Quote from: cAPSLOCK on Today at 02:34:39 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on Today at 04:11:16 AM

Quote from: cAPSLOCK on Today at 02:08:16 AM

Love, cAPS

"Love?" without an appropriate disclaimer?
My have "we" drifted!!!! in recent times.

Angry

My new years resolution is to stop making disclaimers.

I do not promise to keep it, however.

I will attempt to lead by example in my public (in this thread) assertion that I am truly on the way deep down on the inside side starting to feel more and moar fond of and attached to uie pooie and your seemingly practical and not overly strict resolution intentions.

#nohomo.

Quote from: AlcoHoDL on Today at 06:04:31 PM

Quote from: Hueristic on Today at 05:54:46 PM

Ahh I wondered why I was seeing some images with both a height and a width, I was like WTF who would be so pedantic that they would type both in. Lol

The worst thing is when both height and width tags are modified, which alters the original image's aspect ratio, resulting in monstrosities like this:

I tend to eliminate one of the two so that the aspect ratio will automatically adjust to whichever one (of the two) I am setting.

Quote from: OgNasty on Today at 06:28:05 PM

Quote from: Hueristic on Today at 06:06:03 PM

[edited out]

All I ever do (usually) is change the height to 420 and delete the width.

I’m actually surprised nobody has ever commented on it before but I guess I’m the only one with a juvenile sense of humor. I do think it is a bit unnecessary to include both the height and width, but maybe some browsers have difficulty with it or something.

I think that from time to time, some peeps comment on the need for ONLY 1. It would be difficult for you to reasonably proclaim something to never be done, even though you did make such proclamation, as if you were the first one to ever think about it.

Quote from: vapourminer on Today at 06:28:08 PM

Quote from: Biodom on Today at 05:56:12 PM

If the purpose is to just smooth it out, I am OK with 50% (100%?) average yearly growth instead of 400% surges followed by 70-80% busts.

bruh.
the 400% uppity then 80% rektity is what we live for

like comeon you must be the life of the party lol

I know.. so many peeps ongoingly calling for (or even describing) stability in bitcoin, that does not exist in the real world of bitcoin, whether "we" want such stability or not.

Quote from: Biodom on Today at 06:33:40 PM

Quote from: vapourminer on Today at 06:28:08 PM

[edited out]

lol...that was my "grey hair" talking.
That said..I was feeling a bit down when 69K became 15.7.

You can only attempt to prepare financially and psychologically as you go for either direction (including extremes), and so once it happens, you cannot reverse the clock. Since we know volatility is one of the most inevitable things in bitcoin, there should be things that we can do to prepare our lil selfies, financially and psychologically, no?

I am not even saying that we know the direction of the volatility or the extent of it, yet we likely know in advance that it is is coming - that is the definition of "inevitable" or "near inevitable", which I believe bitcoin's volatility fits into such category.. has been since I got into bitcoin and not likely to go away anytime soon or prior to BTC prices reaching more than 10x gold prices, and even then, such inevitable bitcoin volatility still might not completely disappear, even if it might end up playing out a wee bit moar less.

Quote from: philipma1957 on Today at 07:01:34 PM

Now if only I simply Hodled from 2012 to this year. I would have all that and around 100 btc.

You are not capable of HODL, and you don't even have to hold all of it.. .. but yeah, thinking practically, of course in 2012 BTC hardly cost anything, so acquiring 100 plus should not have had been very difficult... .. so yeah, the challenges are in the details of both knowing to hold and knowing how to do it, including that if you over supply yourself, you could have easily had 500 plus BTC in 2012 and still shaved of 200-ish bitcoin between 2012 and now and still had 300 BTC at this time.. I could tell you how you could have had done it, but it does not do much good looking back and describing how you could have had done it, except to figure out how to do a similar kind of a thing going forward.

Actually, I am fairly certain that I am overselling the quantity of BTC that you would have had needed to sell in order to still have had a good time along the way, since it seems to me that you could have sold way fewer BTC (such as selling only or less than 100 BTC) and still had a rocking good time in the process.. and surely the secret seems to be incrementalism, living within your means to use fiat first, rather than fucking around with selling too many BTC too early and having expectations to buy back those sold BTC cheaper and blah blah blah. that buying back cheaper bullshit gets a lot of folks into selling way too many BTC too soon.. We see it over and over and over...

Quote from: Gachapin on Today at 08:12:47 PM

Quote from: vapourminer on Today at 06:28:08 PM

Quote from: Biodom on Today at 05:56:12 PM

If the purpose is to just smooth it out, I am OK with 50% (100%?) average yearly growth instead of 400% surges followed by 70-80% busts.

bruh.
the 400% uppity then 80% rektity is what we live for

like comeon you must be the life of the party lol

we get older... I'd also prefer a steady growth

Not gonna happen.

Sure BTC prices are going to go up, but it is not always going to seem like it (unless you happen to be looking at the 200-WMA instead of spot prices)

Quote from: El Donado on Today at 08:22:07 PM

Quote from: Gachapin on Today at 07:30:33 PM

Quote from: El Donado on Today at 10:57:06 AM

-How Banking Works
-How Bitcoin Works
https://x.com/MemeingBitcoin/status/1875549330511413588?s=19

most stupidest post of the day. I guess the farmers are back

You are right. But sure!!!

You speak. WOW!!!!!!!

You are able to formulate a whole sentence on your own? WOW!!!!!!! Even two sentences, who would-a-thunk?

Quote from: OutOfMemory on Today at 08:40:15 PM

I just heard a quoted statement of Trump loudly thinking about the planned US Bitcoin reserve, where he said that he wants to convert roughly 200k of seized BTC into the base of said reserve. He also was said to mention lending of $USD to countries and letting them pay the debt back in Bitcoin, which are to be added to the reserve.
What do you think?

This way he supposedly hopes that piling up on reserve Bitcoins won't pump the price.
So no Trump Pump? Called off?

I got no source for the statements, i heard it on a video a collegue was watching together with me on his phone. Originally he was asking me what i think about "Traderepublic", and he subsequently tried to get me into it, to get a €10 reward in his portfolio. In turn, i googled the name of the portal combined with "experience" and i got mixed reactions, mainly about frozen accounts, unresponsive support and automatic withdrawals out of the blue (with no support to react to them).
Then there was this linked short-video in german with the Trump statements and i asked him to play it. He doesn't know i'm a Bitcoiner, but anyway, he reacted with the usual "not even money", "nothing behind it" and "ponzi scheme" arguments *cough* so we left the Bitcoin route of discussion and i was wishing him good luck with his Traderepublic investments.

Boy.... Roll Eyes

I have no problem with brainstorming various ways to get bitcoin without overly pumping the BTC price, yet sometimes there also might be needs for practicality.

Another problem is thinking that the USA has 200k BTC when around 94k of those coins likely belong to Bitfinex. I neither agree with doing away with due process or the USA government being incentivized to take people's coins (or the coins of institutions or governments) without such due process.