I still like my way of describing it better.

 

And sure, of course, the amount of detail, description and going beyond the basics will depend on the audience.. Sometimes people are not ready for more detailed explanations, and there are going to be frameworks that are more understandable to some people versus others depending on their own personal experiences and even their receptiveness to learning about the topic.

Spoken like a true no coiner who doesn't know shit, nor is he trying to learn about the topic about which he speaks, yet he still has a sure cock opinion -

Go figure?

Stay humble and stack sats - even applies to no coiners and low coiners, even though many of the no coiners may never get it.


Yeah, but you are not even trying.

Not easy to have any sympathy for you.

Even if you are lacking in a lot of resources and abilities, there could still be ways to learn and to stack small amounts.. even a dollar a day (or $10 per week) could start to add up and give you many more options after 4-10 years..

Otherwise you may well always be in a rut.. and getting nowhere.. including that all of us likely have better health and better abilities to earn money in our 20s, 30s, 40s and perhaps even 50s.. but at some point, we may well want to have the choice to want to start to wind down.. and sometimes if we have a lot of resources, at least we might not have to do as much physical work but maybe we can do more leadership and mental work. and continue to earn money through that - that is if we need to once we have accumulated wealth through our younger years.. perhaps a 20-40 years worth of a working career....

Options are a good thing to have, and if you never save or invest, it is more difficult to have options, including winning the lottery does not have very good odds - and I personally would not bank on that kind of a gambling approach toward securing my future.

Again..

Stay humble and stack sats... and of course, Matt Odell is attributed with popularizing that telling and insightful expression.



Fair enough.

Advice Mounds!!!  

Who's going to hate on that even if we (Royal that is) have to zoom in or squint?

All kinds of people are saying that there is a need for both proof of reserves and proof of liabilities.

Sure, there are ways that people, exchanges and third party custodians could game these kinds of attempts at transparency - yet it seems way better to take some actions and to promote some standards rather than just throwing up our hands and suggesting that "they are going to game it anyway."

Let's say that there is a standard that is established for proof of reserves and some exchanges/third party custodians follow it and others do not, which services are you going to use?

What if some exchanges/third party custodians show their "major liabilities" and others do not show shit?  Which ones are you going to use?

Sure, these are not sure-fire ways to secure your coins, and we surely knkow that the best ways to secure your coins are to hold them yourself, but what if you hold most of your keys yourself, and some services allow you to freely move your coins from your cold wallets and onto their platform and then back to your cold wallets, and other exchanges put all kinds of obstacles and play games in regards to shotgun KYC and other seeming phony-baloney requirements, then which services are you going to use?  Do you think that there are going to be businesses that are going to want to provide services to bitcoiners and to make money by providing those services and to attract bitcoiners to want to use their services because the bitcoiners consider the services to be valuable?  Or do you think that we should throw up our hands and presume that everyone wants to steal your bitcoin so we should all lock ourselves in a cabin in the mountains and refuse to spend our little preciouses?


Hal's dead and he is not coming back.  We need to figure this shit out for ourselves, and I believe that if we crowd source, we should be able to come up with ideas that are just as good, if not better than Hal's ideas from 2010.. In other words, fuck Hal (no irreverence intended).. and since I am at it.. fuck satoshi, too..(no irreverence intended there either...).   Part of the point is that "we" should be able to figure this shit out for our lil selfies, and if we cannot figure it out, then our successors will.. kids, grandkids, generations to follow, etc etc.. bitcoin seems to be like a living organism in that regard.. in terms of the interactions that we "royal that is not" choose to have with our lil precious within what people want to build around it and what services will be built on top of it, used or not used.

Politicians are elected exactly to make decisions about how to invest resources that are public which includes but is not limited to how to spend money in the public coffers, so by definition politicians, such as Bukele, are given discretion regarding those kinds of resource allocation decisions (and they likely already know quite clearly that the money is not "his"), and Bukele has decided to buy bitcoin with some of that public money.  That clearly and unambiguously within the realm of his discretion.


Do you speculate that Bukele has not already considered both the cost and benefits of adding 1 more BTC per day to El Salvador's BTC stash?  No one is going to know the future, but ONLY make calculations based on a variety of probabilities about what might happen in the future, so it seems to me that Bukele has likely already made such calculations that account for costs and benefits of buying bitcoin with El Salvador's money, including accounting for risks, too.

