especially scaredy kitty catty prior to 2020-ish.. It seems that you have ONLY recently been expressing ur lil selfie a wee bit more bullishly.. and yeah, sure you were somewhat conservative in regards to our 2021 top.. but you were not so confident as to enter a bet with yours truly on the topic.. which it seems that I would have lost that bet, but part of the point is that you weaseled out of such bet negotiations (to the extent that you could have even had been taken seriously) and you were not willing to commit to the absolutist terms that you had been expressing in terms of "we are not going there" blah blah blah.
February 18, 2023, 11:31:40 AM
Time — The New AI-Powered Bing Is Threatening Users. That’s No Laughing Matter
...and Marvin von Hagen's Bing Chat exchange.
Interesting times we live in.
...and Marvin von Hagen's Bing Chat exchange.
Interesting times we live in.
February 18, 2023, 11:21:28 AM
Only chart I look @
February 18, 2023, 11:13:22 AM
@jjg..."Therefore, you have not addressed the issue. $100 per week budget starting from January 2014. When are you going to spend those building up $100 per week amounts? What are your striking points for your various purchases over the past 470 weeks, starting from January 2014? "
Of course, if you are starting from essentially zero, then you invest the part of the cashflow.
However I was mostly talking about a hypothetical person who already have some capital and is willing to spend at least a significant portion of it.
In the latter case, as @bitebis had posted, LS always beats DCA, no ifs and buts.
Therefore, for those who have nothing, a way of doing it would be to raise a chunk of money first (however, it had better be done maybe 3-6 mo ago), then invest that in one go ( onr 1/3 per mo) and THEN DCA.
However, that's just me and my approach.
Anything is better than staying at zero, you got that part right.
IMHO, however, people would tend to favor bitcoin when investing a "chunk" while the same people may waste money on itty-bitty "long shots" instead if investing in small increments (similar to lottery tickets).
One reason is purely psychological because you only get 0.004 btc for $100 while they consider getting 7 mil of some dog-related s-coin as "it's more units, man", which is completely erroneous, of course.
I would never do it, but people do it left and right.
Spending 5-25K at once (LS) gives you a more "tangible" amount of bitcoin and removes the distraction of the low value s-coins.
Sure, there could be a gambler who spends $5-25K on a s-coin, but I assume that those are a very small minority.
Of course, if you are starting from essentially zero, then you invest the part of the cashflow.
However I was mostly talking about a hypothetical person who already have some capital and is willing to spend at least a significant portion of it.
In the latter case, as @bitebis had posted, LS always beats DCA, no ifs and buts.
Therefore, for those who have nothing, a way of doing it would be to raise a chunk of money first (however, it had better be done maybe 3-6 mo ago), then invest that in one go ( onr 1/3 per mo) and THEN DCA.
However, that's just me and my approach.
Anything is better than staying at zero, you got that part right.
IMHO, however, people would tend to favor bitcoin when investing a "chunk" while the same people may waste money on itty-bitty "long shots" instead if investing in small increments (similar to lottery tickets).
One reason is purely psychological because you only get 0.004 btc for $100 while they consider getting 7 mil of some dog-related s-coin as "it's more units, man", which is completely erroneous, of course.
I would never do it, but people do it left and right.
Spending 5-25K at once (LS) gives you a more "tangible" amount of bitcoin and removes the distraction of the low value s-coins.
Sure, there could be a gambler who spends $5-25K on a s-coin, but I assume that those are a very small minority.
Someone I know, LS (100k+) in October 2021 - $62K.... lots of "ifs" and "buts" here!
Besides why are we ignoring the elephant in the room (or maybe it has been mentioned, but i am too tired to find it)...
Saylor/MicroStrategy, we would all agree he had LS into bitcoin right? $4,027,052,651 between 11th August 2020 and 27th December 2022 for a final total of 132,500BTC
If he had Weekly DCA, 125Weeks @ $32,216,421.21/Week would have yielded, 153,738BTC
Again, lots of "ifs" and "buts" here!
EDIT: other DCA calculators are showing 186,451BTC.
With all due respect, you are just engaging in anecdote comparisons.
Look at the graphs and read the text in the original post here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.61777181
Your friend and Michael Saylor are just current exceptions (small % of all scenarios).
However, when btc trades at 250K, your friend would be sitting pretty vs small DCAers in between.
