Bitcoin and Crypto Thread

I didn't have the dry powder or focus the past 2 cycles but this is the first cycle that is trending well for me. Hoping to break my family out and open a bakery in my small town here. Should I be getting out or wait for year 3 of the bull cycle? Have a BTC and a number of the alts mentioned here like $alph, $topia, $andr, $ofn and a few others. Have another chunk of fiat I could stick in the market but not sure where. Thank you and God bless.
 
@cosine - Everything you say is correct.

View attachment 5744

The market has been driven by the Bitcoin halving cycle, in which the BTC supply has halved in around April 2012, 2016, 2020 and soon 2024.

Each four year bull run cycle has followed the same pattern of:

1) a hard bounce off the price when RSI hits about 30 on a 1w view - (after a one year bear market) [* the March 2020 RSI at 30 was caused by an exchange failure]
2) first year of the bull market drifts up slowly
3) second year of the bull market sees a large movement up (Nov 2016, Sep 2020, Feb 2024)
4) third year of the bull market see big movements up, with multiple large corrections that don't last long, numerous parabolic movements

I watched the last two just expecting what happened in the previous ones, and that's what's happened. There needs to be an outside event to knock it off course, like a recession or government action.

There are a lot of people who have observed these patterns and are basing all their decisions on them, so it's now highly cemented. Of the people I am exposed to, no one is planning to hold any crypto in 2026. Everyone is expecting the trend to be the same as it has been in the last three cycles. A stock trading mentality will tell you not to do these things. Just as a crypto trading strategy for stocks is inoperable, since there are not such predictable patterns; particularly with the highly central bank driven market of 2009-. It's a gold rush, like tech stocks, gold in CA, early domain names. There is a trajectory and patterns. We are not at the point of diminishing returns or extreme strategies to try and beat the market. Probably at least two more cycles.

I think crypto will pan out a lot like you mention the dot com bubble onwards. The current tech is generally not fit to run what proponents are trying to run on it. I didn't hear anyone talking about the limitations of Ethereum in 2020. It was my main holding based on the premise that I saw lots of projects built on it, that required to use it to operate. Yet by early 2021, ETH had been exposed as something completely inadequate; only being able to handle 20 TPS. Likewise, go back a few years and there were a lot of economically illiterate people talking about BTC as money, which no one says now as it's too obvious it's not. But the crypto space is full of maxis, who just choose something to believe in, and have little to no understanding of economics that the space must eventually be tied to.

I don't see any of the projects around now necessarily being around in ten years, with the exception of Qubic and maybe BitTensor. If you look at all these 1,000s of projects that have been built - generally the premise is some kind of more open or decentralised version of things that already exist - banks (wallets), crypto-games, decentralised hosting, decentralised computing power, decentralised AI. And Qubic is the only solution that all of them could run on at web speed - Internet 2.0 - in which all these companies like Amazon, Amazon Web Services, Google, Facebook, Minecraft etc. could be replaced by ones that are more open or completely decentralised. But with everything else that has come, it's possible/likely limitations of Qubic would be exposed further down the line.

At current the decentralisation question hasn't been solved, since most crypto projects are still running on centralised Internet 1.0 infrastructure like AWS, ICANN domains etc. The blockchain trilema also hasn't necessarily been solved:



Bitcoin can't scale and Solana isn't that secure or centralised. Solana has had around 100 hours of down-time which is as unacceptable as a global internet blackout. This is the first cycle where we see L1s that may potentially solve it. That is POW chains with smart contracts and high TPS - Qubic, Alephium, SPACE.

Bitcoin has a 2D ledger to store transactions in, which is why it's so slow. DAG POW chains like Kaspa, Alephium and SPACE are 3D, which (I believe) allows them to be as secure as Bitcoin while offering 10K TPS. Qubic has a 4D ledger, which allows it to be secure while providing a tested 40m TPS with 0.2s finality. We will have to see how this progresses, but the data I've seen suggests L2s are unnecessary, because everything and more can be done on a better L1.

