Yeah, but I already explained that I did not really pick the article in order to describe any substance beyond the fact that the SEC has likely put off its approval of any BTC spot ETF by two weeks because I am pretty sure the SEC made similar requests to all of the ETF applicants to the extent that the ETF applicants might not have already had such clarity in their Spot ETF applications.


Your theory (or your explanation regarding what is going on) sounds backwards Gormicsta.  

I would think that if there are other kinds of ETF product on the markets or other somewhat competitive products available then that could effect the direction whether premium or discount, and surely if there are prospects of an ETFs getting approved and coming onto the market, then that could well affect the differentiations in trust fund price (and the directions) relative to NAV... so I doubt the direction and/or the distance from NAV is a reflection of the quality of the underlying product.. .not that I am trading or playing around with any of those products, in regards to by preference for spot and also my preference for BTC rather than screwing around with shitcoins whether buying directly or buying them through some kind of a trust fund or an ETF.

I am a pretty BIG fan of the Trezor too, even though I understand that various hardware wallets have various features and sometimes some wallet manufacturers have engaged in questionable behaviors.

I was also thinking that if any of us is sending transactions to multiple recipients at the same time, then maybe we could end up sending several at once and the fees would not be very much more than from a single recipient but having multiple recipients would average out to be way less fees (costs) per recipient..

We could therefore end up sending our transaction with a higher transaction fee to make sure that the transaction goes through yet in the end it would still have lower costs per recipients if we are sending to several recipients at the same time.. the more recipients in any given transaction, then the cheaper per recipient  (at least in terms of the fees that exist at that time and our chosen level of speed that we would like the transaction to go through). 

One of the disadvantages in regards to sending to multiple recipients at the same time, the recipients can see the other recipients, even if they might not be sure which is which or who they are.. but they might be able to guess..or estimate further and even figure out more about various transactions or even reuse of addresses that might be happening.

Nice again.  Quoted for visibility... though I did size it down a bit.. maybe around 70% of the original size.


Hahahahaha.. "Little weasel".. that is a good one for Homer.  I can imagine that Canada has a good number of weasels.  Can you imagine a weasel eating his daily McMuffin and trying to sip at the overly hot coffee... So cccccuuuuuttttttteee!!!!!  #nohomophobo


If you look back Antisthenes, you would likely realize that "respect" was going to DirtyKeyboard rather than to me, even though you seem to be referencing this here cat.  Have you formed any negative opinion about DirtyKeyboard, yet?  Not that your opinion matters very much, since so far you have expressed your best of buddies as the dweebs of the thread, such as exp.


In the context of things, I am not sure what that means.. .. but when have you said anything that makes much if any sense, in the real world?

We can agree to disagree.  I stand by the points that I made in my earlier post.


If any of us might have started buying in the $50ks and then stopped buying when the BTC price went down, then we retain our average cost per BTC in the $50ks.  Sure if we keep buying then we lower our cost per BTC, but we do not reduce the cost of the earlier BTC that we bought.

Don't get me wrong, I advocate the continued and ongoing purchasing of BTC, and maybe we are explaining the dynamics of how risk might be reduced differently... But still continuing to buy does not necessarily reduce risk, even though it may well cause the need for the BTC price to go up to be less than it would be if sticking with ONLY the purchases above $50k.


I am a bit unclear of your point here.  You are suggesting that since you have not seen shitcoins go to zero, then bitcoin's chances of going to zero are even less than the odds of shitcoins going to zero.  Your logic seems to be quite a bit less clear than the points that I was making in regards to accounting for negative scenarios in bitcoin and who gives any shits about shitcoins in order to make the points that bitcoin could have negative price scenarios that are outside of your expectations, but you should attempt to account for them, even if they might be lower level scenarios.


The upside versus downside scenarios seem to be more nuanced than how you seem to be describing them, but I would be willing to concede that we are arguing over semantics rather than substance, and I see no reason to modify anything that I had already stated on the topic.


The fact that someone does not consider profits to be guaranteed does not necessarily mean that s/he has NOT invested enough into bitcoin.  On a personal level, by the time, late 2014 came and I kind of figured out my BTC accumulation targets, I was ONLY targeting investing 10% of my investment portfolio into BTC, but by the time we got to the end of 2015, I had gotten to around 13.5% invested, which was higher than my target, but still was not the limit of my capabilities, and surely my BTC profits went up stupendously between 2015 and currently, and surely there was no need to aim for BIGGER profits, even though they would have had been possible, and personally I consider that the balance had worked out pretty well, even though the 86.5% of my investment portfolio from 2015 had ONLY less than doubled in value until now, but my BTC went up more than 37x (accounting for some mistakes that were made along the way too).. but still, part of the point that I am making is that you can invest for various UPside scenarios without even considering upside to be even close to guaranteed, but at the same time to be prepared for various downside scenarios too.

Surely you have been registered on the forum for nearly as long as me, but I hardly can know if you are managing your psychology and your finances in a way that accounts for a variety of scenarios.  Surely we are posting in a public forum, so whatever my comments responding to your points are not personal, and you can do whatever you like in terms of managing your expectations.. and how you prepare for various short, medium and/or longer term scenarios

I get some senses that we are not just arguing about semantics, but I also get a sense that you have differing ideas from me (more than just how we are expressing ourselves) about how to think about probabilities of some things happening in comparison to what ultimately ends up happening.

I am not necessarily going to stop responding when I differ in opinion from another member, and I believe that a point needs to be clarified, but sometimes I am not going to feel any need to repeat  points that I already made, even though sometimes if I am being directly confronted, I might choose to attempt to clarify, to the extent that I might feel that it is possible to clarify without too much just attempting to repeat points that I feel that I had already made more clearly at an earlier time.

My main reason for bringing it up was ONLY to suggest that the dates for approval might be December 1st at the soonest, and I was not really even caring to get into any of the details of the meaning  of what they were doing, even though I presumed that it would have been for various kinds of control and/or manipulation prevention reasons and that sourcing of the coins would be known, and sure maybe there is also the tax monitoring advantages .. whether that was a central motivation or not, we already should have known that self-custody is not part of any the current expectations of any of the ETFs.. so that surely is part of the reason that the ownership of any ETF is inferior to owning spot BTC.. but surely there are going to be both institutions and also some individuals who end up getting into BTC because of the ETF price exposure that is allowable through their retirement savings accounts that would not allow for the direct purchasing and/or custody of BTC.

I suppose many of us have concerns about BIG players owning and controlling so many BTC, even if they have fiduciary duties to the supposed real owners, while we still have a not your keys not your coins situation that could end up having various blow-up scenarios that are bad for the users and perhaps even bad for bitcoin as a whole since some of the direct power of owning and controlling BTC would be held by the custodian who may well not be acting in the interest of the person who believes that he owns bitcoin when he only owns claims to bitcoin...or maybe he ONLY owns bitcoin price exposure..

Yeah, but what is the period of time that is expected?  are we talking in less than 4 years?  Are we talking some greater amount of time?

I don't have anything wrong with what you are saying overall Litzki1990, but the earlier investments run from the time that they are invested, and then the later investment run from the time that they are invested, so even if there might be some lump sums at various points (or frontloading of the investment), the ongoing investments would have shorter  amounts of time invested as compared with the earlier investments, so maybe if the time target to "give back to father" would be after two BTC cycles, then there could be investing in the first cycle and just waiting it out in the second cycle, presuming enough is invested, but if Lidger might be aiming to be an active BTC investor, then at some point he might end up reaching his investment target and shift from accumulation into maintenance, and likely we do not have enough details to figure out when those kinds of thresholds might potentially be met by Lidger - presuming that he has thought through some of that as you suggest that he should attempt to do.


Yeah, I should have had mentioned that a lot of companies attempt to employ their salary employees in such a way that they are not allowed to have other work, and they are on-call to the company, even if they might be underpaid and even if there might be false representations that they are going to receive increases in pay, benefits and/or promotions.. which may or may not end up playing out.


Yeah.. some people do not feel that they have all of the skills to employ themselves and to promote their business, so there is a kind of security with getting a job with someone else - except as you suggested that working for someone else (a company) might end up being a kind of trap in which the employees are never really able to get ahead.


Of course, incomes might be able to be combined in a family situation.. but yeah no matter how you slice it, the working for someone else situation can be quite dire in some places if there might not be enough higher paying jobs in  order to bid up salaries, and if people do not feel that they have other opportunities, then they take those kinds of jobs with the belief that they might not have any other options - except like you say, if they are an entrepreneur then it could be possible that they could make a better life for themselves, but there is a lot of self-training and self-resourcefulness that is required from anyone doing their own business..

and frequently when they are first building their businesses, they might not get paid enough to live, but then if they keep building their business, it could well end up getting to the point where they can sustain themselves and then make equal to what they would make with someone else and then later start to make more than what they could have had made working for someone else.  they surely do not start out by making more.. it takes time to build a business, and a decent number of individual businesses end up not being successful.. which is another reason that people end up going with the sure thing that is not very good rather than the uncertain thing that might be better, but might not end up being better.


This thread is not about trading and/or selling as a technique to accumulate more bitcoin.

Sure selling and/or trading might have some kind of role for some people in some circumstances, but we are not talking about those kinds of techniques here.. especially if we might be referring to BTC accumulation techniques that involve various forms of buying... which is likely superior for most people anyhow.


Since  I cannot recall whenever you got into bitcoin, I will use your form registration date, so if you are barely into bitcoin, then you may well have more than 9 years to go during your bitcoin accumulation journey, yet I would suggest that if you are accumulating bitcoin for 10 years, you would not just transition into selling BTC (and buying cars or whatever, or even reinvesting into other kinds of investments), you are likely going to go through various transition times in which you accumulate bitcoin and you reach your target, but you still might not go straight to selling, but you might go into a stage in which you are either buying less or you are only buying on dips of certain levels. 

But even before you go into consumption goods you would likely invest into other assets before you go into consumption, and then even your earlier stages of increasing your consumption based on your presumptive higher wealth (based on your having had built up your bitcoin), you might use your new cash to either invest in other things and/or to consume, rather than selling your bitcoin.. even though surely there also could be ways that you might have reached your BTC accumulation target and you may have also exceeded your BTC accumulation target, so you might end up having extra BTC that you are then able to sell in certain circumstances that the BTC price is going up.

In the end, you can do whatever you want (even if it might be dumb things), but there are ways to transition between your various stages without overly consuming your BTC but still taking some advantages of that BTC wealth.. and the decision might not always be to sell BTC, even though if you are  in profits and the BTC price is moving up, there could well be ways that you can structure some selling on the way up that may or may not end up in some re-accumulation of BTC if the BTC price later falls.. but whatever your strategies, they would be more clear when you get closer to approaching points in which you have more BTC as compared with what you might have today if we can presume that you ONLY have less than a year of BTC accumulation under your belt.


Surely this part is true too.  So if you have spent time accumulating BTC, then you may well come to realize that you have more and more options, but one of those options should be to make sure that you hold onto a decent amount of your BTC, even if you might later start to engage in some selling techniques.

I had frequently considered that some people cannot resist trading, yet if they cannot stop themselves from trading then perhaps they could figure out some ways to put limits on how much of their BTC holdings that they are trading with, and even in one of the more aggressive scenarios, there could be cases in which any new cash that comes in, then at most then ONLY half of it can be used for trading, and the other half has to go into buying BTC and keeping that BTC investment stash completely separate and off limits, and sure if you are building your BTC stash by trading, then maybe every once in a while take some of that extra value and put it into the "off-limits" BTC stash that you are building, building and building.. but building through buying and adding to it rather than fucking around with trading. 

I would imagine that the BTC investing stash will grow more than the trading stash, and it could even be the case that the trading stash is frequently running out of money, but that does not mean that you can put more into the trading stash unless you put an equal amount into the BTC investing stash... That would be one of the ways to potentially temper BTC trading desires in order that you are still able to do it, but ONLY with around half of your budget and also folding in some of the trading profits (when they might come) into the BTC investment stash. .and trying NOT to get too greedy about the whole situation...since investing is likely superior to trading for an overwhelming majority of people, even though some people just cannot resist having some kind of a trading (and/or gambling) practice in the mix of their activities.


We are ONLY talking about BTC in this thread.  Fuck shitcoins.


I agree with your other points.


This is not completely wrong,and sure there can be ways to take profits at various points in time, but if you are still building your BTC holdings, then you might end up overly consuming if you have not built up a sufficiently amount of extra BTC in order to justify taking out enough to buy your 2026 or whatever model Range Rover.

For example, if a 2026 Range Rover costs right around $110k or maybe even more than that in mid-to-late 2025, and if you accumulated 0.5 BTC at $22k, then you had invested $11k into BTC and then when the price reaches $220k, then you are able to cash out your 0.5 BTC for your 2026 Range Rover.  What else do you have left?  Did you invest more into BTC  or did you blow your whole BTC wadd into a 2026 Range Rover?

Now, on the other hand, if you had been buying $100 worth of BTC per week for the past 3.5 years (since May 1, 2020), and you invested $18,600 and you had accumulated 0.8301 BTC, then you may well be in a similar position as the person who had bought his BTC at $22k, and so if you continue to buy BTC, and then the BTC price goes to $220k, by mid 2025, then you still may well be spending half of your BTC stash for a 2026 Range Rover.

You are free to make your choices about what to do, but you may well be engaging in over consumption depending on the size of your stash that you are spending for consumption, versus how much you might be able to put into BTC on a regular basis and/or your other strategies that might amount to gambling rather than investing.. and surely it seems that if you are still building your investment portfolio then you need to be careful on the consumption of extravagant, depreciating, expensive to maintain and showy consumption items, even though there could be some ways that you might be able to improve social status through the possession/ownership of such items.


What is a "long time" for you?  more than 4 years?  Are you going to keep buying BTC for the next 4 years or just sit on it?  Are you interactive with your investment in terms of continuing to buy?  And then another thing would be questions regarding making sure that your coins are secure.  It will not do you a whole hell of a lot of good if you spend time building up your BTC investment portfolio, but you are not adequately securing your coins.. So hopefully you are thinking about and acting upon better security practices rather than holding BTC with a third party (such as an exchange) if that might have been how you initially got involved in buying your bitcoin in those kinds of ways.

Regarding the spot ETF deadline and also in regards to what might be happening with the SEC and the ETF applicants, did you not hear the news from the last 24 hours Franky?

Of course, you can look it up yourself from various sources, but the essence of the news seems to be that the SEC has given two weeks to the ETF applicants to provide their "cash creates" details to the SEC.

SEC allegedly wants spot Bitcoin ETFs to do cash creates, not crypto, after possible meet-up with exchanges

which seems to mean that ETF providers have to go through the exchanges that they list on their application in terms of buying the underlying BTC whenever anyone buys ETF shares through them.

To me, that also seems to indicate that the soonest that any Spot ETF would be approved would be two weeks from yesterday.. which would be right around December 1, at the earliest.. .and sure, the theory is that all of them would be approved at once, and presumptively that would include the Grayscale conversion of their trust to an ETF in the mix of the approvals, once the approvals come out.

From the perspective of preferring bullruns to playout a bit more slowly (if they might end up occurring), then I would see why there would be a preference for January rather than December, so maybe along those same lines, the SEC might prefer to put off some of the exuberance a bit too..,

which would also justify January rather than December - even if the puppet master of the SEC (aka blackrock) might be pushing the SEC to have the approval in 2023 rather than 2024.. but you never even know with Blackrock, they might also be o.k with being able to continue to gather up cheap coins for a bit longer (one month-ish).. if they might already have pretty good ideas that approval is going to be taking place, but it is just a matter of it happening in January instead of December.

Protip: The four of you should get a room.

meaning:  You and exp, billy no coiner and exp's grandma.


Sure, I already understand that there could be angles that relate to taxes, yet capital gains would ONLY apply for the 2023 year to purchases and sells that are made in 2023 with the assumption that the spot ETF were to be approved in 2023... of course there would also be some buys in 2023, but if the sales were in 2024, then 2024 would be the taxable year.

Surely there could be some other matters that relate to taxes and reporting, but launching a new product prior to the new year rather than after the new year seems to give more options to investors rather than fewer options, and so from the investor's perspective it would seem to justify wanting to launch the spot ETF earlier rather than later (in order to have more options), yet the SEC may likely be somewhat neutral in regards to the calendar year matter, I would think that investing companies would rather give their customers more options rather than fewer options, even though launching in 2023 could well put some clients at a disadvantage if they were planning to ONLY be ready to transition into an ETF after the beginning of the year, but there were to end up being a price run up in 2023 because the product ended up launching in 2023 rather than in 2024 when they were planning to get in.

Yeah, I am writing a lot, and even accounting for some possible tax ramifications of one year versus another,  yet I still don't feel like I have much of any clue why it would be preferable (from Phillip's perspective or from anyone else's except maybe officials merely just wanting to delay as long as feasible) that the Spot ETF product launch in January 2024 as opposed to December 2023.  Edit:  Maybe this part was sort-of answered by Philip in the below post.


Sure there could be shenanigan's either way, but it all seems a kind of wash. in the whole scheme of things in terms of potential preferability of whether a Spot ETF is launched later rather than sooner, or January 2024 as opposed to December 2023.

And yeah, I am presuming a pump on the news of an actual BTC Spot ETF approval, but I am not really sure how much of a pump and/or how it might play out and if that would be creating any major buys and sells within the 2023 calendar year (even if the approval were to occur sometimes in December.. yeah, some of the BIGGER players play those kinds of games, but it may or may not work as expected for some of them, even if some of them are BIGGER players).

Edited to attempt to make some ideas a bit more clear.

Is that a picture of a shitcoin? 


....especially since HODL no does not work like that with dee cornz, unless you have been leveraging and/or otherwise employing gambling tactics with it.


You are really living in a fantasy.  Maybe goldkingcoiner's earlier post was directed towards folks like uie-pooie?... since you seem to have had failed and refused to buy bitcoin in the last few years,

even though you claim to have had exposure some time prior to the GOX blow up in early 2014 - but surely hard to know if anything coming from you is anything other than a childish fantasy - maybe grandma does not have enough to give you an allowance or a raise in your allowance if you happen to have one, but and maybe that would be the ONLY recognition how you might not have figured out how to earn some actual money in order to actually get some corn exposure rather than just fantasizing about BTC price moves that are not very likely to happen.. sure there could be 5-15% odds of some kind of a scenario that actually would give you some kind of short-term satisfaction that might even last for a year or so, but the kind of downity that you seem to be expecting would probably be lower than 5% odds, and maybe I am even stretching it (being charitable) to allow that high of a percentage for your views to have some reality in playing out.


Personally, out of the two options, I would prefer to be compared to a smart TV rather than to a toaster, since I have more bells and whistles than a mere toaster, even though there is a toaster case-study that suggests toasters are quite complicated gadgets, especially if you consider how they might get build (and sourced) from scratch.... .

Thomas Thwaites: How I built a toaster -- from scratch | TED Talk

I know.  I know. I know.  The above article is referring to a basic toaster, not a smart toaster, as presumptively you seem to be comparing me to a "smart" toaster, which is even more sophisticated than the one that Thwaites described in his Ted Talk.


You are getting real personal now.  A tool?  Phuuuu...  fffffaaaaaa    I resemble that statement.


Your post provides further evidence to support that DirtyKeyboard's solution came off in a kind of seamless and/or user-friendly kind of a way.


What's the difference?  mid-December or so, prior to the Christmas Holidays or prior to January 10 and after New Year's..   There seems to be a bit of a crunch in time between new year's and January 10.. but getting it out of the way prior to various holidays might allow for some resolution of the matter.. ..

but then I suppose if they were to wait until after the holidays, then they don't have the holidays getting in the way... but I don't see much of any difference.. unless there is a bit of desire to continue to delay a wee bit.. to make sure that they are not missing anything and prepared once the ETFs go on line.. which could be a bit of a "nothing burger" even though I am anticipating that probably we would end up getting more pump rather than a dump, once they do actually go live.. a pump just seems more likely .. but who knows?

Wow!!!!

That was a pretty good piece of animation to show CB's output from the last 24 hours- ish, and fairly quick to post it, too...

a bit obscure in your reference to it (or your lack of description to be more precise), which likely was part of the reason that no other member had clicked on your link, reposted and/or actually noticed what you had posted.



What if someone had been DCAing to the max for the past 4-6 years, and such person might not really have any extra cash to throw towards bitcoin, and probably such person is already doing pretty good, even if some of their coins were bought in 2021 and early 2022 at higher prices than current prices.

Or?  maybe you are referring to the fence sitter who failed/refused to buy BTC in the last year and a half or so while prices were mostly lower than the current price and perhaps the last year and a half had prices lower than where we might be going.  Perhaps? perhaps?

I don't have any problem with your overall idea Lidger, but I question the extent to which you are following your father if you are also not attempting to involve yourself in various kinds of work that help you to diversify your income sources.  It seems hard for anyone to say that s/he merely invested money that he got from someone else without figuring out some areas of interest in order to have skillsets as potential back ups..

I also do not necessarily have any problems with the idea that you might want to specialize learning about bitcoin, and perhaps even acting in bitcoin too, whether that is learning how to code or how to mine bitcoin or even other ways of involving yourself in bitcoin (investing your time) that go beyond merely stacking sats (especially if you might still be a relatively young person).   Sure, there may not be any problems with investing in soft skills rather than hard skills, even though it seems to me that you are not necessarily following in the footsteps of your father, unless you are saying that your father has ONLY been a passive investor in his various businesses, which sure could be possible, but that does not seem to be the way you described the situation of your own fathers working background and/or his developing involvement in a variety of businesses. 


Of course there are differing customs all over the world, but some professional positions do not really allow people to have other jobs and/or other sources of income, and some of those positions might start out at more than $100k per year out of college and have upper salaries in the millions per year.

Sure those are not typical jobs, but your advice of multiple jobs do not necessarily apply to a variety of high paying professional positions that exist - especially in the west.. and yeah, maybe some of those kinds of positions likely exist in poorer countries too.. so for example, if a company hires corporate executives (or even start-ups), they might not want those people to have any other jobs, and they may or may not start out at high pay, especially in start ups, and some of them might get paid with company stock (equity) rather than receiving very much pay because maybe the company does not have a lot of extra cashflow, but they are looking for folks who are going to be dedicated 24/7 (or maybe not that much?) to carrying out their duties to make sure the company succeeds.   

Of course, banks have a lot of valuable aspects, which includes services to help people who might not be able to perform some of those on their own, and also systemic advantages too., and so you make a lot of good points in that bitcoin likely will inspire banks to become better versions of themselves, and sure maybe some of them will fall out of business, or maybe some will have to transform a lot, but I doubt that the services and/or advantages that they provide would completely disappear for a very long time, and people will be seeking various kinds of "trusted third-parties" for help with their finances, and sometimes the "trusted third-parties" will not be as necessary and/or helpful as people believe, and some times some of us who believe that we don't need trusted third parties, we will likely realize that we won't completely be able to "get rid of them" either...

or maybe we start to play into the idea of Fediments replacing banks. or variations of developments in which banks become smaller circles and familiar rather than anonymous, depersonalized and sometimes seemingly completely detached... sometimes todays banks seem like parasites and even engaging in deception, so surely there may be some kinds of banks and banking systems that become more bitcoin (and even Crypto - and/or shitcoins.. I am still not sure if there might actually exist a crypto that is not a shitcoin) friendly...

Maybe part of the reason that credit unions started to exist in the 70s and 80s and thereafter was to attempt to bring some community back into banking, but even quite a few of the credit unions have gotten corrupted over the years by traditional banking systems and some of the rules that they have to follow or maybe even some of their incentives that are pushed on them to pursue debt and not to have reserves are too contagious but realize that those kinds of debt laden (and gambling) systems are not solvent (nor responsible to the communities in which they should be serving). 

Responsiveness may well come when people are able to easily speak with their feet, so if their bank is not serving them, they can move their value to a bank (or a bank-like institution) that actually will serve them and will actually have reserves and will actually allow the person to withdraw their value (and/or their bitcoin) if they are not satisfied with the banking services that they are receiving for whatever it might be costing them to keep their value there.

I agree with everything that you said Roseline492 - except that you seem to be suggesting that people can achieve almost anything that they aspire to, yet at the same time you acknowledge that it may well be out of reach for some people to have 1 BTC as their goal... . .not only is it unrealistic for some people, it might not be achievable absent being able to reach a bunch of intermediary goals first.  So if someone is just getting started in bitcoin and the most that they can muster up is the buying of $10 of bitcoin per week or per month, based on what we know right now and we can reasonably project about aspects of the future, they are going to likely need to accomplish a lot of intermediary goals in order to get to 1 BTC in 10 years or even in 20 years, and if they can project that they will be able to get to $100 per week in 5 years and $1,000 per week in 10 years, then maybe they will be able to reach 1 BTC in 20 years... maybe?  There are a lot of unknowns in there and probably not even very good kinds of goals in the first place.

If someone is brand new to bitcoin, but already has been working 5 years or more, and they are still ONLY able to muster up $10 per week, then they are likely NOT in a very lucrative path in life in terms of the quantity of their income.  If someone is real young and in college then maybe they are still trying to figure out possible career paths in which their income might be able to become higher, but they still might have to figure out some specifics in regards to how they might end up earning higher income, and I doubt that the problem is solved merely by earning value in bitcoin, because for whatever skills that anyone has, they still have to figure out who is going to be paying them for their skills - without necessarily going into a life of scamming people through shitcoins or something like that, which sadly is the path that some people choose to take in order to increase their income.

I guess my main quibble with you Roseline492 is that you seemed to have some kind of an underlying idea in your post that a person can set their aspirations however they like, but it really seems that the aspirations need to be realistic, even if there are aspects of the aspirations that might be difficult to achieve, and maybe focusing on the number of BTC to accumulate is not really a concrete (or even important) enough of a goal.


That is not how you minimize loss.  You minimize loss by not investing more than you can afford to lose.  So yeah maybe you do not sell on the way down and you ONLY buy when the BTC price goes down, but at the same time, you still could end up losing all your bitcoin, and if you keep buying as the price is dropping, you could end up losing even more and more and more, especially if the BTC price never ends up recovering enough for you to get your investment amount back.


Trading does increase the kinds of risks, and so sometimes the traders could end up either losing all their money faster or they could even lose more than the amount of bitcoin that they buy.. buy using leverage.  Leverage in either direction could contribute to an investment like bitcoin becoming a loser, even though so many people who have ONLY bought bitcoin (and who have ONLY gone long bitcoin) have tended to end up being in profits sooner or later.. especially the longer that they are in bitcoin, and the most that they are risking is 100% of what they put into bitcoin, but so many folks have ended up in profits, and even now if you have been in bitcoin for 2 years or longer then you have pretty good chances of being in profits if you continued to invest along the way, yet of course, there are folks who may well have had front loaded their investment into BTC at prices higher than today (higher than $36,400) and even if some of them continued to buy bitcoin, they still might be in the negative if they invested higher amounts of their value when the BTC price was higher than it is today...

So sometimes it can take 3-4 years or more just to get back in the black, even with a strategy that is ONLY buying BTC and not engaging in other kinds of tactics to trade and/or to leverage.  And, even getting back in the black is not guaranteed, but surely it seems that if someone has invested in such a way that they continue to buy over several years, even if they front-loaded their investment at higher prices, there are decent odds that they are going to get back in the black, even if it is not guaranteed.. and since it is not guaranteed, that is why people have to choose a position size that is not too much and they are willing to lose the amount invested in the event that the BTC price does not return to prices higher than their earlier purchase prices nor to prices that are higher than their average costs per BTC.


That is one of the problems of buying too much BTC at once (such as lump sum investing and/or front-loading the BTC investment) rather than being prepared to continue to buy on the way down, and realizing that there is a need to buy no more than you can afford to lose.. really afford to lose by being committed to riding the investment to zero if the BTC price keeps going down rather than continuing to go up.


We can see that price history already happened, but it does not prove that BTC prices will return to such prices, even though surely it seems that the investment thesis for bitcoin today is stronger than what it was in 2021, but we might not know all of the facts that we need to know, and maybe there could be developments that contribute towards no more pumps of BTC and the possibility that BTC prices never get back above $37k (for example) or even more difficulties to get back to $69k..

Sure in recent times, I had already made some posts that I believe that bitcoin has something between 70% and 80% odds of reaching $69k or higher before the end of 2025;  however, 70% to 80% odds are still not even close to 100% odds.. that means that in my own thinking there are 20% to 30% odds that $69k will not be reached prior to the end of 2025.  And, hey I am not claiming that I know anything beyond my own opinion being similar to the opinions of others, yet I believe my opinion is stronger and more based in reality than someone who might still be considering that the odds of getting to $69k in the next 2.1 years is close to 95% or even 100%, and so sure you are free to believe whatever you like, but I think that it is a bit unrealistic to be placing too high of odds on various UPside scenarios and completely negating the odds of downside scenarios, even if the odds for up happen to be greater than the odds for down...

The mere fact that the odds are greater does not mean that the scenario with the greater odds is going to end up playing out.  If we are in BTC, we should know those kinds of things and also practice risk management behaviors that account for possible scenarios in which lower probability outcomes might end up playing out rather than the higher probability outcomes.


I agree with these ideas.. except to the extent that you (ginsan) seem to believe that the long term causes a guaranteed that you are going to end up being profitable, which it does not.

It is not up to you to clarify what someone else might have meant when they are using vague and meaningless language, but surely you can accept that people speak (write) with sloppiness if you like to live in a world in which people are either not clarifying what they mean or purposefully speaking in vaguenesses in order to mislead others.

Sure, sometimes whatever that person said may well have been sufficiently clear and/or unimportant, and sure sometimes their use of vague, meaningless and misleading language is due to inadvertance rather than purposefulness, but still it does not mean that any of us should accept such vagueness, even if you personally choose such course of action and/or choose to defend that others use such sloppiness in their speaking/writing.


Of course, there are a lot fewer damages when you clarify your terms and clarify what you mean when you use your crypto currency term or whatever term that you choose to use and however you choose to define it.. so part of the problem is resolved when you at least clarify what you mean by the term, even if others might not agree with your definition, they at least have some better ideas about what it is that you are trying to say.


Fair enough.. The nature of bitcoin is not affected regarding what it is called, but it is still nice to know what people mean, so if they throw out a term like "crypto" or "cryptocurrency" and they are talking about bitcoin, then why not just clarify bitcoin is what they are talking about, so if they use the term crypto, then we might not know if they are talking about bitcoin or something else... if they use the term crypto because they are talking about something.. maybe even including bitcoin in what they are talking about, it still seems better many of the times to say what it is that they are talking about rather than leaving it vague.. and sure sometimes there can be purposefulness in terms of leaving thing vague.. and in some contexts it might not make a difference.. but then if we are talking about public threads, then we have a whole bunch of potential people who might be reading such communications.. and not every one has time to be trying to get clarification, but I find it is a decently good thing to either attempt to clarify or at least to point out that what the person had posted has ambiguities and potential misleadingness contained therein.

There can be several factors to consider the extent to which someone might be overinvested into bitcoin, and even though a person is overinvested, the way that they are overinvested may well not have to end up in putting their own finances in considerable stress or peril, but maybe investing a 20% or 30% allocation into bitcoin rather than your having had planned to invest 10% to 15%, so maybe you are not in peril, but your position size is much larger than what you had planned.

Sure some of this might not make any sense for some of the guys who might ONLY have bitcoin as their ONLY investment, so then they might merely need to think in terms of how much of their cashflow they are putting into bitcoin and likely you mentioned if they are putting their monthly expenses in jeopardy or maybe ONLY having 3 months of an emergency fund rather than 6 months or more.. so some of these questions of being overinvested can be on the margins rather than absolute movements into an irresponsible approach.

Another thing could be that if your bitcoin is getting to levels in which it constitutes 50% or more of your annual income and you have no other investments besides cash, you might need to consider if there might be some ways to diversify without necessarily going into shitcoins.. and sure maybe you can play the BTC accumulatoin to even higher numbers such as 1x or more of your annual income, and perhaps when it starts to get to those kinds of levels if you do not have access to investing into equities, bonds, property or commodities, then the only other thing that you have is cash, and sure some folks will keep some value in cash (maybe the dollar instead of their local fiat), but even keeping in the dollar and/or dollar equivalencies  will loose value over the long term, but it may well be one of the better ways of dealing with BTC's volatility if you end up holding so much of your own networth in bitcoin as probably your BTC will continue to grow, and if dollars are the ONLY thing that you are able to hold to offset bitcoin volatility, then you should be holding much more than 3-6 months of emergency expenses, maybe you have to double that, so if the BTC price is dropping you will have that money to buy on dips perhaps having some for buying all the way down to 20% lower than the 200-week moving average.. but even if you are using some of that money for buying bitcoin on dips, you also have your emergency funds that maybe would continue to be larger and so you might not even risk having less than 6 months of an emergency fund once you get to those higher levels of BTC accumulation and if BTC happens to be your only asset.. yeah you want to keep accumulating it, but you have to hold more cash if you have not figured out some other investments (not referring to shitcoins, except maybe less than 10% of the size of your bitcoin holdings)..


You do not seem to be framing this in "long-term" investing kinds of ways.  Long term investors do not necessarily need to consider about any harvesting, even though sure they may transition out of accumulation and into maintenance which would likely thereafter start to involve selling on the way up and maybe even making sure that some of your investments are sufficiently diversified.. so the consumption may well be included in there too.. but there would need to be some ways of transitioning into a kind of maintenance, and if that means you are at or near fuck you status, then maybe those could be ways of harvesting, or if maybe you are not thinking in terms of fuck you status, then I am not sure how much we would be on the same page in terms of how to think about the various harvesting or maintenance or just the options that any of us likely have when we have been in bitcoin long enough and we have accumulated enough to be able to experiences some of the extra freedoms that come from transitioning more into maintenance stage riather than accumulation stage.


Well, if we look at the fact that we might ONLY be able to invest $100 or less per week, and then that it would take $200 per week for 10 years to have some kind of chance of reaching 1 BTC, then maybe we have to acknowledge that 1 BTC is not realistic, and maybe we should be shooting for 0.5 BTC or something else that is more reasonable.  Sure, there are likely balances between creating realistic goals and also being able to achieve the goals, so there could be some goals that might be out of reach, but they are aspirational goals and we might say to ourselves that it does not seem too likely that I am ever going to get to 1 BTC in 10 years, and so I am shooting for 0.5 BTC in 10 years.. and if I reach 0.5 BTC earlier then, I can reassess the situation.

Another thing might be to exstablish the goal in terms of dollars, so that you might say that I am going to invest between $50 and $250 into bitcoin per week for 10 years, and I expected to on average invest more than $100 per week, so I should be able to have $52k invested into bitcoin after 10 years.. If things go well then I will end up having more than that then amongst the better of the scenarios would be that I could get up to $130k invested, and surely the worse case scenario would be having around $26k invested... but the base case is an expectation of having had invested $52k after 10 years.

That is a flexible goal and it is in terms of dollars rather than in terms of bitcoin, which likely makes more sense especially since it is difficult to know what the BTC price is going to be... and if things change for us along the way, such as our income increases and/or our expenses decrease,  then maybe we are able to change the range to be from $150 per week to $400 per week because we have been able to increase our disposable income along the way and to strike a balance that we believe would be better for our situation and allow us to adjust our targets too, depending on when the new plan goes into place, and these kinds of adjustments could end up happening several times within a 10 year time frame.

The extent to which we create too much stress upon ourselves is a product of our own choosing.. especially if we are setting our own goals rather than letting someone else tell us what our goals should be.


It cannot necessarily be easy to talk with people about how to invest for the long term, and even starting out with 4-10 years or longer might not be enough.  I can say that I invested in bitcoin for 10 years, and this is my level of profits, but the fact that bitcoin performed well over the last 10 years does not mean it is going to perform similarly in the next 10 years, so surely investment strategies have to be adjusted to the person and even a realization that it might take longer than 10 years to really start to feel compounding effects, even if someone is starting right now.

There is ONLY so much hand holding that any of us should be willing to do, especially since each person needs to be responsible for his/her own investment choices, and it might not be a good idea to get into an investment advisor position with such a person, and even investment advisors likely are not able to guarantee results, and they make sure that the client is making the choices or agreeing to the allocation strategies.  Investment advisors tend to take a fee which could be a flat fee or it could be a percentage of the earnings or maybe in some cases, it is both.

Ok.  I will admit.  That was somewhat deserved.

 

Sucks to be me.

Do you even know how to clarify information?

That is an article from about 1 year ago.. so by today, if they had followed the plan, then they should have had bought around 365 bitcoin... but do we know if they followed that plan to buy 1 bitcoin per day for everyday for the last year?

It seems to me that there is nothing wrong with having goals, and maybe considering how realistic the goals are and/or what is the reason for something like a 1 BTC goal.. it is a bit of a unit bias kind of a setting, and like I mentioned earlier, if someone were either brand new to bitcoin or just recently beginning to accumulate bitcoin, then having a goal to get to one bitcoin in 10 years, would likely require around $200 per week invested into bitcoin... for those persons who do not have the cash to front load their investment into bitcoin.

So if we attempt to be realistic with our goals, then we may welll also like to have short and medium term goals too that might involve what are we attempting to achieve this year and maybe what are we attempting to achieve in the next 5 years... so in the end we could have several different kinds of short and medium term goals that could be working towards the achievement of the longer term goal that might seem quite far off.. something like 10 years or even having goals of 20 to 30 years is also not unrealistic, even though they might have a lot of complicated steps along the way that might end up causing them to need to be adjusted later down the road if it might appear that we are not on the right track.

Let's get back to the 1 bitcoin in 10 years goal, and even if a person realizes that there likely needs to be around $200 per week invested into bitcoin in order to make such goal realistic, such person could still maintain such goal for a while even if the first year, s/he had only been able to invest $20 per week, but there may be some visions regarding how the income might be able to be raised and/or how the expenses might be able to be cut in order to bring the weekly amount up to $200 per week.  At the same time, if after about 5 years, the average bought per week had only been around $100 per week, then there would be a lot of short fall, and maybe even a need to get the weekly amount up to $400 to $800 in order to be able to still be able to reach the 1 BTC in 10 years goal, and maybe by the time we start to get to 7 or 8 years, there could be some acknowledgement that it might end up taking somewhere between 12 years and 15 years to reach such 1 BTC goal.. so there could be a lot of ways that the aspirational goals end up playing out in terms of perhaps being a bit high.. or even in some other cases, the goal ends up getting reached much sooner than seemed possible, and so adjustments could be made in regards to reaching the goal sooner than expected, and maybe even considering that some of the goals that were created were NOT hard (and/or high) enough.


Frequently, I tell people that bitcoin is an assymetric bet to the upside, which largely means that several of the very bullish scenarios have the potential for very stupendous returns that are not limited to the upside, but as long as the person is not fucking around with their finances and using leverage or other forms of gambling, then the most that they would be able to lose would be 100%.. but there are a lot of variations in what they could potentially gain that is not limited to 100%.. but it is not even guaranteed to be 100% or to be anything, so they could gain or they could lose, but there are surely are a lot of strong bitcoin fundamentals that help to establish that if they have a genuinely longer term investment timeline of 4-10 years or longer, then they could choose a variety of ways to invest by DCA, lump sum and/or buying on the dip that could help them to establish a stake/position and to have potentials to be able to profit, but then again if they are dragging out their investment through slow measures, then their earlier investments are going to reach the 4-10 year time horizon faster than their later investments,  so for example, if they are still investing 4 years from now, then the investments that they make 4 years down the road should also have a 4-10 year investment time horizon from the time that the money is injected into the system.

The creation of longer term investment time horizons does not absolutely limit someone from being able to do whatever they like in terms of pulling out their investment, even though it is likely better to choose to invest smaller amounts and to maintain a longer time horizon rather than investing larger amounts and not being able to stick with the investment because the money is needed down the road because sufficient cash and/or other liquid short-term investments were not sufficiently maintained.
 

Position size can help with these kinds of concerns too.. so if the person is overly worried about being able to take out his/her investment, then maybe s/he needs to lower his/her position size in order to be able to continue to invest without getting overly preoccupied about shorter term price movements... so maybe instead of investing $100 per week, he might invest somewhere between $25 and $50 per week so that s/he is not overly pre-occupied about how much is being invested and/or the short-term growth of such investment.. and so maybe after 8-10 years, there might be some changes in perspective and at least by then the investment has been allowed to grow and maybe even to compound by its having had gone through cycles.. and surely sometimes later down the road, there could be some regrets about not having had invested more, but the balance likely also does have to do with being able to stick with the investment. 

That is not a bad question.  How often do we need to move our coins and/or go over our security.

Actually frequently if we change our security practices, such as changing devices, then many times a movement of coins is justified because if you merely upload your seed phrase into an additional devise, then you have likely created two points of vulnerability rather than what you might have previously been considering as ONLY one point of vulnerability prior to moving to a new device  - or even if your decision to change systems might not have been motivated by security issues, the maintenance of only one seed and two devices may well have ended up creating a security issue that might not have had previously existed.

Surely, I am NOT into the idea of moving coins for the mere sake of moving them because sometimes moving the coins might create security vulnerabilities.


I know that there is resistance in the water, but I am not sure if swimming would be enough on its own, and surely the older that peeps get then some amount of resistance training might become even more important due to loss of muscle mass... I have also read (and considered for myself) that sometimes we have to be careful about doing too much cardio-related exercises in the beginning of our exercise sessions because it could contribute to our skipping the resistance training portion of our exercise session.


You do what you want you little twat, yet I would suspect that there are better ways of making your point, and our proclaiming someone is wrong with their views.. if that might be part of your intentions here... Sure, you are wanting to suggest that something about Jimbo's whole word view is wrong, and surely some of those matters are discretionary rather than absolute, so why would you believe it is helpful to project your world views as if they were superior, especially when getting into the discretionary applications... Doesn't seem to serve much purpose from the view of this here cat, and maybe that is why I kind of categorize you in my head as not being able to resist the employment of a lot of disingenuine cunt behaviors.  In other words, you don't even seem to be trying to really consider any other viewpoints besides your narrow and largely perverted ones.