Same for M. Saylor, however, it is a special case since he went overboard (with loans) close to the top.
IF he only made that initial purchase at 17K, he would be in-the-money already.
Why not settle for once and for all.
DCA started 2009 to 2016 most dca buys started any of these times loses to buy and hold started these times
DCA started 2017 to 2023 most dca buy started during these times wins to buy and hold started these times.
buy and hold 2009 to 2016
buy and hold 2017 to 2023.
reverse is true for bud and hold.
yeah if you purchase don the covid flash crash at 3900 and held to now it is better than dca from that day.
What is happening is BTC is more valuable and thus DCA is more likely to win over buy and hold.
I am lazy but if you check every data point in the time frame above I am 99% sure buy and hold was better in early times
and DCA is better in later times.
and we are in later times.
which is why I do more DCA and hold than buy and hold.
February 18, 2023, 11:06:59 AM
@jjg...you are posting pure nonsense.
@bitebits reference analyzed ALL scenarios and the conclusion is there:
"LS consistently outperforms DCA across all time periods, short term and long term.
The longer the time period, the more LS tends to outperform DCA."
You can't fight the math...but, of course, you will.
Hiding behind "normies" having no money, etc etc does not mean that what you peddle is correct.
"Normies" have money, and if they don't, they could even borrow some against some property if they want to get a lump some.
I did it myself a couple times in the oughts.
In fact, we both know that my LS strategy vastly outperfomed your DCA.
I stand by my points.@bitebits reference analyzed ALL scenarios and the conclusion is there:
"LS consistently outperforms DCA across all time periods, short term and long term.
The longer the time period, the more LS tends to outperform DCA."
You can't fight the math...but, of course, you will.
Hiding behind "normies" having no money, etc etc does not mean that what you peddle is correct.
"Normies" have money, and if they don't, they could even borrow some against some property if they want to get a lump some.
I did it myself a couple times in the oughts.
In fact, we both know that my LS strategy vastly outperfomed your DCA.
You are not making any new points, and you are also refusing to actually either work with the actual hypothetical that's in front of us (which is the $100 per week income starting from January 2014) or to provide specifics regarding at which point in time extra lump sum dollar amounts would be available (at the beginning of the investment period or at various points in the middle).
You are also failing/refusing to deal with my already concession that the more sophisticated that you are (or the more time that you have to study the matter), then the more likely you can tweak to improve upon a strict DCA approach by employing lump sum buying and or buying on dips.
In other words, you seem to be making up your own bullshit, attributing false issues to me and then saying: "lookie, lookie, I am the winner" blah blah blah.. It's not that I don't even like you, but you surely are not grappling with the actual employment of a system or attempting to make fair, reasonable and practical comparative applications with anything more than vague innuendos.. with some kind of seeming maniacal obsession of wanting to be right no matter what.. .
and i am sure for ever LS that has done better than DCA in terms of accumulating Bitcoin, i can show you the opposite!
However, we are all missing one critical point here!.. As long and both DCA and LS gets people into accumulating Bitcoin, then i am all for it!
I am not against any of the accumulation strategies to get normies in the door, so in that sense I have been given a bad rap (and mischaracterized as if I ONLY give any shits about DCA - even though I proclaim that DCA is the best of the strategies to get normie newbies started.. otherwise they won't.. otherwise they will panic.. otherwise they will buy at the top and sell at the bottom).
So part of my point is that DCA (or some variations of DCA) allows normie newbies to also invest way more aggressively over a long period of time, as compared to someone who is some what scared about how to time the market and ONLY ends up buying one time in 2015 and waits for his (more or less 20) coins to go up to $10 million each, and if he had been DCA'ing all along, he would have probably bought way more coins and he also probably would have spent way more money per coin.. but in the long run, he is better off because he spent $47k and got around 45 BTC rather than spending ONLY about $6k and getting 20 BTC or perhaps spending $20k and getting 30 BTC.
There are a lot of variations of how the comparisons of the whimpy versus the more persistent investor could play out for sure, but part of my attempted point remains that an ongoing DCA'ing strategy helps someone (normie newbie) to pay attention, learn along the way and perhaps begin to supplement his/her ongoing BTC accumulation strategy with buy on dips and various lump sum buys as s/he gets more comfortable... I am not all or nothing into DCA, even though I consider it to be amongst the best (if not the best) of starting strategies for normie newbies.
