no-coiners spotted... 
All I see is OPSEC. Last week I saw a dirty car, instead of "WASH ME", someone wrote "BUY BTC" on it
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 4397. (Read 26711027 times)
November 30, 2021, 04:44:29 PM
Last week I saw a dirty car, instead of "WASH ME", someone wrote "BUY BTC" on it
November 30, 2021, 04:30:29 PM
I fucking hate all you assholes that got me back into running a Lightning Network Node again.
We love you too, Bawb!
November 30, 2021, 04:29:35 PM
Vitalik's shitcoin pumping?
November 30, 2021, 04:29:05 PM
I fucking hate all you assholes that got me back into running a Lightning Network Node again.
Seriously.
I have no idea how one day I rank top 25 on the BOS list, to not even appearing in their JSON data anymore.
Fuck this retarded space rock.
Seriously.
I have no idea how one day I rank top 25 on the BOS list, to not even appearing in their JSON data anymore.
Fuck this retarded space rock.
November 30, 2021, 04:01:34 PM
November 30, 2021, 03:44:46 PM
My dear i hope we get a vaccine for the new variant soon...
November 30, 2021, 03:35:09 PM
Fair enough.. but as I mentioned in my above response with the DCA.com link, if you had even modestly DCA'ed for something like $10 week (maybe even $1 per day) for 10.5 years, you would surely be above spot price millionaire status by now, you fuck... #nohomo.
Buying bitcoin at all was tricky in 2011. I mean really really tricky. One could wire money to some fly by night Japanese Magic the Gathering exchange. Or one could go through Liberty Reserve, Dwolla, and a USD<=>Lindendollars (second life)<=>BTC exchange or the like.
Or one could use fountains.
Or like me, one could acquire it by playing poker for it.
I have never DCA'd really... Though I have been known to fire into a blood red dip from time to time.
So, with no excuse, I have nearly no bitcoin at all... too bad, but you can't beat yourself up that much for your mistakes.
November 30, 2021, 03:25:56 PM
NO!?!?
November 30, 2021, 03:19:29 PM
My dear i hope we get a vaccine for the new variant soon...
November 30, 2021, 03:10:51 PM
no-coiners spotted...
November 30, 2021, 03:01:29 PM
November 30, 2021, 02:42:23 PM
Omicron is giving the Fed the perfect excuse not to "taper". So money printing will continue forever.
At least this new variant should be based on non-fiction, rather than sci fi
Not forgetting the Futurama reference...
It's defined as being the "the fifteenth star in a constellation" as well as being a letter of the Greek alphabet.
Scientists should stick to fiction-based naming in the future. Nuff said.
November 30, 2021, 02:31:04 PM
It sure is. Curbing inflation means less free money to further inflate the stock-bubble with, as they seem to recognize they are causing the inflation by all the money printing (duh, really??). So a red candle. However tomorrow everyone will realize that a) the printers will be going brrrrrr for quite some time to come, only maybe a little less, after a while and b) when there is inflation, ANY money lying around is just decaying in front of you so should instead IMMEDIATELY be pumped into to the bubble.
I remember back in the 80s and before, they could kinda get away with "Uh oh, inflation is high/low, we're going to do our best as an honest and righteous government to make sure we keep it where it's supposed to be". I'm guessing there's a few still up there who don't realize that the playing field have changed and most people know that it's mostly caused by money printing (though too many still buy the lie that inflation is a good thing).
I'm really starting to dislike this coupling of stonks and BTC. Feels degrading and dirty.
Bitcoin is always going to have its share of clueless newbs who don't really understand. It's probably a fairly constant ratio. Though I wonder if some of that is instead shifting over to alts.
November 30, 2021, 02:30:32 PM
^^this doesn't make sense...hmmm.
..and the markets also don't..."teper-tantrum" anyone?
I don't believe it, unless they suddenly started to follow von Mises.
..and the markets also don't..."teper-tantrum" anyone?
I don't believe it, unless they suddenly started to follow von Mises.
November 30, 2021, 02:18:55 PM
that's what she said.
November 30, 2021, 02:17:19 PM
Anyone feel like deleting a few more posts from 2015? or 2011? I was not participating in the forum before late February 2014.. so there is that.
