The Bitcoin (BTC) thread

JayJuanGee

Crow
Gold Member
The thing I don't understand about hating on all non-BTC cryptocurrencies is, that it essentially seems like hating blockchain. And if somebody hates on blockchain, why would they even own BTC? I can understand preferring bitcoin. I definitely understand regarding 90%+ of cryptos as shitcoins, which are either scams or useless. That's basically common sense at this point. I don't understand, however, how somebody can like BTC as a crypto and not be at least enthusiastic about the possibilities of other cryptos/blockchain projects.
Redbeard seems to have already largely identified your post as a kind of hard to believe propping up of a situation that seems to show that either you are just playing with us, or you really do not understand what differentiates bitcoin.

Let me see if I can try to work with you on this framing of possible issues, KoL.

If you are trying to prop up any other crypto besides bitcoin, then you are going to have the burden on that. Fact of the matter is that bitcoin is the only crypto that really has anything to offer. Proof of work and the various innovations around bitcoin remains the killer app. Sure, you have all kinds of imitation projects that either fork bitcoin and tweak a few parameters or you have coins that create their own variation, but they are not really providing any innovation to the space in any kind of meaningful way that even comes close to what BTC is providing to the space.

So your seeming little battle with bitcoin, KoL, seems to show that you might NOT really understand what bitcoin is offering - even your lame concession of 90%+ of non-bitcoin being shitcoins comes off as leaving too much benefit of the doubt to some other projects that you might want to slip in... nearly 10%? really? Which ones? I cannot think of any, so why would any guy who is genuinely attempting to present the juxtaposition issue feel some need to leave that much cushion in there for supposedly non-shit projects?

O.k... I will concede a bit.. We can call all non-bitcoin projects shitcoins without losing sight to the fact that shitcoins can provide a decent amount of experimentation, in some circumstances, that might allow bitcoin to actually absorb any potential innovation or anything y kind of GREAT frameworks into bitcoin itself or maybe just pegging such project as a second or third layer that might later end up getting connected with bitcoin. So, sure, maybe there could be some projects that guys might want to put some money into them, but that still does not take a way the investment thesis from bitcoin, and bitcoin is where the innovation is at, and building on bitcoin or attempting to connect projects to bitcoin seems to be the smarter and more ethical play, rather than trying to print your own money (which seems to be the ambitions of almost ever single non-bitcoin project out there - again, name one that is worthy).
 

Stats

Woodpecker
The two wallets can't be traced on-chain, since it'll look like the same device. However if both are light wallets (using the wallet's node) then yes, they could potentially log your IP/SSID and confirm that both transactions were from you.
So BRD is 'light' wallet? Im just trying to figure what precautions I need to take to insure two btc stashes I have remain as seperate as possible as one is for sure attached to my identity and the other most likely not, and I would like to keep it that way. what do you suggest?
 

JayJuanGee

Crow
Gold Member

JayJuanGee

Crow
Gold Member
Frequently, I do get lost in the technical mumbo jumbo whether we are trying to understand how bitcoin works and some of the "technical" possibilities or if we are trying to figure out differentiation attempts that some shitcoins are trying to make.

Greg Maxwell does have a tendency to provide some great quality explanations on a regular basis, and here is a recent one from him from about 5 weeks ago.

Quote:
>>>>>>
Bitcoin has smart contracts-- that is what script is.

This is why lightning can exist.

This is why escrow transactions exists (which weren't just proposed by satoshi, but are used by users!)

This is why multisig exists and is extremely widely used.

Bitcoin script is only less expressive than ethereum in there respect that access to transactions and the blockchain data is limited, that a few opcodes were disabled due to dos attacks and that there is a reasonable bound on execution resources.

The reason you may have an impression otherwise is a direct result of intentional fraud perpetuated by the creators of Ethereum, breathlessly hyping some "World Computer" nonsense early on to sucker people into buying coins from their 72 million coin (17 billion dollars at current prices) pre-mine. Many of the things they marked (replacement for Facebook!) were obvious nonsense, and much of what wasn't nonsense was already possible in Bitcoin but their hype made it sound like it wasn't.

That said: every time you create a new smart contract what you are actually doing is creating a novel bespoke cryptosystem. That should be ringing alarm bells for you because almost always when someone-- even an expert-- cooks up a new cryptosystem the result is broken from top to freeking bottom. Creating secure cryptosystems is among the most challenging domains of engineering.

