Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 4250. (Read 26714984 times)

Thanks, but I am thinking that such phenomena is likely not sustainable.  

Happy New Year to you too.



Still irrelevant, even if you want to reiterate how you believe it to be important and that you are cheering for our own good..blah blah blah... does not cause it to become more relevant than its already irrelevant status.



Last I checked, 3rd quarter goes through the end of September not the beginning of September.  Aside from the amounts, which I already stated that I was not too excited about your earlier suggested amount of 0.31 BTC, I am not that much more encouraged about your reduction of that to 1/3 (on my end)...  

Your supposed charitable 4 to 1 odds are like around my break even odds, so why the hell would I want to engage in a break-even odds bet?  do people actually take bets with break even odds?. .. especially when you had been putting 99 to 1 odds on a similar framing of the thing... so uie-pooie want to place all of the potential surplus value of our differing perspectives into your hands..... and sure maybe I am feeling uncomfortable about the exactness of 25%, and so in that regard, I am more inclined to attempt to take advantage of some of the surplus that comes from your assertion of 99% odds that $200k would not happen within 12 months.. didn't you initially say you dweeb?...

So I think a lot of this whole matter, from my perspective, would be challenging the outrageousness of your assertion that the odds are ONLY 1% in a year, and then you are not even close to wanting to stand behind anything close to your own assertion but trying to get the best of the scenarios and surplus value from my quite likely way more reasonable assertions.. or if you really believe that I am being outrageous, then even splitting the baby in the middle of 1/20 odds or 1/40 odds should not bother you since you conceive the whole matter as less than 1% odds.. .. and surely if you were giving me 1/99 odds, you surely would be a whole hell of a lot less inclined to be wanting to bet .4 BTC on your end when 99/1 odds would cause me to only have to put up 0.004 BTC to cover such a 1/99 odds bet, right?  

So I already asserted that I may well be willing to compromise in terms of attempting to figure out ways to split the surplus value rather than your seeming to strive to take any such surplus value for ur lil selfie.

So, don't be trying to assert that you are trying to call my supposed "bullshit" when you are trying to shave all of the surplus value in seemingly three ways (maybe even four?)  regarding 1) the dates ( 1a) was that a mistake on the end of the quarter? and 1b) did you not originally assert 12 months for the BTC price not going above $200k?  not that an additional 3 months changes a whole hell of a lot for me, but you are the one who originally proclaimed no supra $200k for 12months.. originally you said "none at all" then later you downgraded that to 1%), 2) the odds of your wanting to harp on my 25% assertion when you are the one who stated 1%.. so there is a pretty damned big difference between 1% and 25%, last time I checked and 3) the amount of money at stake that I already suggested that I did not need any such bet to be a lot of money.. and you sticking with unnecessarily high bet amounts.. which you persistently showing yourself as a dweeb..

Just to flesh out the aspect of the money, like I already suggested, I may be willing to agree to higher bet amounts if the odds were to be more acceptable.. and even though I would not mind holding you to somewhere in the ballpark of your original proclamation of 99/1 odds.  Sure, I believe that I would be willing to compromise with your own assignment of odds in some kind of way.. and I am already saying that I am not that passionate to try to defend my own earlier assignment of 25%-ish odds.. because I do not consider my already existing odds to be outrageous yet, at the same time, I don't exactly feel passionate about if my assignment of percentages might be off by even 50% (such as having a variance in my odds of 12.5% or 37.5%), so probably in that regard, I would not start to feel inclined to even want to bet if I am not getting at least outside of some kind of a reasonable variance from my already asserted numbers.. such as getting more than 50% outside of my already assignment of probabilities.. and of course, it would be better to get even more than my variance.. especially since you had already stated numbers that I consider to be outrageous and that your own odds are ONLY 1% for a year for going over $200k.. how much variance off of your percentage do you need... apparently from your own harping on my assignment of 25%, you need something like  25x variance in order to feel comfortable.. or can you be a bit more solid in describing how much variance you might need, and then at that point, maybe we could split the difference from the point of figuring out our variance?

