This part of your post makes a lot of sense $crypto$; however, I will also add that it would not be absolutely required that a person establishes his/her 6 month emergency fund prior to even getting started in investing.

In other words, you can build your emergency fund while you are investing, and surely getting to 6 months is nice and solid and perhaps not even overkill, even though many people do not even have 2-3 months of an emergency fund.. and many people live pay check to paycheck and surely those people are gambling whenever they invest into anything because they have failed/refused to get their shit together prior to investing, and so any steps in the direction of making progress towards improving your situation is going to make a person a better investor, and we need not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, even if we might continue to attempt to make progress towards improving our practices and working towards making our set up more and more perfect.. and maybe we might not even completely achieve the perfect.. but working towards it little by little is much better than not even thinking about what would be the place that we would like to get to and then to regularly see that we are hopefully making progress in the right direction.


This sounds like a pretty weak idea... including "taking maximum advantage" makes it sound as if you believe that you need to cash out of bitcoin.  What the fuck you going to buy with your bitcoin that is better than bitcoin?  Sure you can consume some of it and sure you can diversity in to some other investments, including maybe buying your own personal home, but still there likely are needs (and preferences) to maintain decent amounts of your bitcoin investment at all times rather than thinking about cashing out of it.. but yeah, each person is going to figure out these matters in different ways including once s/he get through BTC accumulation, then maybe what might be a good way of maintaining some decent level of BTC stash in order to ongoingly benefit from having had accumulated bitcoin rather than selling out of your bitcoin and either consuming it and/or investing into inferior assets.


It is likely not long enough for many people, even though they might think that they have to buy something blah blah blah.. when they likely are going to be way more advantaged by creating and maintaining some kind of a longer term BTC investment plan that does not necessarily involve getting out of BTC, so in that regard, they (including you YUriy1991) likely need to engage in some kinds of thinking regarding how to transition from BTC accumulation into a kind of maintenance stage and then at what point liquidation might come. which the liquidation phase would likely be towards end of life, but the maintenance stage would mean bitcoin is forever not some dumbass short term thing that you cash into dollars or buy property that is not going to likely be as good of places (as compared with bitcoin) to keep much if any of your value.


Who cares what chatGBTC says or any of those other models? 

you need to think for yourself and you also need to figure out some kind of a plan that prepares yourself psychologically and financially for a variety of scenarios, and nothing wrong with accounting for various models including ChatGBT, but in the end you likely need to formulate your own plans, and sounds like you are having some troubles with that... so you likely need to work on those kinds of preparations.


And so you are planning to cash out some in April 2024?..

Whether the price goes up or not by the halvening is likely a big so what.. since it tends to take several months for the effects of the halvening to be felt (meaning the reduction of the new supply of BTC).. so there will be additional UPpity price pressures that likely happen after the halvening.. and they increasingly are felt in the next year or two after the halvening, which may or may not end up contributing to the price of BTC to go up after the halvening, including many months after the halvening.

It made me giggle too.. but for whatever reason I did not end up sending an smerit to that particular post.. even though I have sent smerits to similar kinds of posts.. and whatever random thing that might be going on with me at the time too.. or maybe I ran out of smerits at the time.. so yeah a bit of randomness, perhaps?

.. I think describing why one of us might send several smerits to a seemingly low quality post (from a usually (overwhelmingly) high quality production robotic-like member) goes to the point that there is quite a bit of subjectivism in smerit sending, and surely there is no problem with theymos saying that he would prefer smerit sending from sources to aim towards the meriting of the higher of quality posts - but there is still no exact resolution towards getting away from a certain level of subjectivity and even any of us could have days in which our judgement might happen to be fogged and even perverted.. and surely if any of the merit source members are acting in those kinds of ways on a regular and ongoing basis, theymos may well choose to remove them as merit source members and/or to reduce the quantity of their source smerits.

We could also back theymos in a corner, if we might publicly proclaim that our purpose might happen to be to do the opposite of what he has stated to be concerns of his regarding the sending out of smerits.. and yeah sure threads like these might push the subject matter and even contribute towards theymos considering that some actions might be needed by him... but I am still having my doubts regarding the extent to which either OP or the paradoy OP have pointed out concerns to actually show that there is some kind of a problem in which there is questionable objective value to some posts that are getting merited by some merit source members.. just for shitz and giggles...

