Balancing Financial security and Bitcoin Accumulation

[icebar]

I think that we set our level of aggressiveness in regards to the strength of our finances and not in regards to whether the BTC price is dipping or not.

You hit t the nail on the head. Aggressive buying without backup or the means of achieving it, is straight up gambling, that is why everyone should constantly make sure that their aggressiveness matches with their finances. Investors should know their limits and if their finances cannot handle a big buy then it is better to focus on the amount that can be bought, instead of trying to push beyond your limit thereby screwing themselves over.

Is you must be aggressive in buying bitcoin, there should be surely mediums such as extra income to buy. Anything other than that can lead to panic in your investment journey and maybe ending too soon

Yes, it is definitely a good idea to invest aggressively in Bitcoin some time, but in this case, he must understand a few things well. Additional funds have to be created for investment and if additional income is arranged for this, it is better. But naturally, those who are doing DCA must not use more than their discretionary income before investing aggressively. Many may also try to use their emergency fund, but in this case, he must understand that if he uses the emergency fund for any reason, his Bitcoin investment will be hindered later. There is a possibility of losing his main investment for not investing with additional income.

[JayJuanGee]

I believe it is mostly for clearity sake and to be more precise that is why it will be good to used bitcoin instead of cryptocurrency. Since cryptocurrency is a general name and includes different coins. So using it while referring to bitcoin may end up confusing others that may not really know the exact coins you have in mind to avoid such ambiguousity while referring to bitcoin, the term crypto currency shouldn't be used.

You should know that cryptocurrency is a general term, but you're right we need to be more specific while giving reference so that newbies won't end up making the wrong choice. The thing is, most folks are used to the term "cryptocurrency" which is why they usually mention cryptocurrency whenever they are making explanation as regards to Bitcoin investment because they feel that they are all together which can be very misleading more especially to newbies. So now that Bitcoin has gained independence we all have to address it as digital asset So it is high time we stop using the term cryptocurrency" while making explanation.

I doubt that it helps to be using a vague term such as "digital asset" instead of using "crypto currency".

Part of the problem is that both of those terms are vague and it does not help to change the term to "digital asset" and conclude that you solved the problem that involves vagueness and lumping shitcoin and bitcoin into one category without specifying what you are talking about.  Accordingly, using the term digital asset does not solve the issue and it continues to be vague, ambiguous, misleading and potentially intentionally deceptive.  

Another problem is each of the two terms (digital asset or Crypto currency) put bitcoin in the same category as shitcoins, and yeah lawmakers might engage in such practices to try to define categories, yet if we are trying to have a meaningful discussion, we should not be using such vague and broad terms... Even lawmakers might get themselves in troubles if they are trying to define categories broadly and not sufficiently specifying.  Shitcoin promoters and bitcoin naysayers just love if we are using vague references about bitcoin and and including shitcoins and bitcoin  as if they were all the same thing.

If you are referring to bitcoin then why not use the term bitcoin or at least describe where and/or how bitcoin fits into the discussion.

If you are talking about some shitcoin, then maybe it is o.k. to use the term crypto or digital asset as long as you have provided some description of what you are talking about, yet how is it going to be known what is being talked about with the use of just a general reference.  

It seems to me that we have been talking about bitcoin in this thread.. and we are on a bitcoin forum, too.

Exactly, after all shitcoins are digital and can be considered to be assets by some people so tagging bitcoin solely with the digital asset term makes it look like just another shitcoin and there is also the lack of specificity since no one can really know that you are talking about bitcoin when you just throw in digital asset in a conversation, you can blame people when they make the wrong assumption in a situation like this because you didn't specify what you were talking about in the first place.
If we are to talk about bitcoin in a conversation and as we are in this thread then it's best to use it's actual name rather than referring to it with vague and misleading terminologies.

Sometimes the vague terms are used out of sloppiness or trying to look smart to be talking generally about several cryptos (not just bitcoin) and other times the vague terms are used in order to purposefully mislead. 

It should not be difficult to specify the reference, even though sometimes it might take more words.. since there could actually be times that a person is talking about bitcoin  and shitcoins too.. so maybe some kind of legislation will pass that talks about bitcoin and shitcoins, or maybe the legislation is vague, and if a person might be wanting to describe such a thing then it could take some effort to figure it out, or maybe a person is referring to an article and then say that the article talks about bitcoin and talks about shitcoins.

And perhaps even describing that some articles are badly written too, so that if an article is badly written and seems to either be sloppy or maybe it is purposefully vague in the way it talks about bitcoin and/or crypto, then the way that an article is written might sometimes be relevant when referring to an article rather than just accepting the vague and/or misleading representations that are made in the article.  I have seen forum members try to negate their own sloppiness by proclaiming that they are merely repeating what was said in the article, which surely is sloppy thinking that lacks in critical thinking, and I would think that guys participate in a forum like this in order to attempt to improve their bitcoin-related knowledge and maybe even to attempt to improve their abilities to think and present information in critical ways rather than just parroting some of the vague and/or misleading nonsense that might exist through various mainstream media sources.

At least if we might not be trying to improve ourselves, then maybe at least we are merely trying to improve our understanding of bitcoin.  Critical thinking helps with either of those aspirations to improve self or to improve understanding of bitcoin.

[I_Anime]

And perhaps even describing that some articles are badly written too, so that if an article is badly written and seems to either be sloppy or maybe it is purposefully vague in the way it talks about bitcoin and/or crypto, then the way that an article is written might sometimes be relevant when referring to an article rather than just accepting the vague and/or misleading representations that are made in the article.  I have seen forum members try to negate their own sloppiness by proclaiming that they are merely repeating what was said in the article, which surely is sloppy thinking that lacks in critical thinking, and I would think that guys participate in a forum like this in order to attempt to improve their bitcoin-related knowledge and maybe even to attempt to improve their abilities to think and present information in critical ways rather than just parroting some of the vague and/or misleading nonsense that might exist through various mainstream media sources.

Exactly, that’s why we need to make researching part of us in this space . I know I haven’t gotten far when come to Bitcoin knowledge, but still that’s enough reason for me to keep researching and trying my best to improve my bitcoin knowledge to avoid passing misinformation or misleading others , one of the things I like about this forum is that there are knowledgeable users ready to correct and put you right in track .

Many social handles are fond of passing misleading information especially those that base on cryptocurrencies. They don’t really care how that information is going to affect you after consuming it all they care about is farming engagement, because that’s one means they get paid and stuff , that’s why you should be careful at there and always DYOR.

[Joeboy]

There is nothing wrong with being over aggressive at some point because it will play a very good role in your accumulation by helping you to accumulate a large amount of Bitcoin in a short period of time. Being over aggressive can only hinder the possibility of you arriving at your over accumulation stage if you get carried away by it and use money for your day-to-day expenses to invest in Bitcoin aggressively. If you must be over aggressive in your investment, it is better you use discretionary income and never go beyond your discretionary income so that it will not have any negative influence on your accumulation process.

Being aggressive should always depend on our financial capacity. Before any aggressive buying is made the investor need to ask him/ herself if the extra cash is available to do so. I really see no point of folks trying to force over- aggressiveness in their accumulation, when they don't have the financial backings to do so.... Being aggressive will only work well when the extra cash to do so is available, if it isn't it is best to stick to a steady accumulation that aligns with your discretionary income and your comfort level.

[JayJuanGee]

There is nothing wrong with being over aggressive at some point because it will play a very good role in your accumulation by helping you to accumulate a large amount of Bitcoin in a short period of time. Being over aggressive can only hinder the possibility of you arriving at your over accumulation stage if you get carried away by it and use money for your day-to-day expenses to invest in Bitcoin aggressively. If you must be over aggressive in your investment, it is better you use discretionary income and never go beyond your discretionary income so that it will not have any negative influence on your accumulation process.

Being aggressive should always depend on our financial capacity. Before any aggressive buying is made the investor need to ask him/ herself if the extra cash is available to do so. I really see no point of folks trying to force over- aggressiveness in their accumulation, when they don't have the financial backings to do so.... Being aggressive will only work well when the extra cash to do so is available, if it isn't it is best to stick to a steady accumulation that aligns with your discretionary income and your comfort level.

If you are overaggressive, then that means that you have gone too far in your level of aggressiveness in regards to your bitcoin accumulation and/or your cashflow management practices.  You could screw up with either of those or both of them.

Each guy should be able to analyze and see how much extra cash he has and his cashflow versus expense situation to know how aggressive he is able to be in his bitcoin accumulation and/or his management of his funds.

Guys might not know that they had employed tactics that were too aggressive until something goes wrong, and then they might realize that it is too late to go back and to fix the parts that were too much, such as if too much bitcoin were bought at various points in time and/or not enough back up funds were kept.  

If guys over do it then it is going to cost them.  

This is the balancing part that guys have to figure out on their own since no one is going to save them if they screw it up... so for example, if they are too whimpy or if they are too aggressive, they might not realize the consequences until many years down the road.

[PhilosopherKing]

This is the balancing part that guys have to figure out on their own since no one is going to save them if they screw it up... so for example, if they are too whimpy or if they are too aggressive, they might not realize the consequences until many years down the road.

To balance is for people to know their limits, they should look at their income and their expenses and their backup cash if any to know how much or how little they can go without screwing themselves over. Practicing balance should be a individual choice because what works for me may not work for another, everyone should figure out what works well for them and do it.

I agree with you Mister Jay if by chance I screw up my investment either by buying little when I am suppose to buy more, or if I over do when am not supposed to, then I personally will face the whole consequences, no one will save me no matter what. This alone should make balancing a thing of great importance

[Mr_Brilliant$]

There is nothing wrong with being over aggressive at some point because it will play a very good role in your accumulation by helping you to accumulate a large amount of Bitcoin in a short period of time. Being over aggressive can only hinder the possibility of you arriving at your over accumulation stage if you get carried away by it and use money for your day-to-day expenses to invest in Bitcoin aggressively. If you must be over aggressive in your investment, it is better you use discretionary income and never go beyond your discretionary income so that it will not have any negative influence on your accumulation process.

Being aggressive should always depend on our financial capacity. Before any aggressive buying is made the investor need to ask him/ herself if the extra cash is available to do so. I really see no point of folks trying to force over- aggressiveness in their accumulation, when they don't have the financial backings to do so.... Being aggressive will only work well when the extra cash to do so is available, if it isn't it is best to stick to a steady accumulation that aligns with your discretionary income and your comfort level.

At first, why will someone who does not have a strong financial capacity even think of going aggressive in buying Bitcoin? What if after they go aggressive it does not go as they planned or bullish as they would have thought in another coming months.. Then they would simply be set for panic..

Bitcoin shouldn’t be gambled with, if you know you do not have any strong financial backing then dont try going aggressive in buying Bitcoin with the little cash you have, it could simple harm you financially, making you regret ever been introduced to Bitcoin..

[Bigjoe33]

At first, why will someone who does not have a strong financial capacity even think of going aggressive in buying Bitcoin? What if after they go aggressive it does not go as they planned or bullish as they would have thought in another coming months.. Then they would simply be set for panic..

Bitcoin shouldn’t be gambled with, if you know you do not have any strong financial backing then dont try going aggressive in buying Bitcoin with the little cash you have, it could simple harm you financially, making you regret ever been introduced to Bitcoin..

Going with a simple DCA buys and remaining consistent to it is the best alternative in avoiding such unplanned and unnecessary aggressive buys which will put pressure on the investor and maybe force unprepared sells. Many investors wrongly get into aggressive buying without a proper planning or an extra cash ready for such buys, and at the end, they will face the panic after screwing there investment up. A simple calculation will explain clearly that using funds meant for something else to buy Bitcoin aggressively will amount to pressure when the need for the actual funds arises and it's no longer available to handle it. It is therefore very important that investors manage there resources and allocate income properly, avoiding unplanned aggressive purchase, rather remaining with there buying budgets and progress gradually so that Tye long term buy and HODL investment plan can be actualised.

[Cgrexp]

At first, why will someone who does not have a strong financial capacity even think of going aggressive in buying Bitcoin? What if after they go aggressive it does not go as they planned or bullish as they would have thought in another coming months.. Then they would simply be set for panic..
Bitcoin shouldn’t be gambled with, if you know you do not have any strong financial backing then dont try going aggressive in buying Bitcoin with the little cash you have, it could simple harm you financially, making you regret ever been introduced to Bitcoin..

I do not support the idea of changing aggressiveness in line with the price of Bitcoin. The level of aggressiveness should depend on the strength of cash flow management and practice. By setting a low DCA on a regular basis, you are essentially holding back some money to invest during the downturn. However, having little confidence in deciding how much to invest during the downturn can be a waste of imagination and planning time, energy and money. Trying to establish the level of aggressiveness in the initial stages of buying Bitcoin should rely on the strength of cash flow management rather than being distracted by price fluctuations. If someone buys more by setting a specific deepening strategy, it is essentially nothing more than a price retention transaction. Those who have saved or invested earlier can allocate their excess wealth to Bitcoin later, although this may not be possible at the time of the first purchase.

[Sim_card]

At first, why will someone who does not have a strong financial capacity even think of going aggressive in buying Bitcoin? What if after they go aggressive it does not go as they planned or bullish as they would have thought in another coming months.. Then they would simply be set for panic..

Bitcoin shouldn’t be gambled with, if you know you do not have any strong financial backing then dont try going aggressive in buying Bitcoin with the little cash you have, it could simple harm you financially, making you regret ever been introduced to Bitcoin..

I feel that you don't understand what aggressive buying is all about. You don't need to buy aggressively because you feel that the market will pump in few months. Ok, if it pumps in few months, what will you do, take profits it means that you are having a trader mindset and not a long-term investor mindset.

You don't need to have a strong financial capacity before you can invest aggressively if you know how to do it. If I have started my bitcoin journey for at least three years whereby I have set up my emergency funds and various backup funds on ground, I can invest aggressively from my discretionary income of $100.

For example, I can choose to use $85 out of my $100 discretionary income to invest in bitcoin within a particular period of time. Investing aggressively, does not need strong financial capability because you might have a strong financial capability and still not invest aggressively. To invest aggressively, you need to do it within your discretionary income, it's when you invest ovee aggressively, that's bad because you're only gambling.

[SPIDERMAN008]

Sometimes the vague terms are used out of sloppiness or trying to look smart to be talking generally about several cryptos (not just bitcoin) and other times the vague terms are used in order to purposefully mislead. 

It should not be difficult to specify the reference, even though sometimes it might take more words.. since there could actually be times that a person is talking about bitcoin  and shitcoins too.. so maybe some kind of legislation will pass that talks about bitcoin and shitcoins, or maybe the legislation is vague, and if a person might be wanting to describe such a thing then it could take some effort to figure it out, or maybe a person is referring to an article and then say that the article talks about bitcoin and talks about shitcoins.

And perhaps even describing that some articles are badly written too, so that if an article is badly written and seems to either be sloppy or maybe it is purposefully vague in the way it talks about bitcoin and/or crypto, then the way that an article is written might sometimes be relevant when referring to an article rather than just accepting the vague and/or misleading representations that are made in the article.  I have seen forum members try to negate their own sloppiness by proclaiming that they are merely repeating what was said in the article, which surely is sloppy thinking that lacks in critical thinking, and I would think that guys participate in a forum like this in order to attempt to improve their bitcoin-related knowledge and maybe even to attempt to improve their abilities to think and present information in critical ways rather than just parroting some of the vague and/or misleading nonsense that might exist through various mainstream media sources.

At least if we might not be trying to improve ourselves, then maybe at least we are merely trying to improve our understanding of bitcoin.  Critical thinking helps with either of those aspirations to improve self or to improve understanding of bitcoin.

You said about conflating Bitcoin and shitcoin is not limited to the issue of word choice. It destroys the basic structure of Bitcoin. News, media TV or as you mentioned in the article, they also use crypto, digital assets, tokens etc. to explain Bitcoin. The media always wants people to be confused and at one time when they used to raise negative issues about Bitcoin, they used to play psychological games by using such words. When people get stuck with words like staking profit, passive income, trading, growth rate etc. before understanding Bitcoin, they get away from the basic fundamental of Bitcoin such as keeping your own coins, fixed supply, use without permission, long-term stability and profit.

There has been a trend of negatively portraying Bitcoin through confusion for a long time. And now, with shitcoins, it has chosen the best way. When the media says crypto crash, in reality it is the crash of shitcoins. When the government says crypto regulation, it usually means companies issuing tokens, or various fraudulent activities. But due to the vague language, even those who are new to Bitcoin start to understand it in the same way. And from there, those who have been against Bitcoin from the beginning are successful.

[Tonimez]

Sometimes the vague terms are used out of sloppiness or trying to look smart to be talking generally about several cryptos (not just bitcoin) and other times the vague terms are used in order to purposefully mislead. 

It should not be difficult to specify the reference, even though sometimes it might take more words.. since there could actually be times that a person is talking about bitcoin  and shitcoins too.. so maybe some kind of legislation will pass that talks about bitcoin and shitcoins, or maybe the legislation is vague, and if a person might be wanting to describe such a thing then it could take some effort to figure it out, or maybe a person is referring to an article and then say that the article talks about bitcoin and talks about shitcoins.

And perhaps even describing that some articles are badly written too, so that if an article is badly written and seems to either be sloppy or maybe it is purposefully vague in the way it talks about bitcoin and/or crypto, then the way that an article is written might sometimes be relevant when referring to an article rather than just accepting the vague and/or misleading representations that are made in the article.  I have seen forum members try to negate their own sloppiness by proclaiming that they are merely repeating what was said in the article, which surely is sloppy thinking that lacks in critical thinking, and I would think that guys participate in a forum like this in order to attempt to improve their bitcoin-related knowledge and maybe even to attempt to improve their abilities to think and present information in critical ways rather than just parroting some of the vague and/or misleading nonsense that might exist through various mainstream media sources.

At least if we might not be trying to improve ourselves, then maybe at least we are merely trying to improve our understanding of bitcoin.  Critical thinking helps with either of those aspirations to improve self or to improve understanding of bitcoin.

You said about conflating Bitcoin and shitcoin is not limited to the issue of word choice. It destroys the basic structure of Bitcoin. News, media TV or as you mentioned in the article, they also use crypto, digital assets, tokens etc. to explain Bitcoin. The media always wants people to be confused and at one time when they used to raise negative issues about Bitcoin, they used to play psychological games by using such words. When people get stuck with words like staking profit, passive income, trading, growth rate etc. before understanding Bitcoin, they get away from the basic fundamental of Bitcoin such as keeping your own coins, fixed supply, use without permission, long-term stability and profit.

There has been a trend of negatively portraying Bitcoin through confusion for a long time. And now, with shitcoins, it has chosen the best way. When the media says crypto crash, in reality it is the crash of shitcoins. When the government says crypto regulation, it usually means companies issuing tokens, or various fraudulent activities. But due to the vague language, even those who are new to Bitcoin start to understand it in the same way. And from there, those who have been against Bitcoin from the beginning are successful.

Well I don't this there's much influence of what you call negatively portraying bitcoin by the media in recent times. Every member of society is beginning to understand that personal knowledge about bitcoin is very paramount and this year has proven every negative energy wrong. When government issues a cryptocurrency regulations, bitcoin is directly affected. So I don't know why you think that government crypto currency regulation exempts bitcoin. However, the general notion about crypto currency scams are perpetuated by shitcoins.

This is the major reason to understand the difference between bitcoin and shitcoins. If anyone starts concentrating on shitcoins, he would end up hating on bitcoin after been dealt with by shitcoins. Getting the Media to reposition the use of crypto currency in a more general way should be very narrowed. Bitcoin recovers from volatility, but in most shitcoins don't recover from extreme multi action

[JayJuanGee]

Sometimes the vague terms are used out of sloppiness or trying to look smart to be talking generally about several cryptos (not just bitcoin) and other times the vague terms are used in order to purposefully mislead. 

It should not be difficult to specify the reference, even though sometimes it might take more words.. since there could actually be times that a person is talking about bitcoin  and shitcoins too.. so maybe some kind of legislation will pass that talks about bitcoin and shitcoins, or maybe the legislation is vague, and if a person might be wanting to describe such a thing then it could take some effort to figure it out, or maybe a person is referring to an article and then say that the article talks about bitcoin and talks about shitcoins.

And perhaps even describing that some articles are badly written too, so that if an article is badly written and seems to either be sloppy or maybe it is purposefully vague in the way it talks about bitcoin and/or crypto, then the way that an article is written might sometimes be relevant when referring to an article rather than just accepting the vague and/or misleading representations that are made in the article.  I have seen forum members try to negate their own sloppiness by proclaiming that they are merely repeating what was said in the article, which surely is sloppy thinking that lacks in critical thinking, and I would think that guys participate in a forum like this in order to attempt to improve their bitcoin-related knowledge and maybe even to attempt to improve their abilities to think and present information in critical ways rather than just parroting some of the vague and/or misleading nonsense that might exist through various mainstream media sources.

At least if we might not be trying to improve ourselves, then maybe at least we are merely trying to improve our understanding of bitcoin.  Critical thinking helps with either of those aspirations to improve self or to improve understanding of bitcoin.

You said about conflating Bitcoin and shitcoin is not limited to the issue of word choice. It destroys the basic structure of Bitcoin. News, media TV or as you mentioned in the article, they also use crypto, digital assets, tokens etc. to explain Bitcoin. The media always wants people to be confused and at one time when they used to raise negative issues about Bitcoin, they used to play psychological games by using such words. When people get stuck with words like staking profit, passive income, trading, growth rate etc. before understanding Bitcoin, they get away from the basic fundamental of Bitcoin such as keeping your own coins, fixed supply, use without permission, long-term stability and profit.

There has been a trend of negatively portraying Bitcoin through confusion for a long time. And now, with shitcoins, it has chosen the best way. When the media says crypto crash, in reality it is the crash of shitcoins. When the government says crypto regulation, it usually means companies issuing tokens, or various fraudulent activities. But due to the vague language, even those who are new to Bitcoin start to understand it in the same way. And from there, those who have been against Bitcoin from the beginning are successful.

The use of vague representations is likely purposeful to mislead and confuse normies about bitcoin, and shitcoiners and bitcoin naysayers love getting some credibility by being lumped into the same category as bitcoin.

One of the solutions for any of us should be either to ask for clarification or at least to point out the ambiguity, and we can ask how that relates to bitcoin, or what do they mean when they say crypto or digital asset?  Sometimes they might be referring to bitcoin and the various other cryptos, and sometimes the context justifies to make such general references.  We can also try to make our own speech and writing clear in terms of not using vague words like crypto or digital assets unless we are clarifying what we are referring to.

Frequently, I like to use denigrations when referring to shitcoins, and some folks are hostile to such denigrations.. and I don't tend to involve myself in shitcoin discussions, even though from time to time, I will be exposed to such discussions... and if we are not sure about the difference between bitcoin and shitcoins, then there could be ways to make sure to learn about bitcoin first, which might be helpful if there is any needs (or wants) to learn about any of the shitcoins.  If we have some knowledge about bitcoin, then at least we might have a reference point.

[edited out]

Well I don't this there's much influence of what you call negatively portraying bitcoin by the media in recent times. Every member of society is beginning to understand that personal knowledge about bitcoin is very paramount and this year has proven every negative energy wrong. When government issues a cryptocurrency regulations, bitcoin is directly affected. So I don't know why you think that government crypto currency regulation exempts bitcoin. However, the general notion about crypto currency scams are perpetuated by shitcoins.

This is the major reason to understand the difference between bitcoin and shitcoins. If anyone starts concentrating on shitcoins, he would end up hating on bitcoin after been dealt with by shitcoins. Getting the Media to reposition the use of crypto currency in a more general way should be very narrowed. Bitcoin recovers from volatility, but in most shitcoins don't recover from extreme multi action

You are likely blind if you conclude that people know the difference between bitcoin and shitcoins, and/or that various government regulations help in the understanding of the difference between bitcoin and shitcoins.  Even stable coins are likely going to end up serving as mini-CBDCs, and there are ongoing attempts to neuter bitcoin in ways that attempt to KYC all transactions.  The current attacks from governments, banks and even mainstream media might be more seemingly friendly, yet there is a lot of ongoing hostility to bitcoin, both in terms of self sovereignty angle and the privacy angle.

If you are using bitcoin through third-parties then there might be less hostility to your use of bitcoin because you are largely within an acceptable and monitored infrastructure.  Maybe the attacks are too subtle for some guys to recognize and accept because it also could be possible that quite a few guys, even on this forum, don't recognize the difference between self-custody and using third-party custody or other kinds of potentially paper bitcoin products.

I am not claiming to be an expert, yet it should be obvious that an overwhelming majority of the world's population have hardly any clue about bitcoin, even if they heard the word bitcoin.  Also, it should be obvious that governments, status quo rich and financial institutions are also hostile to bitcoin and even playing passive aggressive and subtle battles with bitcoin, even if they might be acting as if they were friendly to bitcoin from time to time.  They are not, and some of the ones trying to act friendly to bitcoin are trying to lure folks into using paper bitcoin products rather than helping to empower them to use actual self-sovereign bitcoin that gives them transactional and privacy options in more meaningful ways within the design of bitcoin's abilities to transact directly between fellow bitcoiners.

[Qhunman]

At first, why will someone who does not have a strong financial capacity even think of going aggressive in buying Bitcoin? What if after they go aggressive it does not go as they planned or bullish as they would have thought in another coming months.. Then they would simply be set for panic..

Bitcoin shouldn’t be gambled with, if you know you do not have any strong financial backing then dont try going aggressive in buying Bitcoin with the little cash you have, it could simple harm you financially, making you regret ever been introduced to Bitcoin..

I wonder if the person was in a competition or wanted to accumulate the same amount of Stash as his friends. They could be several reasons as to why a person would go aggressively without using discretionary income or could it be a Fomo thing ,yet still not justifiable. Investing outside of discretionary income  seems he is gambling. If the person has a reserve fund,then he should consider invest aggressively, therefore  it wouldn't seem he is gambling  since it is money that could be used for alternative spendings like buying the Dips which occur unexpectedly.

[ZeroVinsonN]

I believe it is mostly for clearity sake and to be more precise that is why it will be good to used bitcoin instead of cryptocurrency. Since cryptocurrency is a general name and includes different coins. So using it while referring to bitcoin may end up confusing others that may not really know the exact coins you have in mind to avoid such ambiguousity while referring to bitcoin, the term crypto currency shouldn't be used.

You should know that cryptocurrency is a general term, but you're right we need to be more specific while giving reference so that newbies won't end up making the wrong choice. The thing is, most folks are used to the term "cryptocurrency" which is why they usually mention cryptocurrency whenever they are making explanation as regards to Bitcoin investment because they feel that they are all together which can be very misleading more especially to newbies. So now that Bitcoin has gained independence we all have to address it as digital asset So it is high time we stop using the term cryptocurrency" while making explanation.

I doubt that it helps to be using a vague term such as "digital asset" instead of using "crypto currency".

Part of the problem is that both of those terms are vague and it does not help to change the term to "digital asset" and conclude that you solved the problem that involves vagueness and lumping shitcoin and bitcoin into one category without specifying what you are talking about.  Accordingly, using the term digital asset does not solve the issue and it continues to be vague, ambiguous, misleading and potentially intentionally deceptive.  

Another problem is each of the two terms (digital asset or Crypto currency) put bitcoin in the same category as shitcoins, and yeah lawmakers might engage in such practices to try to define categories, yet if we are trying to have a meaningful discussion, we should not be using such vague and broad terms... Even lawmakers might get themselves in troubles if they are trying to define categories broadly and not sufficiently specifying.  Shitcoin promoters and bitcoin naysayers just love if we are using vague references about bitcoin and and including shitcoins and bitcoin  as if they were all the same thing.

If you are referring to bitcoin then why not use the term bitcoin or at least describe where and/or how bitcoin fits into the discussion.

If you are talking about some shitcoin, then maybe it is o.k. to use the term crypto or digital asset as long as you have provided some description of what you are talking about, yet how is it going to be known what is being talked about with the use of just a general reference.  

It seems to me that we have been talking about bitcoin in this thread.. and we are on a bitcoin forum, too.

Exactly, after all shitcoins are digital and can be considered to be assets by some people so tagging bitcoin solely with the digital asset term makes it look like just another shitcoin and there is also the lack of specificity since no one can really know that you are talking about bitcoin when you just throw in digital asset in a conversation, you can blame people when they make the wrong assumption in a situation like this because you didn't specify what you were talking about in the first place.
If we are to talk about bitcoin in a conversation and as we are in this thread then it's best to use it's actual name rather than referring to it with vague and misleading terminologies.

Sometimes the vague terms are used out of sloppiness or trying to look smart to be talking generally about several cryptos (not just bitcoin) and other times the vague terms are used in order to purposefully mislead. 

It should not be difficult to specify the reference, even though sometimes it might take more words.. since there could actually be times that a person is talking about bitcoin  and shitcoins too.. so maybe some kind of legislation will pass that talks about bitcoin and shitcoins, or maybe the legislation is vague, and if a person might be wanting to describe such a thing then it could take some effort to figure it out, or maybe a person is referring to an article and then say that the article talks about bitcoin and talks about shitcoins.

And perhaps even describing that some articles are badly written too, so that if an article is badly written and seems to either be sloppy or maybe it is purposefully vague in the way it talks about bitcoin and/or crypto, then the way that an article is written might sometimes be relevant when referring to an article rather than just accepting the vague and/or misleading representations that are made in the article.  I have seen forum members try to negate their own sloppiness by proclaiming that they are merely repeating what was said in the article, which surely is sloppy thinking that lacks in critical thinking, and I would think that guys participate in a forum like this in order to attempt to improve their bitcoin-related knowledge and maybe even to attempt to improve their abilities to think and present information in critical ways rather than just parroting some of the vague and/or misleading nonsense that might exist through various mainstream media sources.

At least if we might not be trying to improve ourselves, then maybe at least we are merely trying to improve our understanding of bitcoin.  Critical thinking helps with either of those aspirations to improve self or to improve understanding of bitcoin.

Still a person should know to be specific on what they are talking about, there are also multiple shitcoins out there and as similar as they all are there are also slight differences here and there so it would also be better if we were specific on what we're are talking about, it's pointless trying to pass along an information if you end up misleading your audience because at the end of the day your message won't reach your target audience and what's worse is that you have mislead them into thinking you were talking about all shitcoins in general when you were intact just talking about the one.
Also this is a bitcoin thread so unless for good reasons like when trying to reference a particular alt then bitcoin should always be used, even when referencing a particular alt it's still best to be specific so at to not mislead everyone else.

[Finebone]

They could be several reasons as to why a person would go aggressively without using discretionary income or could it be a Fomo thing ,yet still not justifiable. Investing outside of discretionary income  seems he is gambling

Once an investor start investing in Bitcoin outside his discretionary income, he is no longer investing in Bitcoin,  he is now gambling since he will definitely sell off his holdings prematurely or at a loss when the needs arise for what the money used to invest in bitcoin comes.
So in this digital space, you might be gambling on Bitcoin thinking that you are investing, but most guys here thinks that it's only investment in shit coin that are gambling.

. If the person has a reserve fund,then he should consider invest aggressively, therefore  it wouldn't seem he is gambling  since it is money that could be used for alternative spendings like buying the Dips which occur unexpectedly.

You are right about this, reserve funds can be used to buy Bitcoin aggressively during the dip or anytime along his investment journey, because it purpose is to services or support his Bitcoin investment.

[Proty]

They could be several reasons as to why a person would go aggressively without using discretionary income or could it be a Fomo thing ,yet still not justifiable. Investing outside of discretionary income  seems he is gambling

Once an investor start investing in Bitcoin outside his discretionary income, he is no longer investing in Bitcoin,  he is now gambling since he will definitely sell off his holdings prematurely or at a loss when the needs arise for what the money used to invest in bitcoin comes.
So in this digital space, you might be gambling on Bitcoin thinking that you are investing, but most guys here thinks that it's only investment in shit coin that are gambling.

Some people do think that bitcoin is just were they will put money then within weeks or months they are in profit. For this reason they won't see as bad idea to invest with money that they will be needing for other essentials.
You are right about this, putting money other than our discretionary income into bitcoin is no longer investment but gambling in disguise of investment as we maybe be pressured to sell even when the.market isn't favourable for us to sell.

[Sim_card]

I wonder if the person was in a competition or wanted to accumulate the same amount of Stash as his friends. They could be several reasons as to why a person would go aggressively without using discretionary income or could it be a Fomo thing ,yet still not justifiable. Investing outside of discretionary income  seems he is gambling. If the person has a reserve fund,then he should consider invest aggressively, therefore  it wouldn't seem he is gambling  since it is money that could be used for alternative spendings like buying the Dips which occur unexpectedly.

It's wrong to go into competition with a friend on accumulating bitcoin because even if you are receiving the same salary, your expenses and his will differ. He might have a lesser expenses compared yours which means that his discretionary income will be higher than yours. He has the room to buy more bitcoin than you weekly.

If you don't put this into consideration and go into competition with him, you will end up buying bitcoin beyond your discretionary income and that will lead to premature selling because you will sell your bitcoin when it's not of your will. Life is not competition likewise your bitcoin investment, consistency and persistence bitcoin accumulation is the key to achieving a good bitcoin stash in future irrespective of the amount thay you are DCAing with.

[JayJuanGee]

I wonder if the person was in a competition or wanted to accumulate the same amount of Stash as his friends. They could be several reasons as to why a person would go aggressively without using discretionary income or could it be a Fomo thing ,yet still not justifiable. Investing outside of discretionary income  seems he is gambling. If the person has a reserve fund,then he should consider invest aggressively, therefore  it wouldn't seem he is gambling  since it is money that could be used for alternative spendings like buying the Dips which occur unexpectedly.

It's wrong to go into competition with a friend on accumulating bitcoin because even if you are receiving the same salary, your expenses and his will differ. He might have a lesser expenses compared yours which means that his discretionary income will be higher than yours. He has the room to buy more bitcoin than you weekly.

If you don't put this into consideration and go into competition with him, you will end up buying bitcoin beyond your discretionary income and that will lead to premature selling because you will sell your bitcoin when it's not of your will. Life is not competition likewise your bitcoin investment, consistency and persistence bitcoin accumulation is the key to achieving a good bitcoin stash in future irrespective of the amount thay you are DCAing with.

Maybe we have to try to control our inclinations to compete with others, since I think that there is a bit of an innate aspect to our wanting to compete with others, and some people become really obsessed with it.

There could be some healthy level of competition, and perhaps the more passive-aggressive forms of competition might be better when it comes to finances, since we have to be careful that we do not overdo it, even if we might want to be aggressive in our accumulation, if we end up screwing up, then that could cause us a lot of problems with the momentum of our progress, and it also might cause us psychological problems, too.

We might want to warn ourselves to be careful with our level of competition with others, and that it is better to just compete with ourselves, yet I am not sure if it is possible to completely remove our inclinations to want to compete.