I don't make stock calls often, actually only about 4 that I can remember but I'm batting 1000%.
Buy Tesla on IPO
Buy Ford when it dropped below 1 dollar and they refused the Gov bailout
Buy Amd when it went below 1 dollar
Short Intel July 15th.
It takes a man to admit when they were wrong, have a merit.
Wow, that's better than 99% of investors, for sure.
Compare it with my stats:
Bought TSLA after it declined after the IPO, sold few mo later...decided that the story would take too long to fruition...duh!
Bought AAPL in 1997, sold it in 2000 after making 10X
Never bought NVDA
Biggest wins apart from bitcoin were in small biotechs (3x, 5X, even 10X)
Bought bitcoin, though, and still holding...
Perhaps, you don't need many mega-wins and just ONE could be sufficient..at least this is my hope.
But what is your bitcoin buying story.
One version I heard is bought 20 bitcoins in 2015 and then now sitting on them ever since waiting for them to go up to $10 million each. there were a few variations of it.
I told my story close to a zillion times, so I doubt anyone wants to hear my reiteration of it again... even though some variation of my story is in
my bitcoin investment ideas thread.
Ah, I did buy some in 2014, 2015 and later...sold some in 2017..not buying now, apart from small sums...the numbers are not really important because I would not disclose despite your teasing and assumptions,
There is nothing wrong with being vague. I doubt that I have ever given too many specifics about my own holdings, and even from time to time mentioned that the numbers that I am providing may well be fictional..
yet, you surely have some levels of vagueness that from my perspective seems to go above and beyond necessary - and part of my ongoing quibble with such vagueness relates to some of your own digging at DCA-like strategies, and even frequently seeming to imply that some advantages come from just sitting on investments rather than the kinds of ongoing buying that I tend to recommend.
I am not even suggesting that you might not be advantaged by some strategic buying rather than ongoing buying, but surely it tends to be quite difficult to know when and/or how for any normies to figure out how to employ such potentially greater advantaged strategic buying, and so accordingly I am much more of a subscriber of ongoing buying rather than strategic buying, including strategic buying that has a bit of a built-in whimpiness to it, which is likely part of your bitcoin history, even if I might have some of your details wrong.
Another thing is that I hope that you had bought since 2017 to get back some of the corn that you sold then.
Don't get me wrong. I don't have anything really against your pointing out counter perspectives, since it is likely quite healthy for some of us to have some ongoing ideological battles (or even application battles) in these here parts, so there is no real reason to take any of my ongoing criticisms of what I have gathered to be your approaches in a personal way. even if sometimes I might end up exaggerating aspects of what I believe to be your position from time to time in order to make some points regarding my ideas that it frequently has been better to ongoingly buy bitcoin rather than waiting around trying to figure out potentially better entry points - while at the same time it truly has been the case that an ongoing whimpy and skeptical bitcoin investor has ended up doing way better in bitcoin than a large number of folks who failed/refused to get off zero... so surely any of us who knew about bitcoin in the last 6-12 years, even if skeptical about bitcoin, would have likely still profited stupendously so long as getting off zero and taking some kind of a position and mostly holding that position, instead of failing/refusing to buy.
Another thing is that it has likely continued to be a good thing to ongoingly buy into bitcoin, especially if any of us have assessed that we don't quite have enough bitcoin, so we should not really stop accumulating it until we make sure that we have enough or more than enough, and we may well not agree at what point a person should objectively feel that he has enough or that he has more than enough. So it is likely that we can continue to battle about the drawing of those kinds of threshold considerations... because sometimes if any of us get some ideas regarding the individual assessment of
the 9 individual factors of another person, we can sometimes second-guess that person based on what we would do if we were in the same situation (even though we cannot completely get in their mind and also really know how they subjectively evaluate risk.. but we can criticize such persons and call them either too whimpy or too aggressive).
I think that part of my stacking sats perception and commentary surely has individualistic components to it, and I find it a wee bit problematic for some of us to end up getting too caught up in our own stories rather than recognizing and appreciating that there likely continue to be an overwhelming majority of the world's population that is low coiners and no coiners, and so yeah, it is way more obvious to suggest and even presume that there are a lot of no coiners in the world so to presume that they get off zero, so likely many of them are going to need to stack for at least a whole cycle before they really get some kind of a meaningful stash, since I am not going to presume that normies already have investments and/or savings that they can lump sum into bitcoin. So my own presumption and somewhat blanket advice for almost anyone is to get started asap and then to start out with DCA. Sure anyone who is already an investor and/or saver may have some lump sum that they can put into bitcoin, yet I still am not too excited by any kind of waiting strategy that involves buying on dips, unless it is prefaced by some kind of lump sum investment into bitcoin or some short-term heavy front loading that would then allow buying on the dip to become more reasonable.. so anyhow, you and I might continue to differ in terms of when the strategizing of buys (buy waiting rather than buying right away) is triggered to be practical, rather than just buying right away, buying regularly and buying often, at least for the whole first cycle, and maybe a bit longer prior to transitioning into a maintenance stage or some kind of a stage that would allow the incorporation of buying on the dips.
but it is true that I am waiting until the sum reaches a certain high number, possibly, after which I would transition to phase 2. It's not going to be the distribution, but, rather, an organization of matters related to bitcoin and my extended family.
nothing wrong with that.. though from my own perspective, ongoing BTC accumulation would likely be a way to try to make sure to get to such higher bitcoin portfolio valuation at a quicker rate, rather than waiting for BTC prices to reach $10 million or whatever might be your number (and we know that the number is a bit of a moving target too, based on ongoing and likely inevitable debasement of the dollar).
That said, it is possible that I wouldn't live to see phase 2 because bitcoin's price needs to be quite high for me to follow through.
I personally appreciate the idea of stacking for myself rather than stacking for my family, even though I understand that if you might already feel that you are living well or well enough, then you don't necessarily need to add any more consumption to your life... or plans to personally consume your bitcoin in your later years.
Otherwise, I would just make a will or do a trust. Honestly, currently there is no good method of even giving bitcoin to someone because rules and laws regarding this are at a rudimentary level. You are not going to do it by writing a private code on a piece of paper and putting it in a safe at the bank or at the lawyer's office (lol!) and/or giving someone a trezor/ledger. They wouldn't know what to do with it...it takes quite intense learning to get it properly, as we all know.
There are formal and informal ways to attempt to accomplish these kinds of matters, and surely some folks who might attempt to go too informally might end up contributing to potential problems for their heirs later down the road.
I think that some people are paradoxically converting btc into btc etfs now because those units are VERY easy to inherit from you or for you to gift.
I am not going to argue with you in regards to some aspects of third-party custody allowing for easier transfer of assets (especially in an inheritance context), yet I doubt that it should be a good idea for bitcoiner's to be pumping 3rd party custodial products for bitcoin, including that if everyone held their bitcoin through 3rd party custodians, then a lot of bitcoin's value proposition will diminish or maybe even completely disappear since an overwhelming majority of the power of bitcoin comes from abilities to directly custody and transact with it.. and without any requirement to ask any 3rd party for permission prior to transacting. .and at the same time, in the event that transactions are traceable, then there could be another question of getting pursued for making certain transactions, even if no one was able to stop the transaction prior to it happening.
I wouldn't do it in principle because to me etfs are inferior to bitcoin itself, but I can see others going this route, especially when brokerages would be allowed to take your btc and give you etfs.
Sure, there are going to continue to be ways that ETFs and other third party custodial products are made attractive to normies.... but yeah, that does not mean that we should use them or promote them. yet at the same time, there still could be some value in keeping some percentage of your BTC holdings in such 3rd party products.. and each person likely has to figure out how much of his/her own holdings that he is ready and willing to hold in such 3rd party products (and it would not even need to all be in the same product.. but yeah? how much? 5%?, 25%? 50% or some other number?. . I personally get worried about those higher percentages, since it seems that bitcoin's value proposition could end up getting undermined if on the aggregate the percentages of coins held in 3rd party services become excessively high.. in the greater than 70-80% territories.. unless there are a decent amount of safeguards for individuals to permission-lessly withdraw to private wallets)
EDIT: I am convinced that this conversion would become a reality later. Why? For a simple reason that brokerages would have more opportunities to earn "yield" on your actual bitcoins vs almost lifeless etfs (which are good only for inheritance or limited borrowing against).
Various financialization products are growing with bitcoin... and yeah, it is likely going to take a while to see the various directions that the products go, how many coins they control and how the usage of such products affect various empowerment (self-sovereignty) characteristics of bitcoin.
Is Trump trying to encourage me to vote for Harris?
It is kind of funny how so many bitcoiners worship that dweeb as some kind of a god (and even frequently reinterpret benevolent or well-intentioned or even 5-D chess meanings into his statements), but on the regular he either says a lot of pretty dumb shit or he is so obviously over-the-top when it comes to his narcissism.
...
First of all, you are not going to get a change in USA law to cause the bitcoin that it already holds to either become unencumbered or any claims against them to be resolved right away (by executive order or even by congress) since there are due process and property rights clauses in the constitution.
Second, that proposed legislation is not even close to being passed, so you seem to be living in a fantasy if you believe that the US government is going to start buying BTC in order to reach some kind of a "strategic reserve target." Let the proposed legislation pass and the president sign it first, before you start getting all excited about something that merely has been proposed and it has to get through the senate, house and then past the president's desk.. and then what kinds of dates does it have to become effective (does supposed fantasy law describe if the coin acquisition would be overt or covert or both?).
Don't get me wrong, I am finding it quite interesting and perhaps also bullish that several of the talking points about bitcoin (and crypto) has changed in the past several months.. yet it still could take a bit of time before actual friendly legislation goes through, even assuming either legislation or executive actions might end up continuing to progress.
Ok so if I understand you correctly here, the government could not secretly amass a high amount of BTC without letting the public know or without going through congress?
I did not say anything about what the US Govt could do secretively. Even though various aspects of the US Govt, and various systems frequently present themselves as being open and transparent, we frequently find out about a large number of covert government actions and/or programs, and there is likely even a pretty large expectation that covert government programs exist. .yet there still can be controversies about the extent to which such covert government programs/actions are justified to exist and/or questions regarding who controls them and/or within whose interest they operate.
OgNasty seemed to have been mostly referring to various ways the US Government might overtly support bitcoin, so he did not really mention the extent to which overt programs or actions might play into overt US Government programs/actions... and I am not even sure if we need to go down that road.. even though I merely mentioned the possibility of any legislation and/or policy that might provide parameters for the US Govt's overt versus covert acquisition of BTC.
I mean there have been countless of things and measures that have been executed and when the public only found out decades later. I am not so much convinced that the government or an agency close to the government would push the price by passing a bill that 1,000,000 BTC should be bought. That would be stupid.
You are bringing up an angle that I did not get into in my post, and your point about the US Government not wanting to pump BTC's price seems more than reasonable (as a possible concern).
I'd rather assume they have already done it for years and years while sticking to the law that confiscated BTC have to be treated differently.
I think that it is reasonable to presume that the US Government might have some policies and practices that involve BTC (and even BTC acquisitions) that are not necessarily known by the public, and some of the elected officials might sometimes find out about some of the various US Government secret policies and/or practices and might sometimes attempt to take actions regarding such secret policies/practices.
Again my question: is it possible that the US government (or an agency close to it) is already sitting on a million BTC? Or whatever amount, but a significant one?
Sure it is possible that they have way more BTC than the public believes them to have, yet your million number seems a bit of a stretch.. but hey, never say never.
In my opinion BTC is of such a high geostrategic relevance that I would not find it reasonable to inform the whole world about it when purchases are being made.
I agree.
Starting to believe that this is not the place for me anymore.
Even off-topics are not fun anymore.
WO turned into a cult with people what they want to hear.
Initial years where great thought.
Kind of agree with that as well, you would be missed, here's hoping you will reconsider.
Say what you like. Who cares?
It does not matter if the rest of us agree with your perspective or not.. ..
Of course, if you are just trolling, then that's another story, you are likely to get backlash, but even if you were a troll, the trolls usually also get away with a certain amount of posting non-substantive and meaningless nonsense. That does not seem like your historical posts.
Not a troll, and it matters to me what you think because learned a lot from your posts, even if disagreeing at times.
On the subject, I do miss proudhon, he used to balance this thread nicely.
Ultimately, each of us decides the extent to which we participate, and likely we need to feel that we are getting something out of our participation. One of the reasons that I have stuck around so long is that I just love Bitcoin as a topic. For me, it never really gets dull, even though sometimes there can be some stress in regards to some of the repeated topics.
Also, it tends to be good that we get participation from a large variety of perspectives and persons with various experiences all around the world, since bitcoin is a global phenomena.. even though surely some forum members might not want to participate in threads that are in English.. and then also maybe some of the English threads might have quite a bit of cultural biasness contained therein, which might be frustrating for some forum members.
By the way, sometimes there is value for members to post here from other bitcoin-related forums around the world so that we might find out what is going on from within this thread, and yeah sometimes it can be frustrating if some forum members ONLY post the link to some outside information without any kind of their own comments - yet sometimes those (seemingly trolling members) are ending up posting more bitcoin-relevant content than some of the other members participating in this thread (or maybe other parts of the forum).
It is nice when a forum member posts some kind of bitcoin-related content and also at least provides a bit of a comment or question about the content rather than sharing absolutely no personal opinion or insight at all in regards to the contents of the post.
When it comes to bitcoin, maybe many of us agree too much, yet at the same time, there seem to always be some areas in which we likely disagree in regards to the various ways that bitcoin might (or might not) fix various troubling aspects of the world.
Let’s pretend…
you seem to be living in a fantasy
I’m glad you’re sticking with me…
I can ONLY try, and frequently it is not overly pleasant... ..
I am reminded of a phillip1957 post from a couple of days ago in which he suggested that we would be going below $60k, yet I had wondered how far below we might be going, since I have had a few more of my buy orders filled since that post, so yeah.. the next is lower $61ks and then lower $59ks. I already had my resolution of mistake one filled in the mid-to-upper $61ks (that one was a kind of freeby no action one, just putting things back in order from my perspective).
So yeah, my buy orders are very $2k down to $57k-ish, then they are every $1,500 if we go below that...
Bounce or no bounce? who knows? You seem to know. .and yeah, let's see how it all plays out in terms of our current short-term waves and then subsequently in terms of the presidential election that you seem to be currently considering as "so important" blah blah blah, as if king daddy gives too many shits.
First of all, you are not going to get a change in USA law to cause the bitcoin that it already holds to either become unencumbered or any claims against them to be resolved right away (by executive order or even by congress) since there are due process and property rights clauses in the constitution.
Second, that proposed legislation is not even close to being passed, so you seem to be living in a fantasy if you believe that the US government is going to start buying BTC in order to reach some kind of a "strategic reserve target." Let the proposed legislation pass and the president sign it first, before you start getting all excited about something that merely has been proposed and it has to get through the senate, house and then past the president's desk.. and then what kinds of dates does it have to become effective (does supposed fantasy law describe if the coin acquisition would be overt or covert or both?).
Don't get me wrong, I am finding it quite interesting and perhaps also bullish that several of the talking points about bitcoin (and crypto) has changed in the past several months.. yet it still could take a bit of time before actual friendly legislation goes through, even assuming either legislation or executive actions might end up continuing to progress.
You are absolutely correct @JJG, I mean this is politics and everything is/can be possible
I thought that my attempts at making points were the opposite? So in that regard, I surely would not be trying to proclaim that everything is possible, and there are various kinds of limits and restrictions that exist in the real world. Surely some of the restrictions and limits can be overcome, but still it is not like we can just completely ignore all existing institutions and established practices, even though surely if Trump gets in, he would likely try to make systems completely revolve around him, since he does not even really seem to believe in anything related to rule of law, unless he can use it to his advantage.. He's a grifter, at best... But, people "love" him, no? People seem to love arrogant dweebs who try to act like they are tough.
and we shouldn't be so carried away by what the US said concerning Bitcoin perhaps we should be careful and mindful of what we want to believe because I see this... As a strategy for him to get into power, years back same person was kind of criticizing Bitcoin but whatever it is, I hope it doesn't turn to affect us negatively.
I agree with you on the point that none of us should trust that self-centered narcissistic dweeb known as Trump, even though so many folks seems to consider him to be genuine, merely because he says a lot of things that others might not say, including shit-stirring and personal attacks and bullying (ganster/mobster) kinds of behaviors... but hey whatever, folks want to believe a liar who happens to also be a convicted criminal (felon), then whatever, there is ONLY so much that can be done to save folks from their own perceptions in regards to whether or the extent to which a person might be worthy of trust...
Some of the excuses is that he is not really a convicted felon because everyone is out to get him.. .. another bunch of bullshit and spin, even if there might be some truth to the matter that he is not very liked. and he is quite a bit of a jerk.. How could someone be hired to represent the people and to figure out some kind of responsible application of government if he is unable to consider anyone but himself? Oh? I forgot, if you consider government to be bad, then you might want someone who says that he is trying to reduce government.. perhaps he might be able to do that? I am not sure, it might be a coincidence that he is actually (or would be) reducing government in ways that happen to actually be better for the people rather than just good for his trying to stay out of jail.
Poll