.....but even shitz and giggles does not rise to the level abuse, corruption and/or quid pro quo, which seems to be more in the baliwick of smerit distribution devolution that theymos might well feel that he would need to see in order to actually conclude that the problem is worthy of some kind of a solution attempt. and the dumbass kind of a solution of creating a change that ONLY affects the WO thread seems a wee bit nutso.. but hey. .anything can happen, even if a couple of nutsos creating threads to argue such nutso ideareas.. ..

....or maybe if we go by the recent ruling against the SEC, I am not even sure if merit source members would need to be arbitrary and capricious in their smerit sending in order to be enough to disqualify them from carrying out their smerit sending because there would likely need to be some level of showing bad faith rather than their randomness or not really having any kind of a reason for the merits they sent.. although , I am sure that theymos does prefer some kind of conscientiousness in the smerit sending.. rather than pure aribtrariness.. and the idea of capricious does have some kind of irresponsibility built into it.. and maybe in that regard, I recall that QuestionAuthority was removed as a merit source member after he had engaged in some seemingly random game-related merit distribution practices...and who knows what else was going on with QA (that was of theymos's then concern).. and maybe the QA example goes to the idea that some level of publicness might push theymos into feeling that maybe some kind of action from him might be preferable.

You likely need to learn more about bitcoin.  Sure it employs technology in a way that is a kind of money and it is already successful in that direction, and if you actually think about the properties of money then bitcoin seems to be amongst the best of monies that the world has ever experienced.. still in its early days..

You can argue all you like about technology and blah blah blah.. and such arguments would probably show that you are confusing what bitcoin is and maybe even getting bogged down in various shitcoin ideas rather than figuring out bitcoin first in terms of what it has done and the various ways that the incentives and the adoption increasing network effects are playing out.


You are likely right that bitcoin cannot fix all problems... even though there are a lot of ways that money is screwed up in the world, and likely having a kind of sound money could go in the right direction towards making some things better, but yeah, it would not be automatically fixing  some of the screwed up things in the world.


There are several benefits regarding having sound money (like bitcoin) available, so yeah, there may well be other work that needs to be carried out, but sound money does likely improve incentives in some of the ways that traditional monies around the world have a lot of problems and corruptions.


You seem to just be presuming that the current system of various governments issuing currencies is the way forward.  Likely you are failing/refusing to think about the matter with enough of an imagination... which likely shows that you do not seem to understand how some of the various perverted ways that money printing is a problem and how it ends up choosing winners/losers and robbing from the overall population.. but your mind seems to be stuck in a kind of thinking that starts from working within the current system to try to figure out how to tweak it. rather than realizing that the printing of money is problematic.. even when governments exercise restraint, they end up trapped into bailing themselves out by printing.


Of course, bitcoin is still pretty damned new, so Bitcoin's volatility so far,  is generally going up.. (especially if you zoom out a bit and look), so upward volatility is likely a part of a transferring of wealth from those who get it from those who do not get it, and yeah there is also speculation that is involved in such a process, and so earlier adopters are likely going to be advantaged more than later adopters and also those who invest into bitcoin in moderate ways that are within their means are likely going to be better off than those who do not sufficiently balance their level of aggressiveness in terms of making sure that they sufficiently/adequately protect themselves... not to get reckt.  

If you consider the matter, we are likely witnessing the greatest peaceful transfer of wealth that man has ever experienced that is also available to the masses, and this kind of a wealth transfer is not going to happen without a few battles along the way.. so hopefully you are not missing out on this, even if you might not have very much discretionary income, and so sometimes there is a need to make sure that you are investing into bitcoin with discretionary income and if you do not have very much of it, then you have to be careful not to overdo it, while at the same time making sure that you do not get mislead into thinking that you should not be at least be attempting to invest what you can into bitcoin.


You surely have not clearly said that...even though you made several fantasy-landia arguments in regards to your denial of the power of bitcoin, and hopefully, you have not failed/refused to make sure that you have some bitcoin instead of fucking around and seeming to be trying to persuade others that bitcoin is not any good, when you seem to either be just making shit up or just talking from a place of quite a bit of ignorance (while acting like you know what you are talking about).

Yeah but we are not talking about selling in this thread, so you are talking about the wrong kind of supposed DCA if you are suggesting that it involves selling or needs to consider selling.

Sure if you are trying to accumulate dollars, then you might sell whatever it is that you buy when it is at a certain point in dollar profits, but again, we are not talking about those kinds of strategies in this thread.

I am sure Phil is with you, and he would like to be able to replace some of the cornz that he sold around those $20k prices - even though you (or even he) may well end up being too greedy since the prices might not even go below $25k.. and then they gotta go below $22k before they would even get to $20k..

I am not sure at what point anyone who sold around $20k would feel like buying back.. especially if they have held out this long.. they might not buy back even though it would seem to be an obvious opportunity, and we have seen some forum members do that in the past, even though Phil sometimes might not do the right thing, he does not seem to be as jaded^** about BTC like some of those who are complaining about certain prices and then failing to act.. and you might actually be one of those, supposedly based on your getting screwed from the February 2014 MTGOX shut down and then subsequent not opening back up, if we can believe anything that you say.

**Yes, I know Phil is a BTC miner, so it would be quite difficult to argue him as jaded instead of just being a business man who sometimes cannot get too far removed from thinking about his various assets in terms of their short-term dollar values.. and the jaded ones tend to be the ones who are either overall bearish about bitcoin, so they have a certain target price that they want the price to drop to before they buy which causes them difficulties buying back even during steep BTC price dippening times.


That be called a bart... very easy to see, even from a reduced version of the chart that you provided

Ok.  Aren't you undermining the argument that smerit sending/receiving should be disabled on the WO thread?

If you are tolerant regarding the idea of differences of opinions, then wouldn't you be tolerant of ideas about differences of opinions in regards to members who have smerits using their own individual discretion in order to decide which posts they want to send smerits, and if so, how many smerits they would like to send to such posts?

If you see a problem with abuse of discretion, then report those posts... or put together a package of posts and then report them all, and if theymos and/or his merit czar (if he happens to have a secret one) agree with your report, then maybe he will remove that member as a source or reduce his/her source amount.

The problem is TOO BIG, right?




right???






rrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiigggggggghhhhhttttttt?? ?? ?? ??


That's why dumb-ass, drastic, spiteful, elitist and perhaps other categories of thingies measures need to be taken in order that we no longer have nice things.. which is a nice little WO thread... that some members in this here forum seem to NOT appreciate.



I am starting to get the sense of what is being said here.  




The amount of smerits being sent on the WO thread is too damned high!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  







AmInotrite?

Good time to buy, no?


What if you don't have any cornz?

Good time to get some in case it catches on no?


On the other hand if you already have some cornz, then it would be under your complete discretion whether or not to buy more at these prices.

We are not quite out of the "don't wake me up zone" yet.. but  we surely have been getting close, and I though that our lil bart run.. had at least provided a bit of a cushion towards the bottom of the zone.. but seems that we are close to back to where we were just a day and a half ago.. so that ended up being a pretty short run.. but it does not necessarily signify that the "only way is down" from here.

But hey.. getting hard to know.. but chances for up versus chances for down?  how would we place those?  50/50 or might we be leaning more in one direction than another?..

By the way.. it looks like the ETF decision was just delayed for the BTC spot ETFs that were coming up for a decision and with deadlines that were coming up for this weekend, but their actual denial is far from certain... and I doubt that the BTC price needs approvals of any spot ETF in order to actually pump from here.. especially if anyone considering getting into BTC might have a longer investment timeline.. even a couple years of a timeline might still work out in terms of potential dollar price appreciation,..

buy hey.. believe whatever you like in regards to what might happen with the prices of dee cornz in the coming 2 years or so, and fail/refuse to stack some sats at these here prices if you believe that they might not be low enough 4 uie pooie... not that grandma is able to actually give an allowance, and it is not easy to sell milk and cookies.. especially if grandma catches you then you might get cut off and have even nutrition than happens to be your current status.

You are not chart buddy




 




"We" want chart buddy!!!!!!!!!





Give "us" chart buddy!!!!!!









Oh? Wait?







Maybe I spoke too soon?

Are you trying to tell us that u be a girl -  Negotiation?

 


Aren't you coming out a swinging.

What's got the picnic bear all crumpling?

In the end, it is likely a good thing to recognize and appreciate the splitting of keys and/or the splitting of information.

And, sure sometimes these days private keys might be recognized and then figured out how they might be applied to some kind of a wallet (without even having instructions).

We cannot exactly know the size of Hal's stash, but it is thought to have had been pretty large, even in 2014 terms. ..and yeah, may not have been completely disclosing the details of how his keys were being secured and that might be part of the reason that I suggested that it might not have had been a good idea to be quoting that message from Hal in regards to how it appeared that he may have been holding his keys for his family members.

For sure, your point about the level of security attempting to somewhat match the present or future value of the stash or maybe making changes to the way that the coins are secured if the stash value size changes are surely valid. 

Many of us who have been into bitcoin for a while have likely experienced some level of changed concerns, and for example if someone had bought $10k worth of BTC for $300 each (which would have been around 33 BTC) in 2014 or 2015, may well have ended up surprised as soon as 2017 regarding how fast those values were going up perhaps 50x or more... so the price rise of 2017 may well have incentivized additional security measures or changes to then practices...and even a 5x or 10x change in value may well end up with similar kinds of concerns to change security practices. 

Even though maybe we are arguing semantics, I would not consider there to be different perspectives of what is "long time" but instead there are people who are in different place in terms of their own circumstances that affect how they think about buying bitcoin.. and even though people can do whatever they want, frequently when i talk to people, whether in this thread, or in other places (or even in the real world), I suggest that bitcoin "is best" thought about as a long term investment.. so I am attempting to create a certain framework regarding how to think about bitcoin in a healthy way, and they are free to disagree or do whatever the fuck they like... but it still does not mean that their perspective is likely to be equally correct when they fuck around with trading and other kinds of gambling bullshit with a pristine asset like bitcoin in which it is quite likely that the long term lucrative approach to bitcoin is likely buy, accumulate and hold..rather than fucking around and proclaiming "my perspective is different" blah blah blah.

And, yeah, people are free to do what they like.

And, yeah, many people are not quite ready for bitcoin because they don't know shit about it, even if they might think that they know because they heard the name bitcoin or that they heard some disinformation that they believe to be true.

Part of the purpose of sharing information, perspective and framework for people is to help them to potentially benefit from someone who has spent thousands of hours studying bitcoin rather than their coming to their own nonsense without hardly even thinking about the matter beyond throwing a dart at the board.

Don't get me wrong.. sometimes shorter term perspectives an end up paying off quite stupendously and even allow someone to profit stupendously by some ways of luck or timing in terms of being new to bitcoin in early 2020, and then for example buying $50k worth of bitcoin around the 2020 covid dip (let's say 10 BTC for $5k each), and then maybe considering early 2021 as a bubble selling at $60k and then buying back at $30k and then maybe selling again at $60k and buying back at $18k.. but I have my doubts that anyone would really be able to time very many of those kinds of moves.. so those tend to be lucky rather than the right approaches, even though some times people might generally be able to get in and out at right around the right times but maybe not exactly for the right reasons beyond their saying that they have "intuitions."


I doubt it.

This is not a thread about "no matter what you do is good as long as "profits"".. so you may well be in the wrong thread.

There is a framework in this thread that has to do with long-term accumulation, so even if you say that the thread is motivated by profits, that does not mean that everything becomes fair merely because there are other ways to make profits.


Yeah, but it seems that I was motivated to respond to Patrol69 in the first place because he seemed to have been perverting and convoluting ideas since he was saying long term, but he is really aiming for $100k and he is willing to wait.. which does not really mean the same thing to me, even though sure, he can do whatever he wants... I just thought that it was confusing the way that he framed the matter of time versus seeming to have a price target.


Of course that is up to you in terms of how much priority to give towards learning, and sometimes just getting started with small amounts will give you some incentive to spend more time learning.  That is one of the advantages of DCA in terms of setting a small amount, and then perhaps learning along the way (including figuring out your own financial and psychological circumstances) prior to making tweaks to how you might later decide to approach the BTC investment that you had already started with some level of DCA, even if it might be starting with ONLY $10 per week rather than a more aggressive amount such as $100 per week...and yeah of course, some people could not even afford $100 per week so these kinds of number suggestions need to be adjusted for where someone might be at in the world and/or where they might be at with their own budget and/or psychological situation.

Ok.  Fair enough.  But it is already happening, whether you believe it to be right or wrong.

El Salvador took a stance more than 2 years ago to make an announcement and pass legislation that it was going to implement a bitcoin as legal tender law starting in September 7, 2021... so we are coming upon 2 years that it has already been implemented and the ongoing experiment of bitcoin in the country has not been subsiding but continuing to be ever-present in the country..


Even if true, none of that has yet stopped bitcoin to continue to grow in El Salvador in the past 2-ish years.

They seem to be quite a good model, at least so far, and they do not seem to be getting too distracted by shitcoins, at least so far, and the traditional financial and governmental naysayers have so far not been able to stop them or to quell them.


It is already in it.


That sounds like misinformation, and you seem to believe it?  What purpose is that information serving you?

Do you mind sharing some sources for the information and making some arguments in the direction of how "having to" accept bitcoin payments would be any kind of injustice, even if true?  Could you describe which merchants might be required to accept bitcoin?

I think legal tender can have some of those kinds of implications of having to accept... but there are devils in details regarding how any particular country might implement its laws.. Do you have details about implementation?

Does having to accept mean that they have to hold BTC?  You dumb twat.

That information is likely 2 years old, and right from the start we know that there are ways to convert bitcoin to dollars nearly instantaneously and likely without even many fees.. and even if there were fees could the merchant charge to cover the fees?  if the conversion is what the merchant (recipient) wants to do, and if they have not figured out how to set up their system in order to accept bitcoin and to convert to dollars right away.. if that is what they want to do, then where is the injustice? How are injustices being caused?  Probably details are important in these kinds of seemingly lame assertions, no?


That's probably true, but a whole country promoting bitcoin and allowing for it likely incentivizes easier ways to figure out how to use it, no?


You seem to be describing what you would wish to happen rather than what is actually happening.  Sure those other countries may or may not adopt bitcoin.. but no other country has gone to such lengths as El Salvador, at least so far, in terms of going forward with both passing bitcoin legal tender laws, implementing them and having about 2 years of having them in practice .. which ongoingly is likely giving them more information to attempt to figure out if there might be implementation matters that they might need to tweak along the journey.


It seems to already be succeeding and/or on the bitcoin ecosystem, so your definition of what is success or on the bitcoin ecosystem seems to largely be argumentative... and I suppose you are trying to make some kind of argument that whatever El Salvador is doing is not enough and there bitcoin efforts are having little to no actual meaningful/substantial effects on bitcoin and/or on the material well being of El Salvadorians, and it seems to me that you are largely just trying to impose standards in regards to what you believe would either be successful and/or making a significant of enough of an impact. .which just seems like you are being disingenuous, self-serving and just spinning bullshit out of touch nonsense.

There is some truth in what you are saying Blitzboy, and frequently I find myself telling people about bitcoin while at the same time suggesting that they don't come crying to me if they lose money on it or they fuck something up, and frequently people see my approach as NOT sufficiently advocating for what I am saying that they do because I am not standing behind it sufficiently enough... and yeah there is ONLY so much that any of us can do (including letting people know that they are responsible for their own decisions, including not deciding and not acting), and maybe sometimes we do end up getting more raveled into helping someone (and holding their hands) in way too many ways, and it can be a difficult balance because some people actually need some hand-holding in order to really get started enough and to a far enough place that they can be thereafter be let out on their own.

Also, how well might we know the person, and are they really listening?  If they are asking their own questions, then likely they are listening, and sure some people might not ask very many questions and they still might be absorbing some of the information, so it might take several follow-ups to confirm that they sufficiently understand the information that has been shared with them.

And even in the case of something like inheritance or passing down gifts, there may well be some value in following up 1, 2, 3, 5 years or more down the road to figure out where the other person may be and if they have sufficiently retained the information that might have been shared at a point or several points earlier.  

For sure interacting is likely way easier, but interacting can vary, so if you might tell your 10 year old about some bitcoin related information, and then you might not yet be at a point where you are comfortable with the 10 year old interacting with bitcoin, even though it could be possible to go down that road.. or if you are interacting with older relatives, some of them may or may not be willing to share some of their own finances, and they might have their own ideas that could get in the way regarding how to present matters or even trying to suggest that they "need to" learn something (technology) that might relate to something in which they already have  a lot of opinions and experiences (maybe not good opinions/experiences, but still).

I agree that PowerGlove suggestion does seem like it would be something that could be implemented for thread starters to be empowered in a kind of way that they are empowered with their decisions whether to have a open thread or a self-moderated thread, yet at the same time, the PG suggestion does seem to go a bit far to give that much power to individual thread starters to potentially undermine the likely advantages of having merit sending and receiving abilities across all threads.. and yeah the Ivory tower does seem to be an exception.. and I am doubtful that I have participated very much in those threads.. even though I don't always look which section I am in if someone (or a post) ends up referring me to a topic.  

---

By the way, I just made several changes to my earlier post in this thread (from about 12 hours ago), and I probably did end up getting a bit carried away with some of the at-first attempts at mere clarification that ended up being substantive... so if anyone might be interested in looking at that post again here's a link.

You answered a question dragonvslinux, but it was not the question that OgNasty was asking.. because if you look at the context of the question, the "it" of the question refers to a kind of hypothetical if the MTGOX coins were to be released and also the ETF were to be approved, then would the fact the MTGOX coin relief (presumed to be DOWNwardly pressuring BTC prices) and the spot ETF approval (presumptively UPpity pressuring prices), so the question is about whether MTGOX release would end up neutralizing the UPpity effect of a spot ETF approval.

You talked about various historical bitcoin future ETFs (financial products) but you did not even mention the potential MTGOX release of coins situation in such a spot bitcoin ETF approval context.


You can see it, but does your sight have any meaning, beyond fantasizing?


Are you saying that I should send another smerit to that post for the extra efforts that were carried out by this attentive and request fulfilling poster of such relevant/substantive cornz content?


Deleting a post does not take away the merits that the member had received for such post (and I see ibminer already mentioned this).  The merit list (descriptions) for that member would just show the post in which the merit had been received as a deleted post.

But deleting posts may end up reducing someone's forum rank based on loss of activity points... depending on how many post are deleted.. you can ask some famous WO member(s) in regards to their having had gone on a post deleting spree.

It does not sound like me that you are basing your holding based on "long time."  You are holding based on a "target price" that you have which you happen to have disclosed as being something like $100k-ish.

And by the way, bitcoin went down to $15,479 last November, so you if you have been buying since then, you have not even been holding for a year.. that is hardly a long time and hardly even a whole cycle.  Maybe you won't even be able to hold for a whole cycle, which also does not seem to be a long time.  Remember a cycle is 4 years.. so are you holding more than a cycle?  It does not sound like your plan.

But hey do whatever you like, even though many of us here believe that 4-10 years is a kind of minimum for thinking about "long term investing" and really 4 years is not even long term, but sometimes it is difficult to recommend anyone get into bitcoin for less than a whole cycle without recognizing that anyone who invests in bitcoin for less than 4 years and they are looking to sell at some point as the BTC price goes up, they are employing a different investment style that is likely not really what the thrust of this thread is about.. because many folks are going to need a few cycles before they really are likely to start to get into a kind of level of confidence regarding how many BTC that they have and options that it may likely end up bringing to their lives.

Yes.  Consumables are spent, but there are some kinds of products that are more durable, but they may well not hold their value very well.. so yeah some durables hold their value better than others. 

Surely, just like the lottery player can say that all the value that s/he had put into playing the lottery has some kind of value because it could have had paid off, but then there is nothing to show for it.

It is not necessarily a bad thing to spend your coins and your profits and even especially if you might have had gotten some kind of a windfall.  I am largely using my own windfall from my June 20 stroke of good luck to buy back coins, but I also have a decently higher reserve of fiat that is just available to me.. and probably I have spent some of that..

It is not always easy to identify exactly where source funds are coming from when they are put into a count or just kept in the background in case they might be needed at a later date or maybe they are just available and end up allowing for the non-spending of some other funds that would have had gotten spent if the windfall funds had not been available.

Likely, only you are in a position to really know how well you might have utilized those funds and/or would have it had been necessary to anything with them other than to consume them.. but then if you consume too much of them because you think that "trading is investing," then surely that could cause some levels of excessive bitterness.. I cannot be sure if that might be part of your situation.


Even though Hal is a smart guy.  Many of us already realize that there are problems with safety boxes, and surely we do not know the details of exactly how Hal saved his keys in safety deposit boxes, but that could be one point of failure if that might have had been the ONLY place that he had his keys and/or other instructional information related to his bitcoin.

If you are going to blindly follow someone like Hal and say, well if it was good enough for Hal, then it is good enough for me, then you may or may not get lucky with that approach to your bitcoin based on a safety deposit box being potentially one point of failure.

Regarding your use of the term "credible," there is not even a standard (requirement) that a merit source needs to be credible.. but if there is any requirement it would be something like the merit source ONLY need not be abusive in exercising his/her merit sending discretion, and mostly in the arena of not selling the merit.... or perhaps not engaging in quid pro quo behaviors (or I suppose the appearance of quid pro quo behavior could be problematic, too).  

Any other standards that merit sources "need" to follow would likely merely be something like NOT promoting the breaking of forum rules or engaging in some kinds of conduct that might end up bothering theymos.. since as far as I understand, theymos continues to exercise his own discretion regarding who to appoint as merit sources and also he can remove any merit source at any time for any reason or for no reason at all.

Nutildah suggest that since there is already a practice that disallows signatures to be displayed in the WO thread, therefore merits should also be disallowed, since in this case, some of the smerits that are being received in the WO thread are being used to allow members to participate in signature campaigns. .and really these various Nutildah arguments seem to be convoluted, slippery slope, strained and even seemingly contradictory kinds of arguments that are really difficult to make sense of when you really figure out the impacts of implementing anything he is suggesting, which and would end up in merit restrictions imposed on newbie members or even more senior members or even disabling this one particular (WO) location on the forum in which historically the vast majority of the smerits have been already been circulated (and circulating).

I am pretty sure that the smerit sending/receiving statistics have been pretty consistent on the fact that heads and tails above any other thread(s), the WO thread circulates the most merits for the past 5.5 years (since the merit system went into effect).. so Nutildah's proposal (in and of itself) that is also getting a certain level of support (from seemingly jaded folks or otherwise receptive to being jaded in ways that I had already described in my earlier posts - namely being dumb, being spiteful and being elitists.. just to clarify that I am ad hominem attack anyone who supports Nutildah/Bob's pursuit of this matter hahahahahaha.. ).


I doubt that there is as much truth to the needs for bullish bitcoin related posts in order to be merited.. but it probably does not even matter.. we're in a bitcoin forum.. have you ever heard of investing in something and then cheering against it?  Well if you are participating in a forum that is about that investment (ie bitcoin) that you are bashing, you better back up your arguments with, at minimum, some facts and logic.

If someone is making some kind of bearish arguments, I likely will be disinclined to merit such a post if it is not backed up... but I might not require as much backing up from some bullish arguments... that's true.. that's true.

SO FUCKING WHAT?

Members are allowed to merit for any reason that they like - as long as there is no quid pro quo types of elements.

You also might be insinuating that merit sources are biased towards pro-bitcoin ideas.. or even that such pro-bitcoin ideas of the merit sources (and even the merit senders) are even worse in the WO thread.

SO FUCKING WHAT?

You are a lame little turd.  #nohomo.  Do you even know where you are at?  

Maybe you should restart your computer, and then conscietiously and manually re-log into each of your webpages so that you can clarify that you are not mistakeningly believing that you are in the NFT pumping thread... with your daddy dildah^** promotional pieces rather than a bitcoin forum.. and even a bitcoin specific part of the forum.. namely the WO thread?

 

**by the way, it just struck me that daddy dildah is a much better name than uncle dildah.. it rolls off the tongue much better, and you will thank my later, perhaps?


Doesn't it seem like you might be exaggerating a wee bit, here?  Playing into your own hatred of newbies?.. and even patronizingly believing that you are a better person to be making judgements in regards to human interaction intentions..


I almost fell of my seat when I read this part.


I doubt that joker_josue is saying exactly what you consider him to be saying.. You seem to be suggesting that he believes that there is some kind of inconsistency with my behavior that needs to be resolved - but instead he seems to be suggesting that there is some kind of inconsistency in the accusations that are being made or even the resolutions being proposed..  and sure he can choose to clarify this matter (objective observation as you suggested it to be) more, if needed.^**

**So, I see that it seems that joker_josue did clarify this point in his post responding to this post.


In regards to your implications that I might be employing different standards in different threads, there could be some truth to that.  If you had not noticed, different threads have different topics, and their topics could affect the extent to which any forum member (including but not limited to yours truly) might consider a post within such different forum threads to be merit worthy - and sure it likely is true that I am way more liberal in regards to considering almost any topic to be potentially merit worthy in the WO thread - in part because, if you might not have noticed, almost any topic goes within that thread - except pumping shitcoins.. or perhaps some somewhat obvious breaches of forum rules?  

Have you ever tried to report a WO post? You will receive a dialogue box that specifically reminds you that the rules of the WO thread are different than the rest of the forum.  

We should feel lucky that the forum has a place like the WO thread that is almost like a troll box and free to throw around almost any topic related or maybe even not as much related to bitcoin.. even though many of those of us participating in that thread are not very tolerant towards shitcoin pumping even though from time to time some active participants still do engage in such shitcoin coin pumping things in that thread.. but it seems to be way (I mean way) the fuck less than it was in 2015, 2016, 2017.. at least it seems to me that the WO thread has gotten better in several ways over the years - but of course, there are always going to be some dynamics that exist that might not even result in as much participation from some elements of the bitcoin community, so we may well be reliant on other members (even seemingly troll-like members and new members or even seemingly bad intentioned members) to post some of the happenings that are taking place in other places around the interwebs.

Seems to me that we are quite lucky to have a place like the WO thread on the forum, and some members are complaining and trying to ruin a good thing.. and maybe that's why we cannot have nice things?   have you ever thought of that daddy dildah?  

Edited:  about 12 hours after the original post, I made several clarification edits.... and some of them might have changed my tone or even bolstered some of my earlier substantive content.

It seems to me that you are asking questions that have been answered various times in this thread, so it might be helpful to read through several of the posts in the past month or two, and if you need to refocus your question based on what you read, then come back with some more specific questions.

I am pretty sure that I had several times attempted to address the essence of the stable versus unstable finances in terms of DCA should be based on discretionary (meaning extra) money that you have available after you account for your various expenses, including your emergency expenses.

A person who has more unstable income and or expenses then has more difficulties DCA'ing , but they are still able to DCA so long as they make sure that they create a sufficient of enough reserve or cushion.  I gave some specific examples  in some recent posts that I made in this thread regarding and so it likely would be good to read back through them, but if there is a range of expenses that you have which might be between $800 to $1k per month, but your income varies between $400 and $2.5k per month with many of the months being around $1,200-$1,400, you likely need to keep at least enough reserves to cover the difference between the bare minimum that might come in and whatever are going to be your expenses, and sure some expenses can be deferred, too. 

Maybe a person in this here example that I just gave should try to keep at least $3,600 in his/her reserves prior to investing.  Since the difference between the minimum amount that s/he might make and the top of the expenses is $1k, so $3,600 would be enough to cover $6months worth of low income and high expenses.  If such person has not sufficiently created an adequate enough cashflow reserve, then DCA investing would be risky.. and maybe if s/he aspires to get to $100 per week investing into bitcoin, but if the reserves are not high enough and they are being buit, maybe such person ONLY invests $10 per week while the reserve is being built to a sufficiently high enough level that would be practical, and maybe the person believes that $1,800 rather than $3,600 is enough of a reserve, and that they are not gambling, and so that is their choice regarding how many chances they believe that they are able to get away with taking while still attempting to be somewhat prudent with their finance and trying to invest into BTC at the same time.


Fuck Crypto.. We are not talking about crypto in this thread.

If you were trying talk about something related to bitcoin, then why didn't you use the word bitcoin?  what does crypto have to do with this? unless you may well be confused about how to use language properly in a way that is sufficiently clear and not ambiguous?  Just because you heard smart people use that dumb word does not mean that you should use it without specifying what you are talking about, exactly.

It would actually be a funny comment if you were to be merely joking... but you are not.