In my earliest days, I think that I might have had right around 50% of my BTC on exchanges, but spread across something like 10 or them, but that does not help too well if you get sim swapped and then the hacker is able to get into several of your accounts somewhat simultaneously.  I think around 2017, I reduced my on exchange exposure to less than 25%, and then maybe 2020 or so I reduced it to around 15%, and in the last couple of years I reduced it to below 10%.. I think maybe in the ballpark of 6-7% or even less..

I think that when my Binance US order hit, for some reason that was the largest amount that I had on anyone exchange that was set up in sell orders between $30k and $130k-ish.. and my goal at that time was to have all of my sell orders set to $150k, and I was able to accomplish that on other exchanges (just smaller amounts), but on Binance US, they had some kind of a technical limit (at that time) that did not allow me to se sell orders higher than I had them set, but now they allow up to $150k, so I kept my sell orders there.... and that has pretty much been my practice since around 2015 or so when I first created my system to sell would be to have my sell orders already set up to an amount that the price could go up quickly, and throughout most of 2020 and 2021 the sell orders inched up higher and higher.. even though it is a bit crazy to keep them in place, even though the price momentum has been downity since November 2021...

I think that part of my rationale in recent times has been to keep ONLY as much value on exchanges as I have my sell orders already set, and the rest goes into cold storage (and maybe just a slight little cushion on the exchanges that might constitute a few extra sell orders if I were to want to quickly sell some extra cornz.. which usually does not happen, but I just want to be able to do it if I want to.

And getting back to binance US, gosh at most that would have had been 3% of my total BTC stash.... but I think that it was closer to 2%... so I am not sure how I am coming up with my numbers except that it was probably somewhere between 2% and 3%, and  part of the reason that I was swimming from the results of all of those sell orders getting filled is because it was so unexpected to both have all of of the sell orders fill but then it was almost equally unexpected that the price came back down completely almost immediately, so I was able to buy back within about an hour or so around 60% of what I had sold (that allowed me to reestablished my sell orders) and then I just set the rest into strategic buy on the dips all the way down to $13k, but the vast majority of the extra buy on the dip orders were between $30k and $26k (every $500 increments, so that would have had been around 9 extra quantity buy on the dip orders.. and it seems that I might have had thrown some extra ones in there for good measure...

so maybe at this point, I have used about 75% of the proceeds from that fat finger mistake to make BTC buys and make extra buys and some people might be asking how can you have been able to have so much fun with only 0.63 BTC, and that sounds like a don't kiss and tell kind of a question...and by the way, even though I am also so excited about the range of all of the sales, it seems that the average price per sale was still only around $65k. so there you have it .. spilling my guts kind of an update, maybe repeating some stuff, maybe contradicting old stories and maybe even embellishing with a few fun bits.

Oh.. wow...and the honey badger video was a bit scary.. to watch..


Speak for ur lil selfie.


Have you ever heard of bitcoin?


Woa.

Can't merit that.. except maybe just to send my condolences.. and my congratulations that it was "only" three cornz.


That still does not mean that miners have any choice.  If the BTC price does not go up to above their costs, then they will have to choose their course of action accordingly, including shutting down and including difficulty adjustment to the downside which includes miners disappearing.

There is no guarantee for the BTC price to go up merely because it is currently costing the miners (as speculators) a lots of money.  

We likely know that some miners are wanting to force other miners out.. that is the more efficient ones are already ready for less bullish BTC price scenarios and they will take the coins that the less efficient miners give up by either shutting down or being forced to shut down.

But sometimes they get shocked because their manipulation attempts are no longer working, and those who failed to stack and/or sold too much too soon. .end up getting reckt.


Gosh the whole thing is a question.

Surely comes off as a kind of rhetorical question.

Even though there is likely some tension in the air.. and even in seemingly silent periods in bitcoinlandia.. there are always happenenings behind the scenes..

No?


Fixed it for you.

Fuck haikus.


You suck!!!!!

Or might we say, lackening in creativity?  that is a rhetorical question.


Cited for image... but still $80k top.  You are bearish..   or is it a bear wannabe?  or is it a contradictory person who does not know which way or how much he wants?


Sounds like a way to attack bitcoin, by playing the "foreigner" card.  No one really likes foreigners, right?


Hahahahaha

Now I don't feel so bad about my previous posts... suggesting that you might maybe perhaps be an actual dummy.




#nohomo



Fuck shitcoins all night
and all day too lil haikus
Think shitcoins; get reckt

Quoted for the image.  Even with your explanation, I am not sure what it means.


So you are saying one last down before up?

Where and when have I heard that before?  It surely does sound familiar.


Was there SEC news (yesterday)?  That's news to me.  I am thinking that nothing happens without a link.  Maybe it is just me. #justsaying.


We don't even need a loader to move our cornz around..   They are light as a feather.  Even lighter than a feather if you think bouts it for just a minute or two.. but surely the little twat.. aka.. exphorizons... might not really be thinking too much anyhow..

What a deal.


Hm?  It does not really seem to be the time to be adding lower buy orders.. .. but hey, you do what makes you feew MOAR gooder.

Personally, I have kept mine down to $13k.. but I am not really opposed to removing the ones between $13k and let's say $17k-ish.. but I don't really have any compelling reason.. so I just leave them.. .. If I had some extra surprise cash come in, then maybe I would just add to the quantities of my already existing buy orders between $23k and $26k..maybe even add one or two in the $26ks  .. but hey surely each of us strike our own balances... in accordance with our own particulars.


