Thanks for that.  

I had to go look at my original Excel spreadsheet to figure out if there might have had been some kind of a reason for the change in the outcome of the numbers in the last column since it seems that you have the formula correct in terms of the it is the fuck you status goal (which in this case has been presented constantly as $2 million) divided by then BTC bottom price (which is the projected 200-week moving average)..

So regarding the discrepancy of the last column, the ONLY thing that I could think of would be if the number of digits that each of us allowed in the projected 200-week moving average price (btc bottom) might ended up affecting the calculation, so in that case, the difference in the calculations would not have had been BIG enough to have any actual meaning.. so you are correct that your calculations are materially the same as mine, even if they are not exactly the same as mine in every row.

To me, it seems that the number of digits behind the decimal should be important when calculating BTC quantity in order to show at the satoshi level (especially when we start to get to below 100 bitcoin), and currently (not to be overly pedantic, but this is a public thread) we have 8 decimals in our bitcoins - although I will admit that part of the reason that I had limited up to 4 digits in my larger amounts (between June 2014 and November 2020) was merely to save space, which may or may not have had been necessary.^**

**By the way My original spreadsheet goes back to December 2010, and I decided to start showing the data from mid-2014.. and then to cut out a few of the later years too (between late 2035 & late 2037, between late 2038 & mid 2043 and between mid 2044 & late 2055) .. in order to attempt to highlight the fuck you BTC level for the revealed years).  
I am still thinking that there could be several advantages towards using images on the forum posts, and then perhaps a link to google spreadsheets that might end up going into some further detail, but also potentially allowing anyone to be able to extract and use the data and formulas contained therein (in the open source spirit), so maybe it might be easier to capture an image and post it on the forum, but the google spreadsheet might have more than one version of the raw data.. including maybe a more cursory version, and then maybe a more expansive version, and it seems that some of your own google spreadsheets sometimes seem to go into more details and others that go into fewer details (to potentially present a broader picture or highlight certain aspects of the data-set).  

Maybe to be consistent, we should just be showing down to eight digits as frequently as we can (when getting into smaller quantities of BTC), just to get used to thinking in terms of satoshis - even though likely many of us already speculate that some day (which already is happening on lightning network), we are going to be having broader discussions that go more granularly than 8 digits and into sub-satoshis, and becoming more and more likely to go more granularly as bitcoin price is expected to continue to go up and up and up (even though surely not guaranteed to go up.. but expected to go up with decently high levels of confidence.. at least from some of us deluded bulls, present company included).

I hate to point out another mistake in your latest table, and to appear like an overly nit-picking kurmugeon turd, but there was a use of the same numbers in the BTC Bottom column and in the $amnt∆ column... In other words, the $amnt∆ column information was not there.

No problem.  Thanks for the effort, and your interactions got me thinking about some of my other spreadsheets too, and I did not even share my most recent creation that had caused me to contact you via PM a few weeks ago.. .. so I have not produced any posts or threads on the spreadsheet that I am somewhat eager to share - even though I know that there can be some additional work to share substantive contents with forum members.

Also, we likely realize that some of these attempts at data manipulation and even presentation of data can take time, so I am impressed that you are able to carry out quite a bit of working with data from my earlier posts through mobile, and I frequently feel handicapped when I have to work from a laptop screen rather than having 2 or three external monitors.. which is my current home set-up but I am frequently not even at my home set up, so my handicap tends to be toggling between lap top screens, rather than trying to work from mobile devices (presumably from a phone or maybe an ipad or something like that might count as a mobile device, too?).

Thanks for the modifications of the earlier table, thanks for the spreadsheet, thanks for the instructions, and thanks for the various consultations.

I have just updated and pasted in your fix to the referenced table in my post 3.

By the way, in reference to the modifications of the last column, it seems that somehow your spreadsheet is taking a graduated approach in terms of when it is showing 8 digits after the decimal. 
When the BTC amount has 5 digits, then there are ONLY 4 digits after the decimal.
When the BTC amount has 4 digits, then there are ONLY 5 digits after the decimal.
When the BTC amount has 3 digits, then there are ONLY 6 digits after the decimal.
When the BTC amount has 2 digits, then there are ONLY 7 digits after the decimal.

So showing the full 8 digits after the decimal happens ONLY with single digit bitcoin and with zero digit bitcoin, and I suppose that is acceptable to the extent that getting into satoshis might not really matter as much with those larger BTC amounts.  I know in Excel I can say how many digits after the decimal that I want to show, and probably I can limit the number of digits per cell.. but whatever formula or combinations of formulas, I could not really figure out how to do it, when I was playing around with the google spreadsheet because after I made some changes, after I tried to preview the post, I got this message:  "INVALID BBCODE: loop, probably unclosed tags".... For about 20 minutes I attempted to figure out what I did, but I gave up.. for now.  I have to do some other things.

