Sure who wants to follow all of the nitty-gritty drama, but it still seems to me that Udi is not dumb or anything, while at the same time, it seems that his ego has gotten too big.

He can do whatever he wants in his little made-up battles against so called bitcoin maximalists as he defines them, but it seems likely that he is not going to be on the right side of history when he has let himself become so emotional and ego-driven.

These may be arguments about semantics, and even though the whole idea might seem a bit trivial, there could be ways that guys go wrong because they take the ideas of consistency and persistency in the wrong direction.

It seems that the idea of consistency first came up in the context of either setting DCA orders on a regular basis and for a regular amount, whether that might be daily, weekly or monthly.  Another way that it came up was in terms of buying on dips or even setting ladder increments, and the example was if you had $1,200 and if you were to set that for buying on dips.. would there be advantages in terms of setting 4 orders equally at $300 each, or might there be advantages in varying them.

If you are talking about how to reach a goal over a whole year, and then having variance in terms of ways that the goals are met, then you seem to be talking about being persistent to make your end of the year goal, but you might not follow consistent practices to reach the goal.. so if you have a $1,200 that you want to invest into bitcoin for the whole year, you could divide that into $100 per month, or maybe around $25 per week even though you would end up at $1,300 if you were to buy all of the 52 weeks of the year, so you could adjust that down to $23.08 in order to stay in a $1,200.16 budget for that year.

Consistency might be to keep investing $23.08 every week no matter what, which thereby would make that weekly buy a priority and maybe that money had already been somewhat set aside in order that it does not cause cashflow issues, so any flexibility that would thereby be needed might come from some other place in the budget..

And, don't get me wrong, I am not even devaluing the ideas of consistency and persistency because sometimes if someone is wanting to reach certain goals they need to set priorities, so they still likely have to set their goals in a a kind of realistic way in which they are able to carry out the goals - and so if the person does not have an adequate emergency fund, then s/he might have had set too aggressive of BTC accumulation goals and they might need to be adjusted downwardly in order to cause them to be more realistic.


I have done all of the things that I talk about, and sure many times they are going to be tailored to the specific situation and depending on what stage someone is in his/her bitcoin journey, so if you are in an accumulation phase, you could be in early, middle or late accumulation which might affect how you might prioritize, and then perhaps if you have been accumulating bitcoin for a while, you may transition to a kind of maintenance and/or liquidation stage.. I consider that I did my most aggressive accumulation between late 2013 and late 2014, and by the end of 2014, I was starting to think that I had enough BTC, but at that time, I could not help myself to continue to accumulate in 2015 and 2016.. and sure I have been accumulating after 2016 too, but not as aggressively as I had done in that first year... and another thing is that even as early as 2015, I was already thinking that I was transitioning into a maintenance stage, but BTC accumulation is not excluded from that, even though some of the priorities and urgencies change.

Another thing is that many normal people (normies) might not be able to go from BTC accumulation to maintenance as quickly unless they might already be starting with an investment portfolio, and I had already largely had been building my investment portfolio for more than 20 years prior to getting into bitcoin, so it was likely easier to reach accumulation targets based on those kinds of considerations.. and it is my sense that many normies still might need to take nearly 20 years to build their BTC holdings, but surely BTC price appreciation could help to cut those BTC accumulation timelines down a lot more than might have had been the case in traditional investments.  Of course, there are no guarantees that screw ups will not end up happening and there still may well be needs for the BTC accumulation times to take as long as they would have had taken through traditional methods... and there are also no guarantees that goals will be reached.. but surely a good thing if goals are actually able to be reached and even surpassed.


Yes.  I repeat myself sometimes.


Maybe I am quibbling with some of the semantics.. .. but I want to say that even though I am selling on the way up and buying on the way down, I am neither claiming to be trading nor selling enough BTC that I have any preferences that the BTC price goes back down..

so personally, I have been saying that the main strategy to attempt to build your BTC stack is to engage in various BTC accumulation strategies until you reach such a level that you are way overly-allocated into BTC and then at that point, you have more options and you may well be in a position to consider selling small amounts of BTC on the way up.;.but you still have to be more careful with any of those kinds of strategies, especially the earlier that you are in your BTC accumulation journey.

Accordingly, I don't consider selling of BTC to be a BTC accumulation strategy or even a good strategy to even be attempting to increase BTC holdings, even though it could be considered a kind of insurance strategy in the case that BTC prices were to end up going back down.... even though the amounts are greatly biased in favor of UP..

Let's say for example I were to have 10 BTC (and I am not even saying this is not a fictitious number), so maybe if the BTC price were to go down $5k from $30k to $25k, in this example, the overall value of my BTC holdings would have had dropped from $300k to $250k, and maybe I might have ended up buying back anywhere between $500 and $2k worth of BTC depending on how aggressively my buy back orders had been set.  Accordingly, what I am saying is that the selling amount and the buy back amounts are not so great to overall affect the overall BTC portfolio size that continues to be heavily biased towards holding BTC.. and a perhaps a kind of maintance of the BTC portfolio size rather than either accumulation and/or liquidation.

It could be the case that I am engaging in a kind of complicated semantics in the way that I am describing some of these selling on the way up dynamics and how those proceeds are used to buy back.. even though to me it seems problematic for people to consider selling BTC to be BTC accumulation strategy - and this thread is meant to be mostly directed towards the ideas of BTC accumulation and holding..  not selling.


The more that we talk about this example, the more unrealistic I start to consider it to be.  Sure, guys do end up coming up with goals regarding how many BTC that they want to accumulate within a certain time period, but part of the reason that the goal seems to be unrealistic is partly due to its being denominated in a salary that you are likely earning in another kind of a currency (not BTC) so there is a cause for way greater variability, so even if you might say that I plan to invest $30k into bitcoin within the next year, then you know how much dollars that you can put in and you know how much income that you have coming in... but yeah, sure maybe it is still be doable to suggest how much BTC to accumulate per month, so long as the amount is not at the upper limits of your capabilities and you have a sufficient amount of cushion contained within the  amount that you are expecting to accumulate each month.

Mickey?



Inquiring minds want to know.

Hahahahahaha

This Tom guy sounds like my lil selfie.  In udder wurds, I (aka yours truly) can relate.

 


 


I thought that you were in it for the tech?



.......and........







.....because you like shiny things.

 

With that example that you gave Nwada001, there could be adjustments of the timeline in order to accommodate that some circumstances had changed, so maybe there is a realization that the goal might take 14, 16 or 18 months rather than the initial 12 months might not have been as realistic as it had been originally thought to be.

Persistence and consistency are also two differing concepts.

I might have had gotten a bit into scrambled arguments, yet I suppose that I was trying to say that any governmental leader, whether Bukele or any other leader has duties to represent everyone, not just people from their demographics, since synchronym's post seemed to be suggesting some kind of an age-bias that Bukele would have had to appeal to young people blah blah blah.. so I was also suggesting that Bukele's high level of support likely shows that tend to believe that he's representing everyone..

and then I got into the prisoner situation.. which probably convoluted some of what I was saying.. so maybe I was trying to say too much and it's not even seeming to be completely that central to the overall theme of this thread in terms of the ramifications of making bitcoin legal tender.. even though the topics do somewhat relate. 

In that particular post, I was not even trying to get into anything related to the Binance situation, but I don't mind saying something about the Binance situation, which is  that I think that various kinds of relationships are likely needed to be made in terms of which services are made available in the country, and surely any bitcoin related service operating in the country would need to follow the laws of that country.. so I am not sure why people are getting into such a huff about whether it is a good idea for Bukele to agree to Binance coming into the country and receiving certain kinds of licenses to operate there, which may well include trading shitcoins... El Salvador might not be into shitcoins (which it seems that it is not), but on the face of it, the mere fact that Binance allows for shitcoin trading seems like a pretty big "so what?" to me..

Personally, I question the extent to which it is necessary to teach your heirs about bitcoin in order for some kind of plan to be made in which they would benefit from your bitcoin.  For example, you could create some kind of a trust and you could also have some person or some kind of an organization that would be in charge of distributions, and you could also have terms within the trust that might involve some of the needs of your various heirs to educate themselves in regards to bitcoin (or any other topic) if you believe that might be a reasonable condition to set upon their receipt of the bitcoin or to receive distributions that might span out over a number of years or even through their whole life, if you might want to set it up in that kind of a way.

Don't get me wrong.  I surely get the sense that it is a good thing to teach your own kids about bitcoin, yet in some sense your kids also have agency in terms of whether or not they are interested in the topic, and for sure many of us would prefer that our kids listen to us and we are able to instill various values with them, including that they learn about bitcoin, but still we likely need to appreciate that there may well be a lot of differences in how any heirs might learn (including some heirs might actually have hostile views to you and to bitcoin, and that is going to be up to you regarding whether you still believe that they might be an heir that is entitled to some if not all of your bitcoin upon your perishing).

I recall participating in one thread (currently locked) questioning if the wife should know your seed phrase.

I participated in another thread in which the question regarded whether "your" kids are aware of bitcoin and at what age (or whether) to teach them about bitcoin.


Your discussion here reminds me of a little (about 27 minutes) video drama that was posted by another forum member (At this time, I cannot remember which member and/or which thread) that has a kind of funny and interesting plot upon which the nerdy (and not very attractive) bitcoiner marries a relatively attractive younger woman, and then he engages in various attempts to teach the wife about bitcoin, which she seems like she did not really understand it and the husband seemed to be using a Trezor with an extra word password, but she understood that he (the husband) had a lot of money, so the wife was having an affair and she and her boyfriend plotted to take the bitcoin from the husband, and I am not sure if they meant to kill him but various tragedies happen along the way including that all of the keys end up getting lost (or not recoverable).. at least that seemed to have had been the way it turned out.. you can watch it for yourself.. From my perspective it doesn't seem to be a bad use of time to watch it (you can even speed it up).


This is likely not 100% correct, but you still make a very decent point about if no one is going to challenge the matter, then there does have to do with potential controversy that comes from anyone who might challenge the matter in terms of either being equal heirs because there is a hierarchy of heirs, so any heir making a claim would likely have to be on the same level.. but states differ in these kinds of property laws and passing down property.. and so your reference to "common law" sort of presumes that the state does not have a specific law on that topic.. .and in that regard, you may or may not be right in regards to the law of any particular state and whether common law applies to that particular jurisdiction... but still it is a good idea for sure.


For sure, I was about to give you merit because your first two points are decently good, but your advice is stupid, lame and evades the questions presented in the thread in terms of an assumption that someone is going to have bitcoin and is going to want to consider various ways of passing down the bitcoin. 

Surely one of the options could be to liquidate the bitcoins at the time of death or to convert them into some other kind of asset, but the dumb thing about presuming that someone who currently has bitcoin should just sell them all to avoid the dilemma seems to be both an ill-thought out idea and not even dealing with the situation as it has already been presented with an assumption that bitcoin currently exists and another assumption that the holder of such coins could die at any second, and has such person actually sufficiently/adequately prepared for such eventuality.. and if not, then what are the various possible ways that such preparations can be made while still living..

...and surely one of the solutions could be to assign someone to the situation and give such person total discretion about what to do, who may or may not end up selling the bitcoin then present.. or another possibility would be to assign someone, but then to tell them what you want done (whether or not they end up following your direction), which also could include instructions that they sell all the then existing bitcoin.


Careful about saying too much about what you are specifically doing in a forum setting or even in other places on the interwebs (including electronic messages and/or e-mails) - especially if it might end up pointing out a single point of failure .. and surely, I understand that we want to attempt to share various possibilities, and maybe we might want to be a bit vague about some of the details, including if we might have some specific points of failure..

By the way, there may be some assumptions that the more things that any of us have going on, there may well be various kinds of needs to write some of those things down, even including that we could end up locking ourselves out of our own bitcoin if either our head gets hit or death of course, and then maybe we might not even remember where we stored what we wrote, so sure there can be advantages to having some of these things written down.. and also that someone might know some of the logistics.. or these instructions are in this location.. but you cannot access that location unless I am dead or irrecoverably disabled (or head injury).... and if the person who knows all of your information perishes in the same accident that you had, then what's your backup plan to that?  or does such a scenario not matter (or it is not likely?) ?

That's pretty dangerous to be framing the matter that way... it lacks focus, and it seems dangerous.. because there are so many ways that normies (or even poor people) might end up overallocating to shitcoins and not really understanding bitcoin.

I frequently tell newbies that I ONLY recommend bitcoin, and I do not recommend shitcoins at all, but if they feel that they want to fuck around with shitcoins to allocate no more than 10% the amount of their bitcoin holdings into shitcoins, and sure I understand that people can do whatever they want and frequently they are likely to allocate into shitcoins way more than what I had suggested to be the max, and they have the right to do whatever they like, but I feel that I at least gave my suggestion to them, and surely I don't even claim to be any kind of an advisor even though that's how I tend to frame the matter.

Another way of thinking about the matter is for any newbie to work towards figuring out bitcoin first, and then once they may get some grasp upon bitcoin, then they would be in a better position to decide for themselves the extent to which (if at all) they would delve into various shitcoins...

So, even referring to the space as "crypto" is misleading because it unduly puts too much weight in terms of attempting to count bitcoin as if it were just one of many other cryptos and that is far from even being close to true, and if you are using the term crypto and including bitcoin as part of that, then you likely do not even understand bitcoin enough and you are speaking sloppily by using such a term.. without specifying what you mean exactly.

By the way, I am not opposed to the use of the term crypto if it might come to explaining some kind of a dynamic regarding something that all cryptos might have in common, such as they are all digital representations that may or may not attempt to peg to physical items/assets.. but if it comes to describing investment strategies or even how to think about bitcoin. .there is almost no good use of terms like crypto or crypto currencies unless you specifically say what you are talking about and if you are talking about bitcoin, then why not just use the word "bitcoin?"  if you are referring to other crypto besides bitcoin, then either specify what you are talking about or make it clear that you are not talking about bitcoin... and if you make that clear most of the time, then you will be better able to get away with using the term crypto from time to time without specifying what you mean, but people already know what you mean because you said what you mean at an earlier point in time or frequently enough that they know what you are wanting to say.


Sure that is all true, but wouldn't you consider that you may well need a bit more specifics than what you are saying that "everyone has to decide for himself/herself.. blah blah blah..? That seems pretty vague to me.


You seem to be mixing things up.  There may well not be any need to diversify at all if someone is new to investing, but if they already have some investments the category is not necessarily talking about money markets because even that concept is vague.  When I think of money market, then I think about a kind of cash equivalent that has the mere purpose of attempting to maintain or increase its value through a kind of yield that the money market fund might have.

If you are suggesting that many of the non-bitcoin crypto currencies are another kind of money market that is done through another kind of vehicle so it serving a very similar purpose as a traditional money market, but instead normies are able to get in and out of the "crypto" version of the money market because it is more accessible to them than a traditional money market. and surely we are getting into baloney shitcoin talk when going down this avenue, evnen thogh this thread is specifically asking for comparisons to bitcoin and shitcoins and asking about what kinds of exchanges to use and/or ways to hold coins.


Sure, it seems that we are agreeing on this point, yet we know that some people, even with limited income, are in a position to be more risky with whatever capital that they do have as compared with some other people, and sometimes there is an age factor that deals with future potential earning capacity.. so we likely would even agree that the balance of something like capital preservation and capital growth is not going to be struck in the same kinds of ways for all people, even if we might categorize them as "limited income."

And if I might be talking to two different limited income persons and one of them happens to be young and has a lot of skills and income potential and the other has more of a set job or maybe even late in his/her career so there are thoughts that income is not likely to increase, then surely I might still give similar suggestion about mostly sticking with bitcoin, but I might understand that the younger person might be more willing to take chances and to rely on his/her future earning potential as a kind of insurance in case s/he fucks up whatever risk taking that s/he is contemplating.


Even though I might not be disagreeing generally what you seem to be saying, I still have some troubles in regards to what it is that you are even talking about because who gives any shits about the growth of cyptocurrencies, unless you are talking about bitcoin, and if you are talking about bitcoin, then sure, let's talk about the various potentials for its future growth - why is it necessary to consider the extent to which various other shitcoins may or may not grow along with bitcoin.  I assume that shitcoins are going to grow, yet I also believe that it is a general waste of time to spend mental energy in thinking about them, or to study into them or to put value into them, absent some kind of a minor allocation.. that would not exceed 10% in terms talking about them, thinking about them and/or finances.

so o.k. if we agree that there are going to continue be shitcoins.. then let's get back to how bitcoin fits into this and focus or discussions on bitcoin rather than getting distracted or being vague in terms of what we mean or what we are talking about.


Great.  Agreeing seems to be a step in the right direction to potentially show that there might be some hope with you.

I have no obligation to back up my statement that criticizes your statement for being vague and not backing itself up.  You are the one who has the burden to back up what you are saying with facts and/or logic, and instead you just presented a lame, and perhaps disingenuous, conclusory statement.

Your suggestion that I back up my statement further demonstrates your likely lack of genuineness.


Hm?  At least you are attempting to be a bit more specific.  That helps a little.

I know.. I know.. I know.. I am not exactly on topic, but I feel that I must say that it seems to me that you dkbit98 are more correct in the "proper" usage of the term "pro tip."

Usually a person would not necessarily want say "pro tip" for something that is actually serious.. because it does not tend to come off well, unless such person is wanting to be a bit facetious, ironic or even purposefully funny (or maybe even patronizingly funny to emphasize a point).. even though surely from a technical angle (which is admittedly scary for me to even think about my own personally attempting to de-googlizing all of my thing-a-lies), you are asking a question that you would like answered.. which is a kind of bonus.

Seems to me that a leader should both represent and appear to represent all of the people and not just people who agree with him or are the same age as him.  Probably part of the reason that Bukele has high approval ratings in the arena of 92% is because there is largely a perception that he is trying to represent everyone.. even while he is taking steps to lock up a lot of people, so surely he would not necessarily be representing the interest of those people, even though he likely has responsibilities that he is not unduly locking up innocent people and that there are due process mechanisms in place in order to make sure that innocent people are not getting punished.. .which is frequently a risk when drag-net type operations are carried out...and don't get me wrong, I don't have enough information to conclude that appropriate balances have not been accomplished and ongoingly being worked out in regards to what some folks consider to be draconian measures to achieve better senses of public safety.

Some of those pro-lump sum arguments presume too much about people having lump sums that are available and able to be invested at strategic times, and I have certainly had a lot of arguments with many members about these kinds of comparisons, and one area of my arguments tend to hone upon the fact that people likely are much better off to do DCA both in the sense that they don't have lump sums of money available and if they try to fuck around with waiting or timing their investments in order to carry out lump sums, then they would be more likely to spend too much time waiting and spend less time putting money into bitcoin.

Sure once they have already established a bit of a bitcoin stash over 2-5 years, then maybe they can start to let off on the DCA and attempt to be more strategic in terms of timing their buys, whether that would be considered buying on dips or lump sum buying.

And, let's revisit some variation of the example that I had given earlier.  Let's say that someone had been buying bitcoin for 18 months and employing some variations of DCA and perhaps some variations of that, and maybe during those 18 months they had been spending about $100 to $300 per month (so maybe an average of $200 per month), so that would mean that they had already invested about $3600 into BTC.

If such a person all of a sudden got some kind of an extra cash flow that is $1,200 dollars, then that person is going to have a lump sum that is then available to him/her and s/he is going to have to decide between the 3 categories regarding how to divide it up, and I think that the default position would be to divide it equally into $400 for each category - however, no one can really decide if the default position of dividing it equally would be the best or if some other way of dividing it might be preferable - so likely more details are going to need to be known, and who is going to know those details besides the individual (and by the way view of what the bitcoin price is going to do happens to ONLY be one of the criteria that individuals should be attempting to account for when making those kinds of BTC accumulation strategy choices).


There is nothing to disagree with in your statement, and part of the reason that bitcoin remains an asymmetric bet to the upside is that whatever amount that you choose to invest into bitcoin, the most that you can lose is all of it, but there are also potentials that you may well be able to profit from it.. and even earn more than you would investing in other places and there are also quite grand upside possible scenarios that are not guaranteed, but there is nothing wrong with the conclusion that bitcoin is amongst the best of asymmetric bets that are currently wide-spread available (if not the best). 

Each of us has a choice whether or not to have some kind of bitcoin allocation and we also have choices about how much of a stake to take, within our own capacities to accomplish such stake without overdoing it in such a way that we end up losing it because we had over done it.

We know that there continue to be an overwhelmingly large number of people who either have no bitcoin stake or a very low bitcoin stake, and that's surely there choice, even if many of us already into bitcoin and studying bitcoin speculate that more and more people are likely going to be getting into bitcoin, whether they currently want to or currently think it is a good idea or not... which is likely to ongoingly reward those who came to those kinds of decisions and made those kinds of investment choices sooner.. and sure it sounds like pumping some kind of Ponzi scheme.. even though it the truth of the matter with a sound money and scarce asset like bitcoin, the earliest of adopters are likely to be rewarded and they likely don't even necessarily need to have super high stakes in bitcoin in order to likely disproportionately benefit from getting into bitcoin...

so even though there are no guarantees, it is good to recognize and appreciated the asymmetric bet nature of bitcoin and likely to emphasize accumulating it rathe than strategizing and/or figuring out points in which to sell it (once you got some of it). .. but hey everyone is free to make their own choices regarding how to think about these kinds of matters and how much of a stake, if any, to take into bitcoin including points in which they might consider selling it.. which might end up being too much too soon.. so careful with those kinds of actions, once you already are accumulating BTC.


In the last day since I made that responsive post, I had been thinking about my own practices over the years, and there surely have been times and areas in which I am either buying or selling (setting ladders) that I am consistent in terms of the amounts and also in terms of the increments, but a lot of factors can come to play that cause us to reconsider the extent to which consistency (which might be a kind of default set up) is actually helping us to balance out where we happen to be at any particular time in our bitcoin accumulation journey or even if we might be further down the road in more of a maintenance location.

Sometimes we might be attempting to recreate some kind of balance that might have come from something that we did.. maybe we sold too much or we bought too much or we might have money on various exchanges and in cold wallets, and we might be engaging in practices to move from one location to another, so sometimes we can sell at one location and buy at another location in order to attempt to achieve our balances, which also might have arbitrage opportunties, yet I am not even necessarily referring to taking advantage of arbitrage opportunities but instead moving value from one place to another.  I am a bit reluctant to get too far off topic here.. so maybe I will just leave it at that for now, unless someone might want an example in order to better understand these kinds of rebalancing ideas... that might be employed with DCA, buying on dips and lump sum strategies... 


