/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.10252150]

>miners won't allow bitcoin to go below 6000

[Anonymous No.10252154]

>>10252150
wtf am i looking at

[Anonymous No.10252156]

>>10252154
log chart you fuck

[Anonymous No.10252157]

>>10252154
your mom's weight

[Anonymous No.10252158]

>>10252150
>hmmmmm

[Anonymous No.10252159]

>>10252157
kek

[Anonymous No.10252160]

>>10252157
#REKT

[Anonymous No.10252161]

>>10252158
100k end of 2019

[Anonymous No.10252169]

>>10252158
>that 30 year old boomer who redraws his meme-lines literally every week because the last ones failed

[Anonymous No.10252170]

>>10252156
>log
why

[Anonymous No.10252176]

>>10252169
Literally this, TA faggots have no more than 80 IQ per head.

[Anonymous No.10252177]

>>10252170
>why use logs for what it's intended for

[Anonymous No.10252191]

>>10252169
>that biztard that does not recognize that this memeline is pretty much unchanged over the entire crypto lifespan.
Go get 'm tiger!

[Anonymous No.10252200]

>>10252191
k

[Anonymous No.10252211]

>>10252191
Is this how TA fags waste their time?

[Anonymous No.10252243]

>>10252200
>>10252211
>are you mentally challenged?

If you take the line across every cycle (boom & crash) its pretty much consistent.
The amount of incredible mongs on this board, fuck sakes.

[Anonymous No.10252247]

>>10252191

[Anonymous No.10252249]

>>10252177
>he believes TA

[Anonymous No.10252252]

>>10252200
>>10252211
>>10252247

[Anonymous No.10252253]

>>10252243
Yeah, the line you redrew for this week. that's the point

>>10252249
what does log have to do with TA retard?

[Anonymous No.10252260]

>>10252243
Kek. How does it feel to be in the left tail of the bell?

[Anonymous No.10252268]

>>10252252
all you did was draw parallel lines across the tops and bottoms, that's exactly what each of my colored lines do as well.

There's literally no point in history except week 28 in 2018 where your """""""method"""""" would be correct

[Anonymous No.10252279]

>>10252260
You mean the Gaussian IQ distribution? Quite comfy as im at 138 iq you mong.
Furthermore, since this cycle has unironically repeated itself 3 times already, and provided great gains, im bound for another round. You fucking fags just need to look at the long timescale of things. Once this shit gets some adoption besides simply being 'muh store of value' its gonna do another boom, but it will take time. (years probably).

[Anonymous No.10252288]

>>10252268
I want to believe.
But you are right, crypto volatility means that basing your TA on 10 years old data is meaningless.

>>10252252
Can someone draws three chunk of lines, one per pump and crash please?
I'm on the phone and can't do it myself

[Anonymous No.10252289]

>>10252249
>Oh look its another episode of /biz/ cant into business and finance

You use log whenever something goes parabolic even when looking at fundamentals you fucking mong.

[Anonymous No.10252292]

>>10252268
its an averaging line, it doesnt even change one % per week. Im not trying to predict exact prices. But in the long stretch it is bound to go up.

TA for small timescales is bs.

[Anonymous No.10252303]

>>10252292
Calling it a different name doen't change anything i wrote retard

[Anonymous No.10252304]

>>10252150
Miners profit even if it goes to 3k you fucking idiot. Only those suckers that mine in 1st world countries will get absolutely fucked meanwhile miners in shit countries where energy is ultra cheap will just buy their yachts several months later...

[Anonymous No.10252307]

>>10252304
>being this dumb

[Anonymous No.10252310]

>>10252279
You sure that number isn't your weight in kilos?

[Anonymous No.10252311]

>>10252303
Then dont say i draw my lines across the tops and bottoms you dipshit.

The two outer lines are rough channels that are just an extrapolation of 2nd order rising you fuck.

[Anonymous No.10252314]

>>10252310
#REKT
R
E
K
T

[Anonymous No.10252315]

>>10252150
big miners will allow smaller ones to be squeezed. Chinks who've been mining since 2014 - 2015 ain't losing money for years

[Anonymous No.10252321]

Funny how you fuckwits can't seem to make the lines work for older data without taking the new data into consideration. Funny how when someone points this out you become supremely buttrammed.

