Seems to me that the idea of this whole topic revolves around investing a dollar a day - or at least regularly buying BTC at no matter what the BTC price... which is a form of dollar cost averaging buying.

Of course, if you selectively pick a period and you lump sum invest in BTC at the top of the BTC and then you do not invest in BTC again, then it is going to take way more time for your BTC investment to get back into the black - however, DCA investing can be shown to be profitable, even if you had started investing at the top of BTC's historical price.

Look at this DCA website to see that the longer the period showing a three year investment in BTC as compared to gold and Dow Jones Industrial average.  You can play around with the time settings at such linked website and verify that historically the more your BTC portfolio will be in profits in terms of the greater the amount of time that you had been invested in BTC.

Of course, past BTC price performance does not guarantee future BTC price performance results, but really we do not have any kind of meaningful evidence now in existence to show that BTC is lessening in terms of potentially serving as an ongoing good investment in current times and into the future.   Furthermore, current BTC prices seem to continue to show ongoing asymmetric betting on BTC in comparison to any other asset classes - whether we are comparing BTC's current position and fundamentals to traditional asset classes or to various shitcoins.

In other words, bitcoin remains the likely ongoing leader in terms of any asset class that any person (whether normie, poor person, institution or even government) should be motivated to invest into using dollar cost averaging principles and practices so long as their investment timeline is 4 years or greater, and of course, the longer the investment timeline, the more likely that the employment of DCA principles and practices and solid ongoing accumulation of BTC along the way is likely to show profits and even decent likelihood of prosperity (of course, no guarantees with any investment that anyone chooses to make).

So part of the point that seems to be argued in this thread (and through OP) is to consider the BTC investment thesis in terms of DCA practices and principles rather than lump-sum investing and attempting to time the market and in your example situations that you argue, in which the lump sum investing at the top of the BTC price ends up in a long period of the BTC portfolio being in the red - which circumstances seem to be the exception rather than the rule in BTC that historical analysis of the BTC price performance shows - would have largely resolved that being in the red situation through an ongoing DCA approach.

I appreciate the recent analysis/discussion of Andy Edstrom, Preston Pysh and Brady on the Swan Signal podcast (interview about 1 hour in duration) from a couple of days ago regarding the strategies that were employed by Microstrategy (MSTR) to ensure that they offered then current MSTR share holders an opportunity to get bought out of their MSTR stock prior to Microstrategy's beginning their significantly-sized endeavor into BTC HODLing.

In other words, Microstrategy seemed to have been more than responsible in not only disclosing what they were doing with the company to their shareholders, but also providing opportunity to those then existing shareholders who were not on the same page to get the fuck out of MSTR (at a then premium price).

The little snip that you provided, VB1001, mentions that the options largely provide a means for BIGGER players to get into BTC, but from the underlying, neither a bullish nor bearish determination can be assessed. 

You, VB1001, seem also to be guarded in terms of trying to figure out if there might be a direction one way or another that might be incentivized by the end of the week expiration of the outstanding options.  I suppose that there might be some BIGGER players that might want to attempt to play the BTC market and use options as one of their tools to attempt to play the market, but even the recent statement from Michael Slayor and his purchase of more than 38k BTC in the past several weeks, his assessment was that he was surprised that even his relatively large purchase of $425million in BTC in a relatively short period of time was able to be accomplished without a lot of BTC price slippage.... which surely is a sign that BTC prices are likely requiring more and more commitment of capital in order to even attempt to manipulate the prices whether we are referring to attempts to take advantage of options bets or some other tool that some BIGGER players might attempt to deploy to make money based on BTC volatility or possible abilities to cause BTC to be more volatile than some traditional (longer history) asset classes.

I am not really attempting to proclaim any kind of knowledge either regarding how option expiration dates might play into possible BTC price movements, but surely it should not hurt to have knowledge of this kind of data for those nerds, like yours truly, who spend a decent amount of time each day looking at whether BTC prices have gone up or down - over various snapshot periods of time. 

Yeah right....

You are likely lacking reading comprehension if you are going down the road to proclaim that logic is missing within certain walls of text or as a general statement that all walls of text, including those of yours truly, are lacking in logic.

You sir, are either lacking in reading comprehension abilities (or other abilities, such as logic comprehension), or you are lacking in will power to attempt to understand words that are so courteously placed before you in the form of text (perhaps a wall, but still  - if you want to be treated like an adult, try to comprehend, you must.).     Nobody is trying to play tricks with you, merely because they are using words to 'splain their lil selfies.




Your argument is pie in the sky nonsense in regards to a fear of a future of bitcoin evolving in a way that squeezes out the little guy...

You have hardly any evidence of that beyond pure speculation, and why the fuck do you believe that bitcoin had adopted segregated witness rather than increasing the block limit size?  That is in order that little normie people can run nodes.. .Have you heard about that kind of inclusiveness phenomena that puts power of the chain in the hands of the people through consensus mechanisms?

 

Of course, there is going to be a combination of off chain and on chain.  Did someone send you over from the bcash nutjober camp to make these speculative baloney points?

