It's not the size of the ship.. it's the motion of the ocean..

I heard that somewhere before, too.


Well shouldn't we all be attempting to figure out those kinds of calculations - especially if  we are betting on more down?  We do have a bit of a problem of all those outstanding leveraged longs on Bitfinex (a record level, apparently), so not really sure how that is going to resolve itself if BTC were to go UPpity rather than down, except for that everyone gets a Lambo ......

Lots of people live quiet lives of desperation (i heard that somewhere before?).

How are you supposed to measure accomplishments exactly?

Sure, sometimes legacies are left.. and maybe kids to remember you, but the kids die too.

What if you get rich, and you set up some kind of a business?  But then the business could get messed up too.. it might not even follow your earlier guidelines, and go on it's own path - in the event that the successors do not really end up screwing it up.


Thanks for the update.

We know that there are no guarantees in bitcoin, and surely there is a risk if you enter as a lump sum and then do not necessarily have money to buy on dips and dollar cost average... and so in that regard, you end up investing a lot psychologically in that one time move... and it is not necessarily a bad way to do it or even a bad entry point.,. but we still know that it could take four years or longer before profitable... and there are no guarantees that it will be profitable, either.

Of course, part of any risky investment would be to invest in such a way that you are financially and psychologically prepared that your investment could go to zero.

At the same time, bitcoin remains the best asymmetric bet that many normies have ever seen... but for sure, there are a lot of people who still do not believe that bitcoin is a great assymetric bet.. and yeah.. it might not end up playing out favorably.. gotta be prepared for that.

By the way.. in the past several months, have you continued to study into bitcoin, such as reading more or listening to podcasts?  Of course, we have more and more smart-people coming into the bitcoin space, and there are all kinds of smart people in bitcoin, if you have time to study into some of the better and smarter ones, and I cease to be amazed by some of the smartness of some of the folks coming into bitcoin...

Yesterday, I heard about a 2-hour interview on Swan Signal (podcast) with Greg Foss and Max Keiser..and they both seem to be very good at understanding various macro circumstances that affect the bullish case for bitcoin, and maybe you would like to listen to their discussion?

Here's a link:   https://overcast.fm/+YwHTgOmEU

At one point, I had considered providing a list of the better podcasts because it surely makes a difference to be listening (or following or reading) the smarter folks... there's misinformation and bullshit marketing and scams out there too.. and even this thread is not completely free from having some folks slipping in with not so great information.. yet of course, it would still be your responsibility to be trying to sort the wheat from chaff.




Hahahahahaha

This is hilarious.. .because it is so true...

while at the same time, it may or may not end up happening (that's the reality tough love... gotta be psychologically and financially prepared for any price direction)..

but the "I'm a fucking genius" has happened to a shitload of folks in bitcoin.. even the ones who screwed up quite a bit... so erroring on the side of HODL.. or continue to accumulate BTC more has tended to be a pretty decent strategy.. and no real signs that such a strategy will not continue to work, even if the upside might not be as high as it was 8 - 12 years ago.. but the downside does not seem as great either.. [insert qualifier here]...   

Said another way:   Surely quite a bit of getting to a better place has happened to a lot of guys (and a gal or two) who have been in bitcoin at least 4 years, but surely it could take a cycle or two longer than 4 years.. .. and of course, no guarantees either..

You are raising the same bullshit and stupid-ass talking points that have been being raised about Tether since about 2016 and probably even before that. 

That bullshit scam algorithmically pegged stable coin (aka luna/terra/UST/Do Kwon) was likely designed as a purposeful scam.. and has names similar to tether too.. how convenient to confuse some people too... if they had not already been confused...   

I remember some folks asserting that USDT was de-pegged from the USD price because it had wildly fluctuated between $.995 and $1.005.. Holy fucking shit that is crazy as fuck, right?

 

Trying to find a problem and to exaggerate and to make poor comparisons is hardly convincing since USDT has been through quite a bit already - including but not limited to allowing its bank steal around $800 million from it, while the US Govt turns a blind eye at best, and at worse argues that USDT is unstable because they got robbed of $800 million from a known banking entity - with likely ongoing US Govt complicity in allowing for such theft and not even attempting to prosecute... ONLY claiming that USDT was operating without enough backing.. blah blah blah..

Oh gawd Philip...  

You might be showing us exactly why you have already had troubles acquiring BTC between 2012 and 2017.. You seem to have troubles figuring out how to make some of your plays.

