Hahahahaha
Nice humor.

I like this, but at the same time, I don't like it.

Let me see if I can reiterate an angle of the right wrongrights and the wrongs that exist in this matter.

RightLet me just say that right around the first week of May, someone said.. cough cough cough AlcoHoDL, that there was 99% (or was it 100% chance?) chance that BTC would break above the ATH, which was then $109,356-ish.. and I said that I would take the othersideother side of that bet as long as I got 99% odds in terms of the amount of money (aka bitcoin) that I would be putting up. Sure, the amount on my end would hav had been small relative to the other side (somewhere in the ball park of 1/100th the size, and someone did not take the other side of for such possible bet. . which means that such someone did not really believe the odds were 99%-ish or greater... otherwise such person would have had taken the other side of such sure bet... From the perspective of this here cat, 99% is a pretty high level of confidence.. if someone were to actually have that high of a level of confidence.. which no such person took the other side of the bet.. I proposed that I would have had taken the side of the bet in which I would put up 1/100th the amount.. which might have had been in the $10 arena (even though our terms were in bitcoin) while the other side of the bet would have had been around $1k.. and so I would have had lost $10 at the risk of potentially winning $1k.. I will take 1/100 odd bets any day, especially when the real odds were potentially somewhere in the 60% to 70% arena at the time of the proposal. .and even though at this time, the happening is at 100%, since it is now in the past and it already happened, as we all know..

Sure, the amount on my end would have had been small relative to the other side of the bet, and mine would have had been somewhere in the ball park of 1/100th the size of the other side of the bet, and someone did not take the other side of such bet.. which means that such someone did not really believe the odds were 99%-ish or greater... otherwise if such person had believed, then such person would have had taken the other side of such sure bet... AmInotKoreck?

From the perspective of this here cat, 99% is a pretty high level of confidence for anyone to have about a BTC price situation.. and if someone were to actually have had that high of a level of confidence.. (which no such person took the other side of the bet), then the bet would have had been propagated in actual real and live terms rather than hypothetical terms..

Actually, I proposed that I would have had taken the side of the bet in which I would put up 1/100th the amount by saying the ATH was not going to be crossed by the end of May.. which might have had been in the $10 arena (even though our terms were in bitcoin) while the other side of the bet would have had been around $1k to say that the ATH would have had been crossed on or before the end of May.. and so in the actual outcome, I would have had lost $10-ish at the risk of potentially winning $1k..

Accordingly, I must reiterate that I will take 1/100 odd bets any day, especially when the real odds of such happening were potentially somewhere in the 60% to 70% arena at the time of the proposal. .and even though at this time, the happening of such crossing of such ATH prior to the end of May is at 100%, since it is now in the past and it already has happened to have happened, as we all know..

Edited (1) for smoothness and clarity my above-description of such hypothetical bet that did not end up taking place in such way that was implied by the AlcoHoDL - who might have had been getting high on his own supply of AlcoHoDL - if there is such a thing?


Maybe some of us feel guilt about the whole path of bitcoin?  It is not like we knew about any of the specifics of bitcoin's price direction in advance.. even though we likely had decently good hunches about aspects of the soundmoneyness of dee cornz, whichyet uncertainty about specifics may be part of the reasonexplanation that some of us (names?) invested only in the ballpark of 13.5% of our quasi-liquid investment portfolio instead of a higher amount.. and also maybe  apart of the reason why some of us (such as yours truly) started shaving off extra trimmings off of the perceived excesses of our corn stash starting at $250-ish.. and still   

In spite of such ongoing trimmings that some of us made, itsit remains amazing that the value of the mostly remaining cornz has largely been compounding upon itself in terms of our having had gone through around 98.5 doublings of the value of the cornz since $250.  (See list of the doublings, and see that the 9th doubling since $250 will be completed at $128k).  

Edit (2) more clarifying and smoothening


You are saying that the well-known person is the tortured or the torturer?  

Edit 3:  Ok.. I see the answer.. it is the torturer who was the security person for grin, since the arrested man is John Woeltz.