[Anonymous No.10252322]

>>10252158
>he just realized

[Anonymous No.10252324]

>>10252311
>dont say i draw my lines across the tops and bottoms you dipshit.
That's exactly what you did
In paint
Literally 10 minutes ago
And the one you did last month is already wrong because it went lower

[Anonymous No.10252329]

>>10252315
When you start mining doesn't matter dummy.

[Anonymous No.10252330]

>>10252307
https://i.imgur.com/ndbR6Yu.jpg

You have something interesting to say about this?

[Anonymous No.10252336]

>>10252324
>Not understanding 2nd order rise is a straight line on a log chart.

>Not understanding that nothing in this world is perfectly exact so a channel with an amount of tolerance can be made

> Not understanding that this range is no guarantee and that putting it on the maximum and minimum values is only indicative.

All i'm saying its very likely to go up.

[Anonymous No.10252338]

>>10252330
1. You're obviously so dumb you don't even understand why I'm calling you dumb
2.
>literally being so dumb you can't resize an image for 4chan

[Anonymous No.10252341]

>>10252336
see >>10252303

[Anonymous No.10252346]

>>10252170
Because tracking price on a constant percentage change basis is the objectively correct way to chart

And bitcoin is entirely driven by TA - just because your particular TA is shit doesn't invalidate TA as a practice

[Anonymous No.10252350]

>>10252310
Sorry senpai, have a masters degree in engineering fluid dynamics. Sorry you're such a shitstain.

[Anonymous No.10252369]

>>10252303
> I did not draw a line between some peaks
> I drew a parabolic (2nd order rising) line on a log chart, starting from the first peak value.
> That this line coincides with multiple points from the graph is pure coincidence and is only indicative that its not far fetched to assume parabolic rise of the mean.

You fuck.

[Anonymous No.10252385]

>>10252369
>I did not draw a line between some peaks
see >>10252324

[Anonymous No.10252407]

>>10252385
see image.
fucking mong.

[Anonymous No.10252414]

>>10252407
Drawing more lines in paint does not change anything I said.

[Anonymous No.10252419]

>>10252414
> giving no arguments
Yep, you stupid.

[Anonymous No.10252429]

>>10252419
>giving no arguments
see bottom >>10252268
repeat your """""""""""""method""""""""""" for this image

[Anonymous No.10252452]

>>10252429
kek

[Anonymous No.10252469]

>>10252150
Anon, why'd you stop at 100,000, shoulda scaled to 1,000,000, make those losses look even smaller.

[Anonymous No.10252486]

>>10252200
>>10252211
What's that you fucking retard? Those lines mean literally nothing at all. Neck yourself.

[Anonymous No.10252487]

>>10252452
>arbitrarily changes starting point of bottom line
>""""""""averaging"""""""" coef is lower even though the graph is generally steeper
lmao exposed

[Anonymous No.10252493]

>>10252452
>>10252487
forgot image

[Anonymous No.10252497]

>>10252330
Yes, the fact that the mining difficulty nearly tripled since the image was created, you absolute moron.

[Anonymous No.10252509]

>>10252487
> assuming a quick paint draw up is an exact approximation
> starting points are the same
> not recognising the obvious exponential rise/time
lmao you cuck.

[Anonymous No.10252518]

>>10252493
And the beautiful part is, the price would still fall between the lines that were drawn later.

[Anonymous No.10252533]

>>10252150
>miners won't allow bitcoin to go below 6000
Did you shade in green the parts where it's above 6k?
Because assuming that as mining cost for the past is retarded, in the past, less hashrate=cheaper mining

[Anonymous No.10252534]

>>10252509
>>10252518
>a quick paint draw up is
I'm glad you finally admit I was right then >>10252324
>starting points are the same
pic related
Nevermind that you literally don't seem to know what an average is.

[Anonymous No.10252541]

>>10252533
in the future less hashrate=cheaper mining too retard

[Anonymous No.10252542]

>>10252534
> the green lines on the 2nd image are obviously only to get the right angle for rise/time
> which was deduced from an averaging line on tradingview
> but was drawn here in fucking paint since you asked
The orange lines were the band, you mong.

