Why not? Gamrot has just fought. Oliveira fights next month. If he loses, the timing would be perfect to match him up with Gamrot, as both will have similar time between the fights.


Yeah, I've said the same thing somewhere above. Looks like Gamrot is the most feasible option for a back-up. It has to be someone from the top, Gaethje or Poirier are unlikely to take such offer, Dariush is already scheduled to fight Tsarukyan, which leaves either Gamrot or Chandler.
Chandler is patiently waiting to fight McGregor, but, as that is not happening anytime soon, he could agree to it just to stay active etc, but Gamrot is already there, all he has to do is not let himself go too much and postpone his family time by couple of weeks.

I don't think we're likely to see any fake-woman Vs woman fight in the UFC anytime soon, not on Dana White's watch, but if the trend continues and with few more tweaks in the law, UFC could get sued for discrimination of protected minorities if they refuse to do such fights.
It's a sad world we live in. Reminds me of the last days of Rome, when, according to some historians, women were forced to fight dwarf men to the death.
Just a fall of civilisation, nothing to see here.

How is that a logical thing? And I can't understand why so many people here repeat weird statements like "any price is a good price" etc.
No, buying in at >$60k was clearly not a good decision, even if the price eventually goes back up. But so far it's 2 years later and we're not even halfway there.
It wasn't clear back then, but we can certainly say in retrospect, that was a horrible trading move.

But there's no cutting out the "average" at all. You will still have an average price even if the purchase amounts or timing are not 100% consistent.
I don't think the sky will fall if one month you buy for $99 instead of $100 or buy on the 2nd instead of on the 1st of the month. I see it more of a spectrum than a binary thing.
Every strategy can be tweaked or modified. It's not like you either have 100% adherence or complete randomness.

I haven't seen many people cheering for governments' actions against Binance. Overall, their reputation in the crypto industry was probably the best out of all centralised exchanges. Of course, there are always some orthodox bitcoiners rooting against anything centralised or crypto-related.
And I've said it before and will say it again - I think all the actions are specifically targeted at Binance, not in entire crypto-industry. There's simply no way the US (or the so-called West) would allow a Chinese company to absolutely dominate the industry, not without a fight.

What's so special about 100k? Why not 99k or 110k? People like round numbers, but every trader should be cautious of such to not get caught in a psychological trap. If you're truly hoping to cash out at that level, it would make every sense to set your selling price at least a little bit bellow the 100k mark.

I wouldn't be that pessimistic. We don't know for sure how severe Fiziev's injury really is, but I've seen some experts saying he'll likely be out for 9-12 months. Apparently, he had a similar one back in 2019. I think Tom Aspinall's injury was even worse and he came back looking better than ever.
Gamrot's tactic was to step on the gas in rounds 3-5, so it's a shame the fight ended before it really started. But Gamrot managed to take him down twice (counting the end of the 1st round) and proved he's more than capable of exchanging punches with the best in the division.


He called out Oliveira because that's his preferred opponent, but whether he gets that fight and whether Oliveira would take it, that's a big IF.
Dustin & Justin are other possibilities. They recently fought, but so did Gamrot. But I don't think that's likely to happen as Dustin and Gamrot are team mates, and Justin is probably aiming for a title shot.
I've heard some speculation that Gamrot may end up as a backup fighter for Makhachev Vs Oliveira 2, but personally, I doubt that he would sacrifice the post-fight rest and family time to stay in fighting shape for another month.


Only Fiziev knows what really happened to his leg, but, if the injury was indeed inflicted by Gamrot, he will never admit that as that would mean he lost fair and square and not by some unfortunate accident.

I'm curious what's your definition of freedom.
If free speech is limited promotion of certain things, then it's no longer free speech. What kind of harm does it cause? Why is "disunity" bad? Why would you want to unite with someone you utterly disagree with?
And no, speech cannot cause physical harm, unless you're talking really loud directly to one's ear, hurting their eardrums.

To be honest I didn't have a clue that fight was on the UFC296 card. Yup, definitely looks like they're trying to revive Paddy after he fell from fans' favour. His last performance was disappointing and his attack on Ariel Helwani created an impression that he sucks up to Dana White big time, which is never a good look.
Image-wise, it seems like Paddy can't decide whether he wants to be a good guy or a bad guy, which can be irritating to many.
As for Tony, he refused to acknowledge that it's time to retire and he'll approach that fight with something to prove, which will make him a dangerous opponent.
As both of them had a dip in the form, it'll be interesting to see who comes at the top. I like this match up.

A lot of people say that, but I have my doubts if you'd be satisfied if you bought in at $10k, sold at $20k just to witness BTC going to say $250k. It makes every sense to try to figure out how to maximise your profits i.e. by using metrics that people mentioned in this thread.
During the 2017 rally, I sold a lot of my stash at 4-6k, if I waited just a little bit longer I could get x3 that. It didn't feel like a win.


Exactly. Someone has to take some benefits out of the holding, otherwise, it's pointless. If you trust that Bitcoin will keep gaining in value over time, a tactic of cashing out small portion i.e. each time the price doubles (or something similar) would make sense.

I believe that's his plan. He said in one of the interviews that he trained a lot with a focus of not only taking Fiziev down but holding him down. If he manages to do that, that opens up a possibility for submission, which is probably the only way Gamrot could finish him. But I see it going the full distance and Gamrot winning by decision. Fiziev is a heavy hitter, which is entertaining but takes a lot of energy and he'll struggle in later rounds.

If you want to be a purist then maybe. But DCA doesn't have any hard, legal definition. Modified DCA is still DCA, poorly executed DCA is still DCA. I don't think most of the investors who choose to follow the strategy would care about the payments and timing being 100% the same all the time. Small deviations won't do much harm. And to do it properly over a long time, you should account for inflation as well, meaning the amount of each purchase should be adjusted for the inflation rate.

Bounty Manager: Little Mouse
Platform: Casino
Highest Payment (BTC or USD): $75

This is theoretically possible but, in practice, it's very unlikely. But even if that happens, if the long-term trend is bullish, you'll still get there. To mitigate that risk you could be buying twice a month or even once a week, but that's not really necessary.
Buying low and selling high is superior to DCA, but only if you can reliably predict the future. Everyone is smart looking at the past price-movement charts, but making decisions in the present time is a completely different story.

What is or isn't part of "contractual" payout obligations is subject to contract (aka Terms of Service) if there's any. If the pool operator obliged themselves to share fees with participating miners, then they should do it. Whether or not miners' could take legal actions if the pool fails to do that is a different story.
Pool operator having the power to include/exclude fee is irrelevant (they have a financial incentive to do so though). If the fee is earned - it should be shared (unless agreed otherwise).

So your advice is just to hold forever? You're not going to live forever, so it makes sense to have some goals in mind and answer yourself a question what is the purpose of you holding bitcoins?
If you want to pass it on to the next generation (building intergenerational wealth) - that's fine. But sitting on your coins just for the sake of it, with no end in sight makes no sense.

I didn't really intend to do a DCA, but I'm hoping to hold my signature campaign earnings until at least the new ath (if that happens at all). Since pay-out rates are set in USD (and paid in btc) this is essentially no different than doiing DCA.

Coming up with a proper methodology is not an easy task and would largely depend on your goals. i.e. if your goal is to earn as much as possible on the next bull-run - just put in it as much as you can afford. But if your goal is to hit a specific amount of profit, then it gets complicated and would require you to assess what the realistic expected peak price is, and estimate the timing and the pace of price-growth till we get there. From that, you'd have to calculate the size of regular payments.

I'm worried of that too, but it's not like 4-year cycles are the only thing that could drive the price up. Since these cycles are based on halvings, it's inevitable and expected that they won't last forever (due to diminishing block rewards).
Eventually BTC will have to start acting like all other investments with price action being news-driven. Some demand from speculators wanting to capitalise on bull-run predictivity could get replaced i.e. by demand from spot ETFs (if approved). In the long run it all could work well for Bitcoin.

Good question. I've no idea who would be favourite here. Pereira's last fight was dull indeed, but it was he's first fight at 205 and he was cautious not to get taken down. Against Prochazka it will be more of a striker Vs striker match, so should be more interesting (in theory at least). I'd probably go with Prochazka, but he's coming back from a pretty bad injury so who knows.


Now or never for Colby.


Gamrot looks sharp and is very confident in his interviews. He also finally got his eyes fixed. If he doesn't get KOed in the first 2 rounds, he'll win by decision.

I 100% agree on this aspect. As I mentioned before, I can't understand how F2Pool could make such gesture without asking participating miners for permission (unless they have it covered in Terms of Service, which I doubt).
So I think refunding it is a moral thing to do in general, but everyone entitled to that fee should make that decision themselves. You can't make good deeds with other peoples money.