I am not afraid of it


You've gone too far with "always". In 50 years' time too? It is normal that after the halvings the price will increase as long as the demand is maintained or increased. Theoretically, it could even be reduced a little and the price will continue to increase. But as has been mentioned, after each halving, volatility is most likely to be reduced and if in a few years we have a reduced volatility, it would not be impossible that after a halving we do not have a price increase.

For the nearer future, say the next 2 or 3 halvings, I am sure there will be bull runs.

Well, because paying with cards is the norm, but if we go the similar way, if every time you pay, even $20 amounts, you take a wad of bills out of your pocket for a total of $5k you become an easy target for thieves. It's only a matter of time before they try to mug you. Cards are different because they would have to hijack you, go to the ATM get you to put in the PIN and take money out.


In the face of a $5 wrench attack, it depends on your resistance to pain and anxiety.  Most people would transfer their funds to the robbers right away after a couple of hard blows to the head.

I agree with the comments that the OP doesn't quite seem to understand the concept of inflation.

There is a certain sense in which we could understand that bitcoin has inflation, though. And that is that when central banks print, things end up costing more: food, light etc. But many assets also end up costing more, it is more expensive to acquire them, and that happens with the Bitcoin.

If we look at the returns of Bitcoin since its inception, we see that they are greater than the increase in money supply. In that sense one could say that Bitcoin inflation is higher than fiat inflation, understood as CPI, but I'm not sure that's what the OP is referring to.

I see this as a bit exaggerated, because according to the literal meaning, I should declare if I carry a debit card associated to an account where I have $1M. But all the payments made with the card are registered, so I don't see much sense. Besides there is a trick to get around this. I carry a debit card associated with an account where I only have $0.30. But when I arrive in the country I make an instant transfer from a savings account at the same bank for $20k.


I think this is the crux of the matter, but at the time of a trial. At the border an agent can get you in trouble. If I have €1M in Bitcoin I don't really carry it, in the same way that if I have €1M in P&G shares I don't either, even though I can arrive in another country, click to sell them in an instant and have the money in my account available to spend or withdraw in ATMs (little by little obviously because there are withdrawal limits).

The thing is that unless the police suspect you for some reason, the seeds are very easy to hide and they will not find them. Instead of writing them down on a piece of paper, which is the typical thing they would look for if they suspected you, you could take a couple of books in your suitcase and have the seeds written on different pages.

Many people work this way, and not only people, look at the states that keep going deeper and deeper into debt, and in order not to go bankrupt they keep printing more and more. Even now that there is a small tightening, the debts do not stop growing.

In the end, the individual does not have a printer and ends up going bankrupt if he enters the circle you say. Or selling the few assets he has. A very typical case is that of someone who has a half-paid mortgage, but gets into a spiral of consumer debt and credit cards, and to get out of the hole what he does is to take a Home Equity Line of Credit.

I avoid debt like the plague, although I recognize that sometimes some debt is smart, and many companies do it but for most ordinary people it is usually a disaster.

In reality, you are playing an EV-game, so the expected result, and more in the long term, is a loss. Feeling lonely or having other types of negative emotions, only enhances this and accelerates the process. Casino gambling should be for entertainment or fun, because it is not a good way to win money. What happens is that I understand that in situations like the one you are talking about, sometimes emotions drive you.

I think this sums it up, correctly. Since I became interested in the subject I see that there are several forms of tax avoidance, legal as you rightly point out. One of the ones I have seen most mentioned is the creation and sale of NFTs. It seems that cryptocurrencies open a whole new world for tax avoidance, and I am surprised that it has not been discussed more in the forum.

When people start in personal finance or try to increase their wealth, the first thing they think about is saving. Then when they have some savings they think about investing, and the last step I see is to increase their income, which I would say is the one that gives the most results. When you are used to controlling expenses, saving and investing, finding ways to earn more makes you able to save more, invest more and spend more. Even in my case I introduced regular donations, which has not slowed down my progress, on the contrary.

The point is to get off your ass. If you live in a poor area with low income try to increase your income or even consider moving to another place where there are more opportunities.

But don't forget that nowadays with the internet you can earn a lot of money no matter where you live.

It is simply that the casino is based on the big numbers not on what the OP does or doesn't do.

He could apply the same argument to the lottery. If someone wins €100M on the Euromillions, can we consider that they have beaten the house?

The answer is no, because the lottery only allocates 50% in prizes, so even though you have won €100M they have already kept their juicy 50% of the total proceeds.

Therefore, the house always wins.

In the comments I see good ideas to consider for the future. Now I am starting to have an amount that makes me consider splitting my holdings in two, so far not even that. In the future I could consider additional measures such as encrypting, hiding the holdings in different layers with passphrases, buying a CryptoSteel capsule, etc.

The point is to be proactive in case improbable events occur, but I consider the possibility of a $5 wrench attack near to 0 at this point.

What I see as logical is to increase security measures as you get more Bitcoin.

What? I have searched the internet and the price of a coffee in Budapest comes to the equivalent of $1. Even if your coffee was worth $3 it is not sustainable.

I don't quite understand what kind of payment is that because no matter how high you want to put the fee is not going to be $7 over $3, plus it depends on the miners finding the block to be confirmed.

It is not very common in Europe for people to pay with Bitcoin. There are few sites that accept it and even fewer people who pay because they consider it a savings or investment, not something to spend.

The bad thing about this is that it doesn't save you from a $5 wrench attack. You have to have a lot of willpower if they are hitting you in the head with the wrench to not give them the seeds and decrypt them right there.

Separating into two sides, you would lose 50% only. Although in this case the best thing to do is to be cautious, nobody knows that you have Bitcoin, but you can never be sure.

I have no idea about encryption. Is it difficult?



I will keep this in mind for the future. As your Bitcoin savings grow it's nice to consider other possibilities. Plus I think it's a good idea to have something at hand for potential robbers. Usually if they get something they are more likely to leave.

Does anyone know how is the competition between Washington and the states in the USA? I mean, could a federal law prohibiting mining, for example, be passed and this law would rule over what the states want to legislate? I don't think they are going to do it but just to know how is the issue of competences.


How shocking, lol. Surprised?

What I think is that it is normal that we see these kinds of returns when we have fallen so low. Recovering is logical if we look at the bitcoins mined, the production ratio and the general situation, as Bitcoin was too cheap, and it was normal to return to at least levels above $20k.


Whether it ends up being the best January to date or not, I don't care. It's an isolated statistic that I don't care about.

I agree with the previous responses, which I would summarize as the title is false. That the poverty rate grows has nothing to do with what it says about billionaires.

The poverty rate has increased basically because there is less money in circulation, and those most affected tend to be low income people who lose their jobs or have their hours reduced and therefore get paid less etc.

The billionaires issue has already been explained to the OP and I hope he understands it; it is not the same if you have a net worth on paper than if you had to liquidate that net worth all at once, which would reduce it.

I wasn't quite sure how to summarize it in the title just as I'm not quite sure if this is the exact place where the thread should go. Let me explain and you tell me.

So far I have been managing my Bitcoin holdings using a HW in a location and in the same location I have had the seeds well hidden and written down on a piece of paper.

As I accumulate, I have been thinking of buying another HW and storing it in a vacation home, just like the seeds, in the same way, written down and hidden. It would be about handling half of my holdings at each site.

What do you think? I don't think it would make sense, for example to have copies of the seeds of both HW's at both sites because in a $5 wrench attack I could lose everything.

One drawback I see is that if the house burns down I would lose everything I manage with one HW, but well, that risk I also had now, having 100% of the management of my holdings in one site.

If you don't like your job you can try quitting as long as passive income is secure and not the only thing you depend on.

That is to say, if the passive income you have comes from a single house that you have rented, I would see it quite risky because the tenants could leave and you could take a long time to rent it again, although you could also consider selling it but you would be killing the hen and running out of eggs. Or maybe you live in a country where evictions have been temporarily banned for 6 months, that would be another problem, to go without pay for at least 6 months and whatever it costs to kick them out depending on the judicial system where you live.

You don't specify more but although it depends a bit on the situation, that your passive income pays your expenses is the level at which you start to consider that someone is financially free, therefore, once you have analyzed the other variables, you can take the leap.

If you quit your job, take advantage of the time to do other things that you enjoy more and that can make you money as well.

But strictly speaking, in each of these exchanges a taxable event is potentially created.


Yes, well, I always repeat the same thing here. It's not the same if you file with the tax authorities with $1k in stablecoins of dubious origin than if you file with $1M. The $1k may have been paid to you for selling anything over the internet. $1M can potentially create more problems for you.

Yes, well, we will have to tell Cruz to stop by and see how many socialists there are in this forum. It is not only that they conceive the state as the best guarantor of rights, but that they buy into the victim mentality, as I just reflected in the other thread I just replied to.

Although this has the logic that the socialists I know usually advocate a redistribution less than their own. In other words, they want to redistribute what belongs to "the rich" but they never consider themselves rich. Neither when they get $100k a year nor when they get $1M a year, the rich is always the one who is above them.

And as for Bitcoin the same thing. Biden is super cool, but my Bitcoin is very private and passed through mixers so that Biden doesn't touch it.

Sounds pretty much like someone with opinions but little experience on the subject to me.


With that mentality you are not going to be a great success in life. From my real experience I can tell you that the most successful people I know thought and think the opposite of what you say: they think that destiny is in their hands, that effort is rewarded especially in the long term and they make their life an inevitable path to excellence.


As mysterious as not buying into the victim mentality and making your life a dedication to effort. Day by day, month by month, year after year. Everyone achieves to the best of their ability but if you live in a free and industrialized country, and in many of the others as well, simply by getting off your ass and being persistent instead of believing you are a victim of circumstance you achieve success.