At some point in the near future, I am going to test out putting an actual table into your Google Spreadsheet by following your instructions..  I did execute the "make a copy" function to see that part seems to work.., but then again, I got the message:  "INVALID BBCODE: loop, probably unclosed tags" when I tried to venture too far into the matter. 

It could be that going through this google spreadsheet process and trying to learn how to use your translation set-up may well end up resolving quite a few of my historical table creation problems.. in terms of the amount of time that it had been taking me, and also the sometimes difficulties in seeing the line up of columns...   

I have not really worked very much with google spreadsheets, but it does seem pretty similar to Excel.  Also, if I get a bit more used to Google Spreadsheets, it seems like it could potentially save me in some of my other real world cases in which I have been saving Excel spreadsheets with people, and then we go back and forth in regards to how and which changes are made... and it still not resolve some of the ways in which people might end up screwing up spreadsheets based on their screwing up the formulas.. and then requiring to trouble shoot where the formula screw ups had gone wrong.. so sometimes there still might be needs to compare earlier versions to later versions, and if some mistakes might have been made a few versions back, some detective work might be needed in terms of figuring out when the mistake first started to appear in the earlier versions.

That explanation helps quite a bit, because I was a bit confused regarding some of the formatting matters, and even with the date, it does not seem to allow me to format the date with only two digits for the year... but I can now see how it seems to be formatting that.


It seems to be working now because I updated my Opening Post 3 with the code that I had modified through GS, so I am not sure what mistake I had been making previously.  Yesterday, I was mostly using preview and posting several versions of the tables in a row so I could see the formatting differences between them within the same preview of the post, but when I got to posting the third table, then I was repeatedly getting that BB error code.


Like you said, I will have to play around with GS, and then see how much I am able to feel comfortable moving over from Excel to Google Spreadsheet.  First off will be to potentially just use the formatting tool that you provided in order that I may well be able to show tables better in my forum posts than I had been previously (and this might even cause me to want to post more tables - to the extent that might be "helpful" to anyone in terms of some substantive discussions).    And, as you likely realize, I have been getting in the habit of referring back to some of my tables when I am engaging in substantive discussions in other threads - since from my point of view these kinds of topics seem to come up a lot (how many bitcoins do I need now in order to improve my chances of having a good (or acceptable) life in the future)... besides giving some of the blanket advice - get as many coins as you can, some times, it can be helpful to attempt to dive into specifics, and surely, members might come up with answers that differ from my own, but at least some of the charts can help to provide springboard to better pinpoint upon where the differences of perspective might lie.

Surely, there are a lot of similarities between Google Spreadsheets and Excel, but there do seem to be some new things in GS that I would likely need to learn, too.... and like we had discussed via PM, if I might want to start to link to the actual Google Spreadsheet or to link to some of the raw data that might underly the information that I post in the forum and that might not be shown in the forum post, then there might be some preferences to create a new Google account that would be used just for that kind of a thing (sharing Google Spreadsheets).. and one of the goals would be to attempt to preserve some aspects of OpSec.

Indeed every form of businesses requires knowledgeable detailed ideas if not at experiences. Be curious to learn about a thought of business and your passionate towards making profits on a field you know nothing about. Things ain't jus the easy it is seen. If one is seems prosperous at a point does not mean it must favour you too. There are verities there is a likelihood about investments which are termed to proffer complete helter skelter striving to keep your investment on a survival but only BTC could render you a reliance with a minimum knowledge which you don't need a muscle to push on before getting to the hill of greatness. You only have to keep your mind of deck keep staring and steering at your coin(s) while you watch it grows like you are watering a plant of you steering your cooking put waiting to get cooked in no time because Bitcoin investment is a magical investment system.

Yes of course ignorantly venturing into a business unknowledged about is as gambling with your investment.

One of the importance of a great idea is that, if properly studied and applied, it has the capacity to reproduce it result if all variables are equal, and even if the variables differs in term of individual unique situation such as the level of financial knowledge and how much amount the individual possesses, if the financial knowledge and theories were and are properly analyzed and applied, it will still definitely give a positive result in the individuals own level, the result may not be the same in terms of how much profits have been accumulated in the stretch of time and what amount you are able to set aside as you accumulate all the way down and up respectively depending on the angle you are approaching the market from.
Although,  in investment such as bitcoin, it requires for individuals to first of all have a pre planned approach before they start the journey just like in any form of business, so for that, EluguHcman may have to properly digest the topic and make a personal analysis of the various approaches that are employed by ops to make a good outcome in the long term.

Bump: 

Here's my off-the-top of my head updated odds for this upcoming cycle. which is working with UP only with a presumption that a new ATH will come prior to the end of 2025.

First: What is H1?