Copy cat.... Lightning does strike more than once... once in a while.. it is rare.. but it does sometimes happen.

By the way, a little tighter in the increments and a little less greedy in the amounts would probably be a better course of action.. so that you don't have to hold so much value on exchanges.. .. but yeah.. I know.. peeps gonna peep.

That reminds me.. I cannot remember if it was you who was picking on me because I said that my executed BTC sell orders in June 2023 had ONLY constituted around a couple percent of my total stash..... I cannot remember what I said exactly or if i might need to recalculate, and from that I was feeling like I was rolling in doe ..and I still kind of feel that way.. .


Don't be begging for DOWNity... It is not very bitcoinerie... hahahahaha

not that you give too many shits while you are hugging your hypothetical T-bonds.


I agree with you about the likely randomness of the mainstream medias coverage of bitcoin and their other likely various kinds of distractions into misrepresentations and misleadings, especially that they are likely not very clear what they are talking about much of the time in their interspersing the c-word...

and by the way, I am pretty sure that dip below $1k was around early March 2017, and we have not seen sub $1k ever since... I think that we got a dip below $2k in August/September 2017.


Who cares about this shitcoin?  NVDA

hahahahahaha

apparently you do...sucks to be uie pooie sometimes, no?  distracted into non bitcoin markets.. No homo .really..  .. it could be worse, since not that it is completely bad and/or distracted information because at least it kind of somewhat might relate to bitcoins in terms of it having technological implications in the meat space.


It's not that futile to have some directional bets.. and I think that part of the reason that some of us bitcoiners are doing so well has to do with our inclinations regarding bitcoin.. yeah, we don't know for sure, but our bets on our inclinations have been working out pretty well and likely to continue to hold up pretty well as long as we error on the side of accumulation and/or hodling our coins...

sure, some of us might have too many cornz, so we have more flexibility, but still.. even a guy with 20 coins might be feeling pretty damned good these days, even if he might have made some historical mistakes in regards to acting a wee bit too whimpily.


That's good...even though you seem to be a wee bit more prepared for down than necessary, but who am I to say for your own calculations of your own circumstances.

Yeah.. you must be smoking something... because this here cat would not seriously recommend 20x or even 2x, unless I was trolling a troll... which does happen once in a while but not very often.. .. I mostly speak about consistent and ongoing accumulation and not using leverage or margins or any of that bullshit.  I also speaking about being aggressive, but usually not about being that aggressive because most people nearly need to be getting the fuck off of zero, rather than fucking around with various gambling techniques, especially when it comes to king daddy.


Fuck that confusing shit about crypto.  I don't even know what that is.

Are they saying that Ferrari is accepting bitcoin and some other shitcoins too.. that would be dumb.. I could not bear to read it past the few times I saw the word crypto and almost vomited from dizziness and confusion.


Hahahahahahaha


I like it.

sometimes it is necessary to go to 11 just to get that extra boost.


Did you bring it up to 11, or merely stay within the usual and boring 1-10 range?

It seems to me that DCA is the best in terms of practicality - especially since a considerably large number of folks (perhaps even an overwhelming majority) don't even have any kind of lump sum investment funds available to them to even have that option, and even if they did, they might be better off to figure out some kind of strategy to spread out their investment rather than putting it in all at once.


I frequently tell people that it would be good to think of their BTC investment in terms of 4-10 years or longer, so in that regard, if someone starts a DCA strategy that s/he is intending to invest $100 per week (which would be $5,200 per year) for the next 4-10 years, then they are still building their investment with each time that they buy some more BTC... so there might be some point in which they either say that they invested enough or that they might start to think that the could increase their investment to $200 per week or reduce it to $50 per week.

And if they get a bonus payment from their work of another $5k, they might consider whether and how they are going to invest that into BTC, and their decision might well depend upon where they are at in their BTC accumulation journey.


Hopefully, it is ultimately a balance, and some people really enjoy certain kinds of activities, even nerdy ones, so it is not like it would necessarily be an all or nothing approach, yet at the same time, when someone is brand new to bitcoin, it may well be a lot better for them to attempt to employ a system that does not take up a lot of time.. because they likely would have already spent  some time just figuring out their bitcoin sourcing... maybe setting up accounts to buy bitcoin... and maybe they have one or two jobs that take a lot of their time and a family and maybe some other stuff that they either like or feel obligated to do... so then at some point they might be weighing how much time they are able to spend to study certain aspects or to try to determine if the BTC price is dipping, why it is dipping and if it is going to continue to dip.. which after they do the whole assessment, then they might still end up being wrong. .so then there could be some value to just being a lot more modest in their approach and so then something like DCA could end up building up a decent amount of BTC over 4-10 years without even giving too much thought to it.. and maybe just reading about some BIGGER areas, or listening to podcasts, but not really getting into particulars of trying to predict if the BTC price is going up or down in the short-term.. which surely can be time consuming and even adding some unnecessary stresses.

I will admit that I might not understand your point because, and maybe to some extent we are arguing about semantics.

I understand the difference between what is expected to be issued versus what actually would end up being recognized as issued if further digits beyond the first 8 were to be recognized starting from 2048, but it still does not fundamentally increase the supply - that is currently existing..

...but yeah, the expected supply ends up increasing, but in my thinking still seems to play out like a big so what because it is within the parameters of expectations of what could happen and stays within the math formula that was originally envisioned, but merely getting carried out by recognizing digits further down the chain.. and so then even in 2140, the mining reward continues after it has become sub-satoshi levels per each 10 minutes, but still those rewards would add up to more than 1 satoshi if considering the daily issuance or the yearly issuances or whatever other timeframe that we might want to consider in terms of that future issuance.. the issuance that is already there but not being recognized by the current software...

