Buy the DIP, and HODL!

[JayJuanGee]

but if you don't really know what the fuck you are doing, but you are optimistic about the investment

Honestly, that sounds like someone who shouldn't be investing in anything.

I personally believe that you are giving way too much credit to normies being able to figure out various subtleties in trading, and I believe that the vast majority of normies fit more closely in the category that I place them in which they deserve to be able to establish some kind of basic investment strategy, which is mostly dollar cost averaging, and the only meaningful assessments that they need to make is to get their basic finances in order so that they do not invest more than they can afford to lose and they engage in a kind of reasonable DCA approach.

I personally believe that my suggested approach would cause way more inclusiveness in terms of getting normies into investing rather than your expectation that peeps have skills that they are not likely to have, unless they happen to either be somewhat focused on learning trading or somehow specially skilled in their abilities to learn.

Good for you, but if someone cannot figure it out exactly, s/he may be better to just take action to start their dollar cost averaging rather than wasting their mental energies on trying to figure something out that they cannot really identify whether it is up, down or sideways and they have no fucking clue which way it might go in the short-term future even though they have confidence in it as an investment in the long term.

With such an abundance of good and free information available, I think it's absurd to say someone is capable of doing in-depth analysis on Bitcoin's long term fundamentals, but is incapable of learning the very basics of investing.

Ok. fair enough.  We can agree to disagree on this concept of what kinds of skills are more basic and accessible to normies.

Even if you want to advocate blindly buying into long term bear markets, I am saying there are simple measures one can take to improve their position, like weighted averaging: analyze the range over a given time period and weight your buys towards the bottom, not the top.

We can agree to disagree about this too.

I am not suggesting that people should not try to become better and to improve themselves.  I just believe it is way too much to expect it as a kind of basic entrance level, whether we are referring to bitcoin or some other potential investments that might have fundamental justifications for long term value appreciation.

For some reason, you seem staunchly opposed to the idea of anyone doing anything whatsoever to improve upon a DCA approach.

No I am not.   I am talking about basic entry level as DCA, and then go from there.  Of course, people can learn to whatever extent and desire that they want, but they should be attempting to learn DCA first as their entry level before going beyond their skill levels.l or even presuming that they know more than they do.... Peeps have to fight their inclinations towards gambling, and of course, so many people are inclined to gamble so in my thinking it is way better to promote a kind of anti-gambling approach which is DCA.. and then once they got DCA down, then they can go from there, whether that includes gambling techniques or not..  Sure, there are always going to be people who say, "fuck you.  Sop telling me what to do.  I don't need to do DCA because I am better than that.." blah blah blah.. and the vast majority of those know-it-all folks are likely to lose money because it would be in their best interest, generally speaking, to start with some kind of DCA-like approach first.  Of course, there are going to also be exceptions to any general rule, and I am not asserting that exceptional people should not strive to differentiate themselves from normies.. but of course, I am suggesting that it is a bit pretentious and problematic when normies presume themselves to be exceptional without either having genetic gifts or putting in a considerable amount of work to either get to that level or to attempt to perform at that level while knowing that they are likely to make a decent number of mistakes along the way.

Capitulation happens for a reason: because of investors and bull traders who can't take the pain anymore. I've seen it too many times to ignore it as a phenomenon.

That is why we try to figure out strategies so we do not get ourselves into such a pickle... psychologically or financially.

But aren't you talking about giving advice to other people?

Largely peeps gotta figure out these things for themselves, but I don't mind sharing some basic principles such as DCA strategies and things like that.  I also don't mind sharing other kinds of basic investment principles that involve figuring out your own situation in terms of figuring out how much to invest.. In other words, some concepts are way much more basic and should be learned first..

And, of course, there are some people who are much beyond the basics, and they already got their shit in order, and I have no problem conceding that some of those people should just move onto the more advanced techniques.. but I am not going to presume that people are already in the more advanced category... but if, for example, you proclaim that you are in the more advanced category, then I may take that with a grain of salt, and surely after interacting for a while, I likely would be able to recognize if some peeps might be in a more advanced category... and surely I don't presume to know more than everyone, either in this regard, but I do know that I have been practicing sound investment principles for a long enough time to know that for the most part I have developed a lot of skills that are beyond most normie peeps because a variety of basic financial planning and prudence is not usually taught to the vast majority of normies.. but there are going to be some peeps who have way greater knowledge than myself, too, whether we are talking about basic financial management and also trading and other investing techniques.. also the exception rather than the norm.

You seem to assume everyone buying the top will hold for the next 5 years and end up profiting.

I doubt that I am assuming anything, but these days, when it comes to bitcoin investing, I am saying suggesting that as a starting principe it is good to come into bitcoin with at least a 4 year investment horizon and to plan to get to a position that 1% to 10% of their quasi-investible wealth is in bitcoin... Of course, some people might differ in their opinions about what their minimum investment time horizon might be and also in terms of what their BTC accumulation target might be.

Of course, if someone has already been in bitcoin for some time, then we might have to look at what they had already done in order to attempt to figure out what a prudent way forward might be.

