Hahahahahahahaha

Maybe he should say:

>>>>>$9000 = $50 ———> Vegeta Winner
$9000 = $x (x=more than $50) unrealised HODL stash gains  ——-> Me<<<<<

Let's assume that in this dip down to $3,124 and all of the time we spent between $3,124 and $9k, LFC was able to acquire 1 BTC, and so his average cost for that BTC was less than $8k. 

He therefore has $1k in gain, minus the $50.  Therefore, he only has $950 in unrealized gains because he paid out $50.

Am I saying too much?  I am going to blame LFC for that because he provided some of the numbers for the hypothetical.

I told this story several times, but when bitcoin was $250, I authorized myself to sell a certain portion of my stash that had an average cost that was less than $250, and so I was trading $5 at a time and other very fucking low amounts, and several peeps made fun of me and said that I was wasting my time.  I would stack a little profits here and there, maybe adding up to $1 and as the prices went up, the value of the profits were greater too, but the value that I was trading went up.  People still tell me, sometimes, that I am wasting time with some of the trades because it tends to stack sats very slowly, and they add up.**


**Note:  The sats do not add up to as much as my boating accident, but that's another story that micdudes stole from me.... with dramatic videos and everything.  That fuck.

Not too many folks in this thread reference Peter Brandt, and likely we are NOT missing too much. 

I believe usually if he is mentioned it would be in a negative way.  Not saying that coincidentally he might end up being correct from time to time.

I used to do that, especially between 2014 and through 2016.  I mostly stopped after that, and let any of my presetting of orders to do the work.  I did also have some manual ways of implementing trading during that time, too, so figuring out how to set orders did help a lot and getting past the accumulation stage helped a decent amount too.

I prefer my sleep these days, but I am not opposed to looking at the price when I get up to take a leak, and surely those kinds of actions of looking at the price can really screw up some good sleep... so sometimes it is better to just resist the temptation and don't look (which is easier said than done... at least these days).  

Maybe if BTC does another 5x or more from here, then perhaps there will be even less inclination for me to look at the price on a regular basis?  Perhaps?  Perhaps?

I know that i have already projected that the spread of my buy and sell orders is going to become greater and greater with the passage of time.  NOT just in terms of dollars because that is obvious, but in terms of percentage of price movement that has to happen before I give any shits.  

So, I am kind of expecting that both the fact that my order spreads are increasing and that bitcoin is likely to become less volatile with increases in market cap, and both of these dynamics are going to likely lead to a lot less need to look at the BTC price and/or to have to take any actions, such as setting or resetting orders based on the filling of other orders on the books.

Provides some inference that bitstamp is leading the pumpening.. which usually would be a more solid indicator of real... but hey, it is only one factor, and surely happens from time to time, especially during pumpenings (or dumpenings).

I would not listen to you either, jupiter9, especially if you were to start to spout off about Gann bullshit and the influences of celestial bodies.  So if you are having difficulties having some kind of reasonable approach to your bitcoin discussions, then it would be easy to NOT listen to you.

I suppose, if we were to give you some benefit of the doubt, and if you were able to stick to some kind of accumulate and HODL discussion, then at least you might, coincidentally, be saying some of the right things about BTC (even if for the wrong reasons).

One pretty sure way to lose your bitcoins - get involved with seasteads.  

Might have to add that to "how I lost my bitcoins" thread.

No.

Yeah, but in practice, is it really true?  Are we making a distinction without a difference?

Does BAKKT really have the bitcoins that they proclaim to have?

Surely, you cannot take possession of BAKKT bitcoins, so how do we know that they are NOT full of shit in terms of actually backing their purportedly traded (betted upon) bitcoins with real bitcoins?  We might find out if Bitcoin does an unexpected 10x in the next 6 months.  Would be nice to test out some of these systems, especially if they don't have bitcoins and the proclaim to have them.



O.k... sure a bit more succinct... I concede.


Waffling, I see.  I am going to ignore you, per your request.   

Exactamentaly!!!!!!!

No moar discriminatorening against any of dee pumpenings, either kind or degree.   

If bcash SV is such a great project, there is no such thing as "was."  

Convert all of your bitcoin to bcash sv as soon as possible.  that will be the thing to do, don't be talking about no "was" in terms of opportunities in bcash sv, especially if you really believe in that project, go "all the fuck in" as soon as possible because surely there is going to first be a bcash abc flippening and thereafter coming after bitcoin (the real one).... which would be another flippening..,  Of course, the flippening of xrp and ethereum along the way will be fun little stops, too....      Go "all the fuck in" bcash sv and stop talking about "was".  You will thank me later.  


Exactly!!!!!  That's the spirit, fratoshi.  Keep buying bcash SV.. or at least HODLing it.. because it is certainly going UP from here... a minimum of 10x.  

Without getting too much caught up in the rules of Holdem, because it seems that I don't sufficiently understand because I was thinking about poker hands that win, that involve counting 5 cards.... So maybe I am way out in left field...