[Anonymous No.10252553]

>>10252542
>the green lines on the 2nd image are obviously only to get the right angle for rise/time
So you finally admit that you need to redraw your meme lines for every couple of months, like I said from the start
Nevermind that you literally don't seem to know what an average is.

[Anonymous No.10252560]

>>10252533
His graph is red for sub 6k, green for 6k+ obviously.
The 'losses' in the past are no losses since cost relates to difficulty, and difficulty was way lower then. If less people were to mine in the future it would become more profitable again because of dropping difficulty. A block has to be emitted every x time.

[Anonymous No.10252564]

BTC mining profitability with AntMiner S9 at $0.09/kW (price of electricity in China). AntMiner S7 already incurs 50% loss. Really gets the neurons firing, doesn't it?

[Anonymous No.10252571]

>>10252541
>hurr what are difficulty adjustments

[Anonymous No.10252572]

>>10252541
>less hashrate
I hope you neck yourself in the immediate future.

[Anonymous No.10252574]

>>10252150
This assumes miners care about btc, which is wrong.

[Anonymous No.10252578]

>>10252553
see
>>10252292
> I already said that it changes with time. But over this long data row, it cant change more thant 1% over a month lol.
Can we have peace now?

[Anonymous No.10252581]

>>10252541
what does that even mean regarding the colored parts of the graph?
Are you implying that people that mined BTC in 2010 were paying 6k mining costs? Because that's the implication of this image which is beyond retarded and it only comes to show how clueless you are about this whole technology
>inb4 "I was just pretending"

[Anonymous No.10252588]

>>10252578
Again, you literally don't seem to know what an average is see middle >>10252487
You can't defend your """""""""""method""""""" if you don't even stick to it

[Anonymous No.10252589]

>>10252560
>His graph is red for sub 6k, green for 6k+ obviously.
That's what I'm saying, it's retarded to shade the graph with today's mining costs.
If he somehow managed to estimate avg (or minimum for that matter) mining costs for each year then it would be somewhat relevant
Assuming a flat 6k for the entire period is so stupid it's beyond meaningless to shade the graph that way

[Anonymous No.10252590]

rate my TA

[Anonymous No.10252604]

>>10252588
> insulting while not understanding
You don't seem to understand that the mean from a large dataset (8 years or so) is barely impacted by adding a small dataset ( a month)

YES OF COURSE ABSOLUTELY SPEAKING ITS REDRAWING EVERY FUCKING NANOSECOND YOU MONG, BUT THIS IS ALL JUST GUESSTIMATION.

[Anonymous No.10252605]

>>10252581
>Are you implying that people that mined BTC in 2010 were paying 6k mining costs?
exactly the opposite retard

>>10252589
>>10252571
>>10252572
>today's mining costs.
Are dynamic retards, just like in 2012. Raw hashrate isn't even really relevant, but I try to keep it simple for you

[Anonymous No.10252618]

>>10252604
Again does not change anything I said. In the second image your """"""""averaging"""""""" coef is still lower even though the graph is generally steeper

[Anonymous No.10252622]

>>10252590
I like the symmetry, let me draw a memeline for it

[Anonymous No.10252642]

>>10252618
>Again argueing that quickly drawn memelines are something to base an argument upon when the idea is already explained clearly, plainly in words

[Anonymous No.10252643]

>>10252622
OH NO, TA never lies, we're all doomed

[Anonymous No.10252648]

>>10252170
Because the retards who bought 19,000 dollar bitcoins misuse it to gloss over the fact that bitcoin is completely fucking fucked now otherwise they would kill themselves.
Personally I wish they would just shut the fuck up and kill themselves already though.

[Anonymous No.10252654]

>>10252605
You're beyond hopeless.

[Anonymous No.10252678]

>>10252605
sperglord confirmed

[Anonymous No.10252700]

>>10252642
>quickly drawn memelines
funny how this was my criticism that you denied just a few posts ago. Now you're using it to defend yourself
>the idea is already explained clearly, plainly in words
and it obviously doesn't work, i already showed that here. >>10252247 with better averaging lines than you.

[Anonymous No.10252703]

Hmmmmmmmm
You logscale fags will ignore this blisteringly obvious fact. But trade volumes are FUCKED.
completely tanked down to pre 2013 levels.
Thus if you use non-linear regression which includes post 2013 values you are just deluding yourself into thinking you'll ever get your money back. Everyone knows what BTC is now. Even my grandma knows what BTC is now. And yet trade volumes are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down.
Thus a linear regression that includes pre 2013 values is the only honest way to analyze it.

