Quote from: eXPHorizon on Today at 06:47:33 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on Today at 05:40:59 AM

Don't you know Wihelm that eXPHorizon doesn't know nuttin?

If eXPHorizon had just invested $10 per week over the past 8 years (after he supposedly lost his MTGOX coins) then he would have right around 4 BTC right now.. Sure he would not necessarily be rich, but he would have more than the 3 BTC that he had been begging to receive for free from those of us who have been reasonably and prudently investing into bitcoin for a decent amount of time.

like a 1950s broken record Grin

No I did not know that.

Right now seems to be a good time to accumulate bitcoin, and surely no coiners or low coiners might not always know how much more they are advantaged to be accumulating BTC in times like this.

From personal experience, I know that it can sometimes be confusing in regards to how any particular BTC accumulation is playing out or has played out, especially in the short term, and it can take a bit of time to set up some accounts or relationships to be able to accumulate BTC, and thereafter to just plod away with DCA, lump sum and buying on dip...

Anyone who started accumulating in BTC in the past year to year and a half might be confused regarding what to do, especially if they feel that they have already injected a decent amount into bitcoin, and hopefully they continue to DCA accumulate rather than just HODL.. even though surely sometimes during times like this there might not be a lot of cash left in reserves, and everyone is telling you that "cash is king," and surely there is some truth to that... and there is also some truth that if they never use there cash to buy pristine assets like bitcoin, then they may well have had lost opportunities.

Part of the reason that I mentioned that you could have had 4 BTC by now with only buying $10 per week of bitcoin over the last 8 year is to point out that it does not necessarily take a lot of capital to build a decent-sized BTC holdings, but there continue to be advantages that come to those who act, and maybe with you $10 per week continues to be a practical amount that could be invested, even though in the past year and a half or so, for people in the western world, I have moved my recommendation up from $10 per week to $100 per week.

But you do what you can, and you get started, and ultimately it does not take a lot of investment to be able to put yourself in a better position 4-10 or more years down the road, and sure being a bit more aggressive is going to put you in a better spot, so long as you are not too aggressive without gambling (or overinvesting into BTC in such a way that you screw up your ability to pay your known ongoing expenses or screw up being prepared for various emergencies that can come up from time to time). So you can see if you had been able to invest $100 per week rather than $10 per week over the past 8 years, you would have about 40 BTC right now rather than merely 4 BTC.. which surely would not be a bad place to be for anyone.. and in the end, each of us should do what we are able to do, and BTC accumulation does seem to be amongst the better of investment strategies that are likely available to any of us, so long as we don't overdo it.

Quote from: wachtwoord on Today at 01:52:09 PM

Quote from: Wilhelm on Today at 01:36:06 PM

Quote from: wachtwoord on Today at 01:09:16 PM

Quote from: Wilhelm on Today at 11:20:47 AM

No it doesn't it's the other way around.

I'm not calculating market cap. I'm calculating the max value of a fixed coin asset, not the current.
If their scarcity is the same then their value per share(token) should be the same.
Therefore the token price multiplied by the max number of tokens should be the same.

I'm ignoring the other metrics like utility and decentralization which most certainly will have effect.

Lol scarcity being the same does not imply value is the same, that only holds with equal utility.

Anyway read this from 2017 if you're interested in a well-argued case about relative max valuations of store of value vs utility tokens: https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/john-pfeffer/An+Investor%27s+Take+on+Cryptoassets+v6.pdf

Thanks it's going to be a good read.

Yes an asset is more than its scarcity. For Eth going from not-scarce to scarse should have a positive effect regardless...

That by itself is a positive event for intrinsic value but in the case of a 100x overvaluation right now it might not be reflected in a change of market price at all.

Further, aren't they switching from PoW to PoS? An extreme detrimental development wrt value as that leads to more centralization. As a centralized solution it's simply a terribly complex and expensive solution that is already done much cheaper and easier.

Another way to describe what Ethereum is: Rube Goldberg machine