Tesla advertises their system as FSD (full self driving), which to me is BS.
They paid up for almost identical 2016 incident and will pay up for this one as well.
For me: I decided to stay away from Tesla. Too little car for too much moola. I was never interested in FSD.

I dunno, Eric Cartman, perhaps.
Or, he will rent it out at $10K/mo as a 'cozy, but nice place for deep thinkers'.

Ah, got it. Solid.

Not in Sanfran, but those are (900K-1mil, small, but OK to live in):
https://www.zillow.com/san-francisco-ca/?searchQueryState={%22pagination%22:{},%22mapBounds%22:{%22west%22:-122.5751212973633,%22east%22:-122.29153670263673,%22south%22:37.63662788292032,%22north%22:37.9136954367416},%22usersSearchTerm%22:%22san%20francisco%22,%22regionSelection%22:[{%22regionId%22:20330,%22regionType%22:6}],%22isMapVisible%22:true,%22mapZoom%22:12,%22filterState%22:{%22price%22:{%22min%22:900000,%22max%22:1000000},%22monthlyPayment%22:{%22min%22:3308,%22max%22:3675}},%22isListVisible%22:true}

Sorry to barge in, but it is not a valid classification, afaik.
Here is a much better one:

https://www.accountingweb.com/practice/clients/understanding-the-five-categories-of-wealth

Bitcoin OGs are "High Asset, Low Cash Flow" Wealth.
Many/some of them are probably "Under the Radar" category.

Upon btc reaching 100K OGs would probably seek to transition from "High Asset, Low Cash Flow" to "High Asset, High Cash Flow".
Maybe this is when staking coins would surge, or, maybe, this is when OGs would start buying apartments en masse.

Another classification: $1-3 mil affluent; $3-10mil wealthy; above $10mil-rich.
In US in a larger, but not most expensive city, you have to have $3mil minimally to maintain a middle class lifestyle while not working. i guess you can call such person as wealthy enough not to worry about earning a living. Not really rich, though. Ronaldo earns 800K with one instagram endorsement post. Shaq earns 60mil/year by doing commercials. That's a high cash flow, lol.

You don't have to play the whole stock market, and to increase leverage, you can use puts/calls.
Bitcoin itself trades more like an option (on a new financial system, I guess).

In btc right now is a bit too many unknown unknowns to simply stack satoshis, IMHO, but if it goes parabolic right here, I would be among those who simply rejoice.

nope.

Plus, I am getting progressively bored with the price action here.
Starting to seek some excitement on the stock market.
It's going to get wild toward the fall, I think.


IMHO, it is not going to happen since Bitmain is selling anything they can lay their hands on.

Last time we went from roughly $1K to $20k.
I would say that $50K is a minimal expectation IF the cycles continue the up down pattern, which is always an unknown.
I would not be surprised by $200K, but would not plan for it as far as seriously laying out what to do if and when.

Only in a very general sense and based on just 2-3 examples so far.
In 2011 bear hash rate declined (at the very end).
In 2014-2015 hash rate flattened, not really declined.
In 2018, hashrate declined (at the very end).

In all three cases observing flattening and/or declining hashrate and THEN buying based on this alone would be very profitable almost immediately following the decline/flatlining of the hash rate.

What Woo is saying: hashrate declining and flatlining is a good btc buy indicator.
What you (HM) are saying is essentially this: hashrate is not an indicator aka price decline itself is a bullish indicator.
Maybe it is correct too, in the final analysis.

Someone posted before that, paradoxically, when btc drops below one of the long term averages (I forgot which one, could be 200d or 50wk), then, historically, it is bullish and not bearish indicator while in stocks it is mostly a bearish indicator.

Rate cut had little effect, but the announcement of new tariffs on China most certainly did.
I don't particularly like the fact that we are now correlating with gold, though.

Overall, we should have been at $1tril already.
Not sure why most financial managers are asleep at the wheel on this.
As Pomp says: "Get off zero".