...so I might be too dumb, but I still don't consider those further digits as new supply even if they are adding up to greater than satoshi units when they are added over multiple blocks, and again, maybe we are arguing about semantics because I surely understand the point that you are making, but still I don't think that the more coins resulting from the sub satoshi recognition of coins matters if we were to label it as new recognized emissions or if we were to label it as staying within the rules while at the same time recognition of already existing emissions or whatever we choose to call it... we know that the coins will not go above 21 million under either of those kinds of formulations no matter what we call it because it is just a matter of continuing with the already agreed to pattern and merely recognizing coins of smaller sizes that end up adding up to larger sizes in the aggregate. .but still seems like a big so what that is more of a good thing than a bad thing..  and I see no meaningful change that prejudices anyone and I don't even understand why it could not be backward compatible. to merely start to recognize (in 2048 and thereafter) further digits beyond the contemplated 8 below the decimal place.

I don't disagree with anything that you are saying vjudeu because I understand the idea that 21 million will never be reached, except in the hypothetical of infinite digits.. yet even if an extra digit is added every 4 years starting from 2048, I cannot see why any of it really matters, even if bitcoin might end up lasting another 10,000 years until the year 12048, and then by that time how many more digits would we have?  And would it even be necessary to continue adding another digit every 4 years after a certain point maybe it would not be worth it.

So if bitcoin were to continue to exist 10,000 years after 2,048, then every 4 years another digit would be added, then that would be "only" another 2,500 digits... at some point it seems like it would not be worth it.. but it is difficult to say at which point without seeing how bitcoin plays out in terms of its various human interactions in the coming 10, 20, 50, 100, 1,000 and more years prior to speculating out 10,000 years to 12048 which is way too far out there, anyhow.  I think that it partly goes to the problem of repairing the plane while it is flying but at the same time, we should not be adding some of the features until they are needed anyhow, and we are not going to know exactly which pieces might or might not be needed, so there will be some needs to add the parts (and pieces) as bitcoin goes rather than being to specific about its trajectory before it happens.

Your analogy is not completely bad Patrol69, but it still seems to be a bit off.

Hopefully no one is investing in bitcoin (or anything else) with 100% of his/her available money in order that s/he will die or suffer irreversible damages financially and/or psychologically.

With investing, there are ways to take position sizes and also a variety of ways to employ incremental approaches in terms of accumulating a position size that will likely play out better than making BIG bets, and I guess my objection to your analogy is that there can be a lot of ways to play /invest in bitcoin conservatively and still come out on top, including that you might not need to know very much at all.  There are folks who could have had gotten involved in bitcoin and invested $10 per week over the past 9 years with an investment of about $4,700 and currently they would be sitting on right around 3.8 BTC.  Of course if they had invested 10x as much they would have 10x the returns too, but in either of the cases, the person might not need a whole hell of a lot of knowledge about bitcoin in order to take a BTC accumulation approach that could still end up profiting him/her stupendously without knowing a whole hell of a lot.

Yeah.. but we are not talking about changing the size.  We are talking about recognizing the 9th digit in 2048, the 10th digit in 2052, the 11th digit in 2056.. etc etc.. and it does not even seem very controversial.. especially if there were to be some kind of meaningful software that gets implemented and the peeps just start to run it.. ¡Viola!!!   softfork implemented.


You might be talking about increasing the number of coins.  I am not.  Increasing the recognized digits does not increase the number of coins.

Sure part of this topic is the idea of "tail emissions," which would be increasing the number of coins, but personally, I am not even talking about that part..

By the way, I agree with the overall idea that increasing the number of coins is not likely going to be very acceptable by hardly anyone already in bitcoin, and that idea had already been quite strong from the beginning of bitcoin, so hard to even hypothesize that anyone would want to change that or even consider scenarios that increasing the number of coins would be justifiable.. even if it might be through some kind of a fixed tail emissions..


To me, it still does not make any sense.. and so maybe it is just me?

I thought that in the current models (the Trezor 1 and the Trezor Model T), whether it is bitcoin ONLY or multi-coin is a kind of a software setup.  So when you initially set up the device, you can choose whether to set up for bitcoin only or for multi-coin.. and if you want to change back to the other, then you have to erase the device and start over. 

Or maybe I am wrong.. in the older devices it is firm ware, but the firmware can still be changed back and forth, no?

So now, in the newer version, there is a kind of difference in the hardware that the consumer has to choose which one and cannot elect how to set it up after receiving it?

I think that it bears repeating that even if someone were to invest $10 per week for 4-10 years and then feel that s/he had reached his/her accumulation goal, at that time the transition would not be to just cash out and say "I made it; I have more options, now."  Instead the transition would more likely go into some kind of a maintenance stage that might involve less investing and then maybe even cashing out some from time to time.. so the maintenance stage could last a decently long time, depending on a person's age, and once the person reaches such maintenance stage, s/he can devise strategies around spending bitcoin from time to time and perhaps strategies that might involve regularly cashing out 1-4% of his her BTC stash per year at various times, and the amount cashed out may well depend on BTC price performance. 

Once a person reaches such stage, the size of the stash and various other personal particulars will help to dictate various ways to deal with the stash and to enjoy the fruits of having more options.. and surely maybe even spending 4-10 years building the BTC stash might start to already show that options are increasing along the way, and changes to the amount invested could be tailored in order to account for how the changes in options are playing out.