Anyhow, you are also easily just wanting to be stubborn about your supposed bet terms, even though I am going to attempt to try flexible about your own earlier stubborn assertions to keep open if we cannot figure out reasonable terms regarding the $200K question, then there still could be some room for your assertion that you believe that we are staying in $30k to $65k for the next 12 months, even though I can see that the differences in our assignments of probabilities to that seems to be quite a bit smaller, so we would not have as much to work with regarding that one, even though by definition supra $65k would end up playing out way sooner than any supra $200k question.

Star Wars always stole from a bunch of stuff so I wouldn't really hold that against them.

What I do hold against them is that they're producing shit.

Explanation

Perfect find!
Marmolada was my closest guess, however.
So is the formation in the background the Langkofel/Plattkofel group?

 Nice!  Giffed it for those who don't click links.

 

I am not a radio expert by ANY means.  But no, I am certain that under NORMAL circumstances my radio could not pick up a a 2km+ wavelength.   Ha.  It can RX down to 30k, but of course only in amateur ranges.  I thin there would need to be some sort of converter and the right antenna, then I could do it.  Perhaps when the time comes for a future TX I will see if I have the energy to put together what I need to receive.

I am MOST interested in CW just on the basis of how far one can communicate on the amount of energy in a lightbulb.  But I have exactly zero morse code skill whatsoever.  It's one of those bucket list things I doubt I ever get around to.

For those who want to get lost in the signal this is a fun site:

http://websdr.ewi.utwente.nl:8901/

Ok, as requested, based on the TV indicator "log growth cruves", here is a zoomed in version of 2023-2027. As well as is possible to achieve at least.



Since it's still near impossible to accurately identify the upper band, here is the rounded data from some crudely drawn lines (roughly identified):

2022: $148K
2023: $232K
2024: $360K
2025: $558K
2026: $838K
2027: $1.29M
2028: $1.9M

For sure this log growth is only as accurate as when Bitcoin's price remains within it, as it has been the case for the past 10 years. If it were to break above or below and stay there, for example above ~$250K this year, and continue higher, then for sure it'd be invalidated. With the three touch-points from the peaks, it wouldn't be possible to re-calculate the upper band without missing a peak out, or "shifting it" as you put it.


Not the case anymore no.

Price will remain within it until it no longer remains within it, to put it simply. Previously with only two touch-points there was no accurate log growth, as the curve could merely be "shifted" to fit such a narrative, but since the 2017 top there is no shifting left that is possible. Ultimately this is why I like this log curve, because while it may not be right forever, like Bitcoin, this curve of logarithmic growth is immutable.

For context and reference sake, the above chart is an exact replica of the zoomed-in version previously posted:


I see it as more than possible that Bitcoin shifts away from this structured adoption and into a macro-sized bubble that eventually pops, in the same way the adoption could end and lead to a multi-year bear market, but so far I see no evidence of either event happened. It was close in March 2020, but alas price recovered quickly enough to return to the adoption trend.

Slow crawls up, fast slaps down. Prognosis: up.

That wealth isn't in filthy fiat. He'll cash it out suspiciously just before a bubble burst and leave the plebs holding their bags.

Well take a typical 60 watt Ghetto Blaster turn to maximum and measure how far away it can be heard. (no wind, obstacles...)
The longer the wavelenght the less power needed and less data transmission possible. More pulses , more data, more power needed. 7.83 Hz goes all the way around.

I am not a radio expert by ANY means.  But no, I am certain that under NORMAL circumstances my radio could not pick up a a 2km+ wavelength.   Ha.  It can RX down to 30k, but of course only in amateur ranges.  I thin there would need to be some sort of converter and the right antenna, then I could do it.  Perhaps when the time comes for a future TX I will see if I have the energy to put together what I need to receive.

I am MOST interested in CW just on the basis of how far one can communicate on the amount of energy in a lightbulb.  But I have exactly zero morse code skill whatsoever.  It's one of those bucket list things I doubt I ever get around to.