Second: In accordance with my above outline, any clearing of the ATH before the end of 2025 would help to make the underlying presumption more sound, and then it is merely a matter of how much happens before the end of 2025, I suppose that the odds (and the expected range of each) would also end up changing for each of the categories if the most bearish one ends up getting met.... especially since BTC prices have to go up about 86% merely in order to fullfull the underlying presumption that an ATH will be reached prior to the end of 2025, and once the whichever of the price ranges gets reached then it is no longer a prediction but instead becomes a certainty for that category, so then each of the categories and ranges might need to be tweaked from time to time based on them having had been met and whether it is perceived that we are "on schedule" or ahead of schedule or whatever, and surely it would be nice to knock some of the categories out from time to time during 2024 and 2025, and the more that the BTC price goes up then maybe even the odds for the upside scenarios would end up changing based on what had ended up already happening. 

I am not much of a stickler for sticking with old predictions once the facts have changed, but the mere changing of facts still would not change the earlier predictions as being captured at that moment in time.  Another thing is that I am kind of just shooting from the seat of my pants, so sometimes people will come up with their own predictions in regards to this, and surely I don't have any problem with that, but instead of what I attempted to do, they might just give one of the scenarios and proclaim something like:

"the price of BTC is going to top out between $110k and $170k by no later than the end of 2025"..

And yeah sometimes it is even worse than that because they don't give a date and sometimes not even a range, and then they don't really give their odds either, and they don't really give any alternative scenarios which even if that might be their base case, you can see that my base case is probably "Conservative:[/b] $80,001 to $150k - 35%" because at this time, the conservative scenario has the highest odds, even though I might have to change them later.. since I just threw down a kind of quickie estimation to attempt to respond to a post from member jrrsparkles in the other thread.. but I am probably thinking more of the "middle" scenario, but I also hate to be overly optimistic too soon and then end up disappointing myself if such scenario does not even come close to ending up happening.. so I suppose even in my mind it seems really great to merely get to ATHs again prior to the end of 2025, and anything beyond that is really icing on the cake. even though anything beyond ATH is also kind of presumed, too.. Why else would I make such a post that presumes an ATH is reached prior to the end of 2025?.. ..

I mean maybe even the real reality of the matter is just that if the 200-week moving average continues to move up between 6% and 12% per year, then aren't longer term bitcoiners doing good?  The 200-week moving average is currently moving up a little more than $20 per day, but even if we presume $20 per day, that is $7,300 (365 x $20) in a year and it gives us a 25% price increase for the next year... well the 200-week moving average is currently at $28,643, so yeah our $7,300 would need to be added onto that, so $36k for November 11, 2024. but of course, we likely realize that BTC prices tend to be quite a bit above the 200 week moving average, so the 200-week moving average is a kind of bottom indicator rather than anything that we should be tied down to when it comes to tops. 

In bitcoin, presuming fair value BTC prices to tend to be 25% to 100% higher than the 200-week moving average does not seem to be unreasonable at all, and so maybe those numbers will go down in the future.. and maybe the BTC price will stick a lot closer to the 200 week moving average, like maybe even within around 25% or so?  But for now, I am not going to presume bitcoin to be  something that it is not, and we have to consider to include the ideas of exponential s-curve adoption based on Metcalfe principles and networking effects (in the Trace Mayer school of thought).

Yes we want more than just 6% to 12% per year... and/or more than 25% to 43% per year.  It just seems expected to get more than 48% per year in the coming years..almost like a given.. but can we really expect more?  Maybe I am feeling guilty by even presuming a new ATH by the end of 2025, since that is like getting some where in the arena of 43% per year returns in each of the next two years, and can we even presume that?  Seems crazy, even though it kind of seem that we can have some level of presumption, but it still seems kind of fantasylandia if you really think about it that we are presuming an ATH prior to the end of 2025. 

It is like the amount of BTC price appreciation that we are presuming should justify throwing a lot of assets into bitcoin, but some of us already have a lot of assets in bitcoin due to earlier price appreciations of it, so it is not even like we need to throw more assets into bitcoin  in order to benefit tremendously from it (and why get greedy), so the motivation about getting in and recognizing base cases that are pretty bullish in their presumptions really should go to the no coiners and the low coiners, but they don't even seem to hold similar basic level presumptions as the longer term bitcoiners presume at least 43% per year in each of the next two years.. and your expectation of ATH by the end of 2024 is like you are presuming an 86%-ish return by the end of 2024...and a strange thing is that does not even sound unrealistic to me. 

I should be calling you names right now for your expectation of 86% returns in the next 13.5 months in regards to your level of seeing unicorns but I am not going to call you any names.. because pretty much I believe similarly.. not completely. as you seem to be suggesting that it might not happen, but still, I think that you still pretty much agree that the underlying presumption of making an new ATH by the end of 2025 is not even close to unrealistic... so then it is just a matter of how much and whether you might choose to assign different percentages to the chosen ranges, considering that we are presuming that we are going to be getting to an ATH on or before the end of 2025.