Prior to March 2020, I used to recommend that anyone starting in bitcoin should consider investing anywhere between 1% and 10% of his/her investment portfolio (and perhaps cashflow) into bitcoin, but then some time after March 2020, I started to recommend that the percentage for the beginner newbie into bitcoin should consider somewhere between 1% and 25% into bitcoin, and of course, one aspect of bitcoin, is that it is an asymmetric bet (investment) to the upside and therefore, it may well not take very much allocation into bitcoin in order to potentially profit stupendously..

So, yeah, like you are seeming to say nara1892, there can be some advantage to finding some kind of an investment point in which you are feeling sufficiently aggressive in your investment into BTC because if you are too whimpy, then even if BTC goes up a lot, the whimpiness of the investment may well end up not making up for the fact that the there really was not enough there to actually make meaningful profits, and a similar thing could be true for those people who end up investing too much, and then when the BTC price moves against their position and then fails to go up for a long time, they end up getting reckt.. or maybe even having to sell a lot (or maybe even all) of their BTC.

So yeah there may well be a decently broad range of balance that still is going to be able to work in order to become richie as fuck (without guarantees of course), but at the same time if you are either too far on one side (such as too whimpy) or the other (such as too aggressive) then you end up either not really profiting with any significance, or you end up losing most or all of your investment (or having to start back up over again from a worse position than if you had been more prudent and conservative rather than gambling with your investment into bitcoin by engaging in overly risky conduct).

You are speculating too many steps in advance... so first of all, we already know that some governments may well be skeptical of mixing services, but then if they create some laws against such mixing services, then it is likely that some kind of a consideration would need to be made in regards to the language of the law.  The same is true when there is an enforcement action that takes place, then there still could be questions regarding what is the conduct that they are proclaiming to be illegal.. is it the creation of the mixing service?  is it the general use of the mixing service?  Is it the committing of fraud or the knowing allowance of others to commit fraud?  How about advertising such service? or talking about such services?  is it illegal to advertise or to talk about such services? 

Those are different categories of things that would have to be included within such government action that you are proclaiming to potentially be illegal, and then there is another question regarding the extent to which a forum (or a website service provider) might be held liable for the conduct of its users versus its own conduct.. and when you are referring to governments, there is no world-wide government or entity that necessarily would have jurisdiction over all of the world or all of the conduct, so there could be some questions about whether a government entity could either request the shutting down of some services or request the offering of such products be discontinued, and surely we have seen that some jurisdictions (such as the USA government) do attempt to engage in broad reach of their jurisdiction (which some folks label as overreach).

So merely having vague and general proclamations by governments that mixing services bad or some other bullshit would not necessarily automatically either cause people to stop a certain kind of behavior, such as offering a service, or to even give up upon finding some way around it or even to potentially fight against any kind of government taking that might have had occurred - which is one of the things that seems to be boiling up around some of the USA banking services (or even some of the regulatory agencies such as the CFTC or SEC) recently (maybe we could characterize some of these matters as "operation chokepoint 2.0" as Nick Carter and some others have labeled it) in which there are some claims and even potential legal actions against USA governmental regulators in regards to a variety of the lack of due process practices that some of the entities are following, and even in the USA, historically there have been due process rights including that agencies are supposed to either be following mandates that they have or they are supposed to either engage in their own rule making with opportunities for the public to respond or they are supposed to follow clear guidlines, and there are quite a few questions regarding the extent to which various agencies are following procedures that they are supposed to follow and the mere fact that they might have gotten directives from persons higher up (whether congressional or executive) may well not save them from their requirements to follow the law, even though we are seeing that stupid ass desperation seems to be part of the various formulas too.. in regards to the status of the dollar, scares about bitcoin and "crypto" and sometimes these fears are framed in terms of vague categorization of "national security interests," terrorists and criminal money launderers, or protect the children or some other things that may or may not be part of the actual factual foundation.

Why do you use this expression:  "El Salvador's president has appointed two US crypto investors to lead it."

Seems pretty lame to be characterizing Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert as two "crypto investors" when we are talking about bitcoin - because that dumb ass "crypto" descriptor is vague and carries baggage... so why say it like that?


Surely it does not take too much creative thinking to be able to realize that taxes are not being completely eliminated, but only reduced or eliminated in various sectors that are being named that relate to bitcoin innovation (and perhaps some related technological innovation in order to have some broader appeals), and so if there is some success (or even a lot of success) in terms of attracting certain businesses (bitcoin related and/or technological related) to come to the country, then there are likely known (or at least hypothesized) snowballing effects that take place in which new business ends up attracting ancillary businesses too.. and so even if their might be some costs that are involved when tax breaks are given to some businesses, whatever those extra costs might be can be made up by the increased tax revenues that would end up coming into the country through ancillary businesses... that is so long as there is some level of success in terms of attracting the businesses and that the businesses are seeing that the practices match the words.. because surely as some members have already mentioned (in this thread) that it can take a bit of time for businesses to develop some confidence that the rule of law is going to hold or that they are not going to end up getting rug pulled, so even if El Salvador is making promises, there could be situations in which the promises do not end up materializing into a sufficient amount of concrete an meaningful follow through.. which then ends up interferring with any kind of development momentum because some BIG name businesses end up either not entering the space or they end up leaving the space.

When we buy BTC with a loan, we are front loading our investment , so yeah, if the BTC price goes up higher than the amount to service the loan, then it ends up being profitable to have had invested into BTC earlier rather than later. 


That is not good advice.  It is actually bad advise - given so many problems with those earn and yield products and so many ways that people got fucked with the various ways of chasing yield.

Bitcoin remains one of the best, if not the best investment, so it is not necessarily good to let someone else hold it for you, which is what is required when you try to earn yield or interest on it... so one of the better pieces of advice is to figure out ways that you do not lose your bitcoin along the way, so if you are investing 4-10 years or more into bitcoin, then perhaps it is best to have goals to either try to build the quantity of bitcoin that you have or at least to mostly be able to hold most of your bitcoin for long periods of time.. and of course, there is nothing wrong with taking some profits along the way, if the BTC price goes up and to have some ideas of amounts of bitcoin that might be sold at certain price points on the way up, if the BTC price does end up going up in the coming years during the time that you expect to be invested into it.


Protip:  Bitcoin is always worth buying.^**

The fact of the matter is that bitcoin has been a great investment for as long as it has been in existence, and there is no real evidence that it's investment thesis is getting weaker with the passage of time, and instead, the evidence seems to show that the investment case for bitcoin seems to be getting stronger rather than weaker, even if the amount of price appreciation (in terms of percentage of price rise) may well not be as  high as it had been in the past 10 years or so.

Of course, there are no guarantees in life, including in terms of where to invest, how to invest and how much to invest, and each of us need to make these kinds of choices based upon where we are currently at and our own financial and psychological circumstances, and we are not all going to come to the same conclusions even if we might be in similar circumstances as some other people, and so the risk/reward is going to vary, and part of the risk/reward may well have to do with personal decisions in regards to whether and how to act, including that failing/refusing to act is a kind of decision as well, and there are consequences for failing/refusing to act, too.


** This is not financial advice.. and may well even be an exaggeration in order to make a point to be more salient... You are totally and completely responsible for your own situation and decisions about what you do or not do regarding finances, psychology or otherwise.

My posts speak for themselves, and if you believe that they do not disprove anything or provide any sufficient explanation, then you are free to have your opinions regarding what you believe that my posts accomplish, or don't accomplish.


Yes.. we disagree on that point. You can keep believing it all that you want, and likely when you say it, then I am going to keep saying that it is wrong.

In essence the mere fact that you have a more limited budget than someone else does not necessarily cause a buying on dips to become better than DCA.

Let's say that someone can ONLY save $1 per week, then yeah, maybe it does not make sense to buy bitcoin with that until it gets up to $100 because of various kinds of fees or whatever, so maybe such person has to wait in order to be able to purchase BTC.. the same could be true with $10 per week, it might not make sense to buy $10 per week if there are not ways to buy such small amounts in whatever geographical location is the person, so in those kinds of circumstances, there may be needs to save up.

Surely, I am a proponent of weekly DCA... rather than spreading out DCA into larger increments, yet in the end each person is going to need to assess his/her situation in order to figure out the level of practicality, and so in the end maybe we are getting back to your point that you believe that DCA does not work for poor people, and I am saying that is baloney even though there could be some circumstances in which there needs to be some strategies for relatively small amounts - especially if there are not ways to merely just invest into BTC on a weekly basis.. and I had already mentioned the case that if the total budget is $10, then maybe a newbie entrant into bitcoin accumulation might choose to ONLY allocate $5 per week to DCA and the other $5 would be allocated to buying on dips, so there can be ways of dealing with those lower numbers and figuring it out, but surely if the person is having difficulties establishing accounts or connections that allow for such small amounts of buys (or maybe the fees are too high), then they might need to do more research to find other means or perhaps the either front load the deposit of money into an account or in the less preferable case scenario they might end up doing what you say, which is to build up their amount that they have before they would deposit it into an account... but still i doubt that you are describing a base case or a usual case rather than just trying to suggest DCA is not good for poor people, which is wrong thinking.. and has historically already been wrong with people, maybe even like yourself who might have had been waiting around when first finding out about BTC rather than getting started.  and surely in May 2016 (when you got involved in BTC), you would have been way better off to get started right away rather than waiting around, and another thing even if it would have been advantageous for you to lump sum into BTC at that time, that is not realistic either for someone to already know that they want to lump sum into bitcoin or that they would have had confidence right when they come to BTC, even though it would have had worked out well, but we cannot look back and say "I should have blah blah blah" but instead it is better to deal with what the circumstances right in front of a person are at the moment when finding out about BTC and considering getting into BTC, and the overwhelming majority of times, the best starting approach will be some variation of DCA and getting the fuck started right away rather than waiting around.


If you take a position that I consider to be ridiculous, then maybe I will choose to attempt to ridicule that position.   I don't see a problem with that... We are talking about substance, not people.