Anyhow, I thought that the overall topic and showing the cards was that members were posting in this thread as a means to disclose the various tragic ways in which they had lost their bitcoins... and you are saying that you did not lose your bitcoins?  Can we be friends?  I would like to get to know some actual peeps who still happen to have some bitcoins and did not lose them, tragically or otherwise.

By the way, if you keep gambling, you are likely to join the club of losers... then I will become less interested in becoming your lil buddy... hahahahahaha

My only problem is that the squiggly ("~") at the beginning of the username is used in the trustlist maintenance to indicate distrust of a member, so in that regard, it seems potentially confusing to the system to be using that squiggly.. at least in the beginning of the username...that seems to be why TMAN is redflagging ~DefaultTrust.  Another reason, of course, is that sometimes members will bolster their trustlist by either including or excluding defaulttrust from their trust list, so having that "~DefaultTrust" as a username could inadvertently cause members to trust that member when they had not intended to do so.

I question whether the internet really expands Dunbar's number or not?  Sure Dunbar's number is an estimate of the number of people with who we can maintain real relations for the real world, and some societal dynamics on the interwebs are just different, so we get to know a lot more people in different ways.  Of course if there are signs that they are a bot or disingenuine, then that might be apparent with little to no evidence.  Surely, there are some users with whom it becomes obvious, right away, that they are kind of a phony or a scammer.... Many others, it remains a lot less clear regarding whether they are genuine and/or not a bot, especially on the interwebs.

Of course, if you meet a real person in a social circle, you are going to be using different criteria to determine whether they are someone that you trust, and so far in the real world, we can usually rule out the bot aspect without even giving the matter more than 2 seconds of thought...

For example, meeting someone in person (let's call him Fred), and talk for about a minute or so, and after about 30 seconds, you have both ruled that Fred is not a bot (after about 2 seconds) and after about an additional 28 seconds, you have ruled that Fred seems a bit retarded.. at least a first impression...   You may go up to a trusted friend (let's call him Rob) and say, hey Rob, do you believe that Fred is a bit retarded?   After Rob engages you on the topic, you provide some additional information for your first impression conclusions, and thereafter Rob might give you information that either confirms or contradicts your first impression, and your then tentative conclusion might be based upon more than just your own 30 seconds of interacting with Fred.....

Rare to have a tie in poker with only two cards showing.  In other words, poker is usually played with the counting of 5 cards, so there would be a need to see what were the other 3 cards.

Of course, with 5 cards, it is more likely to have a tie.  If a real tie, then split pot,... rite?

I would not proclaim to be a poker expert, but there are going to be some common standards and practices, but there also might be some variation in house rules, too. 

I suspect there are a decent number of gamblers in bitcoin, but of course, they are playing a different kind of gambling, so there are quite a few ways to lose some if NOT all value. I suppose like gambling sometimes the gambler can be a bit reluctant to admit some losses, even if such admissions might be for his/her own good.

If we are traveling to China, Russia or europe from Los Angeles, we must fly or sail east otherwise we will fall of the earth.  That is why NO flights go west from LA.    Sucks to be in australia or hawaii too... because everything is so far away from those peeps.  They gotta head east to get anywhere ..Flat is beginning to make sense now in terms of understanding some of the advantages and limitations in some peoples of the world, especially the disadvantages of those closer to the edges.

I don't know if i understand the whole concept to allow any user to create a name with "~" as the first character.. or even if it is necessary to allow that character to be in the user name at all?  Couldn't the forum software disallow the creation of usernames with such character, at least minimally as the first character?  Anyone know?  Loyce?

Seems misleading, as TMAN's red tag of "~DefaultTrust" suggests.

Once he get's his next payoff (with the forkening of that shitcoin and the ability to take control over unmoved coins, such as those that satoshi would have had), if he does not get put into custody, he may disappear, at the point of cashing some of those out.  Liquid enough?  enough believers to keep up the price while he is cashing out? 

He might need some kind of facial (non)recognition surgery, too.  Maybe a trip to India, even if that one has already been done? He is not exactly a stickler for originality, so he can build upon previous used techniques, take them to a new level of absurd and claim them as his own.

I will concede that I may have inadvertently created a strawman argument in order to attempt to construct the most bullish argument out of your words, and in the end, I became too excited and ended up exaggerating your words.

So, if you are saying no more 5x to 10x runs in any single year, then the most we could expect would be a series of 4.99x annual runs.

Let's say 4.99x in each of the next 3 years?  I could live with that, and let's start with the beginning of 2020... yeah, the starting point is a bit random, but it seems to be as good as any.  No?

Scenario 1:
January 2020 = $7,175

January 2021 = $7,175 (x 4.99) = $35,157.50

January 2022 = $35,157.50 (x 4.99) = $175,436

January 2023 = $175,436 (x 4.99) = $875,425.25

January 2024 = $875,425.25 (90% correction) = $87,542.50

I am not trying to concede that your proclamation of putting a limit on how much we could go up in any single year has any kind of profound meaning, but I am still saying that even with your ball park estimations of future limitations, we don't need 5x to 10x per year or more in order to prosper quite greatly in bitcoin.

