Updated 2022-02-24
How high are the probabilties that Bitcoin's volatility during the next main bull market surge will be higher than the last bull market's main surge? Because the next bull market will that be because of a monetary expansion by the Federal Reserve, and a lowering of interest rates, there's some probability that we might see a Bitcoin bull cycle like 2015 - 2017 again. Debatable, BUT possible. |
|
|
|
I’m constantly buying when I’m able to. In a few years, the current price will seem like a joke. Anybody who isn’t buying now will majorly regret it.
A lot of people were saying the same thing when the price was in the $10-20k range, and look where the price is now. There's no telling how long this bear market (we're still in one) is going to last; just as a reminder, the previous one lasted for two and a half years. and also when the next all time high will be even though there is speculation of the next all-time high after the next bitcoin haven when that will be uncertain but since the block size and reward will reduce it a pointer that Bitcoin will become more scarce thereby forcing it to supply to be limited this will ultimately increase the value. -talking about buying the dip, the present bitcoin price is still considered a dip price for many who are big bag holders and that are ready to invest in Bitcoin for the long term. I present another debate. We may not know when the current bear market might last, BUT we know when the Golden Opportunities are to Buy the DIP, and HODL. We plebs have small/limited capital. It will definitely better for us if the time for Golden Opportunities are longer, giving us more time to accumulate Bitcoin. I am not very comfortable with people cheering for down.. but surely, I cannot argue with the idea of taking advantage of down - to the extent that any of us is really capable of recognizing and appreciating that we are currently down... which I believe that we are currently down.. but there are a lot of folks out there expecting and hoping for more down.. which may well end up being their mistake if they are not ongoingly and regularly buying at these prices, even if they have tight budgets, like you are suggesting to be the case for a lot of people (I cannot really argue with that either)... There are some folks who can easily afford to buy $250 per week, but they may or may not be doing it, and there are others who might struggle to invest $100 per week, and there are even others who might really have difficulties to scramble up $10 per week to invest into bitcoin, so of course, any kind of ongoing and persistent BTC accumulation strategy has to account for how much cashflow can be made available to invest regularly, aggressively and without over doing it.. including attempting to appreciate if we are still in a dip, which surely many of us longer time bitcoiners do consider any prices near or below the 200-week moving average (which is currently slightly above $25k) to be low in terms of current levels and also in terms of historical BTC price levels. Hahaha. I'm definitely not cheering for down, I'm merely presenting a debate that the best Golden Opportunities to Buy the DIP and HODL are during bear markets. Because we can't control what happens next to the market, what we can do is look for the Silver Lining in each and every situation. The longer the bear market, the more time to find Golden Opportunities.  |
|
|
|
day trading and relying only on Bitcoin will it not last long. It is better to look for high volume coins for day trading, as you need fast price fluctuations to make quick profits on day trades. Bitcoin is indeed the best option, but it is better in the long term. I prefer coins with large volumes for daily trading, scalping continuously is better. little by little profits will accumulate even if each trade is only $5 or less.
It will NEVER last long because of OP is undercapitalized. Plus it's laughable to make a debate about volume/liquidity, and trading strategies with the presumption that we plebs will make "daily profit" consistently everyday. I can assure each and every pleb reading the topic that, WE WON'T. |
|
|
|
One of the mistakes traders do make which I have made in the past is to be looking for a better profit. A good example is when having $1000, looking for a way to make $100 or more daily. That would be when leveraging it will come to mind, but leveraging is one of the reasons some traders find it that they are continuing losing.
--Snip--
Snipped the rest of the post because it's already a mistake to have a presumption that opportunities to make $100 or more daily to take will always be there for plebs like many of us. If it's possible that they are always there to take, traders who are more well-capitalized than us, who are more skilled than us, and they have a thousand systematically, well-programmed trading-bots to use against us. |
|
|
|
I’m constantly buying when I’m able to. In a few years, the current price will seem like a joke. Anybody who isn’t buying now will majorly regret it.
A lot of people were saying the same thing when the price was in the $10-20k range, and look where the price is now. There's no telling how long this bear market (we're still in one) is going to last; just as a reminder, the previous one lasted for two and a half years. and also when the next all time high will be even though there is speculation of the next all-time high after the next bitcoin haven when that will be uncertain but since the block size and reward will reduce it a pointer that Bitcoin will become more scarce thereby forcing it to supply to be limited this will ultimately increase the value. -talking about buying the dip, the present bitcoin price is still considered a dip price for many who are big bag holders and that are ready to invest in Bitcoin for the long term. I present another debate. We may not know when the current bear market might last, BUT we know when the Golden Opportunities are to Buy the DIP, and HODL. We plebs have small/limited capital. It will definitely better for us if the time for Golden Opportunities are longer, giving us more time to accumulate Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
When you are thinking of BIP148 don't think about WHAT it activates, but think about HOW it activates it (or rather wants it activated) and maybe you understand my view better.
To put everything in context we are talking about Segwit = WHAT, and what happened during 2017 = HOW. But we can't, or shouldn't, speak for all of them, no? The UASF/BIP-148 was merely a proposal on how to have Segwit activated, an upgrade that many people in the Bitcoin community truly wanted. Plus if it's your opinion that 5-10% couldn't force the miners to activate an upgrade, OK. But it did with Segwit, because there was unquestionably more than 5-10% of the Economic Majority that actually wanted Segwit.
You are confusing two separate matters. There is a difference between "wanting SegWit" and "wanting SegWit at any costs". Majority of people wanted SegWit but only a handful wanted it at any cost. And that is what BIP148 is, going against what has worked in all bitcoin soft-forks (eg reaching 95% majority) and splitting the network threatening bitcoin's security, reliability and blockchain's immutability just to activate SegWit. In fact if you paid attention in those days you would have seen a lot of users state that they do not want SegWit IF it leads to a chain split. Because why? Because Jihan Wu and his friends from the mining cartel were delaying, and politicizing the miner activation process instead of what truly its purpose is, which is just a signal to let everyone know that they are ready for an upgrade. Shaolinfry made his proposal as a response, and "the rest is history", https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1805060.0Every newbie who wants to learn more about Bitcoin should read that important proposal in that topic. It wasn't like the laughable BCash.
It is like that more than you think. There is no clause in the proposal to check what the network thinks (ie. miner's vote), it just dictates that anybody who wants the change (whatever it is, whether SegWit or bcash or can be anything else in the future) can reject any block that doesn't activate it and split the chain!!! That goes against everything bitcoin stands for and it is a malicious attack. The miners don't speak for the whole network. If it did, then the network is centralized towards the Mining Cartel. |
|
|
|
It is all simple. If there is KYS you have to be over 18. But I think there is no poit to enter it if you already retired and would not hold for a long time
I'm not entirely sure if BTCBroker2016's account was made to troll, or misinform everyone, but if he's truly serious, then he's simply wrong. He probably really is a newbie because he can't make the difference between a Centralized Exchange, and Bitcoin - a censorship-resistant cryptocurrency which ANYONE can use/receive/send, at ANY AGE. How would anyone stop me from sending some Bitcoins to a 10 year located far away from me? |
|
|
|
Mostly online services like VPN/proxies/etc. It's quite rare for online retailers to accept bitcoin as payment as of today so for now, we're stuck with bandage solutions such as BitPay, Coinbase Commerce, Purse.io, and such.
Plus if OP would go to the Dark Markets there are many valuable "products" over there, for "some people", that are "hard to find". Without Bitcoin, ground-breaking concepts such as online markets that can sell ANYTHING without needing approval from anyone, or permission from government institutions, would be impossible. It's a Libertarian's dream. |
|
|
|
|
I believe OP is confused between gambling with Bitcoin through day-trading/taking risks to take advantage of its volatility, AND actual Bitcoin, the censorship-resistant cryptocurrency/the decentralized network/the multi-generational protocol, which is probably the greatest break-through of the 21st Century.
OP, there are age limits to gambling, but there's no age limits to HODLing. Is there an age limit to HODL fiat? No. Although there's an age limit to gambling with fiat.
|
|
|
|
Plus if we were back during 2017, where would the majority of us in BitcoinTalk lend our support? To Jihan Wu, Roger Ver, and the signatories of the New York Agreement? Or to the Core Developers?
To none of them as we should. The support should be with the majority even if the majority isn't going for a proposal which was the case with BIP148. Bitcoin can not and will not survive if the minority succeeds to enforce its opinion on the rest of the network. After all that is the main reason why we consider bcash a shitcoin! But we can't, or shouldn't, speak for all of them, no? The UASF/BIP-148 was merely a proposal on how to have Segwit activated, an upgrade that many people in the Bitcoin community truly wanted. Plus if it's your opinion that 5-10% couldn't force the miners to activate an upgrade, OK. But it did with Segwit, because there was unquestionably more than 5-10% of the Economic Majority that actually wanted Segwit. It wasn't like the laughable BCash. |
|
|
|
If you figure out some kind of a long-term bitcoin strategy, and even if you ONLY buy small amounts over the next 4-10 years, such as $100 per week or maybe even a smaller amount if you cannot afford $100 per week, like $10 per week, then perhaps if you are able to secure your bitcoin, you will end up seeing that your bitcoin performed quite well compared to anything else that you had invested in.. even if you might consider something like allowing the whole matter to play out for 20 years.. that is if you were to have such a potentially long investment timeline. Long-term projections for bitcoin investing are very reasonable, but always set an amount you can afford to lose. Bitcoin is the best alternative to consider no matter what budget we have, but one shouldn't 100% go for it without considering about the risks. Bitcoin's long-term performance as an investment asset is to be expected to be good and work as we expect, but since the government is its main enemy we really have to recognize that they have the ability to prohibit us from investing or trading in the future. Those are just some of the risks I think, but still bitcoin is the best investment choice compared to many other assets out there. If you're single, with a stable job/a second job, with no other responsibilities for anyone else but yourself, then it could be considered that you can risk more than what you're willing to lose, especially when the current situation of the market is presenting us those "Golden Opportunities". It's also probably good to move back in with your parents temporarily to save more fiat to buy Bitcoin. You (Wind_FURY) seem to be making a different point than indah rezqi, and maybe you are making a kind of argument about semantics in regards to 1) how to define what is "more than you can afford to lose" and 2) what kinds of measures can be taken (sacrifices made) in order to be more aggressive/assertive in regards to "buying the dip" and also saving on expenses. My own definition of "more than you can accord to lose" would involve entering into some kind of an arrangement in which you have failed/refused to sufficiently cover your expenses or ending up having to sell some bitcoin at a later date because you over-did it... or maybe there is some other asset that you had not wanted to have to sell, but you are forced into such selling because you had bought to much bitcoin and had not sufficiently prepared. By definition if you plan to move in with your parents or you choose to ONLY eat Ramen soup for the next year, then you are choosing in advance to take such measures; however, on the other hand if you end up getting forced to move in with your parents because you "over did it" or you have to sacrifice your diet because you "over did it" then those are not planned in advance. Sure, there are several things that people might be "willing to allow" as their "back up plan" in case shit hits the fan.. and their investment moves against them, but by definition, personally, I would not consider those to be acceptable (even though others are going to be willing to make such sacrifices).. So, sure, there may well be some definitional quibbling going on here, and also sometimes life choices regarding how prudent (and preparing for the future) that anyone might be willing to be could end up with quite differing consequences, and some people might not end up homeless because of how much they chose to gamble, but they may well end up having a way less comfortable life later on in life because they over did their levels of aggressiveness and/or lack of preparedness at earlier times in life. We can also rationalize where we got in life, such as if we are having to struggle with dead end jobs in our 50s, 60s and even into our 70s, while maybe some others start out in similar places and with similar resources, but pretty much have a life of relaxation in their 50s, 60s and 70s... So there are ways to describe your situation in ways in which you had been wiling to live with the consequences (and even say "no regrets"), yet there are also ways to sufficiently prepare so that you are not taking those kinds of excessive risks.. which brings us back to definitional quibblings in regards to what seems to be excessive risks, and at one point in time, we do not necessarily know the consequences of our excessive risks.. which kind of gets me back to points that I made in my other post (and you responded to it)... hahahahaha. All points (and all threads) are related. Go figure.  Ser, I'm merely suggesting that the younger the person is and/or the less responsibility a person has, he/she can choose to take more risks in his/her life because a younger person, with no responsibility other than himself/herself can recover faster and be ready to take on another venture if the Golden Opportunity presents itself. Truly successful people who have made it financially tell young plebs like us to take risks, and make mistakes while we are young, because TIME will never turn back. Probably because when a person reaches 40, it would be harder to take risks, especially if he/she has mouths to feed and people to shelter. |
|
|
|
I want to get more educated in trading and I learned a lot of it with youtube here on forum etc. But I want to get on another level and I'm in search for literature. Maybe there is another topic about it so please send the link for it too. All suggestions are welcomed.
Read, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds It's a very old book with redundant PDFs that you can download from the internet. It might not help you "get on another level", but it definitely will give you a better understanding of markets, and why it behaves illogically. It's a story about psychology, sociology, FUD, FOMO and groupthink in markets. I believe when done with the book, you will know why Buy the DIP, and HODL is probably the best for plebs like us. |
|
|
|
If you figure out some kind of a long-term bitcoin strategy, and even if you ONLY buy small amounts over the next 4-10 years, such as $100 per week or maybe even a smaller amount if you cannot afford $100 per week, like $10 per week, then perhaps if you are able to secure your bitcoin, you will end up seeing that your bitcoin performed quite well compared to anything else that you had invested in.. even if you might consider something like allowing the whole matter to play out for 20 years.. that is if you were to have such a potentially long investment timeline. Long-term projections for bitcoin investing are very reasonable, but always set an amount you can afford to lose. Bitcoin is the best alternative to consider no matter what budget we have, but one shouldn't 100% go for it without considering about the risks. Bitcoin's long-term performance as an investment asset is to be expected to be good and work as we expect, but since the government is its main enemy we really have to recognize that they have the ability to prohibit us from investing or trading in the future. Those are just some of the risks I think, but still bitcoin is the best investment choice compared to many other assets out there. If you're single, with a stable job/a second job, with no other responsibilities for anyone else but yourself, then it could be considered that you can risk more than what you're willing to lose, especially when the current situation of the market is presenting us those "Golden Opportunities". It's also probably good to move back in with your parents temporarily to save more fiat to buy Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Well, it's a war and maybe those who don't have the stomach for it shouldn't participate.
Bitcoin's very existence where it gives the option to the average Joe to stop using the corrupt banking system is a threat to the corrupted entities. Everyone should know that they won't just stand around and watch. Sometimes it is just propaganda and FUD, sometimes it is legal battle, and sometimes it is outright banning. On top of that we also have the abusers, trolls, criminals, scammers, etc. who would stop at nothing to do damage.
That doesn't mean we should stay silent either or discourage others from joining in the battles. Sometimes people forget the Bitcoin ethos and need to be reminded of them. They need to be reminded that bitcoin isn't just something you buy to make profit...
It's a choice, and it doesn't have to be a war that has to be doxxed to be fought. Cryptography-based, censorship-resistant and privacy-enhancing tools were invented to empower anyone, and to leverage anonymity to make the war more on equal ground. Developers don't have the arms nor the armies to protect themselves, just their anonymity and privacy. It's those tools/technologies that could bring forth the path to real social change, and to weaken political strongholds. I have my doubts regarding if you are really even attempting to grapple with the issue that is presented Wind_FURY.. in terms of the extent to which any one person might end up standing up and become a target of controversy and therefore sometimes situations devolved into real battles with real world consequences in terms of livelihood, employability, de-platforming and/or various ways that someone might consider himself/herself to be doing normal work that is actually within the realm of controversy and consequences, and there are all kinds of areas in life in which anyone can end up becoming a threat to the status quo or a threat to a side that has resources sufficient enough to cause difficulties for the one who spoke up or who got involved in certain kinds of work that are "deemed to be threats" to the status quo or even threats to some other project or world view. Choices are made along the way, and sometimes a person can find himself/herself in a position/situation in which s/he becomes a target... For sure, there are folks who might never stand up and never become controversial and perhaps even continuously choose mentors who are in "powerful" positions, and if the mentor becomes a subject of controversy, some of these folks will just find new mentors, and surely there are choices in life, and sometimes folks do not necessarily realize that they are making choices that are to "take the easy way" and perhaps never really having as much conflict in their lives, because they avoid conflict. I would not even suggest necessarily that such choices to always avoid conflict are bad ones because they are somewhat in the discretion of individuals regarding how much conflict are they ready, willing or able to tolerate, and do they actually believe in anything besides just getting along.. and likely there can be principle in those kinds of choices of non-choices too, and even questions regarding the extent to whch some folks who might have purposefully lived a sheltered life might have a bit of difficulties if they are put into another environment or they might have difficulties understanding or relating to other perspectives in which someone might end up being a target because s/he spoke up too much... if you are always agreeing with the boss, maybe the boss likes that, or maybe the boss might end up firing folks who are too agreeable.. Where is the balance? How much can we tolerate someone who rocks the boat? And is that "rocking" necessary? The point is no one is forcing anyone to do something if they don't have the stomach, or the heart, for it. The other point is if someone decides to do it, be a developer for privacy-enhancing technology or a censorship-resistant application that utilizes public key cryptography, then they do not need to be doxxed if they are fearful for their own lives, and their loved ones' lives. Anonymity doesn't necessarily follow fraudulent behavior. Satoshi was judged for is work in Bitcoin, yet he remained anonymous. Doxxed shitcoin developers stole from their own communties, yet they had their identity public. Plus if you truly believe I'm wrong, and that everyone should be fearful of the State Attackers, then who will take over to be the rightful stewards of Bitcoin Core, to continue its legacy, and to keep maintaining/upgrading it to be a multi-generational protocol? |
|
|
|
as illustrated by the UASF, that forced the miners into activating Segwit in the first place.
UASF might have acted as an extra push to encourage everyone into accepting SegWit It wasn't the extra push. It WAS the Actual Push. The probability of Segwit's activation would be very low without the UASF, because the miners objected against it the upgrade. Whatever their reason was, I believe gmaxwell's theory might be one of the biggest reasons = ASIC Boost. but it definitely didn't "force" anybody to do anything considering that to "force" the network into accepting a proposal they had to be a lot more than 5-10% of the network!  The UASF was actually gaining support further towards "Independence Day," with Eric Lombrozo and other Core developers starting to be louder in their support. Plus if it took not more than 5-10% of the network, the intolerant minority, to make the miners notice/listen, then I believe it's a success. It's not just the miners who can enforce the rules. Plus if we were back during 2017, where would the majority of us in BitcoinTalk lend our support? To Jihan Wu, Roger Ver, and the signatories of the New York Agreement? Or to the Core Developers? |
|
|
|
That's how bitcoin consensus should work, right? Meaning non-mining nodes should be forced into accepting what the hash rate majority(miners) want or desire?
Do we even have a case where nodes force miners into accepting their desired changes?
No, this is not how things work. Bitcoin as a system consists of all groups and each have a say in this decentralized currency's future. Nodes, miners, businesses, investors, etc. One group can't really force other groups into something they don't want. The best example in 2017 where the hard fork step in SegWit2x proposal had a huge support from miners but only had minimal support from everyone else. Consequently it failed. Plus his post can be also be debated that it was the full non-mining nodes, as illustrated by the UASF, that forced the miners into activating Segwit in the first place. Why? Because it's the full non-mining nodes that give demand for what the miners are incentivized to produce = The Blocks. |
|
|
|
Well, it's a war and maybe those who don't have the stomach for it shouldn't participate.
Bitcoin's very existence where it gives the option to the average Joe to stop using the corrupt banking system is a threat to the corrupted entities. Everyone should know that they won't just stand around and watch. Sometimes it is just propaganda and FUD, sometimes it is legal battle, and sometimes it is outright banning. On top of that we also have the abusers, trolls, criminals, scammers, etc. who would stop at nothing to do damage.
That doesn't mean we should stay silent either or discourage others from joining in the battles. Sometimes people forget the Bitcoin ethos and need to be reminded of them. They need to be reminded that bitcoin isn't just something you buy to make profit...
It's a choice, and it doesn't have to be a war that has to be doxxed to be fought. Cryptography-based, censorship-resistant and privacy-enhancing tools were invented to empower anyone, and to leverage anonymity to make the war more on equal ground. Developers don't have the arms nor the armies to protect themselves, just their anonymity and privacy. It's those tools/technologies that could bring forth the path to real social change, and to weaken political strongholds. |
|
|
|
What about using ordinals for legitimate uses? I.e. a simpler and easier notarization of documents inside the mod secure blockchain ever?
I don't see what ordinals offers there beyond what is already provided by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenTimestampsA more efficient path for utilizing the security that the Bitcoin blockchain offers, not like Ordinals, in which inscribing the data is directly done on the blockchain. It might give a good debate for Bitcoin NFT HODLers that they're actually HODLing "the NFTs", because the data for Ethereum NFTs are generally stored in off-chain storage sites. But it's probably more efficient system.
Keeping documents online forever for free isn't that hard of a task nowadays.
Nothing is for free. Someone is actually paying for it. |
|
|
|
It's the first time I hear about The Motley Fool, but it seems that the amount of $ 5 million is not huge compared to its name. I tried to search for the company's net profits during the past year to estimate whether this amount is a real investment or is it a hedge against inflation by putting 1% to 2% of the profits in High risk investment.
Overall, it is good to hear some positive news after months of negative news.
$5,000,000 may not be that large, but legacy financial institutions don't measure just the amount of their investment to an asset. They also measure the volatility and how much of a positive it can make relative to the whole portfolio. Because of high volatility, perhaps they think there's is no need for the portion invested in Bitcoin to be larger.
We don't need news like that to motivate ourselves because we have already experienced many events in the market. This situation, where the market is experiencing a decline and rising again, has given us evidence that we will get big profits if we keep bitcoins for a long time. News like that is bound to happen, and if you read negative news, will you lose your motivation to invest and keep bitcoins? I don't think it will affect people who have trusted bitcoin for a long time. So make up your mind to save your bitcoins, and don't get swayed by the news. But that news will motivate new people who begin investing in bitcoin.
Positivity is required by each and every investors otherwise we would have been playing stones and pebbles to be honest. Humans are complicated and they always need a spark to do something. Whether it is a millionaire who is getting motivated by the dream of becoming billionaire one day OR whether it is you and me getting motivated with the fact that holding bitcoin consistently might make us millionaire one day, everyone goes through that path for sure. Plus to put the news in context, it's just a fact that they invested a portion of their money managed in Bitcoin. Positive, or negative, it doesn't matter. They just did that for their own portfolio. |
|
|
|
Their hedge might be a little late, November was the Golden Opportunity, but their timing could still be considered "good enough" in my opinion. They too shall front-run everyone else looking for Bitcoin to HODL in their balance sheet during the next bull market. MotleyFool used to be one of the better investment websites. Back when their columnists and advice was written by early adopters of amazon, home depot and other excellent buys.
Somewhere along the line, it seems that many of their best authors and writers left for greener pastures. And were replaced by millennials who lacked the same degree of business or investment acumen. That was when the quality of their content declined. Their long history of recommended buy in winners, was replaced by significantly reduced win versus loss record.
I say this as someone who has read and followed their website since the financial crisis, back around 2009.
Hopefully this BTC recommendation is a display of motleyfool returning to its roots and winning ways.
Or it's probably just those Milliennials "got lucky" to make the right investment decision. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