[Anonymous No.10252708]

>>10252150
It costs an Indian miner 3k to make bitcoin.

[reluctant kneepad girl No.10252720]

>>10252150
>mentioning miners without overlaying difficulty or hashrate
never gonna be not dummy

[Anonymous No.10252721]

>>10252700
> now tries to curb an agrument. Your argument was against my memelines, not against the sloppiness of the drawing. You fucking sperg.
> ignores the fact that averaging memelines only work on large timescales, and one must always at least consider one full boom/crash cycle.
You can see yourself that the lines drawn for the longer scale are changing less and less

The absolute state of /biz/

[Anonymous No.10252727]

>>10252158
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmgy9u yfxft uh ffth h ff hf

[Anonymous No.10252735]

>>10252727
Hnnnnnggggggggg

[Anonymous No.10252736]

>>10252727
Yep in 2030 link finally will be 1$

[Anonymous No.10252744]

>>10252703

[Anonymous No.10252757]

>>10252721
>lines drawn for the longer scale are changing less and less
They are still all wrong retard. Every prediction using your """"""""""method"""""" ever made has been wrong within a couple of months.
This was so obvious that you had to arbitrarily draw a shallower coef on a steeper graph trying to make it fit.

[Anonymous No.10252771]

>>10252757
> Still not simply and plainly understanding that averaging over longer time intervals gives a more reliable overall estimate.
> Still not accepting it was never sold as truth, but simply and approximation.
> Fails to realise nothing in this world is exact except for math.
Your """"""""brain"""""""" never fails to dissapoint me anonkun. You are a simple dummy.

[Anonymous No.10252798]

>>10252771
>averaging over longer time intervals
I haven't talked about this. Either you lack basic reading skills, or you're desperately trying to talk about something else.
see>>10252487
>>10252493

[Anonymous No.10252812]

>>10252798
see
>>10252736
The only thing that will fit your delusional little """"""""brain""""""""

[Anonymous No.10252829]

>>10252812
finally you admit defeat. If you were smarter it would have happened faster.
Btw check this out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average

[Anonymous No.10252854]

>>10252829
> Thinks he's won the argument because he doesnt get a reply with content
> Doesnt provide any decent content himself in the last replies and keeps circlejerking around changing averages and incorrectly drawn pictures (that only differ a few% in angle). Disregarding all theory.
Your """"""""brain"""""""" assumes it won an argument. Im happy for you anonkun.

[Anonymous No.10252874]

>>10252854
>keeps circlejerking around changing averages
see >>10252798
incorrectly drawn pictures
I already drew it correctly for you see >>10252700

[Anonymous No.10252916]

>>10252874
> keeps linking to his old posts with no content
> still doesnt accept he is wrong in circlejerking
> disregards all theory regarding averaging
> thinks he's so cheeky linking a wiki page
> so desperate to """"""win"""""" he even goes on as far as calling the other defeated prematurely

Apparantly nobody in this world cares about you anonkun, its sad to see you needing so much out of an online argument. I hope you will get happy soon.

[Anonymous No.10252929]

>>10252916
>no content
other than the fact that:
>Every prediction using your """"""""""method"""""" ever made has been wrong within a couple of months

[Anonymous No.10252957]

>>10252929
> keeps linking to his same old """"""content""""""
> postulates method is always wrong yet doesn't provide any evidence to back it up
> posts btc price chart without difficulty, yet still relates price to miners

Wew lad, you almost got me there!

[Anonymous No.10252989]

>>10252957
>doesn't provide any evidence to back it up
see >>10252247

[Anonymous No.10253018]

>>10252989
> keeps linking to his same old """"""content""""""
> disregards that it was explicitly stated that this only a rough approximation that only works for LARGE timeframes
> can see his own memelines converging to a very clear longtime trend
> too frustrated to acknowledge anything because he's such a proud sperglord

Go make mommy and daddy proud!

[Anonymous No.10253056]

>>10252170
It's biased towards smaller values over larger values. That way ancient price data from the early years is over represented, while the assblasting they got in 2018 is massively underrepresented.

