rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)

[tupelo]

One husband is quite enough for any woman!   

And why in the world would any man want more than one woman!?  That is the question I have always had for polygamists! 

simple: portfolio diversification 

[cAPSLOCK]

And why in the world would any man want more than one woman!?  That is the question I have always had for polygamists! 

As a man I can understand the natural male drive to mate with just about every woman we see. Alarming perhaps to women, but no less true.

As a man who has been faithful to my single wife of 21 years who is my very best friend, and still the hottest woman I have ever seen I am sad for any man who never experiences the deep beauty of monogamous bliss...

Also.  one woman is ENOUGH.

[2017orso]

With respect to the wives in this thread, I urge the curtailing of this line of discussion before we see 'Wife Observer - the Quality T&A Thread '  After all, there are kids here.

[BitchicksHusband]

This depends on your country, bank and degree of fascism you are subject to. Here in Sweden, for example, the banks view "activity" as "suspicious" until you prove otherwise and doing so is not that easy.

Are you sure that you are not exaggerating anything here? Wouldn't that completely impede the capital movement, which is a large %% of economy?
If what you are writing is true, then i understand where Cyprus came from.

As I said, your country and how far info fascism it has fallen may vary. I am just saying that my personal experience is that if you have a job and your employer deposits your salary into your account and you use that money to pay your bills then you'll probably be fine, if you actually use your account for anything then you get your account frozen and you have to go through all sorts of hoops to prove your perfectly normal activity was perfectly legal. The same happens if you have funds in another country or even just another bank and you move more than pocket change into your bank account.

As I said, you may live in a country where fascism has not yet risen to this level and if you do then you're lucky - for now. I will not risk having more in a bank than I need to pay bills in the very near future and I hope it will be possible to pay utility bills and such in BTC or in another way that bypasses banks in the future.

It really does not help that you made your perfectly legal money in a perfectly legal way when your bank account is frozen and you have to go through all kinds of hell to get access to your funds again.

Well, here in the US, I don't expect any problems, but I guess we'll find out soon.  I mean, certainly I wouldn't be the first person to test Coinbase's $50,000 limit, right?  And since they have already done KYC, it shouldn't be a problem, should it?

[aminorex]

Well, here in the US, I don't expect any problems, but I guess we'll find out soon.  I mean, certainly I wouldn't be the first person to test Coinbase's $50,000 limit, right?  And since they have already done KYC, it shouldn't be a problem, should it?

i tried to take out 40k via coinbase in december and failed.  but the larger point is that even if coinbase does not fail, or you use local exchange, whatever, then trying to move the fiat thereafter is not necessarily going to work well.  you may be better off spending btc.

[TERA]

Well, here in the US, I don't expect any problems, but I guess we'll find out soon.  I mean, certainly I wouldn't be the first person to test Coinbase's $50,000 limit, right?  And since they have already done KYC, it shouldn't be a problem, should it?

i tried to take out 40k via coinbase in december and failed.  but the larger point is that even if coinbase does not fail, or you use local exchange, whatever, then trying to move the fiat thereafter is not necessarily going to work well.  you may be better off spending btc.

This is why I'm buying a substantial amount of btc before my trading break rather than cashing everything out and buying back in the trend reversal - the risk of the two fiat transactions - cashing out and depositing back in, will outweigh the gain on the trade of whatever is left of the downtrend at this point. Who knows if... by that point maybe my bank will have put some block on bitcoin exchanges and I won't even be able to get back in as it's breaking out.

[rpietila]

This is why I'm buying a substantial amount of btc before my trading break rather than cashing everything out and buying back in the trend reversal - the risk of the two fiat transactions - cashing out and depositing back in, will outweigh the gain on the trade of whatever is left of the downtrend at this point. Who knows if... by that point maybe my bank will have put some block on bitcoin exchanges and I won't even be able to get back in as it's breaking out.