That happens to me quite a bit... and that is one of the advantages of already projecting out your cashflows in advance so you can see exactly how much you may have allocated for certain things, and if you have some flexibilities in your incoming or outgoing amounts, you will already know from which areas that you might take from first, second third, and then pretty soon you might have had some plans about some amounts that were strict, but then you realize that it is better that you reduce your DCA or maybe even bring it down to zero for a certain period of time than to resort to some other less preferable actions, which might be selling some asset that you do not want to sell, including but not limited to BTC... there should be an order to these things that you have mostly already thought through and you have some ideas about how flexible you are able to be in light of how well you have planned it out and maintained some flexibilities in your system.


Exactly.  You can have strictness and flexibility going on at the same time... even if you have set aside $400 per month and/or $100 per week for BTC buys, you might already know that there is going to be some variance in that amount, but then you might even tell yourself that "no matter what (within reason)" I am going to at least buy $10 per week.


These are not easy to know in the moment and frequently it takes experience to better understand boundaries (or thresholds) that we might have, and if we might have gone too far in something that goes from being aggressive and/or assertive and into the lands of gambling.  .., and it can sometimes be o.k. to cross over into some places that we might not want to go, but we have to realize also whether we might still be able to achieve some of the same desires for risks or whatever, but just take a bit of a smaller position size for that particular part of what we might be trying to do.. for example, we might go over budget on something or we might even decide to be overly whimpy on something... but if we think about why we are doing it and what are the consequences, then at least we have potentially been able to get some of the benefits of modifying what we had thought that we were going to do, but to modify it in such a way that accounts how much of a position we using in order to take those actions.

I find this Codebear post to be a bit of a springboard for my own post in this thread, and I am not sure if I have much to add in light of my having had posted in DdmrDdmr's thread on May 5, 2023.

Also I had not yet read Loyce's thread (already mentioned in this thread) on related topics or fillippone's thread.. and maybe I will put those two back on my "to read" list.

I get the sense that the more that I read through these kinds of topics, the more concerned that I get, even though there surely have been some members, in this thread suggesting that the problem is easy to resolve, which surely does not seem to be the case in terms of how much of a dilemma that we end up putting ourselves in regarding how much information to entrust to various people who we might choose to give them information prior to some kind of an instruction sheet that might be in the form of a will at an attorney's office, and we likely realize that we do not necessarily even have to have an attorney holding an instruction sheet, even though they surely are already used to having responsibility over holding sealed envelopes in which the contents are not read until the person had died.. and they tend to take those responsibilities seriously, but sure they could be a point of failure if they read the contents prior to being authorized to do so.

I don't really like some of the ideas of giving hardware wallets and presumably not sharing the back-up seed, which seems quite problematic if there is a hardware failure, as well as my not liking the idea of putting the harware wallet and the seed in the same place.

I do like ideas of dividing up information while hoping that it is not overly complicated because dividing up information may well end up having the information in one location to be destroyed or compromised, but if the information is just 1/3 of a seed then it is more difficult to use the 1/3 as a way to hack, but if they get 2/3 then it could get closer to being able to hack into the wallets.

And, let's not fool ourselves when it comes to how many places that we might hold bitcoins, so there could be several kinds of pieces of information that might be seeds to wallets and then various accounts that we might have and passwords to the accounts, but if the accounts are known and then there is proof of death, then there should be some assumption that coins held in those kinds of places should be recoverable...

so one thing is recovering the coins and then another thing is making sure that they get to the intended recipient, so yeah there could be some easy ways to do that, if you trust the person not to get into their coins prior to your death , then you could instruct them and pass them privately without going through any kind of dividing of keys or separating the instructions from the keys.  

I don't really perceive the lawyer to be a problem in terms of necessarily jeopardizing the keys (if the keys are not actually given to him/her) - but that could be with anyone who we might trust with the instructions but not given the keys.. but maybe someone else might know that the keys are in three parts and where the three locations are .. but then there also might be two or three sets of the three locations. in case any of the locations might get compromised. which does happen.. houses do burn down, bank safety deposits do get raided (banks are destroyed sometimes too)..

I am not going to claim to know any one particular solution, because some of these matters change through time including which wallets/assets that any of us might hold and how easy it might be to update our information pieces that we are passing on, and surely one of the advantage of physical property as compared with digital property would be that the tangible item is not disappearing at the time of our death, even though the gold bar burried in the yard might not be discovered ever or maybe until 1,000 years later... so yeah the digital information may well die at the time of our death whether it is the private keys or the ways that they are put together, and there may be no way to connect the three pieces of paper with the private key if the instructions are lost.

And Codebears disclosure that even his mother might not be a good place to leave keys if there might be some failures of the person holding such keys to exercise good judgement, and surely judgement might be different whether it devolves into the levels of mal-intentions or just incompetence, negligence or merely differences in ways of considering what is reasonable and what is not reasonable.

There have been bitcoiners who had several years already arguing that dee cornz has already made its dent, and there is no turning back.

Yet, if we end up failing completely, then that would put us back into a kind of territory (or even an assumption)  that bitcoin has not made any difference, and we are not going to get any further run at this.

So yeah, maybe you got me in a bit of a trap here vapourminer because it is difficult to even factually entertain the bitcoin has lost scenario without some kind of major catastrophe - which should well end up being represented in a much larger price crash.

Sure there are spiraling down scenarios (as Phil had mentioned earlier), and those kinds of cases would need a lot more "on the ground" evidence of bitcoiners losing confidence in the investment and BIG players pulling out.. and surely some uninformed folks want to describe some of the more recent information around Elon pulling out to be signs of bitcoin's downfall - which many of us know that Elon does not matter, even as much as people like to attribute importance to him based on the size of his wealth - but we know that he does not matter, because the amount of his bitcoin is not very large, relatively speaking. 

surely there could be cases in which Saylor and some other BIG players pull out and go on a kind of anti-bitcoin campaign, and surely we know that Saylor is quite articulate so I could imagine scenarios like that, so long as other BIG players were going along with him, like Fidelity and the Winklevii, and Grayscale and perhaps the fall of big bitcoin exchanges like Binance.. and surely right now, I do think that there is a lot of FUD around Binance going down - which seems like a lot of wishful thinking to me, so I am having troubles considering what all the supposed bad news is that is supposedly going on right now, that gives us much of anything more than a range bound correction that just seems to be in the current lower end of the range (talking about $25k) but still has neither broken below and even if it did we might have to have more than a mere few hours of dipping below.

So golly gee whiz Wally.^**

I am having trouble with the steel man of the lack of a dent proclamation - since it really does seem that dee cornz are here and here to stay, even if there might be some abilities to go below the current bottom end of the range and potentially touch upon the supports at $22k and $20k.. but I hate to even think about prior legs before this actually leg plays out to the downity.. so until then, don't wake me up.


**  Here's some context for the golly gee whiz Wally reference for anyone who might not know it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdnD10TqygM


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bwq2GgZ2Sdw

It was a good run boyz.

Pretty dumb, lame and lacking in focus advice Victorik.

Sure, there may be a certain value to consistency in terms of both DCA and buying on dips, but it may not necessarily be something that we need to think of in terms of having to be strict with ourselves when we might have some parameters that we might choose to use that will also work.

I was even talking about the same idea in one of my posts from yesterday.

So I think that part of my point is that there can be very legitimate reasons to vary either our DCA or our buying on dips based on a variety of circumstances that might include either how much cash that we have coming  in, and the variance of the cash that would be available for buying, and as I already mentioned, if we have some kind of theory about how far the BTC price might drop, then we might attempt to strategize our amounts and our increments based on our thoughts on various areas in which there might be price support (meaning that the BTC price might not end up going below that level, but if it does end up going below that level then we might try to anticipate where the next support level might be).

 Like I already mentioned, even though this thread does have a subject matter that involves trying to identify possible dip price areas, I tend to not be so keen about trying to figure out those areas, but I do try to place my BTC buy orders in increments that I believe are sufficiently reasonable for me, which right now they are $500 increments, and I also try to place them much further down than I believe that the BTC price will go, which currently I have them at $13k, and I largely just left those buy orders in the same spot that I had when the price had dipped down to $15,479, even though a couple of times, I did change the amounts contained in each of the preset buy orders.. but they do currently stay in $500 increments all the way down to $13k.. and surely I don't even want $25k support to be broken.. but if it is, I will likely be buying, and I anticipate that there is likely support at $22k and at $20k, but my BTC buy orders are largely the same amount all the way down through those various price points and all the way down to $13k (even though as I am arguing those buy orders do not necessarily need to be the same amounts.. but I kind of feel better to have them being the same amounts, even though I largely hope none of them get filled).

By the way, I think that it may well take years for someone to really feel that they have bought enough bitcoin (in the sense of feeling overallocated/overinvested, but still comfortable at the same time, and then being able to place BTC buy orders down way further than he expects to get filled) because largely a lot of those extra (and low level) buy orders are just cash being left on the table in the event that the BTC price goes up, so it can take a long time to feel comfortable enough that you have enough BTC in order to leave those BTC buy orders in place, even though they are likely not going to get filled (but they still continue to serve as a kind of insurance and a kind of cash cushion in case the BTC price does end up falling to those kinds of levels that are way beyond expectations).


You do seem to be mixing up your definitions a bit, so I am not sure if I am going to be able to pound the proper way of thinking about the matter into your head.

A more strict DCA approach is going to largely be price agnostic, and so the buying of BTC will be based on the budgetary considerations of the BTC buyer, so if he looks at his budget and he sees that he has $1k per month coming in, and he has various expenses such as housing, utilities, food, transportation, entertainment, and maybe all of those expenses add up to about $700 to $800 every month, so he only has $200 to $300 per month that he can invest, but maybe he should be making sure that he builds and/or maintains an emergency fund, so maybe he feels comfortable buying $100 per month in BTC, and he will have $100 to $200 going into his slush fund that maybe he can draw from that fund later to buy some BTC, for example if his slush fund might become greater than $3,500, then he might start to conclude that he has around 5 months worth of expenses in it, and maybe he can afford to not have that much money in his slush/emergency fund and he might feel that he is in a better position to allocate the whole $200-$300 per month into BTC rather than just $100...but even within that category of how much BTC he is able to buy regularly (maybe even dividing that into weekly, he still might have some that he buys no matter what $15 to $40 per week (depending on how much is in his total budget, and then he might decide to hold the remaining value for buying on dips.. so buying on dips is not the same as DCA, even though there may be considerations of each of the categories and deciding how much BTC to buy each week that fits into the DCA, and then the other portion that might depend on the dips would be buying on dips.

Another thing is that maybe this person has his budget pretty well figured out and his emergency fund is good, but his cash variance can still be great enough that he has some uncertainties about whether he might have $100 or $300 for the month to be able to buy BTC, but he also might end up in a kind of situation in which he ends up getting some kind of extra cashflow once or twice a year (maybe a job bonus or just some kind of lucky payment that he might receive from time to time).. so maybe all of a sudden he has $1,200 extra that comes into his cashflow that he had not expected, so he considers that amount to be totally available for buying bitcoin, so in that kind of a case, he can consider the money in three categories and decide how much to put into each category, which is 1) lump sum 2) DCA, 3) buying on dips.  He can decide to put $400 into each of the three categories or he could decide to vary it or to put all or some of it into only one of the categories.


