"They" want you ("us") to be scared, and seems like it is working.
Yeah they do, but are we really scared? We are only "out of sight" not "out of mind"
I am not against each of us attempting to protect ourselves, yet at the same time, it seems to me that you are glossing over my point that relates to using bitcoin and even interacting with people who use bitcoin, which are good things. Bitcoin meet ups and other ways of interacting with our communities in bitcoin ways can also be good for each of us and good for bitcoin too.
No one is forcing you.
You do what you like, including if you want to stay quite about your bitcoin and ONLY perfrom KYC transactions through approved channels. That's your choice.
I understand the point that you are trying to prove. Our lives are important and nothing is wrong with protecting it. But it is not advisable to let you emotion to control you, if not, you will end up hiding yourself at home without doing anything that is going to be beneficial/profitable to you, to stabilise your life and that of your family. In this life, NO PAIN, NO GAIN. "if you want a goal, you must shoot your shot" Bitcoin is a great cryptocurrency and fear can discourage someone from reaching their destination. Some successful bitcoiners that you are seeing today also faces some challenges but they never give up easily.
I fixed your quotes.. since I had found it a bit confusing in the way that you posted it with the quotes messed up, including my trying to figure out who said what, even though several of the interactions were between Btcdeybodi and me.
We likely are seeing similar considerations, yet I think that part of my main point is that we sometimes might consider that we are acting in our own best interest to protect ourselves yet that might leave us in situations in which no one is interacting with their bitcoin with each other, which likely takes power away from bitcoin and from us as users.. which is what "the powers that be" would like to happen. There would be desires that we just interact using third-party custodians rather that directly transacting between each other.
We still likely have to attempt to engage in measures to protect ourselves in regards to our coin management and even aspects of our security, and perhaps even separating out some larger wallets so that we are not spending from large addresses in which people will be able to see our balance.. So if we are buying something that costs between $400 and $1,500, then maybe we might want to spend from a wallet or address that has less than a few thousand in it, rather than spending from an address that has $10k or more in it... so there can be actions that we can take and we might want to practice how we send transactions, which takes practice if we might be spending in public versus if we are just moving UTXOs around in our own private wallets...
We can also send batched transactions with attempts to obscure transactions so that it might be difficult to figure out which transactions are from our own wallet versus another wallet, and maybe even difficulties knowing which addresses are the send address and which are the change addresses, if there happens to be change.
For example, maybe we want to send a transaction and we only have a wallet with $30,346.77 in it... Maybe we had not used the wallet for a while, and we considered that our balance was mostly manageable a couple of years earlier because it used to have around $5k in it, and so yeah, now the BTC price went up more than 6x since we last used the address, so we might feel that our address had become unmanageable, and maybe we want to send a transaction to a merchant for $1,573.47, since we are buying an Iphone or a computer or something like that.... We want to obfuscate our transaction, so we decide to send another transaction to our mom for $629.32 and we have a friend that we can send $113.67, so then that leaves us with a remaining balance of $28,030.31..and so Maybe we want our UTXO to be a bit more manageable, so we decide to send right around two more transactions of $7,343.43 and $11,459.54 to ourselves, and then the remaining transaction will be change... and so it might be difficult to know which transactions our from us and which ones we still control, and maybe before sending to the merchant, we might do some separate transaction, so that when we send to the merchant we might be spending from a wallet that has a smaller UTXO rather than the UTXO that is greater than $30k.
There can also be cases that we might choose to completely spend down our balances in certain addresses (or accounts that are in our private bitcoin wallet) before adding more value to them... so that our UTXOs do not end up mixing...
He is still kind of speaking out of his ass, since he seems to be saying, this could be the top, but then we could have some more up, yet at the same time, we cannot expect to have more since we already had a lot for this whole cycle if we consider that we already got from $15k to $112k.. which is around 7x. Take it with a grain of salt.. yet I did mention in one of my earlier posts, I would be quite surprised with anything less than $140k.. yet at the same time, I think that supra $250k and even supra $333k have decently good odds of happening this calendar year or maybe drug into 1st or second quarter 2026.
By the way, I also consider that it would be quite difficult to get greater than 65% price drops unless we at least get above $160k.. and I am thinking that greater than 75% price drops might be likely unless we get above $230k.. and personally, I would prefer to see supra $400k in order to be able to come close to ruling out sub $100k prices ever again, and if we get to $333k I might start saying that sub $100k is not going to happen again.. yet surely, a lot of these matters depend on how exponential any BTC price rise might play out, so factoring in the various ups and downs along the way and the passage of time.. so if the various high prices of $160k, $230k, $333k or $400k plus comes in the 3rd or 4th quarter, then that might be a bit more rapid compared to if it were to drag out into the 1st or 2nd quarter of 2026... and yeah, I know that I was calling for the cycle to drag out into 2022 last time too, and that did not end up working out very well.
Surely, diminishing returns theory would be playing out if we are getting some kind of a sub $140k in terms of our cycle top this time around.
If you watch until the end, when probed, he says that 200K may still happen.
Nobody knows for sure...nobody.
Yeah, I was gonna mention he also likes the idea of a blow-off top from here, so we really could go up to 200..
But I'm seeing so many videos from people saying it's different this time. And I think it could be, but I always think it could be. And when it's different this time video quotient goes up quickly...
Personally, i don't think that it is different that much..as many, I expect a pop and then a large decline.
As a continuation of a decreasing % of decline trend, the next one could be 75% (say, 50K from 200k or 55K from 220K).
An unpleasant kick in the behind, but survivable.
It is not necessarily a good thing for anyone to be thinking that sub $100k corrections will be inevitable.. but yeah, sure, it could be the case that we are back in sub $100k territories, and maybe it is even greater than 50/50, and I am not really planning to start to rule out sub $100k until we start getting in the $300k plus price territories, and I am not likely to feel overly confident about no more sub $100k until we go above $400k.
In terms of my level of cockiness or cockiness, I will also have to follow where the 200-WMA gets to.. and getting the 200-WMA above $100k would also help with some confidence to proclaim that no more sub $100k will be happening.
There is also a theory that recking is more painful to the upside rather than to the downside, since so much retail has been sitting on their hands, and so retail is going to be getting absolutely fucked if they don't start to get some bitcoin. Of course, they can buy whenever, but they may well be buying at supra $300k rather than around our current $105k prices or any kind of sub $100k, whether those sub $100k chances come again, or not?
He seems to be just trying to maintain semblance of his "academic neutrality."