But in terms of some newbie coming in, the ideal would be to come with a 4 year time line, at minimum... but if they happen to be 60 years old or even 80 years old, it might not be realistic for peeps in that age category to have a 4 year minimum investment time horizon.

Furthermore, each of us has total discretion to change our investment at any time that we want.. but that should NOT justify coming into bitcoin with some willy nilly ideas that I will sell "whenever" I start to feel nervous or profitable or some other vague and largely non-planned parameters.

I've been around long enough to know that most people who buy the top also sell the bottom.

That sounds like a good reason why the vast majority of these peeps should be attempting to develop way better basic plans rather than trying to time these kinds of matters.  You seem to be arguing my case, with some of your assertions of the actual empirical evidence..  hahahahahaha  

That's why I only advise DCA within certain parameters.

So, yeah, some of our starting out premises seem to be different... No problema.

Anybody buying into a bubble or a bubble pop should not have any intention of holding for long, unless they enjoy the pain of losing money and capitulating.

Well my thinking is that if they are buying into what appears to be a bubble, either they invest very small amounts or they figure out some waiting techniques and even spreading out their initial investment stake over a longer period of time whether that is 6 months or two years or some other time period that they might believe is reasonable based on the asset class and their views of the asset.. maybe studying the asset, too, while they are making their initial investments, too, but they might not necessarily be able to figure out if they are buying into a bubble top or not.. or what to do exactly, but they could still establish some kind of a modified DCA strategy... depending where we are at exactly.

Let's take bitcoin, right now... where are we at?

If someone comes to me right now, and they have $6k now and $6k cash flow over the coming 6 months, and we have established that they really have their shit together regarding their cashflow and their other investments and the $6k x 2 is really something that prudently could be put into bitcoin.

I may well suggest that such hypothetical person investing $2k to $4k right away and then figuring out some plan regarding the remaining $8k to $10k in terms of DCA, buying on dips or some other comfortable plan.. but whatever, there are ways to flesh out various BTC strategies and to attempt to prepare for both ups and downs in BTC's price direction, to have a continuous BTC buying approach while attempting to get some stake in BTC as an investment and to attempt to get them to their target, assuming we can figure out that 1% to  10% might be their target and that getting in within the next 6 months might be something like their target, too.. but we are trying to figure out how much to put in now versus waiting, and we might include DCA, buy on dips and prepare for bigger dips.. but at the same time attempt to prepare for UP, too.  

What are you going to suggest to this hypothetical person, right now at this time, who presumably wants to get into bitcoin either now or the coming 6 months and has $6k now and has $6k cashflow coming in in the next 6 months?  You going to say wait? You going to say invest everything?  You going to come forward with some kind of moderate plan?  You going to include DCA in your suggested plan?  You going to propose that they engage in DCA, but call it something else?  whatchagonna  doooo, exstasie?      

 

[1714585045]

1714585045

[1714585045]

1714585045

[KTChampions]

Can we take any period? What do you think about 2018?

Take that period, but you would be thankful for that period once Bitcoin is priced at $100,000, and you zoom out. You don't believe it?

Nicely said, but I think such arguments should be given when this price is reached 

Yes, such levels seem extremely doubtful to me. Even taking into account the upcoming halving (next), the earnings of miners will be huge (and these are the costs that the system incurs during its operation).

The revenues of miners would be huge, but that would be offset by increased costs of mining. Why does that make 6 digits so doubtful? Years ago, nobody expected the price or hash rate to be at these levels.

It's user and investor adoption that's driving the price. The hash rate is just following for the most part.

Do you understand that this will affect the cost of transactions? And not only for that, but even if only this is taken into account, such changes will undermine the value of bitcoin as a payment system.

[JayJuanGee]

Can we take any period? What do you think about 2018?

Take that period, but you would be thankful for that period once Bitcoin is priced at $100,000, and you zoom out. You don't believe it?

Nicely said, but I think such arguments should be given when this price is reached 

It is going to be much more profitable to prepare for $100k bitcoins way before BTC prices even get close to that level.

Of course, we are likely going to be able to revel in the fact that BTC prices have gotten to $100k and even to $1million, just like we are reveling now in the current BTC price - especially for us who have both been in bitcoin for a while and had been acting to prepare for these kinds of prices, even when today's prices seemed like pie in the sky in around 2015 - or even 2016 or even about the first 8-9 months of 2017

Yes, such levels seem extremely doubtful to me. Even taking into account the upcoming halving (next), the earnings of miners will be huge (and these are the costs that the system incurs during its operation).

The revenues of miners would be huge, but that would be offset by increased costs of mining. Why does that make 6 digits so doubtful? Years ago, nobody expected the price or hash rate to be at these levels.

It's user and investor adoption that's driving the price. The hash rate is just following for the most part.

Do you understand that this will affect the cost of transactions? And not only for that, but even if only this is taken into account, such changes will undermine the value of bitcoin as a payment system.

Are you suggesting that high prices are going to make bitcoin less useful or that bitcoin should only be considered valuable as a payment system?  Furthermore how about the many other coins and even second or third layers that also could be used as payment systems.