The way I see it panning out is that in 20 years or so, such projects will have or be taking huge chunks out of these large companies. Silicon Valley will become another Detroit and at best the companies will be General Motors tier. The decentralised nature will mean the current powers that be, who are looking to harness blockchain for efficiency and to make most/many people redundant, should be replaced. The coming years will see a race between decentralisation and those who wan't to harness new technology to control society. I see bad futures down both paths.

One issue is the value and need for tokens. You can say the same for stocks. The only value of stocks, really, is at IPO, where people fund the future economic activity of a company. After that they don't really offer anything to the economy. They distribute value from workers to speculators. The argument is that stocks are tied to economic activity. But you can't redeem the stock for the economic activity or anything the company owns. You can just sell to another speculator.

The system in crypto is various ways of projects selling tokens to early investors; and later selling more tokens into the market to raise funds. Since there is very little real economic activity in the space, it is difficult to argue that they are backed by anything. It's pretty much all speculation. A difference is these tokens are meant to be currencies for some sort of ecosystem or system. That is not the case with stocks that only have a buy and sell mechanism. Tokens are a way of actually transferring some kind of perceived value. But at the end of the day there isn't an actual need for these tokens. All projects could just accept an L1 cryptocurrency (and many do). Exactly how this will be resolved is unclear, as these tokens are the method of projects bootsrapping capital. Otherwise you're left with open source projects trying to make waves with only nerds and community funding.

If you are looking to escape the system, I don't see anything worth buying other than crypto. As outlined there are issues, but I think this is the space where money will predictably flow for the next decade. My plan is to move 10% into a real estate ballast in 2026, continue to play the game and use more to chip away at the gay empire we live in.



😅 Apes do great in crypto if they get in and out at the same right time.
Your point about stocks is not entirely true. Yes the IPO is raising capital for funding the company's growth. But many companies especially outside the S&P 500 do multiple secondary capital raising (rights issues, options issues to stockholders, private tranche offerings to institutional investors, etc) many years after their IPO. Also aside from speculation in a fiat system stocks act as a savings pool/store of wealth. Without stocks what other options do average people/workers have to invest in something in something which is liquid will, generate income/yield and keep up with inflation? Since fiat cannot store wealth it must be stored somewhere.

I agree that at this point nothing in the cryptoverse does anything useful. Its all based on speculation and potential future use cases. Bitcoin and Monero are probably the only exceptions with Monero being used for private transactions and Bitcoin being used for remittance/international transfers (cheaper than western union and wire transfers, no KYC, etc). Even Bitcoins use case as a store of value is ony valid if it gets mass adoption and is therefore a future use case not a current use case.
 
Last edited:
Yes and no. Some of the gaming coins have actual real world asset use in micro transactions for the game .

Sone if the games out are actually good. Otk, souls, awt

In the last cycle all of the games were crap , this isn’t the case anymore

The tokens like ethereum, solana, Bnb get plenty of use because you need to buy the native token if you want to buy a token on that chain .

I’m much of the world if your country’s currency is fluctuating rapidly you’d much rather get paid for your work in a stable coin that is , well, stable instead of being a day laborer in sone country in South America, Africa or Asia where you wake up and your Zimbabwe dollars are worth a fraction of what they were worth yesterday and you just did a full day of work and were paid for it in Zimbabwe dollars but have nothing to show for it because of hyperinflation

But yeah I get your point overall
 
I don't see where you are coming from here. Note that I don't call myself a maxi, but I'm closer to it (whatever it means) than not being one. I've just never understood why you need anything more than the base layer and then you can copy every other project on top. Those are the coins that can be improved, whereas BTC is the protocol that has already beaten every other PoW network as "money", so the race is over.

I've also never understood this, and can use a recent example of something people think will be "useful". Chainlink is supposed to be a type of rails or better blockchain/ecosystem (you can tell me the minute details I'm sure) that can assist the digital transition, or more of one, to/of the CC companies business plan. But if they just charge a fee to use the network, what's the point of the token? Why would anyone want it or "trade" it? It's just a tech business plan for better use or transactions for Visa or MasterCard, or whomever. I don't see how any token fits into that, except for people just buying and selling "tokens" for now because no one understands exactly what's going to happen, and that's just what you do with "crypto" tokens (the true application of the greater fool theory or speculation, terms thrown around all the time but are actually accurate in this example).

