In simple terms, you don't know how fiat system works these days

There is no fractional reserve banking today, with fiat money not backed up by anything it loses any meaning. It always amuses me why people continue to repeat the same shit over and over again? It has been explained many times that there are no "10 million nonexistent dollars" as these dollars (credit money) are as "existent" as any other dollars out there. If it is a fraud, then the whole fiat system is a fraud

Regarding the US debt specifically, it is not debt, even though you are made to believe it is. If anything, it is a tax that Uncle Sam has levied on the rest of the world and made everyone think that he actually owes something. Don't fall for the show you see on the TV. And strictly speaking, it is nowhere close to being 10x the economy of the US. Where did you get that number, really?

I think along the same lines mostly

People easily forget that money is only an intermediary which is not worth anything on its own, without the "underlying". And being only that, we can remove it from the equation completely and when we do so, we come to understand that it is the economies that matter and their strength, not money or debt representing them. In other words, if fiat monies are going to die, the American dollar will be the last to kick the bucket due to sheer size of the US economy

That's simply not true

Well, actually it is not so much untrue as irrelevant for the long-term success of a cryptocurrency. Let's admit that all decentralized blockchain-based coins do essentially the same thing using the same technology. Some do it better, some, uh, not that better. But this doesn't mean that coins which are faster and cheaper (in terms of transaction costs) are going to make it. How come? The reason is pretty simple as these are not the only factors at play here and maybe not even the most important with that purpose in mind

There is the first-mover advantage, which you can't discard and throw away, there is the level of real adoption, application and recognition the world over, there is also a question of trust and reliability in terms of network resistance to all possible kinds of attack vectors, and likely many other questions which are not in the realm of being fast and cheap at all but which are still of utmost importance for actual use and application. How many coins other than Bitcoin really cut it from this perspective?

Are you sure you are not confusing poker with dice?

As far as I know, there is no house edge in poker like in dice because players (intentionally not calling them gamblers) are playing against each other, not the house, as is the case with dice. I assume you pay a commission to the poker room from your winnings, and so you can't possibly ruin it in the way you could bankrupt the casino by adding up stakes until they start to exceed the size of the casino bankroll

Are you kidding? If you ask me, that has everything to do with investment. And risk management. Divorces and divorce lawyers are not for kicks (and faint-hearted). It may turn out to be the best investment of your life ever as well as the most disastrous one


Maybe, you don't know how to search? In fact, Google can't search on closed forums which require registration just to read them, though I'm not sure if boards on investing.com are that closed (haven't been there for a while)


There's no reference to trade in these quotes, so don't twist their meaning please. They are all about not marrying an asset, investment, money, token (with the latter two being asset classes as well), the meaning being essentially the same, i.e. the one that I stick to here

As I said, tread carefully

We can only hope for that

Again, this is a cart and horse problem ultimately, a problem of cause and effect. After Segwit activation, there's little doubt that LN will be activated sooner or later in the mainnet. But does that mean it will be used to the full in a short while or even to any significant degree? Let's remember that it will be two years in April since LN had been activated in Litecoin, and so what? Its use is still in single digits, and I'm not sure if these digits are not after the decimal point

This is to say that activation alone won't suffice. The adoption should rise as well to make use of this endless scalability. But here's the catch. If the adoption is to rise, how much of it will be caused by LN? I don't think that much. In other words, if it is set to rise, it will rise even without LN. So what difference does LN actually make apart from letting people know that Bitcoin is ready for industrial-scale transaction processing?

On the other hand, if there is enough hype caused by a LN explosive expansion, this alone can lead to a boost in demand and consequently price. But the drawback is that hype is not going to last for long as it is with any other hype out there, especially if it is not followed and supported by the real use of this technology. Compare this to a long-lasting and landscape-changing effect of Lightning Network itself taking off for real

That would be like an avalanche, and a never-ending one at that

I'm not sure whom you refer to here

If the guy from the last quote who actually wrote about dating his tokens instead of marrying them, it was written only a year ago. Do you find it strange to date someone for a year? Too long, really? Anyway, we don't know if he actually dates the same token. He may be changing them as he sees fit, today they are here, tomorrow they are gone. Isn't it what not marrying an asset is all about, i.e. dating someone here and there but not necessarily the same one?

It is a very simple concept really

A bit of supply locked away by LN is not dependent on price. It means that if the price changes, a change in supply caused by the coins locked in LN is not going to disappear as it is not caused by the price changes, even if some coins may in fact leave LN and get sold at a higher price. The lower supply will lead to a somewhat higher price, which everyone seems to universally admit

But as the price goes up, the demand for coins necessarily decreases (and still more so in a generally downtrend market). And that leaves us with higher volatility as both supply and demand decrease down the road, the former due to coins "lost" in payment channels while the latter due to an increase in price. The net effect is that the market becomes thinner on both ends or sides and thus more susceptible to manipulations and price fluctuations

Yes, and I wholeheartedly concur with it. So is it common or what?

Regarding its use in investing or trading contexts, now I recall that I often met this expression in the commodities section of investing.com (in the crude oil part, more specifically). But as you were trying to search it on Google, now I'm seriously doubting that it is me who is to expect future misunderstandings. Maybe, you are not as knowledgeable as you think you are, both trading and English language wise? No need to get all defensive, just in case


Kidding aside, searching the forum would suffice:


As you can see, the meaning is pretty straightforward in trading and investment contexts. To me, it doesn't look like uncommon, either. Maybe, you should learn how to use the search button?