Ethereum throws up a javascript like interface to enable maximum YOLO by the people least familiar with infrastructure engineering, they don't give a damn about the resource impact and have utterly obliterated the scalability of their system through poor design decisions (as a result the minimum hardware to keep up with Ethereum while it's doing *fewer* transactions than bitcoin, is literally orders of magnitude more-- and as a result most businesses blindly trust consensys or another third party to give them access to a node).

But ignoring all those constraints doesn't make easier to write _SAFE_ smart contracts: experience has show that over and over again virtually all smart contracts on ethereum are absurdly vulnerable. A smart contract to enable multisig there (functionality that bitcoin had widely deployed half a decade earlier) written by the authors of one of the most popular ethereum nodes was destroyed by someone simply sending it a command to delete itself-- instantly destroying two hundred and eighty million dollars of other people's coins.

Worse, very few "smart contracts" in ethereum have any reason to exist at all. The vast majority of them are completely controlled by the decisions of a key holder (or sometimes a multisig of key holders). The only purpose those smart contracts exists is decentralization theatre-- where people engage in something which is an unambiguous violation of securities law (and usually an outright fraud too) but then pretend it's okay because they falsely claim it's totally trustless and decentralized. Outside of those the next most common are trivial automated ponzi schemes and the like.

On the rare event where people want to actually do something interesting and worthwhile that doesn't just reduce to hiding a trusted third party the astronomical resource costs of doing in inside the EVM directly make it infeasible-- even in an exploration beta-test sense-- and instead they need to convince the operators of ethereum to hardfork the network to embed their critical inner-loop functionality in ethereum as a "precompiled contract".

Of course, Bitcoin can also be extended with new logic and much more simply and compatibility because it doesn't need to be hardforked: OP_CSV, CLTV, P2SH, and Taproot are all examples of this. (in fact, Bitcoin could provide an entirely new virtual machine in a softfork).

The issue isn't environment specific either. It turns out that creating a centralized service is a LOT easier than creating a decentralized autonomous one, and while there is an easy way to monetize a centralized service a truly decentralized autonomous service is almost impossible to monitize-- so it's difficult to justify paying for all that extra effort. ... this makes the actual demand for real smart contracts fairly low which is why you haven't seen more done there.

I'd love to see an interesting neutral database (e.g. not created by some breathless eth pumper) that attempts to catalogue actually useful and interesting ethereum smart contracts to the limited extent that they exist. Some of them are likely possible in Bitcoin currently, others would be possible with the addition of an opcode here or there. A number of years ago I assigned someone working for me at blockstream to conduct such a study-- hoping to mine it for useful operations, and they mostly came up empty. I'm fairly sure that this wouldn't be the same today.

One of the things bitcoin developers have struggled with when it comes to adding opcodes is that while there is a multitude of interesting things that could be added, it is exceptionally difficult to justify sticking something in the consensus rules under a conjectural "maybe this will be useful". There is a *lot* of functionality there which is essentially never used already. But this creates a bit of a chicken and egg situation because there probably is functionality that could be easily added, which people would use if it existed, but people don't develop the uses because it isn't there already.

So that's why you see that taproot creates a massive efficiency and privacy improvement for various multisig schemes and for some things like lightning-- which already have widespread use but it doesn't do much for other kinds of usage: it just isn't clear what that other kind of usage would need but it's clear what would benefit existing and related uses.

Another factor is that when something is sufficiently developed, you call it what it is, not the underlying technology. People call lightning, lightning, they don't call it smart contracts just like someone calls a chess engine a chess engine (or its name like, stockfish) rather than "artificial intelligence". The generic names are reserved for vaporware and stuff that doesn't really work but you hope it will someday. Smiley
<<<<<
 

Australia Sucks

Kingfisher
Frequently, I do get lost in the technical mumbo jumbo whether we are trying to understand how bitcoin works and some of the "technical" possibilities or if we are trying to figure out differentiation attempts that some shitcoins are trying to make.

Greg Maxwell does have a tendency to provide some great quality explanations on a regular basis, and here is a recent one from him from about 5 weeks ago.

Quote:
>>>>>>
Bitcoin has smart contracts-- that is what script is.