It's basically a dilemma - since projects need to raise capital to be viable, but the value of the tokens is mostly speculative, and their utility could be replaced by the L1 currency. Without this funding, projects would be at best like Ubuntu - needing a benefactor to gain 1-2% global OS share. This is an issue. Nothing built of crypto has a 1-2% share of anything. But these tokens aren't going away this season. Most will become worthless, but I presume some will maintain. Either that or the tech they have built just gets used anyway with the L1 token as currency.

Having said all that, why wouldn't BTC be the layer 1 and the original, sane and sober maxi position that BTC is the base layer and everything else goes on top? How the "top" feeders get monetized is irrelevant to me, as they will probably end up being businesses that extract fees or payments, as I said above - just different types of tech companies - again, confirming that BTC is the real innovation underlying it all, and the rest is tech development.

It doesn't look like there was any early intention for Bitcoin the be some sort of base layer for applications. It doesn't look like there is a way to build an L2 on top. All the Bitcoin L2s are sidechains that preserve 0% of BTC's properties. There is one in development BitLayer, which I am told is a real L2, but I suspect it won't be. And that goes for something like the Lightning Network and anything that just wants to act as another transaction layer on top of Bitcoin.

I am open to Bitcoin being the base layer, but:

1) if Bitcoin's security cannot be carried across to an L2, then it has no real use
2) if something, say Qubic, is as secure as Bitcoin, is programmable (smart contracts), and can handle 40m TPS, then why use a 7 TPS chain that consumes lots of electricity that then needs another chain on top of it to replicate what something like Qubic does

I am open to either outcome - Bitcoin or something else. But it hinges on option 1). I don't know enough about the technical to answer that question.

But to compare to modem, the first modem ran at 0.1 kbit / second. The average internet download speed in the US is now 1,600,000X faster. In comparison Qubic can handle 5,714,285X more transactions per second than Bitcoin. It's not a completely equal analogy, but I think it illustrates the degree to which Bitcoin is old tech that has been improved upon.

This is not to say Qubic will become the dominate blockchain by market cap or use. There are quite a lot of issue that need to be solved; just as it took about 40 years to be able to run applications over the centralised web. But Bitcoin in itself doesn't solve any of these problems.

I didn't have the dry powder or focus the past 2 cycles but this is the first cycle that is trending well for me. Hoping to break my family out and open a bakery in my small town here. Should I be getting out or wait for year 3 of the bull cycle? Have a BTC and a number of the alts mentioned here like $alph, $topia, $andr, $ofn and a few others. Have another chunk of fiat I could stick in the market but not sure where. Thank you and God bless.

They've put the open beta for Hytopia back to about the end of April. Decentraland popped 2X on a closed beta. Hopefully Topia can do a bit more. Without something tangible, the price isn't going to move much. There are a lot of people still bullish on it. We will see how the game does in beta. It was 60 cents in March 2022, so would be good to see it back to similar levels. It's also not on CEXs yet.

Due to the ETFs we are in uncharted territory. At the moment I'm just buying a few emerging projects. There will be new projects emerging for the next 18+ months, so if you are missing now, there will be more.

Your point about stocks is not entirely true. Yes the IPO is raising capital for funding the company's growth. But many companies especially outside the S&P 500 do multiple secondonary capital raising (rights issues, options issues to stockholders, private tranche offerings to institutional investors, etc) many years after their IPO. Also aside from speculation in a fiat system stocks act as a savings pool/store of wealth. Without stocks what other options do average people/workers have to invest in something in something which is liquid will, generate income/yield and keep up with inflation? Since fiat cannot store wealth it must be stored somewhere.

I am not familiar with the particulars. Do any of the sales provide economic value beyond the offering? That was the angle of critique for both stocks and tokens.

