Quote from: Lucius on August 04, 2024, 10:36:50 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on August 03, 2024, 05:25:05 PM

~snip~

Quote from: Lucius on August 03, 2024, 10:30:02 AM

Quote from: LFC_Bitcoin on August 03, 2024, 08:00:56 AM

[edited out]

10 years is a lot, but on the other hand, it is also a little - it depends from which perspective you look at it. If you invested in BTC when it was worth a few hundred $, then even today you are a relatively rich person (depends on where you live and what you want).

I get your point that 10 years really might not even be that long when it comes to a kind of an investment that brings you multitudes of price appreciation.

I would imagine that most people take a while to establish their BTC position. They do not just lump sum in, even if they are capable of such lump summing.

2015 was scary too.

I would imagine anyone (even a relatively poor person but who had some disposable income) who was somewhat aggressively accumulating in 2015 ended up doing well for themselves if they were able to completely establish their position in 2015 - but I still think that the market sentiment was too uncertain for a lot of normies to be aggressive in establishing their position in 2015.. so even if they started in that time, they likely would have still been accumulating into 2016 and perhaps into 2017.. and maybe a bit beyond that..

It is certain that the percentage of those who believed that Bitcoin would survive at all in 2015 was much lower than it is today, but I can say from my experience that the people I talked to at the time about BTC were not ready to invest even $200 in that same BTC because they believed the mainstream media and people like Warren Buffett.

There have always been various FUDsters, and surely, there was a lot less financialization of bitcoin in 2015, yet there were still signs of more and more entrants into bitcoin and building that was going on, and surely there weren't even a whole hell of a lot of instances in which bitcoin was even mentioned in mainstream, so frequently if someone mentioned bitcoin or spoke positively about bitcoin in mainstream, then those kinds of pieces would be emphasized.

Quote from: Lucius on August 04, 2024, 10:36:50 AM

I remember that I started "collecting" my first coins during 2014 through faucets, and with a good faucet rotator and active referrals, it was possible to collect about 0.3 BTC per month in 1-2 hours a day. I, as well as most of the members of this forum who have been there since 2015 (and earlier), were obviously among those who knew how to think with their heads, unlike those who listened to the wrong people back then (as well as today).

I don't have anything against faucets or other ways to earn bitcoin, and even sometimes get the bitcoin for free, yet I recall that I would quite frequently suggest that no coiners and low coiners get the fuck out there and make money and then buy bitcoin with their extra money rather than relying upon various ways of getting bitcoin for free.

It seems to me that a whole hell-of-a lot of people either undervalued the bitcoin that they got through faucets and/or free services, and/or did not stack up nearly as much as they could have had accumulated in the event that they had gone out and gotten some job(s) and stacked some bitcoin with the extra money from their job(s).

yeah, I know that the circumstances of each person would be different in regards to how much they might be able to stack within their skills and jobs that they might have available t them in their area or even through remote work that folks might be able to get... so I understand that I cannot necessarily be overly critical regarding some folks who might have known about being able to buy bitcoin yet having difficulties getting meaningfully paid work in their area of the world.

Quote from: Lucius on August 04, 2024, 10:36:50 AM

Quote from: Lucius on August 03, 2024, 10:30:02 AM

Maybe this kind of market seems a bit frustrating, but I think it's better if everything "bad" happens now, even though the presidential elections in the US may have a greater impact on the price of BTC than everything that has been happening in recent months. Unfortunately, too much focus was placed on only one country, only one man and a few powerful companies.

Quote from: JayJuanGee on August 03, 2024, 05:25:05 PM

There is something a bit frustrating with some aspects of bitcoin having ties to liquidity, yet still it seems likely that bitcoin is going to fair relatively better than other assets, and its performance is not quite as tied to the results of the election as it seems to be... Yet in various short term periods, there can be good cop bad cop ideas that contribute to some short term dynamics, including helping to shake some weak hands out of their coins.

These kinds of downity pressure periods frequently (if not always) feel scary while we are going through them, even for longer term holders who are in decently great profits.. and yea, maybe the ONLY ones getting excited are the bears, no coiner and low coiners, who might not be buying anyhow. Sure some newbies to bitcoin might be buying and excited to be able to buy cheaper, yet it can still feel uncomfortable regarding how low any dip is going to go or how long it is going to last.. but I still question any single issue theories. .such as presidential elections.. even though so many folks might currently be talking about bitcoin's price performance and/or future possibilities within those kinds of presidential election parameters.

A lot has changed over the years in relation to how people, but also how the world views Bitcoin - because if we remember that before the focus of investors was always focused on China, which was like the "main player" in mining and trading with BTC - until they did not ban cryptocurrencies and the focus slowly began to shift to the US.

I agree that there surely has been periods of time in which China got an overly amount of attention, and that over amount of attention was somewhat repeated since there was some evidence that some of the China FUD might have some amount of uncertainty in it, and so surely China FUD kicked themselves in the ass a few times before the seemingly BIGGER one of the supposed banning the mining in 2021, which really did not seem to work out very well for them... at least so far, there might be more skepticism and worry about some miners to go back to China to the extent that they might have had been operating their in 2021 or prior to 2021.

To the extent that you are mentioning "cryptocurrencies," some of us likely give few shits about what that might mean to the extent that you might be referring to some topic related to this thread.

Quote from: Lucius on August 04, 2024, 10:36:50 AM

I remember that at that time, some of the prominent members of various companies that had operations with cryptocurrencies in the US publicly said that Bitcoin simply had to come under greater US control in order to be better accepted, which in the end, as we see, happened.

Again, I don't know what you mean by cryptocurrencies, since it is not really what we are talking about in this thread that it has any meaningful importance to the point(s) you are making.

Regarding the supposed US control of bitcoin, hopefully you are not getting overly distracted by appearances of control rather than actual control.

Surely there are more and more ways that various government entities, whether in the USA or otherwise are increasing their various kinds of exposure to bitcoin, yet I doubt that their abilities to actually control bitcoin are as great as you are suggesting them to be.

Don't get me wrong. There surely are some bothersome developments in regards to various attempts to circumvent various ways that individuals can hold their own bitcoin and transact directly, so even various government agents might realize that they have to make some attempts to dance around the topic and the various kinds of "controls" that they have in regards to onramps, off ramps, KYC and even various selective prosecutions of bitcoin folks and bitcoin adjacent folks.

Quote from: Lucius on August 04, 2024, 10:36:50 AM

Now we see that armies of so-called "crypto followers" gather in a trance at Trump rallies and listen to his promises that he will do this or that when he becomes president - although realistically he does not have the absolute power to do it all.

I am not sure why you seem to be exaggerating about the level of trance that bitcoiners supposedly have in regards to Trump. I do agree that there seem to be a lot of bitcoiners who seem to be Trump lovers, so yeah, some of that could be a bit problematic in regards to various ongoing, evolving and developing discussions around topics of how various government agents and/or actions may or may not be good for bitcoin.

Your own description of the matter as a trance seems to overly generalize in terms of suggesting there were some kind of consensus around Trump, even though surely a lot of bitcoiners seem to love that crime-ridden, lying convict... even if he says quite a few of the right words, there surely are problematic areas in regard to some of his talking-points too, so yeah, since there is an election campaign in place, we likely will see some potential battles in regards to bitcoin-related discussion points and to even see if Trump might be able to stay on-point without ending up with some backlash since Trump does seem to be a walking bag of contradictions, and so Trump's contradictions can come off as a bit disturbing, and so the extent to which Harris and her folks might try to come off as bitcoin (crypto) friendly might end up continuing to be surfaced in the coming months, yet Trump might start to believe that talking bitcoin (and/or crypto) friendly might not be working for him as much as he believes it to be necessary. So surely we will see about some of those ongoing talking points, how they might evolve and/or other perceptions about the extent to which bitcoin is really related to parties or not, since surely some bitcoiners still consider bitcoin to mostly be non-partisan, and some of the current Trump appeal may well relate to feelings that it would be better to have some politician (like Trump) who is at least not hostile to bitcoin as compared to what the historic stance of the current administration seems to be and the extent to which Kamala might consider that she needs to address those kinds of matters in any kind of direct way, which Trump at least seems to have been so far talking somewhat directly on several seemingly bitcoin-friendly talking points.

Quote from: Lucius on August 04, 2024, 10:36:50 AM

Maybe they live in the belief that Trump will transform the US into some kind of great El Salvador where today President Bukele calls himself a BTC-loving dictator Roll Eyes

Trump and Bukele do seem to have different ways of discussing substantive matters to the extent that Trump can even stay focused on any substantive matters apart from converting some of the talking points into some kind of reflection of how great he happens to be... but surely even if Trump is quite a bit of a dick-head in several ways, there still seems to be some advantages in regards to how his ways of talking positively about bitcoin has opened some doors in regards to others talking somewhat positively about bitcoin and/or even considering that talking negatively about bitcoin (or crypto) and having an anti-bitcoin or even an anti-crypto position may well end up having very little potential positive upside, unless maybe they want to come out and say bitcoin (crypto) is for criminals, trump is a criminal, therefore there are problems in being pro-bitcoin (crypto).. ..Surely I am not going to proclaim to know how these various balances are going to play out, yet many folks in the bitcoin space seem to believe that it remains quite problematic for politicians to seem to be wanting to fight bitcoin and crypto, and there could be some signs of Elizabeth Warren's Senate seat being in jeopardy..

I could not get past the paywall of the below article.
https://www.bostonherald.com/2023/07/27/new-poll-shows-warren-vulnerable-in-2024-pollsters-say/
but yeah, we can see the extent to which pro-bitcoin versus anti-bitcoin (or pro-crypto versus anti-crypto) might end up playing out or reflecting in various polls, betting markets or other attempted measurements of public sentiment.

Quote from: philipma1957 on August 04, 2024, 01:34:27 PM

enough buddy enough.

So my side trading with a small amount of btc over the last 10 days.

I sold 0.02 btc at 70k and purchased back 0.022 btc at about 61k average.

some at 59,61,63.

so the stack is 0.002 higher.

Still hodl most in an untouched wallet.

Without really getting too much into quantities, there may be some similarities in term of some of what I am doing... but from my point of view, there would need to be a decent amount of over accumulation of BTC before even engaging in sales and buy backs.

So I am roughly estimating that if my BTC sales were in the ballpark of 0.02 BTC and my backs were around 0.022 BTC with a spread of in the ballpark of $7k to $10k, then likely the size of my BTC stash would need to be in the ballpark of more than 12-ish BTC to justify those kinds of levels of sales.. yet currently my spreads for buying back seem to be quite a bit smaller (somewhere in the ballpark of $3k) yet I have increments of every $2k down to $$57k, and then every $1,500 after that, which it looks like a couple of those $1,500 increment buy orders just filled. ... Is that the bottom or not? We could get another order filled if we get down into the mid-$52ks.. so even our so far bottom of $53,091 seems to have had come pretty fast.. so cannot be sure if it is a spike.,, and, so far, it is a wee bit lower than our earlier low of $53,550 from July 4th-ish.. .. so would we call that a double bottom or a lower bottom? or what? Does it matter?