[...]

I don't rely on Analysts' tweets and their predictions anymore.

For sure, DCA and incrementalism is a practice that goes way beyond my thinking - even though I do harp on it quite a bit regarding the main part of any common practice that someone just getting into bitcoin should consider.

I share a lot of your frustration with your friend because a lot of people might already know about DCA and they are receptive to the idea of DCA - yet when they are into not seeming to sufficiently understand the difference between shitcoins and bitcoin, they also end up applying DCA to shitcoins (at least many of us bitcoiners who might have some dabblings with shitcoins recognize and appreciate that they are not long term investments - but surely even long term bitcoiners get confused about that point, too).

I frequently seem to be throwing out the idea that DCA works as a method for long term investing because there has already been a determination that either fundamentals are strong in the underlying asset or that there is reason to believe that a determination can possibly later be made that fundamentals are strong in the underlying asset - which for bitcoin has largely come to mean that there are pretty decent odds that no matter what period that anyone starts investing into bitcoin, the price has quite likely strong chances of being higher 4-10 years later in real terms than it was at the time of the purchase, and the odds of the DCA investor to continue to bring down cost per BTC in the event that the price ends up turning against him/her and going down.  So in some sense DCA works best when the BTC price is waffling all over the place including getting stuck in a spiraling downtrend, but DCA does not work as well when the BTC price gets on one of its decently long term UP trends.  Lump sum investing would work better in those instances - but still lump sum investing takes way more knowledge regarding market dynamics than a DCA approach.

One way of attempting to partially address the dilemma of a problem in which the BTC price may well go up  a lot in the short-term is to engage in a bit of a frontloading of the investment - and of course, another dilemma will still be presented regarding how much to frontload.. .We can also recognize that not everyone has the luxury of frontloading their investment either because they do not necessarily have a lump sum amount in which they can choose how to "get started,"  but for those who do have some kind of potential lump sum amount that they can potentially frontload into their bitcoin investment I tend to consider to strt by dividing that lump sum amount and also a period of cashflow for the next 6 months for example, and then adding all those up and then dividing into three parts one part lump sum, one part DCA and one part buying on dips... the answer regarding how to divy it up exactly over those first six months is not necessarily be obvious - because there would surely need to be quite a bit of accounting for individual circumstances and the employment of discretion that also attempts to account for timeline, other investments, view of bitcoin compared with other investments, risk tolerance and time, skills and abilities to plan, strategize and to learn and tweak along the way and in more advanced approaches (surely not necessary to get started) may well include the use of financial instruments and leverage, trading and reallocation from time to time (also reallocation may or may not be necessary or even advantageous... but of course, discretionary and individuals should be attempting to engage in their investment at least sufficiently to take responsibility over each and all of their investment portfolio - initial allocations and then managing it as it "hopefully" grows.).

So for sure what I am saying is that people tend to get quite confused (I did as well, and probably quite  few other people got confused early in their coming to bitcoin), and then we end up wanting to diversify into some various shitcoin projects and attempt to pick the "best of the shitcoins" or the "better of the shitcoins" which does not tend to be a great approach rather than just picking the sector leader, which is quite obviously bitcoin.  It seems that people have to learn that bitcoin is the sector leader on their own and probably takes some time - and maybe having them watch around 30-50 Michael Saylor videos might help them out in terms of coming to the conclusion that it makes little to no sense to diversify into shitcoins once the sector leader has been identified.... For starts on a great Saylor clip, go back to that Saylor clip that AlcoHoDL had provided from 2021 and click on the youtube link therein.... it took me a while to find that post.

[...]

I doubt that anyone of us can push anyone towards how they engage in such early stages of BTC accumulation, even though DCA seems to be amongst the best of place holder approaches, and for sure lump sum investing and buying on dips can have some risks in terms of the possibility that the BTC price could go down before it goes up.  There are ways to balance all three approaches, but likely ONLY after some internal assessment of ones own individual circumstances which includes looking at cashflow, other investments, timeline, view of bitcoin as compared with other investments, risk tolerance and time, skills and abilities to plan, strategize and to learn along the way, which also may well involve tweaking strategies along the way, too.

There's also an element of determining establishing initial BTC stake - and then once achieving such initial BTC stake - which also could take a year or more to establish... then to determine how to manage such stake.. or to perhaps adjust the stake upon reassessments.  An initial stake could also involve putting 1% to 25% of overall investment portfolio value into BTC, and for sure the amounts are quite discretionary including that each individual might well end up having quite a different approach from another individual based on some minor differences in the individual circumstances (as I have already mentioned above).

Capisce?

OCD.

I can't fix twitter though.

I totally agree...

However, today he is not "currently losing", he is just currently losing. (as much as a guy with that much BTC can be considered "losing" lol)

[...]

This man here bought 18,600 BTCs at $63k.
Current Loss: -404,775,658.1 USD

[...image snipped...]

[...]

I am not even saying that the 200-week moving average might not be touched before we get another ATH...

[...]

Short answer, the same people that currently pay to run and access the UK land registry. Which is the government, and those that use the services pay for services.

[...]

Who's going to be paying to secure this blockchain?

The name was indeed rooted in doge memes. I mined dogecoin and the time. That's how I made my first bitcoins and ended up on this forum. Please forgive me my youthful shitcoining.

I'm still mining shitcoins for bitcoins but don't tell anyone

TWO FUCKING YEARS!

More than that.

I left my old job in January 2020. Started the new one in Feb 2020.  It's a 100% remote position.  But part of the deal, is as a new employee I had to go into the office for 90 days before I could be let loose to be a remote employee.  Well 21 days in or so I started getting a little tired of being in a ghost office by myself.  So I asked my manager if I could work a few days from home a week.  He got back to me.  YES!  That would be fine.  Come in 2 days a week, and work from home 3 of them.

Then the email.

"As of tomorrow, do not come in any more."  It was 100% remote due to covid.  HOORAY?

You all know this story.  You have lived some version of it.

So I worked over the next years.  And I got to do some interesting stuff.  I designed the computer workflows for the vaccine clinics we stood up.  And volunteered in them.  I was careful - myself.  Doing the grocery shopping for my family.  Masking and the whole works.  I built the dashboards that showed COVID admission, treatment, and mortality for our administrators.  I was deeply in that data for quite some time.

And over that time I noticed something.

Covid was infecting HUGE amounts of people.  But considering those numbers?  It was not killing that many.

The way it went was this (and I posted this here at some point)  The majority of people that got it either never knew or felt like they had a cold and got over it without medical attention.  The majority of the remainder my have come into the hospital out of paranoia, or serious need, but were sent home to "isolate and let the damn thing take it's course".  The majority of the remainder from THAT were admitted and taken care of for a few days or a week or two and sent home all better.  Then finally the remainder excluding all the above positive outcomes were admitted to ICU.  And whatever tiny sliver of folks were left might be intubated.  

That last group?  A vanishingly small percentage.  But you did not want to be in it... because if you got to that point... well it did not typically turn out well.

But my dashboards matched the data we were almost never hearing in the mainstream news.  99.x% of people would survive this disease, just as they would a cold.  It could be a terrible disease for those who were the 0.x%.  And I would never want to take away the seriousness of that for those who have suffered, and have had loved ones die, or have died themselves.

But the all the same things are true of the FLU as well.

Covid was not really a huge threat.  The way it WAS serious was just that it was so contagious that it would produce, just because of the sheer numbers, a lot of sick people, and a certain tiny percentage of those would die.

Anyway... here we are now.  The world having set fire to itself because chicken little was SURE the sky was falling.  And it is time to build again.

Well, this weekend my inlaws were in town. We did a lot of things together.  and in the midst of it?

Yeah.  I got the damn coof.

Well... chances are quite good I have what amounts to a mild cold, and survive to see my bitcoin hoard provide security for my family.

But just in case I get intubaed and kick the bucket?  I love you guys, and I wish you all well.  Consider my lost coins a donation to you all.

In several ways, I agree with points that you are making, but several of your points are phrased in ways that are confusing to me, because even though I consider incentives behind bitcoin mining to be a kind of moving dynamic – that will adjust to changes in technology, BTC price legislative factors and other factors such as number of other miners, I still find some of your explanation to be problematic because I cannot really tell if you are suggesting that miners are responding to BTC price or causing the BTC price to change, and also the part about legislators being able to control aspects of mining seems to be playing into what they want to do, but not so much describing what they are able to accomplish.  

Of course, I am not going to be saying anything that you do not know, but one of the interesting  dynamics of bitcoin is that it both assumes selfish behavior and it assumes bad actors, so in some sense bitcoin has some abilities to adjust to bad actors – including the difficulty adjustment, but also if legislators/governments put impediments onto bitcoin, then the mining and perhaps even use cases for bitcoin will likely move to less hostile jurisdictions, so part of the dynamics of having value imbedded into the coin would be that to engage in certain kinds of attacks against the network, the attacker has to engage in behavior that attacks himself….so I am bothered about whether that is fairly described as a “closed loop” or a self correction mechanism that you seem to be hinting at.. and for sure the dynamics are going to change and move in accordance with where some of the attacks might be made – and hopefully be able to survive in the end… so yeah, merely having a stake in the system is not enough to control the system, either… and maybe I am just bothered by a kind of seeming assumption that legislators might be able to be successful without having to gain widespread control in a variety of jurisdictions – which seems really difficult to achieve because some legislators are already getting on the bitcoin train and are likely to continue to get on the bitcoin train rather than attacking it (if they know what is for their own good)….

But one thing about bitcoin is that there is no coercion… Legislators, financial institutions, status quo rich, can each decide whether to jump on the bitcoin train, fight against bitcoin or to remain neutral, and with the passage of time, we will find out how their decisions are playing out, and even if they do not jump on board in 2014, or in 2018 or in 2021 or in 2025, there is nothing stopping them from jumping on board later, even if the train has gone further up the hill and they might have to jump on the more luxury version rather than the previously clunky version.

That doesn't make sense. If efficient chips are cheap, miners will just buy more of them and consume more energy.
If the chips are expensive, I bet producing them costs a lot of energy. One way or another, the sum of money spent on hardware and electricity will depend on how much money there is to be made mining.

Going from 27.5 or 31 J/TH to 26 J/TH doesn't really do much for sustainability anyway.

Would be nice to border the US on both sides