If society was Christian, I think there would be stable currency that does not reward savers or spenders. I'm not sure how raising capital would work, but the current methods don't seem to fit into Christian theology. That is the place where I'm arguing it from. i.e. you may yourself want to benefit from speculation, but you probably wouldn't want to be the worker farmed by speculators.
 
Great post. I could have quoted other parts but I'm sure more people will weigh in later with others. So, for now ...


I don't see where you are coming from here. Note that I don't call myself a maxi, but I'm closer to it (whatever it means) than not being one. I've just never understood why you need anything more than the base layer and then you can copy every other project on top. Those are the coins that can be improved, whereas BTC is the protocol that has already beaten every other PoW network as "money", so the race is over.

I've also never understood this, and can use a recent example of something people think will be "useful". Chainlink is supposed to be a type of rails or better blockchain/ecosystem (you can tell me the minute details I'm sure) that can assist the digital transition, or more of one, to/of the CC companies business plan. But if they just charge a fee to use the network, what's the point of the token? Why would anyone want it or "trade" it? It's just a tech business plan for better use or transactions for Visa or MasterCard, or whomever. I don't see how any token fits into that, except for people just buying and selling "tokens" for now because no one understands exactly what's going to happen, and that's just what you do with "crypto" tokens (the true application of the greater fool theory or speculation, terms thrown around all the time but are actually accurate in this example).

Having said all that, why wouldn't BTC be the layer 1 and the original, sane and sober maxi position that BTC is the base layer and everything else goes on top? How the "top" feeders get monetized is irrelevant to me, as they will probably end up being businesses that extract fees or payments, as I said above - just different types of tech companies - again, confirming that BTC is the real innovation underlying it all, and the rest is tech development.
What Cynlo is trying to say is that for people who consider Bitcoin as a form of money one of the properties of money (there are of course other properties also) is being a medium of exchange. In terms of being a medium of exchange Bitcoin is weak becasue on layer one its too slow and expensive for small transactions. If you use it on layer 2 then it is no more secure or better than cryptos or other forms of money thus its therefore a suboptimal medium of exchange. But in terms of the other criterion of money being in terms of being a unit of account and store of value, etc its pretty good. But its weaknesses as a medium of exchange are now obvious.
 
It's basically a dilemma - since projects need to raise capital to be viable, but the value of the tokens is mostly speculative, and their utility could be replaced by the L1 currency. Without this funding, projects would be at best like Ubuntu - needing a benefactor to gain 1-2% global OS share. This is an issue. Nothing built of crypto has a 1-2% share of anything. But these tokens aren't going away this season. Most will become worthless, but I presume some will maintain. Either that or the tech they have built just gets used anyway with the L1 token as currency.



It doesn't look like there was any early intention for Bitcoin the be some sort of base layer for applications. It doesn't look like there is a way to build an L2 on top. All the Bitcoin L2s are sidechains that preserve 0% of BTC's properties. There is one in development BitLayer, which I am told is a real L2, but I suspect it won't be. And that goes for something like the Lightning Network and anything that just wants to act as another transaction layer on top of Bitcoin.

I am open to Bitcoin being the base layer, but:

1) if Bitcoin's security cannot be carried across to an L2, then it has no real use
2) if something, say Qubic, is as secure as Bitcoin, is programmable (smart contracts), and can handle 40m TPS, then why use a 7 TPS chain that consumes lots of electricity that then needs another chain on top of it to replicate what something like Qubic does

I am open to either outcome - Bitcoin or something else. But it hinges on option 1). I don't know enough about the technical to answer that question.

But to compare to modem, the first modem ran at 0.1 kbit / second. The average internet download speed in the US is now 1,600,000X faster. In comparison Qubic can handle 5,714,285X more transactions per second than Bitcoin. It's not a completely equal analogy, but I think it illustrates the degree to which Bitcoin is old tech that has been improved upon.

This is not to say Qubic will become the dominate blockchain by market cap or use. There are quite a lot of issue that need to be solved; just as it took about 40 years to be able to run applications over the centralised web. But Bitcoin in itself doesn't solve any of these problems.



