I was thinking about the following hypothetical the other day:
Let's assume that bitcoin goes to 100-300K (let's say, 200K average) this cycle and somewhere along the line you sell a substantial % to invest in property, luxuries, etc ( whichever you choose).
In 10 years afterwards, bitcoin goes to 5 mil, which means that you only "captured" just 4% of the potential value.
How would you feel about it? I guess, it would also depend on the remainder (that you didn't sell), but still.
Personally, I know that years later, I am not particularly fond of my decisions to sell AMZN, AAPL and TSLA early, even though I made very nice gains on them.
Sometimes, I consider these occurancies as my investment follies, but, again, you cannot be 100% efficient.
Of course, it is possible to NEVER sell btc and, basically, put this decision on the shoulders of descendants, but you cannot guarantee that they would be wise about it, right?
At least, I can't.
At some point, I would have to start to spend btc and this point is coming relatively soon.
Alas, to spend even a relatively small amount of btc on things like kitchen remodeling causes a bit of mixed feelings on my part as I contemplate the scenarios described above.
That could be one expensive kitchen 5-10 years down the road.
Withdrawals from IRA are taxable and I put all my stables back into the market during 2023.
I would probably do a mix of "things", but don't want to take on HELOC or anything like this.
Decisions, decisions...
Read/listen to the book 'Die with Zero' - Bill Perkins. Working for money (or in our case, waiting for Bitcoin to go up) is a trade-off against your only real asset your life time. Memories and experiences you have earlier in your life have greater value than the ones you have later because of the benefits they give after you have had them. Sharing and using, wisdom and memories both have significant value to your overall life happiness. (I think travel experiences often give great returns.). Think about your grandparents, as you grow older, you will end up wanting less and are happy to stay at home, in fact, health issues mean you probably can't travel easily anymore, and this is when those earlier 'experience' investments in your life reach maturity. Bizarrely, living in the moment is an investment in your future. So the earlier you have these experiences the greater the return. Dying with zero doesn't mean forgetting about looking after dependents or risking running out of money, but it helped me think about getting the correct balance between living in the moment and thinking longer term. In the case of Bitcoin, for me it was about setting very ambitious objectives about the things I wanted (property, cars etc, but whatever is reasonable to you with your current BTC holding) , and when Bitcoin was at a sufficient price, and I would still have at least 50% of my BTC remaining, I pulled the trigger. (actually, my trigger price was $42k, in the last bull cycle, and I part-exited at $55K, and paid all the tax due.) But I always live by, "Never have no Bitcoin." |
|
|
|
So what happens when WSBers realize that they can go the other way and also short a company over 100% into a bankruptcy? Are corporate raids/hostile takeovers next?
Why would they do that? Their entire mission was predicated on putting firms who short companies out of business. These hedge funds that make money by betting against corporate America add nothing to society. Absolutely nothing. I applaud what they are doing wholeheartedly. It should not be possible to short 145% More shorts than there are actual stocks available to buy. That is no high risk gambling but market manipulation plain and simple. Now that everyone know what "shortning a stock" is, look into which stocks were shorted right before 9/11 More importantly who shorted them This is the disease of recent years. paraphrasing, "If you expose yourself to large risk, it should be banned." But, If someone wishes to risk all their capital on 100x leverage, or shorting at 150% of float, as long as the risk is covered so nobody else is at risk, then this should be entire your own responsibility and is perfectly acceptable to me. These aren't kids, they know exactly what they are doing, just like we do, so keep the state out of individuals affairs and let people take responsibility for their own actions., The Wall Street Scammers are not bad because they do crazy shit like this, they are bad because they rig the game. The rules they play by are not the same rules everyone else plays by - everyone like to win, but nobody likes a cheat. |
|
|
|
The most depressing part of this whole situation is my total net worth measured in BTC has gone down because i'm only 98% all-in....  |
|
|
|
Oh and in regards to lethality: Calculate deaths/(deaths+cured).
Don't know why people keep using total number of infected. It makes no sense. Some of those people are going to die.
Because death occurs earlier in the disease cycle than cured state, (cured may be pronounced many weeks after the onset whereas death in a couple of weeks) and especially at the beginning of the outbreak this figure will be weighted too far towards a high mortality rate, and equally makes no sense at this point. You can easily see the error of using this method in the first few weeks, say 5 people died, but nobody has been declared cured, giving a 100% mortality rate. Bear attempts look pretty futile, nobody else appears to be jumping aboard. Again, some of the infected are going to die. And we don't know how many of them. We do know how many died and how many were cured. Convenience is no excuse for deliberately fudging the numbers. And it's not 5 people anymore. I don't dispute that the numbers are fudged, I'm disputing that your alternative method to calculate the mortality rate is also wrong. Even if the available figures were correct, which they are not, there is no way to calculate an accurate mortality rate.Most likely, it lies somewhere between your value and the media's value, with such a large range it's not very helpful. (5 was a made up figure, to illustrate the error in the methodology.) I don't see the problem. Infected people will either end up in the dead category or the cured category. What's missing? People die quicker than they are declared cured. This difference means that at any point in time the dead is known, but the number who will be cured lags by weeks, weighting the statistic towards a higher mortality rate. |
|
|
|
Oh and in regards to lethality: Calculate deaths/(deaths+cured).