[Anonymous No.10253081]

>>10253018
>only works for LARGE timeframes
It was wrong a couple of months ago, You are very confident today. Is 7 years and 10 months the exact breaking point where your """""""method"""""" suddenly starts to work?
>converging to a very clear longtime trend
see >>10252798

[Anonymous No.10253119]

>>10253081
>It was wrong a couple of months ago: doesnt give anything to back that up.
>Still doesnt recognize the clear trend of the mean price rising with a certain exponent, within a certain band.
> Still has trouble understanding that this was only meant to be a rough guesstimate, not absolute truth.
Not 7 years and 10 months. Preferably two very distinct market cycles (boom/crash). You can apply this to so many charts and it works 85-90% of the time

t. gotmoneybecauseofitworking

[Anonymous No.10253125]

>>10252703
>measuring volume in BTC
What the fuck is this graphic?

[Anonymous No.10253166]

>>10253119
>doesnt give anything to back that up.
Draw an average to may yourself retard. or pick the yellow in >>10252247
>only meant to be a rough guesstimate
see >>10252700
>You can apply this to so many charts and it works 85-90% of the time
ok, apply it to >>10252429 and don't completely fuck it up this time

[Anonymous No.10253201]

>>10252812

[Anonymous No.10253210]

>>10253166
-->
>>10252727

[Anonymous No.10253234]

>>10253166
>>10253201

[Anonymous No.10253233]

>>10252419
i second this

[Anonymous No.10253265]

>>10253210
that chart says we're supposed to be at about 15k right now. Not reaching 6k until 2022
I guess this is your way of admitting you were wrong

[Anonymous No.10253291]

>>10253265
you total fucking sperglord. That chart says only that it will likely rise with a given mean and between a given deviation. It is not to be followed as "oh hurrr durrr the price will be X at this month". And it will probably not always stay between the bands. It is a question of likelyhood.

Incredible. Fucking. Mong.

[Anonymous No.10253328]

>>10253291
We've already concluded that this """""""""""method"""""""" doesn't work. see >>10252247

[Anonymous No.10253342]

>>10252211
nice lines, bullrun 2019 confirmed

[Anonymous No.10253347]

>>10252247
So dou you think we will go up or down?

[Anonymous No.10253357]

>>10253328
No, you concluded you were """"winning""""
spergs gonna sperg

[Anonymous No.10253393]

>>10253357
I applied your """""""""method""""""" and it clearly turned out wrong, vastly overestimating growth.
Either face the evidence, or see bottom >>10253166

[Anonymous No.10253427]

>>10253393
>you once again state something, yet give no evidence.

Try this on a 2 cycle+ timescale, and see how it predicts the - averaged price over a year - over each successive year flawlessly.

Stop using your """""brain""""" and try it ffs.

[Anonymous No.10253429]

>>10252703
>Everyone knows what BTC is now

Im sure everyone hears Bitcoin and thinks atleast "ah thats internet mpney". However the amount of people who know how it works and how to use it is still miniscule.

[Anonymous No.10253439]

>>10253429
Most of the sperglords don't even know the concept of difficulty / hashrate, like OP.
Such a waste that they don't see the potential.

Yes everybody and their fucking grandma heard about funny meme money, nobody knows how it works.

[Anonymous No.10253447]

>>10253427
>give no evidence
>on a 2 cycle+ timescale
see >>10252247

[Anonymous No.10253465]

>>10253447
>provides """""evidence"""""
Doesn't understand the post he's reacting to

not gonna make it, anonkun.

[Anonymous No.10253512]

>>10253265
That chart is saying 20k was the top of the bubble and that it won't be a repeat of the 2013 bubble.which took off twice. The yellow line is a little too horizontal aka the bear market is projected to be a little too long for the movements of bitcoin through it's history to allign perfectly. I believe that if the chsrt is right we will get the peak of the next bubble a few years before 2030 and it won't hit a million dollars. Probably closer to 500k.