They've put the open beta for Hytopia back to about the end of April. Decentraland popped 2X on a closed beta. Hopefully Topia can do a bit more. Without something tangible, the price isn't going to move much. There are a lot of people still bullish on it. We will see how the game does in beta. It was 60 cents in March 2022, so would be good to see it back to similar levels. It's also not on CEXs yet.

Due to the ETFs we are in uncharted territory. At the moment I'm just buying a few emerging projects. There will be new projects emerging for the next 18+ months, so if you are missing now, there will be more.



I am not familiar with the particulars. Do any of the sales provide economic value beyond the offering? That was the angle of critique for both stocks and tokens.

If society was Christian, I think there would be stable currency that does not reward savers or spenders. I'm not sure how raising capital would work, but the current methods don't seem to fit into Christian theology. That is the place where I'm arguing it from. i.e. you may yourself want to benefit from speculation, but you probably wouldn't want to be the worker farmed by speculators.
Raising capital in a secondary offering is something that companies do once already listed on the stockmarket. This can be through various mechanisms such as a share purchase plan, a renounceable rights issue, a convertable preferred share issue, a private placement, an option issue, etc. Its beyond the scope of this thread to delve into the technical details of such things but essentially there are various mechanisms for companies to fund further expansion by obtaining money from shareholders after they are already listed on the stockmarket. For example XYZ corporation might have done an IPO in 2012. There is 100 million shares outstanding after the IPO. Fast forward to 2018 and the company is rapidly expanding and needs funding to build a factory in Mexico. They already have too much debt and cannot borrow more money. So they sell another 50 million shares to existing shareholders to raise money. After the share issue there are now 150 million shares outstanding and the company has extra cash to fund the construction of its factory.

In the past few years for example Microstrategy has issued more shares to investors and used the money raised to buy more Bitcoin.
 
Last edited:
Yes and no. Some of the gaming coins have actual real world asset use in micro transactions for the game .

Sone if the games out are actually good. Otk, souls, awt

In the last cycle all of the games were crap , this isn’t the case anymore

The tokens like ethereum, solana, Bnb get plenty of use because you need to buy the native token if you want to buy a token on that chain .

I’m much of the world if your country’s currency is fluctuating rapidly you’d much rather get paid for your work in a stable coin that is , well, stable instead of being a day laborer in sone country in South America, Africa or Asia where you wake up and your Zimbabwe dollars are worth a fraction of what they were worth yesterday and you just did a full day of work and were paid for it in Zimbabwe dollars but have nothing to show for it because of hyperinflation

But yeah I get your point overall
Sure there are some games but they are mostly small fry at this point. None of them are yet mainstream games. And Ethereum or Solana, etc yes they have other tokens listed on them so you need to buy ETH tokens, etc to buy the other tokens but those other tokens are just speculative tokens also so its just speculation squared. Maybe if the tokens listed on ETH had actual utility you would have a point but at this point they do not. Smart contracts are a potential use case but as of yet we are not seeing mass adoption of smart contracts for practical purposes (for example settling real estate transactions, etc). So at this point smart contract capability of ETH, SOL, etc remain potential future use cases.
 
Smart contracts are a potential use case but as of yet we are not seeing mass adoption of smart contracts for practical purposes (for example settling real estate transactions, etc). So at this point smart contract capability of ETH, SOL, etc remain potential future use cases.

You can definitely buy real estate with crypto currency in 2024. At least in the USA


And yeah ethereum uses smart contracts.
 