They will spam everyone who makes decent size txs; remember that 1-100 sat spam few years ago.
That was also "monitoring", I guess.

I still think that it is coinbase fault as transfer out should not be a liquidation by default.
If I send btc to coinbase, do they consider it a BUY?
If yes, then it is ridiculous and a REALLY bad accounting standard.

Example: Say, I send 1 btc to coinbase when the price is 15K. Now I am withdrawing the same 1btc at 9K.
Do they think that it is a $6K loss? If they do, then they are negligent/in error.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't think that there will be a significant price appreciation speculation in bitcoin after $50-100K.

To me it looks like this:

Bitcoin price: participants

Below $100: Very early adopters, miners.

Between $100-1000: The first wave of fomo, speculators, savers, accumulators, storage of value, super early hedge funds (I am aware of just one).

Between $150-20000: Early hedge funds, hodlers from the first wave, miners, new buyers (fomoing in) which then sell for alts and eventually getting rekt

Current cycle $3100 to maybe $50K: Hodlers from the prior wave DCAing, few new buyers, more hedge funds, family offices, innovative endowments

Above 50K until 100-300K: Almost exclusively hedge funds and other institutionals. Regular people start to use it as a currency instead of trying to speculate.

Above 100K: Very large funds and hedgefunds, maybe country size funds (Norway, Oman sovereign Fund, Abu Dhabi, etc)

Above 300k: Central banks and governments.

I cannot possibly envision some individual investor speculating that btc will go from 10 tril (~0.5mil/btc) to 15 tril (0.75mil/btc).

TL;DR Soon enough (see numbers) the speculation by individuals will stop and it would be used as a currency/long term SOV.

I dunno, the above example sound pretty much like a 'brain wallet' that turned out to be very hackable.

It reminds me of a strange coincidence few years ago when in Megamillions (one of two US lotteries) four out of six numbers were those also depicted in a recently screened show "Lost". The end result was that more than 41K people won (much, much higher than expected).

They thought at first that someone hacked the lottery. A funny thing: if just one more number (a fifth one) would be chosen out of the "Lost" numbers, then the lottery would have gone bankrupt as they promised to pay 250K to EVERYONE who wins five numbers (out of six).
250KX41K=$10 billion. EOL.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hurleys-lost-numbers-win-fans-mega-millions-lottery-money_n_804723

Take part in designing the "satoshi" symbol..it's fun, actually:

https://cryptoslate.com/the-satoshi-the-smallest-unit-of-bitcoin-is-getting-its-own-symbol/

if you curse it enough, many would not want to until it is a too late, at least for appreciation, leaving more for those in the know (or those who have more money).

Or, maybe, bitcoin is moving toward some kind of it's future "Omega point" (de Chardin).
The path could vary/deviate, but the end result is, perhaps, largely inevitable.
Sometimes, I think that this is the case, while other times the whole situation looks fragile.

You don't think that directly telling Fed to devalue is bullish for bitcoin?
Apparently, you did not even read an article before responding.
Being bullish or bearish is not a critique or endorsement of the causing entity, just an interpretation of such entity actions as far as direction is concerned.

An interesting opinion:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ktorpey/2019/07/26/3-reasons-president-trump-is-great-for-the-bitcoin-price/

citadeles, citadels...

Bond market is going into a black hole:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-13/the-black-hole-engulfing-the-world-s-bond-markets-quicktake

What is the end game there?

Difficult to understand/comprehend Max Keizer commented on above by saying that stocks would be "finished" somehow and we would split into 2+98 with 2% living in "citadels":
https://youtu.be/u3ojPk8CQns?t=390

Plus,here is Walter Isaacson telling us that we are about to split into subspecies and it would be difficult to impossible to stop it:
https://airmail.news/issues/2019-7-27/should-the-rich-be-allowed-to-buy-the-best-genes

I feel that all this somehow connects to recent PR moves regarding bitcoin as in "not everyone should be able to get in".