Did someone just delete a bunch of posts? I'm suddenly finding my actual new posts are page or two previous to where 'new' posts should be.
November 30, 2021, 02:12:52 PM
Wordy man! Had to grab a beer to read this reply...
This mentality is also expected in any emerging asset class I imagine. Especially for those who have been invested for less time, and something that I can imagine doesn't effect you what so ever, but this $ value consideration is very relevant to most holders.
For me, I largely continued to consider myself as being overinvested in bitcoin when the BTC price went up from around $250 to around $500 in late 2015 which would have been my break even point, but then BTC prices corrected below $500 in early 2016 but returned to supra $500 by the middle and even the end of 2016... and then by the time BTC reached $19,666 which caused my portfolio to go into the 85% territory of allocation.. but at that point something more than 20x in profits... so yeah there is a pretty BIG difference in being overallocated (and how much a guy is overallocated) while his BTC holdings are in the negative and then being overallocated as BTC goes into decent profits and ends up largely staying in profits.
For sure this is true. I felt over-invested during the covid crash for example, but I feel much less over-invested now that prices have gone up 10x since then!
Well sure.. but we have had more time for BTC to prove itself over the last 4 years or so too.. so if I have just reached my 8 year anniversary of when I got started in BTC, the second 4 years were easier than the first 4 years, but bitcoin has had those 4 additional years to show itself as a pristine asset class too..
Indeed, can't argue with that logic. I witnessed the 2014-2016 prices as a by-stander and was far from convinced Bitcoin had proved itself, given it was effectively only in it's second cycle. I was waiting for the confirmation of beginning a third cycle, and therefore establishing a statistical pattern that confirmed it's relevance as an emerging asset class. Hence waiting until 2017 before being convinced it was a worthwhile risk to take on.
I think you'll find I take minimum time defending mindrust, but instead sticking to the facts. He was a panic seller at break-even, not selling at a loss. I worry that in months or years to come "doing a mindrust" will be considered as dumping at the lows at a loss, instead of at the lows at break even, I was merely trying to clarify his actions to newer members who may misinterpret what he did.
The relevance being both actions will feel as bad as each other in the long-run, as both miss out on a lot of upside. Not an idea I intended to defend, in fact the opposite is true, I intend to expose.
Cannot really argue with you here in terms of some people NOT really seeming to have conviction towards BTC or a vision regarding how much of their investment portfolio they want to have in BTC. I hate to generalize too much, but surely we do see quite a few people who are not very aggressive in terms of the extent of their BTC holdings or their BTC targets, and I would not really want to blame anyone for the choices that they make because all of that is totally discretionary - even if they might later regret that they were too whimpy regarding the extent of their holdings.
I believe the reality is this is most investors at the moment, even if not most of the capital invested now institutions are stepping in with different longer-term perspectives. Despite Bitcoin decade long track record of being the best investment or asset class, most would prefer to speculate on that idea in the short-term for a variety of different reasons, as opposed to appreciate it for what it is in the long-term.
Well yes, with the $ price consistently increasing, this is obviously true, but only to a certain extend. Another bear market with a 75-80% downside doesn't mean accumulation is simply based on $ value, there are many who will no doubt be selling high in order to buy back for less. For example in 2017 I had no intention of selling my stash and wanted to hodl, but when price moved from $5K-$20K within a few months in such a parabolic manner, I did sell every last satoshi for an average of $17.5K and then re-accumulated at around $7K, so increased my BTC holdings by 2.5x. Call it being "lucky", but this wasn't selling the top, nor trying to buy the bottom. Just getting out once friends & family desperately wanted me to buy Bitcoin for them "before it goes to $1 million" and quickly realising that price had gotten out of control. I also didn't need years of experience in the market to see how greedy and irrational it had become, even if it was with a reasonable amount of research within a matter of months.
