You would think an MIT grad and subsequent computer simulations modeler would've understood Bitcoin back in 2013.
I'm no MIT grad and I got it almost immediately back then.
Hell within a few days of research, I completely understood how groundbreaking a breakthrough it was, and how it would fundamentally change the financial world.
While that all makes sense, one must first actually stick their head in the rabbit hole before one can start to understand.
edit: 'tis one of my regrets that I did not give the rabbit hole more than a cursory glance at first sight. Oh well. C'est la guerre.
Huh, jbreher?
What's your rabbit hole story? You may have said. I cannot remember specifics.
You did not start buying BTC right away? At least small amounts? You may have sold too many too soon. I think that i heard you reveal something like that, previously.
I've said a little. Perhaps not a lot. I was made aware in 2010. I already had a huge revulsion for the tenets of partial reserve banking, so I was primed. But I was A Busy Guy. No time to look into a neckbeard curiosity that had 'little chance of panning out' (i.e., I walked past the rabbit hole and noticed it's presence, but did not stick my head in).
Even at that, I was buying well before I registered hereupon. Ponderate upon that if you must.
No, I've not sold a whole lot. 'Divestment phase' != 'Liquidating out for stinky fiat'. At least not in my reading.
I did ...
lose a whole lot. In a
boating accident couple of scammy scams. As said earlier, C'est la guerre.
I have probably been interacting with you since mid-to-late 2014.. perhaps early 2015, and seems that you had accumulated some BTC in Bitcoin's pre-2013 era.
Sure, maybe a lot of us do not accumulate as many BTC as we retroactively conclude that we should have, and of course, June 2011 would have given you a whole year to accumulate single digit BTC and then a bit more than another 1/2 year to acquire BTC in the teens (below $20).
Yup. Even after (significant) losses, my all-in cost for what I still hold is about $20 each.
So, sure, there could have been some selling too much too soon.
Not at all. I have sold ... a little. For a good price. Anyone else here claiming they sold some at $20250?
(yes, I know you are wedded to stamp's numbers. But GDAX went above 20250)
Bueller...?
... Bueller...?*
*Fun factoid: The guy who played that teacher -- Ben Stein -- used to be President Richard M Nixon's speechwriter.
Another factoid I let slip a while back: At the top of the market in late 2017, I sold enough to buy My Personal Lambo
tm.
Some of us are well into the divestment phase.
Probably one of the first times that you mentioned that mostly "divestment phase" perspective of yourself.
Again, not at all. From the same time frame as above: I have already stated that I have
retired. Which means I need to fund my Lavish Lambo Lifestyle
tm* off my accumulated holdings. Hence, Divestment phase.
I mean, if you can't connect 'retired from wage slave status' (even at a job I loved - and one upon which Bitcoin, computer networking, and pretty much any tech-touching field is utterly dependent upon my contributions to such) with 'divestment phase'? Well, then that's on you.
*(Rhetorical question - if it is well within your means, is the Lavish Lambo Lifestyle
tm actually ...
lavish?)
Could be one of the reasons that you seem to have a decent amount of relative valuing of dollars rather than bitcoin?
How long have we known each other? If I valued USD more than Bitcoin, I'd have liquidated.
On the other hand, such a purported status would not seem to justify your seeming tendency to have been spending many years gambling with long shot bcash nonsenses.
So sue me. (I've got a pretty big war chest - you better be sure of your case).
No, I just think that a Bitcoin that has not been intentionally crippled by an insane, economically-ignorant restrictive production quota upon transaction capacity has more inherent value than one which has been so crippled. And that my thesis will be proven prescient come Blockalypse II. But you know this already.
You also know that I am not in the BCH camp. I was until they started adopting pages from the Core/Blockstream playbook, and started adding gratuitous protocol changes. At which point, the standard-bearer for satoshi's original design was advanced by BSV.
The confirmed science and math that Satoshi didn't understand has to do with how poorly this system functions as a currency. We tried it for a few years. It doesn't work. It's only a bad speculative vehicle, which now people realize and have been dumping for 4 years. The project failed. Neat idea, but fractional reserve banking is clearly better based on all proven and confirmed science and math. I'm glad Satoshi tried this out, but now we know it doesn't work and we can go back to the way things are proven to work best.
Too bad Satoshi wasn't a smart guy like Craig Wright.
To be fair, for the entire interval of satoshi's public involvement, transaction volume never came anywhere near the (relatively very high level for the time) blocksize cap that he enacted under prodding from his most significant collaborator.
Plus, he explicitly explained exactly how trivial it would be to increase said blocksize cap such that transaction volume was never artificially throttled. Extending to exemplary code. To the eventual exasperation of those of us who would like the system to exceed such exceedingly tiny limits. As reliance on such economicallly braindead external exigencies is extreme folly.
In other words, pretty much long settled that BIG blocks are not the way to go,
'Settled'? Au contraire mon frere.
I mean, if you think that the wise decision is to outsource your strategy to the 100 IQ masses, knock yourself out.
No - at the point that we've not even started up the S-Curve inflection point of adoption, it is waaaaay too early to be calling any sort of eventual winner.