I don't see much point in using a bankroll for casino games, which are EV-. If you are going to play for fun, it doesn't matter whether you have a bankroll or not. I would see more sense if you do it to make what you have last longer by lowering the bet amount as your bankroll goes down.

In poker if you want to make a profit it is fundamental. And that you know how to respect the bankroll management to go up as well as to go down. There are more or less aggressive managements that you can use depending on the modality, your experience and risk tolerance but there are some minimum bankroll management that must be respected to avoid bankruptcy.

Well, there is one that I didn't know, with all the time I've been on the forum. The quick edit button. The same thing happened to me as libert19, and, in fact, I am taking advantage of the button to edit the post for the first time using it. The only thing I don't see much difference either, apart from being a bit faster.

Neither option seems to me good enough to tell you to choose that one, nor bad enough to tell you to discard it. In the end there are many specificities that are not in those two paragraphs and problems that you may encounter along the way, that you have to make a decision and see.

It is not a bad idea to start as a teacher in the mornings and then try little by little to set up a business in the afternoons, not only about crypto as you say, but the second option you suggest, you can start taking steps towards it in your free time in the afternoons, on weekends and school vacations. And if not, the cryptocurrency field is quite good. I think that most of us who participate in signature campaigns have a main job and apart from that job the signature campaings, and other sources of income as in my case.

I guess most of you who are saying that women are more economical than men live in third world countries, where they have a more traditional role, do not work or do not work as much and take care of the domestic economy. In developed countries, women who save do not even reach 5%. They spend it all. Clothing companies know this and if you have a store with two levels, first floor and second floor, the women's section is ALWAYS on the first floor at street level, because they know that they are more impulsive and this brings them more sales.

My grandmother's generation was like that, but the generation of polyamorous instagrammers who end up single at 40-something with a bunch of cats and hooked on anxiolytics are very different.

Overall you give good advice, the only thing I would add is that DCA is also good for people who don't have a big income and therefore can only invest what they save from their paycheck. For most salaried people. I am not a newbie and I do it.


Well, it's not exactly like that. Yes, there is a small percentage of people who make money from trading, but it requires a lot of dedication, study and effort. It is much easier and safer to buy and hold Bitcoin in the long run.


Good advice.

I believe that the WO regulars theymos, and consequently the moderators, have a special consideration for you. Otherwise this thread would have been moved to off-topic or something a long time ago, because I don't remember in meta which is a serious section a thread with so many jokes, starting with the title, overquotes and things that make this thread look like a split of the WO that has fallen here.

I am not surprised, it is cybercrime adapting to the new possibilities that the growing cryptocurrency market offers. Twenty years ago there were no cryptocurrencies and the illicit money was laundered through corporate schemes in tax havens. For medium amounts, they could be laundered with a business where cash payment was the most common, which was the traditional method, already used in Al Capone's time, for example, at a time when credit cards did not exist.

The world changes, and criminals adapt to it.

I don't think reddit's answer is that interesting, as he could have simply explained it as it is, and not resort to the analogy of apples, which is also incorrect, because as a comment says with which I completely agree:


I, and I think most of us on the forum, understood what a halving was when we were learning about Bitcoin without resorting to analogies.

After reading the replies I ended up doing a couple of consolidations yesterday, that got confirmed pretty fast.

Surely you know more about this than I do, but I'm not so sure. Let's imagine I have 50 inputs of $100. If I merge them all into one input I lose privacy, which is one thing that is said in the OP.


So, if I don't usually spend more than $100, I shouldn't worry about it. What I don't know in the future if I could make a larger expenditure all at once.


Well, with coin control and if I had many small change inputs (like $5) I would be more sure to consolidate them, but consolidate preventively is what I am not clear about, see if someone else helps.

The prophecy is based on Bitcoin eventually becoming a worldwide currency, and therefore representing all global wealth, which at present has little prospect of being fulfilled. The predictions made by Saylor are not so different, but in this case considering the Bitcoin as the world's store of value that will defund all other stores of value to attract all the wealth to it, which also seems to me to be exaggerated.

