We might be too greedy to admit to owning BTC or having an ability to save someone else... but yeah, without details it is difficult to know how each of us might act in similar circumstances in which our wealth (BTC) can be used to help others.... .or if we might have an obligation to bailout someone else.


Hahahahahaha

They are such lovely creatures.

Probably because you are too busy focusing on personalities rather than actual issues and substance, but whatever at least you can admit (somewhat) that you might have been wrong in your prior assessment of impact.

I doubt that there is anyone here who would have imagined that the financial impact of this whole virus situation would have been so great or that there would have been so much chaos in the world in regards to how to deal with it.  The chaos seems far from over, even with the opening up of various places in which the outbreak seems far from under control or even the ongoing lack of information and tests is likely NOT going to end well, but sure, maybe we will get lucky, and the opening up will work out fine..

I am really doubtful, not only that the opening up will not work out well, it will disproportionately impact the poor and disenfranchised, but even rich people are going to get fucked by lacking in their providing of various support systems and focus in the reopening efforts.

Good thing that a lot of us have bitcoin, but we are also going to get fucked from this whole thing because we are going to have so many more limitations to how we can spend our wealth...  in the hookers, lambo and blow territory but also other quality of life considerations in terms of steaks, travel, health and fitness options, social mingling, other supply chain issues and venue options.

So maybe even there was some truth in the proclamations of mindrust when he asserted that he felt better to shave off a lot of his bitcoin options because even being rich is not going to be that great in these kinds of times of fewer options... .... and even though there is some truth in that comment, having bitcoin and richness in those kinds of alternative asset holding ways is likely to provide way more options than either having money in fiat or other potentially depreciating or expensive to maintain ways.

Yep... let's just say hypothetically any of us is forced to sell.  We might just want to keep some token amount in bitcoin, whether $50 or some other amount in order that we attempt to continue with the proper mindset and practice towards continuing to have some kind of investment.

Of course, none of us knows the circumstances of another member who might not even share such details, and there could be circumstances in which it is not even possible to retain a token amount of BTC... which would likely be extreme circumstances.

Sure.  How you going to stop that?  We can bash on the shitcoin projects.  We can choose not to participate in them.  We can discourage others from involving themselves in the other shitcoin projects.  In the end, seems that it is just going to take time to iron out.  Difficult to rush such a process, and there are billions of people out there who have not invested in bitcoin or shitcoins or anything who are likely to be just as willing to invest into shitcoins as they are into bitcoin.  Shitcoins specialize into marketing to these people by asserting that they missed the bitcoin train, and their shitcoin has more potential than bitcoin because their shitcoin only costs $38.73 while bitcoin costs $9,776.78.  People eat up such deceptive bullshit.  Even smart people.


Again another thing that seems to be outside of your control, and regarding experimentation with shitcoins, seems to me that they are likely to be more successful to 1) gain in value, 2) play off of the network effects of king daddy, 3) attract people into them 4) etc during these earlier unsettled times..  Once it becomes more clear that bitcoin is the clear winner (which some of us have already recognized) then it might become more difficult to either attract people/investors into shitcoins or to create narratives that really cause people/investors to genuinely believe that they have chances to beat out bitcoin and become bitcoin 2.0.


If you build a better mouse trap, people will come.  Might just take 20 to 50 years.... and bitcoin is much more difficult than a mouse trap to actually assess and conclude that it is the "better" one.


Can't really stop individual or entities from wanting to make money.. and if there is money there, then why wouldn't they do it? 

Surely there are some individuals and entities that are bitcoin focused, too.


Why so impatient, Biodom?

Seems that you believe that bitcoin's adoption is NOT going quickly enough?

Personally, I am NOT sure how to imagine much more bullish growth without things getting too screwed up, because there is already a lot of chaos in the space, and sure there might be some areas in which there appears to be growth and then there are set backs.. but seems to take a while to get a lot of infrastructure matters into place in order to really facilitate hockey stick growth in adoption...

By the way, I have believed that hash power and mining power in bitcoin has continued to grow astronomically and even in ways that hash power could support 100x increase in the BTC price without any major issues, but even with that, we sometimes will recognize various kinds of vulnerabilities, and maybe it is better to make sure that some of the vulnerabilities are recognized and even worked up prior to the next 100x in BTC price.. we had 100x increase in price in 2013.. then some time to recover from that and then another 78x increase in price in 2017.. and then time to recover from that .. and adoption does require places for the people to store their coins and places for them to expand into, which seems to nearly naturally cause the BTC price to increase with fairly small increases in adoption causing large increases in BTC price.  So to me, it seems that bitcoin could tolerate another 100x in price, but there also need to be infrastructure in place to deal with it, too... and yeah maybe we cannot get 100x sustainable, but maybe we would end up gravitating back into the 4x to 5x area.. from where we are at because growth can only happen so quickly in order for various other aspects of the ecosystems to catch up.

Sure it is good to assess the facts, and maybe suggest that there might be various shit projects that distract people from adopting bitcoin, and they end up getting distracted into shitcoins, but why should we get upset about such distractions into shitcoins?  It is what it is, no?  Is there some way that there should be better marketing in bitcoin to keep some of the people from gravitating into shitcoins?  Shitcoins do provide a place for some people to go while the bitcoin infrastructure continues to be developed and allow a place for them to fit into.  Is there something that bitcoin is doing wrong?  Is there some niche that needs to be fulfilled in bitcoin?  Aren't there various entrepreneurs who would spot any niche if they believe that it needs to be filled or that it might be profitable?  I would agree that with open source, there will be some tragedy of the commons, too, in that sometimes there might not be motivations to build in certain ways that might be needed because no one believes that they can make money in that direction, even if such direction would be good for the bitcoin ecosystem to have support in a direction that is not really easy to monetize.

I think that one of the problems with any open source project is that it going to be inefficient in a variety of ways and there are going to be folks and other projects that try to steal from it and then imitate it and then try to gain its network effects.

In the longer run, value still remains quite likely to continue to gravitate into bitcoin because bitcoin continues to be the soundest of money and there continues to be no other project that even comes close to bitcoin's sound money aspect even though some of them will spout out such sound money claims, but their claims are not really backed by facts regarding how those other projects operate, and it just seems that the stealing from bitcoin and the delays in growth (total adoption) are just part of the open source territory and one of the costs of doing business under such openness... so in the longer run we might all be dead.. but still in the shorter run, bitcoin still seems to be a good investment choice when compared to other projects..

Yeah, any of us could get distracted into some sham imitation project, and we might even make more money by short term getting involved in such scam project... so the choice remains with each of us, whether to stay involved in bitcoin or to diversify into various shit projects because we believe that we might gain more profit that way and we are too impatient to either develop on bitcoin, keep our value in bitcoin or to wait for the slow open source project of kingdaddy to play itself out for the next 20, 50 or 100 years.

I think that in this thread many of us are against bringing up various altcoins, unless there is some kind of specific reason to attempt to help explain BTC price movements or to bash them.. so sure there might be some altcoins that are worthy of NOT being bashed but it is NOT a good habit in this thread to allow such slippery slope of bringing up any altcoins because where are you going to stop exactly?  more than 2,000 coins and mostly all shit, and we have enough to talk about either in regard to bitcoin, the virus or some other nonsense than to devolve into talking about various shitcoins, even if they might happen to off chance have some plausible (but not likely) merit.   

harder to want to actively participate or even to cheer for UP if you either 1) have no coins or 2) almost no coins or 3) you are feeling insufficiently prepared for up...

Doesn't seem to be a healthy place if you are hoping for either down or sideways.. unless you might get lucky, and I suppose that your odds are not exactly lopsided.... I would imagine passage of time just results in cashflow DCA back into a position, but still takes a while to establish a position.. took me a year.. and if you don't have a lump sum ready it could take 5 years or more, no?  I suppose that is the perspective... just slowly DCA back in, no matter if the price is up, down or sideways.

I think that there were some people in this forum who were promoting grin or maybe it was mimblewimble or beam.... I am not sure about what the difference is between those three and they seem to be related somehow...

Does not seem to be a good thing to be promoting those other projects.

This article shows Trace Mayer getting called out in late February  including a link therein to a tweet showing the conference video footage, and then Trace Mayer has not been seen or heard from since then.

I wonder if Trace lost money on that grin or mimblewimble project.. and many people would have wanted him to lose on that project (BIG TIME) based on his having had crossed over into a scam pumping set of behaviors at what was meant to be a bitcoin only conference.

Of course, you are 100% innocent.

As you were soldier.   

I must respect that you are GREAT at shirking responsibility, for whatever that's worth.



 

Good thing that we have two versions of bcash (I mean scam coins) to help us to recognize that there might be a better way.    


Maybe I am almost rolling off my chair with laughter while considering your deeper point, jbreher...

 




Let's get Craig Wright to teach them.....



 

Hopefully, eventually does not take a long time, because "eventually" we are all going to be dead, too.    

