I'd love to be wrong. In 6 more months we'll find out.
Good luck with your faulty thinking.
You are likely going to need it...
but hey, you already are a pretty big fuck up, so there is that angle, too.
(again, #nohomo)Why would I need it?
Engaging in trading with one of the best if not the best of assets is problematic, and you should have had already learnt your lesson by now.. .but you seem to have not have, even if for the moment you are feeling that you are on the "right side" of a recent trade that you made.
Another problematic aspect is selling bitcoin prior to reaching overaccumulation status, and sure over the years, I had redefined my own definitions of overaccumulation status, yet the idea of selling bitcoin in order to buy back more is quite a problematic approach to bitcoin... and you also should have had learned that by now, too... but you seem to be a stubborn fuck, even if you have a pattern of fucking up in the selling too much too soon department and left with a dilemma when to buy back, even though you presume that you have it all figured out.
Settle down and enjoy selling me 4% of your stack at the bottom
I thought that I addressed this several times already, and surely my sustainable withdrawal thread addresses this... and specifically you seem to be referring to time-based sustainable withdrawal which I have asserted the ability to sustainably sell up to 10% of the 200-WMA price valuation as long as the spot price is at least 25% higher than the 200-WMA..,
I think that over the years, I have come to conclude that time-based sustainable withdrawal is a more advance technique than price based sustainable withdrawal, even though both of them allow to withdraw within limits within the frameworks that I describe in
my sustainable withdrawal thread. .and neither of them sell with an expectation of being able to buy back cheaper, even though both of the techniques allow it.
It seems to me that quite a bit of liberty comes from having had reached overaccumulation status, and if you had not been lacking in focus, you probably could have had considerably reached overaccumulation status already or even to have had way more than 10x the stack sizes of many guys who are regulars in this thread... which is part of the advantage of your having had more time in bitcoin than many guys here.. but you are still fucking around trading and not learning your lesson from your prior mistakes in that direction.. and you think that this time is going to work out better for you?
Since according to your own rendition, you learned since 2018 that bitcoin had "cycles" (supposedly a concrete kind of a learning that is close to guaranteed)... but your major fuck ups in bitcoin come way before 2018.. even though perhaps, even by 2018, you might have had been able to recover your prior fuck ups if you had fixed the errors of your prior ways and started to focus on prioritizing BTC accumulation through buying and holding rather than trying to trade. I am pretty sure that I already outlined a recovery scenario that you could have had followed since 2018 and still likely be in a way better position than your current position, since I doubt that fucking around with trading has been as lucrative for you as you are making it out to be, even if you are proclaiming to currently be on the right side of a supposed trade that you made, in which you probably sold too much of whatever little bitcoin holdings that you still had in order to gamble being able to buy them back at cheaper prices, to the extent that you don't get distracted into some other direction with whatever cash that you might still be holding from such supposed sale of BTC.
while you lose more of your BTC to dumb bets on this thread.
You win some, you lose some. From my perspective, the bet size with LFC was not really that BIG of a deal. It was more or less to attempt to illustrate a point and to stand behind our assertions, which LFC did do.
In regards to our current BTC price dynamics, what kind of odds do you want to give me on your expectation that the bottom is not in, yet. You come off as pretty confident that further bottoms are going to come.. and I am even willing to go along with 50/50 assertions that the bottom might not be in. In other words, I would not take the other side of a 50/50 bet..
At the same time, you come off as being quite confident that the bottom is not yet in, so in that regard, are you willing to go into the 80% territories? or some other odds that you would be willing to give that might be enough for me to enter into such a bet?
I understand that even if you and I might be able to figure out some odds in which we might be willing to enter into such a bet, I have my doubts that you would even come close to the levels of confidence that you have been spouting out in your nonsense posts about where you are saying that you expect the bottom to go in 6 months, which would be that you are waiting for October (supposedly).. I have my doubts that even you are that level of dumb... but hey, it takes all levels in order to have differences of opinion about the bitcoin price and where it might go and even financial and/or psychological strategies to deal with where we might expect the bitcoin price to go, whether referring to short term, medium term or long term.
Of course this is only because Len is dead and no-one has satoshi's keys.
You are not the ONLY one who thinks that Satoshi is dead and/or that Len Sasserman was Satoshi... and whether or not anyone currently has Satoshi's keys seems mostly irrelevant.
