So a 1031 exchange.  It is a great illustration of the NFT insanity going on.  

I will sell this post as a NFT also, but, since it is quoting Elwar's, makes reference to the US tax code, is part of this thread, and makes reference to current event of NFT craziness, I will start bidding at 2 BTC.

A true collector will want to collect both this post and Elwar's, plus probably every post in this thread in order to maximize the value proposition.


Edit:
It appears this was moved to digital goods as the mods seem to have missed the (potential) sarcasm.  Now with the edit, this should probably be higher priced.

Final settlement means of the payment can't be reversed. Credit cards can be reversed for 3-6 months. I didn't write the tweet either but that is almost assuredly what they meant.   

Now, 3-6 months is a really, really slow payment system.  How can someone buy coffee with it?

I think it is more likely that the bigger skeptics are the entrenched governmental so-called elites. They know that bitcoin will undermine their ability to skim a percentage every year off of everyone's fiat, seemingly below the radar. So I think the banks are one level removed from the true people who are afraid.  People are catching on that governments are not there for their benefit. The governments are there to benefit the people who are running them so they can control everyone else. They do it by trying to divide people by immutable, irrelevant characteristics such as skin color so that people don't notice the evil that the so-called elite is foisting upon them.

As time progresses, bitcoin will likely become more stable.  At some point - in my opinion perhaps another 1 or 2 orders of magnitude from here - it will reach fiat equilibrium and will then become quite stable and able to be used as a currency.

Given the penchant Soros has for authoritarianism, he must only be investing based on bitcoin's investment thesis, not its freedom thesis. 

Yeah, I was attempting to relate personal experience with people, should've been clearer.  :-)

Or they can just buy now.  And could've at any time since 2009. It is all about freedom and choices. People have the freedom to make good choices in buying or not. They can think long term (e.g. buy Bitcoin and keep it for 5-10 years) or short term and go out and buy Starbucks coffee everyday and forgo $2190 of Bitcoin per year. ($6/day * 365).  

I've told people about Bitcoin since mid 2010 and the thesis behind it. Most of those people chose to prioritize a new phone ($600 in 2011-2013) would've bought a lot of Bitcoin. Even at $30 in 2013, you'd have had 20 which are not worth ~$1.2 million.  Or they bought Starbucks every day.  Or they bought expensive wine or beer or liquor.  

Everyone has the same opportunity, and it is the ant and the grasshopper repeatedly.  People want to be the grasshopper short term, but then when the ant is rewarded, they complain.

Investments compounded over decades add up even outside of Bitcoin, but few people will be patient for 50 years. They want what they want now, and then pay the price later.

Their fear is loss of control of their people which means loss of their own power and money. Evil statists the lot of them.  Trust people to be free to make good and bad decisions and live with the consequences of doing so.

Fake reasons like money laundering etc are excuses to control.

Time will tell, but people said the same thing in 2010, 2011, 2012, etc.  Those people sold at $5.  Or $30.  Or $500.  Or $1000.  Or $5000.  Maybe they needed the money and are happy about doing so, maybe not.  It was their choice in a free (at least in some places) world.

If you *need* the money for something, certainly sell, but blanket statements like that have been proven wrong many times.  If it makes you happy, sell.  If you are stressed about the ups and downs, sell.  But don't do it just because someone says "logically that is still not possible and still very far away." It may be a long time, it may be short.  It really depends on you and your goals and what you consider "long" and "short." 

I don't think anyone ever thought it means "never ever sell your BTC".  What it means - at least to me - is that you don't sell until bitcoin has reached fiat equilibrium and then you don't need to sell because you'll be able to transact in bitcoin without needing to convert.  If usage continues to increase, whatever the use, whether fiat inflationprotection, buying stuff, speculation, an ETF, smart contracts etc, equilibrium will be another order or two of magnitude from here.  So another 10 or 100 times in fiat terms from here, or potentially 500k to 5000k in USD terms.  In early 2011 people were saying "dollar parity won't hold" and thought $30, $100, $800, $2000, $10000 etc. was a pipe dream, let alone $50-60k.  Another 1-2 orders of magnitude is certainly possible, who knows when.

At the time when the initial drunk HODLING post was posted, bitcoin was around $800.  All the people who were shouting "bitcoin is crashing" and other nonsense sold.  He held.  I don't know when or if he's sold yet, but if so, he has done well.   It has been the same story since summer 2010 when I first read about it.  Every time bitcoin goes up and then goes down some.  With trading, you may get lucky or unlucky, and lose it all.

The way to get "diamond hands" is to buy and wait.  (I used to say mine and wait, but that ship seems to have sailed for now for many people).





* And I saw his post just as he posted it and though, "this is the dumbest thing with HODL" and look at it now everyone is using it, although it is still idiotic, so what do I know.