So, you seem to be putting on airs of supposed superior knowledge and lecturing towards Bukele about the obvious Hamphser... as if you might have some kind of a better way of assessing whether, what and how much to do something, such as whether or not to buy one BTC per day from here on out or to take some other better action(s) with the Salvadorean resources that will be used to make those 1 BTC per day purchases?

It looks like the event is still scheduled to happen, and SBF is still listed as one of the speakers.

https://www.nytimes.com/events/dealbook-summit#overview



It seems that I largely agree with the first part completely; however, I have some qualms with the second part - even though I agree with the overall sentiment.

It seems to me that once we get to a level of BTC accumulation that is above and beyond our target level and then we are in considerable, profits we gain a whole hell of a lot of flexibility and options in terms of choosing how to spend and preparing to spend, whether we spend from BTC or we spend from lesser value assets/currencies within Gresham law principles.

There surely can be ways in which we can attempt to prepare in advance in order that we are largely selling BTC when the price goes up and buying BTC when the price goes down, but then if we sufficiently prepare then we lessen the likelihood that we will have to do the opposite of what we would have otherwise preferred to have done.. which is selling when the price is relatively higher and buying when the price is relatively lower.

I doubt that there is any perfect formula or even that any of us are going to be able to get these kinds of things exactly correct, but once we get into a status of BTC over accumulation and profits, then we have way more options and way more abilities to directionally lessen the negative impacts of bitcoin's likely inevitable volatility and seeming ongoing overshooting price expectations in either direction (both in terms of degree of price movement and also in terms of how long the BTC price might end up staying at extremes that were beyond expectations).

I have been trying to work out more and more formulas attempting to deal with these matters, and sometimes I talk about my formula parameters, but still there are frequently going to be a quite a few ways in which individuals have to tailorize any formulas in order to attempt to account for his/her circumstances that surely could amount to a variety of attempts to prepare in advance but at the same time each of us experiencing a variety of our own deficiencies in the amount that we are able to mitigate negative impacts of likely ongoing inevitable BTC price volatility that continues to shoot past expectations both in terms of amount of price movement and also in terms of how long the BTC price might stay at such extremes or even going more extreme than we had originally considered to have had been extreme enough.

My lil precious, who can also sometimes act like a cunt, too.   


 

You are a gold mound digger then.  #nojudgement


Hahahahaha

Let's (royal, or no?) oust (vote off of the island) anyone who uses the term "crypto."

Those fucks.   

You are making decent points about short term versus long term, but you are phrasing your points weirdly in terms of suggesting that the belief of not having risk is enough in order to make something less risky.. and there just seems to be problems with that way of thinking because there needs to ultimately be value in the underlying asset, rather than just your confidence or the confidence of others that the asset has value..

Let's say if we take bitcoin versus that shitcoin ethereum, and the mere fact that there are a bunch of ethtards that believe that ethereum has long term value is not going to help it when it comes crashing down.. whether that takes 3 months or it might not crash for 50 years.. but the thing is built on a house of cards.. so there needs to ultimately be value. not just confidence in the value.

The lack of risk in bitcoin does not have to do with having higher levels of confidence, but the fact that in the long run that it is actually built on a solid foundation in which it has a lot of robustness to sustain itself through a large number of attacks that could last several years or even decades, but there needs to be some actual performance within a timeline that would be acceptable to the person/entity that is doing the investing and that it has great likelihood to perform well in the long run.. whether that is 4-10 years or if it might take longer.  So the confidence about the likeliness to perform well does not necessarily cause bitcoin to perform well but instead it ultimately needs to end up performing well (or not going to zero, close to zero or overall losing a lot of value) in order to not be risky.

Even if there is some truth to what you are saying, that does make a whole hell of a lot of sense  in terms of figuring out where we might be at any point in time and also to relatively assess bitcoin as compared with various other assets and/or currencies.

Even our attempt to describe bitcoin cycles has its limitations because surely historically there have been cycles in bitcoin, and we can look through bitcoin's  history to attempt to explain where bitcoin has been relative to other asset classes, and the cycle remains only part of the explanation and might even lead us to the wrong place if we fail and refuse to account for other dynamics that likely include that bitcoin is a paradigm shifting invention of an asset class that had never existed in history - and there are quite a few people in the world who are still getting used to the idea, so in that sense we cannot even necessarily be sure about how long it might take for various networking effects to grow within the framework of Metcalfe principles and even Gresham law ideas that grown along with increased bitcoin knowledge so that we have continued and ongoing exponential s-curve adoption of bitcoin that contributes to the knowledge and those who are creating and/or participating in the various network effects, as those network effects had been outlined by Trace Mayer around 2014/2015, too.

