For some reason, I am spouting out a quite a bit more bullishness this time around, and I am not sure about what that means, exactly. 

I continue to believe that each of us has to prepare for both price directions and the negative scenarios.  So, I am not sure about how much doubling down here or going in deep here would be prudent because there continues to be this ongoing potential for other cryptos to drag down BTC (the froth and all). 

Certainly, each of us should be striving to prepare for both price directions, so I don't have any problem with guys and gal who might chose to engage in a bit of "overinvesting" at these price points, but there is also prudence in having some dry powder available, too.

Personally, I did a decent amount of accumulating of BTC in the last run down to $3,140, but I also did not buy as much as I would like too, because I tend to plan out my finances for 8 months or more into the future, so I had to slow down on some of my BTC purchasing and even trying to figure out at which price points I will be buying again.  Probably in the coming weeks I am going to reset my price points, and even figure out something down to lower price points, even though we might not go there.

A similar thing was true with me during a large part of 2015.  My BTC stash had grown relatively slowly during that whole period and a decent amount of my accumulation had taken place in 2014 (at then higher prices).

Since 2015, Bitcoin has gone from 6 years old to 10 years old, so there is some Lindy effect value in that, too.  Nothing is really broken in bitcoin, and in a lot of ways with segwit, lightning and really the decent assessment of failure of the various forks (such as bcash)  and alt coin attack vectors (such as ethereum and its various scam appendages), so with all of those kinds of positive fundamentals - including that bitcoin has not broken with any of its sound money aspects, I retain a kind of pent-up bullishness regarding the supra $50k scenario that you continue to mention.  At the same time, there remains a possible 1 year or more in which BTC could stagnate, and of course, there could be some attempt to hold off the bullrun or any sign of a bullrun for as long as possible, including going past the 2 year time line - yet as your presumption seems to suggest, there are likely going to be some hard incentives that are going to cause even the most powerful of bears an inability to keep BTC prices down, even if they throw vast amounts of fiat at it with their printing machines (and perhaps stable coins).  Anyhow, I like to be prepared for scenarios in either direction.. but understand that there remains a decent built in soundness of money and incentive structures in BTC that are going to be tough for the powers that be to keep down in the coming years which remains bullish for us HODLers and accumulators.

Interesting theory, roach.     

Being an OG  (OG = Original Gangster) remains relative, and surely there are going to be folks who are more strict with the definition. 

As long as you stay in bitcoin, you are likely going to become an OG because we still seem to be in quite early days.

We still have quite below 1% of world adoption of BTC, and even in more technologically aware areas, a vast majority of folks who have heard about BTC don't have much of a clue about what it is, and only a fraction of them have taken some action to either better inform themselves and/or buy a bit of it.  It seems that we are more than 5 years off before a decent percentage of the world's population get into bitcoin... even though sometimes it seems that a lot is going on in bitcoin, there is still a lot to come, so it seems.




Certainly, if you entered in the $350 price territory, you are far ahead of folks who either entered earlier and higher or even a bit later (and higher also).  I recall in early 2016, prices floated in the $350 to $450 range for about 6 months, and surely during that time, there were a lot of naysayers who said that BTC was never going above $500 again (which was the price of the November 2015 price surge).  That November 2015 price surge to $500 had signaled to a lot of people that there was life in BTC and that we were likely coming out of the then bear market that drug through 2014 and 2015 and left a lot of folks in a bit of despair.  Nonetheless, many folks still did not believe that BTC was going to go up past $500 and in essence there was belief of the FUD, so in late May 2016 (during the memorial day weekend) prices surged beyond $500 into the $700s, and really never to see sub $500 again... beyond the short-lived spike down after the Bitfinex hack in early August 2016.

The FUDster tales repeat themselves, and there continue to be unsubstantiated proclamations that BTC is destined for failure, which continues to provide opportunities for many of us to continue to accumulate (even though we can also feel a bit depressed that the value of our stash remains far below its potential and even below where it was a year ago).   

How could "this" be worse?  Price is still up more than 14x from its 2015 hovering point in the mid $200s.  There has been a lot of development in bitcoin too.  There is no real bad bitcoin news, and the things that seem to be bringing bitcoin prices down is part of normal market movements and perhaps froth in the broader crypto space.  Sure BTC prices could come down lower and even witness lower lows, but still your claim about "this is much much worse" comes off as an unjustified hyperbolic attempt to spread FUD, perhaps?

Why should we believe that you are being genuine in your posting of this information here?  Have you introduced yourself before coming out with the claiming of scammers? or disingenuiness?  Never even heard of David Gerard prior to your ranting information.