Maybe I know too much regarding your situation..?  and I am not trying to pick on you or to attack you personally, even if it seems like that and I am using some of your personal details against you to suggest that you made bad decisions in the past and you continue to make bad decisions.. but still.. even if we attempt to consider your plan on its face, it seems pretty weak.

I have no problem that you had been shaving small amounts of BTC while the BTC price was going up, including your seeming to have had done that all the way up into the $60ks...

I also have no problem with your having had dollar bought all the way back down to where we are currently at, including that you had some DCA buys.  Actually in your case, when you were doing daily in the $50ks, that seemed too frequently to me, but if you have ongoing cashflow, it might not even be any kind of bad idea to do that.. a kind of set-it and forget it approach.  In other words, I don't have any real objections to even ongoing daily DCA whether the BTC price is high or low, so long as your investment timeline is at least 4 years from the time of any of your purchases.. and you can have a shorter than 4 year timeline too and still engage in DCA, but that might cause adjustments in the amounts rather than completely eliminating such DCA practices.  Last year, you said that your timeline was at least 5 years.. which does seem pretty bold for a 65 year old... but hey.. you do you... especially expecting to live into your 90s.. which I hope you end up being correct to longevity (even though we know that's uncertain too..

But at least you are not projecting to live into your 100s and even having any kind of possible quality of life or need to have money besides no one probably wants to become any kind of burden on others.. maybe not even a burden on the state.. but surely some elderly people might not be as concerned about getting put into some of those care facilities if there is some dignity and even autonomy that is allowed to continue.. but we hear about some of the bad treatment in those kinds of facilities, too.. so maybe people want to avoid that if they believe that could be one of their life-time/life-quality calculations....

Maybe one of the angles that irritates me with some of your posts, Philip, is that sometimes you shift from one thing to another.. .which seems somewhat inconsistent as if you had been putting too many resources in planning in one direction, and then you compensate on the other end and seem to put too many resources for planning for the other direction... These should not be the kinds of things that either a more experience bitcoiner or even someone with 65 years of life under his belt should be doing.. ..

Sorry.. I am getting into lecturing my elders again... .. but I cannot help it.. this is a public thread.  We are talking about ideas here.. you just happen to share a lot of details which ends up giving a lot of hooks for attackenings.  I am doubting that I am being too mean.. but I would at least like to recognize that there are meanie considerations that guys might have to make.. and I am not purposefully trying to be cruel or anything like that, either.

So, yeah in terms of continuing to ladder on the way down.. no problem.  I am presuming that you stopped daily DCA'ing which might be even a better thing to continue (even if you might have to lower the amounts or spread them out to weekly).. so part of my point is that if you still consider yourself to be in a BTC accumulation phase, then buying on dips should be a supplement to DCA.. .. but I can appreciate that if you have already acquired a decently large stake in bitcoin and the BTC price goes down rather than UP (or sideways), then there might be some kind of concern that you are running out of money.. and maybe your cashflow is either drying up or there is not as much excess since you had been mining (would that be enabling) those shitcoins known as Ethereum, Doge coin, LTC.. and maybe some others.. and yeah.. maybe this part is an attack on you because I recall you making some kind of stupid-ass bullish statement regarding the future of doge coin or LTC or some other nonsense like one of them having greater UPside potential than bitcoin.. so yeah, maybe I should personally attack you regarding those kinds of statements.. and maybe you still believe them because both LTC and Doge coin are becoming even more and more and more discounted relative to bitcoin in the past few weeks.

So, even if you feel that you are running out of money.. I have trouble with stopping DCA (if you had been doing it at $50k why not continue now?.. yes, I partly know the answer.. your cashflow from both bitcoin and the various shitcoins that you had been mining has largely dried up).. and even if we say that you ONLY have the money that you listed.. those are a lot of low-ball orders.. and what do you consider the odds for BTC prices to continue to go down if it has already corrected 63% (from $69k to $25,401)?

I don't have any problem preparing for possible worser case scenarios, but we still should be attempting to apportion the level of our preparations towards how probable do we consider the BTC price to get to various price thresholds... and sure, we are not going to assign probabilities in the same kind of way, but still I question how well your proposed buy orders are really proportioned to actual realistic odds (and yeah, I will agree that sometimes you likely get into a bit of a fantasy, so you way overly assign odds, which seems to be gambling to me).  I still think that you should reflect on your numbers in order to attempt to recognize how much you are gambling and to figure out if you really believe that your target numbers and your allocation of actual resources (limited dollars in this case) reflect your assignment of probabilities.. I have the sense that the reality of the matter is that you are engaging in a kind of yolo gambling that goes beyond what you really should be doing.. but maybe you cannot help yourself..? so I am sorry about that level of personal psychological analysis..