You make a lot of good points in your post Riginac111 - however there were several points in which you seemed to have had messed up the quotes, and there were at least two places that I was reading my own words, even though they appeared as if they were your words... so that is a mistake that comes from messing up the quotes.

Sometimes with quotes, we want to try to quote smaller portions of the earlier post in order that we make sure that the quotes come out correctly, and I know that I will sometimes also quote long sections of someone else's post - especially if I might be commenting on the whole thing... but in any case, my point is that sometimes it gets confusing if the quotes get mixed up, then it can become unclear which part you said and which part someone else said.. and even who said what?


Whoaza MusaPk...   You should be careful in the way that you describe that DCA calculator.

It is not showing you results that you can expect to get, but instead it is showing you results that you would have had gotten if you had DCA'ed in the way that you input into the various fields that are contained therein.

So surely past results are likely not going to be the greatest in terms of projecting what might happen in the future.. so we need to be careful in terms of describing past results in that kind of a way.

Don't get me wrong.. DCA is likely amongst the best, if not the best method to accumulate BTC for an overwhelmingly large number of normies, and BTC is likely among the best, if not the best, asset to be investing into, especially if you have a 4-10 year time horizon or longer and you tailor your BTC investment approach and level of aggressiveness in accumulating it to your personal and/or psychological circumstances.


That's true.  You can see how effective that DCA has been in the past, and hypothesize how effective it can be in the future, including how effective it is likely to be in the future, but you cannot guarantee that it will be effective.  One of the greatest of underlying presumptions in regards to DCA working out is that the BTC price needs to ultimately go up to prices that are higher than your average price per BTC by the time you sell them, but it is not guaranteed to go up, even though many of us recognize bitcoin as a very strong and/or solid bet based on a variety of factors, including its ongoing building of network effects due to its strengths as the most sound of money that the world has ever witnessed, and to have been accomplished in a digital manner which brings many additional features of portability, divisibility, ongoing verifiability, etc.


Sure.  It is possible to customize DCA in a variety of ways that may well help to cause the BTC investment to be less risky from a personal approach because it is tailored to the circumstances of the individual to account for each of the individual factors.. but merely attempting to make a strategy less risky will not always result in less risk because sometimes people make mistakes in regards to either their attempts at timing and also in terms of their position size.. so mostly when we are attempting to consider the trade-offs of less risk we also are likely attempting to account for a variety of other factors that may well also include considering how much time that we are spending to employ such strategies, is our information better as compared to just employing a more blind and regular strategy.. .might we be spending our time in other useful and enjoyable ways and maybe even increasing our cashflow so that we might merely be able to buy more bitcoin on a regular basis rather than fucking around with studying charts and maybe not even getting our calculations correctly when we could have used our 1 month worth of time to earn an extra $1k or $2k and then use most if not all of that extra money to buy bitcoin directly on a regular basis without spending so much time trying to figure out short term moves and getting them wrong 30-60% of time time.


Sure.  But I doubt that you and I are saying the same thing when referring to what are the "basics" that a person might need to know when first starting to invest into bitcoin.

I mostly suggest to people to get the fuck started buying bitcoin and start as soon as possible, even if you might only start with a small amount such as $10 per week when you could easily afford $100 per week... so in that regard, I am saying getting started is more important than trying to figure everything out and then learn along the way.. and so the basics are getting your finances in order in terms of your cashflow and figuring out how much extra that you can have in terms of buying bitcoin. 

Sure, it is likely to at least have enough confidence that buying bitcoin is going to be good for the long run, but you likely do not need to know a lot about bitcoin in the beginning in order to get the fuck started investing into it, and probably the less that you know, then the smaller position size that you are going to take in the very beginning while you are hopefully learning about it, and if you are able to study and learn quickly maybe you will take 1-2 months to move your position size up from $10 per week and up to $100 per week, but if you don't have a lot of time to study bitcoin, it could take you one or two years to get your shit together in order to increase your investment size up from $10 per week to $100 per week.

So each person is responsible for themselves in terms of how much time they are able to put into studying and figuring out bitcoin, and surely I understand that there are a large number of people in the world who are ongoingly struggling to keep their daily lives going so they do not have a lot of extra time in order to study and figure out bitcoin, so it is more difficult to suggest what they might consider doing to try to improve their knowledge and/or their cashflow so that they are able to buy a bit of bitcoin and to maybe be able to spend time learning about bitcoin in their free time to the extent to which they might have any free time.

I am still not suggesting delaying in getting started in bitcoin, but there still are likely circumstances in which normies have to juggle a variety of their issues in their daily life to dedicate some time to learning and/or scrambling to get a bit of extra cash that they can put into it... and do these things simultaneously while getting started and adjusting their position size and approach to their level of understanding of various basics related to themselves (most important) and basics related to bitcoin.. such as how to get it and how to store it ..even though in the very beginning they might use a third party.. while they are figuring out various other storage options that might be available to them and even later down the road to get into more and more self-custody.. presumptively the longer that they are in the more value that they would presumptively accumulate in bitcoin.


That sounds like a lot and maybe even unrealistic.  Most people are not able to save/invest/set aside 40% of their income.


We are not really talking about selling in this thread.  We are mostly talking about various ways to accumulate bitcoin by buying and HODLing rather than selling.  Better to start with the basics first, which is figuring out ways to buy, and surely if you might have had run out of money, from time to time, then maybe in those cases you might HODL through the situation.  Otherwise, it is probably best for the newest of BTC investors to constantly be considering ways to buy bitcoin. and don't even be worrying about selling.. especially in the beginning.  Now if you have been into bitcoin for a while and you learn about bitcoin then maybe you can develop more advance techniques that involve selling, but that surely is not the basic thrust (and topical discussion) of this thread.


