Jump to content

Epic Pennant on BTC Chart


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 7.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Just taking the time to say a huge thank you to you @Eric123. I have been reading this thread daily for a long time now. I don't often sign in to post something so this thank you and acknowledgment of

I was a bit bored, so I decided to analyse the reactions in the first 404(!) pages of this thread. In those 404 pages, 3938 comments received a reaction, and in total there were 11515 reactions g

@Eric123 My perspective is a bit different;  in my opinion the alt season begins once BTC momentum tapers off and the price becomes stuck.  While this may take place after BTC hits some ridiculous ATH

Posted Images

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Baka said:

There we are, 9800$ .

I just sold a 30% of my stash at 9860$ . got some % left for 13k if we get there.

Also , XRP is at 0.00021 , losing value vs BTC

Well done Baka! Stick to your plan!

You're doing better than I would be doing, if I would've traded.

They key is to have a plan and stick to it in my opinion. Don't let FOMO wreck you.

Edited by AlejoMoreno
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Direboarder said:

I agree that we saw capitulation via a black swan event.  I sold on the way down and bought as it started to rise barely breaking even.

What I still don't totally get is who is buying $BTC during this rally.  

I'm of the opinion that whales are manipulating this market up and up to support their own narrative that $BTC is a safe haven during times like this.  It's the perfect time to make the case for $BTC if you believe it's not speculative (which I don't).

I also agree this has been a rough 2.5-3 years for those of us that entered during that time frame.  For me personally it's been a thorn in my side and distraction even though I didn't invest a ton of money.

I do appreciate the insight here.

 

 

i think also to think about is that there are no more sellers right now.. doesn't take much demand to pump this thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Eric123 said:

(Unconstitutional in my opinion, (in the US anyway,)  to the other lawyers here -I'm curious about your opinions on this) 

What do you believe the US should be doing instead of the lockdowns? 

If there are no lockdowns and they let people move as usual, then you run the risk of the health care failing and there being many more deaths and a much worst economic impact than there is now (if the virus is as bad or worst than it has been presented.)

Or are you saying that the lockdowns should not exist regardless of the possible impact of the virus because the lockdowns could be against the constitution?

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, AlejoMoreno said:

What do you believe the US should be doing instead of the lockdowns? 

If there are no lockdowns and they let people move as usual, then you run the risk of the health care failing and there being many more deaths and a much worst economic impact than there is now (if the virus is as bad or worst than it has been presented.)

Or are you saying that the lockdowns should not exist regardless of the possible impact of the virus because the lockdowns could be against the constitution?

I think that some people don’t believe that the virus will adversely effect the average death count for this time of year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, AlejoMoreno said:

Or are you saying that the lockdowns should not exist regardless of the possible impact of the virus because the lockdowns could be against the constitution?

It's a very good question and it is not one I take lightly.  

First it must kept in mind that Life is a series of trade offs.  For instance if we outlawed cars  - it would eliminate traffic fatalities which kill about $40,000 people a year in the US.  If we did that however it would drastically change the way we live, cost many lives and destroy the quality of life for many people as transportation would be severely limited.  

Now applying the lockdown from a purely trade off view, the cost in lives of the lockdown have to be considered.  From the Articles I have seen (and I welcome input)  Doing nothing in the US would cause  1,000,000 additional people to die with about 72% of those deaths occurring in the over 65 years old population. So far there have been around 75,000 (not 40,000 as I originally worte) deaths in the US.  Now an often quoted statement is that "every 1% increase in unemployment results in 40,000 deaths"  presently the unemployment rate has risen 11% in the US from the lockdowns, translating into about 400,000 deaths to occur.  On this basis alone the lockdowns appear to not be a winning trade off.

Now a cursory review on the constitutionality of the lockdowns

Under a Compelling state interest vs. least restrictive means  Test  - the lockdown would fail as being not the least restrictive means.  

The lockdowns set a dangerous precedent of governmental over reach into the lives of people.   I have no doubt the US will survive the coronavirus but I also have not doubt the US will not survive the loss of the Constitution and the freedoms it protects.

