Dollar-Cost Averaging (DCA) can be a sound strategy, but I personally prefer employing technical analysis to enhance my BTC accumulation. In essence, I aim to capitalize on as many price lows as possible, which I believe is a more advantageous approach compared to a fixed DCA plan.

My rationale behind this perspective lies in the data from the past three years, during which a DCA strategy would have resulted in a 16% reduction in one's portfolio value. This underscores the importance of discerning the market's various stages and choosing the right moments to accumulate more BTC effectively.

You have no excuse not to acquire Bitcoin, this is one of my most used word when
 discussing with my friends that have
 high interest in crypto, but don't have capital too buy.

Since I introduced the DCA method to them, it was a game changer too them,
 DCA is the best way for low income earners to acquire more Bitcoin.

I don't know if anyone else has different opinion about it?

The current price is far from being anyone set up price in both direction if we looking at it from the short term perspectives and Bitcoin being at 27k+ os some how at a shallow position that anyone waiting to take a DCA position at whatever direction be it upward or downward will have a problem in the direction to choose most especially if it is a short term position.


At this point, we all but have to wait to see which direction the price will point to clearly before being able to take a position.

Increasing the volume of fiat currencies for consumption of scarce goods and services would make the prices of the goods and services to go up and reduce purchasing power especially for previous holders of the Fiat currencies.


 Bitcoin has a maximum supply of 21million, and it started from less than a dollar. How many supplies of dollars has ever been printed? Billions, trillions, quadrillion etc? And note it doesn't have maximum supply and seems to depreciate in value/price.


Increasing purchasing power by printing more will only end up debasing a fiat currency, asssuming it's printed for just the consumption of scarce goods and services.


Money is not necessary for increasing production. You can use seed or products you need to run the business. Besides, the money should be printed in exchange for collateral, work or something.  That's what backs it up rather than printing it out of thin air without anything  backing it up. It's a gamble to lend out money to people without gurantee of repayment. Collateral is some sort of gurantee, a worker who's proven to be very productive/profitable could use that as gurantee, otherwise potential workers first learn the business well before seeking for loan, or start with a seed or male & female chickens and learn from multiplying them.

You prosper when your business/production succeeds and flourish so that you have enough for your/others needs.. Everyone needs to succeed in business to be able to exchange what they have amongst other people for what they need. It's not necessarily about money  If you produce corn but need meat then give some to a meat producer in exchange for some meat. If he says "sorry, I don't need corn" or "I already have enough corn" then a service could match you with other meat producers who need corn.

Were there any cryptographic vulnerabilities or weaknesses in the Bitcoin protocol at any time during its development or subsequent updates?

How were these vulnerabilities addressed or mitigated in a way that ensures the long-term safety and security of the network?

Were there any lesser known, non-public security issues that were successfully resolved?

How is everyone doing? So I stumbled upon a very interesting topic where the user was asking about halving in Bitcoin beginners. The response to that question was so interesting so I thought of sharing it here. Because I believe this answer would clear a lot of newbies and some that don't know about what would happen to Bitcoin during or after halving. I really hope this helps so many people

Usually, when famous people say something, people tend to listen more carefully and attentively.

If you want to be rich, you gotto HODL. This can't be more simple than this.

Now more and more machines or factories are switching from oil to alternative sources, oil reserves are decreasing which of course makes oil prices more expensive and many countries are providing policies to support alternative energy, some oil countries are currently rich countries, but I'm sure 100 or In 200 years, countries that still survive on agriculture will be able to control the world.

We know the oil market is booming and countries with oil resources are really making a huge fund out of it and sometimes they do it at the negligence of another local natural resource.

But, of course, the agricultural sector, though not given the proper recognition and the required investment is one sector that contributes seriously to the development and dependence of most nations .

No matter how blessed a country is with oil minerals, if its agricultural sector isn't working and she has to rely on other country for her food and agricultural resources then in event of war or political differences they might suffer.

Agriculture vs oil, which is the big deal when it comes to the economic strength of a country?

Bitcoin is likely pretty close to inevitably going to continue to be volatile in the next 30 years, but surely if bitcoin's market cap continues to increase it will likely become less volatile with the passage of time.. but as you seem to hint 30 years is a long way to project out, so it does not have very much to do with the topic of this thread except maybe to the extent that your buying BTC (and even loading up on BTC) right now will give you a lot more options 20-30-40 years into the future, so maybe even slow accumulation now and in the next 4-10 years will then result in such BTC accumulating person to have a lot more options when it comes to 30 years down the road.. so long as s/he had not ended up losing the BTC along the way.. so one thing is accumulating BTC but another thing is actually making sure taht they are secure and periodically checking security and keeping up with the better ways to hold your BTC... whether that is going to change or not in the next 30 years seems to also be something that is hard to predict but seems likely since we are ONLY 14 years into bitcoin, as you mentioned.

*Is this news big enough to trigger market uptrend in the coming weeks, months?

If you like to believe that there is correlation despite the longer term trends, then that is on you.  You seem to have picked some recent data from the last 3.5 years which seems to be somewhat selective and you are trying to tell a story of correlation from that.


If you look at bitcoin in 2018 and 2019 compared to stocks and then you try to graph correlation over that 5-6 year period what do you get?  You get a hell of a lot less correlation because at best, bitcoin is around 3x -8x stepped up from those price points... and yeah you can dance around and try to argue correlation. blah blah blah.. good luck with that.

Now if you add in another cycle and go out another 4 years and you go from 2014 to 2015 and you compare bitcoin and stocks as compared to where they are now, and you have bitcoin around 30x to 50x up from those points, and are you going to want to describe correlation from that data?

We could go back even further and adding another few years (such as looking at 2011-2012(, but sometimes it is not as fair to be going back to data in Bitcoin's very first cycle because bitcoin hardly even had a price, so for sure the correlation is even worse, and it just goes with bitcoin going around 1,000x to 14,000x from then to today.. depending on the starting measuring points.

Yeah, bitcoin has an ongoing unfair advantage over traditional systems because it is still in its early adoption phase which means s-curve exponential adoption rather than the comparing of one mature asset class as compared to another mature asset class, so if you want to continue to make dumb-ass mistakes and try to act as if bitcoin is in some kind of a quasi-mature asset class and blah blah blah, that is your choice to decide to completely ignore that bitcoin is ongoingly likely inside of an early s-curve adoption phase, and even if bitcoin is not guaranteed to continue to prosper within such an exponential s-curve, you are making mistakes by trying to downplay and/or ignore the matter by looking at selective data and trying to act as if correlation exists through your looking at shadows (reflections of reality) rather than at actual light (reality)... but hey, whatever.. you do you.

From my perspective, you are still overly focusing on macro factors and presuming BTC correlation. .or even presuming that bitcoin might go down before it goes up.. so even if the various macro markets might continue to be inflated and due for various crashes, whether talking about the stock market, properties and other bubbles, that does not necessarily mean that bitcoin is not the place to be.. even though surely we have seen in the very short term (like a liquidity event similar to March 2020), all assets seemed to have had been flocking to the dollar, and sure that can happen again.

So you can have some funds available to prepare for those kinds of possibilities.

And, yeah, you also hinted that Bitcoin might stay crashed or under performing for longer periods of time based on such macro happenings, which may or may not play out in the way that you are describing as a possibility.. .

Sure it does not hurt to prepare for a variety of scenarios, even including the ones that you describe, but it still does not necessarily mean that we should be waiting to buy bitcoin rather than just merely adjusting our buy amounts and frequency of buys depending on our own various specific that may well also relate very much to how many BTC that we are already holding.

I don't think there is any truth about this opinion. It's not right to make such a generalization because for both genders, there are those who spend money wisely and those who spend it as they wish. However if a generalization is to be made it's obvious that men who are aware of how difficult it is to earn money are more frugal. I'm sure the statistical data would support this.

[
While holding to trade in the bulls and other purposes with regards to holding might account for some percent of the observation, I think another place to look at is the price of Bitcoin. The price has pumped to a surprising high for everyone. I guess most of us never expected bitcoin to create the current ATH and it did.
This scares off a few others from actively investing or trading it as, you don’t want to lose value on every Sat neither do anyone hope to buy too high.
People are gradually placing values and it would be interesting to see how the activities would play out come the next bullrun.

Volatility in the Bitcoin market shows the lowest result in the last 10 years:


2023 turned out to be a relatively calm year; over the past 9 months there have been no strong dumps or major pumps. In general, this may indicate that Bitcoin is increasingly perceived as an asset for long-term holding, and not just another speculation for trading on the exchange. This is also evidenced by data that the number of bitcoins in illiquid wallets continues to increase. At the moment it is more than 14,500,000 BTC:

The "profit" is different from not being needed. I agree that war has no profit for humanity right now, it is not a profit to gain a land, maybe it is for the government because they could go around saying that they attacked and got the nation another piece of land, and back in the day that was the case but today even that is not valid.

Many Russians literally fled out of Russia not to be part of the army to go attack Ukraine because they do not really want that land, they do not care about that land, only Putin and his people do. And not like you can tell Putin to stop, hell Wagner leader literally tried that and he murdered a mercenary units leader. Imagine being so powerful that you kill someone who has his own personal army. That's why this isn't any profitable to anyone ever, it is the most useless war we have seen in a long time.

1. Increase in the national GDP is least likely to be caused by a war.
2. Oil is considered the most crucial resource in modern warfare.
3. War affects the stock market by causing a decline in stock prices.

What do you guys think? Is this true or false?

Past records shouldn't be what we are using as facts, but it is there to give us an insight of what might likely happen and not a gaurantee. This is why you don't need to bother about which month does bitcoin price go up or down when we are trying to grow our bitcoin portfolio, when you are not planning to sell your coins, because if you keep looking at what month it will be, you might be tempted to sell some and take little profit, if history says that the next month the price of bitcoin will go down. This will completely kill your plans toward your bitcoin base on wrong decisions made at the wrong time. If you are planning not to sell, then the price movement should bother you but to make you strong on hodli.