For sure, I am not proclaiming to be any kind of BTC forecasting genius, but you can see my May 19 attempt to assignment downside probabilities at the bottom of this post.  My point is not so much about whether I am correct or not, but if you truly go through such a drill, you should be able to better hone in upon how high of probabilities are you assigning to various DOWNity price points, and if you are coming up with higher than my 0.5% assessment for sub $10k, then sure it could make sense to allocate $10k to those sub $10k price points.  

By the way, an assignment of $10k to sub $10k prices and assigning a 1% probability to that possibility would mean that you have right around $100k $1 million in cash that you are allocating over all of your probability assignments.  I really doubt that you have $1 million in
cash, but I do agree that it is quite probable that you have assigned higher than 1% odds towards the possibility of sub-$10k prices (which I disagree, but those are validly ways that guys could reasonably disagree). You have stated that you have $10k assigned to BTC prices between $17k and $21k.. so you have stated that you have at least $20k..

**after noticing my calculation error, I edited the above paragraph

I might be getting some of the exact calculations wrong regarding how to possibly apportion whatever cash that you have left in your coffers in accordance with your assignment of how probable you believe that the BTC price thresholds might get crossed, but I doubt that I am getting wrong the idea of trying to attempt to adequately apportion your cash that you have already authorized for BTC buys and your anticipated cashflow that might end up allowing you to add to your various positions.. whether such BTC crash were to happen right away.. then fill all of your BTC buy orders right away or if such a crash would take 3-24 months to play out, then there would be an anticipation that you may well have additional cashflow coming in during that time that you would be able to potentially allocate to further BTC buys.  

I personally believe that when we set our BTC buy or sell allocations, we should be anticipating that the BTC price could quickly move to the prices to fill our orders.. and therefore, the passage of time allows us to make adjustments, but when we set our buy or sell orders, we should be considering that we are feeling that we need to set such buy orders now (at this time) because we anticipate that there is a possibility that they could end up getting filled in a relatively expedited manner.  If we have pretty strong beliefs that there would be certain time periods that would drag out before certain time thresholds are even possible to be filled, then we may well decide to NOT actually set those buy/sell orders and to lock up our capital for those matters that we believe are not possible to happen... so in that regard.. if we were to get down to $10k.. and then get stuck there.. then it might be the case that guys would start to set buy and sell orders in different places merely based on the BTC price getting to a place that had opened up possibilities that currently seem like they are not even remotely possible.. but once we were to get to $10k (presuming that we get there), then we might want to consider setting orders down to $5k. or whatever.. just talking in the hypothetical here. .since my own assignment of probabilities puts sub $10k at only 0.5% odds, but if we were sitting at somewhere sub $10k in August, then my whole assignments would have to be adjusted to account for that set of events having had become 100%.. as opposed to my currently assigned odds of 0.5% (and I try not to be even emotionally/financially attached to whatever numbers that I might end up assigning or reassigning (these kinds of things happen all the time).. once the thresholds are crossed, my responsibility is to reassess and just reassign to the extent that I believe the changed circumstances have caused the need to reassess and reassign)...

Questions about which shitcoin is less shitty does not seem too relevant here either - except maybe just generally being aware...

I may have told this story regarding one of my in-laws last July-ish (over summer holidays), and it can be frustrating as fuck to deal with some people in the real world who are balls deep into shitcoins.. not only which shitcoins are less shitty but actually drinking some of the koolaide.. which could work out alright for some of the shorter-term trade possibilities, if trading is happening in that direction.. However, some of them actually believe that some of those shitcoins are actually long-term plays.

Back to my story.. Last July, I had a few conversations with one of my in-laws about bitcoin, and he may have been the one who was pursuing the conversation so heavily.. somewhat congratulating me about how well bitcoin was doing (even though we were in around a 50% correction location at that time), but also realizing that I was not very bothered by where we were at, especially given my having already been into bitcoin since 2013.... so in some sense, we were discussing some substance - including my continued assertion that it might be o.k. to fuck around a bit with a small portion of your portfolio on shitcoins, but the main focus (perhaps somewhere in the 90% arena) should be on bitcoin and accumulating bitcoin and not even considering shitcoins as direct ways to accumulate bitcoin.

He just kept looking at me as if I was a boomer and I could not relate and that there just was not as much upside potential in bitcoin as compared with various newer and supposed innovative projects.

To try to figure out the extent of his biases and perhaps to attempt to get him out of his seemingly bad thinking about shitcoins, I attempted to get him to consider the Warren Buffet question regarding if you came out of a coma in 10 years, which coins would you like to be in.   His answer was Solana, and after we had already been talking several times over several days.. I said "holy fuck!!!!"  Have you even been fucking paying attention to any of our various topics about ways to invest in bitcoin, such as dollar cost averaging and just having a longer timeline and not getting caught up into the snake-oils talking points of the various projects that are likely saying anything?  And, Charles Hoskins?  You going to trust that dweeb.  He said something about Hoskins being a Genius, and I just had troubles continuing our conversation because we were getting into how much he had already convinced himself of the various Cardano talking-points.   

My in-law is no dummy, even though he has shown some bad judgement regarding some aspects of his life including some of his social interaction matters, but in terms of his career, his working skills and even his technical/software, problem trouble shooting abilities, his ability to communicate job-related matters and even his decently high income at a relatively young age (early 30s), but he still was receptive to the various Cardano talking-points in regards to supposedly solving problems that bitcoin was not able to solve.

I haven't been talking with that in-law since July... even though I was tempted to talk with him on a few occasions, I just could not bring myself to do it... and yeah of course, we can see that relative to bitcoin, Cardano did shoot up both before and after my July interaction with my in-law, and largely  since November 2021, Cardano has been on a continuous DOWNity trajectory relative to bitcoin.. So I am not really sure about how my in-law played that because holy fucking shit, in July, he seemed to be so damned convinced that Cardano was at least a 10-year play .. and who fucking knows what other bad judgements that my in-law might have devolved into with the ways that get-rich-quicker and smarter than everyone else bitcoin naysaying folks would have been drawn into some of those 15% to 20% dividend products associated with Terra/Luna/Do Kwon baloney. 

Surely, it would have been possible for folks to lose all their "crypto" allocated monies, perhaps out of desires to prove how they could get richer quicker out of those various non-bitcoin investments, but also the equity in his house and perhaps some other properties that he had could have ended up getting thrown into some of those pots, too... so really, I am not sure if I am going to find out some of these kinds of details in the coming months - including around the July holidays when I will likely see him again.. and sure it is possible that I will be relieved to find out that he made some relatively smart (or at least less dumb) choices in the last year regarding how to play some of those shitcoins - but a really have my doubts given what I had already gathered his mindset to have had been last July.  Some of those guys don't even come close to putting 90% of their "crypto" allocated monies into bitcoin, but sometimes they get so wrapped up into various shit projects that they start to consider 10% of their "crypto" into bitcoin is too much into bitcoin.

For sure, I talk about way more prudent and practical approaches in terms of 1% to 25% of all quasi-liquid investments in bitcoin, but when someone is relatively earlier on their investment journey, my 1-25% does not make sense.. because I say that if you do not have other investments, then you might well just start out completely putting your investments into bitcoin and then diversifying once the bitcoin grows.. so the balancing can become more complicated if the person already has property and a decent income.. and then maybe they are just so damned tempted to show how my attempts to guide prudence and starting out focus on bitcoin is just NOT fitting to their circumstances and their desire to use some of their extra capital on more "innovative" (risky) investments, even though many of us have known for a long time that bitcoin is already risky - so why pile risk upon risk.. and bitcoin is the sector leader.. but these kinds of smarter than everyone else kinds of guys are not very receptive to any path except for ones that they believe that they are plowing their own path while at the same time NOT realizing how susceptible that they are to the talking points of the shitcoiners who prey upon those kinds of sentiments that people have.

Once the newer investors into "crypto" are bagholders in various shitcoins, and not hedging much if any in bitcoin, they may have a lot of psychological difficulties backing out of their dumb position, including going through the actual application of the sunk cost fallacy (it cannot go lower - when it does end up going lower)...

Surely, there are thoughts that purging of some of that froth from the shitcoin space might be a good thing.. I am not sure if it is necessary to purge such froth or how sustainable is such purging in the short run, but it does seem to be healthy to be purging some of that craziness. 

I had noticed that there still are some BIG promotions of NFTs, but I am not sure it they are getting people to buy them..and some famous folks might receive backlash when the NFT that they are promoting does not either hold value or appreciate in value as they claimed that it would.


I looks like you are easily distracted into irrelevancies.

What do you believe is next?  maybe I shouldn't ask?

I have my doubts about whether prestige is any kind of real issue for very many westerners.. except maybe just some guys might want to be able to easily attract girls to their location, and prestige could help with that question.. but if a westerner is living in a place that does not have very many westerners, then s/he is already getting a lot of prestige (likely even way more than enough) just from the exotic factor.....

Otherwise, it seems to me that picking between rural and urban (or something in between) has more to do with possible infrastructure and security concerns... 

Too much focus on prestige could really screw up a budget too.. .. so in that regard, there might be very similar neighborhoods in terms of their location - distance from infrastructure, goods and services, and one that is within a prestigious neighborhood but then one that is nearby, but just considered part of the normal neighborhood that costs 1/2 or maybe even up to about 1/10th as much.. Now maybe with the $300 per week or the $1,500 to combine all 5 incomes, would permit living in either location, but the quality of life may well be much better if spending less than 30% of income on lodging-related expenses rather than 80% and not having much spare income remaining for spending on other things.

For sure, some sources of information are better than other sources of information.. even on this forum, some threads are better than others - including that fuzzy logic can become contagious in a thread, and then if no one is there to help to get some of the talking points back in some kind of coherence, participants in the thread can deviate into nonsense.

With any media source, there are ways to develop curated feeds, so that might help from being bombarded by too much noisy information.  Developing and employing critical thinking skills can be another tool, and some folks have developed better critical thinking skills than others, but also on a personal level we might even ask ourselves whether we are sufficiently learning with the passage of time, and if sometimes we are not reaching our own proper balances in regards to how much we may or may not need to research further into a topic or even if the solution might be to think through a topic ourselves in order to attempt to figure out how much plausibility to assign to the logic, facts and or conclusions of some kind of claims or presentations that are being made.

Some factors might be unsaid.

For example, if the creators and promoters of the bond feel that they can ONLY release the bond in market conditions in which they have a high confidence that BTC prices will be going up, then in that sense they attempt to time the market without really directly saying that is what they are doing. 

Of course, we also know that sentiment has a tendency to inversely correlate to where the BTC price is going... so when the BTC price is going up and has been going up for a while bullish sentiment gets pretty high.. but that does not necessarily result in the BTC price continuing to go up.  The opposite is true regarding the BTC price going down, and sentiment can stay negative for quite a long time, even when the evidence becomes pretty clear that the "bottom is in." 

Sure, maybe something else more nefarious is going on.. but I really doubt it.

By the way, maybe one of the implications that you are making fillippone is that they were asserting that they were not technically ready to release the bond, but the evidence is showing that technically they could have released the bond, so they had been providing technicalities as an excuse rather than their real concerns.. and also you seem to be implying that they had been overly asserting the level of subscription (sentiment towards buying the bond), and even if you are correct that sentiment was never as strong as they were making it out to be, they still might have had been making the better decision to not have had released the bond and to continue to not release the bond, even if they are not completely describing all of their rationale or accurately describing the underlying facts.

The latest failure/refusal to release the bond may well have not even had been nefarious.. even though some people might ascribe nefariousness in terms of telling the truth no matter what or following through no matter what.. yet from my thinking I have my doubts about ascribing nefariousness.. even if it could be true that they ended up coming to some of the wrong balance.. because maybe in the end it would have been the "right thing to do" to just keep the date no matter what the market conditions.. and even if they had pretty strong feelings that they were going to be releasing the bond into a market with likely negative rather than a positive momentum.... oh and another by the way, most of us also realize that some actions take place on the margins, and sometimes what the actors end up doing does end up having a tipping effect in terms of contributing to what direction the market ended up going... but it seems really difficult to have confidence (even after the fact) in knowing those kinds of tipping effect consequential things that might have come from whether the behaviors would have been to do x or to do y or to do z.. even with BIG and influential actors.

It should be -124%


 

You're coming off as desperate Snowshow.  

You should have stopped while you were ahead... (presuming that at some point you might have been ahead, which is a pretty BIG presumption)..

 

That's what I was thinking.

A kind of foreplay with dee bulls.


Yes.  I do find the potential for Turkey to be interesting.. 80 million people is not a small number.. but sometimes governments have difficulties recognizing how bitcoin might help them.. in a kind of El Salvador way.. and don't get too distracted into shitcoins.

Something could happen with Turkey.... Or it could end up being a BIG nothing burger, especially since Turkey has its own currency.. unlike El Salvador which has been largely (and nearly exclusively) using the dollar in the past 20 years or so..

Still to be determined if there might be some positive news in that.. Of course, some of us heard some rumblings about Mexico and Honduras and even Guatemala.. but still?   there are likely more and more countries who have various members in their government who are either getting exposure to bitcoin or having some of their constituents raising potentially pro-adoption kinds of issues about bitcoin.

I am going to say that your mentioning of Tether in the way that you did and then further into your response too..  got me a wee bit worked up...

In other words, I don't accept those kinds of seemingly inadequate frameworks about Tether influencing the negotiations in regards to bitcoin..

Bukele did not adopt Tether.. He adopted bitcoin... so it just sounds strange to be wording some kind of Tether negotiating team.. as compared with a Solana negotiating Team.. ..

For sure, Solana would have been a bunch of fucktwats.. and maybe somewhere along the line Bukele would have figured out with Solana that he was dealing with snake-oil salesmen rather than the real deal.. .. so yeah the real deal is bitcoin.. and neither Solana nor Tether..  

so fuck that idea about a supposed Tether marketing team as an influencing factor or a framework in regards to how Bukele was thinking about the matter.. .. makes it sound that bitcoin has a marketing team too..

It just does not sound right to be making those kinds of sloppy presentations regarding what is going on in El Salvador or how bitcoin got started there because even though Tether can be used for on/off ramps in bitcoin.. we are still talking about Bitcoin and even some of the then innovations of lightning network in terms of what was adopted in El Salvador - not Tether.. so it just raises my own hackles to have a presentations that make it appear as if the tail is wagging the dog... if you know what I am trying to say here (and yeah maybe you (Lucius) disagree... especially since you are the one who brought it up, and emphasized it and even seem to be getting the idea of stable coins mixed up by lumping them all together.. as if Tether is the same of the several stable coins that followed including that easy picking Luna/Terra obvious scam that was likely never really intended as a serious project than as a form to actually rug pull)?

Even though I am not against Tether.. but the framework for bitcoin coming into El Salvador seems to be the one that they presented at the June 2021 Miami conference..... which was that increasingly bitcoin was being used in the Bitcoin beach area, and likely discussions with Jack Maller were more important in terms of figuring out how transactions in bitcoin could be facilitated so easily and cheaply through lightning network.. and they were already doing it in the El Zante beach area (bitcoin beach).. because that is how Bukele was introduced at the Bitcoin Magazine conference in Miami in June 2021... that frame regarding realizing how much remittances were being lost and that 70% or so of El Salvadors were unbanked seems largely accurate in terms of motivating getting banked through bitcoin into El Salvador and how practical the lightning network was in terms of cheap and fast transactions.  

Tether seems to be quite incidental in this El Salvador decision to adopt and ongoing adopt and implementation story.. rather than any kind of meaningful focus of what is happening.


Something seems to be quite different in the way that you are thinking about this as compared with me.. in some kind of implications of nefarious angles, and I don't have a problem with that.. but I do seem to be taking Bukele way more at his word than you, and no I don't expect 100% showing of the agenda anyhow.. but there are surely degrees to which some politicians (and people) are more sincere than others, so I am not going to just lump everyone together in terms of how believable I find them to be in terms of their actions and their words and/or what might be unstated (or hidden).. including that I believe that Bukele's recent interview with McCormick seems to show that Bukele has decent intentions.. and for the most part, I don't believe that he is doing any kind of snowjob but actually grappling with the balancing of matters including the reality that he likely has people who want to kill him, too... while he is actually trying to make an decently honest difference in terms of going down the bitcoin path and considering that the bitcoin path brings a lot of benefits to people in terms of objective monetary standards that are revolutionary in a variety of ways.



Fuck tether bashing.. it is less relevant to this story.


So what.  El Salvador adopted bitcoin and lighting network.. Tether is an incidental part.


Mostly does not matter to what we are discussing here.


Again.. Tether is incidental... and sure there are various stable coins being used as attack vectors on bitcoin, and I doubt that tether is one of them.. even though surely there are likely attempts to co-opt it (maybe even successful).. but still tether is incidental to this El Salvador adoption of Bitcoin and lighting network.


Terra Luna was a big ass scam from the start and it is becoming way more obvious after the fall out for sure.

Tether is not the same as that terra luna scam.


There's already been pretty god damned big investigations of Bitfinex/Tether including that they had about $800 million stolen from them.. likely with the US Govt/NY Attorney general complicit in that and then after the coins got stolen then they claim Bitfinex/Tether not sufficiently backed.. yeah the fucking Govt dweebs took the money and then blamed Bitfinex/Tether for that...

I would have thought that you would have gotten over some of your concerns about Tether with the NY AG settlement of that matter more than a year ago.

I don't know if I need to push anything.

A somewhat funny thing about bitcoin continues to be that it does not really have any kind of a marketing team.. even though there are various bitcoin evangelists.. and people who do promote bitcoin. sometimes for free and sometimes they get paid, but bitcoin does not have any kind of marketing budget.

Some folks from within bitcoin do want to give back in various ways.. so maybe sometimes to the uneducated, it might seem like there is some kind of marketing team... so yes.. there is some subtlety within the ideas of benefiting in regards to spreading positive information about bitcoin....

There are also quite a few examples of bitcoin pumpers who end up deviating in their message and they start to pump shitcoins or they seem to get disenchanted with bitcoin.. so it is not always clear in regards to whether someone is speaking in the promotion of bitcoin or if they have gone into some other direction.. none of those kinds of supposed bitcoin promotional matters are as straight-forward as you seem to be suggesting them to be.


Even though I disagree with your characterization of newbies as if they were gullible suckers or that bitcoin HODLers are in any kind of desperate need to convince them to come into bitcoin, Bitcoin still has a pretty tiny level of adoption, so even though we cannot be sure in the short term about price fluctuations and even that some folks might get discouraged, overall the adoption and network effects continue to expand even in spite of various negative campaigns (like yours) or the actual material attempts to directly dump upon bitcoin.. so some of those folks who are engaging in naked-shorting bitcoin could end up getting their asses handed to them in pretty severe ways if they do not have the bitcoin that they claim to have or they are betting against bitcoin but they do not have adequate exposure and bitcoin prices go up rather than their DOWNity hopiums.. some of them could end up getting royally reckt (even if some people perceive them to have an infinite amount of printing power in regards to dollars to throw at trying to keep king daddy down). 

I wonder why that seem dangerous to me?

Especially the guy in the back.. directly in the back.


Too many drugs in the 60s, perhaps?



Various premises of the article in regards to failure of the bitcoin implementation in El Salvador and suggestions that Tether is buying a country .. are just nonsense...   premature to suggest failure of the bitcoin implementation (though a wet dream for the scaredy cat status quo bankers), and for sure there are going to be implementation issues.  

For some reason, I had not realized that Bukele had been in discussions with Cardano folks in late 2020 and into early 2021... .. Holy fucking shit, that would have been a disaster if he would have gone with pumping up  that scam pyramid scheme Cardano bullshit....... part of the ethereum scam has persisted so long because so many corrupt status quo folks are pumping money into it so they can print their own money and make all kinds of free money.. so makes the crap live longer when it should just die from its own multiple house of card smoke and screen rube goldberg apparatuses.. so in some sense, the failure of the Cardano negotiations in early 2021 show Bukele to at least not susceptible to that kind of pumping some bags of scammers nonsense.

Regarding how bitcoin has been implemented in El Salvador, we are lucky as fuck that there has been so much bitcoin focus within both how Bukele talks about the matter and he seems to have stayed true to his word.. and has not even come up with his own coin, yet (remember Miami coin?) .. and there seem to be quite a few instances in which Bukele has been rejecting various shitcoin propositions and/or other scammers.. remember when child star scammer Brock Pierce tried to get in on the early implementations, and so many true bitcoiners pointed out that Brock was an opportunist scammer.. so Bukele seemed to recognize/appreciate that information, too.. and did not allow Brock to get into his inner circles.. ...   so in quite a few ways, Bukele seems to be very aware of the difference between bitcoin and various shitcoins..

Could you imagine how much of a shitshow we would have had if Bukele did not have that level of bitcoin focus and conviction within his implementations.. and he would have been more of an "all coins are equal" cryptocurrency maximalist.. and foggy-ass ambiguous and muddled thinking like that?  By the way, Tether is not a shitcoin in the same light as various other shitcoins.. even though there are so many tendencies to throw Tether in the mix of supposed corruption.. blah blah blah nonsense..

Maybe Bukele would be more liked by the powers that be (especially the bankers) if he was into foggy thinking about equal opportunity all cryptos are alike and shitcoins.. hahahaha.


Define "chop"

Below $28,500?

Below $27,000?

Below $25,401?

or something else?

Personally, I might start to pay attention if there is under $28,500.. but I would have some difficulties worrying without going below $27k.. and gosh getting down to $25,401 would make me a bit more worried.. even though not completely out of expectations.. but seeming a bit too bearish to happen so soon without something more dramatic .. like another Luna/Terra/Do Kwon level dump.. or some other bigger macro news.. of course, there remain concerns about bottoms falling out of various equities because of Fed interest rate policies.. so surely some of that could go negative and then pull on king daddy.. or maybe some other shitcoin explodes.. i suppose that could contribute towards dragging us into sub $25,401 BTC prices too..

To some degree it is a bit strange to have this thread that proclaims that El Salvador's bitcoin adoption failed.. which seems to rely upon some mainstream bullshit talking points bashing bitcoin and then another fuller El Salvador thread that pre-existed this thread.. so why two threads?

Sure there have been some decent naysaying points brought up in this thread, yet the responsive posts that provided various reasons why such "failure" conclusion would be immature come off as way more convincing.

I just provided a post of Peter McCormick's second interview with Bukele in the other El Salvador bitcoin thread (here), which I would suggest any of the bitcoin and/or El Salvador naysayers should listen to that interview.

Following up to my earlier post (above) on the McCormick El Salvador documentary, within McCormick's podcast, "What Bitcoin Did," he just released his full interview with Bukele (which would be McCormick's second interview with Bukele).

I posted some commentary, a link back to this post and a link to that full interview in the El Salvador Bitcoin law thread (here).

Essentially, both Bukele and McCormick come off as much more thoughtful and likable within the context of that full interview - rather than the shorter clipped portion of the interview within the earlier released 36-minute video documentary.  I think that it is a "must listen to" interview if any of you peeps want to get a decent on-the-ground-perspective regarding how Bukele speaks about bitcoin, and about various social justice and representational matters/issues that he faces.

On May 18, in the WO thread, I had responded to Out of Memory's post in which he had provided about a 36-minute video documentary that Peter McCormick had just released on the topic of "what's happening in El Salvador" in connection with El Salvador's implementation of the September 7 bitcoin law.   That video documentary had less than a 5 minute clip of McCormick's interview with Bukele.. and really, the video does not really do justice to the whole situation - including McCormick's interview with Bukele.... From my point of view, that video synopsis of the McCormick's interview with Bukele kind of makes both of them look bad. You can see my two responsive posts and the video link here.

In the past day or so, in McCormick's "What Bitcoin Did" podcast, he released a more full context of his second interview with Bukele, and it is my belief that the fuller context interview makes both of them look better, and Bukele comes off as a much more likable, thoughtful and even genuine person.. to the extent that politicians are capable of being genuine.. hahahahaha..  You can see that interview here.

No need for bolding of your whole post... diptwat.

One of the great things about an asymmetric bet like bitcoin is that you do not need to lose leverage, and sure you could lose everything. .but the value that is being created by having bitcoin as a system.. causes for so much more upside potential than has already come to this asset class.. whether it takes 2-6 years before our next upwards price run.. or maybe it could take longer (such as 8-12 years) for those who can ONLY invest small amounts to start to feel meaningful impacts on their overall financial well-being from merely responsible investing small amounts on a regular basis (something like dollar cost averaging).

Another thing is that the various systems built around bitcoin and the knowledge space has already created value (and brought value to society) above and beyond the price appreciation that
BTC accumulators and HODLers have felt on a more personal level...

Maybe it is true with all paradigm shifting technologies, whether we are talking about more recent inventions like the internet or the automobile or airplane or even the invention of the wheel.. Other things in societies  ended up getting built on such systems that had not previously been possible..   the refrigerator, radio and telephone too... oh and of course, there were other things like that, too... but bitcoin has a kind of invention of a second internet, but one that allows for value to be transmitted on top of it without anyone being able to stop the transmission of such value... It is already BIG and likely to continue to be BIG.... a part of the greatest wealth transfer ever..even if it might take 20, 50, 100, or more years to play out...   

Better if you jump onto bitcoin sooner rather than later Snowshow... #justsaying.

The gulf of Mexico oil spill was a big thing also, at that time.

In reference to Philip's point:  Large earthquakes are pretty uncommon in New Jersey too..

Edit:  it also seems to me that DaRude is referring to things that mostly started in early 2011.. which was the fukishima earthquake and the gulf oil spill..  but then Philip is talking about later in the year (2011) (of course giving August dates).