[Anonymous No.10253524]

>>10253465
gray, yellow and >>10252727 are all 2 cycle+ and all wrong.
nevermind that you're desperately backpedaling. you didn't have a problem with shorter timeframe earlier >>10252452 >>10252518

[Anonymous No.10253538]

>>10253512
>a little too horizontal
it's only been 6 months and it's already off by over 50% lol

[Anonymous No.10253578]

>>10253524
>>10253538
>You're trying to rate this method on its performance to predict a price at time x.
Thats not how it works you idiot.
This only states it is likely to rise with a certain mean, with a certain deviation. If you would know anything about statistics this would be evident. Stop trying to predict the price on short time frames.

[Anonymous No.10253580]

>>10252703
What the fuck are you on about?

Daily, global trading volume in USD is about 4bln...at it's peak it was about 15bln. Run your mouse up and down the grey bar under the price chart https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin/

[Anonymous No.10253589]

>>10252289
I will log your face niggerfaggot

[Anonymous No.10253592]

>>10253538
Bubbles crash straight down. Those lines are not price predictors. Those three lines are just there to show the pattern that has repeated 2.5 times already.

[Anonymous No.10253645]

>>10252158
>People are shorting the actual bottom

[Anonymous No.10253670]

>You're trying to rate this method on its performance to predict a price at time x.
no
>it is likely to rise with a certain mean
which it doesnt see >>10253393

>>10253592
>pattern that has repeated 2.5 times already
and implies it will continue to repeat. AKA a prediction.
Nevermind that if you do some high school math, you find out that the graph predicts that literally all money in the world will be in bitcoin (not crypto, bitcoin alone) in 15 years. This meas every other crypto and FIAT must crash to 0

[Anonymous No.10253680]

>>10253670
top for >>10253578

[Anonymous No.10253714]

>>10253670
> which it doesnt see >>10253393
But it clearly does.
You must be plain stupid.

[Anonymous No.10253732]

>>10252350
>masters in fluid dynamics
>works at Starbucks

[Anonymous No.10253750]

>>10253732
Got me there, jim!

[Anonymous No.10253770]

>>10253714
>But it clearly does.
Then why are all testable predictions using your """"""""""method""""""" vastly overestimating growth?

[Anonymous No.10253795]

>>10253770
>Then why are all testable predictions using your """"""""""method""""""" vastly overestimating growth?
They are not, its actually spot on looking at the yearly averages, as i stated previously multiple times.
You're really bad at this anonkun.

[Anonymous No.10253815]

>>10253795
>They are not
see >>10252247
green is not testable because you made it today.

[Anonymous No.10253900]

>>10253815
see
>>10253795
Circlejerk 101
it clearly works yet you refuse to see, you really suck at this

[Anonymous No.10253914]

>>10253670
Bitcoin going to 500k with 17 million circulating supply is 8.5 trillion market cap. The dotcom bubble was 10 trillion adjusted for inflation. The crypto bubble will be multiple times larger. Don't forget inflation of the us dollar due to economic problems will likely cause crypto to skyrocket further. A few trillion dollars is hardly "all the money in the world"

[Anonymous No.10253965]

[Anonymous No.10254017]

>>10253900
>it clearly works
see bottom >>10253166

>>10253914
Bitcoin is currency dummy. m1 not m3.

[Anonymous No.10254069]

>>10254017
What bitcoin will be has not heen decided yet. Speculative bubbles always overvalue assets. Some people compare bitcoin to a better gold so i don't see why it can't reach the market cap of gold near the peak of another speculative frenzy.

[Anonymous No.10254087]

>>10254017
>>10252727
The chart that i posted may actually work better if drawn over the the history of the entire crypto market cap. Not just bitcoin. It may reveal an estimate for the total market cap peak of the next crypto bubble.

[Anonymous No.10254137]

>>10254069
>>10254087
>has not heen decided yet
m8 it's a means of exchange. You can't live inside of it. It doesn't entitle you to revenue from General Motors. It's m1 by definition.

[Anonymous No.10254203]

>>10252279
>schools out for summer
No one with a 138 IQ misuses grammar and punctuation as much as you are doing right now, kiddo. Reminder: to post on 4chan you must me over 18.

t. 139 IQ

[Anonymous No.10254214]

>>10252200
We are literally repeating that 2014-2016 pattern but people here are too stupid to realize that somehow

[Anonymous No.10254239]

>>10254214
This
Jan 14 = Jan 18
3 years of bear market

[Anonymous No.10254244]

>>10254137
The world economic forum aparently thinks crypto will reach at least 8 trillion dollars by 2027.