You (Taskford) still seem to be talking about techniques involving position size and psychology... and frequently psychology can be managed through position size ... which surely starts from learning about yourself rather than getting caught up upon the various particulars about bitcoin.

Don't get me wrong, I have no objections towards normie newbies spending time learning about what they are investing into in order to develop more and more conviction.. but at the same time, some of the earliest things that they likely need to know merely has to do with how much extra money that they might have to be able to buy bitcoin, so they may well spend a lot of time, just setting up accounts and/or finding connections regarding where to buy bitcoin.. which is also going to vary quite a bit based on geographical location.

I am pretty sure that I agree with almost everything that you say bitterguy28 if you are talking about bitcoin - and surely you use the term crypto, so then I become confused if you are talking about the same thing since we are not talking about Crypto here in this thread... and therefore I am a bit unclear why you choose to use the word crypto.  Is it necessary?  Does it add anything to what you are saying?  

Surely investing in crypto is likely to be risky as fuck, especially if we might not even know what it is that is being referred to.  I surely wouldn't invest much if anything into crypto.. maybe a few percent of the size of my bitcoin, and I could understand that some people might want to play around with a higher percentage of their bitcoin stash.. but still going any greater than 10% would be difficult to justify absent some kinds of compelling reason about one or more of the shitcoins and then that investment would be particular to that particular one and how it might compare and contrast to bitcoin... but still we are not really talking about those kinds of considerations and calculations in this thread.

Do you think that if you changed your use of the word crypto to bitcoin, then you would be able to say the same thing that you already said, or why would you have felt that you need to bring up crypto when we are talking about bitcoin in this thread?  

Do you think that the same principles apply to crypto as apply to bitcoin?  That is confusing to just think about and surely I have my doubts..

I think it is a distraction, a bit misleading, and potentially gets us off track to be using the word "crypto" without clarifying what it is that you consider that you are talking about and/or making it clear why you chose to use such a word when you might have had really meant to use the word bitcoin, but you wanted to sound smarter, so you used the term "crypto" to suggest that whatever you were saying had broader applications beyond bitcoin.. Is that it?


I don't want to get into too many details in this thread, and sure there likely are variations from country to country, but also sometimes there could be rogue actors who work for the companies too (at the employee level that end up getting access to such information and they could be part of the problem).

I think that more and more protections have gone into place since early 2017, at the time of my incident, but there are still incidents of sim swaps still happening through various weak points that might exist.. and surely hackers are able to stay up-to-date on some of the latest and greatest of possible vulnerable areas.

Sometimes they might not need very much information because if they get one or two of the passwords to your e-mail, and then they change the e-mail password and then they might log into various websites in which recovery of the password is the e-mail or the phone.. so then once the get a few of these pieces, then they don't need the password, and they can reset password and even sometimes set up things in their own name and surely they have orders to things in terms of which accounts to get first before going after subsequent accounts.  Sometimes people are not even available and realizing that they are being sim swap attacked until the next day because they might not be getting notifications, and surely one of the things that was strange about mine is that it seems that I caught it right away, and so I called up my phone company and they switched it back to me but then it kept switching back to the hacker.. so it wasn't like I wasn't trying to stay on top of things, but surely mistakes end up being made on my end too.. because sometimes there can be false senses of security when getting access back to the phone and/or the e-mails that were used.. but then by the time that the hacker goes through with the attack it seems that there might be multiple persons and/or a team doing a lot of things at once. .and even faster than you might think that they are able to do and questioning if you might shutdown your various bitcoin related accounts before they log into them.


There sometimes can be some ways that some data can get leaked and you might not know that they got your password.. to an e-mail or something, and so once they have their foot in the door they might be able to get at other things and reset other things.  Sure there can be ways to use different e-mails for resetting or even using various authenticators and/or UBKey type devices that would make it more difficult for an attacker to get into as many accounts.. and using Sms authentication does tend to be a weak point when hackers get your phone number.


 Of course, when electing between asset classes, and getting involved in shitcoins, then there is a need to consider both upside and downside rather than just upside potential.. while at the same time, I was not really talking about shitcoins, so the framework could be that as long as you understand that you can lose 100% of your bitcoin investment, then you should be able to invest (or position size) according to that understanding.  In other words, each of us should be prepared for the possibility that bitcoin could go to zero... so if we invest accordingly, we still could end up profiting a lot, even though we were prepared for the possibility that we might not profit.

If you don't use leverage or engage in other crazy ways of investing into bitcoin, then the most you could lose would be 100%... but if you do some of that leveraging and/or gambling with your bitcoin, you could either lose more or just lose it way faster, like several of those folks who were investing into various scams in 2021/2022 and many of them came crashing down (such as Celsius, Voyager, Blockfi, FTX, Terra/Luna, 3AC and maybe even Genesis and GBTC going through some of those uncertainties.. and sure there were some others, too), and some of those guys lost a lot of money, even though bitcoin did not go to zero..  Some of us regular BTC HODLers suffered from the BTC price going down, but then some of it has since recovered.. so we might not feel too bad as long as we continue to hold BTC and also some of us continued to buy BTC when the prices were going down too... or just buying on a regular basis, which should prove to be a decent way to have good potentials for longer term profits (but not guaranteed to accomplish such).


