[edited out]
Some of the best bitcoins were brought under 1k.
Of course, many of us into bitcoin, and who established a good quantity of our BTC stashes before April 2017, had purchased a good amount of our BTC for under $1k, and some BTC HODLers had either purchased all of their stash below $1k, or even the BTC that they bought above $1k after March 2017 would NOT have came even close to causing their average cost per BTC to go above $1k.
My point is NOT so much about a lot of the acquisition of BTC below $1k or even the various strategies of the earlier adopters to accumulate BTC while keeping their costs below $1k per BTC, but just that to me
(and likely several others who had been into BTC for a decent amount of time before April 2017 - hey I kind of even consider the BTC accumulators who came into BTC in mid 2015 or later to have been a bit spoiled, relatively speaking because their BTC had likely had a lot more UPwards movements in price rather than extended periods of down and even being in the negative) it would feel quite devastating to revisit those kinds of sub $1k price territories, and even revisiting the current lowest bottom of this particular cycle of $3,124, would be a bit of a downer... and you know if we go anywhere back below $4k the odds become pretty high, at that point, that there would be attempts to revisit that $3,124 bottom.
Cannot really know before-hand how I personally would react, even though I believe that it is prudent to continue to prepare for extreme scenarios, even the ones that seem to be within the low ends of probabilities.
Sure, there are a decent amount of folks who came into BTC after March 2017, so their costs are likely quite a bit higher than $1k, even though there might be some (probably rare) folks who have been able to engage in BTC accumulation strategies and tactics to bring their costs per BTC down to below $1k, the most likely of scenarios for those who came into BTC after March 2017 would be the prudent dollar cost averaging ones, even including buying around the time of the $19,666 top and continuing to dollar cost average and accumulate BTC, which still might end up bringing costs of per BTC into a $6k to $9k range, which would ONLY be slightly profitable currently, but still seeming (to me) like a great long-term investment, as long as the investment time horizon is at least 4 years, and if the person(s) are still accumulating BTC, currently, then having a longer time horizon for establishing a decent BTC stash/stake should allow for even greater likelihoods of appreciable profits that out perform other assets into the future. A good tool to look at historical DCA performance of bitcoin compared with gold and the Dow Jones Industrial Index fund, can be done
here,
link courtesy of biodom......
I just think the sound of El duderino and exit scam in a same sentence is sounding like Kanye west for president.....
No actual human being (or even algorithm written by humans) is free from exit scamming, so I don't believe it is healthy to consider any one to be free from exit scamming - even if the odds are low and even it the starting premise a "gift" or a "give away" - even with a decently long reputation getting established, especially on the interwebs.. and even if some peeps have met you in real life or can figure out who you are. Of course, long scams involve building confidence to be put into a position to be able to exit scam with larger amounts of money, and surely folks who have been put into positions of trust in the past would be more likely to be put into positions of trust into the future with larger amounts of money. Anyone might be considered to NOT be engaging in a long scam, until it happens... then fuck. Happens a lot in bitcoin, even though I am NOT specifically accusing you of such, no one is immuned from being considered in such light as being possible, under certain conditions.
Of course, you have demonstrated a historical track record for following through with your promised payments, and that is reflected in trust that several forum members have already left for you, and no one publicly accuses you of having had screwed them out of coins or anything like that, and the opposite has been claimed in terms of your paying for promises and debts, so yeah, you do not have any of those kinds of blemishes, as far as I know.
Yeah, it could be true that you personally are either incapable of an exit scam or that you are much more self-less than the average saint, but does not seem to be healthy to consider people as self-less and one of the presumptions of bitcoin hinges on people having ongoing incentives to act in their own interest.....
Funny thing about bitcoin does continue to be the combination of trust that still seems to be part of the ongoing space, even when we are getting down to fundamental design issues from satoshi in which there was a presumption that people were going to act in their own self-interest and even attack the bitcoin system up to a certain point (including satoshi anticipating a lot of snake oil salesmen, and surely those anticipations have played out in reality) - and some of those balances of trust and trustless continue to be ongoing in design issues in bitcoin, including whether it might be better to allow bitcoin's code to ossify rather than to improve...
I mean there is a certain kind of value that is placed on both the difficulties in changing bitcoin (which is a feature and not a bug in bitcoin, even though frequently criticized by bitcoin naysayers and alt coin pumpers) and even a kind of banking upon bitcoin will NOT change - so if any of us were to go into a 10-year coma, we should still be able to recover our coins as long as we could get access to our private keys upon coming out of our coma.... The same cannot be asserted regarding the vast majority of shitcoins including the stupid ass hardforking preferences which seems to cause real issues for anyone who might go into a 10 year coma and might not be able to retrieve his/her coins, and the shitcoins also have greater degrees of centralization and even folks who might not be counted upon - even if they might seem to be saints... and I suppose in bitcoin, there are built in mechanisms that strive to NOT allow any one person or group of people to have too much control in bitcoin, and to default to NOT changing if there is disagreement or if overwhelming consensus cannot be reached, even blockstream - while they have been frequently accused of having more control and influence over the direction of bitcoin and its software than they deserve to have, but those proclamations about the purported power of blockstream are frequently exaggerated since there still remains abilities for anyone to challenge and check code that have been proposed and adopted into bitcoin through them or any of their agents (principles, staff or employees).
Surely, we have to be careful about granting too much authority or credibility to any person or group in bitcoin, and of course, more young people learning to code and getting involved in bitcoin is likely to help to keep eyes on the code and not allowed any bugs to be slipped in ..... not fool proof, but ongoing healthy skepticism... and ability to adapt to adverse behaviors of individuals that could happen, even with anyone (or team)
holding themselves out as a potential saint.