You are starting to sound a bit like Adam with his $32k in 1-2 years that he was repeating in 2015, 2016 and into 2017 - except you are a bit more specifically timing yours for 6 months after the halvening, and it is appearing that $50k plus would be a bit more conservative for late 2020 or early 2021 than $32k would have been while Adam was predicting $32k for 2017-ish (but his time line seemed to keep changing, too). 

To me, the odds of your steadfast prediction of $50k plus happening within the timeline that you state seem pretty decent, which justifies putting a decent amount of stake into BTC (especially for those who are currently no coiners). 

I feel that I have always had a sufficient amount of coins into BTC for such a bull run (probably since late 2014), even though I have continued to stack BTC since after late 2014.

Let's say, for example, that some no coiner has $100k in total quasi-liquid investments, and I include 401k value in that calculation.  1% would be $1k into BTC, but $10k seems to be a bit of a stronger stake.. put up to 10% without having to leverage. 

I did something like that in 2014 with what ended up being more than 10% of my total quasi-liquid value, so the bull run in 2017 caused my BTC investments to become more valuable than all of my other investments, including my 401k, and even with the large price drop of BTC, the value of my BTC still is larger than all of the other quasi-liquid investments that I have.

We know that history does not exactly repeat itself with any kind of exact similar performance, but having decent odds of another nearly 14x increase in value ($50,000 / $3,600 = 13.89) seems like a good investment with good odds. Do your own research and your milage may vary.   

The date of OG is becoming later and later and later.

Currently, it seems that anyone who really got into bitcoin before the late 2015 run up (which seems to have been the spark of the beginning of the 2017 bull run are a level of OG.  Previously, you had to have been in bitcoin prior to the late 2013 run up to have been considered an OG, but gosh if you were able to hang on to your bitcoins through both the early 2013 and the late 2013 run up, then that would have been quite the earliness.

Well apart from speculation about stash sizes, which was merely intended by me to quantify your level of disingenuineness, you have not been providing any meaningful contribution - solely that you want to spark emotions, mostly negative ones.

Hopefully, you are not as dumb as your posts seem to indicate, and you are somehow receiving pay for your shilling of this thread.  Furthermore, hopefully you are also taking a certain portion of your earnings (or any other cashflow that you have), and buying some BTC.  Whether you attempt to build a BTC stash that is 1% of your total investments, 10% or some other reasonable amount, you should realize that it would not be prudent to either be selling or shorting BTC at these price levels, unless you are hedged in both directions.

I understand, also, that there is a lot of negative sentiment out there about BTC, and largely, the most informed (and smart) of the negative sentiment, understand that the shit coin space, continues to retain a certain high level of dumb money and pumping attempts that are continuing to drag downwards on BTC prices, and there remains some strong (and smart) sentiments out there that recognize that continued likely purging of value from the various shitcoins have decent chances to drag downwards, somewhat, on BTC's short-term street price.


So far, I have not mined any BTC nor any other coin.

I do agree with you that on average, many of the WO regulars, here, are comfortably into 2 digit BTC territory, of course with outliers on both ends of the perhaps skewed distribution curve.  Of course, you can become a WO regular with any amount of BTC holdings, and I am not disparaging anyone for even starting out at .1BTC and attempting to work their way up in accumulation in the best of their abilities.  Certainly, much easier to blindly and wrecklessly accumulate .1BTC now, as compared the more difficult task of accumulate that much BTC in late 2017 or early 2018.  In other words, seems that we are continue to float around in ongoing decent BTC price territories.   

I am unclear.  Do you mean that I should NOT be tempted to buy Grin?  My post response to theymos was sarcastic.  Currently, I am not tempted to buy grin, and I don't give a shit if it is going to have a pumpening or not.  


To the extent that I take any internet advices with a considerably large grain of salt, are you suggesting that I am making a mistake or not? or that I should not be tempted by grin?

Yes.  60% of your .1 btc would be .06 BTC.  At least, you still have some BTC (.04btc), right?  Thanks for letting us know that you are both a dumb ass and a small player.   

Surely, I do not advocate hanging onto any shitcoins, and I do not do so myself - even though I believe that there are decent chances that a good number of them will pump and come along with bitcoin's next pump. 

In other words, I don't invest into bitcoin based on beliefs of price rises in the short-term future (or merely based on bitcoin being pumped from time to time), but instead based on my thoughts about bitcoin's long term fundamentals, distinguishing in terms of sound money and hedging against my other investments (which are not based on sound money ideas), which is long term confidence that BTC's price is going to be reflected by its fundamentals. There is no other coin, nor asset, so far, that comes even close to bitcoin, in terms of soundness of money.  We will see where that will lead us, including likelihood of ongoing bitcoin battles... even attempts to keep bitcoin's prices from rising, which I believe will likely be unsuccessful, especially if we are looking a few years into the future.