[Anonymous No.10254263]

>>10254203
>t. 139 IQ
HAH, GHATT EM

>>10254244
blockchain =/= cryptocurrency m8. They are also explicitly talking about m3, not m1

[Anonymous No.10254301]

>>10254263
Do you even know the total market cap of m1 or m3 because you are sorely undervaluing the world.

[Anonymous No.10254363]

>>10252407
Even the start and stop points are fucking random
Jesus Christ you guys are legitimately retarded

[Anonymous No.10254365]

>>10252487
Kek

[Anonymous No.10254396]

>>10252618
Why do you even bother continuing? Honest question. He’s fucking retarded, so why do you bother?

[Anonymous No.10254417]

>>10253234
Lmao

[Anonymous No.10254421]

>>10252150

[Anonymous No.10254431]

>>10253439
This

[Anonymous No.10254437]

>>10254244

>World Economic Forum expects a 400x increase of BTC price from its previous ATH, or 8 million usd/BTC in 2025. Interestingly the same time the Dollar is expected to lose its global reserve currency status.

yeah, I think I'm going to hold on to these 'Bitcoins'.

[Anonymous No.10254452]

>>10254301
yes, and unlike you I rely on the actual data, not images you found on the internet
https://stats.oecd.org/viewhtml.aspx?datasetcode=MEI_FIN&lang=en#

[Anonymous No.10254468]

>>10254421
I love you

[Anonymous No.10254758]

>>10254214

That means we'll see 11 000$ soon.

[Anonymous No.10254791]

>>10254758
If 2 years is soon, yep

[Anonymous No.10254857]

>>10254758
The real bullrun won't start till the next halvening my friend, do not be fooled by those TA fags, there is no hope for them.

[Anonymous No.10254897]

>>10252191
sauce

[Anonymous No.10254910]

>>10252605
>exactly the opposite
so, you're implying that people in 2010 could sell their bitcoin and GAIN $6k?
also, with your OP post you seem to claim that miners WILL allow the price to go below $6k and use the past as a reference for that, but then you acknowledge in later posts that mining costs are dynamic—which makes the past completely and totally irrelevant. the fuck kind of bullshit are you trying to peddle?

[Anonymous No.10254911]

>>10254421
Delete this. We're full.

[Anonymous No.10254951]

>>10254910
>so, you're implying that people in 2010 could sell their bitcoin and GAIN $6k?
I have no idea why you'd think that
>mining costs are dynamic—which makes the past completely and totally irrelevant
I don't understand this either. The past is a clear example of mining costs not being the same as now (dynamic)

[Anonymous No.10255005]

>>10254951
are u—
r u feeling alright, m8?

[Anonymous No.10255019]

>>10255005
lol'd

[Anonymous No.10255176]

>>10254214
Accelrated due to many factors:
1. Liquidity due to many exchanges
2. More News and Social Media Awareness
3. Hype on Interests from Institutional investors, ETFs etc
4. Dollar inflation
5. Miners and exchanges cartel will artificially raise the price to create FOMO effect.
6. 100x increase in blockchain and crypto projects. We are beginning to see reallife utility projects e.g BAT

[Anonymous No.10255210]

>>10255176
>4. Dollar inflation
lol
>5. Miners and exchanges cartel will artificially raise the price to create FOMO effect.
lol

[Anonymous No.10255407]

OP you are a dumb faggot, just stfu and admit it's your fun little autism hobby for the time being.
This is coming from someone who was a top charter on Trading View..

Here is the thing , especially with how manipulated btc is. Once in a while TA will give you a hint of where going. But it will never be consistent you absolute mong.

You will never know if this next move goes completely against the trend and breaks out. Or if this pattern is a trap , doing the opposite of your chart. If you have ever followed 1 person consistently , if he was right one time on his chart . THE NEXT 5 OR 10 WERE WRONG SO THAT MEANS THERE IS NO POINT YOU DUMB FAGGOT BECAUSE IT IS GUESSING AT THAT POINT.

