Quote from: nutildah on Today at 08:18:18 AM

Quote from: UnDerDoG81 on Today at 06:57:55 AM

In 2013 Michael Saylor said "Bitcoin days are numbered. It seems like just a matter of time before it suffers the same fate as online gambling". He changed his mind? Or just a good poker player telling us Bitcoin is future and at the end will hammer Bitcoin once he got out?

C'mon, clearly he'll say whatever helps make his investors more money. That's all he's ever done.

Huh? You don't really believe the contents of your own post nutildah? or is that even possible?

I doubt that you are very close to being accurate at all.. just sounds like you are bitter and envious,,, that's how the contents of your post comes off.. (at least my reading of it).

Sure Saylor has duties to shareholders (Being the CEO of a publicly traded company, Saylor is legally bound to make some kinds of disclosures), but communications with shareholders is only a small part of what seems to be going on in regards to both Saylor's getting involved in bitcoin and the various public actions that he has taken in the bitcoin space (to be very public, attend conference, to be involved on a lot of Bitcoin maximalist type podcasts and other shows, and attempting to educate other companies and rich folks about bitcoin - including developing some of his own materials and holding a teach-in in February 2021) since his having had made his public announcement (which was around early August 2020).

Quote from: ivomm on Today at 09:03:58 AM

We've come so close today - $ATH-3.4%, €ATH-0.5%. May be we are hours^tm away from a new €ATH.

FTFY.. and I agree as amended.

Cheesy

Quote from: BitcoinBunny on Today at 10:24:15 AM

Quote from: psycodad on Today at 10:06:26 AM

Meanwhile in an alternate universe, the doggie meme coin is pumping like crazy while corn goes sideways.

A lot of severly dehydrated geezers out there it seems.. I have no other explanation for that Roll Eyes

"Investing" in Doge is just as stupid as "investing" $11.8 million into a single Cryptopunk NFT and hoping an even bigger idiot comes along later to buy it from you.

They both have no use or are any good at maintaining value because of inflation. (With Doge the number of tokens, with NFT the sheer infinite amount of possibilities in colour pixels in a matrix and change the size of that matrix whenever you feel like it).

If you can create & sell them or temporarily trade them then good luck to you, but eventually someone will be left holding something totally useless that will most likely never trade at the same you bought it again when the hype is over.

It's actually good that there are so many "competitors" to Bitcoin because they immediately show why these will fail and why Bitcoin will succeed:
The competitors are not rare and are for 99% of them not decentralised. Even that last 1% is not certain since many competitors do not get attacked (yet) and no one has even been interested in forking them simply because they have no value. No one cares.

There is a kind of additional added value in various NFTs that are associated with a certain person, so there can be some fame/pumpening that comes with some expectations and representations that are made about such NFT products being actually scarce - so surely there is a lot of trickery out there, and there seems to be nearly an infinite number of gullible people, while at some point the pure hype - as you seem to be attributing to these matters BitcoinBunny - is likely going to become more and more apparent in terms of showing that such supposed scarcity cannot really be backed up.. without some kind of solid proof of work system to back up the scarcity.. and "have you heard of bitcoin... ?" hahahahaha

Quote from: eddie13 on Today at 11:28:35 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on Today at 05:56:08 AM

[edited out]

Would you consider that $10 a week investment a decent success?
Or did he still fail?

If someone has acquired and accumulated something in the ballpark of 5 BTC over the past 8 years-ish, generally speaking, I would consider that to be a decent success... Of course, there might be some need to measure individual circumstances to really attempt to figure out the extent to which someone may have been actively studying bitcoin during that time - or just blindly investing into it.

I understand that historically a lot of people have had reservations about getting into bitcoin, and there has been a lot of confusing and misleading information out there through-out the past 8 years-ish.

Furthermore, normies may well also have limited financial circumstances, and some people are more limited in their finances than others, so even investing at $10 per week could have been a bit of a cashflow stretch for some people of limited means... or maybe a young person who is in college or early in his/her career and trying to make every dollar go as far as s/he can make it go.

So, in that sense "success" is relative, yet we can use the $10 per week as a kind of reasonable/meaningful measuring point to see if whatever you did had out performed what many of us had been suggesting that people do.. even going back 7-8 years. I will admit that I was DCA investing into BTC almost 8 years ago, but I really did not say anything to anyone in the real world until about 1 year after I had already been into BTC... .. So, I have been saying something fairly similar and mostly consistent (even though I learned a few ways of presenting matters over the years, too) for the past 7 years in terms telling people to get off zero and at least to take a small stake in bitcoin, including DCA investing a small amount... and sure, if some people were quite reluctant to DCA, I would tell them to just figure out a lump sum target that is comfortable for them.. but yeah, many normie people who I met in the real world were not very receptive to BTC 7 years ago.. and they were also a bit patronizing or skeptical about my choices to invest in such seemingly magical internet money ideas.

In recent times, I have been gravitating up and away from $10 per week, because I believe that people should attempt to be more aggressive.. and surely there are still people who struggle with their cashflows, but I do consider $100 per week to be a reasonably aggressive stance currently.. and maybe a kind of equivalent to the $10 per week that I had been suggesting in earlier times.. .. it's equivalent to do what you can.. and there is justification to attempt to be somewhat aggressive.. so even if you have no ability to really lump sum, then these days $100 per week would be reasonably aggressive.. .. even though $10 was sufficiently aggressive in the past 7-8 years (excluding maybe the most recent 18 months or so).