This isn't my plan this cycle, nor if prices go parabolic, but I've always been clear about selling 50-75% depending on market conditions and then remaining patient in order to re-invest. Not selling the top, nor selling the bottom, but merely attempting to accumulate more Bitcoin when given the opportunity. Of course this can be high risk, and for me my decision is simply based on whether the market becomes parabolic or simply continues to grind upwards. Because in reality the mistake that most made wasn't selling BTC at say $5K, $10K then $20K but failure to re-invest when price inevitably crashed lower. The error wasn't selling at those prices per say, but not re-investing when given the opportunity again. For example even selling early at an average of $10K and re-investing around those $6-8K lows would have increased holdings by 20-40%. Personally I prefer to follow what institutions do, which is buying low and selling high within market cycles. Never selling all, but selling enough. Not the top, nor the bottom. Just basic risk management. But obviously if you're not 95-99% invested, then it's probably best simply hodl on and carry on accumulating. I've been on that ticket since $12K, max risk #noregrets, occasional loans, so my situation is different.
For me it was also simply based on the theory of gravity and Bitcoin's previous price movements. What goes up must come down, and what goes up with sheer velocity with go down with that same velocity, kind of at least. It is how markets generally work, with Bitcoin not being an exception to that rule either. Especially not now it has become institutionalised. My rambling point is there will be many doing the same, taking considerably profits near the top, even if most likely fail to re-invest at lower prices. Not to mention the cascade of panic sellers "doing a mindrust" and selling at break-even, knowing that their considerable profits have evaporated, and the value of their BTC could continue to go lower from there on, and there's a good chance they'd be right in thinking so. But this isn't the fundamental mistake is the point. The error is always on selling early or failure to re-invest at lower prices (or even the same price if necessary). I imagine most make this mistake, without a shadow of doubt.
Then there is obviously trading shitcoins to accumulate more Bitcoin, but that's another story. It's kind of like trading with fiat-based shitcoins, but with more volatility and only really possible with low risk in a bull market. So for me it's always about accumulating more Bitcoin for sure, but not simply with $ DCA or lump sums, but also considering market conditions as well as speculating on the latest hot topic for more satoshis. Diversified accumulation you could say. Of course we can look year on year on the cost of accumulating Bitcoin, but again for me this would be too simplistic a way to identify how to accumulate more Bitcoin when I've already identified a few ways which doesn't just include simply selling a state-issued shitcoin for Bitcoin. Others even accumulate by offering services to customers etc.
For me, BTC based accumulation from trading is a no brainer in a bull market, but that's just me. If I wouldn't want to hold XRP (which I don't), I therefore certainly don't want to be holding many dollars either.
They are all shitcoins at the end of the day. Some are just useful to accumulate more Bitcoin in a bull market, others are useful for increasing accumulation in a bear market.
Whoaza, LFC.
You are really caught up in this calendar year nonsense.
Whatever...
You do you.
I am going to remain skeptical regarding bitcoin having to conform to some kind of a calendar year schedule....
I'm also not tied to the doctrine of the calendar, despite so far not seeing the 4 year cycle broken, and considering it to remain relevant today. Until proven otherwise.
Yeah.. but how strict are you going to be? There needs to some flexibility in terms of deviating outside of the calendar, no?
Why are you even talking about $70k.. it's irrelevant, no?
No. $70K is exactly $1K higher than $69K, therefore it would be an ATH.
In reality I mean any price above $69K as an ATH, within the next 2-3 months being the point here. I don't believe the top has to be significant for the cycle to remain in tact, this is the common confusion here influenced by S2F model / log growth. The cycle is based on time, it has nothing to do with price. Previously there were blow off tops prior to a mutli-year bear market, but this is a variable not a constant. Bitcoin's halving is a constant, arguably the only one that exists. This constant is based on time with 98% accuracy, as it can be a month or so in advance or behind as you probably know, re mining difficulty and hashrate. By comparison, price is relatively unpredictable. Even S2F model doesn't attempt to predict a "top price", only a "fair value". Whatever that's supposed to mean...
So if price only made it to a $70K ATH within 2-3 months, it wouldn't invalidate the cycle what so ever. It would only suggest that price isn't going to drop 75-80% because there hasn't been a blow-off parabolic top, but this has nothing to do with a time-based cycle, only price-based. It wouldn't suggest that there won't be a multi-year bear market. Time isn't dependant on price basically, it's an exclusive constant.