 

Lightning network and other side chains provides options.. and we will see how they evolve and how empowering they are for people.

Seems that there are a lot developers on the lightning network who are trying to make it similarly empowering in terms of giving individuals abilities to spend their bitcoin, to the extent they are going to want to do that in the future.. and lots of work seems to still need to be done regarding user interface of some of these second layer systems...
 

You seem to be the one making doom and gloom predictions regarding supposed future exclusion of normies from bitcoin when there hardly seems to be evidence of that beyond your pie in the sky fear-based speculations.


Another doomer/gloomer.

As you likely realize Torque, one of the great powers of bitcoin is to be able to accomplish quick and easy possession of such bitcoin, which is a whole fuck of a lot more difficult to accomplish with gold.. and fuck that paper backed crap... if you really want to demand possession of paper backed gold, you are not getting anywhere as compared to demanding possession of the actual gold (which as you know is way more difficult to get possession, especially if talking about very large quantities).  

Accordingly, there is a distinction in bitcoin that makes a difference, and you should well know about the material difference of that distinction, too, Torque.

I would suggest that it is quite likely that human (individual) behavior is going to change based on such options that are available to them (that were not previously available to them), and some people are going to choose to keep some, if not all of their bitcoin in their own possession, so they do not have to depend upon the integrity of institutions that have actually fucked over a lot of people in the past in terms of their control over assets.

Surely, institutions are going to be forced to be more honest, too, if they realize that people are not going to tolerate entrusting them with their bitcoin, unless they know that they can get possession of the bitcoin upon demand... and least the smarter hodlers will engage in such behavior, which will force (incentivize) institutions to be more honest - if they want to survive as bitcoin becomes more and more dominating.. and it could take many years for these incentives and understandings to play out.... and I am glad that some of us already recognize the power of holding our own corn.


cAPSLOCK said it first.

O.k.  Well that is fair enough.  I think that with anything, we might not appreciate the gravity or importance of whatever that thing is, because I can hardly even imagine trying to study bitcoin at any time between 2007 and 2013, I had way too many other things on my plate to juggle, and sometimes I am even surprised that I made it through those years with the various things that I was juggling through that period (not that bitcoin was really even around or an option in 2007 or 2008 - and surely, most normies - meaning non-technical/non cypherpunk folks -like myself- would not have even heard of bitcoin in 2009 or even 2010 for that matter).



Sure, that is a bit much to ponder, and I am not going to deny that you have much more of a technical (and software/computer specific) background than me, too.  My profession was much more general and social sciency than your background... so there is that different angle that might make it somewhat difficult for me to ponder too much.


Thanks for clarifying that, and I don't really want to go there with you in regards to how you might be divesting or liquidating, and seems that we may have been using the terms a wee bit differently.

We both likely agree that there are likely longer term problems of holding too much fiat, but I doubt that we would disagree that holding some fiat can be quite helpful for living in the "real world" including if we have real world living expenses, and yeah I heard you updated from your shitty van to a nicer one (not that you are living in it.. hahahahaha... nothing wrong with that).. a couple years ago.. so that is great, those life pleasures cost monies.



I have had some decently BIG sized losses along the way, too, and of course, no one really likes losing money, but like you seem to be implying some of the losses might come with the territory, too.


I have a similar situation in terms of accounting for all or most of my losses, the amount of BTC price appreciation is still quite great, even if calculating all of the losses, even though the losses do bring up the cost per BTC - if attempting to make overall calculations.

Furthermore, I have found that sometimes the specifics can also get a little lost in the whole process of calculating, because for example, if there is a desire to calculate some costs and losses within a certain kind of category, then sometimes we might totally forget about some profits are losses that had already been totally accounted for and "written off" as compared with overall assets (and categories of assets) that we still might hold and be potentially juggling around from time to time.

By the way, I am no way trying to inquire about the size of your BTC stash because I hardly have any interest in comparing stash sizes or whatever or even proclaiming that I own more than a few BTC, but we must concede that it can make a whole hell of a lot of difference if guy might have acquired 500 BTC or more for $20 each or if a guy might be working with a stash of 10 or fewer BTC, which surely we should be able to imagine that amounts of BTC are more than just trivial amounts.  

Both you and I likely recognize some newbies (or even trolls) coming into the WO thread and proclaiming their various trading strategies, and blah blah blah, they are selling it all and blah blah blah, and they are working with fractions of a BTC as their whole stash, and sure these days fractions of a BTC can add up to a lot of money, but some of those shittwats were coming into this thread in 2015 (when BTC prices were largely in the mid $200s for most of the year) and trading fractions of a BTC while proclaiming their BTC strategies as if they were working with some kind of meaningful bank.




Get out of here.... when we are talking about stamp, we are referring to price movements and price dynamics and general reference shit like that...

So sure, I understand that the price went higher on some exchanges at the peak in 2017, and even in S.Korea they had some prices in the $30k arena.. and sure some people might have been able to get their dollars out of those higher priced areas.. so sure, it can be a bit of a fair disclosure to have sold some BTC towards the top and above the top and all of that .. but neither you nor I have been working like that, for the most part both of us have been attempting to practice some variation of incrementalism, but sure, maybe even an incrementalist is going to engage in some lump summing here and there along the way.

