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.

Some breaking news from Dana White:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7STg0LeWko

UFC 295 (11th Nov) Jones Vs Miocic - the co-main event will be Prohazka Vs. Pereira for a vacant title
UFC 296 (16th Dec) - Leon Edwards is confirmed to face Colby Covington. Co-main event: Pantoja Vs Royval.

Sounds good to me.

That smells a bit like a True Scotsman fallacy.

I don't think any expert traders would actually have a hard-fixed selling price and/or time. They'd probably rely more on various metrics indicating that the market gets overheated, meaning it has reached the peak (or is close to).
Some people say that any profit is a good profit, but I couldn't disagree more.

These are excuses and you know it. You ignored the parts where I mentioned: "If you know that someone paid you too much in error, and it's practical and possible to refund them". No one is talking about anyone demanding a refund, but whether it would be a moral thing to do from the recipient's perspective.
Just because it's judgmental of what the "refundable" amount would be, it doesn't mean it's the right thing to keep any amount sent in error (even if you have a legal right to do so).
Somehow nobody in this thread had any trouble recognising that 20btc was not a normal fee and it was likely sent in error.



Recipient could. If I sent all my bitcoins to your address by some weird accident, I'd like to think you would return them. Not because you have to, but because it's the right thing to do.


Nobody is saying anything about any "expectations" or about introducing any rules that miners must refund such fees.
As for legal recourse - you don't know that. I could easily imagine miner being ordered to return it in some jurisdictions.

Nah, I give Gamrot 60% mostly because of heavy bias, as he's my compatriot, so I really like to see him winning this one. And it's not that high really, it's not very far away from 50/50.
Everyone who trained wrestling at some point in their life can label themselves as wrestler, but that doesn't mean they're all at the same level. And it's way easier for a wrestler to master striking than the other way around. Gamrot can be relentless in his takedown attempts, he doesn't give up after a failed attempt but keeps coming at you from all angles. If Fiziev manages to neutralise that, he will massively shift the odds in his favour, but I don't think he will.

El Salvador/Microstrategy were not really doing DCA initially. I think Microstrategy doesn't care about that at all, and El Salvador only recently started applying DCA by buying 1 btc a day (if I remember correctly).
But generally speaking, the more frequent your regular purchases are, the better. I would set them as a minimum once a month.

---

I don't like treating DCA like some sort of superior strategy. I believe timing the market (trying to buy low and sell high) yields better returns. Maybe some sort of hybrid strategy wouldn't be a bad idea.

Unpopular opinion: I think that all those who are into Bitcoin just to buy a (relatively) small amount, hold till the next pump and sell - should actually stick to keeping them on reputable centralised exchanges. It's against the BTC principles, yes, but it's probably much more safer and efficient in terms of time and fees. Short-term holders are generally not the type of people who would spend a lot of time learning about all the security risks and safe storing. The risk of messing something up with setting up wallet (or cold storage) for the first time is greater than the risk of reputable exchange going belly up.

Depends on your morality (or lack thereof) I guess. To me it's pretty clear. If you know that someone paid you too much in error, and it's practical and possible to refund them - you should.
If you sold a car to your friend and they accidentally wired you $20k instead of $10k, you wouldn't use "other people make mistakes and lose money permanently" as an excuse, you would send it back (I hope).

Fresh press hit on Bitcoin's mini-rally when it reached its highest level this month.

Bitcoin Rises Ahead of the Fed. Bullish Bets Might Be Premature

https://www.barrons.com/articles/bitcoin-ethereum-price-crypto-markets-today-44fcd89a

Gamrot's wrestling is his biggest strength and he utilises it often, but he's more well-rounded than Fiziev. Before moving to UFC, he was a dominant champion in Europe's largest mma organisation (KSW) and he has a lot of experience fighting against all kinds of opponents, whether on the ground or standing. He also has more experience in fighting at the 5 rounds distance.
Sure, fast KO is always a risk, but if Gamrot does his homework, he's more than capable of neutralising Fiziev's striking.
I give Gamrot 60% chance of winning.