That said I still believe in $100K by 2024 (stock to flow value), as well as logarithmic growth that currently targets around $150K, but otherwise could be $200-250K if in 2023/2024.
They appear statistically valid to me, but simply not time-based. Ideally the 4.08 year cycle does come to an end, but only time will tell (pun intended!)
Well, we already had a 56% correction from $64,895 to $28,600, so I don't see why we should be expecting 56% or greater without going UP first.
Me neither. The year isn't even over and price recovered from $65K within 6 month. Multi-year bear market my ass!
I was obviously referring to a mutli-year bear market next year.
We are not in a mature asset, so I see no reason why we don't just stick with something approaching s2f rather than inventing some pattern that might apply to some mature asset that does not already have the 4 year fractal in place. But whatever, you do you.
Good advise. I'll stick to the statistics I've studied, log curves and such. I'll let Plan B stick to the "science" of stock to flow. One which few people can easily explain, let alone fully understand...
yes.. he seems to be wrong about that floor model, and he really has not given details either.
As they say in the world of math: "I don't care how you got your answer, without the workings out it's useless".
I am not really disagreeing with you, and I doubt that there was very much emphasis to his floor model anyhow, even if it ended up largely being true in the end of August, September and October... but falling quite short for the end of November.
Hopefully not, but if some disciples want to panic-sell over it then they are welcome to. The floor model definitely did establish a pattern of being accurate, but alas it didn't last long.
There is a kind of mindset that exists with people who get too preoccupied with their BTC dollar valuations and fail/refuse to recognize and appreciate bitcoins existence as a pristine asset class.. or even an emerging pristine asset class that should cause and justify ongoing buying at any price and just waiting it out, but instead there sometimes is way too much attempts to time tops and bottoms and then ending up psychologically causing their lil selfies to NOT build themselves into HODLers rather than whiners and bitcoin naysayers. Of course, Billy nocoiner is of a similar type and eXPHorizon and a few other nocoiner/or lowcoiner dweebs who we see posting their nonsense in this thread from time to time.
This mentality is also expected in any emerging asset class I imagine. Especially for those who have been invested for less time, and something that I can imagine doesn't effect you what so ever, but this $ value consideration is very relevant to most holders.
For me, I largely continued to consider myself as being overinvested in bitcoin when the BTC price went up from around $250 to around $500 in late 2015 which would have been my break even point, but then BTC prices corrected below $500 in early 2016 but returned to supra $500 by the middle and even the end of 2016... and then by the time BTC reached $19,666 which caused my portfolio to go into the 85% territory of allocation.. but at that point something more than 20x in profits... so yeah there is a pretty BIG difference in being overallocated (and how much a guy is overallocated) while his BTC holdings are in the negative and then being overallocated as BTC goes into decent profits and ends up largely staying in profits.
For sure this is true. I felt over-invested during the covid crash for example, but I feel much less over-invested now that prices have gone up 10x since then!
Whereas others who are newer to the market will likely first fluctuate between being up & down against their $ investment, thus much more difficult to ignore. Despite each individual being able to look at the same decade long history of Bitcoin's price movement, it's clearly a lot easier to acknowledge BTC as "pristine asset class" as you put it when your investment is UP, as opposed to when it's not.
Well sure.. but we have had more time for BTC to prove itself over the last 4 years or so too.. so if I have just reached my 8 year anniversary of when I got started in BTC, the second 4 years were easier than the first 4 years, but bitcoin has had those 4 additional years to show itself as a pristine asset class too..
Indeed, can't argue with that logic. I witnessed the 2014-2016 prices as a by-stander and was far from convinced Bitcoin had proved itself, given it was effectively only in it's second cycle. I was waiting for the confirmation of beginning a third cycle, and therefore establishing a statistical pattern that confirmed it's relevance as an emerging asset class. Hence waiting until 2017 before being convinced it was a worthwhile risk to take on.
So, even if bitcoin's upside potential is likely quite a bit less than what it had been for me, it is also quite a bit more assured in terms of having a safer downside, too. You seem as if you are spending a lot of time trying to defend mindrust or some alternative thinking while at the same time, NOT really pinpointing exactly it is that you are arguing against in terms of points that I had already made.