Like you, Indymoney, I find myself a little bit confused by such a statement from btc_macro because I would not presume that very many people would be very prudent to put all of their wealth into bitcoin, so presuming that a millionnaire is someone who has a million dollars worth of net wealth, then likely only a portion of that value would be contained in quasi-liquid investments. 

I am not sure if we can remove the value of the home from the assessment of what is a millionnaire, because many persons who are assessed to be millionnaires would have a decent amount of their wealth in their personal home and affiliated real estate property.... but there likely could be some formula to consider the home and personal property as quasi-liquid value, even if we understand that real estate and homes do not tend to be very liquid.

Personally, I recommend that all people who have at least a 4-year timeline for their investment (meaning that they anticipate that they are not likely to need the money in at least 4 years - no impending death or anything like that), invest 1% to 10% of their quasi-liquid value into bitcoin.  Of course, there are some people who would be willing to be way more aggressive than my recommendation, especially if bitcoin starts to catch on, as seems to be a presumption of a possible outcome that is in the btc_macro proposition in the tweet.

So, for me, if I think of someone who has an investible portfolio of $1million, then the more aggressive stance would be to have 10% of that value in bitcoin, and therefore to own a whole bitcoin then BTC would have to be $100k or less per BTC for a person of that investment stature to be exercising reasonable prudence within my investment framework.

Currently, someone with a $1million investable portfolio could easily and prudently acquire around 10.3BTC, if choosing to put 10% of that portfolio into BTC.  For sure, I accept that there are quite a few variants for how people thinking about what is prudent investing, and currently we have a situation in which NOT too many investors, whether millionnaires or not, or even institutions, are failing/refusing to put even 1% of their quasi-liquid investment capital into bitcoin, so I would imagine that in the future, there will be more interest from a lot of folks to at least get off zero and at least get to 1% which most likely mean that they would not be able to own a whole bitcoin because they are currently NOT sufficiently enlightened to see what is likely to happen with bitcoin's price in the coming 5-10 years (and likely sooner than that).

Sure, the bitfinex situation was smaller than gox in terms of the number of coins...  And, of course, the Gox coins were coming off of the peak of the 2013 price rise, while the bitfinex hack came after a very long bear market that was only just beginning to get rolling and ramping up.

Seems that in 2016 Bitfinex was gaining a lot of prominence in the bitcoin space, and Chinese exchanges were largely losing credibility and getting shut down around that time, but bitfinex was retaining some credibility because it was targeting USD trades, so it's difficult to suggest that the 2016 bitfinex hack was not important at the time that it happened, even though afterwards there seems to have been a decent recovery from whatever had then happened and the way that bitfinex resolved the matter had been contrasted to the Gox drama that both removed a lot of coins from the market as you stated and not resolving, including having the Gox trustee engaging in questionable selling of coins.. a hack/scam that continues to give.

Whether covid is real or not, we cannot be going around "omitting" what actually happened in bitcoinlandia.

 

In other words, whether some event explains what happened in bitcoin price movement or not, it still serves a purpose, even if it were fake.... and let's say, for example, the bitmex exchange had to shut down its trades on March 12 because overleveraged trades were going to bring bitcoin to zero or close to zero, so yes, bitcoin prices could have gone to zero on March 12 had bitmex not shut off their exchange, and perhaps the recovery would have been more violent.. or perhaps the BTC price might have got caught in the sub $1k territory for a week or more.  But, fact of the matter is that none of that happened.. bitcoin did not go to zero and bitcoin did not even go below $3k.

Instead, as we know, bitcoin went to $3,850, which was largely a 50% price correction within one day that largely recovered itself within a couple of weeks - while having some lingering staying down effects and even some doubts about whether the BTC price recovery would continue or revert back to testing $3,850 or some other price that was lower than the subsequent recovery point.

And, sure such outrageousness served a purpose to relieve some folks of their coins (sorry mindrust), and to cause some people (perhaps weak hands) to continue to doubt whether they should keep some of their value in BTC... or to buy with the value that they have, and they say: "I am going to wait and buy cheaper coins.. so instead of using my $1,000 to buy .103 BTC (at $9,700), or .133 BTC (at $7,500),  .222 BTC (at $4,500), I am going to wait to  buy .4 BTC at $2,500 because it appears that Masterluc might be right...". blah blah blah..   and so bears might want to test out the weak hands again, or maybe the bears realize that they are only given such opportunities based on a confluence of events.. that might not play out again in such a perfect storm...   Even the bears might start to wonder whether they can they replicate the storm and if they have shaken out as many weak hands as they can?  or not?  

