Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[Biodom]

Taker-fee when you sell...and by the low volume they mean $10K.

Actually, taker fee is when you clear (take) an order (be it a bid OR an ask) from the orderbook. Maker fee is when your order stays in the book and gets taken later by someone else.

Thanks for the explanation, but the main point was that the table @JJG posted is an old table, not in effect right now.
Regarding 'stays in the book'-how long it has to stay to be considered a "maker", i wonder?
Regarddless of that, even 0.6% maker fee is outrageously high, imho, especially if you compare it it to what happens at the stock market.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[d_eddie]

Regarding 'stays in the book'-how long it has to stay to be considered a "maker", i wonder?

As long as your order doesn't land on an existing matching one, you're a maker. Even 1ms is fine. The distinction is if you pick an existing order and fill it (possibly only in part), you're a taker. Otherwise, you're a maker.

the main point was that the table @JJG posted is an old table, not in effect right now

Clarity and transparent pricing are for losers, didn't you know?

Regarddless of that, even 0.6% maker fee is outrageously high, imho, especially if you compare it it to what happens at the stock market.

I a gree it's pricey, but I think it's fairly typical for exchanges. I'm ready to stand corrected because I don't follow the market too much, so I don't really know the landscape well.

[JimboToronto]

Dying with zero is pretty pathetic and greedy.

Perhaps you should think about others who could use your excess wealth.

I can accept the fact that leaving it to immature young family members could be a waste but maybe you can think of more responsible recipients who could put it to good use.

Enjoy the benefits of your success while you're alive but don't assume you'll be able to time your lifespan to use up your wealth. You might live longer than you think. Keeping enough for a good future is essential. That means leaving some behind.

Think about what you want to happen to what's left behind.

I think judging a book by its name is pretty pathetic. Maybe you should read it, if you have such a strong opinion about it even before reading it. (Making 1 second thought on the subject, makes us usually have wrong assumptions )

This book isn't about greed at all.
  
For example, you can make donations in life. If you die with billions/millions in your bank account, you don't know what will happen to that money (you may even outlive your sons, for example).
This book talks about this.

I think taking all your wealth to your grave is much greedier than donating or spending it while alive.

I wasn't talking about the book. I was commenting  on the concept of spending (or donating) all your wealth yourself instead of leaving something for your heirs to spend or donate.

Inter-generational wealth is a good thing. A good will is important.

[AlcoHoDL]

[...]

... yet we still might presume even a person who invested $100 per week into bitcoin for 10 years, then he would have had invested around $104k ...

[...]

Shouldn't this be $52k?

$100 / wk x 52 wks / yr x 10 yrs = $52k

Sorry for being picky... My OCD...

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[Wakate]

 I've lived similarly but really only when it comes to my own wants and needs but sometimes you gotta splurge to make life a little more interesting.

This is pretty cool dude! Technology has made life easier and with the aid of artificial intelligence in due time, we all will be fucking lazy although lifestyle will be fucking sweet by then.
Trust me, those that lived during the 17th, 18th, 19th maybe part of 20th centuries would be quite amazed to see us from the realm displaying the potential of God's like beings! World of Technologia! 

[d_eddie]

[...]

... yet we still might presume even a person who invested $100 per week into bitcoin for 10 years, then he would have had invested around $104k ...

[...]

Shouldn't this be $52k?

$100 / wk x 52 wks / yr x 10 yrs = $52k

Sorry for being picky... My OCD...

For new entries: this is what we mean here by Don't trust, verify. Even if the source is a trusted member of the community.

[bitmover]

I wasn't talking about the book. I was commenting  on the concept of spending (or donating) all your wealth yourself instead of leaving something for your heirs to spend or donate.

Inter-generational wealth is a good thing. A good will is important.

I agree that Inter-generational wealth is a good thing.

But you can die with zero, and still give your money to your heirs.

And it will be much better for your heirs if they receive your money before you die. If you die at 90, your son will receive your wealth when he is 60, when he is probably already rich.

People need money in their 20s and 30s , when they are building their lifes. Buy a new house, pay school for kids, etc... At 60s-70s money isn't so important anymore, so it is not a good time to receive heritage.

If you decide to die with zero, you can make a huge donation for your heirs when they really need it, in their 20s-30s. Not leave it to some random occasion  in the future when you die (and as I said, you may outlive an heir)

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[JimboToronto]

People need money in their 20s and 30s , when they are building their lifes. Buy a new house, pay school for kids, etc... At 60s-70s money isn't so important anymore, so it is not a good time to receive heritage.

The trouble with bequeathing money to people in their 20s is that far too often it gets wasted on things like cars, clothing, restaurant meals, etc.

It's much better to wait until they're 40 when they're entering the prime of their lives and are more likely to use the money wisely. Most people are grown up by the time they reach their 40s. By then they've probably learned the value of work and thriftiness.

[Biodom]

People need money in their 20s and 30s , when they are building their lifes. Buy a new house, pay school for kids, etc... At 60s-70s money isn't so important anymore, so it is not a good time to receive heritage.

The trouble with bequeathing money to people in their 20s is that far too often it gets wasted on things like cars, clothing, restaurant meals, etc.

It's much better to wait until they're 40 when they're entering the prime of their lives and are more likely to use the money wisely. Most people are grown up by the time they reach their 40s. By then they've probably learned the value of work and thriftiness.

Some people recommend to give 1/3 at age 30, 1/3 at 35 and 1/3 at 40 or 1/2 at 30 and 1/2 at 40.
Giving money to someone when they are 60 years old is not optimal, imho, but I agree about early-mid twenties.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[JayJuanGee]

[...]
... yet we still might presume even a person who invested $100 per week into bitcoin for 10 years, then he would have had invested around $104k ...
[...]

Shouldn't this be $52k?
$100 / wk x 52 wks / yr x 10 yrs = $52k

Sorry for being picky... My OCD...

You are correct.  Thanks.... I went back and fixed it in the original and I think that I was able to catch each of the errors.. Sometimes it is not good to have those kinds of mistakes that might contribute to unnecessary confusion.

In recent times, I have been switching between using the example of investing $100 per week and the example of investing $200 per week, so in this case, I still had my $200 per week example in my head from some other recent post that I had made.   

I think that in recent times, I have also argued that a person who is just getting started investing into bitcoin and who ends up $250 per week, which would be $13k per year and $130k after 10 years, he does not even have good chances of accumulating 0.4 BTC or 0.5 BTC after 10 years.

In late 2035, the 200-WMA may well be close to $600k, so surely a guy who is able to get 0.5 BTC would have to have an average cost per BTC that is quite a bit less than $600k, since I tend to presume that if a guy had been investing somewhat steadily for 4 years, then his average cost would be right around the 200WMA and presumptively the longer that he invests, as long as his investments are somewhat steady, then it is likely that the 200-WMA will go up higher than his average costs per BTC. ... and so it might well be a struggle to get to 0.4 BTC to 0.5 BTC even with an average of $250 per week invested over a period of 10 years.

I do agree that a person who is at least able to start investing into bitcoin with something like $100 per week right now, he may well be able to increase his weekly BTC investment amounts to get to those weekly investment amounts to higher and higher levels and surely there could be some periods in which the BTC price is down for relatively long periods, which could end up increasing the quantity of BTC they had been able to accumulate during the down periods.  So over 10 years a person might be able to 4x or more his original weekly DCA amounts.

I don't recall your situation, yet it seems that there have been quite a few of us from around 10-ish years back who may well might have had BTC accumulation goals that we were able to exceed based on our persistent and ongoing buying of BTC and no one is saying that it is easy to accumulate bitcoin, yet sometimes we an end up exceeding our accumulation goals based on our trying to be as persistent as we can in our ongoing BTC accumulation and perhaps figuring out ways to increase our discretionary income by increasing our income and/or decreasing our expenses.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[bitmover]

People need money in their 20s and 30s , when they are building their lifes. Buy a new house, pay school for kids, etc... At 60s-70s money isn't so important anymore, so it is not a good time to receive heritage.

The trouble with bequeathing money to people in their 20s is that far too often it gets wasted on things like cars, clothing, restaurant meals, etc.

It's much better to wait until they're 40 when they're entering the prime of their lives and are more likely to use the money wisely. Most people are grown up by the time they reach their 40s. By then they've probably learned the value of work and thriftiness.

Well, certainly give money to your "children" when they in their 40s is much better than taking it to your grave and giving it to them in a random occasion when you die, when they could be 60s-70s or even 80s already (or even dead because they lacked money when they needed or whatever)

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[OgNasty]

People need money in their 20s and 30s , when they are building their lifes. Buy a new house, pay school for kids, etc... At 60s-70s money isn't so important anymore, so it is not a good time to receive heritage.

The trouble with bequeathing money to people in their 20s is that far too often it gets wasted on things like cars, clothing, restaurant meals, etc.

It's much better to wait until they're 40 when they're entering the prime of their lives and are more likely to use the money wisely. Most people are grown up by the time they reach their 40s. By then they've probably learned the value of work and thriftiness.

Well, certainly give money to your "children" when they in their 40s is much better than taking it to your grave and giving it to them in a random occasion when you die, when they could be 60s-70s or even 80s already (or even dead because they lacked money when they needed or whatever)

I don't think it matters how old someone is to be honest.  People who save money will save it and people who spend it will spend it.  I was a penny pincher when I was a kid and I still am today.  I also know people in their 70s and 80s that you could give a million dollars to and they would just use it to dig themselves deeper in debt.  So part of me thinks the younger the better, although for people who aren't financially forward thinking it could be a disaster.  If you don't think the person receiving the money could handle it, an annuity is a great option.

Maybe as part of a will it could include taking a personal finance class before receiving the money.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[philipma1957]

a snack for buddy