Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 9382. (Read 26710639 times)

JJG on ignore

Lovely

Oh no, in fact I think they overestimated their impact. And indeed, there were a whole lot of other events that caused the blow off top. (Just as there was a lot of irrationallity on the upramp). And as it happened, it was bliss for me. (Just the quasi winter that followed was not so nice). And I do only prepare for upwards, big upwards, but not to fast. In ladders with small steps! 

You really believe that bitcoin gives two shits about the CME thing?  Do you really believe that the launch of the CME actually caused BTC's 2018 correction? 

It seems to me that you are giving too much credit towards these dumbass theories about traditional financial institutions abilities to actually affect bitcoin price dynamics in any kind of way that is the same as other ways that they have been successful to manipulate other assets such as gold and also like you said their asserted goals to "stabilize" bitcoin.

I will admit that I had a lot of doubts about $19,666 being a sufficient blow off top for BTC price dynamics in 2017, but really in retrospect, we can both recognize that the 3x to 5x greater than the most bullish of expectations was enough of a price rise in order for BTC to deserve a decently sized correction, and really, so far, our current BTC correction was neither as BIG as the 2014 correction nor was it drawn out as long as that 2014/15 correction.  So, anyhow my point was that there was likely some amount of BTC price correction that was either due or at least within the realm of reasonable expectations and normal BTC price movements rather than CME or any of the entrance of the traditional financial instruments abilities to really be able to successfully control BTC prices, anywhere beyond mere short-term possibilities and to take advantage of BTC price momentum that already exists.

In other words, fuck their claims of being able to successfully be able to stabilize (or manipulate BTC prices).  Sure, on a personal level, you might want to make sure that you are prepared for some of their possible success in that direction, but I would not short change myself in my preparedness for BTC prices to go up and their stupid ass attempts at manipulation and stabilization to not be as successful at they fantasized to be able to achieve.

Did you get an opportunity to ask Trace and/or Caitlin (or to inform them, which seems to be your all knowing style) about how bcash SV is the most bitcoin of the bitcoins and/or to inform them about how segregated witness and the core devs are sabotaging bitcoin in order to make bitcoin the less bitcoin of the bitcoins in order that they could roll their eyes at your amazingly level of dumb?    

As you said, we will see. And my scepticism goes in the first place to the intentions of big money. As it reads in the Fortune article, they intend to "Stabilize" BTC. Whatever that may mean. I remember having read similar things about the CME thing. Now, as for me, no problem if they burn their asses on BTC, after all, it 's what they deserve... . 

Trace Mayer at this morning's session:



Basic message: Bitcoin provides us with our strongest possible defensive armament for the upcoming economic wars.

Also Tyler Lindholm and Caitlin Long. And my hand representing for WO.

In the "other weird fucking news" category...

https://www.opb.org/news/article/eastern-oregon-western-cattle-deaths-mystery-theories/#.XYZlzYpkhxw.twitter

the fuck

Unlike Gold, bitcoin is total supply is fixed and can be seen by everyone.

You can fake gold's supply and nobody will notice. Tungsten bars in central bank inventories, in circulation, all kinds of fuckery. You don't even need tungsten to fake gold at all. A computer is enough.

If they artificially lower bitcoin's price, the demand won't disappear. Whoever was pulling that stupid trick will go bankrupt instead.

That is not going to work on bitcoin.

*If they artificially increase the price, well that means lambo time.

Bitcoin is not gold - even though you are likely correct that there are going to be plenty of attempts to manipulate bitcoin in the same kinds of way.  A relevant and material question remains about whether there is going to be the same or similar levels of success in manipulating bitcoin as there has been with Gold.  I would not assume the latter before it has had a sufficient and reasonable opportunity to play out and to be sufficiently and adequately tested.    Let's see... let's see.

By the way, Ludwig Von, let's assume that you are correct about the ultimate manipulation success of various traditional financial tools to adequately and meaningfully manipulate BTC into a kind of meaningless oblivion:   how long do you believe that such meaningful manipulation is going to play out before it achieves success?  2 years?  5 years? 10 years?  20 years?  Can we still benefit by being in BTC in the meantime while we are monitoring the level of meaningful manipulation of BTC and whether it will actually play out?