I go to a similar place logically aysg76 in regards to both of those points that you seem to be making, and I think that each of your points need to be fleshed out a bit more in order to attempt to describe some dynamics that some of the mainstream pundits seem to be missing in regards to how they keep wishfully asserting that Saylor/MSTR to be more vulnerable than they likely are.

We get used to some of the BIG players exaggerating their position and even proclaiming that they are in a much stronger place than they are, so the fact that we have a lot of smoke and mirror bullshit artists in the world who are overstating their claims, the Michael Saylor/MSTR naysayers like to project Saylor/MSTR to be in the same place, which it is likely NOT true that he/MSTR is in the same kind of a vulnerable place unless he happens to be lying to us about some of his assets and/or his debts, and I surely am not going to put Saylor in the same bucket as Do Kwon, or SBF, or even Vitalik - and the other players who were and some of them continue to play shell games to suggest that they have way more assets than they do and they rely upon the ongoing pump in order to keep their scam and their little (or BIG) house of cards standing.   It is true that Saylor/MSTR might have fewer assets and more debt than what they are disclosing, but there is no real evidence of that beyond looking at the other scammers in the space and trying to project similar kinds of behaviors onto Saylor/MSTR.  

Let's take your first issue regarding the value of Saylor/MSTR continuing to buy BTC as the price goes down in order to continue to put themselves into a stronger position to be able to withstand even lower BTC prices without necessarily retaining enough collateral to sustain their loans, and let's say that it is actually true that Saylor/MSTR would run out of unencumbered BTC to prevent themselves from being liquidated at $3k-ish.  

But if Saylor/MSTR were to continue to buy BTC as the BTC price goes down to $3k-ish, and let's say that they take from their $200 million that has already been set aside for "business expenses, buying BTC or whatever," and they use that money to establish their buying on the dip budget down to $3k-ish, So they could authorize themselves to buy $15 million worth of BTC in every $1k increment drops that the BTC price falls starting from $15k, and they would end up having 13 buy orders between $3k and $15k, which would add up to having an additional  26,086 BTC that they would be able to put up for collateral to defend their $3k-ish liquidation peg.

Here's the buying on the dip math that adds up to an additional 26,086 BTC

Buy Price    BTC Buy   BTC Total   $Buy Amt     $Total Spent $15,253.21   983.40    983.40     $15,000,000.00   $15,000,000.00 $14,253.21   1052.39   2035.79   $15,000,000.00   $30,000,000.00 $13,253.21   1131.80   3167.60   $15,000,000.00   $45,000,000.00 $12,253.21   1224.17   4391.76   $15,000,000.00   $60,000,000.00 $11,253.21   1332.95   5724.72   $15,000,000.00   $75,000,000.00 $10,253.21   1462.96   7187.67   $15,000,000.00   $90,000,000.00 $9,253.21   1621.06   8808.73   $15,000,000.00   $105,000,000.00 $8,253.21   1817.47   10626.21   $15,000,000.00   $120,000,000.00 $7,253.21   2068.05   12694.26   $15,000,000.00   $135,000,000.00 $6,253.21   2398.77   15093.03   $15,000,000.00   $150,000,000.00 $5,253.21   2855.40   17948.42   $15,000,000.00   $165,000,000.00 $4,253.21   3526.75   21475.17   $15,000,000.00   $180,000,000.00 $3,253.21   4610.83   26086.00   $15,000,000.00   $195,000,000.00

Regarding your other point about how far the BTC price is likely to fall, it seems we are already at very low historical levels in reference to the 200-week moving average, but sure we have a lot of extreme negative macro factors including various kinds of possible contagion in the way that various shitcoins have been leveraged, and surely something like the ethereum ponzi scheme falling could contribute towards more negative cascading BTC prices.. but still I with you regarding $10k being an extreme that may well not even be met.  There is no guarantee that BTC prices will even get lower than their current low that we have reached so far of $15,632 from over a week ago.  So I am having difficulties giving high odds to BTC prices going lower than they already have or even reaching the kinds of lows that some people fear could happen - while at the same time, someone who is buying on the way down, may well still want to prepare for worse case and/or even outrageous scenarios that may or may not end up playing out.

