I sold more than the above plan. I recognized the likelihood of the blowoff top,
I will concede if the correction lasts for more than a year and if we are in the below $10k doldrums for more than a year.. then perhaps last year's BTC price peak could be fairly classified as a blow off top. However, if we get something else, and even perhaps a return to another price peak that rises us above $10k before February 2019, then maybe our real blow off top for this exponential growth period (and perhaps series of peaks like 2013) is yet to come... which could mean that $100k is within grasp. Perhaps I should have said localized blow-off top? and I wanted to buy my lambo.
I am more likely to consider a figurative lambo than an actual lambo. Aye, my lambo be a rhetorical lambo, not a literal Lambo. Hell, I drive a 20 year old full-size van. Then again, my rhetorical lambo cost quite a bit more than a literal Lambo. Capital gains are a natural result of profits - they're a lot more affordable than a 2/3 haircut.
No problem trying to figure out ways to pay less taxes, but if there are reasonable lifestyle purchases, such as a lambo or even a lambo substitute, better to just declare everything outright rather than spending too much energy to try to save on taxes but then miss opportunities to enjoy the fruits of your years of investment and HODLing. 'zackly. |
|
|
|
trying to trick people into thinking that Bcash is the real Bitcoin.
Newsflash: if the BCH chain ever amasses more accumulated PoW than BTC, then BCH will be The Real Bitcoin. BTG has it's flaws and the price has tanked, but one thing that BTG has for which I hold it in higher regard is that they have not tried or attempted to harm BTC or tried to trick people into thinking that they are buying Bitcoin
BTG can never become The Real Bitcoin, as it has discarded the Bitcoin PoW algo. no coin can become a real bitcoin. This is a very special coin and it is worth the great opportunity. I believe that bitcoin will always kill all other coins in this market. You seem to be missing the basics on how Bitcoin is designed. Read moar. I might suggest: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf |
|
|
|
1) Set up a ladder of equally-spaced limit sell orders above current price, each for the same small increment of your stash.
2) Set up a ladder of equally-spaced limit buy orders below current price, each for the $USD value of the sell increment above it.
3) Harvest the volatility.
4) Profit. And relax, knowing that you are set up to maximize returns in any environment.
Well, that's my suggestion anyway.
In my opinion this is exactly the right way to do it if you're a long term bull. And assuming you don't have to sell sooner to pay the bills. My plan assumes you're already sitting on a stake big enough for all anticipated lifetime needs, given your expectation of eventual Bitcoin price. Although when it came time for me to sell during the 20k run-up, I sold less than my plan told me to. You know what stopped me? The thought of triggering capital gains.
I sold more than the above plan. I recognized the likelihood of the blowoff top, and I wanted to buy my lambo. Even recognizing the spike would be followed by an imminent retrace, I probably would not have accelerated my sells if I did not have an earmarked expenditure. For the next spike -- whenever it materializes -- will dwarf this last one. Capital gains are a natural result of profits - they're a lot more affordable than a 2/3 haircut. |
|
|
|
Observations from reading https://think.ing.com/uploads/reports/ING_International_Survey_Mobile_Banking_2018.pdf1) "Fewer than one in 10 in Europe (9%) at the time of the survey indicate owning cryptocurrency ... One in four (25%) in Europe indicate they expect to own cryptocurrency at some time in the future" So at a time when ~18% of Bitcoin remains to be mined, we see demand expected to triple. Works for me. 2) "We find that only about a third (35%) in Europe agree Bitcoin is the future of spending online. A similar share (32%) of respondents agree cryptocurrency is the future of investing." Only? A third of everybody thinks that Bitcoin " is the future" of both spending online and of investing. And how big are these total addressable markets again? Thought so. I can certainly live with that. ...gotta wear shades. |
|
|
|
The proposed 128MB block size update tops out ~896 transactions per second.
Which if all of the blocks were full would require 6 TB of hard drive space per year.
Even a 1 GB block would only achieve ~7168 transactions per second,
Which if all of the 1 GB blocks were full would require ~53 TB of hard drive space per year.
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-cost-per-gigabyte/ |
|
|
|
trying to trick people into thinking that Bcash is the real Bitcoin.