I doubt that we are competing against each other in that regard.


I know about your mercedes or whatever it is.  No problem.  And, surely you are having some other pleasures along the way, too.

You know what, if you had put even any kind of decent stash in bitcoin at all and have average BTC prices of below $20-ish, then you should have no compunction at all about shaving off some BTC here and there along the way, unless you failed/refused to establish any kind of significant stash and maybe you only have less than 100 BTC, then you might be a bit more worried about shaving off some BTC along the way, here and there.  Perhaps?


You are being a bit back and forth here... so you gotta admit that.  I had heard that you quit your regular job a couple of years ago.. so anyhow, that still would not necessarily mean that you are "well into the divestment phase" of your BTC unless you choose to start to make such divestments.  

People can retire from their regular JOBs, but that does not necessarily mean that they are immediately starting to draw into their BTC plan - so anyhow, you seem to be a bit all over the place in the way that you have been sharing some of these ideas.

All of a sudden,  you want to hold ur lil selfie out as a kind of baller?  Go figure?


You can describe it how you like.  Whatever.. it is getting to be a bit much and a bit scrambled in my thinking.

Of course, you do not need to go on some beach and detach yourself from the world, anyhow, there might NOT be any need to go too much into any kind of detail in regards to how you might be getting more involved in shitcoins or whatever area that you might be aiming to divert this discussion.


You had not been a lavish kind of guy in the past.  You were more of a practical kind of guy.. sure lavish here and there, but you hung onto your van for years and years, but now, you are wanting to hold ur lil selfie out as the lavish lambo kind of guy?

Don't get me wrong.  I have no problems in changing lifestyles and all of that, but for some strange reason you seem like you are leaning towards wanting to sell something rather than merely discussing what you may have meant by all of a sudden being "well into divestment" when you were not seemingly in that stage just a few years ago.. and even stating that you were not planning to make any sudden changes.. blah blah blah..


Fair enough.  I may have phrased that accusation, a bit badly.  


You been taking litigation lessons from diptwats? Craig and Calvin.

Get the fuck out of here with your confrontation, nonsense.


Yes.  I have heard your nonsense proclamations previously, which largely amount to bashing bitcoin and pumping your shitcoin... Not really interested in getting into those details.. .. and so you are not really saying anything new that needs to be addressed, are you?


I could give less than two shits about your desire to distinguish one variant of bcash from another variant of bcash.  They are both just differing variations of trash, and we need not attempt to further (and repeatedly) flesh out the details of any of that here (even if there might be some new developments), do we?


Oh gawd!!!!!    

Looks like you are all riled up at the moment, and not planning on giving up on your shitcoin any time soon (which I had not anticipated you to be going in the giving up direction, anyhow).  Currently, I am not really interested in repeating our battle in the direction of these various ongoing pie in the sky aspirations of yours and your shitcoin bed buddies.


Yep.

I was a bit struck too (or maybe the better word choice would be "awed"?), by the jbreher strategic placement of that unimportant metric.

I did post the below message as a kind of light hearted/fun gesture/response, but I pulled it back (deleted it) after I had posted it (maybe within about a minute or two after I had posted it) because I thought that I may have gone a bit too far in my own making light (or funzies) out of the mini-drama situation.  

Personally, I don't mind a bit of a back and forth battle of ideas and differences of opinions regarding substantive ideas or even different opinions about the intentions and past practices of other members, here and there.  Sometimes we can learn from those kinds of vigorous back and forth battles, but sometimes the tone and the intentions might get lost within the posts, and some members do have more troubles with English, too... or even making sure that they put reasonable disclaimers in their posts from time to time - but the odds are quite high that peeps are going to get misunderstood from time to time when we are dealing with written format (that we might not have if we were meeting at a table at a bar - or maybe the misunderstandings would be different if we were at a bar because we might each be trying to impress/or pick up on the waitress.. and then get in a fight over that).... but in the end, I believe that it is more than o.k. to even vigorously disagree with other members without having to take matters too personally.


By the way, to me, having fun with the "#nohomo" disclaimer is not necessarily meant to be taken literally or even necessary to assign genders to it or even taking any kind of position in regards to homosexuality.  It is just maybe another way of attempting to light-heartedly say that "I am not getting too emotionally attached to you" in regard to the back and forth (or what I had just said in my post).

Whoaza, nullius!!!!!   I agree with pretty much everything in your rant in rolling's direction, and I had not really read through your earlier post that you linked at the end of your rant, and I see that holy shit your bot is programmed into some decent rantening, and linkening of rants, today.  Go nullius go!

Actually, I did not even respond to rolling earlier because actually I was going to merit his comment in the earlier parts, until I got towards the last sentence or two of his comment, and I thought to my lil selfie, "wat?"  "regular peeps not going to be able to use bitcoin?"  "What dee fuckity u b talkin bout, willis?"  I had thought that usually rolling had been making comments/posts that made some kinds of senses, or that generally the rolling avatar understood what bitcoin offered, but that comment/post from rolling seemed as if he got on the wrong train and was "out there as fuck," and surely you, nullius, identified the crux of the various problemas with rolling's comment.  