At least you should be making sure to monitor your cashflows, and if your expenses are in some kind of a fiat, it is good to make sure that you project out your cashflows for 6 to 24 months.. and account for regular expenses (fluctuations in cashflow that could come from changes in expenses and also changes in income), and also maintaining some kinds of funds in a kind of emergency fund.. which may well be in fiat because that would most likely be how the emergency expenses would get paid if such emergencies were to occur.
 

Yes, I am sure some of the frameworks that "influencers" use are better than others.. and repackaging of good ideas does seem to happen, whether here or through some of the influencers, and surely whether you are communicating with me or you are considering what any influencer is saying, there are likely some times when you will disagree with parts, but you might not exactly know why right away, but surely the back and forth can create for some kinds of active and interactive learning where you end up learning more because you engaged in some back and forth, some skepticism, some critical thinking and probably overall trying to apply the ideas to your own ideas and/or practices.


Yes.. maybe I assumed that once a person has already decided that s/he is getting into bitcoin, then that person is largely considering position size and how to advance from being able to invest $10 per week and getting up to a higher amount, such as $100 per week.. S/he already had the conviction, and surely there are so many people who do not have conviction, and maybe they still might choose to invest $10 per month because of their skepticism...

but if they cannot even bring themselves to do anything , then they will just have to enter bitcoin at some later date, which might be 1-2 years later, or maybe 5-8 years later, or maybe 20 years later, but the person who got started earlier is likely going to be in a much better position than the person who is taking longer to get past his/her skepticism.. and we cannot force the matter, because no coiners/low coiners will come to bitcoin at their own pace, and surely some of them might be rich enough and/or smart enough to make up for their not having had been involved in bitcoin earlier, but surely I have my doubts about the later arriver going to be able to catch up to an equally positioned earlier arriver... of course, no guarantees, so we don't really know for sure.


 I think that is probably the main point, and surely people will frequently try to fight ideas of getting into bitcoin and sometimes even have some valid excuses of messes in their finances and/or psychology... but that seems to be mostly a position size situation and also a kind of learn as you go and organize yourself while you are going kind of a situation.. and bitcoin has the potential to help people with their finances and psychology, but it could take 4-10 years or longer to play out before starting to feel the improvements and/or the increased options that come available.. again, not guaranteed.


I am glad that we got that cleared up, then.

I tend to write the vast majority of my posts on a computer.  It can be a bit difficult to type very much on a mobile device, unless maybe there might be a keyboard or an ability to use reliable diction.


An overwhelming majority of people are not able to invest 30% to 40% of their regular income to buy BTC or even to make any other investment/savings... even though surely there are some who are able to do it and even some who force themselves to do it by cutting their expenses and living very humbly in light of their income.

Many people do not save or invest at all, so getting them up to something like 10% tends to be a BIG improvement in terms of what they had been doing, and surely I am not against the idea of investing more.  I had some times in my life that I was investing close to 40%.. but most of my life I stuck with around 10%.. so situations will vary and people can ONLY do what they are able to do, and sometimes, they might start out small and work up to larger amounts with time and paying a lot of attention to what they are doing which presumptively would be purposefully focusing on increasing their bitcoin holdings/exposure.


I have a couple of concerns.  

First, I doubt that looking at bitcoin in terms of whether it is dominant or not is a very good and/or helpful way of looking at and/or considering the extent to which bitcoin is a good investment (as compared with other possible investments).

Second, it is a bit sloppy for you to suggest that there is some kind of a guarantee in bitcoin, even though bitcoin has been a good investment and has decently good chances to continue to be a good investment, it is not guaranteed to have "satisfying results."

I think that bitcoin was created to kill the dollar, even though it could take 100 to 200 years to play out.

Bitcoin is the most sound money every in existence, but bitcoin would not be able to transition the whole of the world's finances in a short period of time, especially since it has take nearly 15 years to go from zero to perhaps somewhere around 1% of the world's population invested into it... or having some level of exposure that might be even considered as low coiners for some of them.

Both systems have to exist in parallel, and sure there is not exactly a dollar system, even though the dollar is the most dominant of the fiats, so there are a lot of fiats, a lot of shitcoins and a lot of places that value is inefficiently stored, and bitcoin is going to eat the lunch of those various less efficient value storage locations (whether we are talking about fiats, or gold or properties or equities or the other various places that value is being stored) and bitcoin will serve as both a place to store value and a place to transact value, yet in the meantime, why are we going to spend our bitcoin when there are less efficient fiats (and other kinds of value) that we can spend first?

Anyone who uses money that they need for their expenses to "invest" in bitcoin is not investing. 

Instead they are gambling.

So one of the most important things to contrast investing from gambling is to make sure that you do not need the money that you are putting in for a significant period of time.  Surely I have been recommending 4-10 years or more, but there could be ways to have tighter (shorter) timelines, and still not be gambling because you don't need the money for a significant amount of time that you calculate with some intention, especially if you are starting to use less than 4 year timelines...

If your timeline in shorter, and you are feeling a need to get price exposure to bitcoin in shorter than 4 year timelines, then you likely should be taking smaller (rather than bigger) positions when you go down such a shorter timeline path.