I think you'll find I take minimum time defending mindrust, but instead sticking to the facts. He was a panic seller at break-even, not selling at a loss. I worry that in months or years to come "doing a mindrust" will be considered as dumping at the lows at a loss, instead of at the lows at break even, I was merely trying to clarify his actions to newer members who may misinterpret what he did.
The relevance being both actions will feel as bad as each other in the long-run, as both miss out on a lot of upside. Not an idea I intended to defend, in fact the opposite is true, I intend to expose.
Others who simply threw in X amount of fiat at $5K or $10K, generally remained skeptical throughout the entire bear market until price finally got back to $20K. No doubt many of them sold half their stash at this level, in order to only be invested with the house, in order to have less risk in an asset they didn't fully believe in. A lot of this is based on what you perceive Bitcoin to be, whether it's a speculative investment or a reserve asset.
Cannot really argue with you here in terms of some people NOT really seeming to have conviction towards BTC or a vision regarding how much of their investment portfolio they want to have in BTC. I hate to generalize too much, but surely we do see quite a few people who are not very aggressive in terms of the extent of their BTC holdings or their BTC targets, and I would not really want to blame anyone for the choices that they make because all of that is totally discretionary - even if they might later regret that they were too whimpy regarding the extent of their holdings.
I believe the reality is this is most investors at the moment, even if not most of the capital invested now institutions are stepping in with different longer-term perspectives. Despite Bitcoin decade long track record of being the best investment or asset class, most would prefer to speculate on that idea in the short-term for a variety of different reasons, as opposed to appreciate it for what it is in the long-term.
By the way, I heard some interesting discussion recently regarding some of us having almost no way to even come close to being able to acquire similar amounts of BTC that we had accumulated earlier.. so if we had been able to acquire $20k worth of BTC and we end up with 20 BTC, after 4-5 years those same 20BTC now cost more than a $million.. so having had been able to acquire 20 BTC with $20k of capital now costs more than $1 million... Similar is true for some individuals who may have been able to acquire $1million at $1k each, then that would have been 1,000 BTC, which would now cost $56 million to buy those same quantities of BTC... .
Well yes, with the $ price consistently increasing, this is obviously true, but only to a certain extend. Another bear market with a 75-80% downside doesn't mean accumulation is simply based on $ value, there are many who will no doubt be selling high in order to buy back for less. For example in 2017 I had no intention of selling my stash and wanted to hodl, but when price moved from $5K-$20K within a few months in such a parabolic manner, I did sell every last satoshi for an average of $17.5K and then re-accumulated at around $7K, so increased my BTC holdings by 2.5x. Call it being "lucky", but this wasn't selling the top, nor trying to buy the bottom. Just getting out once friends & family desperately wanted me to buy Bitcoin for them "before it goes to $1 million" and quickly realising that price had gotten out of control. I also didn't need years of experience in the market to see how greedy and irrational it had become, even if it was with a reasonable amount of research within a matter of months.
This isn't my plan this cycle, nor if prices go parabolic, but I've always been clear about selling 50-75% depending on market conditions and then remaining patient in order to re-invest. Not selling the top, nor selling the bottom, but merely attempting to accumulate more Bitcoin when given the opportunity. Of course this can be high risk, and for me my decision is simply based on whether the market becomes parabolic or simply continues to grind upwards. Because in reality the mistake that most made wasn't selling BTC at say $5K, $10K then $20K but failure to re-invest when price inevitably crashed lower. The error wasn't selling at those prices per say, but not re-investing when given the opportunity again. For example even selling early at an average of $10K and re-investing around those $6-8K lows would have increased holdings by 20-40%. Personally I prefer to follow what institutions do, which is buying low and selling high within market cycles. Never selling all, but selling enough. Not the top, nor the bottom. Just basic risk management. But obviously if you're not 95-99% invested, then it's probably best simply hodl on and carry on accumulating. I've been on that ticket since $12K, max risk #noregrets, occasional loans, so my situation is different.
