One of the greatest things about bitcoin is that you do not need to get a lot of capital in order to be able to invest into bitcoin.. You can invest as low as $10 per week or maybe even lower than that.. but surely you should be trying to invest as much as you are able to, especially if your amounts are so small.

Surely, you have to be able to get some level of discretionary income, and that is the amount of income that you have left after you pay your monthly expenses.   So if you never have any money that is beyond the level of your monthly expenses, then you are kind of fucked in terms of being able to invest into bitcoin and you might have to either work towards increasing your income and/or lowering your expenses, or perhaps resolving yourself to the fact that you are not going to be able to invest into bitcoin.

When it comes to investing into bitcoin, people with more discretionary income are advantaged over people with less discretionary income - however, even people with low levels of discretionary income can end up passing up people with higher levels of discretionary income because they choose to invest into bitcoin and an overwhelming majority (something like 99% of the worlds population) is not even investing into bitcoin, so there are a lot of people over which any of us can get advantage when we are investing into bitcoin and they are either not investing or they are going to start investing into bitcoin at a much later date than some of us earlier adopters.. and even starting out now, you are not too late.

Many of us have already acknowledged that some people might not be in a position to be investing into bitcoin or anything else because they personally do not have their finances in a good enough place, such as having some kind of an emergency fund.

I specifically asserted that the emergency fund can be built and buying into bitcoin can be accomplished at the same time; however, surely you might not be able to be as aggressive in your bitcoin investment during the time in which you are still building up your emergency fund, and you will be able to afford to be more aggressive in terms of buying into bitcoin after you have already established your emergency fund.

I personally doubt that very much, if any weight, should be given to your own predictions about if the BTC price is going to go up or down, especially if you are an admitted no coiner. 

Now, once you have established some bitcoin, maybe you have been investing $10 per week for  a year or something like that (so then you would have $520 invested.. it is still not a lot.. so even after a year, you might still NOT need to be worrying about which way you think the BTC price is going to go.. and even if you invest for 4 years, at $10 per week, you still would only have $2,080  ($520x4)  invested.. so maybe at some point you might start to attempt to be more strategic about your BTC purchases, but it seems like a pretty BIG ASS waste of time, as compared with just buying regularly in order to start to get your base up there, even if you might be buying some of your BTC at higher prices, you likely do not know enough about which direction the BTC price is going to go anyhow.. but if you do, hopefully you are not becoming too strategic about the whole matter and missing opportunties to just buy and continue to prepare yourself for up.

And think about it.. if you are starting out at $10 per week and then maybe at some point you are able to go to $100 per week or even more than that, it still could well end up taking you several years to get your bitcoin investment up to meaningful amounts.. With $100 per week and then 52 weeks in a year, so $5,200 per year, at least after 10 years you have invested $52k into bitcoin, so surely at that point you are likely going to start feeling that your investment size is getting to become a good amount, especially if BTC might continue to appreciate in value between now and 2033 (10 years from now).

Nonsense.  Diversification is not necessary. You are repeating a lie in at least a couple of ways:  1) you are misusing the term diversification to suggest that it applies to shitcoins or to investing into assets that are already largely correlated to bitcoin and  2) the practice of diversification (if it is helpful) is most applicable accross industry sectors, not within the same industry (or sectors).. so think bitcoin, stocks, property, commodities, bonds and cash/cash equivalents.. shitcoins ar not a separate sector they are related to bitcoin... largely as affinity scams.


That's dumb.

Just because others do it does not make it a good plan. or even make it necessary to do... sure you can fuck around with those coins on a short term basis, but it is not a good long term plan because you better know how to get in and out and how to not overallocate to such pump and dump crap.


There is nothing wrong with the concept of diversification, especially once one might start to get to a level of savings/investments in which it starts to matter.. but overly diversification can also be a lack of focus.. so there should be some balance in terms of how much time, money and energies that people can spread themselves out in order to get such diversification balance which will also partly depend upon how much time money and energy they have too.. so it is not a given that diversification is a good idea for all people in all situations.


That is a dumb and a false premise.

Shitcoins are not going to save you if bitcoin fails.


They might not be competing with bitcoin, but they are not adding you any kind of protection in the event that bitcoin were to go down.  Only ill-informed people think those kinds of things.. You have to really not know what bitcoin is if you are going to conclude that some shitcoin is going to succeed in the event that bitcoin is not doing well.