Seems to me that even though bitcoin can be used for payments, and it is nice to be able to have various liquidation avenues including the ability to directly send and receive bitcoins from anyone else who happens to have bitcoins or a bitcoin wallet, the ability to directly control your value or to choose how to store your value (hopefully without getting stuck in some system of 3rd parties holding your bitcoin keys), then by holding your own bitcoin, it seems that you have a whole hell of a lot more power through bitcoin than you would have with almost any other asset, even if we might consider the value propositions of various shitcoins being able to be used as payment method, there continues to be a lot more value in bitcoin because it seem to have way more certainty that it is going to retain its value for several years, and perhaps even 10 years or more if we were to set our bitcoins in some kind of cold storage - even though currently, there do seem to be some questions regarding preferable ways to cold storage your bitcoins, so currently some attempts at being technically savvy does seem to provide a bit more confidence and power in terms of how to cold storage your bitcoins.

[exstasie]

Yes, such levels seem extremely doubtful to me. Even taking into account the upcoming halving (next), the earnings of miners will be huge (and these are the costs that the system incurs during its operation).

The revenues of miners would be huge, but that would be offset by increased costs of mining. Why does that make 6 digits so doubtful? Years ago, nobody expected the price or hash rate to be at these levels.

It's user and investor adoption that's driving the price. The hash rate is just following for the most part.

Do you understand that this will affect the cost of transactions? And not only for that, but even if only this is taken into account, such changes will undermine the value of bitcoin as a payment system.

At the base layer, I expect transaction values and costs both to rise significantly. Long term, I don't think Bitcoin is optimally designed for low value payments since fees will be increasingly required to incentivize miners.

There will be other layers (like LN) with different security models, and there will also be trust-based and custodial models that cut down on those user costs. But these days where you can transact on-chain and only pay 1 satoshi per byte are numbered.

[KTChampions]

Do you understand that this will affect the cost of transactions? And not only for that, but even if only this is taken into account, such changes will undermine the value of bitcoin as a payment system.

Are you suggesting that high prices are going to make bitcoin less useful or that bitcoin should only be considered valuable as a payment system?  Furthermore how about the many other coins and even second or third layers that also could be used as payment systems.
~

High prices will make the transaction cost more expensive - won't you argue with that? This is undoubtedly a negative impact on bitcoin as a payment system. Moreover, the presence of second and third layers does not improve this situation in any way (miners will receive their fees even with zero transactions in the primary layer).

At the base layer, I expect transaction values and costs both to rise significantly. Long term, I don't think Bitcoin is optimally designed for low value payments since fees will be increasingly required to incentivize miners.

There will be other layers (like LN) with different security models, and there will also be trust-based and custodial models that cut down on those user costs. But these days where you can transact on-chain and only pay 1 satoshi per byte are numbered.

Yes, but for some reason many people do not see this problem and do not want to talk about the prospects. If we believe in bitcoin, then we must think about the future and those problems / shortcomings that need to be corrected.

[JayJuanGee]

Do you understand that this will affect the cost of transactions? And not only for that, but even if only this is taken into account, such changes will undermine the value of bitcoin as a payment system.

Are you suggesting that high prices are going to make bitcoin less useful or that bitcoin should only be considered valuable as a payment system?  Furthermore how about the many other coins and even second or third layers that also could be used as payment systems.
~

High prices will make the transaction cost more expensive - won't you argue with that? This is undoubtedly a negative impact on bitcoin as a payment system. Moreover, the presence of second and third layers does not improve this situation in any way (miners will receive their fees even with zero transactions in the primary layer).

Largely those are old and worn out talking points from the 2017 blocksize debate that bitcoin already won.  We are three years later, and sure people bring up those point from time to time, but they have been beaten to death including the fact that bitcoin's value is not centrally as a payment system (even though surely we can pay directly to each of the with bitcoin, if we so choose), but the value of bitcoin is having control over your value.. and no one can stop you from sending or receiving.

Small payments do not have to be accomplished directly on bitcoin's blockchain for bitcoin to retain its value... There are all kinds of payment systems already in existence that you can use for free or low costs or even to gain points by using them.  Sure, not everyone has access to these various kinds of payment systems.. .so maybe they would use bitcoin or maybe some other method might be preferable to them, such as a shitcoin, if it were to be liquid in their geographical area.

Try moving $20k, $100k, $1million, $20million around the world in a variety of hops through differing locations over several years.. hoping quickly from each location and then going to the next one.  Bitcoin seems to be a great way that you can move your value around the world and have some assurances about maintaining control of it, not having to ask any permission, not having to worry about getting it across those borders or seized, can move it pretty damned fast at each hop (within an hour or so) and no one can stop you from doing it. 

Try that with gold or fiat or some other kind of value?  You could attempt to accomplish such hopping  of value objective with various shitcoins too, but I would have a whole hell of a lot less confidence in the security my value through various shitcoins in storing my value therein.. even leaving my value within any of those assets, other than bitcoin, for 10 years or longer... even though with bitcoin, I don't necessarily have to keep all of it stored within bitcoin for 10 years either, but I have some options in keeping some of it or most of it in bitcoin, and maybe I can move between other assets or fiat, too (might worry about creating  taxable events)?