You seem to be misreading, or maybe taking matters too personally.  You agree or you don't agree with the various approach that I am talking about, and from my perspective I talk about best practices, including that I believe that DCA is better than buying on dips and lump sum investing, but those two can be incorporated into any approach (and probably should be as a person becomes more familiar with the BTC markets and their position), and another thing that I advocate is personally tailoring any approach to the individual circumstances, so we can have both best practices and aspirational goals, while at the same time attempting to work up to the aspirational goals... so still DCA is the best to get started and then to study BTC (an your own personal circumstances) as you go, while at the same time tailoring the approach along the way.. because in the end, each person is responsible for their own circumstances, rather than necessarily following something that someone said on the internet, and if you believe that DCA is not good at any particular time and you keep telling people (in your real world circumstances) to wait rather than getting started, then that's your choice.  There are almost no circumstances that I tell people to wait, because it can take a while to get started, and surely it might be the case that getting started is just setting up accounts and figuring out some contacts, and even if the newbie to bitcoin person might have a budget of $100 per week, they might start out by just buying $10 while they are figuring things out - especially since the very beginning may well involve quite a bit of time spent to learn and even some scariness over some of the complications of setting up accounts, finding people to sell BTC to them and even figuring out how to store their BTC. 

It is no walk in the park to get involved in BTC, especially in recent times with some of the seemingly industry-wide hostilities and also a lot of the various crashes and scams that we have been seeing in recent times, including that there seems to be a quite a bit of blaming of bitcoin for these kinds of matters or even purposeful confusion and obfuscating of what is going on in order that bitcoin is blamed for bank failures, scams and other kinds of ways that people have been getting reckt in recent times.


Oh gawd.   

For some reason, I forgot to explain my statement.. whoops... I just meant that we go way back in the sense that I had seen his/her/it's post in the WO thread for several weeks.. maybe even months.  So "we" go way back is a kind of "relative" assertion that may well have had been read out of context?


That's true.  S/he/it has not been very good at words, so far.


I can't argue with those kinds of aspirations.


I figured as much.  If that's your version of hookers, lambo and blow, then so be it.

We cannot all have the same preferences, otherwise there would be supply chain shortages.


.. and ain't nobody got time for dat.


Weekly is good... so it is difficult for me to think up any kind of come back for that... without getting too much into your opsec at this time.. .. not that I am opposed to grilling uie-pooie a weeeeeee bit, just for funzies..... yet I am kind of in a pinch for time at the moment.


It seems to me that bitcoin should be hope.. so there are likely ways to NOT be as pessimistic and attempt to make the best out of our own situation (whatever those situations might be) while accounting for likely ongoing crashenings going on at various places around us.  We only live once, so there are needs to consider ways to still feel hope... and of course, getting to a point of "hope" is not going to be the same for everyone, so we surely have to attempt to account for what are our various resources and what are the various ways that we might consider spending our time and our energies in order to feel that whatever negative matters are happening, we still have ways to prepare ourselves and to act.. and yeah of course, bitcoin.. ..

#just a thought

I don't really disagree with anything that you are saying ginsan.. especially that each of us needs to attempt to find a budget that will work for us, and that is sufficiently aggressive, while at the same time NOT being overly aggressive as to cause us to make bad choices.

You can imagine that someone who might have an income of $100 per week, and they are able to buy $15 per week in bitcoin, so that is 15% of their income, so in about 6.66 years, they will have saved up the equivalent of their yearly income.   It can be very tempting for a lot of folks to withdraw some of their investment or to make some risky moves because they might feel relatively rich, as compared with people in their circles, because most people are not able to save money. and to build an investment portfolio.. now if your investment ends up going up in value, then it may well take less time to get to 1 years salary saved up/invested, and of course there are no guarantees, but many of us likely can appreciate how some aspects of will power and focus and even abilities to make moderately reasonable and prudent decisions when we might be tempted to remove value within our investment portfolio before it has been allowed to compound upon itself.. . and so in some sense there are needs to regularly reinforce your plans and the reasons why you are following the plans that you are following, including sometimes tweaking your plan in order to make up for various weaknesses that you might have, mistakes that you might make along the way.. and to be careful NOT to overdo the tweaks but to make sure that you are able to accept whatever tweaks that you make or whatever choices that you might make to stay on the same path.. and I am also referring to changes that might happen in your life including your income could change and you also could be tempted to invest in other things and/or to consume, and some of the choices could be reasonably made, and other times there could be mistakes.

Which countries are the 7? 

I felt like I needed to start a new post.

My last one was starting to get a wee bit long-ish.. and then I am adding this new responsive content... and with this, I am caught up to all the thread contents (yeah!!!!).. not that I understood much of anything that I read herein... hahahaha


To the extent that I follow these various arguments, for sure, I am seeing a kind of thread in which some members, including you pooya87, consider ordinals/inscriptions as a kind of "attack on bitcoin" because there was an "exploitation" of a vulnerable area in which such "fun" could be slipped into bitcoin, and surely I am having difficulties understanding and appreciating such characterization as these ordinals/inscriptions as attacks, including that you are suggesting that it is "similar to 2017's attack," and truly I do consider the late 2017/early 2018 as a spam attack because the ONLY purpose seemed to be to clog the bitcoin blockchain to make some various shitcoins to look better and to continue to propagate shitcoin talking points, even if we cannot really be sure exactly who was funding the late 2017/early 2018 spam attack, but there was likely little to no economic purpose beyond pumping their own crap and to make bitcoin look bad, but at some point even that ongoing spam attack seemed to have had not really been working in terms of how much it was costing to continue to carry out.

Sure, there might be some folks who might be using ordinals/inscriptions as a way to "attack bitcoin," but really I have my doubts.  To me, it just seems to be a use case in which many members do not really agree or see any value in it, and even though historically, I have not participated in shitcoins, NFTs, or even astrology or numerology, I can appreciate that people can do whatever the fuck they want... even if it is not valuable, and if they want to put their dickbutt farting monkey on the chain and they are willing to pay for it, then so be it.. let them bid for the space, and clog however with their various uses of the blockchain.. 

The market is likely to sort it out... and sure every piece of crap from the various shitcoins, may well end up getting pegged in one way or another to bitcoins 2.1 quadrillion satoshis that had been "clean" prior to this infiltration.. and then now, little by little they are getting crap attached to them, so in the future, when I go to spend a few of my satoshis, then I will find out that I had a dickbuttfarting monkey attached to one of them, and is it more/less valuable/fungable?   Did I get tricked into taking something?  I doubt that it is more or less valuable than the satoshis, and whatever value that is attached to the thing that is attached would be a side valuation.  I don't know if I will have to send those satoshis through an expunger/purger prior to being able to use them.. We can cross that bridge when we get there.. if we get there and if it matters, but personally, I still do not consider this attaching of other information to satoshis and putting them in order (with labels) to be an attack on bitcoin... Maybe I am missing something?

The fees will sort themselves out too.. They seem to go up and they go down and over the years, the fees are somewhat of a moving target and it seems to be a good thing that there are more and more fee demands, and surely there may also continue to be alternatives that are developed to lessen fees.. of course, we have lightning network, but we are still ONLY a bit more than 14 years into bitcoin having had gone live and lightning network only went live (on a seemingly expedited basis in response to the then spam attacks that had been referenced) in early 2018. 

I also don't claim to be any kind of expert in regards to spending options, but the assertion that $1.30 fees to send $70 transaction seems to be a choice, and if it is the ONLY option, then that is the price that needs to be paid.  Of course, we likely should realize that on chain is priced by weight and lightning network is priced by amount sent.. so coin control can help in which that $1.30 might be the same to send $5 or to send $5 billion.... and of course, it makes a difference if we are sending coins in a known parties situation (or to oneself) versus in various scenarios between strangers that might take place, and some of those relations will be more/less trusted than others.


You sound like Roger Ver with a nonsense talking-point like that..whining because you cannot buy coffee onchain anymore... It sounds something like this: "there have been so many efforts and history and legacy to keep fees low by a lot of parties, and some dickbutt monkey farters come in and ruin it for the rest of us.  We could fix this.. blah blah blah." (nothing personal but still.. hahahahaha).


Whoaza!!!!

zeuner said this part better than me... ..

I will just add that there can be some value in pretty fucking stupid-shit, and I doubt that it is the place for developers to try to figure that out in order to change the code in terms of what they consider to be more valuable or not.... and yeah there would be choices to run such software or not.. and hardforks do not come easy, either.. right?

Another thing is that node operators (or even miners) may also be pressured to either not route certain transactions or to be pressured into not carrying/storing certain content, and as a node operator (or a miner), I could give less than two shits about the contents contained therein (I am not proclaiming to be a miner... and barely know anything about being a node operator at this point.. but I am planning to at least increase some of my dabblings and knowledge in that direction.. since it seems to becoming easier and easier to run nodes.. and potentially powerful nodes, too.. and it seems to be becoming more and more important to perhaps have some nodes.. including maybe getting involved in nostr too.. )... .. and then someone points it out and says, "hey, look... you have blah blah blah blah content on your node (or what you had been mining)"  I give few shits about the content.. and continue to run (or mine)... which surely is likely to become the prevailing way forward in terms of being content neutral... Some will choose to get distracted into baloney concerns about which information is valuable and which is not and to prune or purge or not to carry/route certain content.. and it seems to me that they will likely be disadvantaged for such choices to get worried or worked up in judging the value of content.


I usually would agree with any proclamation to eliminate shitcoin talk, but in this case (thread), the discussion is about technical implementations on bitcoin and even some members believing that shitcoins are coming to bitcoin through the adoption/use of ordinals/inscriptions.  It seems relevant to figure the boundaries.... and options and also one of the cardinal sins in regards to discussing shitcoins in bitcoin threads is that there is a slippery-slope tendency to either pump the shitcoins or to denigrate bitcoin, and I don't see that either pumping of shitcoins or denigration of bitcoin is taking place merely by engaging in compare contrast of ordinal/inscription practices on other coins.

We're buds (me and Lainta).

We go way back.

Sure, Lainta has issues...  and there were some other members in this forum (and also in this thread) who have issues, too.. some have worse issues than others... and surely there are some of us who are way the fuck better at backing up our points or at least attempting to back up the points that we make (if any) within our posts than others..

Oh.. and I just looked at Lainta's profile.. and yeah.. holy fuck, Lainta has a couple of negative trust write-ups.. so sure that is a potential problema for me to be buddying up too muchie with such a fellow (or government, or institution, or bot)..  - even though I do not send merits based upon whether a member has negative trust or  not.. even though it could influence me.. but I do attempt to judge if there might be some value in the post for me or potentially for others.. and yeah.. if the member ends up being a pretty fucking BIG dooshbag, then maybe I will stop sending merits to such member.. You know I merit some posts (and therefore members) that I really do not like very much.. but I still might value some of their contributions from time to time.. I cannot really be in a position of morally judging at too high of a level.. there are ONLY so many hours in the day.

and, I am not going to deny.. people come to differing judgements about what to do or how to spend their time and resources.. and so.. sure, there is a bit of a dilemma.. I won't deny.  

If I could delegate some of my merit sending abilities, I would.. at least in spurts, but theymos has not yet implemented such capabilities/features in the forum.. (maybe I should request to be able to get such abilities for my lil selfie  - like special treatment from theymos?... .. .hahahahahaha.. theymos if you are reading this post, consider my request for getting special abilities to delegate some of my merit sending abilities having had been made.. and could either you (or PowerGlove) get working on some software changes for such or maybe special treatment for yours truly?)... and currently, I cannot think of any reason to give my forum account password to any peep... even if I "like" such person.


That prick sounds desperate... but he has made these kinds of pleas in the past, and he has shown himself to be a liar .. an ongoing liar, even when he says something that might seem easy to accomplish.. such as I will be nicer.. I am going away.. blah blah blah.. a liar who cannot help himself from wanting to continue to receive attention and to be thought of as important.

And, it is too late anyhow.

I have considered him as a prick since I first heard him speak, and it is very difficult to listen to such an arrogant ass... so.. whatever amount of time it has been like maybe something like 7 years coming across various aspects of his content (directly or indirectly).. That trauma cannot be wiped from my own memory.. at least for this here cat.

Lookie uie-pooie.

Trying to create drama.



Are you too bored with the price movements of lillie fiend?

I mean we've got our selves a significant dip going on currently.. all the way down to touch $28k and even to dip a wee bit below $28k in the past hour..

What else do you want?  

Get yourself out of your newlie constructed windway and buy some of dee cornz!!!!!!  



That'll cheer you up.  Perhaps?


By the way, in the last couple of days, I added a few extra cornz buy orders.. just to be in the spirit of some folks who seemed to have had been pushing an April 1 BTC pumpening.. and I don't really believe in market buys, so I compromised within my lil selfie, and I did my part by adding a few extra BTC buy orders at price points (mostly between various price points starting at lower $28k and going down to about mid-$26ks..). 

Below the mid-$26ks, I already have my own regular and prescheduled BTC buy orders that are already in place.  I usually would not buy "on the way up" or in the "upper part of a seemingly consolidating price range".. but whatever.. I am feeling in the spirit.... since the price seems to have had been stuck here for a while and ..just for funzies.

You do not need to be an "expert" to attempt to calculate when the next bitcoin halvening is going to take place, and based on current progress in finding blocks, which is right around 1 block per every 10 minutes, the next halvening is likely going to be right around 1 year from now... .. which is merely just calculating out how many blocks are still needed to be mined before we get to 840,000 blocks (which is when the halvening takes place), and right, as I type this post, the miners are currently working on mining block 783638, since they just mined block 783637 8 minutes ago.. see the below caption..  

>>>>>>>
Latest Block:   783637  (8 minutes ago)
Current Pace:   101.8194%  (1430 / 1404.45 expected, 25.55 ahead)
Previous Difficulty:   43551722213590.37                            
Current Difficulty:   46843400286276.55                            
Next Difficulty:   between 47638465056257 and 47713203590655
Next Difficulty Change:   between +1.6973% and +1.8568%
Previous Retarget:   March 23, 2023 at 5:11 PM  (+7.5581%)
Next Retarget (earliest):   Thursday at 11:11 AM  (in 3d 23h 55m 17s)
Next Retarget (latest):   Thursday at 11:41 AM  (in 4d 0h 25m 43s)
Projected Epoch Length:   between 13d 17h 59m 46s and 13d 18h 30m 12s
https://www.bitrawr.com/difficulty-estimator<<<<<<

so you could actually just calculate how many 10 minute chunks between the current block and the halvening block.

so we have had three halvenings so far, and this will be the fourth halvening.

Regarding your expectation of $200k bitcoin, by when are you expecting this, so that some of us might be able to plan accordingly?  

Do you expect it before the halvening or after the halvening, and then is that just a blow off top or a peak or will it be somewhat sustainable?

Have you already picked yourself up some bitcoin in anticipation of this, or are you still working on that part?

If you already have BTC, are you planning to sell some of it between here and $200k or are you just planning to continue to hold it, whether the price reaches $200k or more than $200k or not?  

Of course, your $200k number is pretty specific and BTC does not usually just move to any one price and then just stay there, but maybe this time is different?  What do you think?


Oh?   That makes sense. The merits might have thrown me off too..  even though maybe the first two merits that came from bumbacoin for 50 merits and sukamasoto for 30 merits should have had been clues that it was a fake screenshot... especially since I had never heard of those members, but I did not even really look very closely at trying to figure it out.  

Initially, I had thought that the forum might have activated satoshi's account for the mere purpose of the joke.. which does seem a bit much, but sometimes we seem to tolerate a lot of extremes in order to make April Fool's jokes.


HEY!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't be writing off "our" (that's royal our) lil buddy so quickly.

    

You are not really describing what you are wanting to say very well hexan123.  

Of course, it is already becoming quite difficult for any normies to really accumulate at least one bitcoin without any decently large commitment towards either accumulating over time or being able to reallocate some other investments or cash that such normies might have available... and also when we are referring to smaller levels of items we might have to start to refer to sats or fractions of BTC... just to clarify.. and it is even becoming a bit more cumbersome to consider that anyone might be spending whole BTC at a time, even though on the settlement level or just the holding and moving value around, it still seems reasonable to talk in terms of BTC, but even then, we might be better served to refer to sats or to be more particular regarding how many times we are going to be getting into fractions of a BTC rather than one whole BTC when we refer to some things that we might buy... so a truck load of potatoes might be one BTC, and surely several ounces or even kilograms of gold might considered as one BTC, so it would not be likely one gold coin would be one BTC, unless there were some collector's angle or valuation to such coin or we might say that this bucket of gold coins is currently worth one BTC.

By the way, personally, I don't really have any problem or issue in terms of saying that "I transacted in bitcoin" and thereby using the singular of the reference, even if there might be some vagueness as to the quantity of bitcoin that I transacted being greater than 1 bitcoin or less than one bitcoin, so in that regard, there sometimes can be some references to transacting in bitcoin that might actually refer to either several bitcoin or to fractions of a bitcoin.

I don't really give too many shits about ethereum or whether it might have staying power or not, since there are a lot of weak points in terms of its ability to defend itself; however, I suppose if ethereum continues to exist in bitcoin's shadows, then we likely are going to be able to see various ways in which systems are being built around it and being built around bitcoin too.. and perhaps even inter-related.. and there could be some senses that if ethereum is crashing more and controlled more, then there could be worries then the focus of enemies of bitcoin would be to come after bitcoin in the various ways in which people can be targets.

So, yeah 2025 is not really that far from now, and the extent to which BTC's price is going to continue to appreciate is not exactly guaranteed, even though we continue to witness a lot of vulnerabilities in traditional systems, their reliance on debt and the lack of clarity regarding various aspects in which there might be collateral to back up the various kinds of debt that can be vulnerable to falling and towards cascading.

I do have doubts about whether banks will disappear, even though they are likely going to continue to be challenged and likely have to change in a variety of ways that may well cause them to need to back themselves with sounder forms of money and sounder collateral.. and bitcoin seems to be the best of collateral... in respect to considering how some of these systems might evolve in the coming years, and the theme of this thread that involves how much activists (or developers) might be targeted in regards to their work on some of these various kinds of products, especially if there are ambiguities in regards to how much hostility that government officials have - including their likely ongoing desires to protect status quo institutions, such as banks.. and some banks are more hostile towards bitcoin and various crypto than others, and surely it seems that the evidence seems to be showing increased hostilities in recent times, including that even within the banking system, there seems to be more hostility towards banks that are touching upon bitcoin and crypto - which is not really a new development, except that there is ongoing growth and attempts at stamping out or directing that growth at the same time.

I understand that there are some ways in which bitcoiners are not really representative of what most people do, since most people do not even have any investments outside of their house (if they own it, which not everyone does) and their 401ks (if their employer happens to offer one), and so if any normies have investments beyond those two classes of items, they are already in a largely smaller segment of the population (perhaps the elite.. or the more elite).

Bitcoin (and dare I say crypto) might well get some normies to actually start to think about "investing," but I have even run into some folks in real life who really cannot see it practical to invest into anything beyond property and stocks.. and maybe they prefer property.. but the stocks might be a way to just attempt to build up enough of a down payment, since sometimes young folks cannot even get into property until they have already accumulated a certain amount that they can "throw away" towards all of the expenses of making the down payment and various related "getting into it" costs.

The matching portion could be quite a lure... but even sometimes normies do not even take advantage of those kinds of matching type situations, and I think that part of the problem might still be the idea of wanting to stay somewhat liquid - since a 401k seems so intangible because it is a retirement fund, which is so far down the road (20-30 years for younger people), and maybe normies don't start to panic until in their late 40s.. and gosh it could be kind of late by then to really advantage from the compounding that comes from starting earlier rather than later.. same with bitcoin, start earlier rather than later and don't be tempted to cash out too early.. until the investment compounds several times.. and gosh we have seen it so many times, that people sell because they get a 50% return or even a doubling or a tripling.. and they end up getting nervous and wanting to lock in their profits.

I don't claim to know the solution, exactly.. but just to say that building an investment portfolio seems to be a bit of a minority demographic, generally speaking.


Someone had said something about that "satoshi" post, but I did not see the actual post or the link, and I did not do a search.. so I guess I had missed it while it was still live.. ...


gembitz?  Is that you?

I am not on any of the lists either, and I was feeling like it looks like I was not cooperating at all.

I had a few posts that I made in the last 24 hours in which I did not enter the captcha, but there were probably more than 5 times in which I tried to collect coins, and I probably collected around 40 coins or maybe even more, yet I never did actually ever meet the goal of finishing the captcha (like whatever the quantity of coins I was supposed to collect always seemed to be unreachable), and maybe the most that I got in any one effort was around 12 coins.. but most of the time, I would just get one or two coins.. and kept trying several times, and one time I was able to keep it going for nearly a minute.. or however long it had taken to get 12 coins.. maybe 25 seconds would be more realistic...

Anyhow... I kind of cooperated with trying to solve the captcha.. but apparently not enough time trying (or success) to get my name on any of the lists of those who cooperated.. since I did not ever completely collect all of the coins that I had been assigned to collect..  

Well, I suppose that if you are earning 5% interest on your dollars, then that is better than earning 0% or even  some faction of a percentage - and perhaps, 5% might keep up with inflation, but these days there are a lot of doubts regarding whether 5% would be very reflective of actual inflation.. and the suggestion that "we all have our own inflation number" does have some truth to it, even though that same statement is used to manipulate perceptions of actual inflation and to propagandize folks into maintaining some confidence in status quo fiat-based systems.

Any budget is likely going to strive to categorize various kinds of liquidity and surely there are needs to keep some funds continuously liquid to the extent that any of us have monthly expenses.  Wasn't there one point in which you, Biodom, had mentioned that you needed to have something like $15k per month of passive income merely to feel that you were at entry-level fuck you status, and surely none of us should be judging the standard of living or even the "accustomed lifestyle" that any of us expects, but there are so many folks in the world in which either $1 million entry level fuck you status will work, even if it is likely safer to consider $2 million as a kind of widely applicable number... and of course, if there is a passage of time, we always should be accounting for how that number might change (or get diluted) through the passage of time, but if we make a statement in 2013 that entry level fuck you status is $1million, then in order to be consistent, it does seem that based on so many things that have happened in terms of the denigration of the dollar (and perhaps especially since March 2020), it seems reasonable that doubling to $2million in 2022/2023 dollars seems in the ball park of reasonable.

It seems that around a year ago or so, I had mentioned in one of my posts that some supposed "expert" was proclaiming that if our number used to be $1million prior to March 2020, then now it would be $8 million, and I surely find that to be a bunch of bullshit and exaggeration, even though surely the value of the dollar could go shooting down, as it seems that Belaji's prediction of $1million per BTC to come by mid-June 2023 seems to require.. which seems to be quite below 1% odds of something like that happening in such a short timeline.

Things are looking pretty shitty, but not as if the whole system will collapse within 90 days or whatever (fewer days now, of course since that prediction was a couple of weeks ago).

Bitcoin still seems to serve as a great talking-point in order to attempt to facilitate sound money kinds of ideas.. and responsibility and a lot of the things that go along with sound money as compared with the various shallow values that seem to go along with fiat money, debt and also fake pumpenings of systems to make it appear as if there is value when the values do not have a sound basis, except that it is using money borrowed from the future to make it look like the present is sound when it is not..

So I don't know.. if it is fair to say that bitcoin all by itself is not doing it, even though technically you are probably correct, yet a real true attempt at bitcoin does seems to facilitate stronger talking points over various aspects of our current status quo systems that are imploding upon themselves because of the extent of the debt that continues to be allowed to build and the failure/refusal to incentivize sound values (which seems to be what bitcoin does).

El Salvador's legal tender law is about bitcoin, and not about "crypto."  You use the term "bitcoin" one time in your post (maybe that was an accident?), but you use the term "crypto" 5 times.  Are you trying to sound "smarter?" or are you just confused about what is going on in El Salvador?

Maybe you should reconsider your post and learn how to focus on at least what is going on in El Salvador, which is bitcoin first - especially since El Salvador has been trying to focus on bitcoin first (and to any extent that "crypto" might be tolerated in El Salvador, it seems to be a side issue, and not the main thing that is going on in El Salvador," but probably you are too busy wishing that El Salvador were to be promoting shitcoins.. so you frame your post in a confusing way.. and refuse to use the word bitcoin (except once) - even though Bitcoin happens to be what El Salvador is doing...

Are you doing that on purpose? or are you merely confused?


Sounds like you are "eating up" the propaganda, no?  Are you saying anything that makes sense?  Do you know the subject matter well enough to proclaim that El Salvador is currently failing and is going to continue to fail?  It surely does not seem that the facts are sufficiently on your side, and you are largely just spouting out conclusory claims that are from hostile international entities that do not like the idea of El Salvador attempting to employ some sovereignty through attempts at getting its financial house in order, and surely any country (or even any institution or any individual) who might start out by getting into bitcoin, but they might have debts or they might be in a bad financial situation, it can take a wee bit of time for things to get turned around (such as getting into an improving state), and you seem to be ready to judge both current failure and also continued failure and that really does not seem to line up with actual facts on the ground... at least you have not really backed up your assertions of El Salvador's supposed failure - beyond that it is your opinion and your speculation.

I am still in the middle of catching up with this thread.. but I could not resist to respond to this "holy shit Phil" .. again?  I gotta credit you for being persistent (or is it called stubborn) with some of this thinking and attempting to back up why you continue to believe that bitcoin is broken into the future.

Maybe this is part of your ongoing flawed thinking?.. Of course, in the past, you were wrong because you did not believe bitcoin was sufficiently valuable so you ongoingly cashed out all of your mined coins for fiat and did not keep side stash of cornz, and now, in recent times (perhaps the last few years), you are finding some value in actually holding some bitcoin (even though you are in love with doggie coin and LTC..like a numbskull.. hahahahaha), but you are discounting BTC's future valuation based on too many speculative points that would have to come true in order for bitcoin to be broken in 2056.. like adaptation, difficulty adjustment, the various ways that adoptions and price can grow with the passage of time.

Maybe think about the matter a bit more without locking yourself in so much in regards to things that you do not know and none of us know, no?  Or maybe it is is that you are discounting some things that we do know, which is the difficulty adjustment.. but we also have ongoing adoption that is not exactly guaranteed, but there is no real reason to conclude that it is going to stagnate, even if there are various battles along the way.. BTC was built for battles, and there is no real evidence to suggest that BTC is not up to the task of being able to be resilient in the face of current battles and even expected battles.

Accordingly, if BTC is currently not broken, and so far the incentives in bitcoin's system have adjusted to continue to allow for (and even facilitate) the many bitcoin networking effects (think of Trace Mayers 7 networking effects as a framework), then why would we either want to presume that the incentives are not going to continue to work in bitcoin and/or that various kinds of developments and adaptations are going to be able to happen in order to tweak to any extent that might be necessary to attempt to realign such incentives if they do not seem to be playing out sufficiently naturally within the system as it continues to grow over the next 33 years-ish? 

1st layer and second layer (and probably other layers) play off of each other, but still BTC remains the most valuable in which a lot of value is going to continue to flow, even from places that currently are not in BTC.. which is also going to bring me back to several of my issues in regards to how some of the ordinals/inscription discussion is taking place.. Yeah.. subjectively there is a whole hell of a lot of crap involved with ordinals and inscriptions and even various attempts to commercialize and create scarcity.. (or create the impression of scarcity)... and some smart guys here are proclaiming that ordinals and inscriptions are not intended to be part of bitcoin because they do not fit in the definition of money and blah blah blah that's not what Satoshi intended bitcoin to be money blah blah blah.

Bitcoin is not that narrow and has never been that narrow, even if satoshi might have wrongly made certain word choices in regards to peer to peer cash.. and even if he said that, bitcoin is not that narrow, has never been that narrow, and value can be transmitted over it, even if the value is not agreed upon by others not in the transaction and may not even be agreed upon at the time of the transaction.  Also, I am thinking that if the whole BTC blockchain.. every single satoshi ends up getting a inscription attached to it, there are probably ways to unattach those inscriptions (or to throw away the inscription part) by doing another transaction that purifies the satoshis contained in the transaction.. if that is what the market ends up facilitating - such as the value of clean satoshis to be higher than those that have inscriptions attached.


It seems to me that the concept of "majority" in bitcoin hardly means anything, so there is a kind of stickiness in which if anyone wants to make a change, there is a need for overwhelming consensus in order to make any such desired change... and there is a need to convince those running nodes to actually update to the version (or feature) that is desired to be included..


So, even mikeywith's (below-referenced) listing of who needs to be convinced seems to leave out an important fact in regards to those running the nodes, might just say.. fuck off, we are not changing.. and they don't even necessarily coordinate or whatever, they just choose not to change from the "sticky" status quo, even if there might be a majority (or even an overwhelming 80% or more majority) or even attempts at domination from several of the members of the groups that mikeywith listed.



Many of us likely realize that miners are not a monolith, either.  They may have quite a few similar factors that motivate them in terms of trying to reduce their costs and to increase their hashpower, but as you seem to be suggesting BlackHatCoiner, there also is going to be variation in terms of how they set up their business (partnerships, consumption of energy consideration, equipment, personnel, even variation in kinds of coins that they mine or other ways that they might generate capital in terms of other operations that they might have or even if they might produce their own power or make their own equipment), the extent to which they choose to hold BTC (as part of their business treasury), the extent to which they use debt and perhaps several other matters, not necessarily excluding political/ideological considerations that they might include into their business practices.


Hahahahahaha

Good one.

I am not even saying that I don't believe you.

(By the way, I am reading this thread in the order that the posts are made, and it may take me a bit more time to catch up to responding to anyone who might respond to any parts of this post of mine..and I also recognize that some of my points may well have already been addressed.. and so if I need to respond again or to acknowledge that, then I will decide whether to do so when I come across such potentially responsive posts.. not that I claim to understand everything that is posted).

Did you create all of that yourself?

From where did you get the data?

The way that the whole thing is presented does not exactly make it easy to look at or to compare time periods... even if all of the data might happen to be accurate.  

And the size of the font that you chose is a bit loud too, no?.. In responding, I reduced your font size a bit.. just to try to attempt to quiet down the whole thing a wee tad widdo bit...

As far as your question.. what do you think?  

I think that $50k in 2023 seems fairly realistic and reachable.. but surely there is nothing close to any kind of a guarantee of for such a thing to happen..

Maybe I might say that the odds for $50k in 2023 are somewhere between 50% and 60% odds?... so let's say 55%.. and then if we say 55% odds for the price of king daddy going up another 75%-ish within 9 months.. and that would be pretty decent returns on investment.. and/or decent odds too, maybe?.... so maybe I am being overly optimistic in regards to the level of the seemingly ongoing asymmetric upside opportunities in respect to my lil precious?   I am just not sure how to cut back exactly with my attempt to assign value.. while also attempting to be somewhat realistic..

Go figure. .. if you must...and come up with your own speculation in regards to what are the odds, and what to do about preparations for either BTC price direction... including that we cannot forget about the possibility of flat, even though many of us know that historically flat has not been a highly likely scenario to paint with king daddy, even though flat does seem to end up happening from time to time.. when there is a kind of battle truce... or inability to get the price to move.. a kind of stand-off.. . 

It seems to me that flat should not really be something that any of us should be putting high odds upon.. except maybe Philip wants to put high odds on flat? since he seems to really enjoy being wrong so frequently... while being adamant about his predictive capacities...