Another dumb reason to invest into something.. and you are admitting that shticoins are not an investment.  They are merely an in and out play.. so yeah, sure you can invest into some shitcoins, but it better not be more than 10% of the value of your bitcoin holdings, and maybe even 10% would be too much and  you surely are saying that if you do happen to fuck around with shitcoins you better know when to get in and when to get out, too.

Sure you are largely admitting that shitcoins are gambling, and surely gambling is not a very good investment approach.


Long term investors need to think about both upside and downside. not just upside.. so yeah if you are investing in shitcoins because you want upside, then surely you have to make sure that you are able to get out without getting too worried about holding them for the long term.. or hopefully not getting trapped into holding them longer than you should.


I doubt that the bitcoin halvening is priced in... and the fact that you are already admitting that the market reacts in unpredictable ways likely shows that the halvening is not priced in.


This makes some sense in terms of the tailoring that anyone should be attempting to perform when they decide the extent to which they should spread themselves out.

I agree with the other points of your post.Moreno233.

But in the above cited portion, you fairly accurately described what MSTR is doing.. which is that they have been buying BTC fairly consistently based on their own cashflows (what capital they have available) and they do not seem to care too much about price.. they just seem to assume that BTC is mostly going to go up in the long term, even though not really being sure about what BTC is going to do in the shorter term. 

That pretty much is DCA.. even though you said that they are not doing DCA.  Probably the ONLY things different from DCA is that they are trying to front load their investment.. and their increment for buying and/or considering to buy seems to be on a quarterly basis (or at least they report what they did, if they did anything on a quarterly basis).

In MSTR's case, it may well be that front loading really does not make too much if any kind of a difference in regards to their largely ongoing buying of BTC in a kind of DCAing approach... that also might not be exactly on a weekly or monthly schedule, but seems to somewhat be quarterly. .even though there have been some quarters in which they did not buy any BTC.... yet I do believe that they are assessing what to do in regards to bitcoin, if anything, on a quarterly basis.

Waiting for the dip is not always good. Although I am not yet an investor, I have observed some movement in the Bitcoin price chat. I wanted to buy Bitcoin when I had the money and, as of then, Bitcoin was $20k, but I didn't buy it because I did not have information and any strategy that I could use to accumulate more coins whenever I have more money saved separately for investment. Since I joined this forum, I have learned how to apply the DCA method whenever I start accumulating BTC. Bitcoin investment is productive when an investor has a strategy.
[/quote]

Waiting for the dip is not always good.. especially if you don't have any bitcoin.

If you are waiting for the dip, then you are preparing for ONLY 1 direction, which is down.

One of the basic ideas of learning about bitcoin is to prepapare yourself for either BTC price direction, which largely means that the overwhelming number of people (including uie-pooie) don't have enough BTC.. they (and you) are not prepared for UP.

How do you get prepared for UP?  You start buying and you continue to buy until you have reached enough of a BTC stack size that you feel that you are prepared for UP.

So get started sooner rather than later rather than being a no coiner.. and sure it is better to be a low coiner rather than a no coiner and even better to be a lowcoiner who is constantly trying to increase his/her BTC stash size rather than a lowcoiner who is just waiting around and not doing anything besides talking about possibly getting some BTC some day.

The power is in those who act and also in those who try to act in a reasonable way that they don't cause themselves to have to lose their coins.. so whether that is $100 a week or $10 per week or some other amount that you believe is sufficiently aggressive but not too aggressive that you end up having to sell coins at a time that is anything but at a time that is of your own choosing.


Bitcoin is whatever you are able to make it to be, including a way transact and move value and also a way to store value that so far has seemed to have had been not very correlated to traditional asset classes.  Of course in the short term there are some kinds of correlations and even seemingly correlations that people frequently misread their meanings... Better if none of us is getting distracted in our attempts to pigeon-hole or limit what bitcoin is, even though surely bitcoin does not do all things, but it does create a lot of strong incentives in terms of serving as the soundest money that the world has ever seen including the value of it being very portable, very verifiable and something that bitcoin users are able to secure on their own without third parties.. even if sometimes there can be some technical challenges in regards to the various ways that individuals might choose to hold their coins and those systems are still evolving, some of them more user-friendly (and secure) than others.

Rome was not built in a day, however the network effects^** in bitcoin keep building (and growing).. whether you want to believe (or recognize) it or not.

