Of course, many of us regular users would like something like this regular taproot upgrade to just go through quickly, since there really have not been any descriptions of reasons to be opposed to it - unless you might just be against anything that might make bitcoin better - which we should anticipate that there are some miners in the space that are of that opinion, whether they add up to more than 10% to cause a failure to reach consensus might be another question.

So surely, I have heard of various giving the benefit of the doubt to miners and mining pools regarding the first difficulty period, but with the passage of time, if we are not really even coming close to 90% signaling, then there could develop decent amounts of frustration that seemingly obvious upgrades are either being gamed in a dickering around kind of way or even that there might be some incompetency in terms of some miners/pools figuring out how to signal in order that the 90% can be achieved and we can move on to the next stage. 

I do appreciate some activism from miners, node operators and even users in this matter, that may well result in some miners just getting pissed off (fairly early.... if we call "now" early) and to demand explanations or to join pools that are signaling for taproot.  Don't fuck around with these pools who are either passive aggressively failing to signal, incompetent to signal or not providing some kind of reasonable explanation why they are currently not signaling. 

If such non signaling pool is able to provide some reasonable and plausible explanation regarding their failure/refusal to signal and to provide a date, such as June 1 or some other date that they will start to signal, then sure, maybe no need to punish such pools, but otherwise, I would think that regular joe blow miners would want to get this update in place ASAP rather than fucking around (or is the expression "dickering"?) with some mining pools who are not being clear about why they have either not already been signaling or provided some kind of explanation with a signaling projection date that it fairly soon in the future.. giving some benefit of the doubt that there might be "other things" going on in the lives of mining pools (and regular peeps involved) blah blah blah..

At this point (only a few weeks into the "ability to signal"), two weeks^tm (or possibly slightly longer) seems reasonable and acceptable to confirm that the poole is going to start signaling for taproot. 

I think that I am attempting to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, even though I do have my own tendencies to denigrate the tendencies of people to gamble, to buy into the shitcoin talking points and to get distracted by shitcoin pumpenings.  There is a certain level of desire to get rich quick, and then if they see that there could be abilities to put small amounts of money to get large percentages of returns, these kinds of folks will subsequently conclude that they it may well be a good idea to put large amounts of money in order to magnify their returns.

I realize that there is likely NOT a whole hell of a lot that I can do about these matters, but you never know too in terms of attempting to help some people to learn about their self-sabotaging tendencies to be able to learn - at least on the margins to NOT take so many risks with their investments.. to treat their investments like investments rather than like gambling.

So accordingly, some of my real life conversations have caused quite a bit of frustration for me because even some basic principles do not seem to sink in for people, even though I have tendencies to repeat myself over and over and then when they say something about how they interpret a potential plan forward, it seems that little to nothing has sunk in their noggens.. and surely people learn way better when they can experience some matters for themselves, and even with the dumb stubborn fucks (who happen to be friends and relatives) with whom I speak in real life, happen to at least just start to get involved early by setting up some accounts and maybe attempting to control themselves to a wee bit of degree, maybe they will not get too reckt, learn along the way and be able to profit in the longer run by at least attempting to put some level of priority to bitcoin accumulation rather than focusing too much on short term dollar denominated profits or losses.. a work in process and probably gambling tendencies and doubts about bitcoin that are NOT going to go away anytime soon.



Yes.. surely, I see this tendency too, which does provide some hope that at least smart people might realize the bullish case for bitcoin, so the information has always been there and there seems to be some even more compelling kinds of evidence in recent times - even though normies still have tendencies to misread and even fail/refuse to recognize and appreciate some of the bullish information and to act accordingly without getting distracted into shitcoins which may well include valuing their wealth too much in that shitcoin known as dollars which will also cause them to sell too much bitcoin too soon or fail/refuse to buy bitcoin because they are too greedy in their waiting for a dip that might not happen... or failing/refusing to act upon a dip that just happened... I.e our lil dippening to $45,700.