Well one of the ONLY ways that DCA really works is if you have some level of confidence that the asset in which you are investing is going to have periods in which it goes up in value so that you would be able to cash out at a higher price down the road at some point, even if the short-term price might have a decent amount of volatility and variance.

Of course with something like bitcoin, we have presumptions about the longer term price going up, even though for sure it is not guaranteed to go up, but part of the justification for DCAing into BTC is that there are beliefs that the price will ultimately go up, but since there is also a non-zero chance that it might not, each of us should attempt to be both financially prepared for that possibility which may well be something that we can adjust to based on how large of a position that we choose to take into bitcoin...or how aggressive that we want to be and whether we might choose to invest into other things (I am not referring to shitcoins here but rather things like property, equities, bonds, commodities and cash).


Strict DCA is not concerned about price.  When you are concerned about the BTC price you are engaging in buying on dip strategies... not DCA.. now if you want to create a kind of hybrid, you might budget yourself to have $50 per week to DCA, and within each week you might decide that you will try to manual employ your $50 at the lowest price, so maybe you have a target price that you are looking for, but if at the end of the week, your price is not met, you just buy at whatever price is present, and you then go into the next week with another $50, but you end up spending the earlier week either on a dip or at your cut off deadline time in which if you had not already bought on a dip, you will buy at whatever is the then BTC price.


Oh great. .thanks for the link.  I see that there is no real article.. just the chart... but still at least it shows a possible place that the chart might have come from.

I don't really have any problems with anything that you mentioned, even though I don't tend to even attempt to be selling that much BTC on the way up, but I can recognize and appreciate how attempting to sell more on the way up would have the potential for greater performance overall - even though if you have not gotten the range of the top of the BTC cycle very well, then you may well have ended up selling all of your 30% allocation.. but sure there can be ways that if the bTC price is continuing to go up, you are still able to continue to sell 30% of the profits and then just pick the increment.. so instead of selling 30% of the principle, you sell 30% of the profits, but then that ends up being a much more conservative sell allocation amount than what you seem to be describing, Ojima-ojo.

An overall problem that comes with any of these kinds of buying on the way down and selling on the way up still remains the attempts to try to figure out ways to pace yourself in such a way that you don't run out of dollars on the way down and you don't run out of BTC (or overly sell too much too soon) on the way up... but either one can be done in stages (incremental spreads) as each of us seem to be on the same page in regards to the idea of having incremental spreads both on the way down and on the way up because no matter what none of us (even the smartest in the world) are really going to be able to predict tops and/or bottoms with any meaningful level of accuracy.

We are likely already in the beginning of the bullmarket since November - yet, sure it can be difficult to know because it can take a while for the UPpity momentum to rampen up.

In other words, there seem to be pretty decent odds that the bottom (of $15,479) is in.

Sure, there are some outstanding macro events, and sure over the past 9 months or so, there have been decreases in the value of the dollar that cause our current BTC prices of $26k-ish to actually even be lower in "real" terms.

There may also be some pretty decently BIG additional macro-factors to hit - but not too many of us regulars really believe that king daddy gives too many shits about macro-events in the sense of it being to the same correlated price moves as other asset classes, even if during short period liquidity periods dee cornz may well end up selling a lot more and a lot further than various other assets.. but so what about some of the short-term phenomena when we should be zooming out and not placing too many high time frame expectations on what we are expecting or wanting dee cornz to do. also in terms of many bears/bitcoin naysayers/no coiners and/or status quo financially rich wanting to push BTC prices down as far as they can and to keep them down as far as they can for as long at they can.. .. and many of longer term coiners likely realize (without wishful-thinking) that they DOWNity players are likely their own portfolios at risk if they are not actually accumulating BTC on the side, instead of wrongly thinking that they can "control" this bad boy.

If you are not getting enough UP..  or you are feeling like the halvening is not going to have any effect, then sure that is on you to be having those kinds of seemingly impatient thoughts, and surely, it can take a lot of months after the halvening before that additional shortage of coins is actually started to really be felt, and that seems to be part of the reason why we might not even get much if any UPwards BTC price moves for many months after the halvening.. sure maybe it will be a year this time.. I have my doubts, but sure it is possible that BTC prices could end up being depressed and suppresed for longer than many BTC bulls would like it to be and longer than they are able to stay solvent... so good luck holding onto your coins if you cannot take a bit of downity movement and/or failure of dee cornz to go up.


I am not sure... he might not even be a he the way definitions are redefined in these here times.


FTFY



Oh?  so you admit it.  Mining is adjusting to the BTC price.  right

right




rrrrrriiiiiiggggggghhhhhtttttttttt?

Not the other way around.


I know that the tail does not wag the dog.  I know that much.

 


I don't mind a bit of exaggeration, but geez.. we are not even close to any kind of a BTC death spiral... we have not even broken below "don't wake me up zone," yet.

Sure there currently seems to be a lot of pressure to break downity.. but even if we break down there is likely to be a few more support spots before even getting back into double bottom territory. and a double bottom is not even needed to happen.. . I would not assume that it is going to be very easy, even speaking hypothetically, to get the breaking of support at each of the legs of something like $22k, $20k, $18k to even get down to our current local bottom of $15,479.. so there would probably be some needs to get below $10k before BTC death spiral themes might start to even be plausibly relevant. which I would still have my doubts even if we were to make it back into the lower 5 digits and members like gallianooo will be coming back into the thread to tell us that he predicted it all along... blah blah blah.