I would propose that a 200 BTC portfolio from today would forever support an annual income of $955k  (using the 200 WMA valuation of $9.55 million, and sure the spot price is way higher, but we want to withdraw in accordance with bottom prices not spot prices), and including an ability to adjust 5% to 10% upwardly for inflation every year... so let's just use 7.5%.. So year 2 would be $1.027 million.  Year 3 would be $1.104 million, etc etc etc.

If you don't believe me that 200 BTC would support such a high sustainable withdrawal rate of $955k per year, then start at an annual withdrawal rate (income) of $700k to $800k, so that there would be a bit of a cushion, and then you can verify that the BTC (in this case the 200WMA) is rising faster than the annual withdrawal amount.  

Of course a 100 BTC portfolio would support half the withdrawal rate of $477k per year, which many of us should be able to sustainably live off that amount, and we should not feel any need to deplete the principle, unless maybe we had age and/or health considerations that might cause us to conclude that we are not going to be living much longer.

Hahahahaha
Nice humor.

I like this, but I don't like it.

Let me see if I can reiterate an angle of the right wrong matter.

Right around the first week of May, someone said.. cough cough cough AlcoHoDL, that there was 99% or was it 100% chance? that BTC would break above the ATH, which was $109,356-ish.. and I said that I would take the otherside of that bet as long as I got 99% odds in terms of the amount of money (aka bitcoin) that I would be putting up. Sure, the amount on my end would hav had been small relative to the other side (somewhere in the ball park of 1/100th the size, and someone did not take the other side of such bet.. which means that such someone did not really believe the odds were 99%-ish or greater... otherwise such person would have had taken the other side of such sure bet... From the perspective of this here cat, 99% is a pretty high level of confidence.. if someone were to actually have that high of a level of confidence.. which no such person took the other side of the bet.. I proposed that I would have had taken the side of the bet in which I would put up 1/100th the amount.. which might have had been in the $10 arena (even though our terms were in bitcoin) while the other side of the bet would have had been around $1k.. and so I would have had lost $10 at the risk of potentially winning $1k.. I will take 1/100 odd bets any day, especially when the real odds were potentially somewhere in the 60% to 70% arena at the time of the proposal. .and even though at this time, the happening is at 100%, since it is now in the past and it already happened, as we all know..


Maybe some of us feel guilt about the whole path of bitcoin?  It is not like we knew, which may be the reason that some of us invested in the ballpark of 13.5% of our quasi-liquid investment portfolio instead of a higher amount.. and also maybe  a reason why some of us (such as yours truly) started shaving off extra trimmings starting at $250-ish.. and still, its amazing that the value has largely been compounding upon itself in terms of our having had around 9 doublings since $250.  (See list of the doublings, and see that the 9th doubling since $250 will be completed at $128k). 


You are saying that the well-known person is the tortured or the torturer? 

Edit:  Ok.. I see the answer.. it is the torturer who was the security person for grin, since the arrested man is John Woeltz.


I would propose that a 200 BTC portfolio from today would forever support an annual income of $955k  (using the 200 WMA valuation of $9.55 million, and sure the spot price is way higher, but we want to withdraw in accordance with bottom prices not spot prices), and including an ability to adjust 5% to 10% upwardly for inflation every year... so let's just use 7.5%.. So year 2 would be $1.027 million.  Year 3 would be $1.104 million, etc etc etc.

If you don't believe me that 200 BTC would support such a high sustainable withdrawal rate of $955k per year, then start at an annual withdrawal rate (income) of $700k to $800k, so that there would be a bit of a cushion, and then you can verify that the BTC (in this case the 200WMA) is rising faster than the annual withdrawal amount. 

Of course a 100 BTC portfolio would support half the withdrawal rate of $477k per year, which many of us should be able to sustainably live off that amount, and we should not feel any need to deplete the principle, unless maybe we had age and/or health considerations that might cause us to conclude that we are not going to be living much longer.