**Referring to those 7 network effects outlined by Trace Mayer.

In other words, there is no need to show a complete country or a complete system operating on bitcoin in order for bitcoin to be successful because little by little bitcoin is getting into each and all countries.. and still bitcoin is likely less than 1% of the world's population of adoption - scattered all over the world.. so bitcoin exists in an overwhelming number of countries around the world.. but for sure in no kind of a dominant way.. because bitcoin is existing side by side with various fiat systems that are likely going to continue to lose more and more of their value into bitcoin.. so in that regard, we have the greatest wealth transfer in the world going on right before our eyes, even if some people (probably and overwhelming majority of the people because otherwise they would already own some) are failing/refusing to see it.

Maybe when you get to a stage in which you are starting to get ready to diversify, it will start to make more sense which place to either start to put value or to lump sum into it.  Surely one of the advantages about bitcoin and dollars (or whatever is your fiat), you can fairly easily get in and out of them, including that you are able to put small amounts at a time. 

Sometimes it can be more complicated with something like investing into property or like a business, but sometimes the property could become logical since you might be living in it as well.. but at the same time, it is not very liquid or moveable.

Sometimes with something like stocks you have to figure out how to open up an account, and you might even have to have a certain amount of value that you have to be able to put into it.. and perhaps that's part of the appeal that a lot of normies have when it comes to getting into shitcoins instead of some more traditional investments, and perhaps some of the shitcoin and bitcoin space might contribute towards making some of the traditional investments more available and easier to get into.. one of the things that people like about something like Robinhood.... but there are becoming more of those kinds of services.. but still 3rd party risk with those kinds of accounts.. and for sure KYC. .yet in my view, there can be some advantages towards having both KYC and non-KYC.. and of course, there are ways in which bitcoiners are continuously trying to figure out more ways for a circular economy in which there are several non-KYC transactional and interaction options.

At the risk of my being redundant in this post as compared with my earlier post on the topic, I am not sure if you need to reach 1 BTC.. It is sort of an arbitrary thing to focus on 1 BTC when it might not be a practical goal.. but surely that is up to you and your capacities and your timeline. 

Any amount of ongoing BTC accumulation is likely to put you in a better place so long as you do not overdo it and cause yourself to have to give up some or all of your BTC...

So I would suggest to try to consider being practical in terms of whether or not it is a good idea for you to focus on an arbitrary goal of 1 BTC merely because someone else said that 1 BTC is good.. without even knowing your particular circumstances.

One of the best things that any of us can do when it comes to bitcoin is to allow bitcoin to help us to be able to figure out our own financial and psychological circumstances and thereby be able to tailor our BTC accumulation to our own particulars.. 

I already account for the need or the preference to change strategies as you accumulate more bitcoin and as you become more familiar with bitcoin (and even your own particulars).  If you are brand new to bitcoin and you hardly have any clues, you may well be much better off just setting some kind of an automatic buy of $10 or $100 or whatever happens to be your amount and don't think about it for a few years and then perhaps come back and study the space more at a later time or maybe after you have spent some time investing, the growth of your investment (merely from having had been buying for a decent amount of time) might thereafter inspire more studying into the topic. and even to be directed in such studying based on the performance (or lack of performance) of your BTC portfolio.


You still have to spend time learning about what is "more efficient" accumulation, and you are not going to know as a newbie and you are going to have to spend time studying.. and sometimes people don't have time, so it is better for them to just employ a more strict DCA approach.


Yes.. someone who already has a lump sum of value is going to have more options.

many times people do not have lump sums of value that they are either going to put into bitcoin or want to move in order to put into bitcoin..

If you have a lump sum available for investing into BTC, then you have three categories which is lump sum buying, DCA and buying on dip.  So a default division might be to divide such lump sum into three rather than thinking about all or nothing in terms of any one of the categories...

I have never suggested to ignore those three categories, even though DCA does tend to be better for most people and most people do not have lump sums.  I also don't necessarily consider that new cashflow coming in has to be DCA'd. so for example if a person has $100 per week available, he could choose to divide it into two.. half for DCA and the other for buying on dips.   

And again complete personal discretion and it is good to know the three categories and to figure out how much to emphasize on each one, with perhaps the default being DCA until getting up to a certain level of BTC.. and so as your BTC portfolio gets bigger, your options increase too, which tends to remove DCA from the default position.. especially if you start to become more informed about various aspects of your finances, your psychology and BTC.


I fixed your link.

