Quote from: xhomerx10 on Today at 04:29:57 PM

Quote from: Gachapin on Today at 02:59:15 PM

Quote from: cygan on Today at 02:52:50 PM

quite limp if you ask me

Well... it's only 100k Grin

It is kind of funny how guys can have such low aspirations. .it almost reminds me of all the things that were being promised in 2014, 2015 and 2016 about reaching $1k...

yeah, of course, there is a little bit of a difference because we have not yet reached $100k, even though by the time 2014, 2015 and 2016 came we had already reached $1k in 2013... so anyhow, $100k is starting to seems like one of those price points in which we may well end up going zooming right past it, even if we might have some ups and downs around that point.. .. and. I am not going to proclaim what to do or how to handle the matter - beyond my own pretty much sticking with my own system, which means I am likely not going to be doing anything great around $100k.. even though I might have some higher price points that I am might consider the possibility of sharing higher than my "regular amounts".. can you imagine of any of us who have less than $1k cost per BC, if the BTC price might have some days in which it goes up 30x the amount that we have invested.. just in a day... it seems possible, and those kinds of price explosions can happen in either direction, so maybe shaving off a wee bit would not hurt.. and don't get me wrong, I understand that there are other active members in this thread who have average costs per BTC in the low 3 digits or maybe even in the 2 digits. so shaving off a few sats or even a few BTC might not even make any kind of a large dent in the stash size (or the relative value of the stash).

Quote from: Gachapin on Today at 05:11:48 PM

the weekly looks like a bull flag forming into the ETF date.

but maybe ... just maybe....

It does kind of seem too good to be true.

I am not counting my chickens yet.. but I do have incubators prepared, just in case.

Quote from: Biodom on Today at 05:35:00 PM

Thoughts about ETF effect on btc price in initial period:

On one hand, ETF sponsors would like to generate momentum, but, on the other hand, they would "like" institutions to be able to come not on a spike, thefore, my read is that after approval we will observe either a flat city or a smallish down (less than 5-10%) during the first few months, maybe to April, maybe to May. Later April sounds logical, as it is when the halving occurs. After that (this period could extend to summer, maybe): a very steady high powered bull run with no more than 10-15% local corrections...maybe for 12-18mo or maybe even multiple years.

I guess, everyone just counts on approval, but sometimes I think that PTB can still throw something nasty into the mix, but hopefully, they wouldn't and no black swans either: late 2019 to early 2020 was an especially nasty one. One day, btc was smartly running up in Jan -Feb 2020, then, suddenly, everything went "kabluey" due to covid panic.

Personally, I sense that: You are giving the powers that be a lot of power.. and I am not even saying that you are going to be wrong.. but I hate to grant them that much benefit of the doubt in regards to their abilities to control and/or manipulate (or even to get the directional results that they want, once they play their dumbass black swan or whatever it might be.. do you remember that various bank explosions earlier in the year, and BTC prices went up and not down.. I think that they would have preferred bitcoin to correct during that period, rather than having the Streisand effect), and even once things happen, there will be plenty of the powers that be who will likely be claiming that they caused it (or directed it).. or blah blah blah.. baloney..

Quote from: Gachapin on Today at 05:39:41 PM

Quote from: Biodom on Today at 05:35:00 PM

[edited out]

it always impresses me how quickly the sentiment changes from bullishness to doom and vise versa... even in the WO
(edit: referring to how easy it is for the TPTB to introduce a sentiment)

But fuck sentiment. It does not always work to be fucking around with sentiment, even if they are able to affect it.

You think king daddy gives very many fucks about sentiment?

#asking for a friend, since that came out a bit hostile.

Quote from: Volgastallion on Today at 05:45:22 PM

Quote from: Biodom on Today at 05:35:00 PM

[edited out]

Following the phrase "buy with the rumour and sell the news" we can also expect a little pump after the ETF aproval and a big dump for a few months when some big players rebuy and some other buys a offert price and then we can expect a big bull run, in the mid of 2024 with also the halving happening.

For me the market has already discounted the ETF thing.

That is dumb. The efficient market hypothesis as it applies to a variety of things including 1) halvenging is priced in, 2) hashpower leads price, 3) ETF is priced in.. .

Roll Eyes

should I roll my eyes or laugh my ass off?

Cheesy

Quote from: Biodom on Today at 06:28:34 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on Today at 05:53:24 PM

if I look at my December 2021 prediction, I can attempt to use those numbers and timeline as a kind of guidance for what I had then considered to be possible at that point in that cycle, even though we are currently in a different part of our current cycle.. including our momentum is in a different kind of a place.. so $1 million by 2024.. gosh? maybe I would put it at 1%-ish. or maybe less than 2%. but I am not going to put that kind of number within a year at zero..

I actually looked at that Dec 2021 link and among other things it says: "13-17.5K-overly bearish-about 2% odds"
Yet, it happened in 2022 despite the long odds.

The upside post was made in December 2021 and the downside post was made on May 19. 2022. .and I was kind of regretting that May 2016 post within days after posting it.. but anyhow, my regret does not mean shit because the mere fact that lower odd type events end up happening, and even maybe happening within a few weeks of the post, does not mean that the odds assignment was flawed at the time it was made.

Remember I was trying to bet you in regards to some of the upside scenarios, but you would not bet on the odds that you gave to it, even though I likely would be willing to bet on the odds that I give, even if I end up being wrong.. .. and yeah of course, it becomes easier to bet if someone has seemingly extreme views.

I am not claiming to be any kind of nostradamus, but I will likely continue to revise my odds charts from time to time. I felt that it was kind of innovative for me to attempt to describe the whole spectrum so that the numbers add up to 100% and then also to have some separate aspects that attempt to put timelines for the periods that I was placing the odds, and frequently, i was striving to get some members, or maybe any member to describe some competing odd assignments.. especially if he might be willing to do it in a kind of detailed way like me which might be following my framework or some kind of a similar framework. Did not get too many folks to really engage on that level, and sure it is easy to be all Monday morning quarter-backing it.

We could do it again at some time.. but of course we have to go with current conditions, and surely sometimes we are in a better place than others to assign both up and down, and even now, we might be in a decently good position to describe 2024 or even various random places between here and 2024

...or even including 2025, since that would be part of the regular cycle, even though I have already heard you, Biodom, expecting that this cycle is going to peak in the first half of 2025.. which also could be a bettable proposition depending on how you might feel about it.. I did not see you stating it in absolute terms, so I did not really get too worked up about it, so far.

Quote from: Biodom on Today at 06:28:34 PM

I am just saying that predictions are a hard business, even when measured in probabilities.

Well you better be willing to stand behind it when you start to make absolute proclamations, because the fact that you would not previously stand behind your earlier absolute proclamations is because you did not really believe what you were saying.

I think that it should be easier to stand behind probabilistic predictions as compared to absolutes.. but sure it depends on the absolute and if anyone is wanting to take the other side of the bet.. because if you assert absolutes that are totally reasonable, then it is less likely that anyone is going to challenge your assertion.

Quote from: Biodom on Today at 06:28:34 PM

We all want btc to be at $1 mil and above and it SHOULD be, but nobody really knows when it would get there in "our" version of the multiverse.

Well, next year seems to be a bit much, but for the cycle, it does not seem as far out there, and if we are going to add another cycle, we might well be getting into much higher odds, even in the 30% and maybe even 40% territory if we take it out to the end of 2029.. I am not sure if I would be willing to go as high as 40%.. but 30% seems like something that might be currently within the 2029 kind of a timeline. .that would be 1.5 cycles.. to the extent that cycles continue to matter.

Quote from: Biodom on Today at 06:28:34 PM

From a tactical perspective, 20X spike in 2017 happened when almost nobody (except Tim Draper, haha) predicted it.
I can only wish that US would stop "fighting" it and instead, allow it to fully flourish unencumbered and this remains my wish.

I wonder how much the US fighting it matters very much. Yeah, sure it seems like it does matter, but how you going to stop them from fighting it? We just have difficulties knowing how the fight progresses and the extent to which damage is contained.. but we are in a kind of war zone, even if it might not completely feel like that, and the war zone has existed since you and I have been in bitcoin, but it has been taken to different places, different levels and coming to consciousness of different people in terms of what kinds of arms they want to try to use to battle against it.