Investors in MicroStrategy will think like they might have double ROIs by holding the stock.
Because
If they simply buy Bitcoin, they will have only one profitable asset, bitcoins in their wallets.
If they buy MSTR, they will have two profit sources: one from bitcoin and another one from MSTR stock. Because MicroStrategy is a company that provides other products which can bring benefit to their company and investors. Bitcoin is not the only one product MicroStrategy has.
Actually, from a mere numbers perspective, the buyers of MSTR in November 2022 did have double the ROI, 2x more than if they merely bought Bitcoin during close to the same time frame. Bitcoin surged from November, 2022 to January, 2024 - from $15,000 to high of $45,000. MSTR surged from December, 2022 to January, 2024 - from $135 to high of $720. That's almost a 2x difference. |
|
|
|
I personally am not convinced that we are in a bull market because, as some have already mentioned, it is more than obvious that the majority are betting that the ETF will be approved and that is why the price is rising. If the decision is positive, we can expect that on the wave of this news, the price of BTC will rise even more, but it is difficult to speculate about percentages.
If the decision is negative, a correction is possible (and probable), then all expectations will be focused on the halving, the effects of which will probably be visible only in the second half of 2024.
I'm personally not very convinced too. Although it's technically a bull market, I believe there's going to be one last price crash caused by a systemic event that will pull major economies down into a recession and make stocks, real-estate, and crypto crash back down to pre-surge levels. The Federal Reserve's "higher for longer" will be the cause of surging unemployment this year. They simply can't expect high maintained interest rates to have no negative impact in the labor market. |
|
|
|
Wether investment is for the short term or long time, Bitcoin investment should be the goal and not any compromise. No investor invest with the sole purpose of losing money, sometimes it could be that they lack the right knowledge and understanding about Bitcoin and possible consequences that their actions will result to. It could be that those who do this are people who were recently introduced into crypto currency trading and investment without proper guidance or adequate knowledge. Some people just want to dive into something because they heard that it's profitable without knowing the underlying risks.
Before people start investing in Bitcoin, they should learn about it first. They don't need to immediately decide to invest in Bitcoin, especially if they don't know how. Most people rush into investing in Bitcoin, so many of them panic when things don't go according to their wishes. In my personal opinion, newbies could buy now - as long as they're entering into a favorable price-point if buying the DIP, OR any price-point if the intend to DCA, THEN learn more deeply about it later. If a newbie waits to learn more about it first, he/she might end up buying much later because there's simply so much more to learn once you have learned about Bitcoin. Truly learning about it is a long term journey and discovery.
Although investing in Bitcoin can be used for the short term, many people realize they can make huge profits if they hold for a long time. The profits will be greater than in the short term and they can also use their time to accumulate more Bitcoin.
For plebs like us who don't have millions upon millions in capital, long term/low time preference/HODL is the only way to invest in Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
That bothers the gambling site? How can someone bet on all the odd category like team 1 win, draw and team 2 win and still win some money. No bookmarker will want that.
but with sportbetting, my winnings do not come from the casino's pocket, but from the pockets of other bettors. The casino only acts as an intermediary and sets the rate. Binance has never given me any problems with the fact that I make money on the their exchange, because I make money at the expense of those who lose and not at the expense of Binance, for Binance I am only volume (on which they make money) and additional liquidity (which attracts other traders). Isn't it the same with sportbetting? I'm not entirely sure if sports-betting markets are wholly made of liquidity just from the pockets of the bettors. I believe the betting company must place their own money on one side of the bet or the other to keep the market balanced if there isn't enough money from the users to take the other side of the bet. Plus because professional arbers always win, that means they are a net-loss to the betting company because they could consistently withdraw money out of the betting company's pool of liquidity. |
|
|
|
You and Gennady are very astonishing sports-bettors. Can you give us mere plebs some lessons? Hahaha. In merely three days, the both of you have won a combined 66 amount of sports-bets. If the bets were for $100.00 each, that would be more than $3,000.00, already accounting for the odds that are paying less for what you staked.
I have reached the minimum required of 10 for the contest with several open bets remaining, but I have more than ten losers just to reach it.