I think that a lot of people should be able to put away $10 per week (or even $100 per week) for years and years and years without really worrying about it - however, some people are still pretty damned poor and they might have to stop their DCA after a year or two, even if their exposure might not seem very large to the rest of us.. for example, a person investing $10 per week would ONLY have $520 invested after 1 year and $1,040 invested after two years,

yet that might be enough of an investment that they might feel that they cannot justify putting more money into BTC.. or maybe they just change their strategy to stop DCA'ing or to cut their DCA to a lower number or to replace or supplement DCA with buying on dips... so there can be quite a few ways to make adjustments to your BTC investment approach, even partially based on having have had built a decently sized position that gives more options but does not necessarily mean that there is a need to go from accumulation phase and straight to liquidation phase without first passing through a kind of maintenance stage.. Each person has to make these kinds of decisions about various transitions and even about how to move from one to another kind of phase with increments and without necessarily feeling that extreme changes need to be taken.

For some reason in my thinking SBF's behaviors seem to go much further than simple greed to the extent that we might believe that it was not a purposeful attack on bitcoin (with various behind the scenes actors... a kind of PsyOp involving the parents and various deep state actors, if you must.. am I starting to sound like torque?), but if we go with a more simple criminal actor and lust for power explanation (which it seems is that is a kind of preferable story.. figure out some way of throwing someone under the bus rather than looking at broader plots), it seems that Sam had been trying to take risk and to buy influence and thinking that it will all work out in the long run to but making BIG leveraged gambles because sometimes they might be able to acquire more and more assets and businesses with their fake money and then be able to siphon each of the businesses to keep leveraging and living large at the same time.

but.. then again, yeah, maybe that all still just boils down to various kinds of greed... some aspects of his BIG gambling plays did seems to be a bit delusional and surely sloppy.. so it all works if the money keeps rolling in.. but they way they were so irresponsible in their various trades did not really seem like it could have had been sustainable, even if they might have been able to keep it going for another bitcoin cycle (a BIG IF) because history ONLY ends up playing out one of the ways, so we are in a bit of a dreamland to ask what if FTX had not failed at that time and were able to get funding and to last through one more bitcoin cycle?  What if?  what would have had happened?  Seems like a fantasy to go down such a road.

That might be a good idea.

Maybe send 5% to 10%?  So if your life savings was 100 BTC then maybe send between 5 and 10 BTC and then see if anything happens.. or maybe just send a few BTC.

And if your life savings was 21 BTC, then just send
1 to 2.1 BTC

at most...

wait a week or two and see what happens... In 99.9% of the cases, they should all be there, but every once in a while (maybe one out of a 1,000 or maybe less) they might not be there... They should especially be there if you sourced your hardware wallet through an official distribution chain, rather than getting it from some discount (not correct/official) distribution source... but to be safe, as you say Gachapin, you might not be sure if your supply chain has been compromised.. so who wants to become a statistic merely due to a wee bit of laziness (or lacking in abilities to defer gratification) in terms of a mere 1 or 2 week wait?..   By the way, if you don't put enough funds on there, the hacker might wait a week or two, as well.. so even the waiting a week play might not completely prevent you from losing all of your cornz. that is if you do end up putting all of them on there.

I understand that some people like the idea of using 2/3 multi-sig.. but we also mentioned that has its own problems.. while at the same time, 2/3 multi-sig does make it more difficult to be rug pulled merely because of a problem of any one of the hardware devices.... but just seems like so much work to set up something like multi-sig. and the problems that Hueristic had pointed out with Andreas Antonopolis video discussing such multi-sig complication matters, too.


Pray tell.

I was going to say "link or it did not happen"  but instead I found my own link..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-fQ7i8q5C8

and then watched it.. ONLY 29 minutes (including the after-commentary), so at 1.5x only around 20 minutes.


That couldn't be a haiku..

but you had me anyhow, until you used the "c" word.


Why no link?

Why force us to search to see which parts of your post are quotes from the source and which parts are your own words?

I just came across this Athena-Alpha.com wallet review site.. It seems to be really good, and they give their highest ratings to the BitBox02 and to the Foundation Passport.  I did not go through all of the particulars in terms of the various faults (and/or lackenings) of various wallets that they reviewed... makes it tempting to buy either a Bitbox02 and/or a Passport... just to be trying out the stuff that has the highest ratings by seemingly professional opens source (privacy/security) wallet reviewers.

Here's their rating methodology too.

I saw it posted in one of the Foundation Passport threads.

I also noticed that since October 5, there is a new forum thread on the Trezor Safe 3.. but since I just found it, I have not gone through that thread yet.  It's ONLY on its second page, so it should not be too difficult to catch up on that thread.

Talking BIG?


I am not sure if I want to know details of such.



so the above excited utterance from me, may well just be a rhetorical question.


On the other hand, I could not really blame anyone for ongoingly injecting more buys at these price points.


I am not feeling any needs to tweak any of my current BTC maintenance/accumulation strategies that are more in the maintenance rather than accumulation direction, since whatever accumulation sets that I have had in place since about my June-ish accident has been playing out pretty well.. so far.

Not that I even expected this much down since June.. .. or even this much failure to go up.. but whatever it is really hard to be surprised and who really knows anyhow? 

I am not going to concede that there would have had been any better view of how BTC price dynamics would have had played out since June, especially since we seem to have been largely around the 200-week moving average.. sure slightly below currently, but nothing really to write home about..

And, part of the advantage of setting things up in order to be "happy" with either BTC price direction is just to let matters play out... and... I hate to repeat the substance of some of my earlier posts since I already largely said with a sufficient amount of specifics what I was doing in various other posts in the last 3-4 months or so.. which hasn't really changed too much.. except buys have executed that I did not really expect to execute.. and why complain.. made some BTC purchases.. yyyiiiippppeeeeee.. ..  I could add them up, upon request.... or some kind of a directed rather than general question.

