That's better.

u r counting seems to be getting MOAR better.


Both Phil and I have posted quite a bit of crap through the years, and it may well take a lot of work for anyone, who would be ready, willing and able to compile such a thing (and to have talents in terms of creativity to be able to make the mundane seem interesting or to have some kind of a reason for needing to do it.. in which some audience would appreciate as well), and surely if such a person were to have any kind of theme for his/her book (and ways to divide chapters) besides random brainstorming, then I still have my doubts regarding whether you, me and Philip have enough of a kind of interest story - yet sometimes people might become more famous and/or interesting when they are dead too (because once they are dead, their story is locked in. but there would still need to be some interesting substance behind the person besides just a bunch of random and quasi-incoherent posts)... even though surely many people would not necessarily either mind having recognition of some kinds of contributions in their lives, whether it is through forums like this or otherwise that some folks might be able to appreciate.

By the way, there are already quite a few books that do take from various forum threads and posts and of course, we will sometimes see forum posts being cited in mainstream media or even in legal proceedings.


You ask such lame questions (presentation of "scenarios"), sometimes....... that frequently contributes to my wondering if you even know what dee cornz is.



dee cornz


what is dee cornz...



I wonder...? just like Biodom wonders, with his 20 cornz.. what are dees thing-a-lies?


#justsaying

You fucked up your third line in your last haiku, which caused me to have to go back and check your work on all of them.

"that's" cannot ONLY be one syllable.. and you also have an emoji in there which has to be at least one syllable.

I have some troubles with the idea of showing numbers (as if they were tops or something) that fall in the middle of what seems to be our current noman's zone of around $55k to $80k.. so it seems problematic to be suggesting that numbers between $55k-ish and $80k-ish would be very relevant.. including implying them as potential stopping points.. .

Maybe instead of no man's zone, it might better to refer to that price range as "bat country?"

Then at least we would have a meme to go along with the concept to attempt to make it more understandable in terms of what it means.




For the most part, price whisper's 50/50 odds


Seems a bit bearish (or conservative), but o.k...

It probably does not hurt to error on the side of being more conservative.

because another thing is that that does not seem likely, but we should attempt to prepare for scenarios in which bitcoin merely performs right around similar to any other investment in our investment portfolio with perhaps something like a 6% to 12% CAGR... even though some argue that bitcoin has around a 100% CAGR, and I would argue that my own CAGR experience when it comes to bitcoin is in around the 75%-ish territory.. and so even getting more conservative with the actual real world performance CAGR is not necessarily a bad thing..and surely there are bear scenarios too, that seem less likely but they are always present, even if such more bearish scenarios don't seem to have very high odds of playing out.



Who knows if $32k resistance is strong or not.. Sure people are suggesting it to be strong, but I have my doubts in spite of our not breaking through it and our not being above $32k for 14 months. 

In any event, I would characterize there to be right around 3 resistance points between our current prices and $100k.

So the lowest one would be around $35k, the second around $55k and the third one around $90k.  Of course ballpark ideas.. but just the current frame work that I am using for my own thinking about various potential sticking points on the way UPpity.. and sure it would not feel very good to NOT reach $100k in the next year or two or even 4 years, then (if not before that) probably there would be some needs to rethink the location of these various conceptual sticking points.


Lookie uie pooie getting all upsettie, and it is not even thursday... don't get too worked up too early in the week (or would it be late in the week?)


You are truly going to jinx this.

is that what you are trying to do?

some good ole reverse psychology?


Are you hitting on me?


NOT!!!!!

The bitcoin space seems to currently be skeptical of anyone named Sam.


Something seems missing, but hey if you are going to compile our forum posts, for example, then there is likely enough materials for a few books.. I am not sure if they would be good books, or even if they would sell very well, but they likely would not be the worst of books out there.


Who's counting?

Oh I guess you are, and your lil "prediction" of limiting Buddy to 67 in a row has been a wee bit off, no?


His thoughts are "poof"

That's why he had not posted for a while, but it would have had been nice to have had gotten a response.


I'm sure that will help.    

just like most of your "voodoo" seeming techniques (and equally pathetic predictions)


Oh?  That's what is going on?

That sounds like a pretty limited understanding of bitcoin, and sure coming up with general descriptions may be fine and dandy and even accurate, but there's a lot more going on in bitcoin than merely some superficial description.


It seems that I already responded to those ideas in my previous post (especially from the affinity scam angle.. in that an overwhelming majority of shitcoins are affinity scams upon bitcoin in one way or another), and maybe if you study bitcoin a bit more, then you might start to understand it a bit better in order to know how it is both a leader in the space and what kinds of innovations that it brings to the space in terms of both solving the Byzantine Generals problem, but also how proof of work and the difficulty adjustment contribute towards incentives for miners to build around it and also the various other infrastructure that comes from ongoing growth of bitcoin's various network effects (perhaps building on the ideas of Trace Mayer's framing of the 7 bitcoin network effects).

If you want to get some better grasps regarding how the use of the term crypto is misleading, then you likely need to spend a few more hours studying various aspects of bitcoin and attempting to get from good sources..... which it can take a while to figure some of these matters out... but many people are capable of such, and there quite a few bitcoin focused (or bitcoin first) sources that would likely help you to figure out bitcoin first and then to have a better contextual understanding.. perhaps? perhaps?  unless you really are not trying... and you are just spouting out crypto bullshit talking points to strive to muddy the waters and to frame bitcoin as if it were just one of many competing cryptos.

Have you spent 10 hours learning about bitcoin, 100 hours, 1,000 hours or maybe more?  I doubt that you will have as much confusion if you might spend more than 100 hours learning about bitcoin.  If you don't know where to go for your good bitcoin focused sources, maybe start with going through Michael Saylor's materials (and interviews and he even has some informational websites).. and surely he is not the ONLY source (since he ONLY came to the space in 2020), but at least Saylor is very articulate about bitcoin first and his talking-points and materials tend to be bitcoin first focused, too. https://www.hope.com/  Some of that might help to provide some focus in terms of learning "why bitcoin", perhaps?, if you are really trying to learn. 

There are other sources that go into "why bitcoin?" too.. so another decently good starting point for bitcoin first focused materials is https://www.swanbitcoin.com/signal/

I doubt Laszlo needs much if any sympathy from forum members - at least in regards to his having had engaged in several pizza transactions through bitcoin, and it is likely that he has plenty of bitcoin.. even though many of us likely do not know his details in that direction, and perhaps that might be part of the reason that he is a bit less inclined to participate in the forum under that particular user-name.... one of the risks of becoming too much publicly known.


