jbreher
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
|
|
June 19, 2020, 04:29:48 AM |
|
One more story that has given me a lot of courage, believe me, it is not over yet, more stories will be made.
Mr. Smith worked at a Silicon Valley tech company when he purchased $3,000 worth of Bitcoin in October 2010. “I had no idea how much to invest, but I was getting paid pretty well at the time, so I decided on $3,000.” Because Bitcoin was worth only $0.15 a piece at the time, his initial investment gave him around 20,000 Bitcoins.
From the very start, Mr. Smith knew that he was playing the long game, deciding to see just how high Bitcoin could go. For the next three years, he hodled his investment, only occasionally checking how Bitcoin is performing. But when Bitcoin hit $350, and then $800 just days later, Mr. Smith knew that it wouldn’t be wise to wait any longer.
He cashed out $2.3 million, quit his job He should never have cashed out as thats worth $190,000,000 today. OTOH, going from wage slave to 2.3M is categorically different from going from 2.3M and free to 190M and free.
|
|
|
|
jbreher
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
|
|
June 19, 2020, 04:32:13 AM |
|
Jeebus. Is there a tl;dr version?
|
|
|
|
jojo69
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3304
Merit: 4574
diamond-handed zealot
|
|
June 19, 2020, 04:35:00 AM |
|
OTOH, going from wage slave to 2.3M is categorically different from going from 2.3M and free to 190M and free.
indeed much like going from no electricity to a little light and comms is a waaaaaay bigger jump than going from a little light and comms to leaving the door open with the AC on
|
|
|
|
JayJuanGee
Legendary
Online
Activity: 3864
Merit: 10900
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
|
|
June 19, 2020, 04:37:34 AM Last edit: June 19, 2020, 05:11:43 AM by JayJuanGee |
|
having one or two million in silicon valley might just make you comfortable
I take it you've never been to (e.g.) Palo Alto? I have been there. O.k. Let me see if I can attempt to 'splain my assertion to you. There are a lot of people who don't have shit in regards to investments or savings (even if we account for home ownership, too), and surely having any kind of investment portfolio is going to be a whole hell of a lot more than many people, even in the US of A, where we have way more access to credit and financial services than so many people on the planet. However, many of us still have a lot of difficulties building some kind of investment portfolio. Here's a decent article on the topic of the lack of current investment savings on average, even including some of the better off categorizing. So, in that regard, even just having a mediocre investment portfolio of $1 million or $2million (Let's say 1.5 Million, which is in the middle) is going to put these kinds of people way in front of the vast majority of other people (maybe even 3x or more of the average of the better off of the folks coming on retirement), whether we are talking about silicon valley or other places in the country. And, for sure, the cost of living for any particular area is going to hamper the extent to which the accumulated amount of wealth meets either "fuck you" status or "filthy rich" status. There are places in the world in which $1.5 million, (and maybe even some places in the USA - so long as a guy/gal has fairly humble needs) would allow a kind of entry level "fuck you" status, even if there might be some questions regarding future value of such dollar denominated amounts, but there still might be ways in which a BTC portfolio might have decent chances of being able to outperform the value of the dollar in terms of maintaining its value in dollar denominated terms. You (picnic bear) and I could go on and on in regards to various details, but I maintain that my point still stands regarding the fact that having $1.5 million in investment capital still would allow someone to be much more comfortable than the average American who tends to have inadequately been able to build up any kind of meaningful investment portfolio, whether we are referring to bitcoin or to other assets that might be in their quasi-liquid portfolio... and whether we are referring to Palo Alto or any other place in the country... of course, they are going to need more in Palo Alto, yet $1.5 million puts them in a decent position. Another problem that people have is to have a lot of their investment in their house, and I suppose I was presuming that quasi-liquid investment assets might have advantages over having assets in the personal home, presuming that the investment is actually owned (equity value) by the person, rather than being owned largely by the bank... but I was not really going into details regarding that, and merely presuming a kind of additional comfort that comes from having $1.5 million as compared to the average american that has little to no savings in terms of a quasi-liquid investment portfolio. Can you find it deep down inside of ur little selfie (maybe the non-argumentative portion of picnic bear to the extent that it might exist way on the deep down inside? hahahahahahaha) to appreciate what I am saying, Picnic bear? I was not really trying to argue "fuck you" status, but just a kind of supplementation status that a $1.5million dollar investment portfolio provides that might end up putting such hypothetical person in a better position than the average american, even if living in an expensive part of the country (such as palo alto, and maybe even if it might be more prudent for them to move to San Jose or some outlying area that is going to be a bit less expensive than Palo Alto specifically, which was still in the silicon valley as I had mentioned in the first place.. rather than Palo alto, specifically).
