Explanation
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 2400. (Read 26713540 times)
February 18, 2023, 01:01:20 AM
February 18, 2023, 12:35:02 AM
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 ince 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.
Not at all mate, that is real life example, from both extreme ends of the scale. Just confirms my original statement, people tend to buy high not low!
As for my friend, he would be sitting "prettier", if he DCA instead of LS!... and i know he isn't the only exception... it is a larger than you may realize, people may be too embarrassed to let you know they bought in to high and too much!
and i also like how you are using the word "IF" now... Hindsight is 20/20
February 18, 2023, 12:21:50 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.
February 18, 2023, 12:01:16 AM
February 17, 2023, 11:18:36 PM
@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.
February 17, 2023, 11:01:17 PM
February 17, 2023, 10:41:30 PM
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!!
February 17, 2023, 10:20:53 PM
@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.
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.
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 almost 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 (or 1/3 per mo for three months) 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.
February 17, 2023, 10:01:20 PM
February 17, 2023, 09:34:05 PM
@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.
@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.
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.. .
I'll keep repeating this, the average person/normies/whatever you want to call them will never #BTFD! they will buy at #ATH without hesitation, so LS will never work for them!
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!
February 17, 2023, 09:15:56 PM
If you change the DCA strategy to one which buys the dip at seemingly steadying-out bearish market conditions instead of at fixed time intervals, one might see completely different results.
HODl seems to prove the best strategy only when assuming 5000%+ future prices. And what chance does a normie trader have to spot Bitcoin's potential in the early days?
So I see that study as fundamentally flawed. You simply cannot take into account pre-mainstream prices just as you cannot account for ICO/IPO investments turning out to be unicorns.
This is why DCA>LS
HODl seems to prove the best strategy only when assuming 5000%+ future prices. And what chance does a normie trader have to spot Bitcoin's potential in the early days?
So I see that study as fundamentally flawed. You simply cannot take into account pre-mainstream prices just as you cannot account for ICO/IPO investments turning out to be unicorns.
This is why DCA>LS
Normie newies have almost no clue about whether BTC is in a dip or not, until they spend a considerable amount of time studying bitcoin, and many of us longer term folks have hardly any fucking clue either.. regarding if the BTC price is going to go up or down from where we are at.
One thing that you do know is how much of a budget that you have and whether you can afford to invest $100 per week, or if you only have enough to do $10 per week or if there might be some other suitable amount.
Another thing that any of us should be able to figure out is what we want to be our investment target in terms of the other portions of our investment portfolio and other particulars related to us.. if we feel kind of whimpy then we might ONLY invest towards the bottom of the starter investment range which would be around 1%, and if we feel more bullish about bitcoin, then we might want to start out attempting to get to 25%.. and of course, if we study the space as long as it takes us to attempt to reach whatever target that we have, we might change our target or even start to adopt more advance techniques that include buying on the dip and lump sum investing.. and combining all three.. and we might even get to fuck you status or learn how to figure out what fuck you status is in terms of longer term ideas rather than fluctuations in spot price, including if we might consider that it is better to get in and out of bitcoin or if we might consider bitcoin as a longer investment that might help us to get to fuck you status when we might not otherwise have had considered it to be possible to get to fuck you status.
BTC can do anything as a boyfriend...
Hamza, so you must have had a lot of boyfriends ! How is it to live as a gay in Pakistan ? Do you guys get beaten by Muslims, when you kiss in the open?I thought the bell curve is part of common sense nowadays, but here we go:
I know some gays who are more a man than most other men i know.
To be fair though, i also met some gays being more a lady than most women i know.
M'kay?
EDIT: BTC going up to attack $25k agaist similar resistance figures, compared to last time King Daddy broke $25k?
The retrace was short lived and shallow. Good, good!
You can be whatever you want, right?
Even though your further post (OOM) clarifies some aspects of your points MOAR better, I am not going to chime in any further... unless provoked.
Whatever investing strategy you settle on, be it lump sum or dollar cost averaging, you´re going to execute it once, not 4000 times or some such. I haven´t read the posts, just looked at the graphic comparing large samples. No mention of variance. Okay, I don´t wanna get in a scrum with people, this seems like a contentious issue, so please don´t adopt my in support of your argument or lambaste me as helping the other side. I´m going for a walk now.
Well. Think about it.
If you have a budget in which you have already figured out that you have an extra $100 per week that you could buy bitcoin, and that has been your situation since January 2014. You could choose to buy right away as your money comes in or you could attempt to employ your buying of BTC at strategic times and there have been about 470 weeks - if you use 9 years as your investing timeline. To me, I don't mind weekly buys, but sure there could be arguments for fewer than 470 buys, but I would not be so much of an advocate of 4,000 buys in a 9 year period of time.
So maybe you have a system that you think might be better than buying weekly.. especially if you are starting out with zero bitcoin and you are considering building a stash out of your $47k that only comes to be available at $100 per week, unless you have some other reasonable variation of the hypothetical that you might want to consider.
Do you want to consider that in January 2014, you were already starting with an investment portfolio of $100k (but none of that was in bitcoin).. would that change your approach towards getting a position in bitcoin? What would be your allocation target? I doubt that it is really very controversial, but there is discretion regarding what method you believe might work best for you, if you had happened to have been a newbie normie in January 2014 with a $100 per week budget that you could invest into bitcoin and then what about for other newbie normies who might find their lil selfies in a similar situation?.
If you prefer to use your own forum registration date of August 30, 2016 as the investment starting date, then sure that could be possible to work from that date, which would ONLY give us around 6.5 years (or 338 weeks to work with), but hey, no reasons to NOT be flexible in possible scenarios or potential hypotheticals... though $100 per week since August 30, 2016 would ONLY get you around 7.66BTC with $33.8k invested. We should be able to work with that... anything greater than 3-4 years becomes more and more workable.. regarding what would you have done and why and what should others do (such as a newbie normie)?
February 17, 2023, 09:08:57 PM
...OK, Boomer...
You just can't really lump together gay people or Muslims or almost any members of any group.
February 17, 2023, 09:01:16 PM
February 17, 2023, 08:01:16 PM
February 17, 2023, 07:01:20 PM
February 17, 2023, 06:10:33 PM
Please explain to me, how what you wrote has anything to do with the topic that I brought up (Muslim hate towards gays).
Easy.
Hater Muslims, considering themselves uber-male, also to distance themselves more from gays, which are seen as "weak" are bigger pussies than some of those gays.
I met Muslims who where all about respect to life, in contrast. That's also why they left their motherland, to start living a more free, integer life in western countries. They don't even want to be integrated as much in the western Muslim community, they like to live on modern principles instead, allowing their wifes and daughters ditch the headscarfs...
You just can't really lump together gay people or Muslims or almost any members of any group.
That's quite simple minded. In a world of growing complexity. Doesn't age well in most cases. Beware.
EDIT: With the exception of very well defined groups (by simple principles) like Bitcoiners and Nocoiners, for example
Sorry, I couldn't take it any more. OCD.
Details just matter, imo
February 17, 2023, 06:01:16 PM
February 17, 2023, 05:01:17 PM
February 17, 2023, 04:54:34 PM
Sorry, I couldn't take it any more. OCD.
AHHH dear please mention net time the term reference this time i have googled it and found this...
now i am sure its stored permanent in my memory.
Quote
Obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) is a common mental health condition where a person has obsessive thoughts and compulsive behaviours.
Ohhh one more thing congratulations xhomerx10 finally you have breakthrough the 5951 now your journey to the 6k is going to more easy (
) Jump to: