Fair enough.  Thanks for the clarification...

Sometimes there are likely delicate balances in regards to second-guessing various prosecutorial discretion, and then how their announcements show how they might seem to be pursuing some matters, and of course, sometimes there could be other targets or there could be reasons why they had chosen not to pursue certain entities, including sometimes whether they might have gotten cooperation agreements that then justify not pursuing certain entities or persons.  For sure, we are not always going to find out everything that is going on, and sometimes there could be questions whether their pursuits are reasonably within the "public's interest" or if they might be purposefully choosing to scapegoat some and to provide too much leniency to others.


Well, if we go by your forum registration date joker_josue, then a mere $28 per week for 9 years would have gotten you to that amount of BTC (with a total of around $13,160 invested).  

That linked website (dcabtc.com) only allows for the tracking of DCA investing for a maximum of 9 years, so if you might be suggesting that you did not start investing in BTC around the time of your forum registration date, and we just go back 9 years from today, then you would have needed $46 per week to get to that 20 BTC amount (which would have been a total of $21,620 invested).

It seems that the later that any of us were to start to invest into BTC, then the more difficult it becomes to get to that amount of 20 BTC, and starting today, it might seem hard pressed to wonder how possible it would be to get to the accumulation of 20 BTC?

So if any of us want to get to 20 BTC and we are starting at a later date, then we would have either had to raised the amount that we invested per week or perhaps increase the amount of time that it takes to reach such a 20 BTC goal.. or perhaps make more reasonable (and reachable) goals?  

Personally I prefer to make individually-tailored goals that are more tailored towards where any of us might be at and where we could reasonably take ourselves.. and for example, any guys/gals/BTC HODLers who might have had left some of their BTC through Chipmixer, may well have ended up reducing the amount of their BTC and perhaps having to readjust their individualized BTC accumulation targets... whether 20 BTC is reasonable or not may well depend upon where any of us are at right now, and other factors, and then also there are also factors of how many coins do any of us believe to be practical to be processing or holding through these kinds of third-party services in which we might end up losing some or all of those coins (or at least vouchers for actual BTC).

There are a quite a few people who have had the fortune to find out about BTC for many years (such as 5 years or even 10 years or more), but then sometimes are not taking enough precautions to move some of their BTC, most or even perhaps a decent portion of their BTC to locations in which it is more difficult for their BTC to be taken from them in one form or another or for their BTC to get caught up in some kind of government proceedings, and even some users of Chipmixer might be a bit leery to even contact any of the authorities who had seized the coins in order to ask "when am i getting my BTC (that you took) back?"

With those examples, you are not really bolstering what fillippone had said ginsan.  Sure there might be some convenience for Saylor to buy a bit more on the dips, and perhaps Saylor might be regretting that he had never really been motivated by buying on the dip as a serious consideration, yet ongoingly people are trying to assign those kinds of " buying on dips" motivations to Saylor and there still is hardly any evidence that Saylor gives too many ratt's asses about trying to time dips.. or figure out how much of a dip is a dip, and in some sense, for Saylor any BTC price is likely a good bargain - once he and his Company is able to clear such authorizations to buy.... .. based on the various kinds of considerations that fillippone already outlined - including is cash available through cashflow considerations or ability to dip into various sources of cash that might allow him to buy more BTC..

I think with anyone, when the price of what you bought had gone down (including something like BTC), you can retroactively look back and say that you could have waited to buy in order that you would have been able to get more at the current price rather than the higher price that you had paid, so in that regard, Saylor had been showing some of those kinds of appearance of potential regret, but at the same time, he still does not seem to be centrally motivated by that - in spite of the ongoing imposition of those ideas on him.

Gosh.. that sounds scary JollyGood - that you seem to be advocating for even stronger and/or more rigorous and draconian Govt measures, and surely I am not anti-government, but whenever I see these kinds of cases, I become skeptical of the government story - and maybe part of my discomfort comes from their seemingly conflicting mandates of "protecting the public" while at the same time not disclosing too much about a case that is under investigation and/or that the seemingly target person (alleged wrongdoer) is still on the loose.

Well, if we use your forum registration date as the time you got started in bitcoin, then surely there would have likely been quite the dilemma about what to do, when you are entering into an area in which there was a lot of disputes at that time, and also the BTC price had already run up to reach ATHs again at the beginning of the year, but there were also questions/concerns that the price was going to crash back below $500 before resuming up... so there were quite a few folks (whether newbies or not) who were either talked out of their coins or perhaps persuaded to wait... which in either case of selling at that time or waiting could have caused a certain amount of getting fucked by the then bad predominant advice.

So yeah your potentially earlier days into BTC in April 2017 could well have had provided an opportunity to get some BTC below the subsequent lowest BTC price points in 2018/2019/2020 (which would have been abilities to accumulate BTC at various price points between $1k and $3k and surely more fortunate to accumulate closer to $1k.. even though any of those prices between $1k and $3k feel pretty good right now) - even though frequently it can be hard to practically exercise such a practice to lump sum front load your investment into BTC because you may well have not had enough value available to inject into BTC and we really ONLY know from subsequent events that the BTC price did not drop back below $3,124 and surely even getting BTC below $4k after September 2017 was a pretty uncommon (infrequent) occurrence.

So in that regard, it was not always clear to know that sub $4k coins were not really going to be very easy to obtain after September 2017, and even in recent times, there had been thoughts that BTC prices were going to allow for BTC to be purchased below $4k.. yet by now, there are a lot of folks who now realize that the sub-$4k ship sailed long ago.. and any actually ability to get coins below sub $4k after September 2017 had been for ONLY short-periods of time and you better be ready, willing and able to act when such opportunities are presented to you.

There might be some truth in regards to sub-$20k having a similar kind of fate.. and so when we passed above $20k in December 2020, many of us might not have realized that the quantity of time to be able to purchase BTC below $20k was limited, and even our recent fortune to have quite a lot of opportunities to buy BTC below $20k between June 2022 and as recently as two weeks ago may well have been the end of an era... even though currently, I am not quite so confident to proclaim that the current local bottom of $15,479 is in (from November 2022), yet in 2 or 3 years, we might start to consider sub $20k prices for BTC as a similar kind of phenomena that we currently consider sub $4k BTC to be.. something that is hardly likely to happen (perhaps less than 1% odds.. which are "non-zero" odds, but not anything that any of us (who are trying to live in the real world with prudent and realistic approaches to our financial and psychological lives) should be putting any kind of serious preparations into pie in the sky events).


Exactly!  Part of the reason that I believe that it is better to mostly attempt to plan our BTC strategies around bottom price scenarios, including that I still believe that the 200-week moving average serves as a pretty strong and decent bottom indicator - even though in recent times, we spent nearly 9 months of mostly being below the 200-week moving average, which has so far been a pretty uncommon occurrence in BTC, but still way safer than planning around the top BTC prices, such as the top of the cycle that you had mentioned in late 2017/early 2018.

By the way, currently the 200-week moving average is right at about $25,427; however, when we first went below it in June 2022, it was around $22,200-ish.  https://www.lookintobitcoin.com/charts/200-week-moving-average-heatmap/    So the 200-week moving average has continued to move up, but staying mostly below it for around 9 months has surely caused its upward slope to become more graduated in recent times.. but for me, it still seems to be a pretty decent ongoing bottom indicator.. even if BTC prices might still go below it again.. but still way safer in terms of financial and psychological health to plan around bottoms rather than tops.


For sure, there is going to be some individual variance in regards to what might be the better ways to attempt to deal with BTC's likely inevitable volatility - and one of the difficulties is that we know that BTC is going to be volatile even while at the same time, we cannot be completely sure which direction or how much.

So part of the problem that any newbie normie has when coming into bitcoin is to figure out how much cashflow (or capital) to initially allocate to bitcoin, and then how much to allocate on an ongoing basis, because even though most people have some abilities to figure out and calculate matters related to their own finances and psychology, there still are unknowns in regards to personal finances and psychology and then there is the additional unknown about how to treat bitcoin as compared to other investment opportunties, so in the end all of those various knowns and unknowns have to be combined in order to come up with a individually tailored strategy that allows for a certain level of comfort that is not completely vulnerable to the BTC price extremes that might come, so there can be some ways to calculate BTC's volatility in terms of projecting out various extremes and then therefore turn one of the unknowns into more of a known - even though it still can be difficult, even if any of us has already projected out what we are going to do and how we are going to go forward even if some extreme scenarios (even beyond our calculations) ends up playing out.

Some people proclaim that we need to be through one whole BTC price cycle in order to really start to become comfortable with BTC's price volatility and whatever might be our BTC accumulation/maintenance approach, but surely it is possible that some of us might need to go through a few of those cycles before becoming comfortable, even though being in profits likely helps to bring comfort, but at the same time, depending upon how old any of us might be, it can take a real long time to build up the principle in any investment, even if that investment has been largely doing better than expected (or maybe even better than other investment opportunties that seem to be available).


Hahahahaha  .. Yeah.  It is funny how even a small kind of an obstacle can keep any of us "in check" during some of the times in which we are feeling some inclinations to "take some off the table," and for sure, we can never know for sure if we made the right decision until much further down the road.. so many of us who have been in bitcoin for a while have had those kinds of moments of potential weakness.. and we can probably recognize and appreciate that those kinds of potential moments of weakness likely subside more and more the longer that we are in bitcoin because as any of us should be able to imagine that there are guys who have average costs of $1 per BTC, $10 per BTC,$100 per BTC, $1,000 per BTC, $10k per BTC, $30k per BTC, $40k per BTC, $60k per BTC, and perhaps some other variations, and many of us likely can imagine that the lower is our average cost per BTC, then the less likely that we are going to get worried about dips that come further down the road because they are likely not as significant... even if such dips might still bother us.

And the considerations of having regret and/or psychological pressures are not ONLY about the average cost per BTC, because there are some cases of guys who might have ONLY invested small amounts of value into bitcoin, and they have been worried about keeping their average price per BTC down.  Let's take the guy who bought 20 BTC in 2015 for around $300 per BTC, so he invested a total of $6k, versus the guy who might have bought BTC between 2013 and 2017 and ended up buying 200 BTC, but his costs per BTC were around $1k per BTC (3.33x higher BTC costs as compared with the one who lump summed into BTC in 2015), so he invested around $200k into BTC (about 33.3x more invested as compared with the one who lump summed into BTC in 2015). 

Which one would you rather be?  Are you concerned about how much cheaper your coins might end up being if you end up investing way less into bitcoin because you had been overly whimpy in your perspective and your BTC investment approach?  Part of my suggestion has been to DCA and continue to invest, even if continuing to invest might cause your average per BTC to go up and the amount that you invested to end up going up, yet at the same time, I understand that each of us has to come to our own conclusions regarding these kinds of matters, and we are not necessarily going to know or to recognize if our approach sufficiently paid off (with fewer regrets) than perhaps maybe something like 10, 20 or 30 years down the road, and then by then, we will not be able to go back and to change our approach.. and we can ONLY change our approach right now (that is if we need to change it)..

If we continue to attempt to learn along the way, we likely will not be able to fix all of our mistakes, but we will likely catch some of them earlier and be able to improve our approach, even though there are never really any guarantees in regards to which investments to make and then how much to allocate, and part of the mistakes that some people historically had made has been to fail/refuse to get off zero.. so even if they might not have had liked bitcoin as an investment they likely would have been better to put 1% into bitcoin rather than zero.. even though the more aggressive ones of 10% or more or even 25% or more may well have had a better risk adjusted outcome in terms of how bitcoin has ended up performing as compared to any other investments that they had made.

In regards to the amount of FTT token that was supposedly held in that one account, it would be difficult to imagine a situation in which there was not some kind of insider-connection in regards to that kind of a holding, and in several senses, we do not have nearly enough information to appreciate a lot of the various connections of various fake entities that were created by FTX and also that sometimes real people or institutions might have had created accounts under pseudonyms or fake names.

It seems that so far, the current bankruptcy CEO (or might he be labelled as some kind of a trustee - John J. Ray) has been resistant to one of the practices of an independent auditor (investigator), which I believe that the Celsius situation did end up having one of those - and it seems that if various kinds of actual truths are wanted, then there is likely a need for an independent auditor rather than what might end up happening in regards to various cover-ups of some of the folks who might have had been involved in various aspects of the business - which likely could incur further charges and/or allegations towards high profile folks (politicians, companies, influencers).

I still am not exactly clear about how credible the source of this accounting information and whether the customer numbers were already existing customer code or if they were numbers that were generated in connection with the bankruptcy proceedings, and I could imagine a couple of kinds of scenarios, and one of them would be that some customers might already know their customer codes and another scenario would be that some customers would be given access to their customer codes prior to others being able to receive their customer codes.

Yeah but who is going to read your mind about what "our country" means?  How come members seem to not realize that their posts should stand on their own in terms of a reader knowing the references.  

You expect your reader to go back and research various previous posts that you may or may not have made in which you actually said what you mean by "our country?"  Should be easy enough to make some kind of reference that would tip it off or specify what is the reference, especially within a topic like this one.

You sound like some variation of retarded...


That's right dawg!!!!! (I mean frawg).

Even though you list great things about Australia, you seem to be pointing out that you missed the main point.. which is the starting out with the idea of a place in which your income (from something like a signature campaign) and perhaps some other relatively modest means could allow you to have many if not most if not all of the things that you had listed, but in a place in which your income could sustain yourself.. and sure maybe there is a bit of a pie in the sky to suggest that there might be places that are like the west, but just not in the west so they cost way less.

Gosh.

Could you be a bit more cheery?

I mean less doomy and gloomy.

I largely agree with you that those who allocate to bitcoin (and perhaps other assets) are likely to fair better as we go forward, but still... you are ruin'n any potential cheery mood in this here place.  


Just consider if you did not know about bitcoin?  yeah, there is a lot of suffering out there, and there are a lot of folks who do not know about bitcoin.. even though a lot of them have heard the word and they think that they know what it is.. but yeah, a lot of folks don't really know about hedging into bitcoin can potentially help with their future.. .. and I continue to hope that bitcoin HODLers do not have to become actual physical targets , merely because people are suffering and they did not look further into bitcoin and take actions to hedge their futures with some more of dee cornz... yes.. we have friends and relatives who are suffering too... and we can ONLY help them so much to help themselves... they may well disagree with us, even if we try to "help."


I find it difficult to be that confrontational with people in the "real world"... whether I have a lot or a significant amount of corn or not.. and the fact of the matter is that we seem to be social beings, and I have my doubts if dee cornz removes us from our needs to be social and to come to various kinds of social compromises from time to time.. whether we like it or not.. and yeah, there might be some various ways to lessen our interactions or to attempt to live on some kind of an "island within an island" or whatever, but still interactions or turn into some variation of Ted Kaczynski.

Sometimes it is confusing and difficult to figure out how to interact, especially if they are family members or even the "partners" or "friends" of family members.  It's not like we are going to completely get rid of these ideas, and sometimes even when I am speaking with someone (such as a family member or a friend) who I tend to believe should be on "the same page" or "a similar page" as me, there can be differing opinions that are developing in regards to their interactions in society and their "changing" interpretations about what they believe to be normal or acceptable.

One of the dilemmas that many of us likely continue to find is that we don't really have any problem with people wanting to be themselves or to live their own lives in any way that they see fit, and at the same time one of the problems is for others to impose their self-identity values upon us, but at the same time, you are damned if you do and you are damned if you don't and part of the dilemma likely remains that societies have always had a bit of a tension of imposing "acceptable" values, and those have not always been clear - and in the age of more open communication (or maybe even unstoppable communication - which is part of the bitcoin world), differing interpretations of "minority" views become more acceptable and wide-spread, and I am not going to proclaim to know the answer, even though I know that sometimes social divisions can cause a lot of distractions in terms of attempting to stick to more important topics, such as having our money stolen from us.. of course, in recent times through monetary debasement and potentially bailing out various undeserved.. but then the whole system had been fucked with in ways that it becomes even difficult to blame some bankers who may have thought that they were engaging in practices to protect their business and then there are rug pulls with that and then even seemingly changing standards of compliance.  When I start to ramble like this, I have to admit that I don't claim to know much of anything.. except that there are a lot of dilemmas when dealing with real people about their beliefs and practices.



You just luv those shadows on the cave wall philip?

Could be.


Fuck Chatbot.  

We want to hear from uie-pooie - to the extent that you have "anything" of actual substance to say... even if dumb, like usual.

 


So, you are asserting that bitcoin was not invented by the CIA?


Or maybe this meme clarified what happened with bitcoin?  

The Big bad govt built dee cornz, and then they lost control of it?

I am not going to disagree with you completely Doan9269; however, I doubt that a government is in the business to be benevolent and charitable, and in that regard, governments cannot carry out their purposes through voluntary measures - even though there are likely ways that governments can generate income without strictly taxing various sectors - which seems to be part of El Salvador's attempted direction that is aimed towards ongoing attempts to attract technological innovations and developments into El Salvador.

Whether such systems are sustainable might be another question, and for sure, I am not ant-government because personally I believe that there are various roles for government, and bitcoin seems to be inspiring different ways to structure and to provide incentives - while at the same time bitcoin is a world-wide phenomena so if there are a variety of competing and complementary systems that are interacting with each other, no one system can be completely considered in a vacuum, even if a country is able to set up a large number of self-sustaining systems - and I doubt that anyone is suggesting that El Salvador has enough resources to completely isolate itself from the rest of the world, so in that regard, if El Salvador is able to sustain the impression that it is a place of innovation, then they can attract and build capital.. but any of us should realize that the mere attracting, building and growing practice is not necessarily sustainable.. even though it can be quite prosperous while the attracting and building is going on and even sustainable over several generations, so it is not even necessarily a bad model to engage in practices that strive to attract labor, capital and growth - even though sometimes there can be reluctance from one regime to another in regards to whether even their policies are going to continue, so when they put them to practice they may well become more credible over time, and at this point, El Salvador is ONLY less than two years into announcing that it was getting into bitcoin, so surely a lot of the attempts at snowballing into becoming a "technological hub" is still in the earliest of stages, and likely even scary for some longer term bitcoiners to perhaps start to wonder if they might be devolving into shitcoins too.. and does that interfere with their earlier seemingly focus on bitcoin? 

The answers are not always going to be clear, and sometimes people might start to feel that there is too much deviance from the original path (bitcoin in this case).. and sure I don't want to prejudge any of this because it seems that El Salvador does still seem to be keeping bitcoin developing and networking as its foundational ideas, but still I wanted to just to express some assertions that governmental practices and adoptions are not necessarily straight-forward and non-controversial and sometimes can deviate into potentially controversial and less than straight-forward directions, even if some of us may well continue to agree that they are heading in the right direction and that they have not lost their path (or lost the bitcoin plot), yet.  Don't get me wrong, bitcoin remains a fairly complex topic that touches upon a lot of areas of society, and there are likely a lot of ways that other kinds of interventions and innovations and research can be accepted and acceptable without losing the plot.. even though sometimes it can be difficult to determine whether there might be deviance into shitcoinery.. or that ideas of "no taxes" is misleading, because governments might be cutting taxes in one area or another area, but they are potentially able to make those kinds of cuts in taxes in one area or another because they are relying upon generating revenue in other areas..and potentially new areas that are based on the attraction of industry rather than necessarily raising rates in other areas (while that growth and attraction of enterprises is still able to last).

Sounds like a bot wrote that post.

Everyone and anyone should have "questions and concerns" about bitcoin, so the longer that anyone studies bitcoin, then the more likely s/he is able to understand it, and figure out the extent to which s/he wants to invest into it - including developing some strategies to accumulate bitcoin and then be able to maintain such bitcoin stash, which seems to be the premise of this thread.. Once we have already decided that it is a good idea to accumulate bitcoin and follow some kind of a bitcoin accumulation/maintenance strategy.

I doubt that we are ONLY talking about Brazil here or even a narrow set of countries, because the thread is not even about any specific question, but instead there was a request to talk about various kinds of places in which a guy (or group of guys, like 5 of them to pool money) might be able to live quite well (like a king perhaps?) off of some amounts that might be earned through a signature campaign, and it seems unfair to have to strictly stick to any exact criteria so long as there are attempts to make potentially practical suggestions that relate to the topic and various kinds of considerations that might be made in one country/location versus another, and yeah a generally warm climate was also one of the considerations.

In regards to Nigeria, that example has been provided earlier, and at least you are now mentioning which country it is, because frequently it is not really very helpful or even concrete if a member proclaims that it is possible to live well off of $300 or $400 per month without providing hardly any further details or explanation regarding what part of the world it is, and maybe some other details in regards to how s/he is calculating such costs  - and surely naming the country or the kind of living location can be helpful to attempt to figure out if a foreigner might feel safe in an area, which it is likely that many of us would hate to move to an area to save money and then it ends up costing us more safety than we are willing to give up.


Sure, we were starting the premise of the question in regards to a single guy rather than a family, and sure it likely does not hurt to explore beyond just one kind of a demographic of forum members who might be considering living in some other parts of the world, yet I also believe that one of the underlying premises that was being considered was already having some kind of an income from a signature campaign or maybe even some kind of work that can be done through the internet rather than having to rely upon getting a job in the location... even though it would not hurt to know whether jobs might be available and what kinds of jobs, and frequently foreigners will work under the table rather than going through the process of getting all of the approvals.. ... but it does not necessarily hurt to know if there might be some potential demand for skills that foreigner might have, and yeah there could be a variety of ways to supplement one's income from internet kinds of jobs (including signature campaigns) and maybe other kinds of cashflows that might be coming in.

For sure, one of the dynamics of earning money on the internet might then lead to questions regarding how to exchange that into local currency, and whether that might be through bitcoin or dollars or some shitcoins that might be used in some areas, and then what kinds of fees might be encurred and also whether there is local hostility in regards to certain kinds of currency exchanges.. including the knowledge that these dynamics are changing on an ongoing basis too.

For sure a pretty great reminder about how gullible people can be.. and how bold others can be to engage in those kinds of "innovative" selling of items that they quite likely know are not what they are being described to be.


Nice painted fingernails Bbunny.

I always suspected.

 


Wow.. You have a lot of faith.  


Sideways is also possible with dee cornz.. but corn usually doesn't like to do sideways, even though after the fact we can find periods of sideways.. it just seems a bit problematic to have expectations of such sideways... from the point of view of this here cat.


You said it, as modified... Accordingly, I modified your statement a wee bit in order to FTFY.

But, yeah, what does an old school fiat-based boomer fart like uie-pooie actually know in reality?  Sure you have dreams, and even dreams of the past ole days.

Go on Jerome.. Tell us what you really know.  (I figured out your IRL name)

To me, it seems that my original attempt at a shame-laden lecture was largely "on target."

So, in essence, I am not going to show much if any mercy..^** even if your case might possibly deserve a wee tad little tiny bit, perhaps?

**Appeal to all of the authorities, or even to the CEO of bitcoin,.. .. I could care less... I am sticking to my guns on this one.



Lookie uie pooie.

Getting all worked up over different interpretations of reality...

Sticks and stone may break my bones, and jackhammers are not good for lettuce butts.

Be careful with some of that.




It's all fun and games until someone's eyes get poked out.. or perhaps other unintentional irreversible damages take place.


#justsaying... you will thank me later.


 


I don't know what TBF is.