Can we just ignore what happened on March 12....? NO, we cannot!!!!!   Can we omit certain parts of bitcoin's price movements, and try to analyze what is going on in bitcoin as if our omitted parts were an aberration?  NO, we cannot!!!!!  

If we omit parts, then we are in fantasy land, and in essence, we have to account for what actually happened,  the good, the bad, the ugly.. and the aberrations.. even if we believe that the aberrations had accomplished nothing or they were not representative of king daddy...

Of course, I am not suggesting that many of us are not going to profit from being able to recognize the difference between signal and noise, and of course, many of us were not shaken from our coins during the $3,850 dump, and many of us picked up a few more coins during such dumpening.  

Bitcoin does not tend to do sideways very well, especially, if you are expecting it, so you might want to consider that, too.

Well, after-the-fact, you can identify some seemingly sideways periods.

Huh?

I don't see how you can determine what a trial is about from various pieces of evidence and/or testimonials that are done in preparation for trial, which is one of the main purposes of taking depositions (to prepare for trial, explore issues and perhaps allow for settlement based on revelations of facts that could get presented at trial).

Frequently, testimony or evidence is gathered that is just meant to show one aspect of the case, and sometimes one lawyer or another might overlook some aspects of what game is being played based on the pleadings and the various issues before the court, and evidence that comes out in a deposition might not even be introduced in court, so it ends up NOT being evidence in the final decision and/or presentation.. but still can help the parties in terms of deciding what they might consider to be reasonable settlement proposals.  

Of course, the best attorneys are not going to lose sight of the pleadings, but they still might conclude that one piece of evidence favors them when it is looked at in terms of the pleadings the evidence might either work against them or end up being completely irrelevant.

Also, sometimes, even the lawyers might not understand the significance of certain evidence until they are putting together their final arguments and they might not even know what their final arguments are going to be until they actually know what evidence ends up getting presented in trial and how some of that evidence might end up getting framed during the proceedings including the fact that some evidence might be introduced for limited purposes or only to apply to certain issues in the case and not for other issues.  

So after the evidence is produced in trial, then they end up making the logical connections between evidence that they might not had previously considered to have been connected.

I am not suggesting that there might not be some allowance from either side to get caught up in the presentation of irrelevant evidence or evidence that is not really going to be able to be used by either side in the actual argumentation of the final issues, but sometimes attorneys might allow irrelevant evidence to get flushed out, especially during the deposition stages, because such pursuits could either lead to relevant evidence or at least the evidence is not hurting them in either way, even if it were presented in trial, and sure they are getting paid while they are participating in depositions, too.  

So, of course, depositions are done in order to prepare for trial and can have a tendency to go way beyond relevancies, and in the end, such witness might not even end up getting called by either side, even though they might have spent days or weeks taking their deposition and exploring various evidentiary avenues through such witness.

In late March, $10k was a kind of fantasy to reach, and there were many bitcoin naysayers were proclaiming with decent amounts of confidence (and even seemed reasonable) that $10k might not be reached for 1 or 2 or more years.

My, how times have changed, and you don't see those same kinds of spouts of bearish confidence from the bitcoin naysayers since we have been bouncing all around the $9ks within about 6 weeks of the March 12 crashening.. and thereafter toying with $10k for the past month, almost...

who would of thunk?  who would of thunk?

Sure, at some point we are going to be clearing 4 digits forever, and it could either come quickly, or it could drag on for months and months. 

Even though I prefer UP more than DOWN, I am not complaining about sideways in the $9ks or even revisiting some lows.. but sure, I would prefer UP because it is so wonderful to NOT give the fucktwat naysayers any more opportunities to buy coins that they should have bought a long time ago... not calling you a fucktwat mindrust.. I am referring to the others.. you have paid for your bearishness (and willingness to follow fucktwat masterluc), already...

By the way, towards the beginning of this year (referring to 2020), I was starting to believe that sub-$5k was going to be history for bitcoin for good and for forever, but March 12, really shook some confidence from those kinds of feelings of the location of the bottom, exactly, even though the period that we were below $5k was only about 1 week in total, but considering the extremes and the need to HODL through can shake a lot of confidence. 

So, yeah, we could get some low challenges again, but don't get me wrong, I am becoming more inclined towards advancing my considerations regarding the extreme bottoms from $5k to $6k... so even my perception of the bottom is moving up, even though I always consider some kind of need to be prepared for extremes towards the downside that are NOT really preferable but sometimes just seem to be the easiest direction for the short term. 

In the end, there does seem to be some good with staying in the $9ks and to having the BTC price pressures going upwards, even though there is likely little to no control that any of us (small fishes) have over which way the BTC price is going to go in the short term. 