For me it was also simply based on the theory of gravity and Bitcoin's previous price movements. What goes up must come down, and what goes up with sheer velocity with go down with that same velocity, kind of at least. It is how markets generally work, with Bitcoin not being an exception to that rule either. Especially not now it has become institutionalised. My rambling point is there will be many doing the same, taking considerably profits near the top, even if most likely fail to re-invest at lower prices. Not to mention the cascade of panic sellers "doing a mindrust" and selling at break-even, knowing that their considerable profits have evaporated, and the value of their BTC could continue to go lower from there on, and there's a good chance they'd be right in thinking so. But this isn't the fundamental mistake is the point. The error is always on selling early or failure to re-invest at lower prices (or even the same price if necessary). I imagine most make this mistake, without a shadow of doubt.
Then there is obviously trading shitcoins to accumulate more Bitcoin, but that's another story. It's kind of like trading with fiat-based shitcoins, but with more volatility and only really possible with low risk in a bull market. So for me it's always about accumulating more Bitcoin for sure, but not simply with $ DCA or lump sums, but also considering market conditions as well as speculating on the latest hot topic for more satoshis. Diversified accumulation you could say. Of course we can look year on year on the cost of accumulating Bitcoin, but again for me this would be too simplistic a way to identify how to accumulate more Bitcoin when I've already identified a few ways which doesn't just include simply selling a state-issued shitcoin for Bitcoin. Others even accumulate by offering services to customers etc.
For me, BTC based accumulation from trading is a no brainer in a bull market, but that's just me. If I wouldn't want to hold XRP (which I don't), I therefore certainly don't want to be holding many dollars either.
They are all shitcoins at the end of the day. Some are just useful to accumulate more Bitcoin in a bull market, others are useful for increasing accumulation in a bear market.
Next week is important isn’t it. I feel like if we don’t start going up by the end of next week then the bull could be over. I’m prepared either way, obviously heavily leaning to wanting up but there are positives to both. Let’s see what happens.
Whoaza, LFC.
You are really caught up in this calendar year nonsense.
Whatever...
You do you.
I am going to remain skeptical regarding bitcoin having to conform to some kind of a calendar year schedule....
I'm also not tied to the doctrine of the calendar, despite so far not seeing the 4 year cycle broken, and considering it to remain relevant today. Until proven otherwise.
Yeah.. but how strict are you going to be? There needs to some flexibility in terms of deviating outside of the calendar, no?
This is also because I'm anticipating a top in January/February, definitely not December, given the cycle has generally been 49 months as opposed to 48 months (4 years). One small factor that many have overlooked. A lot can happen in 3 months, as we saw from October-December in 2017 when price increased by 300%. Even a top at $70K in three months wouldn't invalidate the idea of a 4 year cycle for me either, it would only further reinforce it, but likely with much less downside than previous years, if there is a lack of parabolic blow off top.
Why are you even talking about $70k.. it's irrelevant, no?
No. $70K is exactly $1K higher than $69K, therefore it would be an ATH.
We have already been there done that. $69k is more or less the same as $70k.. so if you are talking about BIGGER numbers for this year, we need to talk about something significant, no?
In reality I mean any price above $69K as an ATH, within the next 2-3 months being the point here. I don't believe the top has to be significant for the cycle to remain in tact, this is the common confusion here influenced by S2F model / log growth. The cycle is based on time, it has nothing to do with price. Previously there were blow off tops prior to a mutli-year bear market, but this is a variable not a constant. Bitcoin's halving is a constant, arguably the only one that exists. This constant is based on time with 98% accuracy, as it can be a month or so in advance or behind as you probably know, re mining difficulty and hashrate. By comparison, price is relatively unpredictable. Even S2F model doesn't attempt to predict a "top price", only a "fair value". Whatever that's supposed to mean...
So if price only made it to a $70K ATH within 2-3 months, it wouldn't invalidate the cycle what so ever. It would only suggest that price isn't going to drop 75-80% because there hasn't been a blow-off parabolic top, but this has nothing to do with a time-based cycle, only price-based. It wouldn't suggest that there won't be a multi-year bear market. Time isn't dependant on price basically, it's an exclusive constant.
That said I still believe in $100K by 2024 (stock to flow value), as well as logarithmic growth that currently targets around $150K, but otherwise could be $200-250K if in 2023/2024.