Of course, that website can show you how many dollars you would have spent for $100 per week over a 9 year period and also show how many BTC you would have gotten, and of course, the upcoming 9 years are likely going to result in way fewer BTC.. Yes.. the last 9 years ended up getting you nearly 39 BTC for that $100 per week... and the next 9 years might well not even get you 0.5 BTC for that kind of level of weekly investment into BTC.  WE cannot tell for sure, but we an tell how aggressive that we are able to be in terms of our own life balances, and also realize and appreciate that there are no guarantees in regards to whether we made the right choices in terms of our chosen balances (what we invest into, how we invest and how much).


You don't seem to understand bitcoin very well, jasonjm. 

To get a bit of a better perspective, you might need to zoom out a bit and you might even need to study what bitcoin is exactly.. and how it adds to the various kinds of incentives that are likely going to change the way that people invest... even though it could well take bitcoin more than 150 years to get to its value in respect to gold for example. which would be around 1,000x gold or more.

So how do those dynamics of sound money work?  Value gravitates into it in the long run even if a certain amount of fuckery, misinformation, manipulation still may well be contributing in the short term, but the longer that bitcoin is around, the more people are actually learning about it rather than spouting out ill-informed talking points which seems to be what you are doing jasonjm.

I am surely not trying to disrespect any of your own personal discretion because each of us have to figure out the various kinds of balances that we are going to make, including the various ways in which we either get bitcoin exposure and/or the various ways that we might be able to hold our bitcoin in private ways and even categorize the various kinds of bitcoin stash that we have.

I am not even saying that any of these balances are easy, yet I still become somewhat uncomfortable when historically some people engaged in such whimpy bitcoin accumulation strategies and they had financial means in which they could have easily UPped their bitcoin accumulation game without even putting themselves at very much risk.. besides having to have some KYC bitcoin and also perhaps some temporary exchange (third party) risk depending on how much you might choose to keep on the various exchanges or if they may or may not allow for being able to withdraw the BTC.

I surely suggest NOT letting the perfect become the enemy of the good in terms of potentially unduly limiting your own BTC accumulations more than maybe your future self might have preferred you to do...and at the same time, you are totally in charge (and responsible) for your own ways of balancing these kinds of matters...

and I also realize that sometimes people will handicap themselves on purpose because they do not actually believe in bitcoin as much as they might claim to do.. (and there is nothing wrong with that).  We surely have had some people who had regretted their earlier whimpier approach to BTC accumulation, and then they realize later in life (after the BTC price is 10x or 20x or some other multitudes/magnitudes higher that they need to become more aggressive in their BTC accumulation.. and again there is nothing wrong with any of that because each of us "get bitcoin" within our own timing .. which may well end up being at a higher price than our earlier times in bitcoin.


That's true...

I had to LOL at this one..

 


I doubt that Saylor thinks like that.  You can listen to him and hear that he does not think like that.

In other words, there are no reasons to take profits in dollars.. or to trade or to get your investment capital back in order to lower your basis from $30k to zero.... if that is how you are thinking about it. No need to engage in that kind of selling currently or even if the BTC price goes up from here to $200k. . which results in Saylor's/MSTR's stash going from $5billion to $32billion.

You heard of the concept of letting your winners ride, haven't you?  Saylor seems to be a "let your winners ride" kind of a guy... and he can spend bitcoin as business expenses and remember he has his own BTC stash around 17k BTC or so.. maybe he has more, but geez, he is not even close to desperate in terms of places upon which he could draw some value, if he felt that he needed to buy another yacht or whatever.

Sure, he can do whatever the fuck he wants and even change is mind and/or his practices, but I see no reason to lock him into some kind of a box (or to make a prediction about what he is going to do that is surely discretionary and is not even the "best" thing to do, if we can even consider what might be "the best" thing to do).

It surely is not too late. 

There are so many people who have not even started.   Something like 99% of the world's population has not even started accumulating bitcoin, and even many of the 1% that have begun have not done so in a very assertive ways... and they are balanced out by the Michael Saylors of the bitcoin world or even some of the WO regulars and forum regulars who have been stacking for years.. but no need to be comparing ur lil selfie to the Michael Saylors, the WO Regulars or the forum regulars of the world... We are not typical folks in these here parts.. just like Saylor is also not typical.


Here's an example of someone.. referring to eXPHorizon, in which none of us have to worry that he is going to pass us up in terms of BTC accumulation.. so perhaps eXPHorizon might start stacking 15-25 years from now, and by then many of us who are ONLY just starting out in bitcoin, will be worlds above someone like that... and by the way, even after about 3-6 years, many times rich people are not going to be able to catch up to the stacking that poor people had been carrying out, and that is part of the underlying explanation regarding how bitcoin is quite likely ongoingly serving as the greatest wealth transfer that the world has ever seen, even though it is happening right in front of us, and many of us, including beggar twat eXPHorizon, cannot see it.


For sure, we cannot really know how bitcoin's energy consumption is going to continue to increase, yet surely it does not seem to be a problem because king daddy inspires better ways to both produce and to consume electricity.. so bitcoin surely seems to be a kind of savior in the world and the ways that we think about energy... like a breath of fresh air and truth...

when it comes to energy production and consumption bitcoin seems to be very good at speaking truth to power... maths and sciences you know.... cannot beat maths and sciences when it comes to these kinds of potential propaganda and misinformation matters.


You really don't know how bitcoin works.. and more likely you know, but you are just spouting out nonsense talking points from your handlers.


Keep throwing out the talking points.. perhaps sooner or later one of them will stick.  Perhaps? perhaps?


And end up like you?  A bitter no coiner twat?  That surely would not be a good place to be...

Who should willingly and knowingly want to be poor, dumb and bitter? 

It seems that you are not a very good model for any of us to want to emulate, eXPHorizon.

I doubt that you were posting in a way that any of us (in these here parts) should be taking seriously.

Diversification is code for buy shitcoins, and there is no need to buy shitcoins.

size of your position is likely the name of the game.

If you are new to investing including bitcoin, you may well spend 1-10 years just building up your investment portfolio up to a sufficient size that it is warranting the consideration of diversification.. so maybe you don't really need any diversification until the size of your investment becomes 20% to 50% of your annual salary (expenses) or even higher than that.

There is not need to diversify for the mere sake of diversification.. especially if you are considering the buying of shitcoins as your version of "diversification."

Actual diversification would be across asset classes rather than within the same asset class, so someone who is invested into bitcoin might consider diversifying into equities, property, commodities (although bitcoin is already a commodity), bonds and cash (or cash equivalents)...

Yet, again, even if we know what diversification means, it still is not necessary to diversify when you are a relatively new investor until you get up to a certain investment size. Otherwise you are just diluting whatever it is that you are investing into meaninglessness... For example, if you are ONLY investing $10 to $100 per week, it is going to take a bit of time to get up to a meaningful amount, and if you are on the lower end of the range, then please tell me what the fuck purpose is there to dividing $10 into smaller parts?  merely to proclaim: "I am diversified?"

You do not necessarily understand bitcoin if you are attempting to put too much correlation to "legacy markets."  Sure there are liquidity correlations and there are people who play bitcoin as if it were the same as any other market.. without necessarily understanding and/or appreciating the potential for exponentials. .and even the sly round about ways that step ups in value have historically taken place in bitcoin and are likely to continue into the future (even though surely not guaranteed).


Yes.. it might and it might not.  There also could be a bitcoin step up that comes prior to the crash, and we might end up crashing back down to the current price (or even a higher price) rather than a lower price from here.

Surely, it does not hurt to hold some dry powder on the side for various dips, but I would not be getting overly excited about the possibility of sub-$20k bitcoin when bitcoin prices might not ever drop below $25k ever again.. including they might not ever drop below $26k again.

I know that you like to get so excited about buying on dip scenarios, but I have my doubts about that approach being a very good one when it comes to bitcoin (except ONLY as a kind of supplement approach rather than a main approach), even though it does sometimes end up working out positively for you.


It's not the first time that you have raised that same point.. .. I hope it is working out for you and you are not holding too much fiat on the side rather than buying the dips that have already been happening.

Pretty decent BTC prices to be already getting BTC below the 200-week moving average, and you are spending so much time thinking about ways to stack 0.00062817 more BTC during a fantasy dip that might not end up playing out.


Of course, each of us needs to choose the level of aggressiveness that we want to employ without causing too much stress upon ourselves, and maybe I should provide the example $10 and $100 per week again... .

Let's say that it is pretty clear that based on your cashflow you are able to invest between $50 and $200 into bitcoin every week, and so you consider that a reasonably aggressive strategy would be $100 per week.. It makes you a little uncomfortable, but you are still feeling like you are being sufficiently aggressive. 

On the other hand, if you instead choose to invest between $30 and $50 every week because you want to make sure that you don't have any stress and that you are able to have as much fun as you can with your weekly money, then maybe in that case you are not being aggressively enough, and after 4-6 years investing into bitcoin, you are still going to be advantaged by your $30-$50 per week investment into bitcoin, but if you had been employing the more aggressive strategy of $100 per week you would end up with 2-3x  more bitcoin.  So, of course the level of your aggressiveness and the level of your discomfort with your aggressiveness is a matter of degree and a matter of your choice based on your particular circumstances.

It is not forced because you choose it, and if you are actually causing yourself to be more aggressive than your comfort level, then that can also end up putting yourself into a situation that may end up feeling forced, even though you were the one who choose the aggressiveness level that you would employ.


In the end, I think that we are largely saying the same thing.


Fuck shitcoins.  We are not talking about shitcoins here.  If you were not talking about shitcoins, then your statement surely does not make that clear.  "wise to diversify" sounds like code for "buying shitcoins could be helpful" when that truly is neither true and also shitcoin pumping (or pumping the idea that shitcoins are good) is not a part of this topic.


You are wrong.  A strict DCA approach does not get distracted by price.. .however, if you are suggesting a less strict DCA approach or some kind of hybrid, then there is nothing wrong with that... but don't be implying that you are still following DCA when you are not.. In those kinds of cases you are purposefully deviating from DCA and suggesting that would be better, when it may or may not end up being better than just following a straight DCA approach.  We cannot presume that everyone has time to be fucking around trying to figure out the price, and that is part of the reason that a strict DCA is suggested as a starting point... and sure of course, anyone is free to deviate from DCA by employing various price movement strategies, but that is no longer strict DCA and not even necessarily a good idea (even though you seem to be suggesting that moving from strict DCA is "obviously" better.. which truly is not true)..

Some times people attempt to get to be too smart for their own good, and I have no problem with making suggestions but it is not necessarily going to be a good thing for everyone to be fucking around with various strategies that may or may not end up working, even if you have a lot of confidence in such deviation. 


No we cannot see what is happening now, except maybe BTC prices could go up and maybe they could go down. I can see that, which is almost always true.  Do you think that you have insight regarding which way the BTC price is going to go from here?


We are also not doing trading in this thread.  Even though there is buying on dip ideas, this thread surely is not about trading.


A good investor is a trader?  I doubt it.


I doubt it.  How many traders beat a strict DCA approach?  Probably less than 10%.  I doubt that it is as obvious and/or "wise" as you are making it out to be.


Just because you have it all figured out does not mean that it is a good practice for normies to be fucking around trying to trade and/or even tough enough to figure out if there is going to be a dip or not and how low it will go and/or how long such dip will last.


Another thing.. you have ONLY been registered on the forum since June 2022.. so it could be possible that you might have been able to beat a strict DCA approach and various other ways of accumulating BTC that might also involve Lump sump investing and buying on dips.. but how about the traders who have been around for 10 years?  DCA and strict methods of ongoing BTC accumulation have done pretty well in the past 10 years or so.. How many traders are able to beat a somewhat strict and persistent DCA approach over the past 10 years?

Let's look at $100 invested over the past 10 years would have resulted in right around $52.6k invested and nearly 54 BTC (an average of a little less than $1k per BTC).  Do you know actual widely applicable ways that a trading strategy would  have had beat those kinds of returns?  Yeah, sure you might have anecdotal stories, but is there a clear practice that would have had beaten a strict DCA approach?

You might be being too harsh LFC.  I surely agree with the idea of shaming nocoiners and low coiners who had not been sufficiently aggressive, but even $100 per week would have had need to be investing since the beginning of 2020 in order to get to the accumulation of 1BTC.

And there surely are some people who are not even able to invest $100 per week, but yeah sure, if they are able to invest $100 per week and they are not, then they should be shamed.. but then another question is when did they find out about bitcoin.. early 2020 or some later point.

By the way, the $10 per week person would have had to be investing since June 2016 in order to get to 1 BTC.

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to give anyone any kind of free pass, but the fact of the matter, is that it is getting more and more difficult to accumulate a whole BTC.. and that seems to be part of the reason that we are likely going to NOT be too elitist in terms of maybe currently having a kind of expectation that people currently (or recently) finding out about bitcoin might need to shoot for some lower level goal.. such as 21 million sats or maybe 10 million sats or maybe even 1 million sats. .but surely if they have known about bitcon for a few years, they should already be past those levels..

again depending on their monthly budget and/or how aggressive that they are able to be without screwing things up too much in terms of losing their coins.. which would be even a worse outcome for those who might end up overdoing it in such a way that they are not able to hang onto whatever coins that they are able to accumulate.. because I think that part of this bitcoin accumulation game should be creating such a strategy that you are constantly and continuing to build your BTC stash until you get to such a point that is close to your own fuck you status... and that could take 20-30 years in regular systems, even though bitcoin likely has been able to provide ways that even normies could have gotten to fuck you status in less than 10 years. .which surely is not a usual kind of investment, and bitcoin seems to continue to be a strong investment in terms of short-cutting the getting to fuck you status as long as you don't screw things up by over doing it too much.


Even my entry-level fuck you status chart shows that it could take until late 2043 for one 1 BTC to be enough for entry-level fuck you status... and sure, it is probably way easier to be trying to front-load your BTC investment to try to get the 1BTC earlier rather than later, but still I doubt that it is fair to presume that everyone is able to invest aggressively in order to get to 1 BTC quicker than their cashflow and expenses allow them to get there.. and surely anyone with an investment portfolio of $100k or more could end up choosing to allocate 25% to BTC investments, but it is not clear that s/he would still be able to get to 1 whole bitcoin right away or if it would necessarily be good advice to immediately reallocate his/her investment portfolio in order to get 1 BTC in there at this time.. so there are some individualistic particulars that are best to be attempting to accounting.


This is a great example (even though it is sad and a bit depressing, too).

Historically, I have tended to lecture forum members about any kind of overly dependence on merely earning bitcoin rather than buying bitcoin.. because sometimes there can be ways to earn money (including fiat) that is going to allow you to buy way more bitcoin than you are able to from earning, whether we are referring to a signature campaign or other ways that you might be able to get paid for providing goods, services and/or labor...

So surely, I have sympathies for when forum members (or any other normies) have a lot of difficulties figuring out how to get BTC based on their own physical location that may well either be hostile to bitcoin or not really having ways in which you are able to find ways to purchase bitcoin... and there could be some ways that you might be able to buy some bitcoin from forum members. that is if you are able to generate some cash in other ways.. but of course, hopefully you are ongoingly trying to figure out ways that you are able to get BTC besides merely relying on signature campaigns... but surely persistence with signature campaigns could also get you over 1 BTC in less than 10 years.. maybe even less than 5 years.. .. but maybe those days are gone?


Saylor and/or MSTR is likely not going to cash out, but if he/MSTR wanted to cash out more than $26 billion at around those $200k-ish prices (or close to $32 billion in my corrected stats), he/MSTR could do that.

Sounds like you don't know nuttin, @Sophokles.


You sound really lost @Sophokles.

Do you really believe that if bitcoin were to go to $200k and Saylor's/MSTR's coins go up from just under $5 billion to nearly $32 billion, then he is going to need to sell in order to reap benefits from having such cornz? 

Try MOAR harder.  You can do better than that.  Can't you?


Those are fair points, but it seems to me that we were talking about the value of the BTC going up from a little less than $5 billion to a little more than $32 billion... so you seem to be making a different point, at least from the one that I was making.. maybe Phil could end up agreeing with you that was what he was talking about... perhaps?  I surely wasn't talking about that.

I think that it is a good idea to make blanket judgements in regards to that mother of all scams, ethereum that facilitates other coins to also scam through the various easy of the creation of more and more scams on top of the already existing scam.

And, sure I don't claim to know everything that is going on with that piece of crap, but it surely is also a kind of affinity scam too. .in terms of the various rhetoric to make it appear as if POS is actually contributing to the world and saving the planet as compared to bitcoin's use of energy for POW. .which is purely nonsense and promoted in a lot of circles.. so good to call a spade a spade, and in this case good to make sure to continue to reiterate the various ways that people should not be fucking around with ethereum, even if it might pump at various points..

...and that ethereum has various other scams built upon it, including BIG companies included in dumb efforts to build upon misleading kinds of systems that are being suggested to be adding value that is competitive and/or better than bitcoin, which truly those are lies even if rich people, institutions and/or governments might be getting involved in supporting such phony baloney.. but lots of institutions and governments are used to promoting phony balloney when they are propping up various fiat systems that ongoingly involve lying to people in regards to value creation that does not really exist in the ways that it is claimed to exist...


You and everyone else would still be better off to presume any other project that includes a coin or a token (that is not bitcoin) as being a shitoin, a scam and/or something that is really not adding any value unless they can prove themselves otherwise rather than trying to give any of them any kind of benefit of the doubt in regards to their not being a shitcoin, as scam or something that is not adding any value....

Another waste of time, engergies and money  to be engaging in efforts to figure out which shit coin happens to be less shitty than the other shitcoin... a pretty dumb investment thesis to be attempting to figure out which coin is the less of the shitty coins, especially when we have bitcoin staring us in the face and a better way to go would be with a positive investment thesis in terms of investing in bitcoin and figuring out bitcoin and also putting at least 90% of your crypto value investment into bitcoin before even screwing around with other dumb shit things that have pump and dump coins that are likely not really worth wasting your time, money and/or energy with.

You seem to be making a decent point, @Dickiy.  There's nothing wrong with being aggressive an/or being overly aggressive as long as you have your expenses covered .. which means that you know that you have your cashflow in order for 3-6 months and an adequate emergency fund that could be for extra kinds of expenses that could come up and are not expected that might include drying up of cashflow and/or increases in expenses for a period fo time that could last 3-6 months or longer..

No bitcoin investor should be putting himself/herself into a position in which s/he could end up losing some of his/her coins at a time that is not chosen.. .so it can take a while to build a bitcoin stash and if you over-do it then you end up losing some of your coins and perhaps being in a worse position because you were trying to be more aggressive than you needed to be and if you had just stacked a wee bit less, then you would not have had ended up losing any coins.

I know that some of the members here like to use the word consistently, and I am not sure if I really like that word, because you can be persistent and continuously making sure that you are investing on an ongoing and regular basis (such as weekly) but there might be some weeks that you are able to invest $100 into BTC and other weeks that you are only able to invest $5, and the part that you were consistent about has to do with your ongoingly monitoring the amount that you are investing so that you are able to be as aggressive that you are able to be in accordance with your budget and your specific situation, but you may or may not end up choosing and/or following any kind of mandate regarding amount that you might end up doing...

And, sure maybe we are saying the same thing but just using different words and differing emphases.

Since when did Phil deserve fairness?  hahahahaha

It seems to this here cat that you are playing favorites, and it also seems to yours truly that you are "accepting" that Philly Willy can be off by a mere $5.64 billion, and still be in the ballpark of koreck.

Yep.  Those are the kinds of calculations that shitcoiners do, instead of staying focused.. .but yeah, to stick to the 80/20 rule, if they had a $10k budget and choose to invest $500 into each of their chosen shitcoins, then they would ONLY be able to invest into 4 shitcoins without going over their 20% cap. .. so then they will conclude that they have to pick more coins, and then they end up having difficulties staying focused on bitcoin..

Of course another thing is that there should be some kind of conscientious due diligence in trying to figure out which shitcoins to research into and then to invest and then to watch them and to figure out various strategies in regards to each coin, including what kinds of events might trigger needs to take action, such as selling some or all of their coin.  Sure, we can suppose that it could be fun to learn about some of the various shitcoin projects and to watch them... and maybe they will figure out some kind of a system that works for them.  Perhaps?


That is part of the reason that they are not going to be able to even stick with a 80/20 rule unless they flip it, and even then it can get so tempting to reduce bitcoin further because once they go down the diluting of their investment portfolio, there are always more and more new shitcoins demanding some of that allocation.

My maths must be different from your maths.

Here's my proofs of work:

I get $31.64 Billion.  (but hey what is a $5.64 billion difference between friends?)

Here is how it can be done:

$200k / $29,582 = 6.76

6.76 x $4.68 billion = $31.64 billion


You believe that MSTR needs to sell in order that either they or their shareholders would be able to profit? 

That's interesting.

For sure, these issues are getting worse and even more murky in regards to the government's cooptation of private systems and even people with private systems are getting the rug pulled from under them without even knowing that their data is getting used by governments without a warrant and it may well even be questionable if they have probable cause in some cases that they get access to private security cameras that are using third parties for their data storage.

It seems that in some cases, the courts (or maybe even the people need to rebel) need to rule that state action is involved when governments are purchasing and/or otherwise getting data from third parties without warrants or with shoddy procedures that allow them too much access to too much private information (cameras and other kinds of data being held by supposed third parties).