Regarding going up above $30k, we were just struggling with $20k and even staying above $20k a mere 11 days ago (right prior to the Fed announcement of a SVB bailout), so I have a hard time considering any retracement back to some of those lower $20k levels to be particularly bearish, especially given how fast the BTC price shot up.... and it wasn't as if a bull market had yet been confirmed, even though many folks seem to want to declare a bull market based on information that they already have, and I am too much of a scaredy cat to enter into such declarations, especially when we were struggling to stay in the upper $16ks just prior to the beginning of this calendar year.. which this first quarter has not even officially ended.. not that king daddy gives that many shits about calendar years and financial quarters and all of that potentially mumbo-jumbo clutter.

I appreciate some of the details of your post, and of course, getting some of those details might help any one to more realistically consider what to account for in any particular region/country.

Regarding Chipmixer:  You likely had not heard that about a week ago Chipmixer's website/services got shut down, and the owner of the mixing service has been brought up on charges?  No one (referring to the alleged owner) has been arrested yet, as far as I know.  Therefore the signature campaign stopped right around the time of that announcement.



Of course, there may well be some other signature campaigns that are going to pay sufficiently high amounts (maybe more than $100 per week?), but still seems a bit too much to expect to be able base living standard plans on income from signature campaigns, even if you might be able to get something like $300 per week from a signature campaign, it seems to me that $100 per week is likely more realistic.. just to be conservative in making estimates that do not cause you to be overly reliant on keeping such a higher level of cashflow and/or being able to bounce from one signature campaign to another, in the event that the signature campaign that you are in gets shut down or discontinued.

Yeah, but really does the ability to perform more sophisticated tests, such as the one that you describe, really resolve the issue and even the seamless nature that comes from assaying (verifying the validity of) bitcoin as compared to assaying (verifying the validity of) gold?

I don't have any major problem for those who are already experts (and used to) holding gold to continue in their past practices, but they still should be attempting to get a grip upon the power of bitcoin, including that bitcoin is likely around 1,000x better than gold in all aspects, and sure there is some benefits to the physical tangibility of gold, but that physical tangibility can become a liability too, especially in an age in which there are a variety of ways in which value has been better able to be created, stored and transported in digital ways - and bitcoin serves as both a foundational paradigm shifting invention/discovery that allowed for the unharnessing a lot of the difficulties that had previously come from some of the corruption (including double spending) of previous digitalized value mechanisms.

There seems to be more and more people coming on board to the understanding that the various verification mechanisms within bitcoin are very powerful and they facilitate ways in which the verification is done in a variety of ways and does not require as much trust in the systems that have had historically been verifying gold (even if there might be some new and better gold verification techniques).

Hopefully, you got ur lil selfie some cornz montaga, in case it catches on.. .. and surely many of us longer term bitcoiners recognize that it could take one or two cycles or more to build up your bitcoin holdings, even though anyone newly coming into bitcoin can still end up profiting stupendously because it is still early days, and they likely would be better off to focus on learning about bitcoin and investing into bitcoin rather than trying to figure out how to deal with various aspects of gold holding challenges, including that it seems quite likely that bitcoin is going to continue to eat gold's lunch, just like it has been doing for the past 10 years or so.. and sure, I know it is a bit unfair that bitcoin is appreciating in price so much as compared to gold, but that's just one of the actual real world dynamics that exist when there is a new value storage system that is replacing aspects of the old system.

It's not easy to refrain from getting caught up with whatever the BTC price might be doing in the short-term. .and then once some seemingly extreme BTC price move happens, then get caught into a kind of thinking/believe that the short-term direction (momentum) is going to continue (and then suddenly the momentum reverses), and for sure the past several weeks have played out in see-sawing kinds of ways for bitcoin, and even if we look at the BTC price charts, there is nothing in the charts that really look very scary - except perhaps that bitcoin seems to be (at least temporarily) playing out the opposite of the various other calamities that are taking place in the overall market - and there seems to be a quite a bit of hostility being expressed towards bitcoin and maybe even some decently strong attack actions too.. but like you mention, honey badger does not seem to give too many shits, and truly if various governments (like the USA) become more and more hostile (and wanting to battle with bitcoin), then it is likely going to cause battles within the country but also likely cause some of the BTC price movements to get their initiatives from outside the USA locations, so surely there are some sayings within bitcoin that governments are not able to ban bitcoin, but instead they are able to ban themselves from bitcoin..


