Quote from: Popkon6 on Today at 10:49:01 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on Today at 07:20:47 AM

Quote from: AverageGlabella on February 13, 2023, 10:51:19 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on February 13, 2023, 05:23:53 PM

I have never really liked the 2x per year claims because it just does not seem accurate or even representative in regards to how the portfolios of many longer term bitcoiners seems to play out... and we also know that it is much easier to 2x a small number as compared to a larger number... ..

I do not think it is easier or harder to x2 if the price doubles then you are going to get a 2x return if you have a $1 or $1000 invested but I think that there is more pressure the more money you have invested especially when you have invested a large % of your net worth. I think there is a risk to this because a lot of people cannot stop themselves from taking money out when they see a profit so they might see a x0.3 increase and take it out even if their target was x2 because that pressure and fear of missing the top is real. I think that is the only thing that makes it harder is the pressure but some people can turn that off.

Yes, but I think that I am disliking 2x per year because it is seemingly overly optimistic, so from my point of view it is not a very accurate depiction of reality, even though we can find examples of some folks who invested in bitcoin in early days and perhaps their average cost per BTC is quite low, and each year if we double the price, their returns or "on track"..

... If I would have gotten into bitcoin at $100 in mid 2013, then even 2x per year becomes difficult to sustain because it looks like this:
2014 $200
2015 $400
2016 $800
2017 $1,600
2018 $3,200
2019 $6,400
2020 $12,800
2021 $25,600
2022 $51,200
2023 $102,400

So those dumbass claims are wanting us to start back in 2010 (at below $1), 2011 (at $2) or 2012 (at below $10) to make the 2x per year to be sustainable up until now, but it is not likely going to be sustainable into the future, and also it is not fucking ridiculous even if it is true on paper for those people who got in at those earlier bitcoin hardly has a price prices.

2010: $0.26
2011: $2.80
2012: $13.76
2013: $786
2014: $373
2015: $389
2016: $712
2017: $8,753
2018: $4,132
2019: $7,326
2020: $20,676
2021: $69,020
2022: $15,554
2023: $ 21,841

Bitcoin history starts at 0.26 when counting from 2010. The price of Bitcoin has often increased by 12x in 2011. In 2013, the price of Bitcoin rose again, but in 2014 it fell in half again. And lastly in 2021 the price of Bitcoin reached the highest price of 69.020 dollars which encouraged the investors a lot. But by 2023 Bitcoin price had dumped 3x.

So I think 2x per year doesn't count. Because investors will be disappointed because once invested he will think that he will get double the wealth. So it is better to analyze the complete market without disappointing the investors.

I guess we mostly agree - even though I doubt that your BTC prices for each of those years are really representative - unless you can describe what is the methodology in terms of establishing the price that you list for each year... nonetheless, I am not going to argue that the BTC prices that you list are not somewhat representative in terms of being in the ballpark of where the BTC price was at (or could have been) at various points in each of those years.

So in that sense we are making a similar point in terms of the impracticality of making claims that there has been an average of 2x per year increase and to suggest that such a mythical representation is realistic.

Quote from: bitcoinPsycho on Today at 05:54:02 PM

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/feb/14/fca-and-west-yorkshire-police-raid-crypto-operators-in-uk-first
"While the FCA does not regulate cryptoassets, it does require all firms dealing in crypto to register and prove they have effective anti-money laundering and terrorist financing controls.

There are no crypto ATMs registered with the FCA, meaning any crypto ATM operating in the UK is doing so illegally."

The war on freedom

I had to click on the link in order to see that the FCA stands for Financial Control Authority, and of course, we are likely going to see all kinds of variations on the kinds of "authority" that various government agencies might have and/or how they might interpret their mandate to "serve the public interest," which frequently they will also be contradicting themselves in the various ways that they attempt to describe what they are doing and why they are doing it.

I am not personally against the ideas that motivate government to exist, but of course, many of us bitcoiners are going to be aggravated when we can see that bitcoin is being defined as contrary to the public interest (to even exist) or that the various "crypto" scams are lumped in with bitcoin as if they were all the same thing... just like individuals and the press are going to learn how to use their terms more accurately so we can attempt to understand if they are talking about bitcoin or something else, government agencies (and officials) are going to need to learn the same things about language in order that we can understand if they are even trying to act within the public interest.. which is how they have any authority to carry out mandates and to interpret them.. but if they lose confidence of the public that they are just engaging in bullshit witch hunts that merely disempower or try to control people, then that surely does not seem (from my perspective) to be within the interest of the public, even if that is what the government authorities/agencies claim that is what they are doing.