Newsflash: if the BCH chain ever amasses more accumulated PoW than BTC, then BCH will be The Real Bitcoin. BTG has it's flaws and the price has tanked, but one thing that BTG has for which I hold it in higher regard is that they have not tried or attempted to harm BTC or tried to trick people into thinking that they are buying Bitcoin
BTG can never become The Real Bitcoin, as it has discarded the Bitcoin PoW algo. |
|
|
|
In the middle of Cobra's defense of Bitcoin Cash's through the user activated no fork, what would happen if Cobra's followers do not run nodes or run less than 10% of the decentralized part of the network, while Jihan Wu runs the rest comprising of the centralized part of the network?
Jihan Wu could Sybil attack their way to throw out the decentralized 10%.
Would this be an example of non-miners' number of nodes matter if they run more, jbreher?
I tire of your hypotheticals. Not only are they repetitive, but also because they contain false equivalencies, and state impossibilities. By definition, there can be no decentralized 10% opposed to a centralized 90%. We already know that Jihan Wu does not run 'the rest'. If no miners are mining your so-called 'Cobra's fork', what do you suppose will be the result? |
|
|
|
Another shower thought. There are two groups fighting in Bitcoin Cash about its hard fork on November 15. Jihan Wu's group, and Craig Wright's group. Would Jihan Wu's group have automatic consensus on the decision making, if they decide or do not decide, to support the "upgrade" because their nodes, which are mining nodes, are the only nodes that matter?
No. Jihan Wu is not the only miner. |
|
|
|
Back at that beautiful place of having no fucking clue what to do. Not to say I am unhappy. As per usual sitting with a more then advisabley large position for what I have saved, but I have been holding like a good little boy and it damn sure has paid off.
The slow walk up to break 7k makes me feel good, but now I once again hear that nagging evil feeling that I should sell and take profit and stop being such a greedy bastard. Problem is I believe too much and sometimes that gets in the way of making good decisions.
1) Set up a ladder of equally-spaced limit sell orders above current price, each for the same small increment of your stash. 2) Set up a ladder of equally-spaced limit buy orders below current price, each for the $USD value of the sell increment above it. 3) Harvest the volatility. 4) Profit. And relax, knowing that you are set up to maximize returns in any environment. Well, that's my suggestion anyway. |
|
|
|
Ahh 2017. The happy times. We all knew it was nuts though. I dont think we will see its like again though as the the shorters are a force now.
Of course we will see its like again. Albeit at some fractal multiple higher price. Might have to wait a few years for it though. Prepare. |
|
|
|
Thanks Jbear. I must admit with all the BCH forks flying around I am losing track of which BCH is supposed to be the real BCH. Is it the Peter R or Alex F version or someone else’s?
You seem to be unable to discern the difference between: an instance of a blockchain; and a proposal for an instance of a client. So is the instance of the client with OP_Group enabled the real BCH client or is the real BCH client the one without OP_Group? Download 'em, run 'em, and see which work on the blockchain. Oh, you can't? You won't? Not my problem. I am fairly confident each will work on their respective blockchains. Unless you are telling us with utmost confidence that Bcash lol won’t HF in November? No. I am saying that we know not yet which implementation will collect critical mass. Chances are, the miners will mass 99% behind the implementation they prefer, and the 1% will crawl off into obscurity, capitulation, and subsequent chain death. Unless, of course, reality slaps the lagging implementation in the face leading to a kumbaya moment. |
|
|
|
someone needs to shut Ver up and kill this turd coin
heheh... 'someone' .... heh heh |
|
|
|
Thanks Jbear. I must admit with all the BCH forks flying around I am losing track of which BCH is supposed to be the real BCH. Is it the Peter R or Alex F version or someone else’s?
You seem to be unable to discern the difference between: an instance of a blockchain; and a proposal for an instance of a client. So is the instance of the client with OP_Group enabled the real BCH client or is the real BCH client the one without OP_Group? Download 'em, run 'em, and see which work on the blockchain. Oh, you can't? You won't? Not my problem. |
|
|
|
he is just going to do a presentation that he says demonstrates that it is theoretically possible to do basically any change as a soft fork.
Funny. When we pointed out that soft forks -- which Coreans put forth as being inherently safe -- were capable of making any change whatsoever, we were shouted down as FUDsters. Now a Corean is putting forth this very same truism as new knowledge, and the masses are proclaiming some new revelation. |
|
|
|
He engages in convoluted distractions including frequently attempting to suggest that there were some kind of burden on others to prove him to be wrong rather than him having both the burden of production of evidence and persuasion about the relevance and strength of that evidence, and further if he were such a supposed genius, he would present his ideas and refrain from ad hominem bullshit....