On the other hand, building a reputation of habitually moving "large" (the bank-large is now hardly a monthly salary in many places) balances can enable you to do it when you really need the opportunity. Sudden large (albeit completely legal and documented) activity may cause you problems, because the banks these days are very much constrained by the controllists.

[Torque]

Well, here in the US, I don't expect any problems, but I guess we'll find out soon.  I mean, certainly I wouldn't be the first person to test Coinbase's $50,000 limit, right?  And since they have already done KYC, it shouldn't be a problem, should it?

i tried to take out 40k via coinbase in december and failed.  but the larger point is that even if coinbase does not fail, or you use local exchange, whatever, then trying to move the fiat thereafter is not necessarily going to work well.  you may be better off spending btc.

I've thought about and debated this in my mind as well.  I'm in the same boat, whether to sell a large chunk of btc on the next run up (and the next, and so on, ad infinitum) vs. just taking out a monthly/bi-monthly withdrawal to cover living expenses as time goes on, etc.  I haven't had issues with my bank so far, but I've heard others have depending on their bank (Chase seems to be one culprit) and the specific amount that the bank 'flags' as suspicious.  For those of us who want to continue to increase our btc holdings while the bubbles last, being able to sell large amounts of btc at the bubble tops is kind of a necessity.

[ErisDiscordia]

And why in the world would any man want more than one woman!?  That is the question I have always had for polygamists! 

I must admit I am equally confused about why any one man wouldn't want more than one woman. Polygamy/polyamory seems very natural to me. Also it's very practical when running a household. Also polyamory is wrong. You shouldn't mix Greek and Latin like that. It should be multiamory or polyphilia 

[RandomPedestrianN9]

And why in the world would any man want more than one woman!?  That is the question I have always had for polygamists!  

I must admit I am equally confused about why any one man wouldn't want more than one woman. Polygamy/polyamory seems very natural to me. Also it's very practical when running a household. Also polyamory is wrong. You shouldn't mix Greek and Latin like that. It should be multiamory or polyphilia  

People think that monogamy is the right way of doing things because they are blind naive folks who grew up among christians or other religious nuts who think monogamy is the right way of life. Polygamy is natural for us but keep telling to fools that monogamy is the right way and that polygamy is evil and you will go to hell and all sorts of bad things will happen to you there.  Repeat this 500 times and it becomes "truth".

Repeat 500 times:
Evil middle east terrorists did 9/11 because YOLO
Iraq REALLY HAD weapons of mass destruction, our invasion was therefore legal.
Russians eat children, Ukraine nazi unelected government are the good guys.
USA government are the good guys.
Monogamy is natural, polygamy is for mentally ill people, terrorists and russians.
If you eat your vegetables, you will get an icecream later.
God is real because this piece of paper says so.
Flying spaghetti monster god with meatballs is not real because my piece of paper doesnt mention it.
Assad really used chemicals on civilians, our videos are not staged.
We really dont know where flight M370 crashed, honest.
Russians have secret underground bases below Washington, for sure.
We are not spying on anybody.




Some long living parrot species and budgies are monogamous tho....

[frienemy]

And why in the world would any man want more than one woman!?  That is the question I have always had for polygamists!  

I must admit I am equally confused about why any one man wouldn't want more than one woman. Polygamy/polyamory seems very natural to me. Also it's very practical when running a household. Also polyamory is wrong. You shouldn't mix Greek and Latin like that. It should be multiamory or polyphilia  

People think that monogamy is the right way of doing things because they are blind naive folks who grew up among christians or other religious nuts who think monogamy is the right way of life. Polygamy is natural for us but keep telling to fools that monogamy is the right way and that polygamy is evil and you will go to hell and all sorts of bad things will happen to you there.  Repeat this 500 times and it becomes "truth".

Well, it's also "natural" for animals to kill other animals in order to eat them or for some other reason. I won't kill you nonetheless, because I chose to use my brain and my empathy. Human beings are the only creatures on this planet who can truly think in advance and choose an option that is not the most convenient one. So, everyone is free to choose between polygamy and monogamy, but deep inside the heart this has nothing to do with how you were raised, but how you feel. You're just full of prejudice as it seems.