In other words, my questions are still implying a BIG so what to your hypothetical because we should not assume the second part and even if the second part will play out, as you suggested, we have time to still both benefit from the shorter term and to be able to get out of BTC if we recognize some actual meaningful interference with bitcoin's actual use case(s) due to such manipulation (that hypothetically ends up being successful).

Go Vroom ...... vroom... vroom..... vroom.......


Alternatively, go HM.   

Alternatively to all of that:  Go bitcoin go!!!!!!!!! 

You left out:
"Bitcoin will never work"
- a rather frightening percentage of now-significant-Core-devs

Surely, I am not any kind of whale; however, I can attest that when my equity cushion became a whole hell of a lot greater, I became less concerned about actual substantive amounts of my changes in richness with large short-term swings.

I do still monitor the changes in the substantive amounts but I am not very bothered by it - because I continue to consider both the equity cushion and also the likely difficulties to go below a certain level of total wealth - that is also attributable to the fact that there is a kind of equity cushion.

Let's consider a hypothetical BTC whale person who manages a personal BTC holdings of between about 2,000 BTC and 2,500 BTC (today valued between $20million and $25 million).  There is some BTC trading on dips, which causes fiat holdings that are dedicated towards BTC that constitute 5% to 10% of the total value of the BTC holdings that are held in fiat (today valued between $1million and $2.5million), depending on BTC price spikes and dips.

So, yeah of course, if BTC prices move 30% in a day or a week, then the value of the holdings might swing by $6million to $7 million in that period of time.  Also, when BTC prices were at their peak in late 2017, let's say that the hypothetical whale had around 2,000 BTC (valued at nearly $40million) and fiat holdings that were about 10-12%, which would have been ($4million to $5million).  Then when the BTC price dropped down to $3,122, the BTC holdings might have increased to nearly 2,600 BTC (valued at about $8.1 million), while the fiat reserves also decreased to about 3% to 4% (or perhaps less) of the total value of the holdings,  which would have been a mere $240k to $325k, so yeah there are substantively great changes in the actual total BTC investment portfolio wealth, but there could also be a decently sized equity cushion.  Let's say for example, this hypothetical person had gotten into BTC somewhere between 2013 and 2016, and had acquired his BTC stash of about 2,500 or so BTC for about $2million, at the bottom of the dip, his holdings are still more than 4x in value (that is $8.1million + $280k = $8.38 million) from his initial investment amount.  

I really doubt that these kind of whales are really stressing out about the BIG moves in the value of their BTC investment as much as you might believe, especially, if they had gotten into BTC with about a 10% or less allocation, which would mean that the about $2million that they put in was 10% of their total quasi-investible wealth - which, with those numbers, would have been in the $20million arena.

I really doubt that whales are preoccupied about changes in their wealth to the extent that they are not already considering matters of being sufficiently hedged, and not engaging in extraordinary gambling.  Of course, some will be dumb-ass gamblers, but those ones will not be likely to be hanging onto their wealth in the long term.  The actual smart money is going to both hedge and not be gambling and worried nor easily shaken out of their BTC investment in the same kinds of ways that those players that engage in too much gambling by either over-allocating how much they have invested into BTC and attempting to play around too much with their investment, rather than merely dollar cost average buying and buying on dips and reasonable, prudent and strategic practices like that.

Well, allow me to be extremely sceptical of wheter this will be positive for BTC. Probably yes at first, but long term no. It will first try to suppress volatility, later become a tool for outright manipulation. Just like what happens with gold.

Thx man

Dammed fine introspective.

Thank you.

Yeah, I know HM already gave us his thesis on why and how fast we Will bounce back ...

Actually he was very similar as what vroom has written today

Indeed

Sure mic likes this red color.

Regarding the latter and btc...imagine being a whale and gaining or losing millions a day, almost every day. It could be exhausting.

Re being poor...read this...it sucks even more to be OLD and poor because you have very few options or no options.
The narrative of the next few decades for millions might be the story of going from high middle class to lower middle class or becoming poor.
Hopefully, bitcoin would rescue some.

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/falling