@jjg..."Therefore, you have not addressed the issue. $100 per week budget starting from January 2014. When are you going to spend those building up $100 per week amounts? What are your striking points for your various purchases over the past 470 weeks, starting from January 2014? "
Of course, if you are starting from essentially zero, then you invest the part of the cashflow.
However I was mostly talking about a hypothetical person who already have some capital and is willing to spend at least a significant portion of it.
In the latter case, as @bitebis had posted, LS almost always beats DCA, no ifs and buts.
Of course, if you are starting from essentially zero, then you invest the part of the cashflow.
However I was mostly talking about a hypothetical person who already have some capital and is willing to spend at least a significant portion of it.
In the latter case, as @bitebis had posted, LS almost always beats DCA, no ifs and buts.
Part of the problem is that you continue to fail/refuse to even attempt to make realistic apples to apples comparisons.. just like that article did too.
I started to respond with specifics, but it seems like a fucking waste of time, and you just want to presume your conclusion and to act as if a DCA system is just inferior for a newbie normie.. so why continue to waste time on this.. you can believe what you like with your selective pie in the sky renditions..
Therefore, for those who have nothing, a way of doing it would be to raise a chunk of money first (however, it had better be done maybe 3-6 mo ago), then invest that in one go (or 1/3 per mo for three months) and THEN DCA.
There's no reason to raise money first.
Yeah, get your finances in order, but most people already have some ballpark idea about their budget whether their income exceeds their expenses and whether they can afford $100 per week or if they might ONLY be able to afford $10 week until figuring out their finances and psychology.
However, that's just me and my approach.
Anything is better than staying at zero, you got that part right.
Anything is better than staying at zero, you got that part right.
Maybe we should hug?
IMHO, however, people would tend to favor bitcoin when investing a "chunk" while the same people may waste money on itty-bitty "long shots" instead if investing in small increments (similar to lottery tickets).
Why not both?
One reason is purely psychological because you only get 0.004 btc for $100 while they consider getting 7 mil of some dog-related s-coin as "it's more units, man", which is completely erroneous, of course.
We are not even talking about buying shitcoins. Focus. If you started buying in January 2014, between January 2014 and late 2016, you would have gotten anywhere between 0.1 BTC and even close to 0.5 BTC for $100, depending on when you bought... so if there were 306 weeks during that period, you could have spent weekly or you could have tried to be strategic about saving up for certain points in time to buy your chunks. Once you establish some BTC you are likely in a better place than merely waiting.. but hey if you want to wait, then all the more power to you. After the fact, you can see where the better buying opportunities were between 2014 and 2016, but in the whole scheme of things, if you did the vast majority of your investing during that time, is it going to really make a whole hell of a lot of difference if your average per BTC was $300 versus if it was $1k per BTC, and maybe you got a lower average per BTC, but does not necessarily mean that you were as aggressive in your BTC buying... so maybe you end up with 20-25BTC that you got on average for less than $500, but the guy with 40-50 BTC may well be better off, even if he ended up paying close to $1k per BTC...
actually I just looked it up, and DCAing between January 2014 and December 2014, still gives you less than $400 per BTC... are you going to beat that with lump summing?. invest $15,700, get 40 BTC.. You think that your lumpsumming is going to beat that? and still allow you to be as aggressive, persistent and steadfast? I doubt it.. that's why you ONLY got 20 BTC during that period, even though you ONLY spent $6k, too.. but are you better off with that approach? Maybe for you, but what about a generally applicable approach?
I would never do it, but people do it left and right.
Spending 5-25K at once (LS) gives you a more "tangible" amount of bitcoin and removes the distraction of the low value s-coins.
Sure, there could be a gambler who spends $5-25K on a s-coin, but I assume that those are a very small minority.
Spending 5-25K at once (LS) gives you a more "tangible" amount of bitcoin and removes the distraction of the low value s-coins.
Sure, there could be a gambler who spends $5-25K on a s-coin, but I assume that those are a very small minority.