But anyhow, as others have already stated, this is not the quality wife observer thread, so let's continue sticking to the topic from now on, okay?

[BitChick]

And why in the world would any man want more than one woman!?  That is the question I have always had for polygamists!  

I must admit I am equally confused about why any one man wouldn't want more than one woman. Polygamy/polyamory seems very natural to me. Also it's very practical when running a household. Also polyamory is wrong. You shouldn't mix Greek and Latin like that. It should be multiamory or polyphilia  

People think that monogamy is the right way of doing things because they are blind naive folks who grew up among christians or other religious nuts who think monogamy is the right way of life. Polygamy is natural for us but keep telling to fools that monogamy is the right way and that polygamy is evil and you will go to hell and all sorts of bad things will happen to you there.  Repeat this 500 times and it becomes "truth".

It was just a joke!    

Or is a woman with a sense of humor too difficult to understand? 

[RandomPedestrianN9]

And why in the world would any man want more than one woman!?  That is the question I have always had for polygamists!  

I must admit I am equally confused about why any one man wouldn't want more than one woman. Polygamy/polyamory seems very natural to me. Also it's very practical when running a household. Also polyamory is wrong. You shouldn't mix Greek and Latin like that. It should be multiamory or polyphilia  

People think that monogamy is the right way of doing things because they are blind naive folks who grew up among christians or other religious nuts who think monogamy is the right way of life. Polygamy is natural for us but keep telling to fools that monogamy is the right way and that polygamy is evil and you will go to hell and all sorts of bad things will happen to you there.  Repeat this 500 times and it becomes "truth".

Well, it's also "natural" for animals to kill other animals in order to eat them or for some other reason. I won't kill you nonetheless, because I chose to use my brain and my empathy. Human beings are the only creatures on this planet who can truly think in advance and choose an option that is not the most convenient one. So, everyone is free to choose between polygamy and monogamy, but deep inside the heart this has nothing to do with how you were raised, but how you feel. You're just full of prejudice as it seems.

But anyhow, as others have already stated, this is not the quality wife observer thread, so let's continue sticking to the topic from now on, okay?

Yes, animals do kill other animals, so do humans to survive - we eat chickens, dogs, cats, cows, pigs, fishes.....there is a difference between killing other animals and cannibalism tho. It has to do a lot with how we were raised too, then again, its not about what someone chooses, i dont care how others live their life, this is about claiming what is natural and what is not. Many people claim monogamy is natural for us because they were raised to think so, they are wrong.


Back on topic: log downtrend resistance line seems to be working, crashes are getting smaller and smaller, i might consider investing in Bitcoin once its in the 100-200 level, i can use it to pay for things on the internet without paypal and cards anonymously, this is where i see Bitcoins real added value today.

[Todorius]

Wasn't this supposed to be a quality TA thread?

[rpietila]

Wasn't this supposed to be a quality TA thread?

What do you think? We are still in a downtrend, but it is becoming sticky around this price. A few weeks ago I called 435 never again, and so far it has been wrong by 15 only. A practically insignificant amount for a long-term investor. Even now we are higher.

[Biodom]

Well, here in the US, I don't expect any problems, but I guess we'll find out soon.  I mean, certainly I wouldn't be the first person to test Coinbase's $50,000 limit, right?  And since they have already done KYC, it shouldn't be a problem, should it?

i tried to take out 40k via coinbase in december and failed.  but the larger point is that even if coinbase does not fail, or you use local exchange, whatever, then trying to move the fiat thereafter is not necessarily going to work well.  you may be better off spending btc.

Not sure re fail on 40K. I think they had no 50K limit in december, rather it was 50BTC if I remember correctly.
I think that the warning sign for a bank is when you send money to coinbase, then sell on localbitcoins, then send cash back to the bank.
There is a reddit thread on this. This looks like money laundering and, perhaps, it might  be construed as such from a point of view of a bank.
Selling from Coinbase to your bank account should be fine, otherwise coinbase is screwed. Not sure about their 50K limit, though (never tried). In any case, it is probably not prudent to jerk large $$ values to and from bitcoin.
I mostly buy it in smaller BTC ##. I think that considering everything, you should allocate 5-10% of your assets to bitcoin. If it tanks, your loss is limited. If it goes to 1mil in 10 years or so, then you can buy a few real estate properties and travel from one to another during your "golden" years  .
edit: I am really looking forward to bitcoin ETF as it would be a perfect hedge to holding "raw" BTC.

[SlipperySlope]

The moving average of adjusted quantity of bitcoin transactions is on track to surpass an April peak this week. To me this indicates that the long term downtrend in the price series from last November may indeed break within the next four weeks on Bitstamp, and perhaps in two weeks on Huobi.

[MahaRamana]

But if you are moderately invested (<50% of total assets), and want to buy more, this is a good time.

this raises the interesting question of the optimal % of total net worth to invest in BTC.
I believe this is a much more important question than determining exactly when to buy. Yet most of the discussion goes in timing, not wealth allocation.

Of course it is a question that each person has to reply for himself depending on his circumstances. But most people lack the framework that would help them to make a rational decision based on their investment profile.

It is useful to help people assess the value of bitcoin against the trendline to optimise timing. But it would be even more useful if we could help people understand for themselves how much BTC they should own relative to their wealth.

I am saying this because I am asking this question for myself. When I see the terms "moderately invested" for a BTC position of less than 50%, I am a bit jumping on my chair. Do you really believe that someone entering today and taking a position of 33-49% of his total assets would be only moderately invested ? I see it as very heavily invested.

If you saw BTC rise 100X or more while holding it, and BTC went from being 5% of your assets to 90% and you diversify away from BTC, it feels like getting down to "only" 50% BTC is a moderate position. But when you initially enter BTC, it is a very different thing.

Take someone who has for exemple 1 million USD in total assets and 100K yearly income. He has a house valued 600K fully paid. He has a car valued 40K. He has precious metals for 150K. He has other real-estate investments for 100K. He has liquid investments and cash for 110K.

What you are basically saying is that the guy would have to sell everything he has including metals, and take a partial mortgage on his house, and put everything in BTC, to be more than moderately invested in BTC ? This sounds way too much, don't you think ? I mean, it's maybe more than a winning bet, but is it a reasonable, responsible one ?

My personal view is : 0-1% of net worth being a small position, 2-5% moderate, 6-10% big position, 11-25% very big, 26-50% huge position, 51+% extreme position.

I would be interested to hear what people here think is a good % of total assets to hold in BTC today.

[Bitcopia]

But if you are moderately invested (<50% of total assets), and want to buy more, this is a good time.

this raises the interesting question of the optimal % of total net worth to invest in BTC.
I believe this is a much more important question than determining exactly when to buy. Yet most of the discussion goes in timing, not wealth allocation.

Of course it is a question that each person has to reply for himself depending on his circumstances. But most people lack the framework that would help them to make a rational decision based on their investment profile.

It is useful to help people assess the value of bitcoin against the trendline to optimise timing. But it would be even more useful if we could help people understand for themselves how much BTC they should own relative to their wealth.

I am saying this because I am asking this question for myself. When I see the terms "moderately invested" for a BTC position of less than 50%, I am a bit jumping on my chair. Do you really believe that someone entering today and taking a position of 33-49% of his total assets would be only moderately invested ? I see it as very heavily invested.

If you saw BTC rise 100X or more while holding it, and BTC went from being 5% of your assets to 90% and you diversify away from BTC, it feels like getting down to "only" 50% BTC is a moderate position. But when you initially enter BTC, it is a very different thing.

Take someone who has for exemple 1 million USD in total assets and 100K yearly income. He has a house valued 600K fully paid. He has a car valued 40K. He has precious metals for 150K. He has other real-estate investments for 100K. He has liquid investments and cash for 110K.

What you are basically saying is that the guy would have to sell everything he has including metals, and take a partial mortgage on his house, and put everything in BTC, to be more than moderately invested in BTC ? This sounds way too much, don't you think ? I mean, it's maybe more than a winning bet, but is it a reasonable, responsible one ?

My personal view is : 0-1% of net worth being a small position, 2-5% moderate, 6-10% big position, 11-25% very big, 26-50% huge position, 51+% extreme position.

I would be interested to hear what people here think is a good % of total assets to hold in BTC today.

This is a very reasonable view point. I have about 50% of my total assets in BTC, but I don't own much and when I originally started buying, I think I had put in about 5%. Anybody who puts in 50% up front has an incredible appetite for risk and is probably a heavy gambler. Yet, if you have a true understanding of how revolutionary this technology is, pitted against the archaic methods it will replace, coupled with the dominance of its first mover advantage that has secured an unsurpassable hashing power, consistently increasing investment in infrastructure, and the recent sidechain revelation, it almost seems foolish not to take an otherwise extreme position. I know I wish I had understood all of this better when I first started trading. You can bet I would have put in much more than 5% of my assets.

[cspeter8]

But if you are moderately invested (<50% of total assets), and want to buy more, this is a good time.

this raises the interesting question of the optimal % of total net worth to invest in BTC.
I believe this is a much more important question than determining exactly when to buy. Yet most of the discussion goes in timing, not wealth allocation.

Of course it is a question that each person has to reply for himself depending on his circumstances. But most people lack the framework that would help them to make a rational decision based on their investment profile.

It is useful to help people assess the value of bitcoin against the trendline to optimise timing. But it would be even more useful if we could help people understand for themselves how much BTC they should own relative to their wealth.

I am saying this because I am asking this question for myself. When I see the terms "moderately invested" for a BTC position of less than 50%, I am a bit jumping on my chair. Do you really believe that someone entering today and taking a position of 33-49% of his total assets would be only moderately invested ? I see it as very heavily invested.

If you saw BTC rise 100X or more while holding it, and BTC went from being 5% of your assets to 90% and you diversify away from BTC, it feels like getting down to "only" 50% BTC is a moderate position. But when you initially enter BTC, it is a very different thing.

Take someone who has for exemple 1 million USD in total assets and 100K yearly income. He has a house valued 600K fully paid. He has a car valued 40K. He has precious metals for 150K. He has other real-estate investments for 100K. He has liquid investments and cash for 110K.

What you are basically saying is that the guy would have to sell everything he has including metals, and take a partial mortgage on his house, and put everything in BTC, to be more than moderately invested in BTC ? This sounds way too much, don't you think ? I mean, it's maybe more than a winning bet, but is it a reasonable, responsible one ?

My personal view is : 0-1% of net worth being a small position, 2-5% moderate, 6-10% big position, 11-25% very big, 26-50% huge position, 51+% extreme position.

I would be interested to hear what people here think is a good % of total assets to hold in BTC today.

This is a very reasonable view point. I have about 50% of my total assets in BTC, but I don't own much and when I originally started buying, I think I had put in about 5%. Anybody who puts in 50% up front has an incredible appetite for risk and is probably a heavy gambler. Yet, if you have a true understanding of how revolutionary this technology is, pitted against the archaic methods it will replace, coupled with the dominance of its first mover advantage that has secured an unsurpassable hashing power, consistently increasing investment in infrastructure, and the recent sidechain revelation, it almost seems foolish not to take an otherwise extreme position. I know I wish I had understood all of this better when I first started trading. You can bet I would have put in much more than 5% of my assets.

MahaRamana I hope you start a new thread for this topic.  I suggest it does not belong here, but is an interesting topic to discuss.