I am starting to believe that December 2017 might have been properly labelled as a "blow off top"; however, I still am inclined to believe that shit coins are coming along for at least one more btc pumpening, so in other words, the shit coins do not have to die nor be considerably demolished as a condition precedent for another BTC pumpening.  That is my current tentative thinking, for whatever that is worth?

Confirmed.  Everyone (every single one) prepare to transition into Grin. 

I thought that when you go to hierarchical (which is the same as putting ";full" on the end of the url) view on your trust settings and then you perform a find of your name on that page (ctrl f or command f), then you will see all mentions of your name which would show both inclusions and exclusions by other members.  Currently, I noticed with myself that I can only go to depth level 2 when using hierarchical view.  If I try to view either depth level 3 or 4 on hierarchical view, then I get a loading error (the page will not load).  Maybe too much data if viewed on depth level 3 or 4?

Ok.  Thanks for the further clarification.

To maximize my vote, I should make sure that I have 51 members in my trust list (otherwise I am not using those extra 40 votes, currently).  Apparently,  currently, my two supervotes are being randomly assigned - currently 2/11 probability, but if I go to 51 members in my customized trustlist, then those two supervotes will be randomly assigned based on a 2/51 probability?

Thanks Loyce.

Your responses seems to show that largely, I am thinking in the right direction, even though I still feel a bit uncomfortable with my understanding. 

Seems that if I have only put 11 members on my trust list, then my 51 votes would get divided evenly amongst those 11 members.  4.636 votes per member (51/11) (something like that), and the two supervotes might either get assigned in whole based on fraction, such as .1818 per member or randomly assigned, which would then only go to two members (randomly).  Actually it seems best if theymos were to create a fractionalized assignment of votes rather than random assignment of whole votes (whether the algorithm can be programed in such a way would be for him to disclose). 

As I am thinking about this and typing, it seems that out of fairness, supervotes could be fractionally assigned, as well (perhaps once the 250 threshold is achieved), so maybe instead of having 2 supervotes, I would have 2.052 supervotes based on my 513/250), and those 2.052 supervotes would just be distributed among my 11 members (which would be .1865 supervotes per member = 2.052/11).  I understand that traditionally DT had been dealing with whole numbers because of the inclusion or exclusion based on whole numbers, but I don't see why such inclusion/exclusion could still not be placed in the algorithm with thresholds established too regarding if inclusions outnumber the exclusions then would be on the list (could round up or down to whole numbers in order to keep it less confusing).

qwk (or anyone else who has some insight into this matter):  I am a little confused about the trust voting method that you (qwk) outlined, how many votes I get under such new rules, and also how the votes are tallied. 

Time permitting, I am still reading (again) through the earlier pages of theymos's default trust changes announcement thread, so perhaps some of my questions are going to be answered there, before they are answered here?

1) Currently, I have a total of 513 earned merits (I guess earned since 1/24/18), so does that mean that I can cast 51 regular votes and 2 super votes ?  (assuming that each additional vote is earned after the threshold of 10 and 250)? 

2) You seem to assert that I can only cast those votes by making a custom portion of the trust list (perhaps keeping default trust in there, too?)?

3) So far, in the past, few hours, I have only made a custom list that includes 11 members, but if I continue to add to my custom trust list, then each of them will count as a vote until I reach 51 members? 

4) If I make a custom list that includes more than 51 members, then only the first 51 would be counted as votes, or how does that work?

5) How about the 2 supervotes?  How do I label or distinguish the supervotes, if I am understanding this correctly from theymos mentioning the number of votes that each member gets? 

6) Can I change my votes with the passage of time at any time that I want?  Presumably my earned merits will continue to increase and allow me to add more votes with the passage of time?  (I assume that some of the vote criteria might change with the passage of time, too, but that seems to be another set of questions for another day).

Surely, Biodom, you have to take any of the comments of any particular poster during that time (and even today) with a considerably LARGE grain of salt, and even question whether any of those individual comments, snapshot at that particular moment, would have been reflective of thread sentiments as a whole.

By the way, from about late 2014, until his departure from the forum in about late 2016, Adamstgbit was continuing to predict $32k in 1 year or 2 years, and of course there was a bit of a variation in his predictive assertions depending how much of a drunken troll mood he was in and he even kept some of those kinds of predictions up, even when he had become more obsessively BIG blocktard embittered and maniacal about this forum supposedly being "censored."

Welcome, stadus.

It would not be fair to label participants in this thread as a monolith.  

Hey!!!!  I am not a monolith.  I have systemic variance.