Of course, there are peeps coming around, on the cusp of investing into bitcoin, and even making decently smart statements that should be helpful for normies to recognize and realize both the bullish case for bitcoin and the prudency of taking actions to ensure long term investment plans into bitcoin including getting started, getting a stake,  setting accumulation targets, and acting on their plans, even if their budgets might only allow them to inject modest amounts into bitcoin until perhaps they get their finances in order, which is another problem that normies tend to devolve into... if you cannot get some of your cashflow in order to be able to keep up with expenses, then it might become even more difficult to set aside a bit of the cashflow for investing and recognizing NOT to over do it until getting ones cashflow in order.


These are some justifications that I attempt to suggest that buying on dips also need to be accompanied by DCA practices.  So for example if any normie realizes that he has $1,200 extra in his cashflow that he is able to invest into bitcoin, he may well want to spread that investment out over some period of time including using some to buy right away, using some to DCA and using some to buy on dips.  I know that it seems like it is going to cause fees to become too high or to cause too much complication by creating a lot of small amounts to put in different categories, but I would suggest that the longer that normies practice with these kinds of managements of their cashflow, the easier it becomes, so getting another $1,200 in cashflow that can be allocated to BTC investing ends up getting added to some kind of BTC fund that should already exist and then maybe some of the money has self-created and self-directed timelines such as weekly or monthly that it should be invested which should take away some of the "wait and see" aspect that may well cause some people to be waiting too much for dips that might not happen or kicking themselves when dips happen after already buying decent chunks or using their (weekly, or whatever) allocation of cash to buy bitcoin.

Personally, I was about to give you a merit, but it seems to me that you asked too many questions, and surely you would be capable of doing further analysis to answer your presented questions, at least with enough of a framework that may well stimulate further discussion.

So, for example, frequently in a work environment, if you are presenting information to the boss, and if the problem is complex, the boss is going to get pretty damned pissed off if he were to spend an hour reading over your presentation of the problem without having at least some kind of recommendation for a course forward in terms of how to address the problem.  Surely, the boss will appreciate your presentation and analysis way more if you make a recommendation, even if he does not agree with your recommendation.

Also, if you have presented the facts and logic and analysis in a fairly complete way, the boss can end up taking credit for coming up with a solution for your whole presentation because of how well you outlined the problem.  It's a long way of my saying that I am not going to attempt to answer your questions, and I am kind of in this place where I see that we are ongoingly in the UPPER end of the range, and sure at this particular moment (as I type at $50.5k), we are in a decent consolidation area, but part of the "problem", if you want to call it that, is that the BTC price keeps on gravitating back up to the upper end of the range.. $55k to $59k, so unless we do not make another ATH this month, seems to me to be a bit too early to be proclaiming that we are going down - even though the ongoing froth in the shitcoin space seems to be contributing to even more frustrations regarding trying to figure out what is happening exactly and what is likely to happen next.


Don't say those kinds of things.

Signs that you are breaking, and our current BTC price predicament surely does not seem to be nearly as "bad" as you seem to be making it out to be.

Ultimately, you have to figure out some kind of system that is comfortable for you.

I frequently suggest for peeps to prepare for a wide variety of scenarios of UP, DOWN and sideways, and if you are over invested in UP, then you can really get your self in a pickle if it goes down further and longer than you expected.

I will agree with you that it can be difficult, and I will also agree that it is probably the most difficult while you are in accumulation (and perhaps not even in a profitable stage).  My bitcoins were largely not profitable for my first three years in bitcoin between late 2013 and early to mid 2017.... Surely, there was a decent amount of Upwards price movements that happened in 2016 and 2017, but even in March 2017, there were dips below $1,000 that caused peeps to proclaim that "for sure" that we were revisiting $500, which never ended up happening, but at the time, we could not really know, but any of us investing into bitcoin needed to be prepared financially and psychologically in the event that scenario were to play out  - and maybe without betting too much in either direction, even though we can know only after the fact that UP played out and Down did not.

Regarding your "when" $1million.

We should realize and appreciate that it would be possible for BTC to reach $1million this cycle, even though it would be a long shot, and it is quite likely that this cycle has less than a year to play out -absent that this  cycle plays out a bit longer, such as up to an additional 18 months from now.