Explanation

You can proclaim it as maths and sciences until you are blue in the face, but I see that your chart has upside limitations on king daddy of about $280k until the early part of 2023 and your more drawn out chart does allow the amounts to continue to rise, and it is not exactly easy to read what those limitations into late 2025 and even 2026/2027 would be, but those limits seem to be quite a bit more restricted than I would consider them to be.  One thing about locking in a chart would be that the chart is what it is at that particular time, but I imagine if our lillie fiend, aka king daddy, ends up performing too much at the top of the parameters in the chart, then such parameters will be shifted up in later charts.. and the same is true with the range that appears to be narrowing.. they can be tweaked to account for the subsequent data.    If you were able to zoom in on 2023 to 2027, I would be interested to see those numbers more clearly, and I will bet that my opinion of our range is broader and my opinion about the upside is higher, and I could give less than two shits about your supposed math and sciences that are supposedly driving your supposed version of truth.

By the way, just in regards to what appears to be your chart's only going up to $280k by early 2023, I will say that my latest rendition of probabilities and prices on December 16, does not contain $280k exactly because I have $220k to $440k as a range depicted therein, but you can add up the numbers, and I have my rendition of supra $440k to be 14.5% that would be before 2023.. but I have a bit of waffling that asserts a 95.5% chance that our top of this cycle plays out by the end of 3rd quarter 2022... so probably there would be some need to put my timeline in there too which would likely reduce my assertion of 14.5% odds for supra $440k before 2023.,. and if you look at my supra $220k numbers, I have an additional 14.5% added for that, so supra $220k has something like 29% odds before 2023.. with that same kind of percentage reduction to account for my 4.5% odds that the top of the peak could happen after 3rd quarter 2022.

My point is not to proclaim myself as any kind of guru, but just to highlight that my rendition of numbers have way smaller than non-zero odds to depict BTC's price going above the $280k that appears to be a ceiling that is in your chart for early 2023... and so maybe verbally, you might assert that there could be a spike above the chart limits or even on either side of the depicted range, which we do have some periods in which there are short-lived spikes that go outside of the range of your chart.. and so if BTC were to get stuck in the higher end of the range of your chart for longer periods, then maybe the range or the limits could end up getting adjusted... Maybe in the end we are not saying a whole hell of a lot differently because I would not even be proclaiming the really higher numbers to be sustainable?  For example my depiction of $800k to $1.5million and then my depiction of above $1.5 million for this cycle only add up to about 2.5% odds, so they would seem pretty unlikely to happen, and for sure I would consider something like that to not be sustainable and likely to have a 85%-ish correction.. but really does not seem to be within the parameters of acceptable within your chart at all.... so let's take the most extreme of something like a supra $1.5 million peak that ends up happening towards the end of 2022 and maybe early 2023, then within the next year we end up getting an 85% correction for a period of time would bring BTC prices down to something like $225k.. and then we go from there in terms of how long a recovery might take, and your chart does not seem to allow that, even though mine only puts such a scenario at less than half a percent, and so maybe in that regard, I am proclaiming difference and the defiance of your supposed maths and sciences that don't really seem to allow for something like that, even if it is a long shot scenario.

If it were not for the person taking the picture in Jan 2020 (Bogdan Chiriac), probably I would not have seen the building with the windows and the fence with the signs attached.

Explanation

I think you cannot get MOAR accurate than this!

Nothing a new "clown" act cannot fix.

@jjg "A false irrelevant and unimportant indicator that you would like to cause to be relevant, when it no doesn't mean shit."

I think it is quite important, and if you think that it doesn't than you are delusional. To go in one year from 73% to 40% is not nothing.
In actuality, i was actually cheering it UP, not down and you got enraged by a mere mentioning of the word. What's wrong with you?

@jjg Regarding our bet-I would like to call your bullshit on this.

Here are my odds and conditions:

Since you give 25% to above 200K, I would bet 0.4 btc that it won't exceed 200K until 1pm EST Sept 1, 2022 and YOU would bet 0.1 btc that btc would be above 200K at some point between now and the date mentioned here earlier.
4:1 odds in YOUR favor.
I don't care betting on exceeding 30-65K range and I would not accept any other conditions.

uie-pooie says what?

I misread ‘ECB’ monetary policy