It seems to me that the starting presumption should be that bitcoin is for everyone because bitcoin is open for everyone to choose whether or not to get involved in it, whether to study it, whether to invest into it, whether to develop upon it, whether to mine it.  Bitcoin is not closed to anyone, friends or enemies, governments or institutions, rich people or poor people.

Just because there are barriers and even people (governments) trying to stop normies from getting involved in bitcoin, that is not about bitcoin restricting anyone.  Bitcoin is open for everyone and for anyone... and some people might need to learn some things about bitcoin if they want to participate at higher levels of involvement. including if some people do not have any discretionary income then they won't be able to buy any bitcoin until they get some discretionary income, and sure, they could use bitcoin in a gambling kind of way, too.. no one is stopping them, but it probably is not good to gamble with bitcoin since it is amongst the best of asset classes that man has ever seen (if not the best).. .it surely is a product of current times, since bitcoin was not really possible in its current form prior to having worldwide ways of communication, such as bitcoin using the internet as a backbone, even though there can be other ways that nodes and miners could synchronize if the internet did not exist, but the internet surely helps to make bitcoin much more powerful than it would be under the use of other forms of communication.

In this thread some members seems to be mixing up outside forces and saying that everyone cannot get into bitcoin because some people have outside forces that they have to overcome in order to get into bitcoin and they might have to go to jail if they try to use or get involved in bitcoin, and surely those people have to make decision about what to do, but those kind of restrictions are not being caused by bitcoin.

Other members are saying that there are aspects of bitcoin that require money, time, or various kinds of knowledge, so surely it is true that some people in society have more knowledge, time and money than others, and so those barriers to bitcoin could have a disparate impact upon folks who are able to participate in bitcoin in terms of both quantity of participation and maybe even the kinds of participation.. but that still does not seem as if bitcoin is excluding anyone.. and yeah sometimes people are not going to be able to fix some aspects of their lives, such as money, time and knowledge.. but does not seem correct to be saying that bitcoin is not available to them or that they might not benefit from bitcoin even if they might not be able to involve themselves in it.

Holy shit, Hamza2424.

You know that a cycle is ONLY 4 years long?

And, sure maybe "we" could give you a wee bit of a benefit of a doubt and to suggest that you really meant two cycles.. this cycle and the next one, but that still ONLY gets you 8 years under the most generous of interpretations of your own words.

Maybe in the last almost 15 years we have gone from zero to 1%.. and gosh are we being generous with even thinking that 1% of the world's population somehow has some exposure to bitcoin that would mean that bitcoin is a priority for them?..

I have my doubts, but it is not easy to measure bitcoin adoption.. but we could say that 1% of the worlds population is right around 80 million people... so in the next 4-8 years you are suggesting that bitcoin adoption is going to be 20x to 30x that number.. which, with the same quantity of world's population would be 1.6 billion to 2.4 billion.

you seem to be a bit optimistic, and I cannot completely fault you with that because they numbers do seem to be reachable, but I question reaching them in a 4-8 year time horizon - even if we could realistically and reasonable figure out how to measure being in bitcoin in such a way that it is "a priority" for those who are in it.  On that side note, it is almost like you would be creating too many requirements.. because bitcoin accumulators/HODLers could go about the process in a variety of ways and even if they might have had created something like 1% to 25% as their bitcoin allocation level, there would be a lot of variance in terms of how to manage that too... and are we able to call some kinds of behaviors more in line with "putting BTC as a priority" than other kinds of behaviors?


Well, maybe it is worth it to attempt to clarify this point.. but the accumulation amount is surely going to depend upon your own situation, goal and timeline. .. and this might be another good reason to refer to my entry-level fuck you status chart.  Check this out: 


and surely we don't necessarily need to use my numbers.. in order to figure out our goals... but let's say that you have been aggressively accumulating BTC since mid-2020, and you have accumulated close to 3 BTC; however, when you look at the chart (or whatever your own chart), you see that you probably are going to need a minimum of 4 BTC in 10 years in order to really feel that you are at entry-level fuck you status, so maybe you continue to aggressively accumulate BTC and in the next 5 years, you are able to accumulate another 3 BTC bringing your total portfolio to 6 BTC, so thereafter you largely feel that you have reached (and surpassed) your BTC accumulation goal, and you have a bit of a cushion (perhaps 2 BTC greater than the amount that you believe that you need by the end of 2033... even though nothing is guaranteed in bitcoinlandia).

So what you going to do?

You surely are going to feel more free the closer and closer that you get to reaching your BTC accumulation goal, but you are also going to likely feel a bit of freedom once you surpass your goal and you might even start to play around a bit more with your surplus BTC because you have a bit of a cushion, and if you are smart and focused about it, maybe you will play around with any BTC that surpasses 5 BTC because you even want to keep a 1 BTC cushion from your bottom line amount that you believe that you need to have by the end of 2033 in order to be at entry-level fuck you status whether you use my chart or some other potentially reasonable chart.


I think that you are referring to psychology, right?

I agree that the more that you have a plan and the more that you attempt to stick with your plan, then the more likely you are going to gain confidence and/or comfort from that, and you might have even come to realize that so long as you keep your goals reasonable, prudent, conservative and something in your own grasp to achieve, then likely you have ended up surpassing your own goals in a variety of ways.


I am not going to claim to have understood that... but at least there's some information that I might want to look at more closely - even though it is another brand.. and a bit of a promotional piece. for BitBox02.. and I haver heard some good things about that HW wallet, too.