I think that it could be a decent amount of time before we could reasonably assert with confidence that 4 digits are over with, history, gone forever, even if we were to get closer towards challenging the resistance points in the $17ks...

It does not matter what I was thinking beyond what I have already explained (or attempted to explain).

I responded to your initial post, and I thought that my response was self-explanatory as a way to provide information or to supplement information that had already been provided by you and fillippone in earlier posts.

Thereafter, you questioned my response to your post, so again, I explained why I had responded.  

Seems pretty clear to me.. at least clear enough.



Yes.  Bitfinex issued their BFX token that caused a 36% socialized loss (represented by the BFX token) several weeks after their early August "hackening", and after they issued the token then each month (at around the end of the month or beginning of the next month), they redeemed a certain portion of those tokens.. I don't recall when the first redemption was but let's just say they redeemed BFX tokens on October 1, November 1, December 1, January 1, February 1, March 1, and then the final redemption of BFX tokens was on April 1.



Yes.  They did make redemptions earlier.. but I cannot remember all of the dates, exactly.. There were several redemption dates.  I was just saying in my earlier post(s), that they had redeemed all of the BFX tokens by early April 2017.  Here is a Bitfinex announcement of that April 2017 redemption.



I recall that the doom and gloom lasted several months.  Initially there was doom and gloom assertions that bitfinex was never coming back, and then when they came back (contrary to the doom and gloom predictions) there was a decent amount of uncertainty about whether the come back was real and whether account holders would get their money back or if bitfinex's coming back would last beyond mere symbolism (exchange exiting shenanigans)... so yeah, overall the doom and gloom lasted several months, and probably even into the next year and there was even questions about the matter of how the social loss was borne and whether bitfinex had authority to treat the hackenings as a social loss but still surprise when they redeemed all of the BFX tokens so quickly (8 months or so).

We are not really saying anything different from one another, but I am saying that there had continued to be a lingering questioning of Bitfinex through out all of that period that even lasted beyond that period and its motives and Tether for a long time, and surely bitfinex has recovered a decent amount of its reputation through the years, and many folks even thought that bitfinex had been quite  innovative in the way that it had structured recovery (in a kind of unprecedented way) and recovered from a purported pretty large scale hack (including questions about whether bitfinex and other exchanges were even profitable beyond just stealing coins from others), yet I am not saying that everyone agrees about how to assess bitfinex matters, its reputation or scruples or that everything went back to hunky dory at some point, which seems to be the all over the place picture that you are ambiguously (at best) painting.

Relatively speaking:  you took that well.

Well, you gotta do what you gotta do, and yeah sometimes there just is not enough resources or income, and surely for some of us, we have luxuries of having a cushion.. or having had built a cushion.. but sometimes that cushion can be taken away.

There can be some benefit, perhaps, of attempting to sell on your own terms, and maybe selling now is relatively better, after a 150% bounce, rather than selling in the $4,500 territory at a time that would not have been of your choosing.

Surely, right now, is NOT likely a time of your choosing either, so then the next matter might have to do with your age (timeline) and how much time that you have in order to build your savings and investments.

When I look back at my earlier days of investing, I always thought that I was building my investments with the passage of time, but part of my building had to do with investing in my education too (which was an expense that took away from monetary investments.. causing debt)... so likely that paid off for me, but it does not always pay off for other people, and probably I got lucky because I did not even pursue my education based on considerations of making money, so in the long run, I got lucky to have been able to make money on more whimpy soft skills rather than the sciences and the other possible money-making kinds of degrees.

I feel good that I had never been forced into liquidations of various financial positions that were not at times that were somewhat under my control.... but still, it can take a real damned long time to build a financial cushion that allows NO necessity to have to dip into assets/investments that you want to keep separate from your daily/monthly expenses.

Hopefully, you can hang on to a small portion of your BTC, even if it might only be .1BTC or some other relatively modest portion...and yeah, of course, I don't even know what you are starting with.. so maybe you only have accumulated .3BTC.. so you don't really have a lot to work with... but anyhow, the punchline should ultimately be with any of us that we should be attempting to draw whatever resources that we can from other avenues rather than bitcoin and thinking in terms of sound money and there are some people who will float a certain amount of debt too, in order to maintain their BTC investment, and sure I don't have confidence about how wise it would be to go to debt first or other resources that you might have available to go to first before cashing in on your BTC, but sometimes favorable terms for debt can be made, too... or other resources...  perhaps? perhaps?  Don't know your details, of course.