I would consider that Bukele's approach to bitcoin is a quite a bit closer to my approach to BTC rather than Philip's approach, yet ultimately the three of us have different approaches to BTC both historically and also what we currently are doing, so it is doesn't seem very accurate to lump them all into one, as if we were all doing the same thing.

One of the main sticking point with Philip's approach is that he never really did accumulate bitcoin on an ongoing basis, even though he has been into bitcoin for 11.5 years.. so it does not even seem fair to lump him in the same group, even if he happens to be the oldest in terms of length of time that he has had as opportunities to accumulate bitcoin.  He also sold recently and is cheerleading for lower prices in order to attempt to get a better BTC buy price while at the same time putting quite a bit of faith in the dollar.. and getting dollar yield.. which seems to be somewhat in tension with a motivated bitcoin accumulating approach.

Bukele does seem like a somewhat newbie to bitcoin, yet if we are talking about his countries accumulation of bitcoin  (in comparison to his own personal bitcoin accumulation - which we do not really seem to have information about that), his country really has ONLY been announcing themselves to have been publicly accumulating bitcoin since sometime around the time of their June 2021 announcement that they would be getting into bitcoin and establishing bitcoin as legal tender in their country.  They made several BTC purchases between June 2021 and recently; however, they did seem to slow down in their BTC purchases since about May 2022, and ONLY announced one time purchasing some BTC at around $19.5k.. perhaps at around the same time that Philip was selling BTC at around that same price.  So El Salvador and Bukele proclaims to have had never sold any BTC from the ones that they were accumulating, though it is not really clear how they are funding some of their BTC related projects, yet apparently that is coming from other funds - not their BTC treasury accumulation funds.

There still can be some overlap with similarities, yet with me, I proclaim DCA to be a strategy that is good for beginners and good for anyone to get into while they are still trying to reach some comfortably high levels of allocation towards BTC, and I proclaim to have had largely met my BTC accumulation goals in late 2014 - even though I did continue to feel compelled to accumulate in 2015 and 2016 - and maybe on a personal level I have been feeling as if I am somewhat back into BTC accumulation since May or June 2022, but my BTC accumulation is likely more in line with buying on dips rather than being very close to DCA - especially since I am also adding some new funds into my BTC purchases rather than just using money that I had accumulated from selling as the BTC price went up.. and largely that money of selling as the BTC price went up ran out around $18k-ish.

I promote DCA as one of the best of newbie BTC accumulation strategies - but as someone reaches more and more BTC accumulation, then his/her options should become greater because his/her BTC stash has increased - and so El Salvador seems to still be working its way up to getting towards higher levels of BTC accumulation, and I assert that I had already largely gotten to adequate and over-accumulation beyond my targets after late 2014.  Philip seems to have had never gotten there, even though he sometimes talks a BIG game - and he even gives what seems to be opposite advice in regards to proper mindset when he refers to the 50 year old with 100 or more BTC as if that person should be in a desperate state to sell BTC, when the opposite seems to be true.. because in fact the 50 year old with 100 or more BTC seems to be having way more options because he has BTC versus someone who does not have much if any BTC and is just sitting on his hands and buying $50 of BTC a week, which seems to be something close to what Philip is doing - which does not seem to be the place that any 65 year old should be in who had been into bitcoin for 11.5 years and seems to be dabbling with baby level BTC buys and praying for sub $10k BTC prices that may well NOT end up happening.

So BTC accumulation party depends upon where you are at, and if you put yourself into a place where you do not have coins, I would suggest that your BTC accumulation should be way more assertive.. rather than waiting around for the BTC price to drop.. and I suppose, even if El Salvador got nervous because of BTC price drops since May 2022 (or they might have been forced by public pressure to be nervous and to lay off of their aggressive BTC buys), they are showing signs of getting back into a reasonable BTC accumulation level that would fit for someone that is in their somewhat early BTC accumulation stages including that their BTC is not in profits and continuing to buy BTC will bring down their current average price per BTC.