Once we see how this cycle plays out, including figuring out what might be the jumping off point for the next cycle, then we will have some better ideas about whether $1million might be reasonable and/or possible for the next cycle... so yeah, it could make a pretty BIG difference if our top for this cycle were to already be "in and then our jumping off point might end up being $20k or $30k for the next cycle (which seems quite doubtful of a scenario), versus the more likely scenario that this cycle plays out into a $150k to $350k top, and thereafter has a correction and a jumping off point for the next cycle in the $60k to $100k range - which seems to cause $1million to be considerably within reach for the next cycle.

Sure, we can make assumptions about how each of the cycles might play out in order to answer our question of when but I do believe that within the next three cycles seems quite likely for reaching $1million and a bit of a stretch to make it this particular cycle, even if the odds seem to become greater and greater for each upcoming cycle- assuming that these cycles continue to play out.. which there really seems to be little to no evidence to presume disappearance of cycles within the next three cycles, either... at least at this time.


You are going to need a pretty damned BIG family (and/or island work crew) to eat a whole cow in 6 months to a year, and frozen beef doesn't really keep very well... in my experience... so if you have 10 people living on the island or maybe more, then you are going to need other kinds of meats, too... seems like, so you end up needing to manage quite a few people and animals and might take some getting used to systems.. and trials and errors to find the right peeps.. assuming that you had already found the right spouse.

Well, as plebs, we have been very lucky to have had bitcoin as an investment opportunity, and frequently there are a lot of real difficulties to enter into investments without having a lot of capital beforehand.

Bitcoin has really allowed plebs to be able to figure out their budgets and then just enter at whatever level is comfortable for them whether that is $5 per week or some other modest amount.  Even $100 a week might not be a lot these days given the amount of money printing going on, but at the same time, historically, plebs had difficulties being able to enter into investments at their own paces, and surely we know if plebs spend enough time investing into bitcoin, they will be able to build a base, and there are good odds that bitcoin will continue to outperform any other investments.  

In recent months, I have been meeting with quite a few people in real life and talking about bitcoin, and they just seem so god damned ongoingly distracted by either wanting to get into shitcoins or gambling in other ways with their bitcoin approach.  I frequently suggest the same thing, including getting started right away.. and don't get distracted by shitcoins.

So, any pleb, who ends up attempting to restrain themselves a bit more and at least get started with bitcoin, and even study along the way, will likely profit quite well in the coming years, including our dip from today down to $45,700-ish.... Sure, if you already have your bitcoin related accounts set up (or your ways to get bitcoin exposure), you have some money in the accounts, and perhaps you have some kinds of plans to buy in various scenarios, including buying on dips, today's dip (within the past six hours at the time of this post) seems to have been a pretty decent buying opportunity - and sure, none of us know if it is going to dip more or not.. even though we have seen BTC prices bouncing around between about $42k-ish and $65k-ish for the past 3.5 months, and even looking at those past 3.5 months the BTC price trend does continue to appear to be UPpity inclined... time will tell.

I will kind of go along with your point that the merit system might not be the most fair system, but I doubt that creating additional requirements for merit sources would be very helpful.  There seems to be a decent amount of subjectivity and even lack of imposition of requirements for merit sources which likely causes it to be kind of less centralized... even though sure, having the same merit sources for a long time, likely gravitates towards greater centralization, so what would be the solution to make it more fair?  Have more merit sources or rotating merit sources, which is something that theymos could do.. perhaps?

Sure there could be more clear guidelines for merit sources too, including that they spend their merits or lose their position or lose their allocation, and if there seems to be needs for tweaking and ongoing monitoring and tweaking of the system in order to attempt to make it more fair, then maybe theymos should appoint a merit system czar?  Not sure if that would help, or if theymos's seeming choice to NOT change the system very often is more fair from his perspective, which seems that NOT making changes very often seems to be where he is at, at this time.

hahahahaha

You do sound distracted.