It is like he no does not understand what dee fuckie is bitcoin.  In spite of considerable mainstream and normie fusion regarding what Bitcoin is, there are no real or actual signs that bitcoin is being designed to fit into some kind of mainstream "business as usual" tool.  Bitcoin has been disruptive from the start, and surely in its earliest days of design and operation, it seemed to have flown under the radar for a number of years, including that it was not even really any kind of meaningful threat to status quo governments or status quo financial institutions, but surely, some smarter peeps are starting to better understand what bitcoin is offering and continuing to offer - which is truly not business as usual.

I personally do no necessarily see the idea of government as bad, especially in terms of needs for ways to attempt to protect regular peeps from institutions and from forces that strive to undermine the individual's life and freedoms in a whole lot number of ways, and surely bitcoin is serving as a force for good in the individual empowerment potential direction, which in part merely just gives individuals more options in how to use it, and also even for government officials to have kick them in the butt incentives to be more responsible, especially in the financial management direction.

And, to me, nullius, it sounds as if bitcoin is providing you, personally, a whole fucking lots of options (as an ongoing aspiring unbanked person) to be able to have abilities to participate in various aspects of civil society that were less available to you prior to bitcoin, and surely bitcoin is likely going to give more and more options to peeps like you (and sure other peeps, and even all peeps/normies can unite in various ways once they start to appreciate the power of bitcoin, even if they do not start using it (and benefiting from it) directly).

In any event, even if some powerful folks would like to turn bitcoin into one of their toys, so far there is no evidence that bitcoin is really cooperating in that direction, and sure some of those fucktwats can go play around with some of the shitcoins, even though they may likely be to smart in terms of how willing they are to get their asses burnt by that shit, and so probably, even the fucktwats are going to come over to bitcoin, and likely bitcoin is going to end up making them more honest, even if they try to make it their little play thing from time to time, they NOT going to be too likely to be successful, at least the evidence seems to be playing out that way, so far... in baby bitcoin's little life.

It's still early dayz boyz and girl!!!  

If you had started investing $1 per day 9 years ago, and you continued until today, you would be pretty god damned close to having $1million, already.  You would have accumulated 91.3 bitcoins.

Sure, it is likely going to be much more difficult to start now with that same amount of $1 per day because some parts of the advantages of starting investing in bitcoin 9 years ago was the earlier stages of the s-curve... but we should not be complaining that we cannot go back, but appreciate that if we had started 9 years ago we could be nearly a millionnaire on merely $1 per day.

So, for example if you start investing today at $1 per day, and you invest over 20 or 30 years, you may well become a millionnaire, even with just $1 per day. 

Another thing is that if your budget and your situation gets better, you can increase your budget to be able to invest higher than $1 per day, so part of the idea would be to just starting investing with you can, even it is a relatively modest amount and  even if it is merely a dollar, which is way the fuck better than whining that you cannot become a millionnaire.. blah blah blah... because getting your shit together and acting and making progress is way smarter than not doing anything or proclaiming that it might not be enough.. especially if you might not have more to invest anyhow... and accordingly, some people just have to do what they can, and even a dollar a day can be difficult for some people to really set aside on a regular and ongoing basis.

You have a tendency to figure out some negative angle for good newses.

If you heard Saylor in a couple of interviews, you should figure out that he seems to have a pretty BIG grasp on bitcoin, even though he had ONLY been studying bitcoin for about one year, and maybe a bit more cram studying in the past 6 months or so.

You should listen to his interviews on the Pompliano podcast from a couple of days ago and on the Guy Swann podcast from today, and maybe your opinion on the subject might change.... and maybe not too, you do tend to be a bit of a stubborn one from what I recall.        Each of the interviews are a bit over an hour, but you could listen to them at speeded up, such as 1.5x or 2x, perhaps.


Yes,... Microstrategy has provided a bit of a roadmap for the feasibility of such actions by institutional players.

Whether companies decide to take a 10% or 50% of their cash reserves, the amounts at their disposal surely start to add up to a lot of value in the event that some of the more aware, alert and even flexible companies start to see a path forward for accomplishing such bitcoin allocation measures (hedging).


No need to wait any longer.  The time is upon us (imminently, soon ^tm)

In other words, if you want to have fun, become a holder of bitcoin.

It's not too late, but it will likely NOT be as much fun to be watching others have fun, if you don't gots ur lil selfie any coyns.

 


What happened to the good ole days of pee pics?  

Yes... bitcoin is going to go down and it is going to go up, but we are currently in a kind of season in which bitcoin is more likely to go up more than it goes down.

So, it is a BIG so fucking what?  about the going up and down, as long as some folks are focused upon making sure that they have a decent enough stake for the UP that is likely to come in the coming months to years... Yeah, it could take a bit of time to reach a kind of blow off top, or there could even be a kind of blow off top that is similar to 2013 in which there ends up being two blow off tops, so in that regard, some people might end up getting faked out by the first blow off top, and then they become disappointed because they miss the second blow off top.


Based on the last couple of interviews with Slayor (with Pompliano a couple of days ago and with Guy Swann today), I doubt Microstrategy is inclined to sell their bitcoin any time soon.

And, sure the wall street folks can proclaim that Microstrategy stocks are overvalued all that they like - of course, wall street folks are not exactly any kind of indication regarding either what bitcoin is or how bitcoin is likely to grow.  Wall street is hardly any more correct about bitcoin as they were in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, or 2017.. Sure.. some of the wall street analyzers might be getting a little bit smarter, but overall the vast majority of wall street analyzers have little to no clue about either what bitcoin is or where bitcoin is likely to be going. 

In that regard, it seems quite likely that the companies (and the wall streeters) that follow Microstrategy's lead are going to do quite a bit better than those who are poo-pooing it and speculating that Microstrategy might be too balls deep in bitcoin... and surely Microstrategy is a bit balls deep in bitcoin, relatively speaking.  sure, nothing is guaranteed, but some of us who have been in bitcoin long enough recognize that Microstrategy seems to have a pretty good perspective on this whole matter in terms of where to put their chips (even if it might even seem quite a bit more ballsy than even the more greater of bitcoin bulls in these here parts).


I believe that those are NOT the only two options.

Even though Microstrategy is not exactly revealing how they are holding their coins, they seem to be doing a lot of the acquisition and management themselves, and they likely pre-agreed upon a system.. So they bought rather than accepting payments in bitcoin.


Sure, later down the road, they might decide to start accepting payments in bitcoin and even paying invoices and employees in bitcoin, but that is surely not how they got their initial stake.  They were a bit more aggressive than you option two.

Actually, instead of looking at this merely on an institutional (corporate) level, let's look at what some individuals decide to do in this forum.  They decide that they just are going to earn Bitcoin through rinky-dinky campaigns, bounty hunting and faucets, and surely they might be much better off to go out in the world and earn money however that they can, and then use some of that money to buy bitcoin and to strategically set up a plan to accumulate a certain amount of bitcoin.  Same thing is true if some individuals already have investments, they might want to reallocate into bitcoin instead of attempting to get all strategic about how they are going to get bitcoin by providing services etc, and they never really end up being aggressive enough in their approach or acquiring an aggressive enough stake in bitcoin.

Ok.  Great.. Hopefully you can get it all sorted out without too much extra hassle.

Well, at least, on a personal level, you have not been shaken that far into SCARED status.

On the other hand, the way you express your worry, you might need to reallocate a bit into one of those other projects if you think that they are so wonderful in terms of potentially flippening bitcoin or whatever it is that you think might be so great about WBTC that is supposedly providing a greater threat (greater competition) in order that BIG blocker nonsense like jbreher pales in comparison (from your kumbaya-singing wannabe perspective).


You know better than that nullius (or at least your way of framing the matter does not really represent the difference between what is possible and what custodians are likely to do, even complicit with governments, banks or whatever).

As the vast majority of us likely appreciate, when a third party holds bitcoin, they can act like (on their internal books) they have more bitcoin than they have.  There are all kinds of examples of third parties engaging in such behaviors, and surely we know about the ones who have gotten caught (and we likely do not know about the ones who have not gotten caught).

So they can do the deed.. they can fractional reserve... Can they get away with it, might be another question.

Sure, when push comes to shove, if the bitcoins that are held by the third party are claimed by those who believe that they own such bitcoins and the third party does not have possession of such bitcoin that they claim to have, then such third party could be fucked if they still have to give the bitcoin's to the proclaimed owner.  On the other hand, we do not know if the law is going to be on the side of the rightful owner because many states (and other governments) grant such ownership rights to third parties (banks) to be able to engage in such fractional reserves.. and bitcoin exchanges are frequently less than regulated in terms of the rules of bitcoin...

So who's side is the law going to be on?  Poor lil johnnie?  Or fat cat bank (exchange)? -

So, sure the people who entrusted their bitcoin to such third parties could be the ones who end up getting fucked, rather than the exchange (fat cat banker).

And, sure part of the power of bitcoin is to be able to demand immediate custody of bitcoin, and it is quite possible and practical, in bitcoin, to be able to obtain quick and easy delivery of such custodial bitcoin.  The third party custodian cannot convincingly proclaim that the transaction of the bitcoin is in process for several days and the security guards and large ass trucks trucks are getting in position to deliver, blah blah blah, logistics, blah blah blah..

Within seconds the proclaimed owner can receive custody, so long as the custodian is going to agree to send such bitcoins... and such proclaimed owner is going to be a dumby if he creates relationships with third-party custodians who are not actually holding a sufficient quantity of coins to cover those requests for immediate delivery of such coins.

Anyhow, I agree with you, nullius, that attempting to engage in fractional reserve banking could be much more problematic for the third-party custodians who engage in such fractional reserve because delivery and verified authenticity is much easier than other asset classes, and perhaps actual BTC owners are going to realize that they cannot trust certain third parties to hold their coins, so BTC HODLers will choose to either hold the coins themselves or find a third-party custodian that they can trust (and or verify that they are holding such coins and that the owner can get custody upon demand).


I am thinking that Michael Saylor purchased the Bitcoins on exchanges, too, which does seem a bit strange, but as long as it worked for him, then so be it.  Saylor and company got their coins, and they seem to be happy with the quantity of coins that they got for the price that they paid for them, as far as I could tell from the Pomp interview with Saylor, too.

In today's podcast (which would be yesterday, now) Guy Swann, from the bitcoin audible podcast, said that he would be interviewing Saylor "tomorrow," which would actually mean that such podcast should be released later today.

Swann's interview with Saylor is likely that Saylor will say quite a few similar things that he already had said on the Pompliano podcast from a couple of days ago... perhaps a few new developments or things that Saylor might be willing to disclose at this time.  Perhaps?

I plan to listen to such podcast once it releases because Guy Swann is a pretty smart and interesting guy too (Not that Pompliano is not smart and interesting).

Sure Biodom seems to identify a kind of fractional reserve threat to bitcoin, but he seems to be also suggesting that WBTC is winning over BTC because it has functionality that regular grandpa BTC does not happen to have.

Therefore, since WBTC is so much more versitile, it is going to attract all of the value and cause grandpa BTC to lose its value because it is not as good.

In essence, Bitcoin 2.0 is actually coming, and it happens to have  a W in front of it...  

Sucks to be on grandpa BTC and all that we happen to have is actual security of our coin.  sure wished that i were on a smoke and mirror scam project to hold my value rather than being on too much hashing power and cannot do anything fancy grandpa coin.  





There are a variety of fucktwat centralized holders of BTC that may or may not attempt to manipulate BTC in a variety of ways..

Will it work this time, though?   And, sure wrapped BTC is one of them.. and sure any one of them (or in unison) could either fail, exit scam or attack the BTC network by dumping.  So sure, these attack vectors existed previously, and there is another one.  What is going to happen?  I am so scared that I am going to HODL even harder.  






Sure.  It does not hurt to have the offer out there.  You cheap bastard.

 

I know it is meant to be symbolic rather than any item of considerable value.


Probably Tone did not originate the expression.. but I had heard an interview today on the Swan Signal podcast in which Max Keiser and Tone Vays were being interviewed (It's an hour and 20 minutes), and at some point in the interview - maybe in the middle?  i cannot recall the exact location of the interview, Tone Vays said that he was wearing a Tshirt or something like that, and it said shitcoin minimalist.. that is if I recall the context correctly.. I was doing something else while I listened to the podcast, so I may have misremembered.. but that was what I had recalled Tone saying at some point.

Here's the link if you are interested in listening to that interview.  It is an interesting interview because they are talking about the Microstrategy acquisition and a variety of other sound money ideas, and I also had appreciated that Max Keiser is much more bullish that Tone Vays.. and Vays still has some conservative estimations of where he expects the bitcoin price to go in the next year or two...... yet during the interview Tone was able to admit that 2019 was "rough" for him and he was "wrong" quite a bit in 2019.... hahahaaha.. Tone does not really concede as much as i would like regarding how wrong he was, and even though Tone is a bit bearish sometimes, i don't really have major problems with him, even though from time to time I would like to strangle him for his sometimes bearish BTC predictions.



Ok.  Fair enough.  I probably should have put the "foolish" part in my quote just to make it more clear about what I was bringing up... even though I probably was not really getting into that deep of a level of analysis, even though I can now see why you would be a bit perturbed by the whole thing... because I can see how values go all over the place, and surely I have been guilty from time to time (and maybe I still am sometimes) in terms of NOT really appreciating the meaning of the quote that I am using or getting wrong the thing that I am attempting to say.


NO problema.  Sometimes I have found that I put a post to the side (try to remind myself that I am going to get to it), and i continue to think about responding to such set-aside post, but somehow topics move on and move on and at some point, I may no longer be interested in such topic... but surely, sometimes there might be a topic that might linger along in the back of my thinking (with a reminder, perhaps?) for a while longer, and I keep thinking about such topic, and at some point such topic needs to be addressed.

I will brace myself for if such reply happens or if such reply does NOT happen...

A slogan that is frequently repeated in bitcoinlandia (especially by me):  "gotta prepare for either way..."    

If someone has not already started a thread on the topic, then maybe you should/  Or maybe someone reading this will be inspired to start such a thread and to outline the multiple reasons why such a threat to BTC exists.

It seems a bit off topic here, but maybe you believe that the threat is the "flippening?"  BTC is not secure because they are all being sent to WBTC managers?  Currently, $20 Billion is about 10% of BTC's supply..  so that could be a threat to BTC, right?  According to you, right?    So if they have 10%, then they would have 2.1 million BTC (or 1.8 million BTC) that they could dump, right?

I do understand that fractional reserve of bitcoin is a kind of threat to bitcoin, but it also seems that if we get all worked up about speculative threats, then aren't we just FUDding?

There are threads about Tether threats, and there are threads about fractional reserve and there are threads about mining centralization... and there are threads about the rising number of stable coins, so we can combine these various FUD threats and make our lil selfies really scared, right?

Whatchagonna do?  Sell your BTC?  Buy less BTC?  Don't fight the ETHheads and the DEFI nutjobs, and join them - by buying eth and some of the other various shit-tokens that are currently blowing up in the space?

Is this FOMO coming from you, Biodom about missing out on the 2020 versions of the 2017 ICOs and the other creative ways of attacking bitcoin or deluding the whole crypto space?  And you believe that bitcoin gives any shits or is going to be fundamentally damaged by the various baloney schemes that are out there?  yes, some people are going to give up their BTC for nonsense, and even some exchanges such as coinbase (and perhaps some others) are going to wrap themselves balls deep into various scam projects, and coinbase is not bitcoin, even if they might get themselves and their BTC holdings into trouble by engaging in ongoing reckless and scamming and scheming behaviors, maybe even being endorsed by banks and by governments?  Who fucking cares?  They are all getting desperate to attack bitcoin, so sure, whatchagonna do?  BTC price is going down?  you going to sell?  Good luck.   



Seems to me that you are exaggerating the purported threat.  We have been told about a lot of threats over the years, and you believe that this particular purported threat has some kind of greater import because you happen to be concerned about it at the moment (more concerned than you are about BIG blocker propaganda because this particular threat is a "current" threat?)

To the extent that you are trying to be genuine in your proposal, wooI_Ioow, I am not really clear how such proposal would work exactly.

Theymos and moderators are not bots, and it does not even seem to be a great task for a bot to attempt to determine exactly what rises to the level of a violable offense.  There is a certain amount of human discretion involved in terms of whether proper credit was given, or if the plagiarizer was stealing the ideas of someone else without giving proper attributions.

Plagiarizing is likely most frequently caught these days by using bots to see matching text, but human decision making would be necessary to determine if the non-attributed portion rises to the level of plagiarism, and I would imagine that it if the case is somewhat ambiguous, then a lesser punishment will be given than to ban the account.

Anyone in the business of taking the text of someone else and then jumbling up the words or changing some of the words, might be able to meet some kind of minimum threshold in terms of the number of words that were changed, but that still could be considered to be plagiarizing.. discretionary, like I mentioned.

Let's say that you have rule that says that if any string of text is less than 30% matching then that is not plagiarized, so then the copy pasters aim to change 70% of their text in order to be within compliance... ... I must say, this is sounding ridiculous as I am attempting to describe it... because I can see that there might be a whole 100 words, and 70 or them have been changed, but 30 words are still identified as stealing words ideas and not adequately attributing.  Same thing if you have 10 words, but only 3 of them are the original words, and the other 7 were changed, that would still be plagiarizing if those words can be identified as being taken from someone else and not attributed.

Personally, I believe that if someone is a long time member and they are in the habit of contributing to the forum and one or two posts of theirs are found to NOT have proper attributions, they are likely to be given more leeway than someone who is brand new to the forum, so in that sense, it seems to me to attempt to develop a decent reputation as a good poster on the forum in order to lessen the chances that anyone is going to report you for (or accuse you of) plagiarizing. 

Furthermore, just continue to work on your English and your typing so that you do not feel that you need to use the words of someone else (without attribution)... And if you do use the words of someone else, error on the side of giving attributes.... so that it is clear that those are the words of someone else.  The more that you practice giving proper attributions, the easier it will become to do that.

I have had more than 21,000 posts and surely a lot of words that i have posted over the years, and I have never been accused of plagiarism (or failing to give proper attributions), but I bet that if you looked at every one of my posts, there are going to be some examples where I did not give proper attribution.... I am not saying that I am excused, but I am saying that sometimes people can make mistakes in terms of sometimes not giving proper attributions when they should. 

Accordingly, giving proper attribution is something that each of us should always strive to achieve, and some of us have to work harder on making sure that we make such proper attributions as compared with others in order to be able to post our own ideas and sometimes to share the ideas of others by saying that we are getting those ideas from some other poster (or other place on the internet) and some of the ideas are ours and some of the ideas are coming from another source (and attempting to fairly identify that source, too).

Did any of our BTC go missing in the process?

Hey... that's largely what I was trying to say (you took the words right out of my mouth - you robber.)... But, of course, you said it first... and better than me.    #nohomo



I did look up the quote before I referred to it in my post, so I did recall at the time of my post that Emerson was referring to "foolish consistency" rather than mere consistency on its own.. but purposefully, I just decided to refer to the whole quote in a more vague and amorphous kind of way....

By the way, I do expect that a lot of us may have started out our bitcoin journey with mistakes and even getting drug into some levels of shitcoin investment and sympathies for shitcoins and we also may look back and recognize that we made a lot of mistakes in the way that we invested into bitcoin, whether that was too little of an investment at earlier points of time, selling too many BTC too soon or just failing to take enough safeguarding precautions regarding purchasing, storing or moving our coins.

So, sure in that sense, I would not expect any kind of exact consistencies with each us HODLers because hopefully we are learning along the way in terms of how to be a "better" bitcoiner... or at least, better in terms of our own goals and aspirations, and hopefully we are NOT continuing to make some of the more detrimental of our earlier mistakes - also, sometimes, it could take a while to convert our own lil selfies over to another way of thinking about bitcoin and/or shitcoins and/or how traditional assets and currencies fit into our whole approach to bitcoin and into our investment lives, too (whether we are expecting progeny, or otherwise).



Does NOT seem very likely that jbreher would engage in any kind of behavior that would allow him to take you up on your beer offer, even though I do hate to lose hope for some people, but sometimes, we just get a sense that some people have gone too far down a path that they cannot feel comfortable coming off of such path... whether they are actually just invested in some of the ideology or what are the exact factors that are motivating NON-movement off of that path, I cannot fully know, especially when seemingly illogical positions remain in place for so many years in spite of what some of us in the "shitcoin minimalist" camp (I think I got "shitcoin minimalist" from Tone Vays) perceive to be decently convincing evidence that should help the shitcoiners (or big blockers, or bitcoin naysayers) to change their seemingly nonsensical position(s)... but hey, everyone has rights to their (sic) own perspective based upon giving the weight to the factors that they(sic) deem to be MOAR important, or most important... whatever the case may be.


There is no such thing as WBTC....

I mean that WBTC is not BTC...  So don't get fooled by what they are calling it.  It is a fucking token.  

So, who fucking cares if the WBTC managers call their token a BTC variant - because BTC, it is not.

Just for clarification, this is how it works.

You give WBTC managers your BTC (if you are that fucking stupid) and they keep your BTC while giving you a voucher.  What the fuck kind of threat is that, exactly?

You have been reading too many sharding papers, Biodom.  

Some people do give fucks, and do not believe these matters to be done based on actual current happenings...

Ok.  Go sing kubaya with jbreher then if you think that there is nothing to learn from either his previous position or his ongoing insistence on whining about various BIG blocker talking points, bitcoin bashing and spreading misleading information.

How can you, Biodom, appreciate which part(s) of the attack vector(s) is (are) the important one(s)?

Jbreher keeps defending various BIG blocker, bcash and other nonsense talking points.  He also believes that some of those shitcoins are going to have a reckoning when BTC's blocks supposedly get jammed in our upcoming blockalypse or whatever he is currently calling it.

Sure, it is likely that you and I are not going to get mislead by the various bullshit BIG blocker talking points (well, maybe I should not speak for you because you seem somewhat receptive to sing kumbaya), but there are a variety of shitcoin advocates who are still misleading normies into their shitcoins by suggesting: 1) bitcoin is broken, 2) bitcoin is grandpa coin, 3) bitcoin is too high priced (unit value), 4) their shitcoin has more pumpamentals than BTC 5) and various other similar nonsense shitcoin talking points. 

Fair enough that I don't give too many shits if some gullible folks get sucked into that ongoing nonsense because they want to get rich quicker than reasonable and they are stupid, but the shitcoin advocates also suck in a lot of regular and innocent people too.. and sometimes they even turn people off of bitcoin because they are misleading them about their various shitcoins, and then when they get burned with shitcoin A, B and/or C, they do not appreciate the difference between bitcoin and those various other shitcoins for years and years later (if ever).

I am not going to just lie down and listen to shitcoin advocates spout out various nonsense (whether direct or indirect) without at least making some attempt to clarify the record or to point out that they are appealing to naive aspects of all of us including our desires to short cut the process of getting rich....

Many of us, if we can get rich quicker, many of us would take those kinds of opportunities, but many of us have also learned through our years participating in this space that there are a lot of snake oil salesmen out there who are trying to deceive with subtle distinctions that people do not understand, and good for you that you are so blind as to not believe that jbreher is one of those snake oil salesmen because he also has a relatively long history in bitcoin... or whatever other misleading aspect that you are getting sucked in by, Biodom. 

I have not heard jbreher say that he is giving up on those various bcashes, his desires to bash on bitcoin for small blocks or segwit and/or his various ongoing sympathies for other projects to pump instead of bitcoin, and his kind of hope to show us all that he told us so about the blockalypse.. blah blah blah.  He is ongoingly spouting out such nonsense when he gets such opportunities (which is not always so frequently since bitcoin does tend to outperform any of the shitcoins, but jbreher can still frequently find an angle to pump nonsense), including some of his posts from today. 

Not only does Jbreher frequently fail/refuse to bash misleading  shitcoin talking points, many times he is spouting out such shitcoin talking points when he gets the chance.. and frequently with way too much passion for the extremes of some of the nonsense trying to make the nonsense seem to be reasonable (which is a form of deception and misleading), way too much ongoing spin of information.  Innocent people get mislead by these deceptive matters.  You don't think so, Biodom?

Sure we cannot save everyone from those kinds of misleading and deceptive talking points, but we should be willing to appreciate ongoing behaviors of some of our members to bash bitcoin, pumping bullshit projects with bullshit and misleading spin points... .. .   

Of course.  Coddle the

BIG

B
L
O
C
K
E
R


You big blocker sympathizer.