At the base layer, I expect transaction values and costs both to rise significantly. Long term, I don't think Bitcoin is optimally designed for low value payments since fees will be increasingly required to incentivize miners.

There will be other layers (like LN) with different security models, and there will also be trust-based and custodial models that cut down on those user costs. But these days where you can transact on-chain and only pay 1 satoshi per byte are numbered.

Yes, but for some reason many people do not see this problem and do not want to talk about the prospects. If we believe in bitcoin, then we must think about the future and those problems / shortcomings that need to be corrected.

Yes.. and what coin are you going to invest in at this time?  bitcoin?  or some other coin?  You can make your choice right now based on what is available to you and if you do not perceive any future value in bitcoin, then don't buy it.  Go invest in some shitcoin or store your value in some other asset class.  Sure, if you have some value in bitcoin, you may well reasonably conclude that today, payment systems are not really practical on bitcoin, lightning network or other second or third layer levels, so therefore, you want to keep some or all of your value in more liquid avenues in order that you can make payments.   

In the future, if bitcoin allows for more easy payments, then you might move some or all of value into bitcoin to make such payments... right now, there seems to be limits in bitcoin as a current payment system, but it still seems to be a very good investment.. even if it currently is not very good for payments, and even in the future, it might not transition very well into a great payment system, but it still might remain a very great place to secure value.. thinking about bitcoin as better than gold, it is more scarce, more verifiable, more portable, more divisible, etc..  getting stuck on the current payment abilities of bitcoin or its possible lackenings in the future as a payment system, could well cause some people to under invest into bitcoin, currently, because they cannot recognize why bitcoin is currently valuable or that bitcoin is going to retain its value.  Hopefully, for your own good, you are not one of those short-sighted diptwats.

[exstasie]

At the base layer, I expect transaction values and costs both to rise significantly. Long term, I don't think Bitcoin is optimally designed for low value payments since fees will be increasingly required to incentivize miners.

There will be other layers (like LN) with different security models, and there will also be trust-based and custodial models that cut down on those user costs. But these days where you can transact on-chain and only pay 1 satoshi per byte are numbered.

Yes, but for some reason many people do not see this problem and do not want to talk about the prospects. If we believe in bitcoin, then we must think about the future and those problems / shortcomings that need to be corrected.

Isn't that what the whole 2017 scaling debate was about? And why we pursued Segwit and Layer 2 solutions instead of issuing a blank check on increasing block size?

It's been a while since I've heard people market Bitcoin as "cheap" or "fast." People seem a lot more aware of its limitations now compared to 2017. Maybe we've talked about it enough, and now we just need to see through the slow grind of development and adoption of upper protocol layers.

[KTChampions]

JayJuanGee

I don't understand why you are writing to me old arguments from old discussions? I know very well the advantages and strengths of bitcoin and I am glad about them. But I see certain problems that will increase with the rise in the price of bitcoin. Do you deny them or consider them irrelevant?

~
Yes.. and what coin are you going to invest in at this time?  bitcoin?  or some other coin?  You can make your choice right now based on what is available to you and if you do not perceive any future value in bitcoin, then don't buy it.  Go invest in some shitcoin or store your value in some other asset class.  Sure, if you have some value in bitcoin, you may well reasonably conclude that today, payment systems are not really practical on bitcoin, lightning network or other second or third layer levels, so therefore, you want to keep some or all of your value in more liquid avenues in order that you can make payments.   

In the future, if bitcoin allows for more easy payments, then you might move some or all of value into bitcoin to make such payments... right now, there seems to be limits in bitcoin as a current payment system, but it still seems to be a very good investment.. even if it currently is not very good for payments, and even in the future, it might not transition very well into a great payment system, but it still might remain a very great place to secure value.. thinking about bitcoin as better than gold, it is more scarce, more verifiable, more portable, more divisible, etc..  getting stuck on the current payment abilities of bitcoin or its possible lackenings in the future as a payment system, could well cause some people to under invest into bitcoin, currently, because they cannot recognize why bitcoin is currently valuable or that bitcoin is going to retain its value.  Hopefully, for your own good, you are not one of those short-sighted diptwats.

If we focus only on the profit from investments, then (unexpectedly) it will turn out that some shiTcoins (I don't know which ones, however) are more promising than bitcoin. But I am not interested in profit, I am more interested in ideology and I would be glad if bitcoin in the next 10 years was stable in price, but at the same time its acceptance in the world was growing. And for this, it seems to me, it is necessary to improve the properties of bitcoin and to solve/eliminate problems in advance that will increase as the price of bitcoin rises.

Isn't that what the whole 2017 scaling debate was about? And why we pursued Segwit and Layer 2 solutions instead of issuing a blank check on increasing block size?

It's been a while since I've heard people market Bitcoin as "cheap" or "fast." People seem a lot more aware of its limitations now compared to 2017. Maybe we've talked about it enough, and now we just need to see through the slow grind of development and adoption of upper protocol layers.

Yes, I remember those times when commissions reached tens of dollars. And I think at that time a lot of crypto users went to other cryptocurrencies and I consider this a loss for bitcoin. Accordingly, to avoid this in the future, we need to prepare in advance.

[JayJuanGee]

JayJuanGee

I don't understand why you are writing to me old arguments from old discussions? I know very well the advantages and strengths of bitcoin and I am glad about them. But I see certain problems that will increase with the rise in the price of bitcoin. Do you deny them or consider them irrelevant?

Seems to me that my earlier response was self-explanatory regarding why I wrote to you the way that I did and I proclaimed that you were just making old and outmoded arguments that have already been largely resolved against you.

So, yes, you keep raising old arguments that seem to be a lot of nonsense... and therefore, yes largely irrelevant.

Regarding increased problems with increased prices, I doubt it.  The more money that flows into bitcoin, then the more that fees are going to go up and cause incentives based on fees to either attempt to develop and build on bitcoin or to develop and build second layer solutions, too.  Those are not problems but instead free-market motivational mechanisms.

~
Yes.. and what coin are you going to invest in at this time?  bitcoin?  or some other coin?  You can make your choice right now based on what is available to you and if you do not perceive any future value in bitcoin, then don't buy it.  Go invest in some shitcoin or store your value in some other asset class.  Sure, if you have some value in bitcoin, you may well reasonably conclude that today, payment systems are not really practical on bitcoin, lightning network or other second or third layer levels, so therefore, you want to keep some or all of your value in more liquid avenues in order that you can make payments.   

In the future, if bitcoin allows for more easy payments, then you might move some or all of value into bitcoin to make such payments... right now, there seems to be limits in bitcoin as a current payment system, but it still seems to be a very good investment.. even if it currently is not very good for payments, and even in the future, it might not transition very well into a great payment system, but it still might remain a very great place to secure value.. thinking about bitcoin as better than gold, it is more scarce, more verifiable, more portable, more divisible, etc..  getting stuck on the current payment abilities of bitcoin or its possible lackenings in the future as a payment system, could well cause some people to under invest into bitcoin, currently, because they cannot recognize why bitcoin is currently valuable or that bitcoin is going to retain its value.  Hopefully, for your own good, you are not one of those short-sighted diptwats.

If we focus only on the profit from investments,

"We" are not focusing only on profits from investments.

Instead, "we" are focusing in how to make our investment decisions in terms of which investments are bringing in the most value.  In this regard, bitcoin is the most valuable, remains the most valuable and likely will continue to be the most valuable because of its sound money aspect, not because it can be used as a means to make payments.

When it becomes more practical to use bitcoin as a means to make payments then those mechanisms are going to increasingly be developed on bitcoin... at this point in time, ease of payment is not an actual focus or anything that people want or need, in regards to bitcoin, even it you, KTChampions, believe that is what you would like to have bitcoin to be.. but instead you, KTChampions, continue to invest in bitcoin because you already know and realize that bitcoin remains the best investment out there, in spite of some of its shortcomings in the ease of payment department.

then (unexpectedly) it will turn out that some shiTcoins (I don't know which ones, however)

Who cares?  If some shitcoins want to do payments, then let them do it.  None of us should give even a ratt's ass about that.

are more promising than bitcoin.

Being able to use some shitcoins as means to pay would not make them more promising than bitcoin, unless they can also be valuable in terms of inspiring people to want to hold them as a storage of value and as a hedge.  There is no shitcoin or even any other asset that even comes close to being as asymmetrically valuable as bitcoin, at least currently, as I type.  Sure, you can go out and find various short-term pump and dumps, but where you going to put your value for the longer term?  likely bitcoin... and why?  because it holds value and you are not going to want to spend it if it is holding more value than other assets.. you cannot change that people are going to be motivated by Greshams law principles..unless you decide to make bitcoin less valuable.. and I doubt any of us really want that.. not that we can do anything about it, anyhow... unless BTC consensus were to change in order to start diluting BTC supply.. then people would thereby become less motivated to hold it because it no longer would be sound money (or at least not as sound of a money).

But I am not interested in profit,

That's your choice.  Other people tend to be motivated by profits, which is the same as the motivations that are described in gresham's law and that is to hang onto their most valuable assets and to spend the less valuable assets.. How are you going to change gresham's law merely because you are not inspired (by smartness) to follow it?

I am more interested in ideology

Does not seem to be too smart of a statement.

and I would be glad if bitcoin in the next 10 years was stable in price,

stable is not going to happen.  We are currently in the midst of a war and stability does not happen during war, even if you, KTChampions, wish stability to happen.

but at the same time its acceptance in the world was growing.

The acceptance of BTC has continued to happen.  Can't you see the ongoing growth in bitcion, right before your eyes?

You want something different to happen than what is actually happening?  Bitcoin is growing.  It does not need marketing or any of that.  The word is getting out.  Why do you believe that BIG ASS players are jumping into the space and buying up more than 21k bitcoin?  It's because they want a piece of the action.. and they consider bitcoin to continue to be an ongoing growth area.

And for this, it seems to me, it is necessary to improve the properties of bitcoin and to solve/eliminate problems in advance that will increase as the price of bitcoin rises.

Good... Get to work on those payment mechanisms then, and find out how many peeps are going to use them.

Of course, if you build a better mouse trap, in terms of payment features, then sure peeps are likely going to come to your start using your mouse trap, right?  That's one of the presumptions of free market principles.

Isn't that what the whole 2017 scaling debate was about? And why we pursued Segwit and Layer 2 solutions instead of issuing a blank check on increasing block size?

It's been a while since I've heard people market Bitcoin as "cheap" or "fast." People seem a lot more aware of its limitations now compared to 2017. Maybe we've talked about it enough, and now we just need to see through the slow grind of development and adoption of upper protocol layers.

Yes, I remember those times when commissions reached tens of dollars. And I think at that time a lot of crypto users went to other cryptocurrencies and I consider this a loss for bitcoin. Accordingly, to avoid this in the future, we need to prepare in advance.

Did you go to other investments, too?  Good let them go to other investments if they find more value in other investments.  What's the BIG deal?  Why do you feel so much desperation about this topic, KTChampions?  You really believe that there are some better assets out there, besides some of the pump and dumps?  Where  you going to go?  Go to one or both of the bcashes?  Go to ethereum?  is there some ERC 20 token that you would like to go to?  You going to a combination of them?  Well good for you, if you find a way to diversify your investment outside of BTC and into various crapcoins, and if you believe that diversification to bring more value to your crypto holdings.  That's your choice regarding how and how much to allocate your various investments, the extent that you choose bitcoin, the extent to which you choose various traditional investments and the extent to which you choose to include shitcoins in your investment.  Short term you might even do better than having a pure bitcoin allocation.. and sure maybe some other coin is going to take over bitcoin's market share in some kind of meaningful way.  I personally don't see any that are even close, but hey if we all recognized price and value in the same way, then the issue would already be resolved, right? 

Choosing how to invest can be a bit of a moving target, and some people may allocate badly, some will lose and some will just perform mediocre.  There are a vast array of ways to invest, and the answers are neither black and white nor are they all or nothing decisions.   Bitcoin has done quite well for me since late 2013 (and even more so, since late 2015 and thereafter), and I don't really see any reason to be diversifying into various shitcoins in order to feel MOAR better about my allocations.  Of course, other people might feel better by investing in other projects, and of course, if they are new to investing in either bitcoin or in crypto, they might choose based on their own conclusions and their own circumstances, and we cannot save everyone even when they make seemingly bad decisions, when it seems that bitcoin continues to be best of class and likely an ongoing solid long term investment.

[exstasie]

Isn't that what the whole 2017 scaling debate was about? And why we pursued Segwit and Layer 2 solutions instead of issuing a blank check on increasing block size?

It's been a while since I've heard people market Bitcoin as "cheap" or "fast." People seem a lot more aware of its limitations now compared to 2017. Maybe we've talked about it enough, and now we just need to see through the slow grind of development and adoption of upper protocol layers.

Yes, I remember those times when commissions reached tens of dollars. And I think at that time a lot of crypto users went to other cryptocurrencies and I consider this a loss for bitcoin.

Once you accept that Bitcoin and altcoins bubble together (and money flows back and forth between the two markets) regardless of underlying fundamentals, none of that matters.

It's all about market narratives. Bitcoin being "slow" or "expensive" during a crazy bull market while exchanges are going nuts with withdrawals is just an extra excuse for altcoins to pump. But after watching the history of altcoins, going back to Litecoin's rise in 2011, I am very confident the pump is coming no matter what. Altcoins bubbled in 2013 despite no such narrative about Bitcoin fees and congestion existing at the time.

And it's not a loss for Bitcoin's price either. Altcoin market liquidity and arbitrage opportunities suck BTC supply off fiat markets and into the altcoin markets. Demand for altcoins also creates demand for BTC: people buy BTC to send it to various altcoin exchanges. This all means lower BTC supply and increased BTC demand. In terms of price, it's quite a symbiotic relationship.

And in terms of fundamentals, everyone always returns from altcoins to Bitcoin once the bubble pops and the hype is gone. Nobody really believes in altcoins like they do Bitcoin.

[Wind_FURY]

Isn't that what the whole 2017 scaling debate was about? And why we pursued Segwit and Layer 2 solutions instead of issuing a blank check on increasing block size?

It's been a while since I've heard people market Bitcoin as "cheap" or "fast." People seem a lot more aware of its limitations now compared to 2017. Maybe we've talked about it enough, and now we just need to see through the slow grind of development and adoption of upper protocol layers.

Yes, I remember those times when commissions reached tens of dollars. And I think at that time a lot of crypto users went to other cryptocurrencies and I consider this a loss for bitcoin.

Once you accept that Bitcoin and altcoins bubble together (and money flows back and forth between the two markets) regardless of underlying fundamentals, none of that matters.

It's all about market narratives. Bitcoin being "slow" or "expensive" during a crazy bull market while exchanges are going nuts with withdrawals is just an extra excuse for altcoins to pump. But after watching the history of altcoins, going back to Litecoin's rise in 2011, I am very confident the pump is coming no matter what. Altcoins bubbled in 2013 despite no such narrative about Bitcoin fees and congestion existing at the time.

And it's not a loss for Bitcoin's price either. Altcoin market liquidity and arbitrage opportunities suck BTC supply off fiat markets and into the altcoin markets. Demand for altcoins also creates demand for BTC: people buy BTC to send it to various altcoin exchanges. This all means lower BTC supply and increased BTC demand. In terms of price, it's quite a symbiotic relationship.

And in terms of fundamentals, everyone always returns from altcoins to Bitcoin once the bubble pops and the hype is gone. Nobody really believes in altcoins like they do Bitcoin.

That's thanks to the Core developers' contribution to it's growth and development, and being conservative, and safe in their approach to focus on security, self-sovereignty, and censorship-resistance.

Plus shitcoiners underestimate Bitcoin's network effects.

[JayJuanGee]

Isn't that what the whole 2017 scaling debate was about? And why we pursued Segwit and Layer 2 solutions instead of issuing a blank check on increasing block size?

It's been a while since I've heard people market Bitcoin as "cheap" or "fast." People seem a lot more aware of its limitations now compared to 2017. Maybe we've talked about it enough, and now we just need to see through the slow grind of development and adoption of upper protocol layers.

Yes, I remember those times when commissions reached tens of dollars. And I think at that time a lot of crypto users went to other cryptocurrencies and I consider this a loss for bitcoin.

Once you accept that Bitcoin and altcoins bubble together (and money flows back and forth between the two markets) regardless of underlying fundamentals, none of that matters.

It's all about market narratives. Bitcoin being "slow" or "expensive" during a crazy bull market while exchanges are going nuts with withdrawals is just an extra excuse for altcoins to pump. But after watching the history of altcoins, going back to Litecoin's rise in 2011, I am very confident the pump is coming no matter what. Altcoins bubbled in 2013 despite no such narrative about Bitcoin fees and congestion existing at the time.

And it's not a loss for Bitcoin's price either. Altcoin market liquidity and arbitrage opportunities suck BTC supply off fiat markets and into the altcoin markets. Demand for altcoins also creates demand for BTC: people buy BTC to send it to various altcoin exchanges. This all means lower BTC supply and increased BTC demand. In terms of price, it's quite a symbiotic relationship.

And in terms of fundamentals, everyone always returns from altcoins to Bitcoin once the bubble pops and the hype is gone. Nobody really believes in altcoins like they do Bitcoin.

That's thanks to the Core developers' contribution to it's growth and development, and being conservative, and safe in their approach to focus on security, self-sovereignty, and censorship-resistance.

Plus shitcoiners underestimate Bitcoin's network effects.

Well, yes.  We have shitcoiners, governments, traditional financial institutions, and regular peeps underestimating both bitcoin's network effects and a kind of power that bitcoin is offering to the world, which you summed up bitcoin's path forward quite nicely with an "approach to focus on security, self-sovereignty, and censorship-resistance"....  as many  of us studying the bitcoin space recognize as a powerful kind of ongoing bitcoin focus that is not offered by any shitcoin, government, traditional financial institution or any other currently available asset class.

[buwaytress]

Well, yes.  We have shitcoiners, governments, traditional financial institutions, and regular peeps underestimating both bitcoin's network effects and a kind of power that bitcoin is offering to the world, which you summed up bitcoin's path forward quite nicely with an "approach to focus on security, self-sovereignty, and censorship-resistance"....  as many  of us studying the bitcoin space recognize as a powerful kind of ongoing bitcoin focus that is not offered by any shitcoin, government, traditional financial institution or any other currently available asset class.

Sorry but I just had to mention Defi as part of that into that mix of misleading offers and broken promises built on the false dawns of crypto hype. When this bubble pops (it won't be so soon) people will be reminded that this security, self-sovereignty and censorship resistance was always there for those who wanted it, without being blinded by the glitter of unchecked capitalism (which really, is what is underneath the sheep's clothing of "Defi").

All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.

[JayJuanGee]

Well, yes.  We have shitcoiners, governments, traditional financial institutions, and regular peeps underestimating both bitcoin's network effects and a kind of power that bitcoin is offering to the world, which you summed up bitcoin's path forward quite nicely with an "approach to focus on security, self-sovereignty, and censorship-resistance"....  as many  of us studying the bitcoin space recognize as a powerful kind of ongoing bitcoin focus that is not offered by any shitcoin, government, traditional financial institution or any other currently available asset class.

Sorry but I just had to mention Defi as part of that into that mix of misleading offers and broken promises built on the false dawns of crypto hype. When this bubble pops (it won't be so soon) people will be reminded that this security, self-sovereignty and censorship resistance was always there for those who wanted it, without being blinded by the glitter of unchecked capitalism (which really, is what is underneath the sheep's clothing of "Defi").

All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.

Defi seems to equal a kind of get rich quick attempt.

The creativity and innovations of defi seem to be that there has been a kind of algorithmic design of a ponzi scheme.

Sure defi is innovative in the sense that they are taking ponzi's to a new level, and maybe there could be some products in there that are possibly useful in some kind of abstract way, but the essence of a lot of it seems to still be a kind of fancy ponzi scheme, no?

[exstasie]

And in terms of fundamentals, everyone always returns from altcoins to Bitcoin once the bubble pops and the hype is gone. Nobody really believes in altcoins like they do Bitcoin.

That's thanks to the Core developers' contribution to it's growth and development, and being conservative, and safe in their approach to focus on security, self-sovereignty, and censorship-resistance.

That's part of it, but attributing everything to the Core developers would be ridiculous. Bitcoin's monetary policy, first mover advantage, and network effect have a lot to do with it too.

Plus shitcoiners underestimate Bitcoin's network effects.

I'm not invested in this Bitcoiner vs. shitcoiner narrative. If I were a gold bug, I wouldn't store my wealth in rhodium, although I might ride the rhodium bull market and roll my profits back into gold.

The people missing out are the ones too stubborn to hold altcoins in a bull market, and the people losing money are those too stubborn to sell altcoins in a bear market. The ultimate goal is gaining more BTC, not supporting the "right" coin. I tend towards BTC maximalism because it makes sense from a market perspective, not because I have some cult-like devotion to Bitcoin.

[Wind_FURY]

And in terms of fundamentals, everyone always returns from altcoins to Bitcoin once the bubble pops and the hype is gone. Nobody really believes in altcoins like they do Bitcoin.

That's thanks to the Core developers' contribution to it's growth and development, and being conservative, and safe in their approach to focus on security, self-sovereignty, and censorship-resistance.

That's part of it, but attributing everything to the Core developers would be ridiculous. Bitcoin's monetary policy, first mover advantage, and network effect have a lot to do with it too.

The Core developers are a very large part of it though, maybe the majority. The design-decisions made, to focus on security, to make it robust and safe, and with small, almost close to none attack vectors.

I believe if the network actually forked to S2X, Bitcoin would be dead. I truly believe that. A big part of its success is thanks to Core.

[JayJuanGee]

And in terms of fundamentals, everyone always returns from altcoins to Bitcoin once the bubble pops and the hype is gone. Nobody really believes in altcoins like they do Bitcoin.

That's thanks to the Core developers' contribution to it's growth and development, and being conservative, and safe in their approach to focus on security, self-sovereignty, and censorship-resistance.

That's part of it, but attributing everything to the Core developers would be ridiculous. Bitcoin's monetary policy, first mover advantage, and network effect have a lot to do with it too.

The Core developers are a very large part of it though, maybe the majority. The design-decisions made, to focus on security, to make it robust and safe, and with small, almost close to none attack vectors.

I believe if the network actually forked to S2X, Bitcoin would be dead. I truly believe that. A big part of its success is thanks to Core.

I largely agree with what you are saying, Wind_FURY; however, the s2x dispute was NOT merely some kind of fluffy technical change, even though, sure that technical change would not have been a very good precedent to set forth.

In my thinking the S2X was more about an attempt to change how consensus would have been achieved in bitcoin and therefor an undermining of bitcoin in such a way that would cause it to be much easier to change, and I am not sure if the developers get complete credit for that, but probably a lot of user sentiment that realized that S2X was a kind of bullying attempt ... which likely caused more backlash from the users.. and sure it seems that bitcoin did get stronger from fending off such bullying attack and seems that the users learned that there was a certain kind of need to stand up for NOT allowing changes to happen in bitcoin in any kind of easy-peasy way.

[rdbase]

Good intro video for newbs who are wanting to enter into the trading boot camp.

[Wind_FURY]

And in terms of fundamentals, everyone always returns from altcoins to Bitcoin once the bubble pops and the hype is gone. Nobody really believes in altcoins like they do Bitcoin.

That's thanks to the Core developers' contribution to it's growth and development, and being conservative, and safe in their approach to focus on security, self-sovereignty, and censorship-resistance.

That's part of it, but attributing everything to the Core developers would be ridiculous. Bitcoin's monetary policy, first mover advantage, and network effect have a lot to do with it too.

The Core developers are a very large part of it though, maybe the majority. The design-decisions made, to focus on security, to make it robust and safe, and with small, almost close to none attack vectors.

I believe if the network actually forked to S2X, Bitcoin would be dead. I truly believe that. A big part of its success is thanks to Core.

I largely agree with what you are saying, Wind_FURY; however, the s2x dispute was NOT merely some kind of fluffy technical change, even though, sure that technical change would not have been a very good precedent to set forth.

In my thinking the S2X was more about an attempt to change how consensus would have been achieved in bitcoin and therefor an undermining of bitcoin in such a way that would cause it to be much easier to change, and I am not sure if the developers get complete credit for that, but probably a lot of user sentiment that realized that S2X was a kind of bullying attempt ... which likely caused more backlash from the users.. and sure it seems that bitcoin did get stronger from fending off such bullying attack and seems that the users learned that there was a certain kind of need to stand up for NOT allowing changes to happen in bitcoin in any kind of easy-peasy way.

It wasn't only about the technical argument that S2X would have killed Bitcoin, but also it was an attempt to replace the Core developers. The best people, with the most extensive experience to work on the protocol, and who deserves to be stewards of the network.

Who would have become the lead developer for Bitcoin-S2X?

[sarmrakib]

I think its not an easy strategy to follow .At the beginning time of trading i thought it is an easy to do a trade but i made always loss .It's went more deep .So i think we should need more analysis before trading this way .So its so tough to say every deep will give you profit .