|
|
|
|
kellrobinson
|
|
June 19, 2020, 04:55:21 AM |
|
whomever whoever put this together.
|
|
|
|
Biodom
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3892
Merit: 4349
|
|
June 19, 2020, 05:16:39 AM |
|
having one or two million in silicon valley might just make you comfortable
I take it you've never been to (e.g.) Palo Alto? I have been there. O.k. Let me see if I can attempt to 'splain my assertion to you. There are a lot of people who don't have shit in regards to investments or savings (even if we account for home ownership, too), and surely having any kind of investment portfolio is going to be a whole hell of a lot more than many people, even in the US of A, where we have way more access to credit and financial services than so many people on the planet. However, many of us still have a lot of difficulties building some kind of investment portfolio. So, in that regard, even just having a mediocre investment portfolio of $1 million or $2million is going to put these kinds of people way in front of the vast majority of other people, whether we are talking about silicon valley or other places in the country. And, for sure, the cost of living for any particular area is going to hamper the extent to which the accumulated amount of wealth meets either "fuck you" status or "filthy rich" status. There are places in the world in which $1million or $2 million, and maybe even some places in the USA (so long as a guy/gal has fairly humble needs) would allow a kind of entry level "fuck you" status, even if there might be some questions regarding future value of such dollar denominated amounts, but there still might be ways in which a BTC portfolio might have decent chances of being able to outperform the value of the dollar in terms of maintaining its value in dollar denominated terms. <part deleted> Never been to Palo Alto (been to many other places in Cali), but I imagine that I know what he is talking about as Houston also has very prosperous enclaves with houses that look like some kings ought to live there. I straddle "the great divide" of both of these arguments. IMHO, in most of US, $1-2 mil remains a pretty good investment portfolio AS LONG as you have a steady job that pays reasonably well (or an equivalent income stream) AND your job gives you a decent health plan. If you don't have a job and you are not close to at least getting Medicare and SocSec, $1-2 mil is woefully insufficient. "Gambler" (the movie) claims that 2mil is enough (F U money), but it is not. The movie is based on the 1974 screen play. Back then, $2mil was certainly F.U. money. Not anymore.
|
|
|
|
jbreher
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
|
|
June 19, 2020, 05:24:33 AM |
|
having one or two million in silicon valley might just make you comfortable
I take it you've never been to (e.g.) Palo Alto? So, in that regard, even just having a mediocre investment portfolio of $1 million or $2million (Let's say 1.5 Million, which is in the middle) is going to put these kinds of people way in front of the vast majority of other people With your subsequent clarification, I think we're largely aligned, JJG. I think I was mostly reacting to your choice of silicon valley as an exemplar. Sure, Coeur D'Alene could be a fine place to live out a comfy life on 2M (I'm spitballing here). But Silicon Valley? Nuh-uhnh. Not Palo Alto, not San Fran, not San Jose, not Santa Ana, not Milpitas, not Los Gatos, not... Ok, maybe Gilroy.
|
|
|
|
JayJuanGee
Legendary
Online
Activity: 3864
Merit: 10900
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
|
|
June 19, 2020, 05:47:11 AM |
|
having one or two million in silicon valley might just make you comfortable
I take it you've never been to (e.g.) Palo Alto? I have been there. O.k. Let me see if I can attempt to 'splain my assertion to you. There are a lot of people who don't have shit in regards to investments or savings (even if we account for home ownership, too), and surely having any kind of investment portfolio is going to be a whole hell of a lot more than many people, even in the US of A, where we have way more access to credit and financial services than so many people on the planet. However, many of us still have a lot of difficulties building some kind of investment portfolio. So, in that regard, even just having a mediocre investment portfolio of $1 million or $2million is going to put these kinds of people way in front of the vast majority of other people, whether we are talking about silicon valley or other places in the country. And, for sure, the cost of living for any particular area is going to hamper the extent to which the accumulated amount of wealth meets either "fuck you" status or "filthy rich" status. There are places in the world in which $1million or $2 million, and maybe even some places in the USA (so long as a