Neither the Bitcoin is going to be a predominant world currency nor is it going to demonetize all assets (stock market, gold, real estate, art, etc) to absorb all that money by itself.

At some point the price will reach $10M, just as it did before at $1M, but by that time the purchasing power of $10 (and $1M) will be much less than it is now due to inflation.

I'm getting fed up with these types of threads that, first of all, only focus on price. As if bitcoin is nothing more than something that goes up in price.


You could have done the same with Google or Apple shares, or even Lehman Brothers if you had sold just before the catastrophe. To look at the past and simply think that because the price of something has gone up a lot you would have become rich is very short-sighted.

As we have discussed many times on the forum, when the price was worth a few cents and went to $1 most people sold. Others bought at $1, the price went down and sold scared of losing everything because at that time the risk of Bitcoin going to 0 was much higher than now.


I would like to see people's eyes opened by the security of the blockchain, its decentralization, the possibility of privacy and other features that make bitcoin unique and much more than just a thing that goes up in price.


Yes that's all well and good, but that's the millionth time it's been said on the forum.

I guess this will have come up in the thread sometime, but I don't know on which page if at all. How would you define "small input"? I mean in my particular case I was thinking about consolidating now that I see the fees going down but what I have are mostly inputs of about $100 or higher amounts, which in the next cycle can easily be worth $500. On the other hand I rarely spend Bitcoin to pay for something worth more than $100, and if in the next cycle I hypothetically wanted to pay for something worth $2,000 I guess there won't be much difference between 1 and 4 inputs as far as fees are concerned either, no? How do you see it?

Actually, the best time to buy was yesterday. Now it's the second best time.

But there is one thing about the news that I don't understand. It talks about "wallets".



I don't know if the people who use these wallets reuse addresses or how they can identify that several addresses belong to the same wallet, because if I receive bitcoins and in each transaction I create a different address they will not be able to know that they are part of the same wallet. Or maybe they mean "addresses" when they talk about wallets, and people reuse them as we do when we receive payments from signature campaigns.

And in the meantime, you lose money.  Wouldn't it be better to use that money in doing DCA Bitcoin and the time and energy you use in trading in other activities that bring you an income and don't have a money loss rate higher than 95%? I'm amazed at how much people's heads are eaten up with trading.

Speaking of course of Texas Holdem, which is the most played variety nowadays, and assuming that the starter is going to start at low limits or micro-limits online, the advice is simple: make a selection of starting hands (you can find tables online) and play few hands but aggressively. It is not worth bluffing at those levels and even less at the beginning. Eventually you can start trying semi-bluffs with strong draws.

You pose a false dichotomy, especially since agriculture today is highly dependent on oil. Fields are tilled with power tillers or tractors, grass is cleared with weed cutters, many crops are mechanized, like modern olive harvesting which is picked by machine, many fertilizers are derived from oil, etc. Without oil, agriculture would not have even 20% of its current productivity.

I agree with Texac. This is the worst advice I have seen on this forum so far this year. Not only is it bad advice in general to try to time the market, but to do it now is even worse. No one can know if the price is going to go back down although at the point we are at it would make more sense for it to go up gradually.

The best thing to do is to invest in Bitcoin for the long term and forget about these movements. If you sell and see that the price does not stop rising, what are you going to do? Buy more expensive? It is better to DCA.

You are not making sense. To make money with an ETF is going to bring tax revenue to the state coffers and in many cases will be offered by bank brokers or linked to them. That already happens with stock ETFs.

If you were to say that Congress is against Bitcoin because it can be used as P2P cash, it would make more sense, although this use is currently in the minority.

Well, it may be a sign of mass adoption but I am not as optimistic about it as the OP. When the bull market started in this cycle, it was called the institutional adoption cycle, and it looked like companies were going to do mass as MSTR. In the end it has been the but cycle in terms of percentage returns. I think mass adoption will come, but it will continue slowly. I don't think the spike in addresses will be a determining factor.