You are giving me too much credit  I am only working with a 12 points bank (12x5 USDT Level Stakes) which gives me at least 12 bets per day. I try to be very selective with my selections and got very lucky but on friday I nearly lost my tiny 12 points bank where only 4 from my 14 selections won. But I regret joining the competition it's too time consuming and it doesn't help that I am recording my bets like I always do   I believe with the amount of the prizes offered, Little Mouse made a fair decision in making the minimum amount to bet at $3.00. I believe any amount more might give the participants a higher probability of losing when chasing the 10-winning bet minimum to be granted an entry in the contest. You would therefore have 20x3 Level Stakes, giving you more opportunities and lesser risk of ruin. |
|
|
|
They are organizing conferences behind BRC-20, and that picture shows that the room is full of investors who come from a wide demographic. It's not merely "crypto-bros", but there's men, women, old, young, fat, thin. ANYONE in China who has money to invest, will invest in BRC-20.
I believe that picture was taken months ago, last year. Therefore if a BRC-20 conference was announced today, it would attract a lot more people.
You know that Chinese people were one of the first to fall for the OneCoin scam, right? And it wasn't even called that back then, this was way back over 10 years ago when it was still "BigCoin". A lot of people in China live in severe poverty so any, and I repeat, any beacon of hope that might make them rich and prosperous is something they cling on to fast. I still do not expect Ordinals to last for a long time, but it will crash like NFTs. (and we will have James Jani probably make another video documentary about that - crazy how people have not learned their lessons with NFTs). I believe if it stays on-chain, Ordinals as a "protocol" for inscribing NFTs in the Bitcoin blockchain will stay with us for a long time. It will "die", then "come back" again, "die", then "come back" again, with the best collections valued highly by a community of collectors of digital artifacts. But BRC-20, not for a very long time when its users/developers see its inefficiencies if compared to token issuance and trading in other blockchains like Ethereum and its alternatives. |
|
|
|
Not sure what to expect but competition sounds like fun so I am in too You and Gennady are very astonishing sports-bettors. Can you give us mere plebs some lessons? Hahaha. In merely three days, the both of you have won a combined 66 amount of sports-bets. If the bets were for $100.00 each, that would be more than $3,000.00, already accounting for the odds that are paying less for what you staked. I have reached the minimum required of 10 for the contest with several open bets remaining, but I have more than ten losers just to reach it. |
|
|
|
Well, seems like the Kramer effect was more serious on the mempool than on the price, at first glance I though Viabtc mined two consecutive blocks but no,  Seems like the fees are back under 50sat/b, not great not terrible! Of course it's still almost like holiday in the most of the world, it's barely 4 am in Europe so by tomorrow evening they might grow again but still the huge wall of fees is decreasing, from record high of 240Mvb till 10 sat/vb we're down to 185Mvb, although there are still incoming transactions seems like nobody is that eager to pay over 100sat/vb for a tx. Right now we have 257,293 Tx unconfirmed at the moment. And the fee is also decreasing. Getting 50 Sat/vbyte is much better than getting 200+sat/vbyte. Also if the ETF is not approved today on friday, then we can have even lower fees during this weekend. However if ETF is approved, then mem pool can again become congested due to lot of transactions.  Although it's good to finally see the fees start going down, don't expect it to stay low that long because in China,   They are organizing conferences behind BRC-20, and that picture shows that the room is full of investors who come from a wide demographic. It's not merely "crypto-bros", but there's men, women, old, young, fat, thin. ANYONE in China who has money to invest, will invest in BRC-20. I believe that picture was taken months ago, last year. Therefore if a BRC-20 conference was announced today, it would attract a lot more people. |
|
|
|
Seems I overlooked this topic first time around.
I'd say that, in order to be disappointed, you'd first have to have some level of expectation. People, especially those in business, have agendas. If you hold the expectation that such people are "on your side", then you probably are going to be disappointed at some point or another. Because such people will always serve their own interests first. I suspect Bitcoin is largely a means-to-an-end for Saylor. He's just using it to get what he wants. Don't pin your hopes and dreams on him, or people like him. Then you won't be disappointed.
And you definitely can't assume people are allies just because they sometimes say nice things.
I truly thought that he of all founders/CEOs from legacy, actually understood what Bitcoin is, how it technically works and because of it, I thought he understood how its ethos was derived from how Bitcoin technically worked. It was also because if this educational website, built by the foundation of his, that I thought he might be different from the others. https://learn.saylor.org/mod/page/view.php?id=30734&forceview=1He has the educational website, but he didn't learn anything from it.  |
|
|
|
How can someone just go by what the media said about Michael and he's also boosting on the same wrong idea and expect us to believe in whatever thing he said, Michael Saylor is wrong here totally and i completely disagree with him, we don't need censorship for whatsoever reason, if this had been in place, maybe someone like him wouldn't have accumulated this far from where he's now with his bitcoin holdings, this means he has been deceiving himself and not us all these while that he make posts about bitcoin saying alot of things that makes it a better Investment and global asset.
Does support anarchist mean it is a centralized or censored network? The network is centralized and should be centralized in future. Censorship will need a long time with deep on-chain analytic tools to do it. Sometimes it is too late to detect a laundering money from a hack and want to block all money from darknet is impossible. Like governments and central banks fail to block all money flow in and out of darknet with cash. It is unfair and unrealistic to want to have a perfect tool do to that with blockchains. They only want to show off their power and say they want to control things in their nations including blockchains and money flows through blockchains. Although I'm still giving Michael Saylor some benefit of the doubt, the kind of mindset that he exposed of himself truly having about Bitcoin is a sign that he wants Bitcoin to become like a corporate-controlled settlement layer for the wealthy and the elite, instead of what it was intended to be as a decentralized, censorship-resistant, self-sovereign cryptocurrency for everyone. Plus don't forget the question of, "How much of the total supply must be held in centralized third-parties' vaults before we start to worry? What's the threshold?" |
|
|
|
In the context that there's the Ordinals Chain merge mined with the Bitcoin blockchain, doesn't the miner earn rewards from both chains, and therefore has the choice of which coin to sell to pay for electricity bills/other expenses? It depends on the sidechain construction. If it is like NameCoin, which created its own tokens, out of thin air, then yes, this is just abusing 21 million coins limit, and then you have separate coins. But you can also have something like RSK, where all coins have 1:1 peg with BTC, and where nothing is created out of thin air. Does merged mining add extra work for miners
If you mean "can the hashrate increase", then the answer is yes, because those miners are just mining regular Bitcoin blocks. Edit: If you mean, "does the miner need to choose, which chain to mine", then it is not like that. You simply mine a regular Bitcoin blocks, which are also valid in another network. More than that: you can potentially mine blocks at lower difficulty, which is what P2Pool did (they had blocks every 30 seconds with 20 times lower difficulty, so they had 20 times more blocks, but most of them were present only on P2Pool chain, and other sidechains can use the same trick if they want).
and therefore is like a block size increase?
Not really, unless you make it mandatory for a full node to follow that chain, but then, you need a successful soft-fork to do that. But in case of additional data, there are no new consensus rules behind that. Those data are just huge OP_NOPs, which means, no additional Script needs to be enforced. Which means, there is no need for full nodes to follow that data, and download it. They only stop at verifying signatures, all data behind them are posted separately, and are not processed by full nodes, because it is not needed to determine, if a transaction is valid or not. OK, then the sidechain would be something like a cheap ledger for Ordinals instead of storing them in a "bank vault", which is the Bitcoin blockchain. Did I understand that right? I believe that Ordinals' main value proposition is the fact that those dick pics and fart sounds reside in the Bitcoin blockchain. They might lose their perceived value if they're "not an actual part" of Bitcoin.
If there was no incentive to mine the Ordinal Chain, then why try to find blocks there at all?
The incentive is the same as with mining Bitcoin. Which means, you can mine Bitcoin only, or mine Bitcoin, and your own chain, at the same time. Note that every time, when you create a transaction, you can commit any data into each of your signature, without increasing the size of your transaction. But from the miners' viewpoint, it's not the same. They're not getting any incentives from the Ordinals sidechain at all, and it would be better for them if Ordinals remain in the Bitcoin blockchain because of the higher fees. Fees which are slowly becoming the main source of miner incentive after every halving. |
|
|
|
Blockstream Green is a nice addition to the current list of suggestions, https://blockstream.com/green/For the debate about the safety of your mobile devices, I believe Apple's devices are generally safer/more secure than Android devices because of Apple's walled garden. It's not invulnerable, but generally safer. How you set up your Apple device will matter. Don't connect it to anything, like iCloud, that will upload data to their servers. iCloud was built for user convenience, and more convenience = possibly larger attack surface. Because it's a hot wallet, don't store more than $500.00 of Bitcoin in there. |
|
|
|
wouldn't the scheme break the incentive structure?
No, because if you use Merged Mining, then you produce regular Bitcoin blocks. Just imagine that instead of discarding some shares, you store them on your own chain, and they are valid only there. In case of "cloud storage", you don't need to move any real coins, so you can use those shares to protect data, without any coins. OK, there's something to learn here. I have questions. Please be patient with me. In the context that there's the Ordinals Chain merge mined with the Bitcoin blockchain, doesn't the miner earn rewards from both chains, and therefore has the choice of which coin to sell to pay for electricity bills/other expenses? Does merged mining add extra work for miners to process more data and therefore is like a block size increase?
Plus if all the coins are mined, wouldn't that make the miners value the Ordinal Chain more if its block rewards are higher?
No, because all coins will eventually land on-chain, which means, some Bitcoin miner will receive that. The only part that will land on the Ordinal Chain, would be the data, associated with those coins. Which also means, that the Ordinal Chain could contain a lot more UTXOs than Bitcoin, because it could be possible to send "data only", without transferring any coins. If there was no incentive to mine the Ordinal Chain, then why try to find blocks there at all? Plus it would be better for the miners if Ordinals inscriptions stay in the Bitcoin blockchain/keep fees high. |
|
|
|
~
Now those who continue to apply the DCA strategy and do Buy the DIP, and HODL have felt the benefits quite clearly because Bitcoin has exceeded the price of $45K even though it has now returned to $42K with slow movement. But I am also quite sure that the price movement to $45K is still quite open for Bitcoin because this year is still a pretty good year for Bitcoin and its holders.
This is just the beginning and we are still far heights to reach in this bull run and my expectation 130K-150K which I mentioned earlier in this thread and Bitcoin will comfortably reach that value as the next ATH. So anyone who is accumulating bitcoin don't be shaken due to downslides from 45K to 42K or whatever comes in the short term. During 2019 to 2020, only a handful of people in the forum would post confidently that their expectations for Bitcoin would be to reach six digits. Many of the other users, although maybe they believed or hoped that it could happen, would never let everyone know what they were thinking probably because they didn't want to sound and look stupid. Currently, there are many people that have the minimum expectation of $100,000 per Bitcoin. The minimum expectation will be higher and higher as Bitcoin surges higher and higher. |
|
|
|
|
OP, it's not a "smear campaign" if someone merely reported/posted/blogged that the ETF will not be approved. That particular individual could be lying, but that also doesn't make it a smear campaign. Nothing about Bitcoin was "smeared".
Plus for people who continue to DCA, and there's many of them in the forum, it's a good opportunity to buy Bitcoin with a small discount.
|
|
|
|
If you don't have Warren Buffett kind of capital, then it's definitely a bad idea to "diversify" your "portfolio". What we plebs need to do is keep it simple and invest in two or three good cryptocurrencies with Bitcoin getting the largest portion of the investment for "stability". It's funny saying that because Bitcoin is also volatile.
Personally, I have everything HODLed in Bitcoin, and although I might have lesser returns than if I invested in shitcoins, I'm very confident that my money is in the safest, most sound investment in crypto.
I would guess that the main reason for this is that because other alts are not really that great, not because diversification is bad. I mean you are right, but not due to our finances, even a rich person should not be diversifying their portfolio with shit coins, and most of the coins are shitcoins, so it doesn't make sense investing into those stuff. It would make sense if you know what you are doing and invest into good things, but it is not going to be all that easy, so you should definitely be careful about it. No, it's actually because for plebs like us who don't have the kind of capital that Warren Buffett/Berkshire Capital has to invest, too much diversification could be a mistake and would defeat the purpose of speculating on the market in the first place. Diversification's actual purpose is to reduce volatility and to manage risk. But as plebs with little capital, we should embrace volatility and risk. High Risk = High Reward. You want your $10,000 to become $100,000 or more in one or two cycles, not a mere double or triple of your original capital. Personally, I have always suggested to HODL only Bitcoin. But it's only a personal preference. |
|
|
|
|
How is it possible that I made five bets on NBA games with odds between 1.50 and 1.80, all the predicted favorites, and won only one of them?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'm a sports-betting newbie as everyone can obviously see, but does betting on favorites and losing at such a high rate happen often in basketball?
I will pivot to Ice Hockey for the next stage of my sports-betting journey. Hahaha.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