Don't know why people keep using total number of infected. It makes no sense. Some of those people are going to die.
Because death occurs earlier in the disease cycle than cured state, (cured may be pronounced many weeks after the onset whereas death in a couple of weeks) and especially at the beginning of the outbreak this figure will be weighted too far towards a high mortality rate, and equally makes no sense at this point. You can easily see the error of using this method in the first few weeks, say 5 people died, but nobody has been declared cured, giving a 100% mortality rate. Bear attempts look pretty futile, nobody else appears to be jumping aboard. Again, some of the infected are going to die. And we don't know how many of them. We do know how many died and how many were cured. Convenience is no excuse for deliberately fudging the numbers. And it's not 5 people anymore. I don't dispute that the numbers are fudged, I'm disputing that your alternative method to calculate the mortality rate is also wrong. Even if the available figures were correct, which they are not, there is no way to calculate an accurate mortality rate.Most likely, it lies somewhere between your value and the media's value, with such a large range it's not very helpful. (5 was a made up figure, to illustrate the error in the methodology.) |
|
|
|
Oh and in regards to lethality: Calculate deaths/(deaths+cured).
Don't know why people keep using total number of infected. It makes no sense. Some of those people are going to die.
Because death occurs earlier in the disease cycle than cured state, (cured may be pronounced many weeks after the onset whereas death in a couple of weeks) and especially at the beginning of the outbreak this figure will be weighted too far towards a high mortality rate, and equally makes no sense at this point. You can easily see the error of using this method in the first few weeks, say 5 people died, but nobody has been declared cured, giving a 100% mortality rate. Bear attempts look pretty futile, nobody else appears to be jumping aboard. |
|
|
|
Are there any websites one could use to watch the buy and sell walls of multiple major exchanges? Such as an aggregate of coinbase, binance, bitstamp, bitfinex, bitmex, etc? It would be nice to have a visual of all of the major canyons at once. Thanks!
This is pretty good https://data.bitcoinity.org/markets/books/USD |
|
|
|
|
400BTC sell wall on Stamp @ $9800
|
|
|
|
Encryption Ban in United States Threats Telegram, Whatsapp, Signal and Threema
Companies like Apple, Google and Telegram could soon face anti-encryption demands from the government. Democrats and Republicans within the Senate support the new draft bill. They call it the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies (EARN IT) Act. Thanks to the act, the law enforcement agencies will read communications of people thanks to the presumable encryption ban. In such a case, anyone outside the NSA will see what you send via messengers with ‘build-in end-to-end encryption https://www.coinspeaker.com/encryption-ban-whatsapp-telegram/A ban in encryption means the NSA cant decrypt Satoshi's wallets. There is no encryption in Bitcoin, there is only cryptographic signing, so it shouldn't have any effect on Bitcoin protocol itself. |
|
|
|
|
Brexit has been good to us British BTC holders.
Before Brexit the GBPUSB was around 1.60 now it's 1.20.
That means that 25% of the current value of your BTC in GBP comes from Brexit.
|
|
|
|
|
Remember son, if it wasn’t for your Great, Great, Great, Great Grandfather buying Bitcoin all those years ago, we would still be living on Earth
|
|
|
|
CZ...you said safu?  apparently the hot wallet at Binance lost 7k corn...ouch. Glad that they don't want a BTC rollback...  That would be ******. A consensuses for such a rollback would be madness. Every stupid fuck could demand a rollback for a lost wallet if they would allow it in this case. Indeed, I doubt that they would have been able to if they tried. This further illustrates the necessity of further distribution of the hash power and why centralisation is a bad thing when it comes to BTC. I would be happier if we had further diversification in the hash power. What CZ@Binance wants, or when miners want to fork, doesn't matter. They are free to do as they wish. UASF & 2X was the watershed, when the power was ultimately confirmed to be in the hands of the holders. |
|
|
|
You really need a like-for-like comparison, which positions BTC at currently 100% of the non-shitcoin market. |
|
|
|
If a party decides to censor you simply try an alternative route
How will they control ALL the lightning nodes, anyone can start a node.