Actually, I largely agree with you that ethereum and maybe other shitcoins could end up surpassing bitcoin, and even if you want to focus on ethereum specifically (as if there were actually some there there), sure I can concede that it could pump beyond bitcoin or even become double bitcoin's share, but I am not going to concede that to have much if any significance in terms of making it foundations stronger, at least in terms of where ethereum happens to be at currently and the fact that it is a piece of shit that is used as a vehicle to support various other pieces of shit.  Sure, I cannot have much certainty where any of this might end up going, but it goes to show you that market cap should be taken with a considerable grain of salt if you are concerned about actual value investing and DOWNside risks that could happen anytime with a project such as ethereum that is built on shit with little likelihood of improvement beyond making more dog and pony shows and also having other shit that is built upon it that could also bring it down in a variety of ways, but hey keep investing in that crap and/or based on momentum that you believe will continue and could stop on you (or is the term get rug pulled?) at any time with no there there.

Another analysis point does involve how strong bitcoin happens to be, and so many of these shitcoins, including ethereum or whatever other shitcoin that you want to attempt to analyze, would have little to no value were bitcoin NOT as strong as it is.  Yeah, I have heard a lot of deluded speculation that a variety of shitcoins, including ethereum would be just fine without bitcoin - which you really should be doing a double take for anyone who actually has drunk the koolaide so much as to believe that shit (including yourself, KTChampions, if you happen to believe that nonsense - and based on the seeming delusional conclusion of your post in terms of what significance you put on a potential ethereum flippening, if it were to happen, I suspect you might believe that ).

First of all, largely proudhon has repeatedly said what he means by "tank" or whatever variation of nonsense that he has been attention whoring spouting out on a pretty regular basis for the past year or longer.  And, of course, even he has had to continue to move it up because he can still get the same nonsensical sensational effect with BIGGER numbers than what he was needing to use a year ago or so.

In other words, proudhon speaks gobbledy gook that hardly even has much meaning - beyond largely amounting to the opposite what has been happening in bitcoinlandia and likely to continue to happen in bitcoin price performance.

At first, cAPSLOCK, I presumed your use of "hard" to be in the same negative direction, but then as I was typing about pie in the sky proudhon, I realized that your hard could be read as descriptive in either direction, so I decided NOT to presume that you are giving much weight to DOWNity, at least not at our current particular price location.. Oh my, almost too good to be true, even though I hate presuming too much of anything, either. 

Ongoingly, it just seems so weird that there are so many people who are getting more and more exposure to bitcoin and they cannot see where we are at, and yeah, I can see what they are seeing, because I see the same thing.  I look at Bitcoin's price performance chart on the 5 year, for example, and I see what seems to be a 2017 blip and then I see the vast majority of UPpity at the very end of the chart, so ebez bejebez, I can appreciate why so many peeps consider some worries about DCA'ing into this, even though we really do seem to be ongoing and persistent ranging at the top.. which seems to indicate more UPpity, rather than a correction from here.. but whatevers.. we are all going to have to find out and see whether some of the getting into BTC now and at these "seemingly high" prices ends up being the better of the ways forward.

Another thing, I have been kind of working with someone recently, and her bit of radio-silence causes me to speculate that she is likely approaching BTC in a way more timid manner than would be and should be prudent based on the information that I had already discussed with her and she seems to be largely having difficulties in absorbing... even though likely she is taking some BTC stake in current times, I am speculating that it is way too timid, even based on the totality of her own circumstances (to the extent that I understand them to be).

I was thinking something very similarly in regards to Searing's plans, because many of us already realize some aspects of his situation including some of his bitcoin (and perhaps crypto) preparations, and with something like a 20 year timeline, fuck, someone in anything even close to his situation (to the extent that we even closely understand some approximation of it) should not even be needing to put very much weight into those various kinds of public subsidized solutions - even if it could be a kind of back-up plan in the event bitcoin were to go to zero or some very low valuation at a time that drawing on such funds would be needed.

In other words, seems to me that someone like searing is in a very good situation, and even relative to other people of his same age and even seems as if he is thinking too small.  

Even though I can appreciate ongoing conservatism in the way that finances are treated and considered, especially when involving future performance, projections, but even with all of that, it seems that searing continues to be way too pessimistic and negative and it's like he does not realize that he has transitioned into a kind of richie/fuck you status. It is like he has neither learned how to be richie or how to plan his future in a richie kind of expectation (even though the future is surely not guaranteed).  But, even if the future is not guaranteed, the BTC price prediction models - even treating them conservative as fuck, should likely allow for someone in a similar situation as searing to actually be able to contemplate various private personal care solutions that are not subsidized and are likely going to put him in a way better position than he expects, even if he has to start using those kinds of services way before his 20 year expectations.