What would I do - I would protect/quarantine and provide support for the elderly and those with compromised immune systems and let everyone else go about their work.

If we are taking the position that Governor Cuomo of NY is taking, that no life is worth losing to reopen business then I am not sure why the country isn't locked down every flu season.

Let's not pretend the lockdown does not have a cost. Many people have had their lives destroyed from this lockdown.  I personally know a restaurant owner that lost his life's savings.  

Sorry for getting us off track, I'm sure it will be a brief detour though and the lockdown certainly has affected bitcoin's price..

Anyway if you think I'm off base let me know.

 

 

 

Edited by Eric123
number of deaths actually listed as 75,000 not 40,000
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
35 minutes ago, Eric123 said:

it would eliminate traffic fatalities which kill about $40,000 people a year in the US. 

This is the most American thing I've read. Also, you're full of shit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Eric123 said:

It's a very good question and it is not one I take lightly.  

First it must kept in mind that Life is a series of trade offs.  For instance if we outlawed cars  - it would eliminate traffic fatalities which kill about $40,000 people a year in the US.  If we did that however it would drastically change the way we live, cost many lives and destroy the quality of life for many people as transportation would be severely limited.  

Now applying the lockdown from a purely trade off view, the cost in lives of the lockdown have to be considered.  From the Articles I have seen (and I welcome input)  Doing nothing in the US would cause  1,000,000 additional people to die with about 72% of those deaths occurring in the over 65 years old population. So far there have been around 40,000 deaths in the US.  Now an often quoted statement is that "every 1% increase in unemployment results in 40,000 deaths"  presently the unemployment rate has risen 11% in the US from the lockdowns, translating into about 400,000 deaths to occur.  On this basis alone the lockdowns appear to not be a winning trade off.

Now a cursory review on the constitutionality of the lockdowns

Under a Compelling state interest vs. least restrictive means  Test  - the lockdown would fail as being not the least restrictive means.  

The lockdowns set a dangerous precedent of governmental over reach into the lives of people.   I have no doubt the US will survive the coronavirus but I also have not doubt the US will not survive the loss of the Constitution and the freedoms it protects.

What would I do - I would protect/quarantine and provide support for the elderly and those with compromised immune systems and let everyone else go about their work.

If we are taking the position that Governor Cuomo of NY is taking, that no life is worth losing to reopen business then I am not sure why the country isn't locked down every flu season.

Let's not pretend the lockdown does not have a cost. Many people have had their lives destroyed from this lockdown.  I personally know a restaurant owner that lost his life's savings.  

Sorry for getting us off track, I'm sure it will be a brief detour though and the lockdown certainly has affected bitcoin's price..

Anyway if you think I'm off base let me know.

 

 

 

We are up to 80k deaths. I don’t think the number of cases would have changed much unless we shut down way back in January which no country outside of China had any clue that would be necessary. The virus had already rooted into society by February. 
 

I also think there would had still been a devastating effect on the economy if it was kept open. Take the NBA, college basketball, MLB for example... private enterprises were closing down on their own without government intervention. Consumers would not be spending money as they would be too afraid to go out with restrictions, and stock markets would still be crashing if not sharper and steeper than they did because of the fast spike in cases and deaths.

One thing we can all agree on is we weren’t prepared for this and hopefully lawmakers can come up with a procedural way to handle things in the future when this is over.

The crypto market crashing along with everything else makes sense to me as pandemic flash crash and it also makes sense to me that bitcoin should outperform assets in the future as it was designed to counter excessive devaluation of world currencies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eric123 said:

It's a very good question and it is not one I take lightly.  

First it must kept in mind that Life is a series of trade offs.  For instance if we outlawed cars  - it would eliminate traffic fatalities which kill about $40,000 people a year in the US.  If we did that however it would drastically change the way we live, cost many lives and destroy the quality of life for many people as transportation would be severely limited.  