2) if something, say Qubic, is as secure as Bitcoin, is programmable (smart contracts), and can handle 40m TPS, then why use a 7 TPS chain that consumes lots of electricity that then needs another chain on top of it to replicate what something like Qubic does
The problem with the new ones is something which can't be glossed over = they have an original issuer or centralized "creators" whereas BTC doesn't and that's why it's a commodity to boot. New projects all lack this, and it's critical. There's a small chance that BTC is a psyop but it seems like that has been pretty much disproven through time for many reasons.
In terms of being a medium of exchange Bitcoin is weak becasue on layer one its too slow and expensive for small transactions. If you use it on layer 2 then it is no more secure or better than cryptos or other forms of money thus its therefore a suboptimal medium of exchange.
This gets at one of the weaker criticisms the web has for BTC, which is that it isn't a good currency. The argument, as Lyn Alden put it, is that BTC was not created for that problem, because it's not a problem that needed solving. Great currencies (medium of exchange) are intrinsically worthless, or, if you like, have a marginal cost of production of zero. This along with governments is what makes fiat great as a currency, IF it maintains the confidence game. And we know how that story ends.
 
You can definitely buy real estate with crypto currency in 2024. At least in the USA


And yeah ethereum uses smart contracts.
You missed the point of my argument. The link you are talking about is to do with financing purchases with a crypto mortgage I was talking about using Ethereum's smart contract capabilities for settlement. Like if you can find a way to get rid of conveyancers/solicitors in the settlement process (or reduce their role and reduce the role of real estate agents in the closing process) then you can bring down fricitional costs of a transaction which is huge. Basically smart contracts should be used for efficiency gains by reducing frictional costs. But at this point we are not there yet.

Also what percentage of Ethereum's transacted volume is used for legitimate purposes such as the one noted above vs how much is used for speculation or to enable people to buy other speculative token''s on the Ethereum blockchain 9speculation squared). If I had to guess I would say over 90% of Ethereum transactions are for speculation. Same as Solana, ETC.
 
The problem with the new ones is something which can't be glossed over = they have an original issuer or centralized "creators" whereas BTC doesn't and that's why it's a commodity to boot. New projects all lack this, and it's critical. There's a small chance that BTC is a psyop but it seems like that has been pretty much disproven through time for many reasons.

This gets at one of the weaker criticisms the web has for BTC, which is that it isn't a good currency. The argument, as Lyn Alden put it, is that BTC was not created for that problem, because it's not a problem that needed solving. Great currencies (medium of exchange) are intrinsically worthless, or, if you like, have a marginal cost of production of zero. This along with governments is what makes fiat great as a currency, IF it maintains the confidence game. And we know how that story ends.
Firstly can you explain exactly why it matters how a token came into existence? If its decentralized and open source I don't think the exact mechanism of creation matters all that much.

As for BTC not being created to be a medium of exchange I regard that as a changing of the narrative. The narrative was changed after the fact because it failed at doing that so the narrative shifted to purely being a store of value and unit of account. Go back 7 or 8 years ago and people were still talking about Bitcoin becoming a widely adopted medium of exchange. Bitcoin city in El Salvador was an experiment to try to get people to use Bitcoin for everyday transactions such as buying coffee or paying for a hotel, etc.

Even Satoshi Nakamoto made references in the white paper to Bitcoin being used as a medium of exhange. Just go to Wikipedia and literally the second sentence mentions Bitcoin being created to be a medium of exchange:

"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency, a digital asset that uses cryptography to control its creation and management rather than relying on central authorities.[1] Originally designed as a medium of exchange, Bitcoin is now primarily regarded as a store of value. The history of bitcoin started with its invention and implementation by Satoshi Nakamoto, who integrated many existing ideas from the cryptography community. Over the course of bitcoin's history, it has undergone rapid growth to become a significant store of value both on- and offline. From the mid-2010s, some businesses began accepting bitcoin in addition to traditional currencies.[2]"
 

Boy that intro is annoying! But I do like some of his other points. I'm curious what all "several factors" go into his "hybrid indicator".

The key seems to start around 9:36 where he talks about how it can stay in the "overbought" zone for a while, months even. I could try to time it, sell a portion and hope to get back in after a crash. But timing that right or wrong can easily be the difference between selling at $65k today and selling at $100k-$200k in the event a bull market takes off.

I also have to be skeptical of analyses in the first few years of existence. I hadn't even heard of bitcoin until 2013, and didn't follow it at all until 2017, so don't really have much of a way to relate to the cultural discussion since I wasn't around then.