I would think that Gemini would be a bit better at keeping the funding or their various products separate, even if they had that "Earn Product" that was likely having some funds held in ways that the funds were "earning" greater interest somewhere else in order that Gemini could pay the relatively modest rates of 2.5% APY on BTC in that program. 

I personally never used that product, even though I do have some funds on their exchange.


Exchanges have tried those kinds of things historically, including their websites completely disappearing.. The BIGGER (and maybe well established in physical space) the harder it is for them to disappear like that.  hahahahaha

But they could have one person "supposedly" hold all the private keys to all the stash, go on an orphan saving trip to India and then end up dying.. which might be almost the same as disappearing from the web.


I can think of a few.. but maybe I should not make a list?

How about eXPHorizon?  He surely deserves it, no?

or

How about Billy_No_Coiner?  He surely deserves it, no?

Ok...

no reason to get personal or into elaborate lists...   

I suppose.


Don't do anything.  Just wait it out.

This is professional financial advice. from a nonprofessional.

I doubt that very many people who have any kind of clue regarding the situation actually buys into the "hacker" story, so it seems a bit misleading to be putting out this kind of information/assessment of the situation without describing a more reasonable context in which there were a lot of FTX folks acting in criminal ways, and this is likely an additional part of their insider ploys...

Sure, the evidence is not in yet.. so it may take a while to figure out who various aspects in which it might later be figured out who did what or where the the more reasonable inferences lead us.


Which largely should mean that people, whether long term HODLers, bitcoin newbies or some variation between, should be thinking about ways to be buying BTC rather than thinking about ways to cause themselves to hesitate to buy or pondering over their fantasies to sell high. .when we are quite likely not even close to being in a selling period... we are either in a buy more period or a HODL period if you happen to have some bitcoin, but if you don't have shit for bitcoin, you have nothing to HODL, so you better get your ass buying, even if the BTC price might go down or sideways from here rather than UP.


A bit of a dramatic presentation, and not very much substance there that goes beyond what is being said all over the place.

It sounds like a good idea for El Salvador to continue its BTC buying at a modest rate, which would be DCA to be buying every day, but it does have a buying on the dip sentiment to it too.  It's a pretty modest amount that they should be able to handle without any problem and seems to be somewhat symbolic in nature, too.. in order to communicate that this seems to be a good time to continue to buy BTC whether the BTC price goes up, down or sideways for a while from here.

I doubt that there would be distinction between principle and yield, but there would largely be a look at whether the transaction was made within the 90 days prior the bancrupcy filing - and yes there is precedence for clawback, but it might not be easy for clawback to occur with all jurisdictions, and sometimes they would be threatening to take legal action.. but may or may not be able to actually successfully take legal action (and it may not be worth it for them to actually follow through with clawback legal action, except maybe transactions of a certain size).     

I doubt that you need to worry as much as you are dramatically proclaiming that you need to worry, even though with any case we sometimes need to prepare for any possible scenario, even worse case scenarios - but people go crazy and even come to the wrong conclusions and actions when they dwell on scenarios that are less likely to happen prior to the scenario showing solid evidence that some variation of it could end up happening.

Yeah.. It may be a little unclear, because there could have been some financial circumstances that were not outlined very specifically by Saylor and/or MSTR regarding the liquidation point of some of MSTR's loans... but it makes sense that MSTR would post more collateral.. because initially when the BTC prices were in the upper $30ks, Saylor was saying no problem because the collateral then posted had MSTR's loan protected all the way down to some price point in the $21ks, and few folks were then thinking that the BTC price would get down into the $21ks - so maybe now the idea was that Saylor/MSTR wanted to make sure that they post additional collateral in order that they are protected down to $13,500 - which seems understandable that they are going to want to continue to add to their collateral in order that their outstanding loans are covered.. while at the same time not necessarily wanting to encumber currently unencumbered BTC by placing it as collateral (which largely means giving keys to some other parties.. and we have recently seen that some other parties have not been very responsible in their holding of the keys of their clients, related to a variety of crypto assets - so not just BTC custodians - and even witnessing some otherwise responsible custodians get caught into situations where they might have lost or absconded with the coins of someone else).

Posting collateral seems a better option than either getting liquidated or having to sell BTC in order to pay off the loan with BTC prices way lower than the price in which the loan had been taken out.

