We all know the rules of the game and rule # 1
"Don't invest more than you can afford to lose."
If HODLING is the strategy then selling and buy are the tactics.
Here's my post warning people about "Don't invest more than you can afford to lose" when the price was $325. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=843822.0It was f-g brilliant, albeit we bottomed at more than 20% down from there ($170 vs $325), but who is counting?  . Incidentally, that was about when Taihuttu sold his house and everything else for btc and became a traveling btc nomad. I wish that I was a bit more of an aggressive buyer back then or in 2015 during our "flat btc" era, but you can't buy 'them all. |
|
|
|
Poor again.
Come on show us your new buy orders? Au contraire, I just fired off a transaction to load some coin onto the exchange. Not sure when I'm going to pull the trigger, but going to take another low 7 digits in profit to calm me down. Shouldn't need to sell any more until the ranch gets nearer to completion; at least a year away. Heard back from our accountant, and quarterly reporting is pushed out for another month, so I have more time for a price recovery. Would like to go at least a full quarter before I consider selling again, and even then, that'll likely be a big *IF* depending on circumstances. everyone buys and sells when they must...that's all. |
|
|
|
Oh, gawd, this dude has no clue, apparently. This kind of attitude needs to be fought tooth and nail or bitcoin fungibility would be in question. I've got some Caucasian-mined btc for a low low premium of 50%. I will be entertaining the offers shortly.... |
|
|
|
The role of bitcoin (just the current role  ) is played by Bernie "Mittens" Sanders and Bilal is the current market vibe. lol. Hopefully, it would reverse soon. Honestly, i just like the vibe-could listen to it many times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0iraPdxD9Q |
|
|
|
Man, the 59-60k range is proving to be a right pain in the ass
Why? It surely beats going down. This stability is rather fake and won't last, imho. Frustration is mostly felt with stupid coins popping left and right, not with btc itself. |
|
|
|
Aha, now I see. Lender makes a btc transaction to the borrower. So, no longer the lender's keys. This checks out. If the btc are not back by the given time, the collateral is released (to the lender, I suppose). So the risk would be an insolvent borrower AND the collateral not covering the "new" value of btc at loan expiry. This also checks out. What does not check out is the following. Imagine being the borrower. Imagine being asked for, say, 200% collateral. Maybe in USDC/USDT? OK. So at expiry, if the btc you borrowed is worth more than the collateral, why give the loan back? Let the lender just have the collateral. On the contrary, if the btc you borrowed is worth less than half the collateral, give it back of course, and keep your relatively precious collateral. In other words: a shorter's paradise. (EDIT - No: it's more like an arbitrage, since it's impossible to lose if this is all there is to it.) Am I missing something? It's obvious I am, but I don't know exactly what - or I wouldn't be missing it Another thing that escapes me: if you can post, say, 100k usd collateral, why would you borrow a bitcoin rather than buying one - or two? For simplicity, I'm assuming 1btc = 50k$. Biodom, have you been able to figure this one out? Just sounds like market forces then. Gotta predict what's going to happen and hope for the best. Either side could win or lose. Yeah, market forces - but would you lend your btc in such a scenario? I sure wouldn't. Or I would ask for maybe 500% collateral, so I'm covered if she makes less than a 5x. No borrower in their right mind would put up that much collateral if they have it in a blockchainable form, that is, in some crypto token as opposed to, say, real estate. Imagine that on top of this, there's interest to be paid(borrower)/gained(lender) too - which means even more incentive (statistically) for the borrower to stay insolvent and let you have the collateral if number go up enough. That's why I think I've missed something. Possible, it is difficult to say before the proposal is fleshed out, but you are probably right: if the value of loaned btc exceeds the collateral (they are talking 200% of current value), then it could be beneficial to the borrower to never return the loaned bitcoin. However, this could be remedied by simply buying a call option at 200% current price. then, it is just a matter of whether that call option has a larger premium than what you get from a loan. If yes-no deal, if no-deal is possible. All and all-not for the faint-hearted, but but there could be some takers, especially if btc slows down from 200% a year. |
|
|
|
[...]
