That's like an 11% fee. I don't know if that's considered normal these days because I haven't made a transaction for a while but it seems expensive to me. Is that because it has so many inputs? Maybe someone with more technical knowledge can enlighten us.

Also, consider moving this thread to the Development & Technical Discussion section. It probably belongs there and I think it won't get as many replies on this one.

It is clear that investing in the markets over the long term can give us very good returns, especially if we take into account compound interest. A 6% return, OK. 12% is a bit difficult for a retail investor, and 18% is directly impossible.

It is normal to consider that an S&P 500 fund will give you returns of 10% and inflation will take away 3%, leaving you with a net 7%. We have to think that there are people who invest in actively managed funds or other indexed funds that give lower returns. Some may give more, especially in the short and medium term. The SP500 is often considered the benchmark.


If the Sp500 is not a safe investment, nothing is. Past results, of course, do not guarantee anything, but they serve as a guide. Companies work if they beat inflation, otherwise they tend to disappear. What will the 500 largest U.S. companies do in the next 30 years? If we discount events such as the coming of the third world war, it is normal that they will continue to grow and beat inflation.



Why? It's the average.



This example is too exaggerated. We have no rational reason to think so. We might as well stop going out on the street just in case we get hit by a lightning and it kills us.

I don't think it's simply a question of price. The value that central banks destroy is acquired by Bitcoin. More and more.

Neither I think it will happen as Max Kaiser said that "one of the major Central Banks will close in 2021-2022, utterly and completely". But what I think is they are going to realize that they can't fight Bitcoin so they have to buy it.

Coming soon to your screens: BoA buys $1 billion bitcoin.

Seriously. How many have we already seen that say things like this and after a while they succumb?

The dividend issue is also misleading. You can buy a low-cost S&P 500 fund that does not pay dividends and an ETF of the same that does. The difference between one and the other will be reflected in the final return. The dividends you don't get paid in one are reinvested and improve the return. The longer the term, the greater the difference in profitability.

So for these purposes it doesn't matter, you can take the fund without dividends from the S&P 500 and when you need it you can withdraw what you need, like the typical 4%.

The point is that dividends are part of the total return and if they are paid to you before you need them (for example in retirement) you will lose profitability in the long term (if you do not reinvest them).

Yes, well, if anything that further reinforces what I'm saying.


Well, we've talked about this before. Statistics can be presented in many ways, and with this I am not trying to refute you either, because in my OP I talk about statistics. I miss in that link you put that they put more clear data such as: the total percentage of excess deaths by country and year, in % and not only in the graph by months that you have to go looking at.

All this pattern analysis of numerical (price) sequences that are often used in speculative threads may be a good way to understand the past, but they are not useful for predicting the future. The OP sees regularity where there is none. When faced with sequences of random events, we always find small series within them that are apparently regular, but do not obey any pattern.

It always works like this. First it is announced that taxes are going to be raised on the rich. Only the rich. Potential revenues are greatly overestimated. Then, faced with the reality that the income was overestimated and that the rich also take measures to avoid paying more, taxes are raised on everyone. That is to say that "the rich" in practice becomes the totality of the population. Well, no. Actually it means only the middle and poor classes, because the really rich have mechanisms to not pay or even leave the country if they want to go to other countries where they are sure to be well off.

This is one more step that shows us that there is no stopping this. In a few years, owning Bitcoin, either directly or through a financial instrument such as an investment fund, will be as common as owning shares of the S&P 500. We keep seeing news like this quite frequently.

Probably I won't sell any more until the next cycle and if I do it will be like 10% of my stash or so. I don't own a lot, so I think it is better to keep accumulating and see how things go. The most likely scenario for this cycle is that the ATH will be higher than $100k. For next cycle it won't be surprising to see the price between $500k and $1M.

In case it wasn't already more than clear, this is not about a dangerous deadly virus, this is about a social engineering project and the 2030 agenda. Anyone who doesn't know what I'm talking about should read A Brave New World and 1984.

Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data.

According to this research, COVID-19 "infection fatality rate was 0.27% (corrected 0.23%)". That's for all ages, including those who are going to die soon anyway. " In people younger than 70 years, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.31% with crude and corrected medians of 0.05%."

"The inferred infection fatality rates tended to be much lower than estimates made earlier in the pandemic."

So this is why billions of people will have to get vaccinated every 6 months. The profits for the pharmaceutical industry apparently have nothing to do with it. This is why there are lockdowns and destruction of the economy, especially small businesses.

Plainly stated, this is a scam.

Hi pal. What's the reason for the bump? I think this post should rather be locked. It was interesting but if people haven't commented in a month, I don't see the point in bumping it.

Fortunately, there are several opinions that do not see racism anywhere, because I do not see it and I thought that maybe I had not noticed it for some reason.

Do we have to think they are racist comments because they are directed to a black person? Because they are two different things. One thing are derogatory comments to a black person and another thing are comments to that same person for the fact of being black.

There is a trend that started in political correctness but it is going too far now.

I am in favor of a low-tax policy, mostly because in general politicians do nothing more than increase spending that in most cases is unnecessary. I think it's fine to pay taxes for the state to build/maintain roads or help the underprivileged etc. That said, as I believe that much of the money I pay in taxes is political spending that should be dispensed with, I support everyone trying to pay as little tax as possible, especially in a legal way.

In my case, my Bitcoin holdings are not life-changing, so I am not considering emigrating or anything like that, but maybe in a few years I will consider it. There are many things to consider here: in certain countries it is not enough just to emigrate to avoid paying taxes, you have to acquire the nationality in a new country and renounce the nationality of the country of origin, otherwise, you will be taxed anyway.

In other cases it is useful to simply leave, but you have to take into account the factors of each one, if you are very rooted in your country of origin, with your family and friends, maybe it is not worth changing your life just because of more money.


This is a bit off-topic but when I see him the way he speaks, I always think he is gay (I am subscribed to his channel) . The only think that makes me wonder is all those beautiful women around him.

Well, in this case it is to send them Bitcoin, but it is the same kind of fraud that is done by asking for fiat money, they try to convince you to send them money under the promise that you will get much more. A bit crude this scam attempt but I imagine they play with the big numbers: in the end there will always be someone clueless or naive and that someone can give them a lot of profits.

I'd say not even those who put them into practice believe that they are using the money correctly. They just think this will get them more votes.  Humans tend to overestimate short-term effects and underestimate long-term effects. So, I bet there will be more people getting the check and liking it than worrying about the long-term effects of the package.

This is great news and is going to increase demand even further. I don't know if I'm too keen on people being able to buy Bitcoin on credit though. I also don't think purists would like it if they implemented fiat conversion because in an ideal world we would only transact with Bitcoin. But all in all this is one more step in the phase we are in of institutional adoption and going mainstream.

I don't quite understand your question. He is the only one responsible. And secondarily the authorities who fail to catch him. Also, you mix crimes in cyberspace with the crypto community. Just because a system is decentralized doesn't mean you can't punish those who commit crimes. I am certainly not to blame, and I don't think any of us in the crypto community are.

It is clear that the data shows a trend but we must not forget that there are many Bitcoins that do not move, simply because the keys have been lost. Neither have they moved recently nor will they ever move. Some estimates put the number of lost Bitcoins as high as 4 million. If we take this into account, we would conclude that the Bitcoins that can be moved and have not been moved since 2018 are 33%.

A very well worked and well structured post. In general, the advice you give is good, although I don't think it is the only valid advice to face old age.

For me there is one important thing too: do you have children/heirs to leave the estate to when you die? If you don't have them, you can spend some of the principal when you get old, especially if there are market downturns. If you want to leave an inheritance, it is better that the strategies are focused on protecting the principal and live only on income.

The point is that if you focus your youth/maturity on increasing your wealth, you will certainly be better off in your old age than if you don't do it.