Quote from: Biodom on July 15, 2022, 08:32:31 PM

Quote from: Phil_S on July 15, 2022, 07:17:09 PM

Quote from: Arriemoller on July 05, 2022, 03:50:55 PM

That's me in 2013, 2017 and 2021.

I had a goal set, sell at 100k. That worked out well, not.

I told myself - I'm not greedy so I'll sell at 80k. That worked out just at well.

we (since I include myself) just got out-wimped Grin

No one could ever "out whimp" you, Biodom..

By the way, I had been thinking about the whimpy status lately.. and it was not even directly related to you Biodom, but now my thoughts on the topic are not coming to me what those thoughts (if any?) would have had been...

Quote from: 348Judah on July 15, 2022, 09:16:06 PM

Quote from: ChartBuddy on July 15, 2022, 09:03:33 PM

Explanation

All hope is dashed away eith the current price to surge high for this week as we are now on weekends, more possibility to go down than rising is possible, nextweek is another option for a move to go high, the candlestick for the weee is made already, let's expect more and better offers from this new week speculations.

I get your point about most of the possible action happening during the week, but still none of those volume and/or price action dynamics are guaranteed, and the weekly candle closes at midnight UTC on Sunday night.. so we still have more than a day for the weekly candle to close (more than two days at the time of your post).. a lot can happen in either one day or two days.. and the price is largely right around the teetering point of either green or red.. in that regard, the BTC price merely has to be over $20,851 at the time of the close of the weekly candle for it to be green... so this week's candle could go either way (color), since at the time that I post this we are just barely above $21k.

Quote from: Gachapin on July 15, 2022, 10:36:45 PM

Quote from: OutOfMemory on July 15, 2022, 05:40:56 PM

[edited out]

There is a problem with certain models and data sets, as soon as they lead you to conclusions that are 180° false most of the time.

Of course it's about interpretations of onchain data. But these interpretations were always based on logic.
Just a simple example would be: few coins on exchanges is interpreted as a sign for fewer selling and a higher probability for an upcoming price increase.

A lot of the data you could even backtest many years.

However, nowadays whales and big players know the OC data that we are all shown by Glasnost^tm and else, and they know what the data logically suggests. Accordingly they push the market in the opposite direction to rip off all these onchain analytic believers..

Secondly, OC data can be tweaked to a degree to show a certain OC state of market behavior that simply is not there.

For me OC analysis is a kind of TA and it's nothing newbs should rely on. That's why I'm vocal about it, so they don't fall for it.
I think we all know trading can be dangerous, especially in BTC, no matter your TA or your Glasnost subscription.

For transparency FWIW... I don't trade and I'm 95-99% in BTC all the time

I don't know how any of us can have high levels of confidence regarding any of these coin availability matters, and surely the topic has always been important and continues to be importance - especially when we likely have decent ideas that the BTC price is also being influenced by BTC that have no backing (i.e. fake BTC)..

So some of the recent crashes were severe enough to end up showing a decent number of folks who did not have the BTC that they claimed to have had... and surely take the bankrupcy filings of 3AC, Celsius and Voyager.. We saw that the they had ended up putting themselves into a position of largely all claiming to have the same BTC, but it still is not clear how many each of them have as compared to how much they were claiming to have.

I know that I am being a bit loosey goosey in the way that I am framing this matter, but probably Luna/Terra/Do Kwon was an example of not having as many coins as they claimed that they had. Yeah, several entities were also seeming to share in the overlap of coins that were supposedly available to back up the peg. and when the peg started to get lost, there seem to have been some of the BIGGER players who were able to get paid off first, but maybe simultaneous rug pulling and even lying about whether they were even trying to defend the peg with actual coins that they had... So they can disingenuously label it as a genuine attempt to create an algorithmic peg blah blah blah.. but the fact of the matter was that there were way too few coins within the systems and being sloshed around.. and sure some of the folks did get coins out of that system, but the more gullible ones who held until the end, and maybe even kept sending coins into that scam system are not getting coins back in part because of some aspects of rug pull, but more likely a larger culprit was that there were way too few coins in the system to back all the various theoretical yield earning schemes that were described through the various associated Ponzi-based products.

Part of my somewhat rambling point is that BTC price continues to be affected on the margins (and maybe even somewhat centrally) by coins that do not exist... and maybe every once in a while there will be a flushening of some of those players who go way out on the extremes of their overleveraging, rehypothecating or whatever it is that we want to describe them to have had been doing with their non existing coins (and sure sometimes partially existing coins that they may or may not end up being able to run away with).