Main theme: You still have keys to your btc, but able to lend it out.
Sorry, Biodom, but the above highlighted statement doesn't make any sense. Either you misread it, or they're lying to you. Believe me, I am skeptical myself and so far never lend out any, but you can call me curios since there is no tax event, no wrapping and no cough-eth-cough involved. Here is what that head honcho says (scroll down to especially 6-9 in the thread)...and don't shoot the messenger: https://twitter.com/muneebmy guess would be that most risk would be that btc price growth might exceed the posted collateral. If so, this might be a weakness. Is that head honcho trustworthy himself? Remains to be seen, but they were associated with George Gilder afaik. |
|
|
|
|
Here is an interesting question to ponder: If a 'shitcoin' only wants to work with bitcoin and simply wants to build smart contract functionality on bitcoin, then is it a 'shitcoin' or maybe a Robin to btc's Batman?
We already have Liquid, Microsoft ID and now another one (check yourself which one it is), which you can stack using bitcoin blockchain.
Incidentally, it is up a lot today, probably mostly because it's head honcho declared that they will have btc borrowing capability with NO asset exchange or wrapping (pure btc lending with NO third party, all on btc blockchain).
Sounds unbelievable, basically a decentralized Blockfi.
I am quite curious about it. Main theme: You still have keys to your btc, but able to lend it out.
Not sure about specifics, which are important, of course.
|
|
|
|
why don't they start with lowering their FAT fees to 0.5% or less (from 2.5%) 2.5% fees are ridiculous for 38bil in btc. Barry got too complacent and got hit with a negative premium. |
|
|
|
|
What's the big deal with the 60K number? There is nothing special about it, in my opinion.
Not sure why all these up-down moves around this particular value.
Are we going to see this happening now around any multiple of 10K number?
|
|
|
|
long time no posts.
more than a 3 hour gap!
"news at 11...@philipma1957 fills the notorious gap in WO posts with his selfless writings." bitcoin is resting on it's laurels at 58.3K, sleeping like a child. I don't mind. Shhhh...let's close the weekly (by EST) in 12 min, albeit some count Saturday night as the week close. works for me. bedtime is coming up ⬆️ well, daily tiny up (0.1%), basically flat, weekly up 4.86%. |
|
|
|
long time no posts.
more than a 3 hour gap!
"news at 11...@philipma1957 fills the notorious gap in WO posts with his selfless writings." bitcoin is resting on it's laurels at 58.3K, sleeping like a child. I don't mind. Shhhh...let's close the weekly (by EST) in 12 min, albeit some count Saturday night as the week's close. |
|
|
|
I always check the price every hour (mostly..).. So I can know if I have to sell more or not. Gotta look after that 0.2 BTC stash bro! I just found out recently that I had them from back in the day on the main keys. Thats to be very happy about, having lots of bch .... what you doing here actually.... A debatable point, but the way US tax instructions are written, one possible interpretation is that if you did not split BTC and BCH/BSV, you are not in "actual possession" of BCH branch coins. Once you 'split' those two, BCH and also BSV upon further split becomes an 'income' with tax due. That said, it is a point that is being discussed. Of course, if you had BTC on exchange and they split BCH for you, the tax was due when they did it (the tax season after that financial year). Therefore, dormant coins might have bch in them due to no fault (or desire) of the owner. |
|
|
|
Today's Saylor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s-A_TK8gNkEDIT: It used to be ( I read about it somewhere recently) that the only thing engineering elite needed to say to get all funds they needed for 50 years was "Russia". Now, Saylor very smartly reduces the needed argument for governments to stay away and allow as much innovation in bitcoin as possible is also one word: "China". Not a good start; "...MicroStrategy owns 9000 Bitcoin." Michael Saylor "90.000!" What an insult. he had to correct the host: it's all math and science  |
|
|
|
Today's Saylor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s-A_TK8gNkEDIT: It used to be ( I read about it somewhere recently) that the only thing engineering elite needed to say to get all funds they needed for 50 years was "Russia". Now, Saylor very smartly reduces the needed argument for governments to stay away and allow as much innovation in bitcoin as possible is also one word: "China". |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