I would be even willing to concede that the amount of magnification could go down each year, in a bull run, and we would still be doing quite well.  Let's try 4.99x then 3.5x and then 2x... then retrace thereafter.

Scenario 2:
January 2021 = $7,175 (x 4.99) = $35,157.50 (same as scenario 1)

January 2022 = $35,157.50 (x 3.5) = $123,051.25

January 2023 = $123,051.25 (x 2) = $246,102.50

January 2024 = $246,102.50 (90% correction) = $24,610.25


But hey bitserve, we know that bitcoin does not even work in a slow and steady kind of manner like that, and we should not be expecting it to work in a slow and steady manner.  

More likely would be that Bitcoin would go through an outrageous upward explosion and then downward collapse beyond expectations... so yeah, it might be a bit much to expect any BTC bull market to last longer than 2 years... so maybe we had nearly 1x in 2019 already, so we can only expect one more year? or two more years from here at the best?  Maybe smaller corrections, too (such as 75%?), which would put us at these kinds of scenarios (that build off of scenarios 1 and 2 above).

Scenario 1a:
January 2021 = $7,175 (x 4.99) = $35,157.50 (same as scenario 1 and 2)

January 2022 = $35,157.50 (x 4.99) = $175,436 (same as scenario 1)

January 2023 = $175,436 (75% correction) = $43,859

Scenario 2a:
January 2021 = $7,175 (x 4.99) = $35,157.50  (same as scenario 1, 1a and 2)

January 2022 = $35,157.50 (x 3.5) = $123,051.25 (same as scenario 2)
 
January 2023 = $123,051.25 (75% correction) = $30,762.81


Or an even more bearish scenario would cause the bull run to be smaller and the correction to come sooner, but likely to be smaller, too.

Scenario 1b/2b:
January 2021 = $7,175 (x 4.99) = $35,157.50 (same as scenario 1, 1a, 2 and 2a)

January 2022 = $35,157.50 (70% correction) = $10,547.25



O.k.... even with your concessions that bitcoin could go beyond 5x in one year, we are ultimately asserting similar things, even while you are striving to be even more conservative than me regarding NOT getting your hopes up too much.  I can appreciate that perspective, for sure.



Of course, it seems logical that the explosive bursts in the upwards direction are going to become less able to be sustained, but does not mean that they are NOT going to happen for a while.  Yeah, maybe we are not going to experience another 78x in two years.  So what?  We don't need 78x in two years in order to do quite well in bitcoin.  We also don't need lame ass limitations of less than 5x in order to have meaningful and reasonable price growth (and discovery) in a still immature market that is still getting figured out by more and more people, institutions and governments.


Even if there are no "face melting" levels, we have no real reason to believe that something close to "face melting" does NOT have decently good odds of happening.  And, fuck alt coins.  They might seem to have more pumpening potential, but that pumpening is not sustainable.  So, we should be considering any "face melting" potentiality with consideration of downside risk too...  

In other words, even if one man's face melting does not reach that level for another, we should still be able to continue to appreciate bitcoin's asymmetric bet while considering the downside risk, too... and so what, if performance goes down, a bit.. those expectations of GREATER pumpenings can really distract folks from keeping their eyes on the prize.. in this case, king daddy... not suggesting that you, bitserve, are playing into any of those nonsense arguments that come from various shitcoins that appeal to their lower market cap allowing for greater pumpening potential, even while they are crap.. but this is a public thread, so remains worthwhile to refer to those nonsense talking points when folks are lamenting about the seeming lack of upside pumpening potential in bitcoin.

I am starting to consider that you are not taking me seriously, roach.  

O.k.  I am going to revise the recommendation of my earlier post:  The portion after "Protip".

Let me put the matter to you like this:

Don't come whining to me, roach, with your dumbass lame questions regarding life matters or your purported ponderings regarding the motivations of people, governments or institutions until you buy back at least the dollar value of the BTC that you sold at $700 (and likely a bit more than the dollar value that you had sold).  

Once you do that and describe your measures or further plans in that direction, then we can discuss if you might need to take any additional steps to at least participate in a conversation that might contain "smart" advices or other sharing of information.  

If you at least take these preliminary steps, you will thank me later.

I am so smart that I am going to respond to both of these posts in one post.

What makes me so god-damned smart, relative to roach and unlike roach, is that I did not sell much if any of my BTC at $700 in mid-2016 (and especially not all of my BTC like roachie poachie had done).  

Also, unlike roach, if I had sold all of my BTC at $700, I would have already bought back, especially if I were to spend so much time studying into bitcoin, as roach seems to spend a considerable amount of time studying into aspects of bitcoin.

Protip (for roach): Once you buy back at least the dollar value of the BTC that you sold at $700 (and likely a bit more than the dollar value that you sold, since there has been well over three years of passage of time since such level of dumb) and attempt to employ some kind of meaningful BTC accumulation, maintenance and HODL strategy, you will likely come to a better understanding of the answers to a lot of the questions in your insect life that are currently eluding your lil pea noggen.  You will thank me later.