And yet he considers fiat to be a long term allocation?  Who is he kidding?  Something guaranteed to lose 2-2000% of value every year.

As Lucius said, it is important to stand up for bitcoin.  It has great technical value and great societal value in that it puts controls on governments.  Likely this is why India and the Biden admin (among many others) don't like it.  When governments don't trust (and don't fear) the people, that is the doorstep to tyranny.  The rulers in India (and now in the US and elsewhere) don't value liberty, the value control to enhance their own power. 

Sounds like the same old "China is going to ban Bitcoin" nonsense we've heard dozens of times.  Any reputable sources?

Sure China could do it, but are they also going to seize and destroy the machines?  Will they do it before the news comes out?  Too late for that.   If they don't destroy the machines, they'll be sold to someone outside China to use there. Will China cease production of ASICs?  Won't TSMC, NVIDIA, and others just take over?  Seems very unlikely.

First, Aker has set up a new company dedicated to investing in bitcoin projects and companies, so this isn't Aker itself.  How is it reckless to set up a new company that deals solely (according to the article) with bitcoin and bitcoin projects and to place 100% of their capital in these projects? 

Second, neither Aker nor this new company have citizens.  They have shareholders and the shareholders hire a board of directors to hire people to manage the operations of the corporations.  The shareholders of this new company are (probably) Aker itself. 

Third, what a private company does with its capital (about $58 million in the Aker-new-company case) isn't anyone's business but the owners of that company so it isn't the business of anyone else in Norway or anywhere else.  They are not forced to "render services" to anyone.  If they succeed wildly, the owners benefit, and if they fail, the owners pay the price.  That is the nature of a free society, people make decisions like this of their own free choice. 

As far as Cramer goes, he is probably right for most companies that aren't involved in crypto.  They should put some portion - 2%, 5%, 10%, maybe 20-40% - in crypto in order to protect themselves if all the fiat printing flooding the world with money that is worth less than it was a month ago.  The smaller end of the spectrum helps to future proof them, the larger end helps to protect them.  The smaller end is more a diversification of assets alone.

If the goal of those companies is to protect themselves from inflation, they should put a higher percent if they think it will eventually occur.  The key is that if flooding the world with fiat continues, eventually inflation will occur and those companies that protected themselves will do well.  Is that reckless or smart?  Was it reckless to short the housing market in 2006, 2007 or 2008?  Many people thought so. 

Is it reckless now to (effectively) short the fiat system by buying bitcoin?  Many people think so.   Time will tell who was correct.  It may not be 3 months, or 3 years, but time will tell.  The last 11-12 years of bitcoin has told us that bitcoin has done very well in fiat terms, but it hasn't been all in one direction.

Who has an exit price?  Just stay in crypto and use it to pay for things that way.  It will reach fiat equilibrium faster if everyone does that - as a side benefit, you'll probably make more money since no one has a crystal ball.  And fiat equilibrium will probably be an order of magnitude or two from here.

Most of the people who had "exit points" at $1, $10, $30, $100, $1000, $2000, $5000, $10000, and $20000 etc are wishing they hadn't exited in order to buy back lower because no one knows when the bottom is.

It is starting to sounds like "MMT".  Modern Monetary Theory is, of course, anything but modern, and will completely destroy an economy, country, individuals, and money supply if enacted.  Printing money will lead to smart people buying solid assets like gold, silver, property, Bitcoin etc.  The fools will be left with worthless paper.

Buying bitcoin is effectively shorting fiat in whatever country that person lives.  Venezuela, Russia, the Eurozone, US, Mexico, South America, Africa etc.  It is an escape hatch from the monetary system so that one can protect oneself from worthless, power-hungry, politicians. 

Using a third party service for more than a transaction always is a risk since someone else holds the keys.  Particularly a service that provides no insurance.  That said, it is too bad that they didn't do more to help.

And one scary thing about there $1400 checks is that is about $400 billion out of the $1.9 trillion.  The other $1.5 trillion didn't go to individuals, it went to payoffs.  You can tell it was full of pork because the other stimulus was bipartisan, this was strictly one sided.

It is great advice for corporations if they are concerned about inflation from all the helicopter money that has been printed over the last 12 months.  It protects shareholder wealth to have some Bitcoin vs fiat.

Privacy is not criminal, anyone who argues otherwise is probably an authoritarian fascist who wants to control everyone else.  Personally, I've never used a mixer, but anyone who wants extra privacy should do so.  Everyone does not have a right to know everything about everyone else.  Privacy is a human right.  Anyone who argues otherwise is anti human rights.

Counterarguments are many, just because you didn't come up with them, doesn't mean your final statement is accurate.  It just means you didn't think it through.

If you really don't consider privacy a human right, please post your real name, address, phone number, install a camera in each room in your house and open up your firewall, and post every financial transaction, from pay to buying a meal, online, whether you've used fiat, a credit card, a check or whatever.