You are delusional, JJG. In your discussions with Shelby, he provided sound reasoning based upon solid evidence supported by links documenting the evidence. Bullshit. He provided convolution and distorted speculation. How would you know? You never read the provided evidence. |
|
|
|
Kelly Loeffler, CEO Bakkt: A critical element to price discovery is physical delivery. Specifically, with our solution, the buying and selling of Bitcoin is fully collateralized or pre-funded. As such, our new daily Bitcoin contract will not be traded on margin, use leverage, or serve to create a paper claim on a real asset. This supports market integrity and differentiates our effort from existing futures and crypto exchanges which allow for margin, leverage and cash settlement. Coupled with a secure, regulated warehouse solution, you can begin to see how this market infrastructure can help more institutions and consumers participate in the asset class. https://medium.com/bakkt-blog/https-medium-com-kellyloeffler-price-discovery-f9c77885383Relieved? Maybe. But verification is still in order. Their system seemed purpose-built for partial reserve. What reassurances do we have that this claim is accurate? |
|
|
|
Thanks Jbear. I must admit with all the BCH forks flying around I am losing track of which BCH is supposed to be the real BCH. Is it the Peter R or Alex F version or someone else’s?
You seem to be unable to discern the difference between: an instance of a blockchain; and a proposal for an instance of a client. |
|
|
|
Sounds interesting, but I don't see how this translates as a threat to BCH. 4MB * 3600 = 14.4GB Core has already shown an incredible irrational resistance to scaling on-chain. Conspiracy theorists were insisting it was blockstream being behind the stopping of scaling bitcoin onchain yet here we have someone well associated with blockstream proposing this. Your quoting is broken. No proposal as of yet. So far, all that we have is a tweet announcing the topic of a presentation to be given at an upcoming conference. Demonstrably, Blockstream employees and contractors indeed argued vociferously against a simple block size increase leading up to the grand schism. Are you attempting to deny this reality? If indeed Blockstream intends to create 14.4GB blocks, how ever will that run on a Raspberry Pi? What will it do to non-mining validator centralization? (not that that is an actual negative to the Bitcoin system, but Coreans have been insisting that it is). More interesting yet is what they may plan on doing with that block size. As it stands today, due to the Core client's crappy multithreading design, the client bogs down at about 100 tx/s on today's commodity hardware. Maybe they'll finally get around to fixing that. |
|
|
|
He engages in convoluted distractions including frequently attempting to suggest that there were some kind of burden on others to prove him to be wrong rather than him having both the burden of production of evidence and persuasion about the relevance and strength of that evidence, and further if he were such a supposed genius, he would present his ideas and refrain from ad hominem bullshit....
You are delusional, JJG. In your discussions with Shelby, he provided sound reasoning based upon solid evidence supported by links documenting the evidence. But rather than admit that you were too fuckin' lazy to read the supporting evidence, and apply your brain to follow the arguments, you merely dissembled saying the evidence was not presented. Pointing out that you refused to attempt to follow the argument is not an ad hominem attack. |
|
|
|
@MarkFriedenbach https://twitter.com/MarkFriedenbach/status/1030211193544134658I will be giving a talk at #ScalingBitcoin on how a block size increase up to 3600x the present size and a change of proof-of-work can be achieved with a fully backwards compatible soft-fork—old clients see all transactions and valid SHA256 block headers. This is not good news if onchain. I hope this is a sidechain solution. Copied from another post ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2040221.msg44413482#msg44413482): Sounds interesting, but I don't see how this translates as a threat to BCH. Core has already shown an incredible irrational resistance to scaling on-chain. The ugly hack of adopting SegWit as a so-called 'soft fork' has proven to have been the mechanism by which new security vulnerabilities have been introduced to BTC - will this 'soft fork' be any different? Lastly, experience with other chains has already conclusively demonstrated the folly of jettisoning $Billions of USD worth of dedicated security appliances. While the capacity increase is attractive, this looks to be facing at least a trifecta of real implementation problems. I must admit that as far as technical details, I am quivering with antici... . . . . . . . . . . . ...pation. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