This is why lightning can exist.

This is why escrow transactions exists (which weren't just proposed by satoshi, but are used by users!)

This is why multisig exists and is extremely widely used.

Bitcoin script is only less expressive than ethereum in there respect that access to transactions and the blockchain data is limited, that a few opcodes were disabled due to dos attacks and that there is a reasonable bound on execution resources.

The reason you may have an impression otherwise is a direct result of intentional fraud perpetuated by the creators of Ethereum, breathlessly hyping some "World Computer" nonsense early on to sucker people into buying coins from their 72 million coin (17 billion dollars at current prices) pre-mine. Many of the things they marked (replacement for Facebook!) were obvious nonsense, and much of what wasn't nonsense was already possible in Bitcoin but their hype made it sound like it wasn't.

That said: every time you create a new smart contract what you are actually doing is creating a novel bespoke cryptosystem. That should be ringing alarm bells for you because almost always when someone-- even an expert-- cooks up a new cryptosystem the result is broken from top to freeking bottom. Creating secure cryptosystems is among the most challenging domains of engineering.

Ethereum throws up a javascript like interface to enable maximum YOLO by the people least familiar with infrastructure engineering, they don't give a damn about the resource impact and have utterly obliterated the scalability of their system through poor design decisions (as a result the minimum hardware to keep up with Ethereum while it's doing *fewer* transactions than bitcoin, is literally orders of magnitude more-- and as a result most businesses blindly trust consensys or another third party to give them access to a node).

But ignoring all those constraints doesn't make easier to write _SAFE_ smart contracts: experience has show that over and over again virtually all smart contracts on ethereum are absurdly vulnerable. A smart contract to enable multisig there (functionality that bitcoin had widely deployed half a decade earlier) written by the authors of one of the most popular ethereum nodes was destroyed by someone simply sending it a command to delete itself-- instantly destroying two hundred and eighty million dollars of other people's coins.

Worse, very few "smart contracts" in ethereum have any reason to exist at all. The vast majority of them are completely controlled by the decisions of a key holder (or sometimes a multisig of key holders). The only purpose those smart contracts exists is decentralization theatre-- where people engage in something which is an unambiguous violation of securities law (and usually an outright fraud too) but then pretend it's okay because they falsely claim it's totally trustless and decentralized. Outside of those the next most common are trivial automated ponzi schemes and the like.

On the rare event where people want to actually do something interesting and worthwhile that doesn't just reduce to hiding a trusted third party the astronomical resource costs of doing in inside the EVM directly make it infeasible-- even in an exploration beta-test sense-- and instead they need to convince the operators of ethereum to hardfork the network to embed their critical inner-loop functionality in ethereum as a "precompiled contract".

Of course, Bitcoin can also be extended with new logic and much more simply and compatibility because it doesn't need to be hardforked: OP_CSV, CLTV, P2SH, and Taproot are all examples of this. (in fact, Bitcoin could provide an entirely new virtual machine in a softfork).

The issue isn't environment specific either. It turns out that creating a centralized service is a LOT easier than creating a decentralized autonomous one, and while there is an easy way to monetize a centralized service a truly decentralized autonomous service is almost impossible to monitize-- so it's difficult to justify paying for all that extra effort. ... this makes the actual demand for real smart contracts fairly low which is why you haven't seen more done there.

I'd love to see an interesting neutral database (e.g. not created by some breathless eth pumper) that attempts to catalogue actually useful and interesting ethereum smart contracts to the limited extent that they exist. Some of them are likely possible in Bitcoin currently, others would be possible with the addition of an opcode here or there. A number of years ago I assigned someone working for me at blockstream to conduct such a study-- hoping to mine it for useful operations, and they mostly came up empty. I'm fairly sure that this wouldn't be the same today.

One of the things bitcoin developers have struggled with when it comes to adding opcodes is that while there is a multitude of interesting things that could be added, it is exceptionally difficult to justify sticking something in the consensus rules under a conjectural "maybe this will be useful". There is a *lot* of functionality there which is essentially never used already. But this creates a bit of a chicken and egg situation because there probably is functionality that could be easily added, which people would use if it existed, but people don't develop the uses because it isn't there already.