It could be that those kinds of inquiries contribute towards previously active (and perhaps overly disclosing) members to step back from the public light...and sure many of us do appreciate hearing personal stories, the good, the bad and the ugly.

It seems that the strength of my response had to do with how your post was ambiguous regarding what you had meant about diversification, and why anyone would be choosing to do it or should be choosing to do it.

You can choose to diversify into anything you want, and at any point in your investment journey, and part of my point also had to do with the lack of value that comes from any kind of belief that you need to diversify for the mere sake of it, and most likely the value of diversification comes as your investment portfolio grows - but still there can be inclinations to diversify for the mere sake of it and under the mere belief that value comes from that, which seems to have had been how you were framing the diversification idea.  In that regard, my previous points seem to already speak for themselves.



There is no reason to be secret about it, even though the discussion of it here is deviating from the topic of this thread....

And, you also still don't seem to be getting the point that buying shitcoins is likely NOT diversifying in any kind of correct definition of what you may well be wanting to achieve from diversification, which is non-correlation.. which I have also sufficiently touched upon that, too.


To me, even from that comment, it still sounds like you don't really have a good grasp on when to diversify or even how to diversify, so there is nothing wrong with thinking about whether you should do it or how you should do it, and you likely can do that without pumping the idea that it is good to diversify for the mere sake of it blah blah blah.. which hardly makes any sense on its own.

I am not purposefully trying to give you a hard time, but maybe if you give some kind of an example that would go into some description of how many kinds of investments that the person has, and try to stay focused on bitcoin, so if you might say that a person has an annual income of $24k, and over the past 9 years (if we use your forum registration date late 2014), he has been building his investment portfolio, but surely he made some mistakes along the way - yet at this time he has about $100k, invested^.** , and maybe we can say that the various expenses, allow for around $400 per month to be invested in  
 to bitcoin or anything else.  The example that I am currently describing may well be worthy of concerns of diversification, because the size of the investment portfolio is already reaching more than 4x of the size of the annual income, but if someone is less than the size of 1 year's annual income, there may well be less importance in diversifying (for the mere sake of it).


**Note that I am partially using the DCA chart that shows if someone has been into BTC for 9 years, and merely invested $10 per week, he would have invested $4,700 into BTC and right now he would have had about 4 BTC .. but if our hypothetical person screwed up a lot including getting caught up into shitcoins and/or failing/refusing to stack sats and/or failing/refusing to mostly HODL rather than fucking around with trading, then sure, maybe this person will not even have had been able to keep up with even a very small regular investment into bitcoin.

So you might well be able to describe what the current allocations are since we would have most of the other relevant details in regards to how much is the income.  Maybe the main categories in terms of relevance to this thread would be bitcoin, cash, other assets, and shitcoins.  What would be the percentages of each of those, and why diversify?  You mentioned property and gold, but there is also equities, other commodities and perhaps some business investments.   Some kinds of investments are more liquid than others, so there are questions regarding how to value these assets in terms of your quasi-liquid investment portfolio assets and/or questions regarding whether to just mostly let them ride if they already exist as investments (or to move them around in a reallocation way) or to mostly just increase allocations (or add new assets) by using new income as it comes in.. and of course, these practices don't necessarily need to be all or nothing, even though it would be helpful .

So maybe the punchline ends up being that hypothetical person already has fucked up allocations that might have to do with the way that he had been historically treating his bitcoin, or if there are concerns that the bitcoin allocation is way too much value as compared to the other allocations, then surely I can understand that the remaining allocations might need to be able to stand on their own, because it is good to be as aggressive as you can in regards to bitcoin without necessarily ONLY having your eggs in one basket such as bitcoin, and sure maybe you want to go beyond bitcoin, cash and shitcoins, too...


I already addressed this.


It's talked about?  So fucking what.

Are they buying?  Sure, I can concede that if bitcoin is being talked about then it makes it easier to buy, but I still would not use the term "popular" for the reasons that I already went into, which largely relate to buying.

In part, we might be arguing over semantics.


Don't be trying to suggest that I cannot see the "trending" matters, yet where is the buying?  do you have the metrics to show the buying or increased ownership that is actually based on facts rather than "a lot of people talking about it" but not doing shit.  hahahaha

Where's the beef?


In the end, did anyone buy any BTC?  Yeah, sure it is difficult to measure, but if people were actually buying, it would show in the price.  

And, by the way, I consider that a lot of the hype and discussion about BTC is likely going to contribute towards upwards BTC price movements in the next couple of years, but I doubt that many of these folks are buying right now.. even if they are talking a big game and there is a lot of bitcoin buzz out there.. as you seem to be appreciating (noticing/wanting to see).


That would be great.  I look forward to your thread, and I would like to see an invite, if I don't end up coming across it on my own... or a link here or wherever you believe it would be good to drop such link, once you make the thread or maybe after it has been live for a while.


Sure.  No problem with the conclusion that increased sentiment is likely going to result in increases in buying actions and upwards BTC price pressures, even if we might not see it so much in BTC's price performance data at this particular time.

Maybe you want to suggest that people are buying but, their buying is just not showing in BTC's price data, but the fact that they are buying brought us up from $15,479 in November to our current $29k-ish prices.. perhaps? perhaps? but it is not easy to make a lot of those kinds of claims, and surely if we end up getting price pumps that largely have been falling in 4-year cycles and are likely to continue in 4-year cycles, then it is like that there are more buyers than sellers during the period that the BTC prices are going up...

Trying to narrow down why the BTC price is doing what it is doing, where it has been and what it is going to do are not easy kinds of claims, but surely beyond just having the 4-year cycle ideas that also relates to stock to flow, we also have a kind of dynamics that relates to a confluence of adoption/network effects factors that can be labelled as s-curve adoption based on network effects and Metcalfe principles... and when I am referring to network effects, I am thinking in terms of seven outlined by Trace Mayer in 2014/2015 or so.

Directionally, I am not disagreeing with you, even though I stick by my earlier assertions about what I believe to be a poor and likely misfitting use of the assertion that "bitcoin is becoming more and more popular" blah blah blah... which is maybe asserting the obvious without saying anything, but the crux of my push back on the matter likely has to do with it as being a vague (and perhaps shitty measurement) even though sure, no problem you can talk about it all that you like and try to show that you have measures of it, but when push comes to shove, we likely need harder data than the mere fact that "a lot of people are talking about it."  Who cares?  let them talk, but are they actually doing the more concrete things of taking some kind of an allocation into bitcoin?  and what are their other actions in that direction, setting up accounts, wallets, running a node, sending and receiving transactions,  if they are buying into third-party accounts (to get BTC exposure) in which they don't own the keys then can we see that data "on chain" or are there a lot of third-party custodied accounts that are going to end up either rug pulling again, not having the BTC that they claim or other kinds of shenanigans?


Overall, it tends to be very difficult for normies to take action that results in a kind of incrementalist and ongoing investment into something like BTC, so if they invest into it, then they are expecting results in a relatively short-period of time so that they can feel material benefits from their investment action - which largely likely means that they end up buying too much right at the beginning.. and then failing to consistently keep buying, and sure if they end up getting lucky in regards to the BTC price moving up, then they may well end up selling too much too soon or just failing/refusing to stay convicted into their maintaining their position and perhaps even building on their position - which also might require them to spend some time learning about what they invested in, whether through a forum like this or some other various sources that might have decently good (rather than misleading) information.. and sometimes if they are not really informed about what they bought and they do not engage in critical thinking to be able to sort the good and bad information, then it also might be more difficult for them to both consider bitcoin as a longer term investment of 4-10 years or more and to act upon such longer term conviction.


It seems to me that Wind_FURY's comment had to do with the close relationship between bitcoin and shitcoins, and not bitcoin and real estate.. even though he put that comment right in the context of your talking about real estate as possible way of diversifying or lessening bitcoin exposure or getting another possible cashflow source... but yeah, when I looked at Wind_FURY's comment again it does seem ambiguous regarding what he is referring to, and maybe he should explain himself a wee bit more better.


Well don't say anything then.  


I guess we are on the same page, then.


 Well yeah.. so we do not have fiduciary requirements or other state-imposed requirements either.  In other words, we likely have more flexibility to figure out how to go about our accumulation phases and also our maintenance stages, and there may well be points in which diversification makes sense depending on what we are wanting to achieve and if we are both designing and carrying out our strategies in ways that work towards accomplishing what we are wanting to achieve.


This is bordering upon making sense because sure volatility to the upside (or number go up) is beneficial, and sure the ups and downs of the price can help in terms of being able to buy dips at various points in time in which cash is still coming in, and there can be some advantages to saving up and buying on dips to the extent that DCA is not completely employed.. but probably even DCA can be advantaged from volatility - at least in bitcoin's history since there have been long and drawn out periods of down and then explosive steps upwards in the BTC price and overall the trend has been up, even if normies might end up getting reckt as fuck if they try to play the volatility to their advantage and it does not work.. one of the ongoing risks of buying on dips in terms of making sure that buying is not delayed too much that it causes panic if the BTC price does not dip enough for the buys to happen how the normie BTC accumulator (you refer to as pleb) expected it to take place.


I was making some examples in order to flesh out possible scenarios that might be considered, but you seem to want to refuse to engage with actual (or hypothetical) facts that involve details to better help to understand what is being weighed and perhaps various ways that any normie/pleb might consider going forward.


That choice has not tended to work out very well for those gold holders in the past 10-20 years, and gold has barely kept up with inflation (at least in comparison to the dollar), and sure likely other countries gold has performed better in regard to the other various local currencies.

And then in regards to bitcoin, I doubt that gold is going to fare very well in the future, just like it has not fared very well relative to bitcoin in the past 10 years or so (and maybe it is not fair to go completely back to the very beginning of bitcoin, so we could cut out the first 3-4 years of bitcoin's price history and start from around 2013 - even if we start at top of BTC's price performance in 2013 (around $1,163) bitcoin has still greatly out-performed gold in that period, which seems quite likely to continue into the future, even if there are not any guarantees.. but surely gold does not seem to be a place to be putting much if any value.. especially if you know about bitcoin, and sure, if you want to put 10% of the value of your bitcoin holdings into gold, then even though that seems too much, it is not necessarily going to kill you, even though that gold portion of your investment portfolio does not seem to have good chances of doing very well, relative to bitcoin.

"Just Phil and Me."

Reminds me of the famous Living book series:

Just Grandma and Me.

Well, you say popularity, but I am not even sure if it would be very accurate to describe bitcoin as popular, even if it might be "popular" within some segments of society, and even if it seems to get quite a bit of press in recent times in light of it still being a baby in terms of the level of adoption. 

Sure, we have some BIG players who hold a lot of bitcoin, but still overall, I doubt that there is any convincing evidence that bitcoin is experiencing overall adoption levels of greater than 1% of the world's population having exposure to it.. and at the same time, if we consider companies, there are some BIG players talking BIGGEDly about bitcoin, but their ongoing "BiG" talk on the topic does not really seem to reflect in bitcoin's numbers - including but not limited to price... so it seems very questionable in regards to how much actual bitcoin that some of the BIG talkers have.. whether Blackrock and various persons and institutions associated with that and maybe some of the other BIG players who likely do not even have very much exposure to directly owning bitcoin, otherwise it seems that the BTC prices should be reflecting those kinds of acquisition dynamics... so anyhow, my point is to question the use of the term to describe bitcoin as "popular."


You make several valid points to differentiate bitcoin and property, but it seems that you are getting caught upon somewhat narrow definitions of property in order to make your points to contrast bitcoin from certain kinds of physical property.. and sure.. no problem with some of that.

At the same time, there are a lot of people making various comparisons of bitcoin to property, including that there are legal definitions that seem to hinge upon bitcoin as a kind of digital property.. and Michael Saylor frequently makes similar kinds of points that rely on descriptions of bitcoin as a kind of property.

Your overall points still do seem to be valid in terms of making some investment decisions that might include concerns about some of the disadvantages of having to maintain physical property and other ways that physical property is likely vulnerable to being taken from you or even being used against you, and even if bitcoin might not be completely removed from those kinds of threats, the digital attributes of bitcoin does cause the attacks upon it to require different tools and maybe even more challenges for the attacker to be successful in terms of removing you from your coins.


You are probably correct overall BigBos, but it still seems problematic to place too much confidence in some of the kinds of storage practices that might be newer and less scrutinized, and of course, there likely is more security in terms of the wallets that are more open source and reviewed, and to the extent that it is not open source, then there might be trust that is placed in the software vendor to not have back doors.

We would almost have to go wallet by wallet (which surely is not the topic of this thread and there are quite a few other forum threads that do go into those kinds of discussions) if we were to want to get into discussions regarding how secure the wallets are and what some of their vulnerabilities might be that go beyond merely users making mistakes...even though users making mistakes can also be a decently BIG factor.


You do not seem to be contradicting that bitcoin may well be more powerful than gold in a variety of ways that have already been listed and you also listed some of the ways....

It seems that you need to be careful regarding the suggestion that bitcoin is super-easy to keep in your own custody and to make sure that you do not screw something up or that you end up storing your bitcoin with software (or hardware) that has security flaws that were not known to you and perhaps not even known to the public at large when they end up getting exploited.

Another thing is that over the years even some of the storage systems have changed, and there is ongoing developments to change ways that coins are stored, and likely some of those developments will make improvements, but some of the developments also might have security trade offs or even sometimes unknown security holes.


Even if you might otherwise be making some valid points, it seems to be going out on a tangent to get too far into those kinds of outrageously BIG numbers, and I doubt that people with that level of capital are participating in threads like this.. or even that people who might be engaging in threads like this should be our attempted audience.. even though surely everyone might have to adjust the numbers to their own situation.

so yeah, maybe we might say poor would be those people who are struggling to figure out how much disposable income they have, but if we might be getting into BIGGER numbers, then we could still use $10 million as the top of our range rather than $100 million.. but more practically, we likely have people struggling to get up to $100k worth of value accumulation, yet we know that people who have been in bitcoin might have had invested less than $10k in the last 10 years.. maybe even as late as 2015 and pretty easily gotten to millionaire status... just to flesh that out, $10k / $250 = 40 BTC  and at today's prices 40 BTC would be worth right around $1.16 million.

Ok.. let me try to work with your $100million number and maybe round it down to $10 million or $1million.

I doubt that diversification allows you to make greater returns, even though it might make profits if some of the assets are invested into items that are growing well... It would likely not make any sense to invest equally into 50 assets, but maybe for the sake of the hypothetical, there could be $2million invested in each asset, but if all (except a handful) of the assets just performed at the normal market rate (6% to 12%), then the outperforming assets would have to really outshine the others in order to make up for the difference in order to get 30% overall return, and again, I doubt that diversification gives you greater returns but instead is an attempt to preserve principle.. and to be conservative and to not be too aggressive, so the more diversification that you have, the more likelihood that even if you have stellar performers, you are going to have low performers that offset them, even though we know sometimes that everything is going up at the same time, but some things are going up more and somethings are going up less.


Oh gawd.. the more you explain, the worse it gets... even though I do like that you are using something like $10k as a kind of example of how much value that a pleb might have to work with,

but I probably would like it even better if you describe income too.. because a normie/pleb might have $10k at one snap shot in time, and maybe your thinking about it as a snapshot value gets you to try to figure out whether to use all of it to buy bitcoin right now, or what are the various bitcoin price dipping points that you would want to deploy such cash (presuming that it is all available right now)..

so if we are assuming no other investments, and we are presuming that the money is completely available for bitcoin, we still might need to figure out some aspect of what is the anticipated cashflow in the next 6 months?  and even that it is important to know what is the annual income?  Is it $10k or is it $20k or is it $30k?  or some other amount?

At some point, the amount invested may well justify some needs to start to diversify into other investments, even though the greedy lil bastard pleb is focusing on "getting rich quick" right?

Anyhow, is any more money coming in that might be available for bitcoin, or maybe you are presuming that the income stream for this particular pleb/normie is irrelevant because that income stream merely goes towards living expenses and the normie/pleb is just going to otherwise be living his life in the normie/pleb ways because he has already decided that he was ONLY going to be allocating $10k to bitcoin... and yeah a bit vague, but still I can somewhat work with you on it, including our agreement that it is just a matter of starting out with bitcoin, and then figuring out at what point the investment into bitcoin might start to reach a value in which some diversification might start to be justified, and if the $10k invested into bitcoin starts to grow, and maybe does a 3x (which would be $90k per BTC) or maybe a 10x (which would be $300k per BTC), then there might be some point that the person might want to start to diversify, which may or may not mean that selling coins would be the best option, but it might just mean that new cash is used to invest into other things other than bitcoin, since the bitcoin stash seems to be doing sufficiently well, even if maybe overall it is continuing to ongoingly fluctuate in value quite a bit.


Surely, I agree with this point that you made Wind_FURY.

That is a bullshit way of framing the topic, Franctoshi.

You are playing into describing some kind of a nonsensical category of crypto, and BTC just happens to be just one of the possible cryptos.

Think about the level of wrong thinking that must be in your head to frame the whole space in that kind of way.

Perhaps if you try to think about bitcoin first, and try to understand what bitcoin is and how bitcoin developed, and then perhaps if you thereafter want to start to include various shitcoins into your understanding of the dynamics of the space and the dynamics of what is happening with bitcoin, then maybe that might be a bit of a better way of framing the matter rather than starting out with some kind of an amorphous concept of crypto and various crypto and bitcoin happens to be one of the cryptos.

Your thinking and framework is wrong which likely means you don't really understand bitcoin and likely means that you are giving bad and misleading information and advice based on your lack of abilities to frame the matter in a more accurate way.


The conclusion of bitcoin being the best is not wrong...and even bitcoin being the most transparent is potentially directionally correct.. since there likely is some value in the open source nature of bitcoin, at least at the 1st layer.. but there can be various kinds of ways that bitcoin is not completely transparent. .including various systems built upon it, so maybe on a scale, we might consider bitcoin to be more transparent than a lot of shitcoins. and sure the crux of issues with various shitcoins does likely have to do with their attempting to appear as something that they are not.. which just gets us back to many of them. and perhaps even an overwhelming majority of them engaged in some kind of an affinity scam in regards to bitcoin, which also would be further justification why it is misleading to suggest that bitcoin falls just within a category of many cryptos when in fact it is the unambiguous leader in the space upon which many try to emulate or appear to be improvements upon or even sometimes appear to be attempting to build on bitcoin when they are likely not building upon bitcoin as much as they are claiming to be doing...otherwise, why would they need a token (except to be able to print money and to cause the appearance that they token is going to go up in value in order to lure people to invest while the founders get rich.. but they may well say that they are not doing that.. each of them say that they are a legit shitcoin.. not one of those scam ones).

Not to get too far into a tangent.

I mostly agree with your assertion about the aggressiveness of meat eaters, or at least that is a kind of a decently good myth to latch upon.

Nonetheless, there seems to be some kinds of hidden assumptions regarding why people are fat, and to me it seems that there are all kinds of foods (or even non-foods or food like items) that vegans (or even vegetarians for that matter) could eat to make them fat, so then the question might be what makes us fat from our lifestyle choices and particularly to your honing in on dietary considerations .. but then there are sleep and exercise too.. (beyond suggesting genetic abnormalities).. which I would suggest that carbohydrates contribute quite a bit to making people fat.. and sure maybe the industrial seed oils contribute to nutrition absorption issues.. and I really doubt that there is any kind of evidence that the fat in meats makes people fat,.. except to the extent that it is combined with carbohydrates.

and even with carbohydrates, there are different types.. and even some vegetables have toxins in them in regards to plants defending themselves from being eaten.. probably not cucumbers.. yet there could be some combination of foods.. but probably more like breads that might be contributing sam being a fatty.. .. consider books like Life Without Bread or Wheat Belly.

I agree with you that there are more and more tracking tools that are available (even for people who don't have keys to wallets), and so there could be some usages for tracking when coins move that can help us to determine how scarce the BTC supply might be in terms of when the coins were last moved - however, at the same time, these are still likely probability calculations more than anything, and there could be quite a few kinds of circumstances in which coins do not move, but the key has not been lost and someone actually has the ability to move the coins but has chosen not to.


This seems like a pretty lame point that you are making because scarcity does not necessarily result in lack of liquidity, especially since we are dealing with a divisible asset, and even though on the blockchain, bitcoin is ONLY dividable down to 8 digits, the lightning network has already allowed for going down to 11 digits, and even on the main blockchain, such softforks to allow such further divisions seems like it would not be difficult to pass.. and I am pretty sure that it could be a softfork, even though I don't claim to have any kind of technical prowess.

Anyhow, I guess my point here is that anyone can get bitcoins, and sure they likely are going to cost more when they are even more scarce than we might have had otherwise thought them to be, and then surely if a million coins all of a sudden move (or unlocked), then the circulating supply of bitcoin becomes less scarce at that point, even if those bitcoin had previously been known but then had been speculated to have been without keys.. and also in that regard, there could be some coins that end up getting their private keys hacked because they are stored in such a way that the keys can be discovered, and surely those kinds of change of ownership may well end up having affects on bitcoin's known circulating supply...

so yeah, even with all of satoshi's coins becoming available (or getting hacked into), whether that is 500k or 1.5million BTC, there would likely be some short term, and perhaps even medium term shocks to the supply and perhaps even perceptions of the vulnerability of the private keys of the supply to get discovered, but at some point, the BTC prices would move back to some kind of an equilibrium.. whether at lower prices than previously or not.  None of that means that people are more or less easily able to get BTC, even if they might have to buy less of an amount, and sure all people (whether poor or not) are likely not going to be able to buy as many BTC in the future as they are able to buy now with the same amount of cash... but what else is new...

Right now, you can buy $1 million worth of bitcoin or you can buy less than 1¢ worth of bitcoin...and even if satoshis go up to costing way more than 1¢ per satoshi, they still can be divided further, and are currently being divided into 1,000ths (on the lightning network), and could be divided further in the event that liquidity becomes a problem... it is the infinitely divisible issue that does not make the units less valuable, but it makes them ongoingly divisible to the extent that such divisibility might be needed in order to address possible liquidity issues.

I fixed your above-referenced to the article that you found.

And, you do not have to read an article to figure out where the BTC price has been, especially since there are all kinds of better information sources that show BTC price charts out there, and many charts will both show you live representations of where the BTC price is within a context that you can frequently customize how you are viewing the price chart information or the charts might give you abilities to go back in time and to highlight certain price performance areas of the chart.

I can hardly appreciate why anyone would give much of any shits regarding what the BTC price has been doing in the past 5 days - as you mentioned August 7th, which is just a ridiculous analysis - even if you say that you are getting that framing of the matter from the article, but if you are repeating bullshit from an article and not being critical of that same bullshit, then you are guilty of either spreading or believing the bullshit that you are repeating.

We can go back to March and see that the BTC price has largely been between $25k and $32k, and we have to go back to June of last year before we see BTC prices higher than $32k.. and who even knows the extent to which any of that would be relevant in terms of suggesting whether the BTC price might break out above $32k prior to the 2024 halvening.. or even if the odds for breaking upwardly are decently well, there are still likely resistance points before the BTC prices might hit $100k or above, which is what would be required for Adam to win his bet.

I don't give too many shits about charts, but they still can show us various historical price locations, and surely we can get some senses from history and context as well in terms of how much momentum allow for the BTC price to be able to keep going in one direction or another once it starts, and I am not even sure if $32k would necessarily be a resistance point, even though sure, BTC prices have not been above it for 14 months, yet surely there likely would at minimum be some kind of resistance between $32k and $40k-ish.. and there may well also be some kind of resistance point within about 20%-ish of the previous ATH.. and then perhaps even a 3rd resistance point before even reaching $100k. 

I am not sure if there would be any science to it, even though surely momentum is a factor and looking at historical examples, we can see how momentum can sometimes overcome resistance points, and even behind the scenes there can be some bull whales (in the event that retail is not jumping in) who may well be able to overcome the bear whales, and it is not even that we can know the extent to which bear whales might both have ammunition and are willing to spend it to avoid getting reckt, including their sometimes abilities to utilize fiat financial tools to attempt to get their way, but their reckening could get worse if they end up running out of resources and not being able to stop the upward movement/momentum.


Maybe I am spouting out technicalities, but I don't see bitcoin prices having been in that price range for more than 90 days.

I see about mid-late June (which is less than 2 months), BTC prices (Bitstamp) broke up from $24,756 and largely got within a $28,574 to $31,818 range since that date.. and yeah sure it is a technicality that you happened to shave more than a couple of thousand from the price range that you provided and also you added well over a month to the timeline that you say that we have been there.  If we go back 90 days, then we are in early to mid-May, and that seems to be a bit of a different story in terms of where we were at then (in the mid-$26ks).. but still hardly seeming to be a relevant timeline in terms of price movement and/or consolidation points, but we did get a break up in the BTC price in mid-March (around 150 days ago - or 5 months) in which we could factually accurately assert that BTC prices have been between $24,756 and $31,818.. and sure maybe we could round off those numbers to make it easier to read and maybe even taking out the spikes.. but still your framing of 90 days and even framing of a $29k to $30k price seems inaccurate and even a bit misleading, even if you might not have had intended it to be... even though probably your overall point regarding the odds being against Adam in his bet are likely fair.

I would place a successful outcome for Adam, in terms of his bet to be somewhere in the ballpark of 15% and 20%, which surely are non-zero odds that he could win, yet at the same time, the odds are seemingly against him.  I doubt that his measurements much more positive, even if he did state the reasons that he was making such a bet in which we would presume that he should consider the odds to be greater than 50% that he would win.. . but since the amount is so low, like others mentioned, it could be a bit of a publicity stunt, even though Adam doesn't really seem to be that kind of a guy. 

Dear Rancher Bob,

The ceo/manager of bitcoin cannot do anything about your tractor/greenhouse dilemmas.

You need to resolve those matters on your own.. ..

.....and what the fuck difference does it make if you sell some of dee cornz at $29k, $30k or $31k? 

or even selling anywhere between $25k and $35k for that matter.



Your drama queen diddly-daddly whining - doesn't really make any BIG diff.



#justsaying



Just like Lucius mentioned, that link of yours did not work fillippone, and I am pretty sure the reason is the extra space and "[/url" characters at the end of the text of the opening reference, which I fixed it in the above... but added a bit of redundancy with this additional reference.

https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/08/11/ark-21shares-bitcoin-etf-application-decision-pushed-by-sec/

Substantively, this "delay" does not even seem unusual, because the reason for "the delay" is the SEC's requesting public comment.

This is not really that bad of a suggestion.. and there might even be some practicality to it.. yet it also might be where part of the contention lies, and maybe we need to be more specific about this hypothetical person who might believe it to be a good idea to sell off some bitcoin to buy gold rather than buying something else or even is there a need to sell bitcoin in the first place. how long has the hypothetical person been accumulating his bitcoin? 

Therefore, how big is such person's BTC holdings in comparison to other investment assets that s/he owns?.. and then gosh, maybe we need to get into the other individual particulars that relate to cashflow, timeline, risk tolerance and the various others.

Another angle is what you might be considering ATH?  Start selling BTC at $69,001? or you are thinking about some other price point to start selling some bitcoin for gold... and then how much?  and what if the BTC price keeps going up and I am selling BTC in increments, might I run out of BTC at some point? 

Then once we are holding some gold, what do we do with it?  Are you thinking physical gold or paper derivatives?  Oh my the more I think about this idea of selling bitcoin for gold, seems like a BIG ass waste of time and efforts and probably money too.... especially if you consider what purpose the gold is supposed to serve in my portfolio as compared to some other asset/currency, that might include cash, property, equities, bonds or even other commodities besides gold.

Sure, the coins are supposed to belong to the clients, but many times laws and legal proceedings are not friendly in that directions, and then also the terms of service may or may not specify ownership or what the 3rd parties (the exchanges) can legally do with the coins.. and so there are a lot of injustices in the world - but and so the concrete principle of not your keys not your coins rings a lot of truth - even though surely people do not even trust themselves sometimes, and even some kinds of institutions (or even individuals sometimes in certain kinds of accounts that might be entitled to tax benefits) are not legally able to hold their own keys.. even though there are a lot of ways in which creative people are trying to figure out shared custodian arrangements - so it is not even always clear what might be the more feasible practices, because some people/institutions might not even realize the extent to which they are vulnerable to rug pulls (or somehow being locked out of their coins) until such rug pulling happens.


That's not true... like I just mentioned, there are some institutions and individuals who might be required to keep their coins in some kind of a 3rd party arrangement, and also frequently if someone does not really know what they are doing in terms of holding their own coins, those people may well be better off holding their coins with 3rd parties. and so it seems difficult for the problems with 3rd parties to just go away, at least in the short to medium term.. which could even end up being generations of evolution and development of various self-custodial (or quasi-self-custodial) solutions, and in the mean time, more sophisticated players are going to take advantage, manipulate and even just work within these kinds of systems to their own advantage.. even if maybe some of those third parties might not be trying to do anything evil.


That is still not true in all cases.

Sure there are benefits to having your own private keys, but if there is a known vulnerability (and even in recent times there has been quite a bit of discussion regarding the ways that the random generator system might have had been faulty and therefore unwittingly vulnerable)


So far, we are hearing a lot of examples coming from younger people rather than older people, but still examples of ways to screw up the passing of coins to heirs can come from all ages of people.


If you are referring to diversification for the mere sake of it (because you think that there is a benefit to that), then you are wrong.  Things can go wrong.. because you dilute your investment and you lack focus.

Alternatively, if you are believe that diversification into shitcoins constitutes any kind of meaningful diversification, then you are wrong.  Things can go wrong.. because again you are diluting your investment into nonsense.. including into a field that is already correlated to bitcoin.. so shitcoins move along with bitcoin, so if you diversify into them, you are merely adding more risk to an already risky investment area (namely bitcoin).. and the general idea of getting benefits from diversification comes from investing in differing categories of asset classes (hopefully not correlated), and traditionally those differing categories of asset classes would be equities (stocks), bonds (various kinds of debt instruments), properties, commodities and various kinds of cash exposure.  Surely some of the recent problems with the various lack of non-correlation, even with the traditionally different categories, is that so many of them are corrupted by the various ways that the categories are tending to be overly leveraged by various ways that the dollar (and other fiat currencies) are propped up in ways that natural market dynamics are not allowed to take place.. and even shitcoins actually incorporate some of the various fiat corruptions in varying ways that are not necessarily consistent between them, but does not seem to be a justification to "diversify" into those varying kinds of smoke and mirror products for the mere sake of "being diversified".


I cannot disagree with any of this.


Ultimately I agree with you in terms of the questioning of the value of having allocations in gold, yet surely people are going to have varying positions in regards to gold in terms of if they already have some gold versus whether they might actively consider putting gold into their investment portfolio, so there can be some differences regarding whether to expose yourself to gold at all based on if you are already exposed and/or if you already have the knowledge base (and or infrastructure awareness) versus if you are brand new considering gold as something to add to your investment portfolio.

Either way, the end result should be little to no gold, yet I am not telling people what to do because they can do whatever they want, including dumb stuff, and in the end, they are responsible for their own allocation decisions, and surely they could go against everyone and end up being correct, or maybe they go with everyone, and they end up being incorrect.  There are degrees to which we might figure out a system for ourselves or alternatively follow varying aspects of systems that other people point out.


What happens if you get hit on the head, and you cannot remember anything?  What about death?  Are you going to have plans in place for those kinds of possibilities, and if you leave instructions, are those instructions clear enough and/or are those instructions vulnerable to someone finding them prior to your death and/or disability and using those instructions to remove you from your coins?

Even though I don't disagree with your overall point about difficulties in trusting others, but I have my doubts about whether there is any one safe way including that keeping most (if not everything) to yourself has its own potential downfalls - even if it may well be safe from certain kinds of attacks that involve anyone else, even your mom taking your coins from you... if you don't trust anyone, then what kind of world are you living in.. a "safe" one?


Fuck gold.

You really want to pump gold in this thread in regards to its supposed "long-term and secure investment option"?


you sound like you have absorbed shitcoiner talking points from 2014-2016... or maybe you are listening to too many mainstream media pundits about bitcoin being valuable due to its "blockchain technology?"   

What a bunch of gobble-dee-gook.


This part of your post seems to be getting back on track.


I am not completely dismissing any use case for any other asset, but instead attempting to weighing the trade-offs in terms of valuations that seem more tied into comparing the various use cases, and surely there are still narrow use cases for gold and other assets, and surely bitcoin does not have physical properties which does cause gold (for example) to have some values that bitcoin does not have, but the mere fact that gold can be used for jewlery and industrial uses and even that it has been historically used for thousands of years does not cause it to be a better money than bitcoin, or even an equal money to bitcoin.. even though it could take a bit longer for gold to lose more and more of its monetary premium and a decent amount of gold's ongoing loss of monetary premium can likely be attributed to the existence of bitcoin, and various superior bitcoin features (at least superior in terms of bitcoin's monetary attributes).


I mostly agree with you Wind_FURY - even though I have my doubts about whether you got this right since you are continuing to make this argument about "different rules applying to poor people".. which is not completely wrong, even though you tend to emphasize it so much that contributes to flaws in your emphasis of such.

In other words, there likely tends to be more value in diversification as your investment/savings portfolio grows, and at what point some diversification is good is going to have quite a few discretionary aspects that lead us back to figuring out which goals the investor is trying to achieve in terms of growth of wealth versus preservation of wealth balances. 

Even if you might presume that everyone wants to get rich, there are some trade-offs that some people might be willing to make and others prefer not to make those kinds of trade-offs.

And surely there tends to be a decent amount of truth that concentration of investments are likely to contribute to greater potential for growth, yet again, some people are not willing to take those kinds of concentration of investment risks that likely end up in too much volatility, including that they might already know that they are going to need access to some of their wealth in various short term periods, and they cannot be taking the risk that their one or two investments happen to be down 60% to 85% at the time that they are considering tapping into it, so in that sense it may well be better to be able to draw from some assets that are more stable, even if they might not grow very well, but if you don't have any of those kinds of assets, then you are forced to have to spend from the asset that is 60% to 85% down.

So, there is some value in terms of when to start to diversify your savings/investment in bitcoin beyond bitcoin and cash and maybe into some other assets, and if you stick only with bitcoin and cash, then you can sometimes play around with those two and find enough comfort .. but I have my doubts.. .. even though there are people who maintain very concentrated approaches towards what they are investing/saving in... and for sure, they have the right to do that to themselves... even if such concentration of wealth may well not be good practices for the  vast majority of normies.. even supposedly poor plebs like uie-pooie.


There is nothing wrong with this idea - in the event that you are not actually overvaluing the property and the income that you might get from it.

If you prematurely get into the property and you bring your bitcoin holdings down to near zero or at zero just because you want that property and to have the income stream from the property, you may well have sold yourself short in terms of perhaps needing 10 years to make up for the amount of BTC that you ended up giving up in order to make that choice.

Sure, you may well speculate that the property is a "solid" investment in comparison to bitcoin, but you may well be deluded in your own brainwashing and inability to recognize/appreciate value.

An investment property (for cashflow) and a personal residence are going to have differing considerations, but even buying your own residence versus renting is not an "obvious" trade off in terms of either diversification, if that is what you are trying to achieve, or even having more stable value in terms of both balancing value growth and stability (referring to preserving principle).

So for example, if we go by your forum registration date, you have been saving for more than 10 years, and maybe you started to diversify into bitcoin around 8 years ago (at the time that you registered on forum), but maybe you did not invest into bitcoin very aggressively in the beginning and you made some mistakes, so maybe you have around 4.45 BTC (around $130k worth of bitcoin) - like in this example of investing $20 per week for the past 8 years, and you are considering buying some kind of an investment property or even a residential property to live in with that value.... 

Let's say that in your area investment properties of the type that you want are around $250k to $500k, and it is not easy to get reasonable property loans in your area... based on your income or even property collateral..

So sure, you have options because you have already built a decent BTC portfolio, but how much are you going to take from it in order to invest in the property, and how much is that going to end up taking away from your BTC holdings.. and how easy might it be to get that BTC back, versus if you just continued to invest into Bitcoin for the next 5-10 years, and then see how much those 4.45 BTC are worth after another cycle or two, so maybe you might not even need a whole BTC in order to completely buy the investment properties, even if similar investment properties might end up going up to $500k to $1million in the next 5-10 years.

I think that part of my point is to consider the trade-offs, and my use of those numbers might not be very accurate or realistic, but it still shows that there can be pretty BIG opportunity costs for people who end up selling too many BTC too soon for the mere sake of believing that they have put themselves into a better financial position through their premature diversification - even if it might make them feel MOAR GOODER in the short-term.


I think that my above example (responding to Yaunfitda) kind of addresses these ideas and even similar scenarios... and you seem to even point out that the cost of property ownership might not be getting you as much "returns" as you might superficially believe them to be capable of.. including 2x in 10 years, and even though I think that people might be exaggerating BTC returns as averaging 2x every year, but I still think that bitcoin is a way better investment than property in the coming 10 years.. and do what you like.. including that if you are going to live in the property, then you do have the saving of rent.. but you are still tied down in ways that you would not be with merely renting.. so sure there are some values that come with property ownership, but you likely need to question how much of your bitcoin (or your opportunity costs of having fewer bitcoin) is going to be worth it to buy property sooner than you should when maybe you could wait until your BTC stash is bigger.. and of course, you can choose what you like, even if it is not really the better of the choices merely because you are inclined to accumulate something physical. or maybe income producing or maybe ways to deduct expenses.. and none of those things are bad.. but still might end up being premature to jump in too soon, even if that's where your inclinations lie.

You seem to be describing something a bit different from what I started with, and that is the kind of grappling that anyone might have to do when they are trying to figure out the quantity of money that they are able to put into bitcoin without necessarily running the risk of overdoing it or even underdoing it because they had not sufficiently calculated their cashflows.   

So one thing is picking out how much to invest, and surely if you had been sometimes using up to 50% of your cashflow, then either the other 50% would have had to cover your monthly expenses or you might have had some kind of another money fund (such as extra or reserves) that you could draw upon in order to invest that amount.

And for sure one of the complications of bitcoin might have to do with how it's price could potentially rise really fast and then you might feel that you are overallocated into it, and maybe especially if you had not had any other investments, and perhaps in those kinds of circumstances it might start to feel prudent to diversify some of the value into other assets - and whether you sell from you BTC stash to accomplish such other investments or you merely divert your cashflow into those other investments that you would like to add are not always easy decisions.   

One of the difficult aspects of your own description of what you had been doing (and have done) is that if you had been investing fairly aggressively into bitcoin in 2021 and 2022, then you may well have ended up doing some front-loading of your investment attempts in the beginning, which may well have caused you to have had a decent amount of higher cost BTC in your portfolio, and so even if the BTC price came down a lot through most of 2022, especially starting in May 2022, you still may not have had been able to make up for your earlier higher cost investments, unless it happens to be the cased that you were less aggressive in 2021 and you ended up being lucky and able to be more aggressive after May of 2022 - and that just does not sound like a very plausible or likely scenario, which is part of the reason that I am suggesting that you would have had been lucky if the way that you ended up investing into bitcoin would have caused such a result that is contrary to what most enthusiastic newbies would have had been doing or even feeling inclined to do.

And another thing is that with such a short investment time horizon, it does not even seem reasonable and/or prudent to be diversifying out of bitcoin when bitcoin has not even appreciated that much and it may well even be the case that your BTC are in the negative or barely reaching break-even values in light of how much you would have had invested into BTC, perhaps over the past 2.5 years or so... unless you started earlier than that.. and of course, with our current BTC price scenario, it seems that those who were building their BTC holdings prior to 2021 (and who may had largely built most of the size of their BTC holdings prior to 2021) are likely in a much more comfortable place right now relative to those who started in 2021 or thereafter (perhaps absent those who started in around November 2022.. and surely again a seemingly kind of minority group.. and it would not even seem to be prudent for those who started since November 2022 to really have had enough time in the market to be exercising diversification of their holdings, yet).

In the end, surely people have to figure out how to do what they want and to have some kind of ideas about what they are doing and why they are doing it, so even though I have frequently said that diversification for the mere sake of diversity does not tend to be a good plan, especially for beginner investors, but surely once their investment size (whether assets within it have significantly appreciated or not) starts to grow to becomes a significant amount of their overall wealth.. maybe initially measuring from the size of their annual income.. so getting into the 30%-50% or even into the 1x to 2x sizes of their annual income, then it may well start to feel somewhat compelling (and even justifiable) to start to figure out ways to diversify the holdings, whether there are choices to sell some existing assets or perhaps the more common (and practical approach.. but these are still not absolutes because lump summing becomes and option for those who have built their investment portfolio) to start to divert new money into the new areas in which some exposure is desired.. and then start to build exposure to the new areas... and perhaps still keeping in mind that maybe the old area may still need some injections of new capital from time to time too so perhaps the value of each of the asset classes continue to grow and are monitored along the way.

Rabbits do sometimes scratch and bite.

I would not overly poo poo the reasonableness of being scared of rabbits (even in this forum, many of us here are scared of bitcoin bunny.. he can be a very irritable rabbit (bunny is a kind of rabbit, correct?) from time to time, including but not limited to scratching and biting).


Remember the $1 bet in "My Fair Lady" between Henry Higgins and Colonel Pickering...

and the bet was whether Higgins would be able to turn the flower girl (Eliza) into a "proper" lady.

A classic but a goodie, and probably could not make such a film today without a bit more gender fluidity contained therein.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Fair_Lady#:~:text=Higgins%20wagers%20Pickering%20that%2C%20within,becomes%20part%20of%20Higgins's%20household.


To me it looks like since about the beginning of July until now, 7 sats per vbyte would be sufficient to get your transfer to go through in a reasonable time, if you are transacting with yourself...

and maybe if you really want them to go through because you are transacting with a stranger, then just double the fee to 14 sats per vbyte.

https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#BTC,30d,weight

I am having difficulties seeing the extent to which there is much of an issue, and sure some wallets have issues with coin control, and maybe some wallets charge the wrong fees too, but there are wallets in which we are able to learn how to set these kinds of fee matters to our own appetites for how much of a delay (and/or costs) we are willing to tolerate...

.. and sure if you are sending from multiple addresses rather than from one address at a time (again coin control), then the fees might end up being higher and even that you might want to prefer for lower fee times, even though it does appear that below 5 sat per vbyte fees have not been going through for several months, even though they were close to being completely cleared in the middle of May... but even in the past few months, you are running risks if you are trying to get transactions to go through for less than 5-7 sats per vbyte.


Oh.. that reminds me.  

There is even RBF replace by fee, which is what some wallets have, which are either parent pays for child or child pays for parent... so some of the wallets have those kinds of features... and another good reason to try to learn about how to use various wallets and various wallet features, even though some of them are changing, and for sure this here yours truly is no kind of a technical expert, but sometimes each of us can still be ongoingly learning some of the various ways to have some kind of an ability to control our transactions or maybe to learn from our earlier experiences regarding potentially better ways to send our coins... if such monitoring and/or coin control options might or might not be available in some circumstances, too.


FTFY

First world problems.

There still are various learning curves to bitcoin including a variety of ways that any of us could end up losing our bitcoin in terms of losing our private keys or even believing that we own bitcoin when a third party is holding our keys.. and maybe some of the legal requirements around 3rd parties will change in the future, but right now, a lot of the rules around 3rd party custody include risks that the 3rd parties may well end up getting away with stealing, losing, mismanaging the bitcoin that people believe to have had been theirs.

Also wallets have issues, and sometimes there may well be needs to change wallets or even vulnerabilties are discovered, and best practices are not even easy to learn and/or to follow, even for people who are active in bitcoin and relatively smart... and probably, we are going to find either a lot of people dying with their bitcoin or the instructions for heirs to be difficult to figure out.. and on the other hand, some of the leaving instructions for heirs can end up in coins being transferred to people who might not deserve them, but some of us might end up trusting too many heirs or the wrong heirs or even get a bit sloppy in an attempted inheritance process that results in undeserving people with our coins.. and I am not even claiming to know the solution or even to have ways that even smart people can end up getting tricked out of their coins, which could even cause more incentives for some people to choose to just die with their coins.