Sounds like you are arguing backwards to me. Between January 2014 and December 2016 how many times would you have made those lump sum investments into BTC rather than DCAing throughout that period? Once per year? and when specifically? how do you know? how do you make a general applicable principle/system for normies that is even fucking close to DCA? Yeah, any of us can get a wee of a bit of an inclination for when a dip is happening or when the BTC price is going up, but we still have hardly no fucking clue about if the dip is going to stop dipping or if the Uppity is going to reverse.. so that leaves us back with the dilemas regarding when exactly and how much and DCA provides some answers to that which relates to the Nike slogan.. "just do it!!!" something like that.
February 18, 2023, 11:01:18 AM
February 18, 2023, 11:00:00 AM
Chilling with my own baked Bitcoin egg pie 
That looks amazing! Great job, Helena!
@jjg...you are posting pure nonsense.
@bitebits reference analyzed ALL scenarios and the conclusion is there:
"LS consistently outperforms DCA across all time periods, short term and long term.
The longer the time period, the more LS tends to outperform DCA."
You can't fight the math...but, of course, you will.
Hiding behind "normies" having no money, etc etc does not mean that what you peddle is correct.
"Normies" have money, and if they don't, they could even borrow some against some property if they want to get a lump sum.
I did it myself a couple times in the oughts.
In fact, we both know that my LS strategy vastly outperfomed your DCA.
@bitebits reference analyzed ALL scenarios and the conclusion is there:
"LS consistently outperforms DCA across all time periods, short term and long term.
The longer the time period, the more LS tends to outperform DCA."
You can't fight the math...but, of course, you will.
Hiding behind "normies" having no money, etc etc does not mean that what you peddle is correct.
"Normies" have money, and if they don't, they could even borrow some against some property if they want to get a lump sum.
I did it myself a couple times in the oughts.
In fact, we both know that my LS strategy vastly outperfomed your DCA.
I feel like this is going to throw shade on other similiar strategies and I do not like it. The "study" was based entirely on a DCA type based on buying on a fixed time interval with a fixed sum. The other types of DCA were not even considered.
Buying each dip is a completely different kind of DCA which was not discussed here.
Although I am not sure if Value Averaging can be considered a DCA, technically, lets be clear that VA > DCA. Obviously this type is not a risk-spreading DCA as the one being discussed but rather a profit maximization strategy using a continuous income source, which is infinitely more important.
Also the risk of losing all your money in an investment with LS is something that should be considered. With DCA at least you will have some money left in your pocket if your investment goes belly up.
The study is flawed because it equates prices before mass adoption and after. Unless you have a way of predicting early unicorn investments, only the time scale from 2018 onwards should be considered, as the market cap shows this is when the mass adoption of Bitcoin really began. The prices were at 8-10k.
February 18, 2023, 10:01:21 AM
February 18, 2023, 09:35:45 AM
This week's return to the bull mode was a bit surprising and a very positive sign. The confidence is slowly returning and for now there is no indication that some FTX @ Aldmeda like companies are manipulating the market as in 2022. It seems that 2019 mini bull is repeating in 2023. If all goes according to plan the top should be 48K somewhere in late March or April. To this number I've arrived in 4 different ways - 2 extrapolations from 2 points, 1 historic top resistance and 1 purely psychological factor - 50K! And if it is a short lived peak as in 2019 then the price will return in the upper 30K. After that it may come back to the lower 30K or even below that, before the start of the real bull in 2024. Having said that, I don't see it as the most probable scenario. IMO the chances for the top of this bull until May 2023 are:
41K - 48K - 15%
31K - 40K - 30%
26K - 30K - 35%
25K - 26K - 20%
However, if the bull market is confirmed next week and we break 26K, the prob. chart will look like this:
41K - 48K - 30%
31K - 40K - 45%
26K - 30K - 25%
41K - 48K - 15%
31K - 40K - 30%
26K - 30K - 35%
25K - 26K - 20%
However, if the bull market is confirmed next week and we break 26K, the prob. chart will look like this:
41K - 48K - 30%
31K - 40K - 45%
26K - 30K - 25%
February 18, 2023, 09:01:17 AM
February 18, 2023, 08:13:22 AM
Chilling with my own baked Bitcoin egg pie
February 18, 2023, 08:01:18 AM
February 18, 2023, 07:01:21 AM
February 18, 2023, 06:01:18 AM
February 18, 2023, 05:01:15 AM
February 18, 2023, 04:01:20 AM
February 18, 2023, 03:01:16 AM
February 18, 2023, 02:46:49 AM
Jump to: