you are right, that was clearly -and expressly, purposefully- overstated of me.

I know the turmoil you are talking about which of course also traders have especially with large sums, even if they are not beginners anymore.

May be when I say holders, I should probably say permabulls: those who incite themselves for every new high on social networks like if they were some sort of secret society against the rest of the world .. that is the target of my invective.

The point I was trying to make is something different as you can guess: for some accumulating is just a way to avoid making any decisions; it's just a way to keep telling themselves that bitcoin will always rise no matter what. Against the institutions, against the banks ecc ecc I already explained how I see this

So my point was: usually markets prove wrong these kind of approaches, I was just asking myself if it happens again before flying to 50k and making all these conspiracy theorists "rich" and happy

thanks for your answers, and please let me articulate better what I think.

Have you ever visited a symbolic place BEFORE the social networks came up?

Like, I don't know, eating a piece of the famous cake with your wife at the the Sacher hotel's restaurant in Wien; or taking a walk along the Adrian Wall in Scotland or I don't know finding yourself in a spot in some city where some important or historical picture has been shot and suddenly realizing that you are there, in the very same place?

All of this, any of this, could feel unique especially if you do that with someone you love in your life.

Now, try and do that NOW, now that social networks have completely eaten everything. No stone has been left unturned: that feeling of uniqueness, of discovery is truly always harder and harder to find, because everyone can "reach" anyplace and anything and make it "social", "trendy", trivial.

And this is the point: when you watch them taking selfies, let's say in a place that you discovered with your own efforts (or with your own casuality) you think to yourself: how can they consider themselves UNIQUE if they are doing something so common, so predictable, so "social"?

That's it. That's the exact same question that I have when I think (and read) about holders, or better said HODLERS.

They like to think themselves as someone who is going against something: against the system, against the herd, against the institutions, against the banks.. but they are all the same: they ARE THE HERD..

They are exactly like tourists with your special places on the social networks, with all their passwords and hashtags: #planB, #StockToFlow, #disrupting, #shortthebanks, #neworder ecc ecc

When, let me say that again, all they really want is just a piece of the pie. Like anyone else, like you and I.

And what I have learned from the market is that herds are usually punished.

My sadness, my disappointment was just may be having to realize that this time being herd pays off.

That's all

since I discovered this crypto market I have always been fond of trading, and I have always tried to train and educate myself to improve my skills.

On the other hand I always had to live side by side with those who call themselves holders, i.e. those who don't take decisions.
They just accumulate no matter what, based on the faith that bitcoin's price will always increase (I said price, not value, on puropse. They talk about disrupting, about new order but all they care for is to have a share of the pie, like anyone else)

Now, this is the exact opposite of what I think of investing: blindingly relying on something that you cannot control but, for the time being, they are being proved right.

If it proves right that the real, deep power of bitcoin is scarcity, and that this scarcity will always push its value (and price) higher, IF this is true, what sense does it even make trading bitcoin?

I mean, you could always do it of course, but there's no much relevance about it..

on the other hand a trader could argue: "look at gold. Gold is scarce as well but it's not always rising".

yes of course, but at the same time it will unlikely come back to its lowest prices, to the price levels of, say, 70s or 80s..

Don't get me wrong, I still hate holders ok, with their mantras, their plan-b and stf shit, butwhat I mean is may be they are right. May be BTC is in that phase where it still pays being herd, the herd of holders..

I was thinking, may be I was wrong: miners DO sell!! Indeed they need to sell in order to gain a profit and make their mining sustainable.

The interesting part is still trying to figure out possibile scenarios after the halving takes place.

Let me understand something: the moment after the halving takes place miners will be earning approx 50% of what they earn now, is this right?

Because they still have the same costs but they get 50% less bitcoins for every block, so they can actually sell 50% bitcoin less. Is this right? (of course this is just for sake of understanding, this willingly ignores hypotetical hashrate reduction and eventually difficulty adjustment)

what I could criticize here is: I don't see any correlation between hashrate drop and a price decrease.
it seems to me that the opposite happens: first the price decreases, than hashrate follows:



please explain, thanks

yes but the point is it's still a game for amateurs.

can you go into a bank and buy bitcoin? no (and don't say this would be the opposite of what bitcoin means because that just isn't the case)
can the average investor buy bitcoin like he would do with apple amazon or facebook? no. ok, he can still buy futures from cme but that doesn't mean buying bitcoin of course and you wouldn't agree because of course you probably think futures are evil..

so, if we are all smart (you not me, as I already said) and all bitcoin amateurs are smart, who the funk buys bitcoin?

you can't compare halvings with one another just like that in my opinion: local price movements, especially within smaller TF, really don't mean that much.

Context also is completely different: expecting that price will follow the footsteps of last patterns may still happen, but isn't the right mindset in my opinion

yes, help me out here ..

we know for sure that if there's anyone who is definitely NOT going to sell any btc after the halving takes place, this is the miners.

Ok, he miners won't sell.
We won't sell either but we won't even buy, because we are the smart guys (not me, you of course).

So, who the f**k is going to buy btc?

that's my simple question


ps: I assume mediatic hype about the halving already had its peak last week, so unless a new high is reached I guess main-stream media won't be talking about bitcoin anymore for the time being

interested too, did you find out eventually?

wait a minute ..

I still have my VETs .. I have my VET funds AND new VTHO funds .. I kinda like this .. 

Hello I have one question:

some days ago I woke up and found that all of my VET funds on Binance had been automatically converted into VTHO..

Now, I guess this was all perfectly scheduled and it was just me who didn't know about it (I also found this announcement from Binance that should explain);and that's not the point indeed: what I would like to know just is:

• what difference does it make?
• considering that Ledger Nano S does not seem to support VTHO but just VET, what the hell do I do ?

thanks

Hey Carlton,

it's quite singular that you mistake trying to understand for "complicating" ..

if I wanted some suggestions on what to do without knowing what I am doing I would probably follow your advice. But I am trying to comprehend how this works: if you can help on that, fine; if you wish I would follow blind instructions that's not the case.

I see you haven't changed since the times of Bel Air, always blindingly trying to feed your ego  .. Massively.. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cpVFkF2dno

ok, thanks

so you are confirming that this type of interaction is sort of platform-related, meaning that it won't be the address to stop you from moving your funds but rather the platform which hosts that address if that platform is not up-to-date yet. Right?

This should explain your suggestion in the end: i.e. a P2SH  <-->  bech32 transfer from BitStamp to Ledger will not work; but a P2SH  <-->  bech32 transfer from Ledger to Ledger will work because Ledger's software is "ready" to that. Right?

Guys,
please allow me to tell you that you are not good at explaining and informing. It's not enough in my opinion to research and study, because if you can't explain a concept (simple, like this one is) concisely and with simple words to someone who is trying to understand, that's not exemplary in my opinion.

It took days and days of posting and in the end I had to be the one to come up with the simplest and most efficient of tools: a simple table. A plain. Simple. Table.

All you could provide were fragmentary, incomplete, disjointed and often conflicting pieces of answers. Ok.

That being said,

now please let me try to sort this out once for all with my humble tools and knowledge.


Now, if the info shown in the following chart is correct (and please don't bother remarking minor misunderstandings in the attempt to reaffirm your expertise: it should be clear by now what we are talking about and what I am focusing on)

Address Format	Beginning with	Age & Diffusion	Synonim to	BitStamp Supported	Ledger Supported
Bech32	bc1	Most recent one, still not massively widespread	Native Segwit	no	yes
P2SH	3	The "classic" one, the matter-of-fact standard as to adoption	Nested Segwit	yes	yes
P2PKH	1	The "old" one, doesn't make much sense anymore to activate this kind of address now	Legacy?	we don't care	we don't care

how is that even possible to perform the kind of action suggested by these users?





If the BitStamp address (which is in the P2SH format as we confirmed) is not able to send funds to a bech32 address in the first place, how can I send them from BitStamp to a P2SH address and THEN send them to a bech32 once again? If these two kinds of address don't interact with eachother from BitStamp towards Ledger, why would they interact from Ledger to Ledger? I would have done this in the first place straigh from BitStamp, wouldn't I?

Does this imply that the compatibility between the two address formats is not "address-related" but rather "platform-related"? Let me repeat that: Why if these two kind of addresses don't interact with eachother from BitStamp towards Ledger, why would they interact from Ledger to Ledger??


Is it so bizarre assuming that such an important focus should be explained and taken care of when answering to someone who is asking for information, who is trying to understand how the hell all this works?

Don't you agree with me, men?

so it should be a Nested Segway, like you guys mentioned.

Now, the point is: if I wanted my amount of btc stored in the latest format (bech32 - Native Segwit) and given that BitStamp does not provide this kind of transfer, what can I do?

All I can figure out is just

• withdraw to a "regular" Segwit address (starting with 3) for the moment
• wait for Bitstamp to upgrade
• move the amount back to bitstamp, on a upgraded Native Segwit Address
• move it back once again to your ledger nano s, this time on a Native Segwit Address

any wiser suggestion?

ok, this may be the answer I was looking for:




source, Ledger's own support page
https://support.ledger.com/hc/en-us/articles/115005195945

ok thanks, thanks for your explanation.

I perfectly understand your technical approach, but when I ask


what I am trying to do is try do understand in the first place is the meaning of this picture, i.e. the meaning of the difference between segwit and native segwit in this particular case.


as you can see, the picture doesn't mention bech 32, nested or whatever. It just mentions segwit vs native segwit, and I have to figure out which is which. That's why I asked

I need to understand: if I choose Native Segwit I am choosing a Bech32 format address (which now we discovered is not supported in BitStamp), but if I choose the other option, which is referred to as just Segwit, what the hell am I choosing??

That's what I would love to understand before setting up the address

so, I got the answer from BitStamp Support. They confirmed that at the moment they don't support withdrawals to Bech32 address formats, and suggested me for a P2SH format address: does this sound somewhat new to you or is it one of those kinds we already mentioned?

thanks to you both for your answers and link suggestions.

In the end I opened a ticket with BitStamp Support and asked them about it, after all that piece of news dates back to 2017: probably it just referred to Segwit, not native segwit.

And in fact my personal BTC address on BitStamp begins with 3, as you mentioned.

let's hear what they say