guy/gal has fairly humble needs) would allow a kind of entry level "fuck you" status, even if there might be some questions regarding future value of such dollar denominated amounts, but there still might be ways in which a BTC portfolio might have decent chances of being able to outperform the value of the dollar in terms of maintaining its value in dollar denominated terms. <part deleted> Never been to Palo Alto (been to many other places in Cali), but I imagine that I know what he is talking about as Houston also has very prosperous enclaves with houses that look like some kings ought to live there. I straddle "the great divide" of both of these arguments. IMHO, in most of US, $1-2 mil remains a pretty good investment portfolio AS LONG as you have a steady job that pays reasonably well (or an equivalent income stream) AND your job gives you a decent health plan. If you don't have a job and you are not close to at least getting Medicare and SocSec, $1-2 mil is woefully insufficient. "Gambler" (the movie) claims that 2mil is enough (F U money), but it is not. The movie is based on the 1974 screen play. Back then, $2mil was certainly F.U. money. Not anymore. Ok. Let's play with $2million. I was not referring to any movie, and sure of course, if you are talking about 1974 as compared to today, then you have to 3x the referred to amount in order to get somewhere close to 2020 dollars. I do believe, however, a person can live decently well off of $2million, which would provide a passive income of $6,666 per month. That is assuming a 4% withdrawal rate that would largely allow the withdrawal of appreciation while maintaining the principle. We have had this conversation before, and of course, you are not going to have any kind of baller lifestyle on $6,666 per month, but it should be enough to get by pretty decently as a kind of passive income, and surely, $2million is better than $1million because it is double the amount of $3,333... even $1million is doable in some parts of the USA and of course certain parts of the world will even allow for better living on that amount of passive income per month. We can agree to disagree if you believe that entry level of fuck you status is absolute more than $1million, because I know all kinds of poor fucks who live off way less than $3,333, and some of them live off less than $1k per month and are able to get by, so $3,333 is going to be much better for them, than $1k, especially passive income. Of course, many of us consider that we want to have a cushion and all those kinds of considerations that involve volatility and making sure that we are planning based on worse case scenarios, but if we can assume either $1million or $2million in principle that is steady, then a lot of people are going to be bat shit excited by that level of principle to be able to generate their 4% per month of a withdrawal rate that would produce $3,333 per month for $1million and $6,666 for $2million. having one or two million in silicon valley might just make you comfortable
I take it you've never been to (e.g.) Palo Alto? So, in that regard, even just having a mediocre investment portfolio of $1 million or $2million (Let's say 1.5 Million, which is in the middle) is going to put these kinds of people way in front of the vast majority of other people With your subsequent clarification, I think we're largely aligned, JJG. I think I was mostly reacting to your choice of silicon valley as an exemplar. Sure, Coeur D'Alene could be a fine place to live out a comfy life on 2M (I'm spitballing here). But Silicon Valley? Nuh-uhnh. Not Palo Alto, not San Fran, not San Jose, not Santa Ana, not Milpitas, not Los Gatos, not... Ok, maybe Gilroy. I only brought up silicon valley because the initially referred to article was talking about the guy who cashed out like around half of his BTC stash of about 2,200 bitcoin at $11,000 in 2017, which generated somewhere around $25 million, and he bought a house for $7million in silicon valley and he bought a few other consumer items and a business, but anyhow, I was referring to more modest cashing out scenarios that might generate way less revenue, and suggesting that the amount of money that the guy in the article had was in the filthy rich status rather than either fuck you status or even a more reasonable expected amount that brought me to mentioning a $1million to $2million dollar investment portfolio for some other hypothetical (and less rich) person who might be trying to get by in silicon valley. Anyhow, since you are conceding that we had some moment of being "largely aligned," we probably don't need to bat around too many more details, because it would likely just push us out of such alignment, which I would rather just enjoy our temporary alignment status, even if it may not be anything very solid to grasp onto.
|
|
|
|
Biodom
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3892
Merit: 4349
|
|
June 19, 2020, 06:03:11 AM |
|
having one or two million in silicon valley might just make you comfortable
I take it you've never been to (e.g.) Palo Alto? I have been there. O.k. Let me see if I can attempt to 'splain my assertion to you. There are a lot of people who don't have shit in regards to investments or savings (even if we account for home ownership, too), and surely having any kind of investment portfolio is going to be a whole hell of a lot more than many people, even in the US of A, where we have way more access to credit and financial services than so many people on the planet. However, many of us still have a lot of difficulties building some kind of investment portfolio. So, in that regard, even just having a mediocre investment portfolio of $1 million or $2million is going to put these kinds of people way in front of the vast majority of other people, whether we are talking about silicon valley or other places in the country. And, for sure, the cost of living for any particular area is going to hamper the extent to which the accumulated amount of wealth meets either "fuck you" status or "filthy rich" status. There are places in the world in which $1million or $2 million, and maybe even some places in the USA (so long as a guy/gal has fairly humble needs) would allow a kind of entry level "fuck you" status, even if there might be some questions regarding future value of such dollar denominated amounts, but there still might be ways in which a BTC portfolio might have decent chances of being able to outperform the value of the dollar in terms of maintaining its value in dollar denominated terms. <part deleted> Never been to Palo Alto (been to many other places in Cali), but I imagine that I know what he is talking about as Houston also has very prosperous enclaves with houses that look like some kings ought to live there. I straddle "the great divide" of both of these arguments. IMHO, in most of US, $1-2 mil remains a pretty good investment portfolio AS LONG as you have a steady job that pays reasonably well (or an equivalent income stream) AND your job gives you a decent health plan. If you don't have a job and you are not close to at least getting Medicare and SocSec, $1-2 mil is woefully insufficient. "Gambler" (the movie) claims that 2mil is enough (F U money), but it is not. The movie is based on the 1974 screen play. Back then, $2mil was certainly F.U. money. Not anymore. Ok. Let's play with $2million. I was not referring to any movie, and sure of course, if you are talking about 1974 as compared to today, then you have to 3x the referred to amount in order to get somewhere close to 2020 dollars. I do believe, however, a person can live decently well off of $2million, which would provide a passive income of $6,666 per month. That is assuming a 4% withdrawal rate that would largely allow the withdrawal of appreciation while maintaining the principle. We have had this conversation before, and of course, you are not going to have any kind of baller lifestyle on $6,666 per month, but it should be enough to get by pretty decently as a kind of passive income, and surely, $2million is better than $1million because it is double the amount of $3,333... even $1million is doable in some parts of the USA and of course certain parts of the world will even allow for better living on that amount of passive income per month. We can agree to disagree if you believe that entry level of fuck you status is absolute more than $1million, because I know all kinds of poor fucks who live off way less than $3,333, and some of them live off less than $1k per month and are able to get by, so $3,333 is going to be much better for them, than $1k, especially passive income. Of course, many of us consider that we want to have a cushion and all those kinds of considerations that involve volatility and making sure that we are planning based on worse case scenarios, but if we can assume either $1million or $2million in principle that is steady, then a lot of people are going to be bat shit excited by that level of principle to be able to generate their 4% per month of a withdrawal rate that would produce $3,333 per month for $1million and $6,666 for $2million. I assume that 6.66K number came from doing 4%? Assume that you are doing this 4%, suddenly, a health issue. No job, no insurance and you are billed $500K. Plus, subtract taxes on RE, etc, etc. 6.6K and moving to less expensive place like Spain or Portugal-maybe. As far as some people getting excited-sure..it turned out that meager donation of $600/wk from CARES act increased "earnings" for more than 60% people on UE ABOVE their previous pay.
|
|
|
|
|
bucciarati
|
|
June 19, 2020, 07:07:10 AM |
|
or you can lever 10 USD and play with them.. never go all in!!
|
|
|
|
serveria.com
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2380
Merit: 1189
Privacy Servers. Since 2009.
|
|
June 19, 2020, 07:28:28 AM |
|
Hmm I have a bad feeling... Like something around the corner. Hope I'm wrong.
HODLers not affected.
|
|
|
|
Wekkel
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1531
yes
|
|
June 19, 2020, 07:58:12 AM |
|
[...] High shool friends.... or a kid watching a grown man do some work? I'm no expert on this, but from reading Paul Allen's book Idea Man (2012) I certainly do not think of Bill Gates as a side-guy to Microsoft's success story but a key player together with others. They saw an opportunity, acted on it and worked their butts of with just the right mix of people. Well done. Anyone well versed in the ascent of computers is advised to read this book if not already done so.
|
|
|
|
sirazimuth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3500
Merit: 3603
born once atheist
|
|
June 19, 2020, 08:08:37 AM Merited by BobLawblaw (1) |
|
In case you are buying DCA with coinbase, well, you are pretty f*ckd.
God damn! I've been dca-ing with coinbase for 7 years .. I'm totally f*ckd man. Might as well put a bullet in my head. In the meantime I'm still working on my latest track entitled "Paranoid Delusions"....
|
|
|
|
fillippone
Legendary
Online
Activity: 2310
Merit: 16471
Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23
|
|
June 19, 2020, 08:16:25 AM Merited by sirazimuth (1) |
|
In case you are buying DCA with coinbase, well, you are pretty f*ckd.
God damn! I've been dca-ing with coinbase for 7 years .. I'm totally f*ckd man. Might as well put a bullet in my head. In the meantime I'm still working on my latest track entitled "Paranoid Delusions".... Whatever it works for you, I am good with that. We are all grown up men, after all. Just read this treatise. Not too long, wittily written.
|
|
|
|
El duderino_
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2660
Merit: 12991
BTC + Crossfit, living life.
|
Hmm I have a bad feeling... Like something around the corner. Hope I'm wrong.
There is always something around the corner .... Though with BTC I always have a good feeling, and consider myself lucky to have played a tiny role in adoption of it .... and most of all to be lucky to be one of the early ones in it
|
|
|
|
El duderino_
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2660
Merit: 12991
BTC + Crossfit, living life.
|
|
June 19, 2020, 08:41:56 AM |
|
Damn it feels good to stay a few days in some other cities .... missed this feeling for month’s
|
|
|
|
Tash
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 1190
Merit: 305
Pro financial, medical liberty
|
|
June 19, 2020, 09:02:30 AM Last edit: June 19, 2020, 10:51:23 AM by Tash |
|
[...] High shool friends.... or a kid watching a grown man do some work? I'm no expert on this, but from reading Paul Allen's book Idea Man (2012) I certainly do not think of Bill Gates as a side-guy to Microsoft's success story but a key player together with others. They saw an opportunity, acted on it and worked their butts of with just the right mix of people.
Well done. Anyone well versed in the ascent of computers is advised to read this book if not already done so. Must be the right way to go about. No income for 10 years, buying the latest and greatest computers, employ some people and tell em what to do Bill and Steve I think its more like we both had this rich neighbor named xerox and i broke into his house to steal the tv set and found out that you had already stolen it MS-DOS released on August 12, 1981 First windows was released in November 20, 1985 Windows 3.11 November 8, 1993 Windows 95 and then in a universe far far away The Xerox Alto from 1 March 1973 with 3 button mouse, gui, overlaping windows, network startup/operation, lots of games, mining Bitcoin,... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H79_kKzmFsThe Wang 2200 S from May, 1973 http://www.wang2200.org/images/cpu_2200s.jpgYou mean the right people to receive vaccinatins from http://www.asciitable.com/BILL GATES the 3rd B I L L G A T E S 3 66+73+76+76+71+65+84+69+83+3 = 666
W I N D O W S 95 (OEM Service Release 1, February 14, 1996) 87+73+78+68+79+87+83+57+53+1 = 666
|
|
|
|
glowing10
|
|
June 19, 2020, 09:29:14 AM |
|
Hmm I have a bad feeling... Like something around the corner. Hope I'm wrong.
HODLers not affected. Holders are mostly the beneficiaries, and this is what people who are billionaires today in different fields do holds their shares or buy in bulk and continue holding it because they below in it. it may be a temporary fall or may have some time to recover but eventually when it starts to boom, then only the matter of time how quickly your negative returns over the past years not only becomes positive but also the surpasses all your expecting and this in bitcoin we have seen it when it has reached 20k when nobody believed it could even happen.
|
|
|
|
kurious
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2590
Merit: 1643
|
|
June 19, 2020, 09:56:49 AM Merited by sirazimuth (1) |
|
people who end up intubated stand a real chance of dying.
Hmm. I'm not really trying to argue that you are wrong. I'm currently hunkered down. While I resent what I feel is government overreach in the liberty/safety balance, I'm happy enough to be careful on my own recognizance. But the following had me scratching my head: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIDsKdeFOmQI realize that this is an uncorroborated report, and it is anecdotal if true, at that. But it seems sincere, and has me questioning the entire medical response to this thing. At least in my mind.
edit: I see Tash beat me to it. Whatevs. Just looked over a few minutes - and it seems the initial premise is that people marked negative for test were still 'presumed' Covid positive. OK, but... it is entirely plausible that: 1. People were not tested, but obviously suffering classic symptoms. 2. Test results were taking hours (at best) to even come back - if someone is an emergency admission and short of breath at dangerous levels - as a doctor, you need to act and make a decision. I assume we are not arguing that thousands of people were dying. 3. Tests were simply not showing positive, since they were unreliable. A positive test is rarely wrong, but false negatives do exist - tests were then (and are still) not infallible. Her assertion that they were not ill and were only short of breath 'due to stress' is a bit of a stretch IMHO. Testing being fallible - or (because of time taken to even get results) being skipped in cases where someone is obviously lacking blood oxygen, seems a more likely explanation than deliberately using up ventilators for people with no real need. Pulse oximeters are ubiquitous in hospitals and damn quick to reliably show dangerously low oxygen levels. People panicking get high results, people short of breath due to pneumonia get low ones. OK, that ventilators and, in particular intubation, are not the best clinical options may or may not prove to be the case. At this time there was no better option, since people with not enough oxygen tend to die pretty quickly.
|
|
|
|
|