I am sure that the situation is stressful for Saylor and MSTR - but likely not as stressful as some of the seeming exaggerations that come out with assertions of loose facts that are put out as if there is some kind of an inside scoop - and surely the BTC price dropping further than expected is no comfort to MSTR's actual BTC but also the fact that the value of their company (price of their stock) is going down at the same time - so options get removed from the table - while at the same time, I recall a couple of months ago that Saylor/MSTR had gotten approval and announced a line of credit that was in the ballpark of $200 million that it could use for business operations and/or buying bitcoin and/or any reason that it wanted to use such line of credit, and I cannot recall hearing that any of that money having had been used and it seems to me to be likely that the money would still be available.

Even though there seem to be political connections to this FTX scammening story, I doubt that this scammening is only political aspirations to change the world, even though I believe that they were greedy, sloppy and thinking that they could keep the Ponzi going long enough in order to be able to escape unscathed.. and yeah, what exactly would have been the escape route?  

Maybe the various FTX leader dweebs (who are they besides that chubby fruit-tard, SBF?) had not thought that far out?.. but I suppose the FTX leaders should have known that it would unwind at a certain point, even though they likely had enough hubris and delusions to believe that they could keep the ponzi going... and of course, we will continue to find out more in regards to the various ways that the scheme should have been more obvious than it seems to have appeared in terms of being able to run something like this for more than 3 years and to be largely stealing from client funds the whole time..

..... including that they did not own any actual BTC.., which should really tell a lot about their concerns for making sure that they were sustainable..

.. just think of the many trading platform clients (to the extent that their volume was actually real) who thought that they were buying BTC exposure on FTX, and sure they were buying BTC exposure, but that BTC exposure did not seem to be backed up by any actual BTC that FTX was actually holding.  

How could not holding any BTC while selling BTC exposure be either sustainable or even having any kind of good faith attempt to make sure that they were backed up by actual assets that could go up in value... and they needed to be able to pay BTC if clients withdrew BTC to cold wallets, no?


I tried logging into my Gemini account, and it is "temporarily grounded" at the moment...  Looks like it has been down for about an hour so far, so it is not anything to get overly worried about, yet...  Hopefully, Gemini has NOT overly gambled with their client's funds too.....even if they may well have lost a lot of funds that were in such "earn" product.  So many folks believe that they need to "earn yield" on their coins.. which seems to be a slippery slope into shenanigans.. even tough we likely know that there should also be legitimate ways to "earn" so long as the "earning" is actually put into some product that is actually something other than a ponzi scheme and has actual collateral backing it up.

"We" do not need to do anything other than what we are already doing.

Bitcoin is not broken.

There are peeps doing all kinds of shit in bitcoin.  Had you not noticed? 

Oh you want peeps to do more?

Why don't you fund it out of your 20 BTC.. starting today.. you can start drawing 4% per year from your 20 BTC and build upon bitcoin.. if you think that something needs to be done that is not currently happening as rapidly as you would prefer.


Fuck Shitcoins.

Just practicing, for reals.


Loyce also posted on the topic yesterday in the "consolidate your UTXOs thread"

Over 50 YO and more than 100 coins is an issue?

Who would have thunk?

What about the other individual factors such as cashflow, other investments, view of bitcoin as compared with other investments, timeline, risk tolerance, and time, skills, goals (investment/lifestyle targets) and our abilities to strategize, plan, research and learn along the way including tweaking strategies from time to time to consider trading, reallocating, use of leverage and/or financial instruments?

There is something special about 100 coins and over 50 YO?  It sounds like a good thing to have that many coins.. and seemingly that many options.  Hopefully, the 50 or over guy has other assets besides just 100 coins... but hey, if that were the ONLY asset that a guy had at 50 YO, he probably would not be in a bad place, relatively speaking.


Why do they need to add any coins?  I would say that 100 coins is reaching pretty damned close to (if not already at) fuck you status, even accounting for an age of 50 in which maybe a person might live a few years or maybe even live another 50 years if genetically lucky to live until 100 YO.

It seems to me that a person who is at 50 YO or more with 100 BTC (and maybe if such person also did not have any other resources, which is a pretty BIG assumption, could already feel pretty comfortable to start drawing from 100 BTC at 4% per year and really not have to worry too much for the rest of his life... so what is the supposed BIG urgency that you are trying to paint philip?