Now applying the lockdown from a purely trade off view, the cost in lives of the lockdown have to be considered.  From the Articles I have seen (and I welcome input)  Doing nothing in the US would cause  1,000,000 additional people to die with about 72% of those deaths occurring in the over 65 years old population. So far there have been around 75,000 (not 40,000 as I originally worte) deaths in the US.  Now an often quoted statement is that "every 1% increase in unemployment results in 40,000 deaths"  presently the unemployment rate has risen 11% in the US from the lockdowns, translating into about 400,000 deaths to occur.  On this basis alone the lockdowns appear to not be a winning trade off.

Now a cursory review on the constitutionality of the lockdowns

Under a Compelling state interest vs. least restrictive means  Test  - the lockdown would fail as being not the least restrictive means.  

The lockdowns set a dangerous precedent of governmental over reach into the lives of people.   I have no doubt the US will survive the coronavirus but I also have not doubt the US will not survive the loss of the Constitution and the freedoms it protects.

What would I do - I would protect/quarantine and provide support for the elderly and those with compromised immune systems and let everyone else go about their work.

If we are taking the position that Governor Cuomo of NY is taking, that no life is worth losing to reopen business then I am not sure why the country isn't locked down every flu season.

Let's not pretend the lockdown does not have a cost. Many people have had their lives destroyed from this lockdown.  I personally know a restaurant owner that lost his life's savings.  

Sorry for getting us off track, I'm sure it will be a brief detour though and the lockdown certainly has affected bitcoin's price..

Anyway if you think I'm off base let me know.

 

 

 

I think you are right on with your logic. I cannot say I disagree with you. 

I don't think we will know which approach is the best because we can't go back and time and run a simulation to see what would have happened if there was no lockdown.

I agree with @ManBearPig with regards to the fact that we were not prepared for this. The last time a pandemic like this has happened as far as I know was with the Spanish Flu which was 100 year ago. Humans are terrible at preparing for and preventing things that span greater than our life time.

-----------------

I believe the lockdown approach that most countries are taking is more of a precautionary (and slightly panicky) approach towards the death toll. 

If the government did no lockdown and all of a sudden this virus ends up killing many more people than anyone thought, then people will say the government murdered us.

--------------------

My personal view is that I am a healthy individual and am not really worried about it. I am annoyed about how bad my investments are doing and how the economy has been destroyed for at least the next year in my opinion. I am angry about how I cannot go to the gym as I am a major fitness enthusiast......

....But there are many people who are much more worried about the virus than the economic and financial impact. I hear people everyday complaining about how they might get sick and die and how they wish things were more restricted. I have friends saying they will stay locked up inside with hand sanitizer as long as they can....

.....Many people were already broke and living paycheck to paycheck going into this. Many people are receiving more money with the $600 unemployment bonus than they would if they were working. So there are many people on various sides of the story.

---------------------

I don't think the government is necessarily overstepping its boundaries because the lockdown is in the name of public health and protection of the public. Not to say the Supreme Court is God but they have ruled in similar instances that people can be detained if it is a health or safety issue.

If this lockdown issue were to somehow get to the Supreme Court, I am sure they would declare that it is not against the constitution.

The Supreme Court is actually rejecting requests to do any type of review of this from what I can see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I just want to add one more thing so that I can go to sleep tonight without tossing and turning. (Apologies for derailing the thread but need to use proper metrics if we are discussing)

When you are looking at the number of deaths, you should not state the absolute number. The United States is the #3 largest country by population in the world (behind India and China, both of whom I doubt the accuracy of what they are reporting.) 

We rightfully should have more deaths than many other countries.

You should be looking at deaths per millions of people. Using this metric the United States is doing just fine in my view in comparison to other countries. This does not indicate to me that deaths are out of control in the USA compared to other countries. I think population density always play a part in the USA. But I don't think the death toll is out of control.

 

Captura de pantalla 2020-05-08 a la(s) 3.16.45 p. m..png

Edited by AlejoMoreno
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Decision time for BTC, just in time for the halving.  Break the massive resistance at $10,500 or dump?  Should be an interesting next few days.

procnSNU

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.