....and we have seen quite a few examples of governments banning themselves (and frequently certain fall out to their citizens) from bitcoin, but then they seem as if they end up having to flip-flop in terms of their banning and unbanning and then banning again and just showing that they are not really able to have as BIG of an effect on "controlling" bitcoin as they seem to be striving to accomplish - especially since BTC is an international phenomena and the word is getting out more and more that bitcoin has a potentiality (and even a likelihood) to be able to benefit everyone, and even though the "rich" can benefit too, the "rich" are likely going to have their wealth transferred away from them because they are spending too much time failing/refusing to recognize bitcoin and/or to appropriately allocate into bitcoin, which continues to create opportunities that are available to less well off (less financially rich) than other folks in the world to be able to advantage themselves by investing into bitcoin and even attempting to be prudent about their creating and following an ongoing investment into bitcoin that likely will pay off well over the longer period - even if there are continued battles and uncertainties in the shorter-term periods.

and for sure none of this UPpity is guaranteed.. but yeah we HODL and we accumulate BTC if we still have not gotten enough and especially if we are barely starting in bitcoin then we should be considering buying regularly and then maybe saving extra to buy on dips too.. and yes, none of us know how much further dips there are going to be or how much should be saved for the further dips, and that remains part of the justification to just buy regularly and be careful not to wait around too much, just in case dips do not happen and just in case such dips (if they do happen?) do not go as low as anticipated.

Thanks for that link Creditor11 (and welcome to the forum), and I see that yesterday you had created a forum thread on the topic of that "leaderboard"  

I had not really been aware of that website, so I will look through your forum thread later today.. and see what members have to say about it...  (maybe in a couple of hours.. depending on whether I am able to take care of some other matters first that I have to do or if I decide that I will look at your thread before I do my other tasks.... your thread is still pretty new and therefore still pretty short (it's still on page 1).

Ok. fair enough.  You are being more specific, so I am imagining that $300 per month is enough to allow you to get by with a very basic living (living the same or similar kind of lifestyle as a security guard), and so any amount more than $300 per month would allow you to live a higher standard of living.  

So, you still did not say which city (or country or which part of the world that you are talking about) and you still did not say whether you would be living within an area that has a lot of access to goods and services, and of course, many major cities around the world do have access to a large variety of goods and services, but the more off of the beat-n-path they are, then the more challenging that it might be for a westerner in terms of kinds of options available and whether s/he might be feeling as if s/he is living like a king or suffering because s/he is missing out on certain kinds of goods/services that s/he is used to in the prior country (location).

I surely would like to attempt to figure out the bigger costs, and the most likely basic costs that have to be incurred, such as housing, food, transportation, internet (and communications such as phone services), and perhaps some other basics, and you did go into some further details in the seeming relative inexpensiveness of the eating out situation.., but of course, there are still those other essential basic costs that would need to be  incurred.... ...

Even if a westerner (or a foreigner) comes into a new location, it might take them 1 or 2 months just to accommodate themselves to various kinds of savings that the locals are used to experiencing, so frequently many foreigners are going to have to pay more for almost any goods and services, until they get more used to the various locations of goods and services and even the various ways to potentially negotiate better prices in terms of something like lodging.

And, even if we are talking about a lodging situation, there are some lodging situations that might have several rooms and already furnished (and perhaps even some other conveniences that are specifically related to that kind of lodging), and then there could be questions regarding whether utilities are including and whether heating/air conditioning is needed, whether internet is included, and whether their is a kitchen therein... so maybe even if a foreigner comes to such a new location, they might need to have more things already included in their lodging (so that will cost more), but if the foreigner decides to stay for a longer time, then such foreigner might want to set up a lot more of his/her own items and systems (furnishings and even perhaps paying his own utilities and internet).