I would think that the guy at 50 or over, might need to consider more if he has accumulated enough, and if he is close to zero coins at 50YO, he might be panicking that he does not have enough BTC, but even if the 50 YO guy had 20 to 50 BTC, he might be close to being able to make a plan towards working at getting to fU status.. maybe accumulate more, and even if at the upper end of that 20-50 arena, he might be feeling pretty damned close to having entry-level fuck you status in view, even though at current BTC prices he is less than half way there (assuming an entry-level fuck you status of $2 million). 

Since you (philip) value dollars so much more than you value bitcoin, you seem to be unable to appreciate the power of having a decent amount of your wealth in bitcoin.   

Your framework and presumptions seem quite "off" (and maybe the opposite) because all you seem to be worried about is cashing out of your BTC in order to stack dollars (aren't those dollars shitcoins? Last I checked, I did not have a whole hell of a lot of confidence to keep very much value in dollars, except maybe what I might want to spend in the next 6 to 24 months. perhaps if I were going to keep that much in dollars?)


Why would anyone be anxious to sell BTC at the low of a correction, even if the BTC price might go lower?  Had you not noticed that we are at historical lows?  Either a guy with 100 BTC should be HODLing, buying a bit more or maybe if selling, only selling as little as he must.. but otherwise this does not seem to be a selling time.. not for folks who seem to have some pretty decent ideas regarding what bitcoin is, what its present and potential future value is, too.



I doubt there is a worse dilemma based on having fewer coins.. except perhaps the fewer coins that you have, then the more coins that you might want to be accumulating at these prices - within the context of your own circumstances, such as the ones I listed above.


Well.. that seems like a reason to be buying rather than telling people to sell just because you did... so what that you already sold most if not all of your BTC...

purportedly you accounted for your situation when making your decision to sell, but seems to me that you continue to make the same mistake in the last 11.5 years of not having enough BTC.. so you do not seem to be much of a good source for anyone who is considering how to use BTC to prepare themselves for their future, whether that is 4-10 years or longer.


Might be a good thing to attack (for hackers).. perhaps?  Testing means opening it up for attacks, no? #asking for a friend.



Fuck crypto. 

That's what I say (nearly every day, but I noticed that sometimes I will substitute "shtitoins" for "crypto" in my expressionenings of my feelings)

Ok.. I hate to predict the future with too many specifics.. but that's funny.

...but chances are yes, that we will make $1 million in one two or three cycles... give or take a couple of cycles.... so if Philip can make it to 80.. his odds are pretty good..

Hopefully he is eating good food, and not those beyond meat burgers (and Oreo cookies) that SBF was eating... SBF would not know a steak if it slapped him in his chubby little face.


Hopefully you are keeping the overwhelming majority (if not all of it) of your BTC purchase within some forms of self-custody, and not on exchanges.  Let's say something like 90% in self-custody, and no more than 10% with any third-parties of exchanges or similar.

It is great that your wife is understanding of the situation, and you did buy around 50% lower than the top, which surely seemed to have had been a reasonable entry point - even if you might have employed lump sum of an amount that might have been more than you were willing to lose - which does not tend to be the greatest of practices, even though sometimes the passage of time will allow for such errors to be mitigated.

Michael Saylor's Company (MSTR) has an average entry price that is right around $30k, and the country of El Salvador might have an average entry price that is a bit higher than yours... So you are in company of other seemingly intelligent bitcoin bulls who are not really shying away from their investment and even making small purchases here and there.  I would not be surprised to see Saylor make another purchase at some point, since I believe that he still has a pretty decent MSTR equity credit line that he has not yet used.. it may still be in the neighborhood of $200 million-ish..


NOT!!!!

You are mischaracterizing by selectively picking your facts to paint an inaccurate picture.



It's not about feeling better, but sure picking that date/price gives a different picture than your 5 years of selective facts that you are trying to focus upon as if it were somehow representative of your negative nancy baloney..



Bitcoin is not spoiled.

It's doing quite well, if you had not noticed.

Have you been paying attention, or you just want to dwell and mope about some selective facts.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.. I know that you are working to get your addiional 0.2 BTC, so you are not 100% whimpy.. only 78.62%  whimpy, or something in that ballpark of whimpy-whininess..

 

Nohomo.


It's broken?  Bitcoin is broken?

You expect to go from zero to world currency in a matter of 13 to 20 years without a battle?

Get real Biodom!