Screen Shot 2024-03-04 at 7.43.56 AM.webp

At 77 now we're towards "overbought" which makes sense. But who knows how long it could stay there?
To me the better move is to just buy more sats whenever it's low and keep HODLing or you may miss the big moves.

I wonder where I can find exportable RSI so I can make my own plots and draw my own conclusions. Any ideas? @Cynllo?
 
Last edited:
The other idea that people are sleeping is based on the extraordinary things that happened during the last halving year. They are trying to compare the last halving event and price action when it is not comparable for many obvious reasons. The chief reasons are the covscam issue prior and the ETF stacking that now changes all realities previously unrelated, or unknown.

@Australia Sucks It is a medium of exchange and that's a big part of it, which is obvious. That's part of the innovation/discovery. That it does BETTER with other aspects of its monetary properties doesn't mean that it has to fit your profile or people can't consider it. You're making a category mistake of being more binary when it has all the properties, but has various benefits or is top in certain ones, but not others, necessarily.
 
Dear friends, We're halfway between optimism and Euphoria. Last time Bitcoin did this it was the move from 25k to 69k roughly. How good it would be to cool off for a while. If we continue going higher with no retracement, I think the big drop will come before Euphoria just like the last cycle it barely touched it.

If we continue this trend judging only by this indicator (which helped me accumulate bitcoin at sub 22k levels), I think over 100k is sell and run to the hills. I'm not an expert, but I'm proud of some trades and moves I've done, so take my advice with a grain of salt.GH09AuwXUAESwSD.jpeg
 
I wonder where I can find exportable RSI so I can make my own plots and draw my own conclusions. Any ideas? @Cynllo?

I think the one you posted is 1 month RSI and maybe the one in the video above.

I usually look at it here - https://bitcoinwisdom.io/markets/bitstamp/btcusd - RSI is in setting, below the search box.

I don't think it's that relevant, due to the ETF, and the 1 month RSI is still well below the 90s. And I don't think the bull market duration will change from ending in around Nov-Dec 2025. There are lots of other signals to look at, and it's only some technical ones that suggest a top.

It's probably not far from a correction, but we don't know if ETFs holders will make the more or less volatile. I've been largely holding back from buys, and hope to fill up on the correction.
 
Firstly can you explain exactly why it matters how a token came into existence? If its decentralized and open source I don't think the exact mechanism of creation matters all that much.
It was the discovery of absolute scarcity that can’t be repeated. Thats why all crypto trends to 0 in BTC terms.
As for BTC not being created to be a medium of exchange I regard that as a changing of the narrative. The narrative was changed after the fact because it failed at doing that so the narrative shifted to purely being a store of value and unit of account. Go back 7 or 8 years ago and people were still talking about Bitcoin becoming a widely adopted medium of exchange. Bitcoin city in El Salvador was an experiment to try to get people to use Bitcoin for everyday transactions such as buying coffee or paying for a hotel, etc.
It was created to serve every function of money, including medium of exchange. People have been saying it won’t work and can’t scale since 2010…they are wrong and continue to be wrong. I have never not been able to spend my Bitcoin when I wanted to. I have paid $.001c to Nostr and stacker.news posters, and I have paid $3,000+ for skilled labor with it. Never has it failed to work as advertised.

When people slowly stop accepting depreciating, censorable money, many more things will be for sale In Bitcoin than whatever local fiat is in use.

Everything is cheaper in Bitcoin, and will continue to become cheaper.
Even Satoshi Nakamoto made references in the white paper to Bitcoin being used as a medium of exhange. Just go to Wikipedia and literally the second sentence mentions Bitcoin being created to be a medium of exchange:
Bitcoin has not failed as a medium of exchange.

It processes more transactions per day than FedWire on layer 1.

The dollar value of those transactions is only 1/1000th of FedWire, but 4 years ago it was 1/10000th, and 8 years ago it was a tiny fraction. Eventually it will be 1/10th, then exceed FedWire, as the value of BTC increases.

It is cheaper than Fedwire, and faster too. And it goes to Russia, Iran, wherever you choose to send it…can’t stop it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top