Surely that would end up shaking quite a few more weak hands, and I am not even sure if it would need to go down that far in order to accomplish the shaking weak hands agenda.. but sure, maybe I am merely imagining that there might be support somewhere between $25,500 and $20k.. like maybe around $22k.. but hey?  what do I know?  I am largely just guessing, which is also known as the employment of SOMA^{tm-thanks deddie}methodology.

I doubt that I am even imagining that there seems to be a decently long tradition in these here parts of denigrating the size of the stashes of other forum members - in order to attempt to belittle their point(s), and it is not even anything personal.. .just a kind of rhetorical device, not that we even need to get into any of the stash size details, even though sometimes some members do want to put the numbers into a kind of context, and surely if we sometimes might be hypothesizing, we might want to attempt to keep our hypothesis in a kind of range that might seem reasonable for the type of person that we might be attempting to describe.

.so even sometimes the extent of the disposable income can make some differences in terms of how much cash builds up on the side.. and sometimes we might even speculate that guys are working with higher stash levels if they proclaim that they have buy orders down every $500 from $25,500 to $13k, so there might be some speculation that those buy orders have to be at least $20 each.. or maybe several hundred each, so it sometimes can be difficult to determine. .and sure you don't necessarily want to get drawn into over disclosure merely because someone (including yours truly) might be prodding you in a certain direction...

Another thing is that sometimes members will also get caught upon ideas about how poor they are relative to some other people in the world, and surely there are a lot of folks who have a lot of discretionary income that they could easily place between $100 to $1k per week into bitcoin, but they are failing/refusing to take those kinds of steps, and it remains my argument that even the person that might ONLY be putting $10 per week or so into bitcoin, may well end up closing a whole hell of a lot of the gap between his/her own situation when it comes to options that s/he has 10 years or more down the road as compared to the one who currently has a lot of discretionary income but continues to refuse to use some of that to get some bitcoin now.. and that same person might be scrambling to get started in bitcoin in 10 years or so, and the poor guy placing $10 per week into bitcoin already has a 10 year head start, and even if such earlier poor person does not surpass the wealth of the currently well-to-do person, a considerable gap may have ended up being closed. and there are likely also going to be some surpassing cases too.. just hate to suggest that these surpassing scenarios are guaranteed. but we can see how someone who had been putting $10 per week into bitcoin over the past 9 years (about 4 BTC with $4,700 invested) is likely way better off than a lot of his/her peers, and many currently dollar rich, no coiners, will have a lot of difficulties accumulating that quantity of bitcoin - and maybe will never be able to accumulate as many bitcoin as that persistent BTC accumulator.

Of course, the magnitude is likely to be smaller, which is part of the reason that I suggest that someone who might have been skeptical about bitcoin and wanting to be whimpy in his/her BTC investment  previously placed $10 per week into bitcoin, since about  mid-to-late 2020, I have been suggesting that those same kind of skeptical and/or whimpy beginner bitcoiners start out with $100 per week into bitcoin, and surely we know that some people around the world do not have that level of discretionary income, so they cannot go that high.. but still we are currently in a magnitudes levels higher even though surely bitcoin is likely to continue to perform well, it just may well not be with similar levels of exponentially as earlier (even though some decent expoentialities of 1000x or so do still seem to be quite possible.. just might take 100 or more years to play out, who knows?)

Of course, I could have attempted to flesh this out a bit more, because we may well have various incoming cash that may or may not vary, and we have various monthly expenses and some can be deferred and so we can also project these out for 6 months and or even for a couple of years.. and of course, the upcoming 1-3 months are going to be more important than the further out months with an ability to be more loosey goosey with the numbers the further out the timeline, but if you were too loosey goosey with your numbers and you overly estimated (rather than being conservative 6-24 months out), you may well end up finding when some of those loose numbers have to be tightened up that you are running into cashflow problems because you had projected out in ways that ended up contributed to causing your own crunches late down the road.


Even though you might frame these goals in terms of an actual bitcoin number that you might be aiming for based on how many you already have, your whole approach may end up changing based on how many BTC that you are actually holding and whether you are near or far from your BTC accumulation goal.. and maybe even someone who currently has accumulated 1 BTC over the past 4 years .. may well have a plan to try to get up to 2-3 BTC within the next 5-10 years, whether or not that is realistic.. but at least such person is trying to account for where s/he is at and where s/he is wanting to attempt to get to.



Some other investments are more liquid than others, and there can be current value estimations that likely will need to consider how liquid they might be, and then like you suggested, other investments may or may not go up in value... and for someone new to bitcoin, they might consider how much they want to allocate into bitcoin based on their other investments, so if someone might have had been building an investment portfolio for more than 8 years (let's use your forum registration date, naira), then maybe that person might have gotten up to $100k size of all of his her investments.. and maybe those investments might be giving lower value to assets that are less liquid within the investment portfolio, so that person might aim to have anywhere between 1% and 25% into bitcoin. .. which shows that having $25k into bitcoin (right around 1 bitcoin) might be on the relatively aggressive end of the scale for such an investor, but sometimes even with a historical investment timeline of 8 years, sometimes it could take a while to reach high levels of investment or even any kind of need to diversify into other assets, so in your case if you mentioned that you own some property, and then maybe you have cash and bitcoin, so maybe your bitcoin investment might be a much higher than 25% allocation, and that might be o.k. too.. so if you might have some difficulties in terms of being able to in vest more than 10% of your income into bitcoin (or any other investments), if you are going at 10% of your income going into bitcoin, it still might take you 10 years to invest up to the equivalent of your yearly salary, and surely then you hope that whatever you had chosen to invest into is appreciating at a great enough rate in order to give you more than 1 years salary in your investment portfolio by the time you get to 10 years of building such investment portfolio.


Fair enough.