Either way, I don't marry my bitcoins, I date them

Welcome to the club, bro!

When the price was hitting new highs every other day a little over a year ago, some folks here said essentially the same as I tried to explain the reverse of what I'm trying to explain here. What happened next proved me right, though. You forget that price is going down now just like it was going up back then

Regardless, you add words but you don't add value to the discussion. This is what I call noise. If you disagree (which I understand), then don't hesitate to point out your thought, idea, or insight revealing something which we didn't already know. In other words, what is that which you brought to the table?

Personally, I'm not interested in stuff like "supply goes down, price goes up" as it doesn't tell anything new and it is too abstract to have any practical importance, apart from what we already know (but I repeat myself)

I don't know about English (actually, there is a phrase about "marrying an asset, not a liability") but it is a well-established term or concept in trading (investing) meaning exactly what I put into it. But nevermind, it is not me who coined it and something tells it comes from some big gun in investing, maybe even from Warren Buffett himself. Being married to an asset means you are making things too personal with it, regardless which side of the trade you are on. In other words, you jumped into a minefield with your comment, so tread carefully

And no, I can't say if you are married to Bitcoin

I think it is impossible to answer that question

Simply because it is very personal. If you don't like what you are doing, if you are forced to do it by yourself or circumstances, your mileage will be pathetic. People play poker not because of the money they can win but because they like it, they like things around it, its spirit. Money then comes as a nice bonus. It doesn't mean that you should not try it, but if you feel that it is not your thing, you'd better not waste your time and try something else which is

Floyd will fight an MMA fighter only if boxing rules are enforced

Otherwise it might end badly for him and his fight record, which he certainly cares about. Regarding a second fight with Manny, somehow I don't believe in that either. Pacquiao is too dangerous for Floyd, and unless the latter is in a desperate need for money (let's recall Tyson boxing with second-tier boxers like Danny Williams or Kevin McBride near the end of his career), that fight is not very likely

That's why I called it the first rule of trading which any trader should follow

You will be surprised how many people know that and how many of them can't do anything with themselves to actually implement this or similar approaches in practice. It is written in every trading book out there but unless you have it inside you, you will be making the same mistakes again and again. It is not just about stop-losses and whatnot as it is more about putting your ego aside and truly following the market, not forcing yourself to do something in accordance with a trading guide but genuinely making that part of your inner self. When you have it or have acquired it, you become an authentic trader

Ironically, it massively helps in real life too by helping you not to get into or quickly disengage from what I call a "resonance cascade" (that would match doubling down on a losing position)

If you don't go to the market, then the market comes to you

Really, if you are massively invested in crypto, how can you stay away from the market in such times? Indeed, you can stay away from it if you choose so, but that questions your whole effort and ability at investing in crypto. If anything, crypto is not what passive investments stand for, and your only chance to survive "at this point" is to be active and adaptive. If you want passive income, you may want to look elsewhere, e.g. in gold or treasuries


Someone's got it right finally


I like your train of thought - ships which are seaworthy and ready for the next tide (or ride)

"That makes no sense at all"

Well, actually, it may make some sense but only if purely theoretical, for at least two things. First of all, it is something which is not worth discussing per se because it is kind of obvious that if supply decreases with demand being the same, the price should inevitably rise, at least as long as we accept the balance of supply and demand as an accounting identity which holds in all cases. And second, this is of no practical interest because this is not how things typically unfold in real life and especially these days when the prices have been on the decline for a year


In fact, I don't need to provide any specific reason. The price falling most of the time throughout 2018 is that reason which provides for itself. If you accept that fact, you should also accept the fact that demand has been falling too. Obviously, it is not just demand alone but there's no telling how much of the price drop should be attributed to a squeeze in demand and how much to an expansion in supply. Whether the hype associated with Lightning will be able to offset this squeeze and to what degree remains to be seen


A bear market means the demand side is thinning too. So it all depends. This is what ceteris paribus doesn't take into account and exactly what my idea of supply squeezes hinges on. LN will likely add fuel to this effect, to its supply and demand sides

Yeah, God or luck, call it what you like

But I wouldn't call gambling an investment, even if the most risky one, unless you are investing in a casino itself and its bankroll, of course. Gambling (as in dice) should be considered an amusement only, something you are engaged in for the sole purpose of enjoying yourself, and then, with the help of God or good luck (depending on your religious stance), you may be able to make that winning "trade" and hit the jackpot

It looks like there's a misunderstanding

What you refer to by marrying a trade, I consider marrying an asset. It happens when an asset earned you decent profits in the past and you get glued to it (marry it) by holding it despite the fact that it now brings you only losses and it should have been disposed of long ago. Buying and selling an asset as market dictates has nothing to do with this. Really, how can you possibly be considered a truly married man if you are ready to get rid of your wife as soon as she has her period started (and get back to her when it's over)?

I wouldn't say that

Indeed, if Ortiz had been playing by the rules, he couldn't, and Floyd would have taken him out sooner or later. But headbutts can cause pretty serious damage like cuts and concussions that would mostly likely lead to a stoppage and no contest. Knowing Floyd, you wouldn't really expect him to let his opponent get away with it, so it was a one-way street for Ortiz. So he started to apologize likely having in his mind something like what the Harlem Hammer pulled off with Richard Grant. Obviously, Mayweather knew better and down went Ortiz as soon as there was an opportunity