2/
A more detailed explanation of the whole
"A double-spend broke Bitcoin" FUD that was circulated by an irresponsible publication.
1/
2/
3/
4/
The new block extends the chain, resolving the issue.
5/
6/
A 2-block reorganization happens less often, maybe a few times a year
A 3-block reorg is extremely rare. I don't think we've ever seen one
7/
8/
9/
10/
11/
12/
13/
14/
15/
I waited 3 confirmations after selling my car for $11,000 USD (IIRC). Was enough for me.
16/
17/
18/
19/
20/
21/
22/
23/
More from Bitcoin
$BTC views
Price needs to let volatility wear off before its next big move. Thinking 30K-40K range for the next 1-2 weeks. Then either 50K straight or after piercing 30K and bouncing back above 30K within 1-2 days.
$27500-$27000 is the key area. If price heads back down to 30K, expect 30K to be breached, fall to that area, and bounce back. FAST. All very fast.
What do I do with this information?
Simple.
I'm trading the range against a core position. Buying when price pushes lower, selling when higher. It's like playing the achordeon. There's always air left inside.
Where exactly?
Nowhere.
I don't use limits for that. $BTC is liquid enough to trade at market without issues.
I'm watching PA, volume and rates for buying and euphoria as reflected in rates for reducing.
Decision making is dynamic. Nothing is set in stone. But most likely if price heads back down to 30K 'll be holding off next time. The gameplan is to have ammo to buy the dip (to redeploy). If 30K breaks absolutely no buying until down to 27Ks or back above 30K.
Price needs to let volatility wear off before its next big move. Thinking 30K-40K range for the next 1-2 weeks. Then either 50K straight or after piercing 30K and bouncing back above 30K within 1-2 days.
My $BTC short-term view after long deliberation and some flip flopping is rangebound in 30K-40K until the curve and vols come off a further. Then, 50K. I wouldn't be surprised if 30K is briefly breached but the risk is to the upside. Those calling for 20K missing the big picture.
— Alex (@classicmacro) January 12, 2021
$27500-$27000 is the key area. If price heads back down to 30K, expect 30K to be breached, fall to that area, and bounce back. FAST. All very fast.
What do I do with this information?
Simple.
I'm trading the range against a core position. Buying when price pushes lower, selling when higher. It's like playing the achordeon. There's always air left inside.
Where exactly?
Nowhere.
I don't use limits for that. $BTC is liquid enough to trade at market without issues.
I'm watching PA, volume and rates for buying and euphoria as reflected in rates for reducing.
Decision making is dynamic. Nothing is set in stone. But most likely if price heads back down to 30K 'll be holding off next time. The gameplan is to have ammo to buy the dip (to redeploy). If 30K breaks absolutely no buying until down to 27Ks or back above 30K.
You May Also Like
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