I already answered that. Lightning nodes are NOT invisible. Nor are football stadium sized mining facilities. If you think a professional money laundering enterprise - that's what freelance lightning nodes will be known by to the govt - are somehow immune to govt regulation when they can easily come knock on your door, you're out of your mind: Anything that has an easily identifiable physical or digital surface attack vector will be enveloped by the current system. Claiming you're going to run a wildcat Lightning node is like claiming you're going to be some type freelance illegal porn distributor and the FBI is not going to kick in your door.
Yes lightning Nodes are not invisible, but when you receive a lightning TX and you forward-it on to another node, you have no idea where it is ultimately going too, and where it has ultimately come from. You only know the next hop in the chain forwards and backwards which is insufficient to meaningfully censor. If my node is being refused a channel to a 'hub' I simply open a channel to another node which connects to the 'hub' and all is well. You can't force everyone to censor. |
|
|
|
There's too much to explain about why it's complete garbage, but just one example in particular involves transaction validator nodes. In the base bitcoin model this is going to be the miners and the miners are required to compete in terms of economic soundness and efficiency in their operation. Since the state is the bankers, they can then implement huge red tape and regulation, killing off any 'hobby' miners or really any competitors in general except themselves.
So it's pretty easy for the banks to completely control bitcoin already as is with blacklists and everything else, turning into a complete dystopia, but they do have at least some small inconveniences in their way. With Lightning Network, there IS NO hashing for them to do, they can simply regulate everyone else out of existence with red tape, then they control ALL Lightning router nodes and collect their vampiric usury fees off every transaction with no skin in the game. In other words, there's ZERO difference between that and current banking. Banks collect infinite interest by taking a cut of every transaction with no skin in the game and own the planet.
How can you censor a transaction when you don't know the parties involved. If a party decides to censor you simply try an alternative route How will they control ALL the lightning nodes, anyone can start a node. 'Regulate out of existence' like they regulated out of existence Bittorrent ! Lightning doesn't break Bitcoin's fixed supply. None of your arguments hold water, try harder! |
|
|
|
I would't enter my passphrase in any online form or on any computer that had internet access. For sure: 1) Download from Github to a usb stick, 2) Transfer to an offline machine and run it and use values. 3) Wipe machine My mistake, I forgot to mention it because it was obvious to me. But of course your keys and seeds should NEVER be on an internet connected machine (thats currently on the internet, or later connects to the internet) |
|
|
|
Here is what I use:  Cost me a few satoshis and I've been saving my bitcoins on it since last year. I don't see the point of hardware wallets if you are in bitcoin to hodl them. To spend them actively i would still use my iphone for the job insead of hw wallets since I would carry my wealth in a paper wallet and my play money on my phone. But most importantly, it is just easier with a phone. To me money spent on hw wallets is a waste. I would buy more crypto instead. It's really all about the value of the amount you are storing, and therefore the risk. Paper wallet is fine for smaller amounts, but... - Where do you store the paper wallet safely - What happens if you are burgled and the thief steals the wallet (wether or not they know what to do with it) - Where do you store a backup, (and increase the risk of compromise)? - What happens if your house burns down? - Something gets spilt on the wallet and obscures the ink. - 3 Years later, and you've simply lost the wallet, or thrown it out accidentally. - When you spend the wallet and enter the address into a computer, are you 100% sure that computer is totally free from trojans/viruses, an attacker could steal the funds on the happy day when you cash-out. These risks are small (ish) but if you had $100k or $100m, they would be much more important. A paper wallet requires multiple diverse location copies, but each copy increases the risk of theft, and you need to trust someone else to look after other copies (family?) So you can securely split the secret (Shamir's secret splitting https://iancoleman.io/shamir/) , you can then choose how many parts of the total eg. 2 of 3 are needed to reconstruct the private key, Then split it - 1 copy with a good friend or your lawyer, 1 with a family member, and 1 in your safe. As its 2 of 3, 1 person can lose their key and its not a problem, and both the family member and friend need to collude to steal you coins. You could of course increase this from 2 of 3 to any value such as 4 of 7, whatever makes sense to you. When you come to spend the paper wallet, you should use a clean machine, install a new version of the OS ,and then only the wallet software. I wouldn't use brand new software releases and I would check the authenticity of the code using release signing keys or hashes. If you really want to do it properly, you should probably read Glacier protocol https://glacierprotocol.org/, it discusses all the risks and possible solutions, you can then cherry pick the things you think are important to you. You want to also factor in your own death to the scheme. Making sure 'your' people know about, and can actually get possession of the coins without you. |
|
|
|
That's a very short bear you have there.
well, 2015 was a flat for almost 8mo (after Jan plunge). I don't mind us transitioning to such a flat right here. Re 500K, I just don't know. McAfee? Should he start looking at recipes? Must remember to remove the scum |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