So that's why you see that taproot creates a massive efficiency and privacy improvement for various multisig schemes and for some things like lightning-- which already have widespread use but it doesn't do much for other kinds of usage: it just isn't clear what that other kind of usage would need but it's clear what would benefit existing and related uses.

Another factor is that when something is sufficiently developed, you call it what it is, not the underlying technology. People call lightning, lightning, they don't call it smart contracts just like someone calls a chess engine a chess engine (or its name like, stockfish) rather than "artificial intelligence". The generic names are reserved for vaporware and stuff that doesn't really work but you hope it will someday. Smiley
<<<<<
I am no expert on Crypto but the weight of institutional/corporate money does not necessarily agree with your analysis. Just look at how many large corporations are investing billions of dollars into Ethereum blockchain and smart contract development and actually building their systems atop Ethereum:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/three-huge-names-making-ethereum-140010121.html (the article is from last year, since then even more large corporations have started to adopt the Ethereum infrastructure for their own usage).
Also Ethereum has more developers working on it than Bitcoin or other cryptos.

And look at all the money flowing in from large companies that are part of the Ethereum Enterprise Alliance. I can't seem to find it right now but I have seen some graphs showing that Ethereum has received more dollars of investment into developing the infrastructure by large corporations than Bitcoin or any other Crypto. Sure these large companies might be wrong and could be pissing money down the toilet but I would urge anybody think twice before writing off Ethereum as a worthless concept.

Just to be clear I am not saying Ethereum is superior to Bitcoin and acknowledge Ethereum has many problems. I am just saying the weight of corporate money and the development man hours being poured into Ethereum suggests it deserves to be taken seriously rather than being dismissed off hand.
 

JayJuanGee

Crow
Gold Member
Just to be clear I am not saying Ethereum is superior to Bitcoin
Surely, it is not. It is not even in the same league.

and acknowledge Ethereum has many problems.
It surely does. It is a smoke and mirrors system that is not even close to what it is claiming to be, including the fact that individuals are not even able to confirm its whole transaction history... Ethereum devs and leaders have no intention to fix their smoke and mirrors problem so they are going to just keep perpetuating their make believe nonsense as long as they can keep the party going and as long as dumber and dumber BIG money or whatever you call it (14 year olds?) keep coming in.

I am just saying the weight of corporate money and the development man hours being poured into Ethereum suggests it deserves to be taken seriously rather than being dismissed off hand.
It does not deserve to be taken seriously, but if you want to pump some of your money into it, then feel free to do it. Also, it is not a subject matter of this thread, so probably best to pump that nonsensical crap in some other thread.
 
Redbeard seems to have already largely identified your post as a kind of hard to believe propping up of a situation that seems to show that either you are just playing with us, or you really do not understand what differentiates bitcoin.

Let me see if I can try to work with you on this framing of possible issues, KoL.

If you are trying to prop up any other crypto besides bitcoin, then you are going to have the burden on that. Fact of the matter is that bitcoin is the only crypto that really has anything to offer. Proof of work and the various innovations around bitcoin remains the killer app. Sure, you have all kinds of imitation projects that either fork bitcoin and tweak a few parameters or you have coins that create their own variation, but they are not really providing any innovation to the space in any kind of meaningful way that even comes close to what BTC is providing to the space.

So your seeming little battle with bitcoin, KoL, seems to show that you might NOT really understand what bitcoin is offering - even your lame concession of 90%+ of non-bitcoin being shitcoins comes off as leaving too much benefit of the doubt to some other projects that you might want to slip in... nearly 10%? really? Which ones? I cannot think of any, so why would any guy who is genuinely attempting to present the juxtaposition issue feel some need to leave that much cushion in there for supposedly non-shit projects?

O.k... I will concede a bit.. We can call all non-bitcoin projects shitcoins without losing sight to the fact that shitcoins can provide a decent amount of experimentation, in some circumstances, that might allow bitcoin to actually absorb any potential innovation or anything y kind of GREAT frameworks into bitcoin itself or maybe just pegging such project as a second or third layer that might later end up getting connected with bitcoin. So, sure, maybe there could be some projects that guys might want to put some money into them, but that still does not take a way the investment thesis from bitcoin, and bitcoin is where the innovation is at, and building on bitcoin or attempting to connect projects to bitcoin seems to be the smarter and more ethical play, rather than trying to print your own money (which seems to be the ambitions of almost ever single non-bitcoin project out there - again, name one that is worthy).
I don't think I'll ever be in the "all coins except Bitcoin are trash" camp, but I will say that I have taken into consideration your arguments and other members arguments in this thread over the last couple of weeks. I think it is fair to say that I was initially undervaluing BTC. Looking back, I did research a lot into cryptocurrencies around early 2017, although I was aware of BTC since at least 2011-2012, and had contemplated buying some since 2016. I only invested into cryptos mid-2017, which was a decent time to get in -- obviously not the best, nor the worst time.

When I was getting into crypto, a lot of the buzz seemed to be "looking for the next BTC." I admit that I probably got caught up in that hype. It's hard to look at cryptocurrencies logically, especially once somebody becomes invested in a project... but I am always trying to learn from information, and approach investments smartly. I don't have so much pride that I would have to close myself off to new information and never change my views.
 

JayJuanGee

Crow
Gold Member
I don't think I'll ever be in the "all coins except Bitcoin are trash" camp, but I will say that I have taken into consideration your arguments and other members arguments in this thread over the last couple of weeks. I think it is fair to say that I was initially undervaluing BTC. Looking back, I did research a lot into cryptocurrencies around early 2017, although I was aware of BTC since at least 2011-2012, and had contemplated buying some since 2016. I only invested into cryptos mid-2017, which was a decent time to get in -- obviously not the best, nor the worst time.

When I was getting into crypto, a lot of the buzz seemed to be "looking for the next BTC." I admit that I probably got caught up in that hype. It's hard to look at cryptocurrencies logically, especially once somebody becomes invested in a project... but I am always trying to learn from information, and approach investments smartly. I don't have so much pride that I would have to close myself off to new information and never change my views.
There may be some degree of truth that investing into something could cause some bias towards that investment, but it might not be clear if the guy also may be investing in such a way that attempts to allocate the proportion of his various investments in accordance with his interest and beliefs, so he has not necessarily changed his "objectivity" to the degree that he has made his investment, and he is still attempting to fairly consider or discuss any things that he may be invested in and to change is allocations to the extent that his views might change.

Sure take everyone with a certain degree of skepticism and some grains of salt - probably even moreso on the interwebs, but there are still guys who are genuinely trying to be genuine and not trying to sell you anything. Accordingly, I doubt that everyone out there is out to manipulate or to sell something necessarily, and surely there could be some sharing of information that seems to take place in some forum threads like these, and even in the bitcoin space more broadly there are likely a variety of channels or threads that are attempting to be based on mostly interest in sharing information about areas of interest.

One of the actual interesting foundational principles of bitcoin (and even many of the shitcoins do share some of these concepts/practices) was that it was started in a very open way and with the use of open source publications, and it continues to be built upon open source software that surely does have a tendency to incentivize contributions from people who are not really directly trying to make money but are contributing to the project. Of course, if there are ways to make money and to be benevolent (or at least not compromised) then there are likely benefits in that, too. We all have to make enough of a living to be able to feed and house ourselves etc.... .. But even with all of this open sourceness, in the bitcoin space, there can be problems with some of the exploitation of the openness, the difficulties in reaching consensus when matters are open and some players may be trying to sabotage the project and the mere commercialization of some of the open aspects of the innovations - and surely trickery that exists too with all of that openness or even later commercialization in other projects trying to either act like they are the same thing, better or just deceptive in a variety of ways that they are luring people into scams that are not the same thing nor better.

Regarding your own personal investment in bitcoin or otherwise, yeah, you should study your position as you go along. None of us are going to necessarily come into any investment with perfect information and be able to stick with our initial allocations, so perhaps there can be needs from time to time to reevaluate our positions and to tweak our positions from time to time in the event that our circumstances or our views might change. It is not very likely that any two of us are going to come to exactly the same conclusions, even though there might be times in which our BTC allocations or our approaches to investing might seem somewhat similar to one another.
 

redbeard

Hummingbird
Moderator
I don't think I'll ever be in the "all coins except Bitcoin are trash" camp
Give it a few months ;)
Looking back, I did research a lot into cryptocurrencies around early 2017, although I was aware of BTC since at least 2011-2012, and had contemplated buying some since 2016. I only invested into cryptos mid-2017, which was a decent time to get in -- obviously not the best, nor the worst time.

When I was getting into crypto, a lot of the buzz seemed to be "looking for the next BTC." I admit that I probably got caught up in that hype. It's hard to look at cryptocurrencies logically, especially once somebody becomes invested in a project... but I am always trying to learn from information, and approach investments smartly. I don't have so much pride that I would have to close myself off to new information and never change my views.
This might seem abrasive, but ask yourself what these "next Bitcoins" have accomplished since 2017? Other than "partnerships" and "feature improvements," I haven't heard of any altcoin fulfilling their earth-shattering use case. Sure, some would say I keep my head in the sand, but what's Ethereum accomplishing? EOS? Where's those XRP bank settlements? "Wait and see" does not work as an investment thesis.
 

Stats

Woodpecker
I have personally USED btc and many other mostly banking options for the same thing and btc was hands down the best. I think the only other crypto option that could have done the job was etherium but didnt try. much easier the sell bitcoin then etherium.
 

JayJuanGee

Crow
Gold Member
I have personally USED btc and many other mostly banking options for the same thing and btc was hands down the best. I think the only other crypto option that could have done the job was etherium but didnt try. much easier the sell bitcoin then etherium.
Wow. I would not have considered bitcoin to be easy to use in terms of what it has to offer. There could be some kinds of ways that bitcoin could be a very friction-less mode of transferring value and not having to go through anyone or NOT having to pay any kinds of significant fees, possibly?

But just generally saying that bitcoin is easy to use would not pop into my head as any kind of meaningful value proposition.. unless such use is described with a bit more context than you provided, so far, Stats, in terms of maybe some kind of direct transfer of value to another party or even some kind of movement of value across jurisdictions or something like that?

I suppose that if ease of use just generally speaking and without context is a kind of value proposition that you are getting from bitcoin, then surely seems that you are only getting some kind of superficial sense regarding what bitcoin offers or has to offer that distinguishes it from other kinds of products or asset classes.... but maybe I just need more context regarding a kind of scenario that you are suggesting that bitcoin might currently be better than some other product(s) or even other cryptos... on a short-term basis, there probably are several other cryptos that could be used to short term transfer some value, but then we get into a problem of how long a guy might want to hold onto some such other crypto while the value is being transferred.... if it is just being used for some kind of short-term transfer of value.. and my point is that lots of coins could accomplish that and maybe even have some kind of beautiful user-interface so long as the party on the other side of the transaction is willing to accept such other coin (another issue, of course).

But hey, if you believe that ease of use is something that works for you in terms of bitcoin, then so be it... but I think that I might be swimming to figure out what kind of "use" of bitcoin context you are referring to, specifically, Stats.
 
Give it a few months ;)
It is possible. I wish I knew some of this information in 2017 but I am fortunate that I did not get in at the peak of the bubble, and that I invested in coins that have mostly performed decently to this point (for instance, LTC and ETH is up about 225% since I got in). If I just invested most everything in BTC (currently it is about 1/3 of my holdings), I would be doing better now (I estimate about 300% gains or higher). I do want to keep most my holdings pretty long term, like 5+ years... so it may be wise to begin to shift my holdings to more BTC.
 

JayJuanGee

Crow
Gold Member
It is possible. I wish I knew some of this information in 2017 but I am fortunate that I did not get in at the peak of the bubble, and that I invested in coins that have mostly performed decently to this point (for instance, LTC and ETH is up about 225% since I got in). If I just invested most everything in BTC (currently it is about 1/3 of my holdings), I would be doing better now (I estimate about 300% gains or higher). I do want to keep most my holdings pretty long term, like 5+ years... so it may be wise to begin to shift my holdings to more BTC.
There is no real right way forward, especially if you get distracted (or tempted) by the possibility of short-term price performance, and surely there could be another shitcoin season - so I am not even necessarily agreeing with redbeard in terms of BTC being the ONLY investment for the coming year or two that is likely to perform well in this upcoming cycle to the extent that we have another upward cycle coming.

Of course, I agree with redbeard about the long term price performance and the likely gravitation of value into bitcoin. Its just that it is so difficult to know in the shorter term, and surely I don't get distracted into short term pump and dumps.. its just not my style.

A few problems with shitcoins continues to be, to figure out which ones to pick in the short term - even if we might realize that they are not going anywhere in the long term, and even whether they deserve any allocation at all. I feel like I am about to tread on arguments that I already made, recently.

I have my doubts about whether any two cycles are going to play out closely alike (referring to 4 year bitcoin cycles and how shitcoins might be riding along in this particular cycle), but there surely are seeming to be a lot of rhyming points, even in these early days of a potential upward price cycle- but we surely have some differing macro circumstances this time around, too, including some of the BIGGER players that are getting involved in the bitcoin space (and sure there are arguments about supposed BIG investors in shitcoins too.. take with a grain of salt, those dumb asses)... and a question might be whether some of the BIGGER players this time around have staying power and even if what they are telling about how they are investing is true..

In May 2020, we had the Paul Tudor Jones announcement that he was putting 2% into bitcoin futures (not even bitcoin itself), so he could be pulling out at any minute, but even having really BIG players playing in the space likely has upwards pressures on BTC price. Only a couple of weeks ago, we had the Microstrategy company making what even appears to have been an irresponsible investment to take such a high percentage of their working capital and put it into BTC.. 21,454 BTC ($250 million) - which they bought around $11,650 per BTC, and the million dollar question might be whether they have staying power if BTC price doubles or triples, are they abandoning ship (all at once or incrementally?).. and then we have David Portnoy attention whoring in the the past several weeks in term of getting into bitcoin (and shitcoin chainlink) and then getting out and then toying with getting back into bitcoin again (or is it crypto?), so it should be difficult to treat guys like Portnoy very seriously, but still bringing attention to bitcoin and the cryptospace, and some conspiracy theorist have been suggesting that Portnoy might be a shill/plant - and I don't really bu buy those conspiracy theories when there are already plausible attention whoring and pump and dump theories that line up with what we frequently see in the space... and it may or may not turn out well for the followers (the attention whore usually will move first and even have hedges, so could work out either way for the attention whore).

In terms of merely managing my portfolio, my personality and past practice usually pushes me towards making incremental changes to my portfolio rather than BIG abrupt changes, even though sometimes BIG abrupt changes may be the better path forward.. so how to act is likely situationally dependent, too.

Of course, the more assets that you juggle, the more dilemmas you might face regarding how much to allocate and how fast to make changes to your portfolio once you have decided that you are going to be making such changes.
 

JayJuanGee

Crow
Gold Member
This tweet from Preston Pish is worth sharing:

Quote:

>>>If you know anything about Bitcoin, you’re about to be bombarded with questions from friends and family in the coming months. As a result, I have written a 1 pager that should assist in those engagements. If you don’t like mine, make your own, and share.<<<<


 

JayJuanGee

Crow
Gold Member
Why does he think they'll be bombarding me with questions in the coming months? More than they did in 2017?
Whenever there appears to be large changes in the bitcoin price, such as the price going up, then more people start to get more interested in it. There seems to be a kind of pattern of such rises in interest that coincides with rises in the BTC price (BTC could be characterized as a kind of Veblen good in that respect).

Those kinds of increases in public sentiment and interest in BTC were noticed in 2013, and surely in 2017, too, as you mentioned, kel.

There is no reason to believe that interest in bitcoin is going to be materially less this time around as compared with what it was during those earlier periods in which the BTC price was rising exponentially, presuming that such a BTC price rise does actually come about in the coming months or even in the coming couple of years, if such a BTC price rise were to drag out for a longer period of time.

No one is going to know exactly how much the changes of interest in sentiment is going to be, and the anticipation of a change in interest might not materialize this time around, especially if the BTC prices were to go down rather than up. There is a bit of a presumption that is built into Preston Pysh's preparations regarding BTC prices going up in the coming months and even in the coming year or two in the future. No guarantees with these kinds of price-related matters, of course.

How about you kel? Are you ready for an upward movements in BTC price?

Do you believe that any preparation for UP is prudent, currently? There have been quite a few times in BTC history that guys have failed/refused to take a BTC position - either believing that BTC prices were not going to go up, or they believe that BTC prices were going to go down, and then they later witnessed that the BTC prices were going up, contrary to their expectations.

So, ultimately each of us has to make our choices about whether to allocate any value into bitcoin, and if so how much value to allocate into bitcoin and what kind of an approach to take to BTC, if any, in the event that we decide to accumulate some bitcoin.
 
Top