Even one more bitcoin cycle.. assuming this cycle peaks around 3 to 16 months from now, then we potentially have some depressing times, there seem to hardly be any evidence to be presuming doom and gloom, so even something conservative like a 2x situation after the next cycle (that would be 4-6 years from now) over today's prices would still put searing in a very well off position - even if he screws up pretty BIGGLY in a few ways (including panic-selling some stash like a screaming little girl).. which I am not going to put it passed him or anyone else, even if they have had a decently good HODL past practice... which I would largely put searing into that dominantly HODLing camp (even if he were to shave off 50% at a weak point and bad time.. still likely to be sitting quite pretty after another cycle.. which is way less than 20 years).


That surely is part of the fuzziness in Biodom's analysis in trying to draw those kinds of parallels to bitcoin - even though there could be some helpful insights, such analysis remains quite incomplete without attempting to really particularize bitcoin's circumstances as paradigm changing at the protocol level rather than the kinds of innovation that was going on at second layer levels in terms of the kinds of various companies that Biodom was pointing out in the late 90s early 2000s in regards to internet-related innovations and developments.


Exactly...

There is a BIG fucking difference when we are talking about a money protocol on the fucking first layer.. never been successfully invented before, versus even what was going on at the internet protocol with very little value at stake in terms of bitcoin's killer app.. se llama money.  Part of the thing that makes bitcoin so god damned amazing in terms of having so many things built into it in regards to money and accounting and then other things that can be built on top of it without having to trust and even people trying to game the system ends u making it stronger.. including shitcoins that imitate it but don't even come close to competing with it while they distract greedy fucks into wanting to get rich quick on the next bitcoin that has about a snowballs chance of happening.. especially with more and more passage of time with bitcoin remaining king and no one really seriously undermining it, in spite of various direct and indirect efforts  - subtle and not so subtle efforts, bitcoin keeps plodding along and absorbing more and more value.. and you better fucking get in it while it is still relatively cheap.  think about 10 years from now when some of the bitcoin naysayers, no coiners, altcoin pumpeners, and the other various skeptics finally come to realize that bitcoin has a wee bit more staying power than they thought and there was a bit more foundational aspects to bitcoin than they thought, and some of us who were suggesting that they just put in 1%, even if they are a skeptic, and they would not listen because they were too smart for their own good with their stupid-ass attempts to analyze bitcoin as if it were a company.. blah blah blah... failing and refusing to either recognize what differentiates bitcoin or at least taking a wee bit of a stake into bitcoin in the even that it might catch on.   

You are going to get batslapped if you are proclaiming to be able to time the high of this cycle.

Sure it is possible, but it would probably be luck more than anything, even though getting 10% to 20% might even fairly be within the top, but I would imagine you are proposing that you might have an ability to get within less than 10% of the top, no?   (so for our $19,666 top in 2017, you would have had to have sold above $17,700 - which would not have been impossible but still quite difficult to accomplish in real life practices)

I suggest that it is likely going to be more luck than skill for anyone to really reasonably be able to get within 10% of our pending top for this particular cycle whether that be $150k, $300k $500k, $1million, $1.5 million or some other number, presuming that the top has not already been reached at $64,895... you do seem to be presuming BTC prices to be topping somewhere at minimum in the $150k territory since you are presuming a $100k to $200k drop in prices, so gosh to get a $200k drop in prices we would probably need to at least get to $230k in this cycle, no?


Ok.  good for you, Paashaas, to have a ballpark number in mind.. but still seems to be a bit of luck required if you are going to hit the top within 10% or so, and of course, you will need to attempt to account for actual on the ground facts in terms of what you are anticipating today, and if some facts change that cause you to need to tweak your numbers in order that you can hopefully time the top and the bottom of the cycle or something in the ballpark of it  (within 10% or so?).


It's good.  It means that the miners are quite on top of things, at least for the time-being.


That helps.

Thanks for that biodom.

 

Shake it off!


Shake it off!

like water off of a duck's back.


Exactamente!!!!!

That's what "we" (Royal of course) be talking about.


This is a real big muddle in terms of trying to compare bitcoin (including "crypto") to some other dynamics such as the internet markets in the late 90s early 20s.  It's like you are muddying your thinking into failing and refusing to account for actual credible bitcoin price prediction models such as 1) stock to flow, 2) four-year fractal and 3) exponential s-curve adoption based on metcalfe principles and networking effects - so in the end you are all over the place in your attempt to discuss the matter and to project where the dog is going to go based on happenings in the tail... .hahahaha.. even though you do seem to actually recognize that bitcoin is the dog, so that should help you a wee bit from making too many fucked up mistakes in your muddied analysis that seems to purposefully avoid some of the strongest underlying BTC price prediction models that should be helping your thinking on the topic if you were not so stubborn as to completely ignore them and try to reinvent the wheel with a supposed novel theory that is not even that novel because it comes off as if you might have been trained in some shitcoin talking point school in order to come up with that doosey of an analysis.

 

This kind of thinking is a wee bit pathetic, but I understand the inclination to employ it.


There are some rules in bitcoin that are going to really fuck you if you try to apply them to crypto (aka shitcoins)... .case in point... is Loyce's list of supposed rules.. ..... careful out there boyz.. and girl


Opsec...

Careful.. boys and girls.

 


When though, Philip?  Are you lowering your expectations for $70k or are you just asserting that $65k is going to come before $70k, for sure? (I know that you are mad at me, but whatevers)

 


I remember peeps getting so worked up about some words out of Biden's mouth about capital gains taxes that were not very likely to pass, and surely there were some exaggerated interpretations therein.

In this particular case of the "Secure 2" act that you proclaim to be pending, is it really going to go through or is it largely in the theoretical stages rather than being an actual factor that is going to affect real live people (or at least the descendants) in the near future?

I just looked at all my shitcoins added together which added to a very small amount of money (relatively speaking) a few months ago, and now the whole thing is up around 15x.. which adds up to a decent amount of money, relatively speaking (at least in terms of dollars).   I am still giving few fucks, but part of the being spoiled aspect comes from having a certain amount of valuing wealth in terms of bitcoin rather than either dollars or shitcoins, and I am not even saying that the dollar value of the bitcoin does not matter because measuring the bitcoin in terms of their dollar value does give some kind of way to gauge both the value of the bitcoins and also the value of other assets, currencies and even the various shitcoins that I hold.

Actually, relative to the dollar, maybe even most shitcoins will do better - even if they are likely to continue to lose value relative to bitcoin in the long term even while appearing to gain some value (relative to bitcoin) in the short term.


Now you want to blame me for your feelings that you have to defend your shitty, off topic posts?  Jbreher used to make the same kinds of nonsense assertions attempting to defend why he was talking about shitcoins, and perhaps he is going to come back because his favorite shitcoin, also known as bsv, has been pumpening in recent times.


Well, that's good.

At least some of us can be less mad at you in regards to that ideological position, even though I was not making any claim about your ideology but instead your wanting to post off topic shit in order to edumacate us in ways that you believe that your shitcoin is supposedly related to bitcoin because you have been making more bitcoin from it blah blah blah.



Yes.. and you are concluding that your information is relevant to this thread, and I am suggesting that there might be a better place to post.  You can do what you want, and we surely can have differing opinions.. that's for sure.


Your perspective here comes off as a bit strange.

You want to suggest that posts need to be responded to in a "timely" manner?  Otherwise, they should no longer be responded to and worse yet, quoted? 

Seems a bit strange to me, but sure, you are "entitled" to express your opinion, which you have even if it seems a bit dumb and opportunistic to me.. because sometimes people (including yours truly) might not be able to read or respond to posts within the timeline that you would like to impose upon "us" (royal of course), and you seem to be suggesting that it is disingenuous or whatever to quote an older post that might have not been seen earlier.    By the way, sometimes members will cite topics from several weeks or months earlier because they had not seen those posts earlier, even though I will concede that there does seem to be a wee bit of recentcy bias in this thread in terms of sticking to topics that are "currently trending" or whatever.

In any event, I do consider that you are grasping at straws a bit or maybe even merely arguing for the mere sake of it when you are trying to oppose my response based on its timeliness.  Sure, through the years, I have surely witnessed more ridiculous claims than that timeliness claim through the years, but you do have a decent running in such ridiculous competition at this point with that assertion that responses to posts need to be made in a timely manner (whatever that means?)  ..     

Don't put too much oil (speaking from experience, here).  It will get too slippery and it won't work properly.

#nohomo.


Ok... fair enough.

Even if sirazimuth's oiling experiences do not go too well, he will at least have a story to tell from it, so there is that angle, too.


May or may not happen, budd.  Seems to not be too great to be betting on matters that might not be much further than 50/50 in terms of which direction is going to be next.. it surely is not obvious, even if you seem to be describing the matter with such insinuations.

You should not be fucking around with very BIG percentages of your BTC portfolio trying to time the market or predict the "next" direction, because you can play all the technical analysis as you want and even throw in a few reverse psychology indicators, and still end up getting fucked when the odds were in your favor.

Sure, everyone has their system, but many times it seems to be way better to ONLY be playing around with a small portion of your BTC holdings if you are betting against King Daddy.. and sure, I understand that some guys do end up having formulas that allow them to lose a decent percentage of their bets and still come out ahead by employing their various timing and directional tactics.


Oh gawd... it surely is a slippery slope, lightfoot...

You can say... "at least... blah blah blah" but then later you might find out about the various dumb shit that he did because he thought that he was smarter.. I have seen the same thing over and over.  Even with folks who you believe to have a decent grasp on matters, and they still cannot resist short-term gambling... even with a kind of roulette or flip the coin kind of gambling odds.. including having to account for having some costs (or fees) involved too.

Your first point about quality can be subjective or objective, so source members are going to come to very differing conclusions about those kinds of matters, and I doubt that theymos would have any problems with that and the standard does seem to be more concerned with either potential abuse or even being inactive.. but lots of latitude seems to be allowed in determining posts/members to merit. .. .so in other words, findingnemo, if theymos wants to consider your merit distribution philosophy, he may well either add you (or your type of a member) as a source or increase your smerits if you already are a source, to the extent that theymos even wants to do any incremental changes to what is already happening.

I do agree with you that there does seem to be a number of merit sources who have decently (or would it be relatively) small source allocations, and of course, relative to a non merit source member, anything might seem like a lot, but relative to some other members, it may seem like a little.. 100 is actually not a bad quantity.. and even 50 or 60, which would still be 2 source merits per day.. so sure, it might be difficult to know or to hypothesize if tweaking a few members might be helpful or if theymos might be considering that if he does it, then he is going to do something BIGGER.. (so speculating again, regarding what theymos might be thinking in terms of tweaking, big changes or even total overhall - which would also be potentially scarie, until it were to actually happen and we know what we would be dealing with - under such a total overhall scenario, were it to occur).

Jelly that you do not seem to know how to take that nonsense to some other thread.

Gets a bit old, phillip..


Even though I react to post, and call names to you ill-focused shitstirrers, I really doubt that I am emotional about the whole matter, even if you might be reading emotion into the situation.


Length would naturally follow in something that needs to be backed up by evidence or discussion in order to attempt to clarify the point(s).

Yeah, sure, not everyone (even here) realize that it is NOT very healthy for your own brain or even likely your investment portfolio to be getting too distracted by shitcoins, so yeah historically, we have already seen that a lot of folks do like to get distracted by shitcoins, even in this thread, and some of them do end up getting fucked pretty bad because of their weaknesses in getting distracted, so sure, who knows which one(s) of you fucks are going to end up getting fucked this time.. hahahha.. Don't come come running to this thread for help after you get fucked based on your inabilities to focus ur lil selfies... #no homo.

Generally, my most recent practice has been to attempt to give 1 merit to almost anything that seems to have some contributory value even if I might not personally agree with the points being made - but then I do not generally attempt to go out of my way to look for posts to merit - except maybe every once in a while when I feel that I have enough extra time to explore around the forum a bit.

By the way, maybe only about 1 out of a 100 of my sent merits are 2 merits or more, probably 1 out of 1,000 are 3 merits, which is the max that I ever have given to date.. hahahahahaha.. mine is a wee bit of a differing philosophy that might not be as suitable to other members who are deciding how many merits to send to any given post or member.


In essence, you are really asking theymos for an increase in the quantity of your source merits, Pharmacist.  

Even if theymos decides to tweak the merit system in a variety of ways, I really doubt that he is going to tweak the 30-day replenishment matter - which seems to work pretty decently and any of us should be able to figure out ways to manage that, but I do agree that there may be some of us who feel that we do not have enough source merits being issued because we are frequently running out (which seems to be the point that you are making about yourself, Pharmacist) - versus those merit source members who may well be not even using all of their source merits which causes those source merits to expire after not using them within 30 days of being issued..

I am merely speculating that there may well be those kinds of merit source members, too.. who are seeming to be quite inactive as you guys have already mentioned, but theymos likely is able to completely break those kinds of matters down because the quantity of merits that merit sources have is not public information, even if some have disclosed their levels and some of that information can be somewhat extrapolated through some of the threads on the topic, including the Coin-1 "generosity" thread.

Sure, theymos has not really said anything on the topic either, as far as I know, so sometimes we might try to speculate what he is thinking based on his lack of saying anything or anything that he said or done that relates to the topic that might seem to be getting long in the tooth, at this point.  I do like the idea of getting more active merit sources, but I don't even feel very qualified to know what might be some of the trade offs that are being considered, but if overall the number of merits that are being sent is going down and maybe even that some deserving posts, threads (or members) are not getting merits, then there may be some good contributions that are being missed, perhaps? perhaps?

By the way, I can see why some source members might not be sending merits because sometimes it can take some time to read through some threads (or posts) and figure out if that post might seem to be adding some value whether objective or subjective impressions are used to determine if there might be any "value" there, but if some members might have more scattered use of the forum, they might not even feel comfortable enough to conclude value on a subjective level.. and sure I agree that there may also be some members who may well be considering way too high of standards before even squeaking out the sending of one smerit.

I recall early in the merit system, one source member who had stated that he would ONLY send merits if blah blah blah was met, which sometimes might seem a bit extreme of considerations for a source to have such rigid standards, but still there has been a considerable amount of latitude that theymos has left with source members and may well result (even to this day) that source members end up being a wee bit too stingy in what they would like to see before they send an smerit to a post, thread or member.

Even though I would phrase these matters a bit differently than you, I am not really that interested in continuing to pursue these topics at this time, and largely I don't really disagree with the points that you are making in this particular post.

Keep hoping.

Pretty soon you are going to be correct, and you can tell the rest of us to fuck off because you are an actual sorcerer rather than being a "wannabe sorcerer."  

 


Well, some of us have also come to realize that some "professional" financial advisors are handicapt by some of their own allocation and reallocation philosophies.

So, even though I surely do not claim to have any financial advisor professionalistic skills because I do not know a large variety of the products that might be available to a financial advisor, but they are some times even mandated to reallocate on a regular basis that could cause them to miss the hell out of really profiting from something like bitcoin in the event that it were to run.

So even though I personally advise (if you can call it that.. maybe better to call it suggest) that newbies consider 1% to 10% as their starting investment range in bitcoin, that is merely a "starting" recommendation and not a limit nor something that you necessarily would need to reallocate back to such an allocation in the event that bitcoin were to go on a 10x to 80x run after you had already made your allocation decision... so surely decisions about staring allocation, decisions about allocation after a pumpening and/or decisions about whether or how to reallocate can cause a variety of outcomes that the supposed professional financial advisors would not recommend or even understand even while they are holding themselves out as purported experts.


In other words, you are not ready for retirement.


Exactly.

That's what I am saying, and that kind of matter needs to be considered - including that individuals have discretion in terms of whether it is wise to reallocate or not, or to consider some other way of lessening their risk  or if they do decide to reallocate, then how much?


Stable, yeah right... until it is not.