YOU NEVER KNOW IF IT WILL GO COMPLETELY AGAINST THE TREND, OR BREAK SUPPORT, OR BOUNCE OFF RESISTANCE

ABSOLUTELY BTFO

[Anonymous No.10255462]

>>10255407
Do you know what greentext is? Because you just wrote an entire fanfic about my beliefs based on a single sentence that I didn't even say

[Anonymous No.10255695]

Bumping an autistic shitflinging thread. Don't stop now.

[Anonymous No.10255740]

>>10255695
seems i out-autisted everyone, cause they left

[Anonymous No.10256085]

>>10252150
Why are people on this site incapable of making coherent posts?

[Anonymous No.10256238]

>>10256085
because they want to appear "mysterious", because they are autistic

[Anonymous No.10256366]

>>10256085
>>10256238
either that, or you're newfags who don't get the lingo yet

[Anonymous No.10257025]

>>10256366
Still making mommy proud I see.

For fuck sakes lad, long term trend is up. Better get used to it.
My method totally works, use your """"brain""""
Absolutely BTFO with your permabear autism.
Fucking sperglord.

[Anonymous No.10257092]

>>10257025
see >>10254017

[Anonymous No.10257319]

>>10254203
nigga dat shit aint gon change da fact that I fucked yo wife long dick style

t. 140 IQ

[Anonymous No.10257359]

>>10257319

[Anonymous No.10257487]

>>10252703
>when you just throw whatever desperate bullshit you can think of so you can accumulate more

[Anonymous No.10257498]

>>10257359
already too late fo dat niggaz wifey

but ya gotta think about economics here my man, either I pay a few 100$ on sum disease ridden hookers, or I fuck somebody wife long dick style

and with all dem wives I fuck on tha regula, now dat would be alotta green I could put into my crypto thang man, so I'm gonna keep invadin dem prvate mills with my virile member nigga

but I gotta set da record straight, I aint stingy when it comes to race, any woman is fair game to long dick style as long as she married

[Anonymous No.10257726]

>>10257092
>184 replies in thread
> is responsible for half of them
You fucking autismo

[Anonymous No.10257779]

>>10252150
I remember all of the stories about Chinese and pajeet miners who were stealing electricity to mine. So your "support" is suspect.

I also tend to think the eastern European criminals will figure out a way to steal electricity to mine when the legit miners exit.

This "the miners won't allow" meme is the most unstudied and most taken for granted thing in the whole crypto memeverse.

[Anonymous No.10257818]

>>10257779
>This "the miners won't allow" meme is the most unstudied and most taken for granted thing in the whole crypto memeverse.
I would just call it straight up retarded

[Anonymous No.10257894]

>>10257818
And i would just straight up say "I don't fucking care what you think".

[Anonymous No.10257956]

>>10257894
>he said after an extensive reply in my thread

[Anonymous No.10258028]

>>10253234
Toppest of keks

[Anonymous No.10258044]

>>10257956
Is this what a pathetic neckbeard stoops to, to make himself feel superior?

[Anonymous No.10258095]

>>10258044
This guy is such a sperglord know it all, bashing every reply in his thread. He's making it his little Kingdom of Sperg (KoS).

The full autismo shitflinging with the other guy was enjoyable though. Shame they stopped.
Bumping for shitflinging

[Anonymous No.10258149]

>>10258044
Hey there sonny, just pointing out a little inconsistency there is all, didn't mean to be rustling anybody's feathers

[Anonymous No.10258163]

>>10252158
Those are literally the stupidiest meme lines I've ever seen

[Anonymous No.10258166]

>>10252727
whats "10 6"?

[Anonymous No.10258204]

>>10252157
Old one but good one.

>>10252150
If we bounce off the support again then BTC will definitely not really go under 6k again, I don't know anything that ever failed to break its support 3 times magically going back to it a 4th time.

[Anonymous No.10258462]

>>10258204
>I don't know anything that ever failed to break its support 3 times magically going back to it a 4th time.
by that retarded logic bitcoin will stay exactly between 11500-6000USD for billions of years

[Anonymous No.10258463]

>>10252292
>TA for small timescales is bs.
what the fuck am i reading?! TA is only for short time frames, long term predictions are done with FA

[Anonymous No.10258488]

>>10258204
lol you are up for a rude awakening bro

[Anonymous No.10259004]

>>10257092
see
>>10257025

[Anonymous No.10259350]

>>10258166
10^6 is 1 million