They appear statistically valid to me, but simply not time-based. Ideally the 4.08 year cycle does come to an end, but only time will tell (pun intended!)
Maybe -65 or -70% rather than -80%, but that's just me.
Well, we already had a 56% correction from $64,895 to $28,600, so I don't see why we should be expecting 56% or greater without going UP first.
Me neither. The year isn't even over and price recovered from $65K within 6 month. Multi-year bear market my ass!
I was obviously referring to a mutli-year bear market next year.
That said, I consider the logarithmic growth targeting $150K to be a lot more relevant than the S2F model, even if there is no time constraint, simply because statistically I understand it much better.
We are not in a mature asset, so I see no reason why we don't just stick with something approaching s2f rather than inventing some pattern that might apply to some mature asset that does not already have the 4 year fractal in place. But whatever, you do you.
Good advise. I'll stick to the statistics I've studied, log curves and such. I'll let Plan B stick to the "science" of stock to flow. One which few people can easily explain, let alone fully understand...
Furthermore many have been confused by Plan B's floor model it seems (completely misunderstood it), which isn't based on stock to flow, but his own understand of it.
yes.. he seems to be wrong about that floor model, and he really has not given details either.
As they say in the world of math: "I don't care how you got your answer, without the workings out it's useless".
His $98K by November is merely pulling a number out of hat based on his own interpretation of the market, like many speculators have done so. S2F merely anticipates $83K being a fair price for Bitcoin by 2024, or $122K by 2024 depending on which upgraded version you look at. On average, a target of $100K by 2024, NOT 2021. He has also made it clear that price not reaching $98K by the end of the month, which now looks considerably less likely, doesn't mean that his S2F model is invalidated, but that his floor model is broken. They are independent models after all.
I am not really disagreeing with you, and I doubt that there was very much emphasis to his floor model anyhow, even if it ended up largely being true in the end of August, September and October... but falling quite short for the end of November.
Hopefully not, but if some disciples want to panic-sell over it then they are welcome to. The floor model definitely did establish a pattern of being accurate, but alas it didn't last long.
November 30, 2021, 02:01:27 PM
November 30, 2021, 01:53:15 PM
I see Jerome Powell is blaming Mr. Covid 19 for inflation and it is actually THAT that is making inflation no longer "transitory".
Nothing to do with printing trillions of dollars, giving away helicopter money and outsourcing jobs and manufacturing to a communist country.
Don't look at Powell and his fellow henchmen, it's Mr Covid 19 who is to blame!
End of!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59480099
Omicron is giving the Fed the perfect excuse not to "taper". So money printing will continue forever.
For anyone not wanting to live in La La Land:
Buy BTCitcoin!
Nothing to do with printing trillions of dollars, giving away helicopter money and outsourcing jobs and manufacturing to a communist country.
Don't look at Powell and his fellow henchmen, it's Mr Covid 19 who is to blame!
End of!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59480099
Omicron is giving the Fed the perfect excuse not to "taper". So money printing will continue forever.
For anyone not wanting to live in La La Land:
Buy BTCitcoin!
November 30, 2021, 01:35:10 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs
He doesn't trust the banks so he was half way there.
Quote
Stephen Lara did everything right. But, as subscribers of our YouTube channel know well, even innocent people aren’t safe from civil forfeiture.
Stephen is a 39-year-old retired Marine from Lubbock, Texas. He is a devoted father of two teenage daughters and, once a month, he drives from Texas to see them in California, where they live with their mother. Eager to be closer after spending the pandemic in Texas caring for his elderly parents, he has been shopping for a home near the California-Nevada border.
https://ij.org/case/nevada-civil-forf...
In February 2021, Stephen was making his usual trip west through Reno when he was pulled over by the Nevada Highway Patrol for supposedly following a tractor-trailer too closely.
The officer complimented Stephen’s driving, thanked him for observing the speed limit, and explained that NHP was “conducting a public information campaign” to help drivers avoid danger. Confident that the officer was only there to help, Stephen cooperated with his escalating investigation, even volunteering that he was carrying a large amount of cash.