Another thing. I don't even think "we" know whether satoshi had made only a few keys or if he might have had made thousands or 10s of thousands of keys (in the event that he had separate keys for every block that he mined - that was a time before address reuse was frowned upon).
There is a quantitative academic study that nailed satoshi's coins by the Patoshi pattern.
It would not be impossible to get consensus on identifying them or at least the vast majority.
If all those coins suddenly became active there would be hell in this space and he never once mentioned ever using them.
Actually quite the opposite he stated lost keys were a gift to the community.
Eventually all cryptographic proofs get broken, it is a literal moving target that will probably never change.
Seriously if it was 100,000 coins then I would say great, that's a nice bounty for some company, but 1.1 million coins suddenly under some corporations control, can you imagine the havok that will cause.
Thats ~83 Billion without slippage at todays price !!!!!
I have already stated my position, which is that satoshi's coins should not be frozen or otherwise put back on the market, whether it is 100k coins or 1.1 million coins..
In other words, at this point, I am thinking that the best outcome is to let the chips fall where they may (sure, I might change my mind if some reasonable proposal were to be made), even though I am pretty sure that there are developers who might be considering ways to bring greater quantum resistant protections to satoshi's coins without freezing them or otherwise interfering with property rights that go to the key holder which is currently with satoshi or his heir or maybe he died with them or destroyed the keys (without protecting them).
I don't see urgency or havok, even if all 1.1 million coins were to be taken .. yet that is also a BIG hypothetical - though sure the market might panic..and yeah, it is not just satoshi's coins, there are other coins that might have similar vulnerabilities in which they had not moved and they had revealed their public key (or whatever is the criteria that supposedly makes them vulnerable to Quantum computing and/or AI).
[edited out]
I am not advocating freezing anyone's coins, don't put words in my mouth.
I would only support removing satoshi's coins and only to destroy them or roll them into the emission pool.
You really believe that once satoshi's coins were "removed" that such "removing" would stop at satoshi? You might live in a fantasy, perhaps?
I think all this bullshit would stop if his coins were addressed
Bullshit. There is always going to be certain segments whining about one thing or another, so why address them or presume urgency, when there is no urgency.
and they do have to be addressed sooner or later,
Why do they need to be addressed? A lot of assumptions in such assertion regarding vulnerability and also regarding supposed impact.
preferably before its too late and not at the last second when everyone is going to be yelling and screaming and losing their mind over it.
Let them yell and scream over made up drama.
And after a good long discussion ( the community can literally take years on this) with everyone having their say, not in some backroom with devs making the decision for the community like Overlords.
Status quo has a presumption. .which is do nothing. Doing something has burden of production (presentation of evidence) and burden of persuasion. .to convince of the necessity that supposedly exists.
Sure, if there were some concrete proposals other than the dumbass BIP 361, then maybe discussion would take place around such proposal(s).. I have not seen any concrete proposals except whining that supposedly nothing is being done about a supposed emergency that exists on the horizon.
If Satoshi is not able to protect his coins, then fuck Satoshi. (again, #nohomo)
Let his coins be stolen by the first person or entity that is capable of accomplishing such...and then let's see what happens from there. What is s/he/it going to do with such coins once stolen from Satoshi? Spend them at a local pub?
Guaranteed it will be the U.S. Gov that gets those coins, but I'm sure there won't be any fuckery because we all know how honest they are and it will be legal because they will say it is.
Sure. It could be, and in this supposed scenario are they stealing all of Satoshi's coins, or just some of them? a lot of speculation that does not even sound very plausible. So far, I have not heard any theories that I have considered to even be very plausible.. .yeah, I heard a lot of folks whining about their concern, perhaps selling their coins and/or refusing to buy bitcoin because they buy into made up bullshit, and yeah, so maybe the bitcoin price gets suppressed based on faulty information, yet what else is new about that? We have always had a decent amount of misinformation in and around bitcoin that caused the BTC price to be suppressed (perhaps even beyond the manipulation of paper bitcoin and spreading FUD of folks with a big platform).
Doesn't cause me to "feel" any sense of urgency about the need to "do something." But, hey? who am I? just some random.
......There should be a list of 4 groups
never moved but clearly not a block payout.
Never moved but but clearly a block was paid in
Moved and some remain
Moved and empty.
Same for 2012 to 2017
Seems retarded to even be entertaining such nonsense.
Poll
