So...twitterati would now be eXing or something like this?
Sounds a bit tech noir.
A lesson on how to lose a $5-20bil brand?
Weird.

No emergency, just a merger with BANC (Bank of California).
It's probably a rescue (in reality).

yeah, yeah...but don't underestimate the ability of stock market trading firms to suppress the price while they accumulate...in GLD such period lasted 9 mo...in bitcoin ETF, maybe one quarter or slightly longer. I still see a major stock market dip anywhere between Q3 2023 and Q1 2024. After that, bitcoin should absolutely fly.

It's would have been a good joke if it wasn't Jose Mourinho.
I used to think that he is an alien, though /s  

Of note: $100K/year salary (used to be considered quite good) in US currently qualifies you to get a mortgage for a small (600-700 sqft) condo in Orange County, CA and New York, NY OR a run down house in Houston TX.

Interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S_Up-JnXqo

Bitcoin to the rescue...

Do you remember "Mr. Robot" show and the "E corp" from there?
Reality follows sci-fi in strange ways:

https://www.reuters.com/technology/elon-musk-says-twitter-change-logo-adieu-all-birds-2023-07-23/


Get a whiff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ee-cHbCI0s

Any OG who are like @philipma1957 are incredibly advanced for boomers.
Apart from a few boomers posting here...only 4-6% of people after 64-65 are into bitcoin (I read it somewhere-no source).
I am fine with his diworsification, albeit, disagree that litecoin tech is superior in any sense. Litecoin is a derivative, a copycat..silver to gold, so to speak.

Changing the whole 401K into bitcoin would have been incredible if done 10-11 years ago. I converted only 10% or so of my fiat resources into btc a while back.
Would it been better if I allocated 30-50%..sure it would be, but as Michael Saylor said: "I could have bought bitcoin at $100 when I [MS] first noticed it, but I bought it at $10000, when I needed it". Everyone pretty much buys it when they "need" it, either physically or intellectually.

I also understand the @JJG point about buying (or not buying i-bonds). There were other, much simpler ways to get interest last year, like money market funds, which are liquid, while i-bonds are not.

I think @philipma1957 is diversified (from what I gathered). Yes, maybe buying i-bonds when btc was at the lows of around $16K was ill-advised, but everyone only know it by now, not back then. Besides, Phil is doing the "work" for many of us (including myself) who is not currently mining, but verbalize about bitcoin.

@philipma1957-what is the Th value/power of your mine, if calculated back to just yourself?

A streak of three is enough, bud.

While agreeing that it could happen, I am not sure that it would.
Here is my reasoning: last cycle was "abnormally" timid (only a 3.45X swing over the previous ATH).
Why? There could be two possibilities: one would be externalities, like China mining ban+ shenanigans of Celsius+Blockfi+FTX, plus exorbitant share printing by DCG; on the other hand, it could be just mechanics of the cycles, where each cycle causes less and less upward swing.

Therefore, next cycle would be an interesting test and @LFC numbers suggest resumption of the 'strong' swings: 250K would be re-acceleration or rather continuation of the swing strength and 180K just a small decline to 2.6X.

The current history of "swings" (from lows to highs) order goes like this:  First halving-from $2 cycle low to $1160 high(580X); Second-from $175 low to $20K high (114X); Third-from $3.2K low to $69K high (21.5X); Fourth-from supposed $15.7K low to ? high. Unfortunately, if the "swing" reduction factor from prior cycle to the next would be the same, the next number in the sequence is roughly 4-5X, which is ONLY 63K-78.5K, which is terrible. I, myself, don't believe that we would be "dealt" such cruel cards, but whatever 'acceleration' mechanism could be in play, it's still to reveal itself.

Personally, I think that the acceleration that makes @LFC numbers is possible, but would occur via realization of the potential in the realm of inscriptions.
Imagine this: each sat could have some informational packet attached. This opens up virtually unlimited potential in the future. Heck, every single Apple share could be inscribed on 157 bitcoins maximum (only 0.00074% of all bitcoin while Apple, by itself, corresponds to 7.4% of US total stock market cap). There is plenty of room in bitcoin for ALL property plus future asteroids, planets, etc, etc...and that is even without going to sub-sats. Think about this.

EDIT: Alternatively, see what the 'chatty' one says:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg62445814#msg62445814

bitcoin has a pullout antenna? nice  

Yeah...in a similar fashion UK sold most of their gold in 2000 at the multi-decade lows (something below $250/oz).
Maybe it was a buyer-enticed transaction...haha.

He ordered more than two...
I understand getting the first two, but do not understand why he kept doing this...I guess he loves pizza or in his mind bitcoin had an infinitesimally small probability of success.
However, apparently, he greatly contributed to GPU mining code. That should be big enough contribution for anyone.

It's 50:50, but the way I see it, markets are about to peak and then correct either into the EOY or to March-April of next year.
If so, perhaps we are in a 2019-early 2020-like situation with 19-20K being a strong support.

Mind you, I am not predicting 20K, just look at the possibilities.
I am starting to hedge my equities positions somewhat, but not selling either stocks or bitcoin and not hedging bitcoin.

Keeping a bit of cash to buy on a potential dip, but, hey, if it goes straight up to 40K -I wouldn't be complaining.

EDIT With inflation declining Powell needs a good ol' "stimulus" such as a 10-15% sudden market decline to stop tightening and start decreasing the funds rate and, imho, stocks would "oblige".
Declining $ already hints that the era of rising rates is essentially over, apart from ceremonial formalities like a single(or double) little rise of 0.25 ea.

In the future, yes, but currently completely misleading.
It gives the number for the FULL bitcoinization (a hypothetical of what would have happened if ALL current wealth was in bitcoin).
Currently, top 1% total wealth and top 1% bitcoiners are mostly different people.
However, it still tells you that if all wealth would transfer to bitcoin, you would need to have only 0.15 btc to be in the top 1% of the planet wealth-wise.
As Satoshi said: "It might make sense just to get some #bitcoin in case it catches on."  

haha...he had the biggest (after Loaded) bitcoin bag around here (in the past, nobody knows if it is still so currently)...just has a strange sense of humor and stays "in the character".

I know that you just quoting this, but the "twitter" guy has wrong numbers: $8200 (at the halving) from approx $3200 is not 360%, but 156% up (which is the same as 2.56X).
BTW, similar "up" from our presumable low in 2022 at $15782 would be $40441 at the halving....very "doable", indeed.
EDIT: maybe the guy meant the top of the range, but it is a strange way to put it.

Oh, China again goes through the 'love me, love me not' cycle?
Not the first one...allow, then ban, then again allow, then ban ad infinitum.

Right...plus, instead of thinking of what bitcoin can do for you, think of what you can do for bitcoin.

hey, future "wealthy elite"...check this out:
https://www.reddit.com/r/fatFIRE/comments/14v7ui0/lifestyle_changes_at_various_net_worths/

TL;DR A discussion of what different levels of income and net worth mean with details and interesting secondary links.

Ya'll ignore the fact of what caused this rally...lots of s--tcoins are up due to some case judgement, unfortunately, but i take the price rise even if it caused by something generally negative.