Ninety minutes later, Stephen had been robbed of his life savings—$86,900—which he carried with him after a spate of robberies in his parents’ neighborhood. The officer who pulled Stephen over wanted to let him go; he was overruled by NHP Sergeant Glenn Rigdon, who ordered the money seized specifically so that it could be “adopted” by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.
“Adoption” is a process by which federal law enforcement agencies can take over a seizure by state and local law enforcement. If the federal government is successful in forfeiting the property, its “equitable sharing” program guarantees the state or local agency that seized the property up to 80% of the proceeds for use in the agency’s budget.
In Stephen’s case, the DEA sat on his life savings for months, ignoring the legal deadlines requiring it to charge Stephen with a crime, begin a civil forfeiture case against his property, or return the money within six months of seizure. The DEA did none of those things. So, on August 30, IJ sued it in federal court on Stephen’s behalf.
Early the morning of September 1, the agency announced it would return all of Stephen’s money. In less than 24 hours, it had learned of our lawsuit, answered hard questions from The Washington Post, and committed to reviewing its policies for federal adoptions.
When we learned he would be getting his money back (filled with joy), he told us, “This isn’t over.”
And it isn’t. At the same time we filed in federal court, we also filed a major constitutional challenge in state court. Our state case aims to make federal adoptions impossible in Nevada as violations of the state constitution’s guarantees of reasonable seizures supported by probable cause and due process of law—not based on mere suspicion or for the financial benefit of the seizing agency. If we are successful, it will be the first time a state court has struck down federal adoptions. And a victory will take the profit motive out of roadside seizures.
Filmed with a Canon C70 with a 50mm 1.2 lens. Aputure 300d, 120d, and amaran.
Stephen is a 39-year-old retired Marine from Lubbock, Texas. He is a devoted father of two teenage daughters and, once a month, he drives from Texas to see them in California, where they live with their mother. Eager to be closer after spending the pandemic in Texas caring for his elderly parents, he has been shopping for a home near the California-Nevada border.
https://ij.org/case/nevada-civil-forf...
In February 2021, Stephen was making his usual trip west through Reno when he was pulled over by the Nevada Highway Patrol for supposedly following a tractor-trailer too closely.
The officer complimented Stephen’s driving, thanked him for observing the speed limit, and explained that NHP was “conducting a public information campaign” to help drivers avoid danger. Confident that the officer was only there to help, Stephen cooperated with his escalating investigation, even volunteering that he was carrying a large amount of cash.
Ninety minutes later, Stephen had been robbed of his life savings—$86,900—which he carried with him after a spate of robberies in his parents’ neighborhood. The officer who pulled Stephen over wanted to let him go; he was overruled by NHP Sergeant Glenn Rigdon, who ordered the money seized specifically so that it could be “adopted” by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.
“Adoption” is a process by which federal law enforcement agencies can take over a seizure by state and local law enforcement. If the federal government is successful in forfeiting the property, its “equitable sharing” program guarantees the state or local agency that seized the property up to 80% of the proceeds for use in the agency’s budget.
In Stephen’s case, the DEA sat on his life savings for months, ignoring the legal deadlines requiring it to charge Stephen with a crime, begin a civil forfeiture case against his property, or return the money within six months of seizure. The DEA did none of those things. So, on August 30, IJ sued it in federal court on Stephen’s behalf.
Early the morning of September 1, the agency announced it would return all of Stephen’s money. In less than 24 hours, it had learned of our lawsuit, answered hard questions from The Washington Post, and committed to reviewing its policies for federal adoptions.
When we learned he would be getting his money back (filled with joy), he told us, “This isn’t over.”
And it isn’t. At the same time we filed in federal court, we also filed a major constitutional challenge in state court. Our state case aims to make federal adoptions impossible in Nevada as violations of the state constitution’s guarantees of reasonable seizures supported by probable cause and due process of law—not based on mere suspicion or for the financial benefit of the seizing agency. If we are successful, it will be the first time a state court has struck down federal adoptions. And a victory will take the profit motive out of roadside seizures.
Filmed with a Canon C70 with a 50mm 1.2 lens. Aputure 300d, 120d, and amaran.
He doesn't trust the banks so he was half way there.
Jump to: