Final bottom reached.
Nobody Mindrusted.
Let's go!
i purchased more.
i really would like to see a sharp move to
74 k maybe 65k
I would grab a hefty chumk
It probably is not healthy for a long term bitcoiner to be cheering for downity, when we have already had 25% downity (around these here prices) and we even had 30% downity if you count our correction down to $76.6k from nearly a month ago.
You haven't had enough downity yet?
Your desire for MOAR downity likely reflects that you are sitting on way too much cash, but what else is new when it comes to uie pooie?
You seem to almost always be sitting on too much cash..
Perhaps, the life of a trader, rather than one of an investor? Perhaps? Perhaps?
Edited: broke up into segments and added a few clarifications of ideascash is fine.
i do not mind having too much of it.
that's why you are buying Bitcoin now instead of 2012, I guess ?
I would not expect anyone to necessarily either "get bitcoin" right away or not to make quite a few mistakes along the way, and I do believe Philip's representation that he has gotten better over the years, but he still seems to remain quite broken in his inabilities to appreciate the value of long-term holding bitcoin and the value of allowing an investment sit for long periods of time, and so from my own perspective, I have seen quite a few members who might have taken a whole cycle or more to figure bitcoin out, and surely Philip seems to have had more than 3 cycles and is still making similar mistakes of overly holding cash and overly believing that there is value in holding cash.
Sure, Phil has likely profited from his ongoing and multiple cashing out of BTC and even his trading of BTC, yet not even close to as much as he could have and would have profited from largely allowing bitcoin to compound and to mostly error on the side of keeping way lower allocations in bitcoin and way smaller allocations in cash.
I think that so many guys here experience a lot of feelings of pain when the BTC price is going down rather than UP because many of us profit way more (perhaps 10x more) when the BTC goes up as compared to when it goes down. Phil likely does not tend to feel those kinds of pains when the BTC price is going down because he is not holding very much BTC and he is (and has been, and had been) overly allocating himself in cash.. which is the same thing that he is currently doing now, and he was even doing the same thing in mid-to-late 2022 and well into 2023, when he should have had been making sure he was allocated in bitcoin.
Sure, each little error does not likely feel like it adds up to very much, and many of us likely realize that even if we are able to front load our bitcoin investment, we likely need to spend at least a whole cycle accumulating bitcoin and then another whole cycle just waiting to transition, and then if we are lucky enough to have accumulated enough bitcoin, then we may well be in a position by the third cycle.. or maybe 2.5 cycles to start to be able to sell some bitcoin without immediately replacing it.
Sometimes the difference between an investor and a trader seems subtle, but the consequences are not very subtle.. because truly many of us investors are in a position to have compounded value and compounded returns that add up way more than any kinds of returns we would have gotten by trying to cash out and buy lower at various points along the way.
I am not even proclaiming that any of it is easy, and surely I can sometimes feel bad for guys who are lured into trading and conclude that trading is a good idea, when the main idea is that any of us need to make sure that we get to a large enough (or more than large enough) BTC stash before we fuck around with selling any of it, without timely replacing it.
I am pretty sure that I know that there are guys in here who have well over 40 bitcoin, and they still think that they do not have enough to sell, even though probably many of the guys with 40 or more bitcoin are more than double an entry level fuck you status.. even if we were going by a entry-level default status of
an income of $80k per year, and I currently measure that at 17.61 BTC.
[edited out]
Dude, don't rub it in
That said, being fully invested is a hassle when you want to buy something else as an investment (unless you sell another asset)...every purchase essentially becomes a DCA.
I doubt that any of us suggesting that there is a need to be fully invested in bitcoin, and surely anyone having a relatively low allocation to bitcoin over a couple of cycles would have had the allocation into bitcoin go up just by having it in bitcoin, and there even could have been some cashing out of bitcoin along the way in order to cash out of the winners (bitcoin) and to support various losers (non-bitcoin investments).
Having an investable cash excess (or cash flow) is of a paramount importance to get into new investment opportunities.
Sure, fucking around with some other investment might be o.k., but in the last full cycle or more, it has not really been necessary to accomplish with any emphasis, and there is no reason to really believe that bitcoin's investment thesis is getting any weaker with the passage of time. Bitcoin investment thesis might even be getting stronger, even though surely it would be difficult to imagine bitcoin having as steep of an upward price curve in the next years as compared with the last 8 years or more.
Funny, though, every time I think that I would have an excess cash flow for a while, something always comes up: renovations, improvements, etc, etc.
Picture a hamster on a wheel...the faster he runs, the faster the wheel spins.
As you suggest, there might be some value in keeping some higher levels of cash on hand than some of us bitcoiners have, yet I doubt that we need the levels of cash that Phil tends to keep on hand. He posted earlier (I believe in another thread) about being able to buy something like 100x his regular DCA that was on hold to buy dips... which seems almost retarded to keep that much cash on hand, unless you have already reached a status of overaccumulation with your bitcoin, which we know, based on his own representations, that he (philip) is not in such a situation, since he says that he is engaging in such conduct in order to accumulate more bitcoin... which seems ridiculous from the perspective of this here cat.
Even though you don't want to litigate the whole block size war, you still want to argue that the blocksize needs to increase in order to facilitate bitcoin transactions...and I see no real reason to add to what I already said.. it is not like I have anything more to say except maybe to just repeat that the problem and/or the solution is not as non-controversial as you are making it seem to be, with your ongoing insistence on wanting to change bitcoin in the direction of BIGGER blocks and your continuing to believe that bitcoin transactions would be improved from that kind of a change...
*sigh* you always do this. What I want is not the issue. I am describing why things are how they are. What people wish to take away from it is up to them.
I still stand by my points, even if you seem to want to suggest that I am deviating, which I doubt that I am deviating any more than responding to points that you brought up.
I agree with you, in fact.
That's good.... hahahahhahaha
I think.
The Bitcoin community, for however that is constituted, took Bitcoin in the direction of store of value rather than electronic cash.
I don't agree with that. Bitcoin is both, and it is other things as well. We can still use bitcoin for both store of value or various kinds of direct payments, even if people are not doing it and even if merchants are not taking it, and I think that I already responded with some accounting explanations that make sense in regards to the disincentivizations for transacting in bitcoin in ways that then might need to be accounted for tax purposes that are cumbersome.
That, ultimately, has consequences. That you may or may not like those consequences has little bearing on the truth of the matter. Whether changing things one way or the other is easy or hard, controversial or not, likewise has no bearing. It is simply a B follows A kind of statement.
We can agree to disagree about bitcoin supposedly being ruined by the consensus that took place around segwit in 2017 and the refusal to perform additional upgrades to the block size that you believe would have had been a better route. and I disagree not only because it did not happen and we cannot go back in history but also that there does not seem to be any problems, as you seem to be suggesting, in regards to abilities to transact on bitcoin, even though there is all kinds of financialization and regulatory efforts still attacking various eases for individuals to hold their coins privately and to transact directly.. . .even though we still can do those things, even though they are ongoingly being attacked and likely slowing down some of the ways that individuals are directly transacting.
I don't claim to be an expert. I am just responding from my perspective, as lame as you might consider my perspective to be.
and even in this calendar year the mempool cleared a lot and we have been having a lot of blocks with single digit sats per vbyte that translates into very low fees of under $1 to send small transactions or even very large amounts of value for the same onchain transaction costs.
The OP was asking why no one was using Bitcoin and your boast is that interest in using Bitcoin is so low that even with quite small blocks, fees are quite low? Do youee-pooey see the issue there?
Yours truly already explained my royal perspective, and you explained yours, too.. which I disagreed with your perspective, and you seem to be continuing to disagree with mine, even though you said you agreed with me, too.
Though I would disagree that $1 is low and being that high eliminates whole swathes of possible transactions.
I gave $1 as an example, but there have been all kinds of fee rates that people could use, and right now, 1 sat per vbyte would be around $0.12 for the lowest if there is only 1 input, and if fees go up to 10 sats per vbyte, which they have not been there for several months, and even in the last 8-9 months or more, there were abilities to send transactions for less than 10 sats per vbyte, which would be $1.20 right now with BTC prices around $83k, yet if BTC prices were around $60k, then the fees would have ONLY been around $0.80 when they were as high as 10 sats per vbyte, and there are abilities to batch transactions too.. which is to send to multiple parties for that same transaction price.
Still, it's a little bit better than the unpredictable $20s we were seeing, I suppose. Of course, god forbid that interest picks up again.
Well yeah there were a lot of time between early 2023 and even through mid 2024 that fees were quite high including 50 sats per vbyte or more, and sure sometimes even into the 100 sats per vbyte and higher if we were trying to send with certainty and right away... so yeah 100 sats per vbyte would have had been $12 per transaction if the BTC price were $84k, but the bitcoin prices were lower during that time.. yet I will still concede that there were a lot of high fees, and sometimes need to know how to transact to get lower fees and then also even worse fees for folks who might have been transacting through 3rd parties (such as exchanges) that might have been charging even higher fees to gouge customers...
And, yeah, we know that part of the reason for the high fees from early 2023 to mid-2024 was due to an interest in inscriptions, ordinals and runes. .which has now seemed to have died away, yet there could be other demands on the bitcoin network in the future that could contribute towards bitcoin fees going up again.. and yeah, it seems that fees should go up as bitcoin demand and adoption continues to go up.
I see no real reason to add to what I already said
O.k. Sure. I will admit that I said that, yet then after I said that I thought of something else to say.. without going back to edit out that part..
I did not claim that I was perfect.
Even though you don't want to litigate the whole block size war, you still want to argue that the blocksize needs to increase in order to facilitate bitcoin transactions...and I see no real reason to add to what I already said.. it is not like I have anything more to say except maybe to just repeat that the problem and/or the solution is not as non-controversial as you are making it seem to be, with your ongoing insistence on wanting to change bitcoin in the direction of BIGGER blocks and your continuing to believe that bitcoin transactions would be improved from that kind of a change...
*sigh* you always do this. What I want is not the issue. I am describing why things are how they are. What people wish to take away from it is up to them. I agree with you, in fact. The Bitcoin community, for however that is constituted, took Bitcoin in the direction of store of value rather than electronic cash. That, ultimately, has consequences. That you may or may not like those consequences has little bearing on the truth of the matter. Whether changing things one way or the other is easy or hard, controversial or not, likewise has no bearing. It is simply a B follows A kind of statement.
and even in this calendar year the mempool cleared a lot and we have been having a lot of blocks with single digit sats per vbyte that translates into very low fees of under $1 to send small transactions or even very large amounts of value for the same onchain transaction costs.
The OP was asking why no one was using Bitcoin and your boast is that interest in using Bitcoin is so low that even with quite small blocks, fees are quite low? Do youee-pooey see the issue there? Though I would disagree that $1 is low and being that high eliminates whole swathes of possible transactions. Still, it's a little bit better than the unpredictable $20s we were seeing, I suppose. Of course, god forbid that interest picks up again.
Holders made out while users like myself make less.
So when the pendulum swings towards btc users wo morons insult us.
You deserve it most of the time, and I think that some of us are trying to be nice about it too.. but yeah, we sometimes lose our cool with the traders and/or the fiat worshipers.
To jjg and to gachpin maybe we go to 44k not 74k to 66k as holders need more pain.
Yeah, you have these pie in the sky ideas about how the bitcoin price is going to drop, and then whether it does or not, you still don't tend to hold enough coins.. so you are tending to cause more pain on yourself.. but yeah, BTC holders suffer some pain along the way.. and on a personal level my holdings were 109x into profits and then now they went all the way down t 83x in profits and a month ago they were only 76x in profits, and sure, if you wishful thinking of $44k happens then I will ONLY be 44x in profits. It is painful, but probably not as much as you think.
It is likely more painful for the lowcoiners who are failing/refusing to recognize their low coiner status and who are trading rather than stacking and holding and who are also holding onto too much cash rather than being allocated in bitcoin.
Its funny how nasty holders get when natural slippage happens. At Richy_T thanks for slapping back at jjg.
Oh gawd.