That's true.  Some pretty rich fucks got liquidated in this round - including some people (and institutions) that some of us might have liked.

"I wished war did not have casualties."  

"I wished innocent folks would not be injured or liquidated in war."

Yes.  I am not trying to be flippant about it, and I am mostly saddened by the damages rather than gleeful.

Yet, if we live in the real world, don't we have to be able to sustain ourselves in spite of the casualties going on around us, and maybe even some of us might have suffered some damage in this round too, no?


I am amazed too..   I think that we are still trying to figure some of this out.. It was surely a strange set of relationships... and some vary innovative and seemingly strong looking house of cards that they had built in the last 3.5 years (they have not been around very long, but they sure did build their house of cards fast)


You have to modify your goals then, and I suppose you will have more difficulties getting to $200 million with your 20 BTC..

I don't have enough info to figure out a better strategy than what you had previously stated based on your circumstances.. ..except maybe you need more BTC accumulated in a DCA strategy, especially if you are going to be selling more sooner.. rather than merely HODLing until we reach $10 million.

I might say, "hey Biodom, we might be able to reach $10 million this cycle or maybe within 2-4 cycles beyond that"

and then you respond:

"I cannot take my chances.  I am not that confident that $10 million is even possible, especially in that timeline or even with an additional cycle or two."

I then ask you:

"Well, do you still think that $10 million is possible even if it has lower odds than you previously thought and it could take longer than you previously thought?"

I think that your answer is going to be "yes, it is still possible" even though your current state of negative nancy-ism is contributing towards your making too many emotionally-laden outbursts

The punchline still might be considering how much we are going to change our investment approach based on negative facts that are currently in front of us?

Of course, my making fun of your position partly shows that I consider that the current negative facts in front of us do not really change bitcoins trajectory or investment thesis as much as you seem to be making it out to be.. and sure, are we going to have to shift he curve down on the stock to flow model, yeah sure, but still bitcoin still has a pretty damned strong investment thesis, even if there have been shenanigans and likely will continue to be shenanigans around it, including some difficulties of building around bitcoin when some of the BIG money is getting scared off and wiped out in the process.


Yeah but, so what?

What are we going to do about it?

We have to prepare ourselves, even if the Fed (and others) does dumb things and/or bad policy things or whatever might potentially be their evil agenda.


Huh?

Maybe you should consider a strategy that is somewhat closer to mine, in order that you lessen the chances that you get so worked up so easily?

just saying... .hahahahahaha

Yeah.. The Bankers got it all figured out...

That's why I feel comfortable keeping almost all of my value in the good ole uncle Sam bucks.

Earn a yield, too.


Yeah.  We are fucked.


That's why I am hedging with shitcoins..   I am convinced.  Litecoin and doggie coin will save us from our current system.. they are great hedges.

BTC will not do... Something is just "off" about it.. You know?  Why would bitcoin have actually invented anything that is paradigm shifting.  We gotta go with the imitators and the snake oils.. that's what we gots to do.

You with me?  Of course, you are.

We got our lil selfies into bitcoin because we believe that bitcoin opened the door, but some snake oil is going to be the one that we should bet upon.  That will make us richie, because we go with the one that is ultimately going to win.. litecoin and doggie coin.. they are the solution for reasons.


Doesn't matter if you were younger or older.  You seem to have a mindset that is fucked up.

You probably did too many drugs in the 60s.. and if you were to young then you did them in the 70s... that's why u no b thinking not very cleawrily.

The stress of being in bitcoin for nearly 11.5 years and still not owning very many cornz is not helping out, either, is it?

You are confused.

Face it, fillyma.


We do not need to project so far in advance to see that bitcoin is already successful as fuck, and it is continuing to be successful, even if it is having some current ongoing DOWNity price pressures..

Keep stacking folks... don't be getting distracted by nonsense such as yields on dollars, doggie coin, lite coin or any other bullshit coming out of no coiners or low coiners, even if they happen to be BTC miners.



"Crypto"?  Who cares about that?

Have you been "out there" too much?

Come back...

Come back.

Not that you have ever been much of a bitcoin focused person that any of us could count on, . but still..

Focus.

Focus.



Focus ur lil selfie.


Seems like it, at the moment.


Not sure if keeping a lot of fiat is the solution.. but hey you do you, and you must figure out the BTC allocation level that brings you comfort.