Do you really get rekt every time, bones, or is it just preventive whining?
(You're free not to answer this, of course. It's just a cocky opening.)
I'd try and make the bet smaller relative to my playroll, keeping leverage at maybe 3 tops, 1~1.5 even better. "Going long" can actually mean buying a few cents and stashing away. So can "taking profit." Increasing the amount in the freezer is probably the most hopeful subgoal to gambling with 100% house money.
I mean: you know a few things about retirement and taxes. I'm sure you made a few calculations. I know you understand this magical internet money fairly well, too. Come on.
To be blunt, my finances are a horror story. I truly am REKT. My cryptocurrency portfolio has never been large. We are talking less than 1 BTC worth ATM. Also, everyone knows the saying that those who can't, teach. Definitely applies to me when it comes to retirement. I have jack shit saved up for retirement and I am 50. I basically live paycheck to paycheck and the balances on my credit cards increase monthly. I have been working the same job for 15 years and I am probably way overqualified for the position. I hate to admit it, but I am truly an unmotivated loser. What has been nice, starting in November of 2017, is that I did get to cash out on my cryptocurrency profits to keep my head above water. Unfortunately, that well is going to dry up rather quickly. Especially if the BTC market keeps going with the current downtrend. Sometimes I'm just tempted to liquidate all my meager cryptocurrency holdings right now. However, a part of me wants to hold on for as long as possible because quite frankly, it gives me a little ray of hope that maybe things will turn around, and I can delay the looming bankruptcy filing indefinitely. I will probably regret this posting, since I have bared all to practical strangers. Oh well, at least it was a little therapeutic to have my own pity party. |
|
|
|
I think I get it now. 401K, IRA, etc... are private (individual choice) retirement/savings plans same like here.
Social security also seems to be the same than here (except for the medical care, that it is fully included for everyone no matter how much they contributed or if they have additional private medical plans) .
Also it is the same situation in that the cashflow has been reduced due to the poblation growth (or lack of younger workforce in relation to retirees) and the retirement age has keep increasing. To me it will be, at least, 67 (maybe they will increase it higher by the time I reach it).
It is also the same in that it is expected that they will have to increase contributions or reduce pensions sometime in the future as currently the cashflow is already negative and the reserves are almost empty The money will have to come from somewhere to keep current benefits....
Currently the social security pensions for people that had good salaries "guarantees" and get the max are more than enough for a reasonable retirement even without the need of additional private pension plans or significant previous savings..... but that is probably going to change in the future.
I think have never read people talking about social security when discussing about retirement here and only about 401k's, IRA, etc so I had the doubt if that there was the case that no (forced) social security was in effect in USA. Or maybe the current amounts of that social security are so small in comparison to previous salaries that noone takes it into account?
Unfortunately the maximum Social Security benefit someone can get right now is $2,639 at full retirement age, a little more if you wait until you are 70. Most people did not earn enough to get that amount. If someone is going to be planning on living just on their Social Security benefits, they will be living in poverty or close to it and will need additional aid such as Section 8 housing and food stamps. At age 65, almost everyone is entitled to part A Medicare which covers hospital stays. If you want part B, which covers other services not related to a hospital stay or part D which is drug coverage, you will have to pay a premium that comes out of your social security check. Many people on social security are living at the poverty level or close to it, so those people can get Medicaid. Medicaid will pay for the part B and part D premium for you, and will also "cover" the deductible and copays. (Actually, the Medicare allowable is higher than the Medicaid allowable. So what really happens is the Medical professional gets the Medicare payment and then writes off the balance. In order for a doctor or medical professional to accept Medicare and Medicaid, they must agree to write this off, by law.) |
|
|
|
I leave for two fucking days
Jesus Christ you guys, do I have to do everything?
What? You don't like our Delicious Discounted BTC Dip for $7350? Stock up for your retirement fund! You're welcome! Good thing that I already have Ramen as a snack everyday. It appears there is going to be some lean times up ahead. Better crack open that book of Ramen recipes someone gave me a few years ago so that I can now enjoy for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Bonus: with the new Ramen diet plan, I won't need to worry about a long retirement, if I reach retirement at all...  Talking about retirement. I have always have a doubt about how do retirement pensions work in the usa. I think 401K (from what I have read here and googling a bit) is some sort private retirements savings pensions. Whilst it is individual choice the employer contributes to it. Ok.... but it is additional to a social security state pension or is it that 401 IS the standard pension that everyone has? I mean, is there a mandatory minimum state pension or it is the people choice to have one and some people could end with NO pension even if they did work for all their lives? What is the minimum retirement age when you can start receiving that pension? My main question is if it is somewhat like in most of euro zone where people are FORCED to contribute to the state pension and therefore have a "guaranteed" pension depending on how much they contributed over their work life or if it is the same as the medical cover where either you pay yourself for it (or your employer, but not mandatory) or you could end up having to pay for all your medical expenses. No one is forced to contribute to a 401k. If your employer offers a 401K, they can take money out of your paycheck, and the tax on that amount will be deferred until you withdraw from your 401K. If you draw out of your 401K before retirement age of 59 1/2, you will have to pay a penalty of 10% on top of the tax. Many employers that offer a 401k also include a match. Most companies match 50% of what the employee contributes. The catch is that you usually have to work for an employer for a certain amount of time before you are fully vested and can claim this portion if you leave the employer. My employer has a vesting schedule of 5 years. Another option for retirement is an standard IRA and a Roth IRA. In a standard IRA, you get to defer your taxes on your contributions. However, if you withdraw before age 59 1/2, you will pay a penalty on top of the taxes. In a Roth IRA, you pay the tax on the contributions. If you withdraw before 59 1/2, you only pay the penalty and the tax on the income, not the contributions. If you withdraw after you are 59 1/2, the money is tax free. Then we have social security. Social security is a tax that everyone must pay. (I think some government employees are exempt. But I am unsure.)You pay a portion and your employer pays a portion. If you are self employed, you pay both portions. Although the Social Security program has run at a surplus for quite sometime, the government has used the money for other things and replaced it with bonds. Also, the Baby Boomer generation (people born from 1948-1960 in the US) are now reaching retirement. So I do not believe the Social Security program is running at an excess anymore. If it is, it won't be for long unless they lessen the benefits or raise the tax. You can begin to collect social security at age 62, but your benefit will be reduced.. You can wait to get the full benefit at a certain age. the exact age and penalty for early retirement depends on when you were born. the chart can be found, here. https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/agereduction.html |
|
|
|
I leave for two fucking days
Jesus Christ you guys, do I have to do everything?
What? You don't like our Delicious Discounted BTC Dip for $7350? Stock up for your retirement fund! You're welcome! Good thing that I already have Ramen as a snack everyday. It appears there is going to be some lean times up ahead. Better crack open that book of Ramen recipes someone gave me a few years ago so that I can now enjoy for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Bonus: with the new Ramen diet plan, I won't need to worry about a long retirement, if I reach retirement at all... |
|
|
|
I've already set a bot to BTFD and scalp when it rises a bit and I'm running out of fiat. REKT.  |
|
|
|
I don't think i will be that late. Adoption, LN progress... that's real value.
And then there's the halfening. Not that late, definitely.
EDIT Seems like the three of us - Dakustaking, bones and myself - have a problem wih our T's.
Must be a Freudian slip on my part. It appears that my stage of obsession with the BTC market has now grown to the point that I subconsciously feel that I am a bunch of red and green candles. |
|
|
|
Damn if were gonne drop lower then €6k then Lets go!
Its taking to long, bitcoin died many times now..
Its time to go up man its boring like this
How long Will iT take like this, we go up and down up and down
I may take a while. The bear market of 2014/2015 took over a year of heartbreak. Who knows when we will get out of this cycle. Could be tomorrow, could be 2020 or later. |
|
|
|
Wow, that spike must have really pissed off some bear whale. Like a mother bear defending her baby bitmex short.
It's probably the moron scammers who operate Bitfinex. The largest trading entity on Bitfinex who has controlled the entire market singlehandedly since the price was $200 bought TONS of coins at $9k trying to prop up the market in the original crash and it seemed like they've been trying to whipsaw the market up and down to try and attract some type of momentum traders idiots to dump their bags on. You don't think DCG, the Winklevoss twins, Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, etc etc etc have anything to do with it? Surely Spoofy and its bag of magic Tether tokens can't be the only one painting the tape. I don't think the Winklevoss twins do, they have far too much to lose being the big US regulated exchange. They have tight workings with the regulators and getting caught would kill them, they make their riches off the fees. So you believe that the twins just sit on their 100000 + BTC and don't try to move the market one way or the other, on occasion? Surely there are legal things one can do with such wealth to prod the market one way or the other, especially in this thin market. I know that if I had that much skin in this game, I wouldn't let Spoofy bot call all of the shots. |
|
|
|
Wow, that spike must have really pissed off some bear whale. Like a mother bear defending her baby bitmex short.
It's probably the moron scammers who operate Bitfinex. The largest trading entity on Bitfinex who has controlled the entire market singlehandedly since the price was $200 bought TONS of coins at $9k trying to prop up the market in the original crash and it seemed like they've been trying to whipsaw the market up and down to try and attract some type of momentum traders idiots to dump their bags on. You don't think DCG, the Winklevoss twins, Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, etc etc etc have anything to do with it? Surely Spoofy and its bag of magic Tether tokens can't be the only one painting the tape. |
|
|
|
Finally some volume. Don't care which way, just do something.
Right into the toilet. Fucking happy now ? Wow, that spike must have really pissed off some bear whale. Like a mother bear defending her baby bitmex short. |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, there is nothing to prevent someone from building a layer on top of a blockchain and issuing tokens that are supposed to be backed by deposits and then running a fractional reserve. (Many accuse Tether of doing just that.) Furthermore, blockchains have difficulty scaling. That is why BTC has resorted to the lightning network to attempt to address the scaling problem.
So BTC is a solution, but it's really not a solution because someone can come up with a different solution on top of BTC which wouldn't really be a solution at all, thus making underlying BTC not a solution. Think i got it. And then BTC is having problem scaling so that's why they introduced a scaling solution called LN. Did i get it right? If the solution you want is to totally prevent people from running fractional reserves, then no, the blockchain is not the solution. Perhaps if you could cram all of the functionality onto the blockchain itself it may be a solution. However, when you try to cram all of the functionality onto the blockchain itself, you run into a scaling issue. You can get a blockchain to scale, but this always comes at the cost of the network being more centralized. Oh ok i think you cleared it up now, but just to make sure, so it's impossible to cram every possible functionality in any system, and it's also impossible to prevent a derivatives market based on any underlying asset. And since BTC exists in our faulty universe BTC is burdened with the restrictions that apply to every other system. Thus we draw a conclusion that BTC is a failed experiment and will die? I believe the scientific name for this argument is 'R0ach logic' Did I ever state that BTC is a failed experiment? Or is that what is implied whenever someone dare states that the blockchain and BTC are not the end all be all solution to everything. |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, there is nothing to prevent someone from building a layer on top of a blockchain and issuing tokens that are supposed to be backed by deposits and then running a fractional reserve. (Many accuse Tether of doing just that.) Furthermore, blockchains have difficulty scaling. That is why BTC has resorted to the lightning network to attempt to address the scaling problem.
So BTC is a solution, but it's really not a solution because someone can come up with a different solution on top of BTC which wouldn't really be a solution at all, thus making underlying BTC not a solution. Think i got it. And then BTC is having problem scaling so that's why they introduced a scaling solution called LN. Did i get it right? If the solution you want is to totally prevent people from running fractional reserves, then no, the blockchain is not the solution. Perhaps if you could cram all of the functionality onto the blockchain itself it may be a solution. However, when you try to cram all of the functionality onto the blockchain itself, you run into a scaling issue. You can get a blockchain to scale, but this always comes at the cost of the network being more centralized. |
|
|
|
Interestingly, the first technology to be developed since the advent of fractional reserve banking that actually has a real chance of putting a stop to most of the double counting of reserve assets is... drum-roll... blockchain!
I'm sorry. I don't subscribe to your point of view either. All I have seen in the 4 years in this cryptocurrency space is scam after scam and scheme after scheme. There is no salvation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPVpMxVn6mkOk what If I modify my statement a bit. Interestingly, the first technology to be developed since the advent of fractional reserve banking that actually has a real chance is theoretically technologically capable of putting a stop to most of the double counting of reserve assets is... drum-roll... blockchain! Would you disagree that it is a tool that is, at least in theory, capable of combating this in a meaningful way? If so, would you agree that it is the first technology that has ever been invented that is potentially capable of doing this? The main reason that we see so much scamminess in this space is that blockchain is largely about censorship resistance, which is for the most part only needed by people who would be censored, and, big surprise, it turns out that a lot of the people who would have been censored are people who would have been up to no good. IMAGINE THAT! Anyway, just because that sort of thing is the lowest hanging fruit and so developed out first, I don't think this means that blockchain technology will never find legitimate use cases in safeguarding against scams (like the double counting of precious metals reserves). 4 years is not a long time, it is a flash in the pan. Unfortunately, there is nothing to prevent someone from building a layer on top of a blockchain and issuing tokens that are supposed to be backed by deposits and then running a fractional reserve. (Many accuse Tether of doing just that.) Furthermore, blockchains have difficulty scaling. That is why BTC has resorted to the lightning network to attempt to address the scaling problem. |
|
|
|
Interestingly, the first technology to be developed since the advent of fractional reserve banking that actually has a real chance of putting a stop to most of the double counting of reserve assets is... drum-roll... blockchain!
Except not even exchanges are currently using that "feature". Thanks to blockchain exchanges could be already guaranteeing they don't run fractional reserve. It would be as simple as this: - Every exchange user is given a "unique private identifier". - Every day, the exchange publish a balance sheet that comprises a listing of all UPI's and its individual balances. The total is the minimum amount of reserves the exchange must control to prove absence of fractional reserve "banking". - Simultaneously the exchange publish a listing of addresses which individual balances (can be checked on their respective blockchains for accuracy) sum, at least, the total needed. Obviously they sign a timestamped code with those addresses to prove ownership. - Individual users could check their balances are included and accounted for in the balance sheet. ... But not a single one exchange is still doing this. Wonder why..... Agreed. Decentralized exchanges need to take hold. Bisq is an ok start but p2p is not good for liquidity. I started work on a decentralized exchange that acts just like a regular exchange with fiat[/b]. But it's not the simplest of things to accomplish, will take some time. And this is the crux of the problem. BTC needs to find a way to decouple itself from fiat. Unfortunately, there is not enough adoption at this time to accomplish this. One would be really hard pressed to be able to fully purchase all of the goods and services they need directly with BTC. |
|
|
|
This has nothing to do with metals in general. It can happen to shitcoins and any other thing you attempt to use as a monetary instrument. You have simply discovered possesion is 9/10ths of the law. Unless you can hold something in your hand and defend it with an AR15 from someone attempting to take it from you, you don't own it. The moral of the story is, don't accept IOUs or anything with middlemen or counterparty risk.
Bitcoin has built-in middlemen - transaction validators who can approve or blacklist your tokens, amongst thousands of other individuals in the world from people working at the power company, to programmers, etc., that are needed to keep the thing running. It does not require thousands of other counterparties just for silver or gold to exist. They exist whether all those idiots like it or give permission for it to or not. Metals are the only real permissionless system.
And what good is my AR15 going to do against someone who takes me by surprise or a group that outnumbers me? Perhaps I can ally myself with other people, and form a militia. But then I have to trust those people. In the end, it's the people you trust that have the highest probability of screwing you over. It's a dilemma, either I can trust no one, strike out on my own, and end up being overwhelmed. Or I can put my trust in other people and end up getting the shaft. |
|
|
|
you know what goes here
Oh please. the way banknotes started in the first place is merchants wanted to store their gold at a bank, rather than lugging it around themselves or setting up their own fort and small militia to protect it. Then they were issued a piece of paper, a banknote. When the bankers discovered people were using the banknotes like money, they discovered a way to loan people paper and run a fractional reserve. It doesn't matter what medium you use as money. Someone is going to find a way to put them self in the middle and exact their usurious fees. Or just plain use force or stealth and outright steal your bounty. Interestingly, the first technology to be developed since the advent of fractional reserve banking that actually has a real chance of putting a stop to most of the double counting of reserve assets is... drum-roll... blockchain!I'm sorry. I don't subscribe to your point of view either. All I have seen in the 4 years in this cryptocurrency space is scam after scam and scheme after scheme. There is no salvation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPVpMxVn6mk |
|
|
|
And exactly how is switching to gold and silver bullion going to get the government off of our backs? Wouldn't the governments and the religious leaders end up getting a substantial portion of the gold and silver, anyway? Wouldn't they then use the gold and silver to raise up armies and bully the rest of us into handing them even more of our gold and silver via taxes and other forms of extortion?
This is all off-base, nonsense you're speaking. The goal of the moneychangers is CONTROL. They have already accumulated unimaginable wealth. How we arrive at this point is mostly related to things like Maslow's pyramid. These Jewish moneychanger like to make believe they're some type of advanced lifeform - 'aristocrats', but they're really just primitive monkeys governed by wants and desires most primitive monkeys are governed by. After they've secured the basic needs - the base of objects on rudimentary pyramids like Maslow - they then move up to the next level of desires. It turns out monkeys are crazy, primitive, Freudian dumbasses and have most of their desires rooted in things like reproduction, and part of that paradigm of thought is the desire of the monkey to rule over and dominate all the other monkeys to secure their reproductive lot. It doesn't really matter if these people are 90 years old and can't even have sex at all, they're like a dysfunctional robot that still wants to setup their ideal hierarchy of domination over others to maximize reproductive potential. Since shitcoins have nothing resembling a Nash equilibrium, and it's 100% impossible to create a decentralized digital currency, they're just power vacuums for someone or a cartel to step in and take over - a technocratic dystopia. These fit well into the psycho, Freudian monkey paradigm to rule over others. Silver and gold, on the other hand, do not have built-in middlemen (transaction validators) like shitcoins do. They are poor systems of control. The goal is to destroy the systems of control that a handful of monkeys use to illogically enslave the planet. Metals work well to accomplish this task, while shitcoins just help to increase enslavement levels. Oh please. the way banknotes started in the first place is merchants wanted to store their gold at a bank, rather than lugging it around themselves or setting up their own fort and small militia to protect it. Then they were issued a piece of paper, a banknote. When the bankers discovered people were using the banknotes like money, they discovered a way to loan people paper and run a fractional reserve. It doesn't matter what medium you use as money. Someone is going to find a way to put them self in the middle and exact their usurious fees. Or they will just use force or stealth and outright steal your bounty. |
|
|
|
There are only two camps of people, those that believe in sound, physical money that actually exists in the real world like silver and gold, and those that believe in completely arbitrary, imaginary, valueless tokens like US dollars, bitcoins, and Chuck E Cheese tokens.
Do US dollars have a hard cap? No.Do US dollars have a predictable issuance schedule? No.Do Chuck E Cheese tokens have a hard cap? No.Do Chuck E Cheese tokens have a predictable issuance schedule? No.Do Bitcoins have a hard cap? Yes.Do Bitcoins have a predictable issuance schedule? Yes.Therefore it is either stupid or disingenuous to lump Bitcoins in with these obvious scam projects like US dollars or Chuck E Cheese tokens. You cannot be serious. I'm not some type of idiot-sucker like all you people that can be fooled by cut and pasting Andreas Antonopolous used car salesman lies. Bitcoin has NOTHING close to a Nash equilibrium, which means none of this shit is true. It's just a designed to centralize power vacuum to be taken over and exploited. This is not some far off in the future thing, it happened almost immediately after the first ASIC was released. It was at that point there was no reason for bitcoin to exist. SURE, if the completely centralized transaction validators do something you don't like such as increasing the coin count or trying to ram in chain anchor to fully realize the police state function of bitcoin you can attempt to fork off into a different chain, but it's you that would be the altcoin, not the tyrants with power over the original chain. The people who centralized the original chain have done absolutely nothing wrong, they have only utilized bitcoin the way it was designed - to completely centralize under them. Your only options at this point are either continuous forking to infinity and death by diffusion with no valid Schelling Point (not a valid option), or obeying whoever the transaction validators centralize under in some type of Orwellian dystopia. They, or their small cartel, can collude to jack transaction fees to whatever they want, block anyone's transactions they want if you don't worship the state, or any other option that amuses them. So all you're getting out of this is either a failed experiment or complete dystopia, pick one. This is why the fundamentals of silver and gold completely destroy this garbage. Shitcoins have no fundamentals because it's 100% impossible to create a decentralized digital currency. And exactly how is switching to gold and silver bullion going to get the government off of our backs? Wouldn't the governments and the religious leaders end up getting a substantial portion of the gold and silver, anyway? Wouldn't they then use the gold and silver to raise up armies and bully the rest of us into handing them even more of our gold and silver via taxes and other forms of extortion? |
|
|
|
I wonder if Monero will launch a Masternode? Look at the limited amount of coins being supported by SetupMasternodes.com and they're looking to support Quality Masternode based coins. XMR team is solid, and hopes it can get it going with a MN Why would XMR really need Masternodes? XMR certainly doesn't need to attempt to make this coin more anonymous by mixing them like Dash does. yeah, good point on that part. I guess it wouldn't only be the purpose of mixing but an option for people to use the mixing feature? just curious Adding Masternodes would compromise Monero's anonymity not increase it so you are extolling the virtues of a poor idea thats only reason for being is to increase holders coins and facilitate P&D's. I see now. That's because of the current structure, right? Yes, in order for a Masternode to work, it needs to somehow relay to the network that a certain input indeed has enough collateral. The network also needs to know the IP or Onion routing address of your Masternode. The ring signatures and the cryptonote protocol basically makes it impossible to determine exactly where the outputs/inputs belong unless you have the viewing key. I suppose that it is possible to somehow get Masternodes or any other proof of stake scheme to work without having to reveal to the entire network that this input/output belongs to a certain address. I'm sure there are a few shitcoins out there that have tried. I must admit that I haven't done enough research to know if their work around truly leaves the stake holder's/ Masternode holder's inputs/outputs anonymous. |
|
|
|
I wonder if Monero will launch a Masternode? Look at the limited amount of coins being supported by SetupMasternodes.com and they're looking to support Quality Masternode based coins. XMR team is solid, and hopes it can get it going with a MN Why would XMR really need Masternodes? XMR certainly doesn't need to attempt to make this coin more anonymous by mixing them like Dash does. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
