Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 938. (Read 2032272 times)

ok, let's do it your way.  let's say he's got a low salary and only put $600 to buy 1000BTC.

at 300,000-400,000% return, which he's already claimed, he'd turn that into $1.8M-2.4M.  see, he's rich.

btw, i don't get it.  this is the title of his thread  "#1 Bitcoin and Altcoin Price Forecasts (+1,492% gains, +750% more than B&H)" and i think he downward adjusted those numbers based on other ppl's criticism.

I already addressed this. He's got a good day job.

I'm aware of Jevons_paradox, but much smarter people than me (Satosi) know it's only supply and demand that brings it into equilibrium. The divergence in usage as a result of innovation also express it's self in an economy as art and culture ultimately this is enriched experiences.

We won't find a comfortable equilibrium with constant economic growth as managed under the target of central banks.

Depends on salary.

But I think that personal investment in Bitcoin from 2010 to 2012 had a lot to do with personal risk appetite and time to figure out how to acquire coins than any reasoned % of salary or net worth.  So likely S3052 invested well under $6000 as that amount is not "throw away" money for anyone who is still salaried.

EDIT: ok let me qualify that to "working for a salary" as opposed to working b/c you want to and incidentally receiving a salary.

When getting into Bitcoin after reading "wealth of nations" by Adam Smith who explained very clearly how productivity of food drove the value of metals and in turn the economy, I attempt to mirror his formulas from the ground up through the lens of technological progress, I forget the quantity of land I used as a manageable unit per farmer (1 square km of arable land comes to mind).  I then took the worldwide arable land as a base.
(Coincidentally  he also confirms PoW is the most efficient use of energy when creating earning money.)

The point being a single farmer using typical farm equipment and managing the maximum area efficiency can produce enough calories to sustain around 100,000 people (so cooperation is fare more effective when applying technology than subsistence farming, but more over we could have a plague of zombies if we forgo accepted norms today.

How those calories filter through the economy depends on where the wealth goes, so we can still see exponential population growth for some time to come at the expense of art and innovation and a flourishing divergent economy.

I guess my point being using fractional reserve lending to make money to buy agriculturally productive land that is managed with less than 2% of world population creates malinvestment on a global scale, the resulting cheep food doesn't create excess capacity for innovation and art in the economy but grows the population who reproductive productivity is determined by available food, ie the 3rd world.

So while the reference is not substantiated it's in the correct ballpark.

Lol, you're right, 12M.

I guess I am so blown away I can't think straight. 

notice that 10000 BTC at the top (1200) would be 12M to 24M not 1.2M to 2.4M...

I don't care about S3052's personal performance, I'm more aiming my comments at some of the extremely vocal ppl who inhabit the wall observer.  Personally, I don't think that it has been very hard to beat B&H in this market.  I did so with the extremely small % I was willing to put in bitfinex and bitstamp...  You can even look back into my post history to show this (if you want to torture yourselves) b/c I have made about 5-10 posts that imply a trade in 3 years.

TBH I think wall street on average is a bunch of idiots -- or more accurately, they lack the edge of actually knowing something other than finance.  For example, I avoided the tech bubble b/c I am in tech, bought stocks post 9/11 and all the way down the 08 rabbit hole.

Actually, Wall Street isn't good enough for you. You could just buy Wall Street.

Ladies and gentlemen, I stand in awe: 300,000 to 400,000% return performance for S3052 since 2010.

Wow, someone with your extraordinary abilities should either be working on Wall Street or you should have plowed huge amounts of fiat into Bitcoin given the chance to actually have become rich.  

percentage wise this is close
again, no comment on any absolutes as I stared with much smaller amounts

Ok, since B&H from $0.60-$1200  is a 200,000% return, then your out performance amounts to 300,000-400,000%, or with a not unreasonable 10000BTC, $18M-24M?

pffft forget it. I wont tell you any absolute numbers. I also dont need to know if and how rich you are.

Fact is that I outperformed B&H by factor 1.5-2.0.
Orders of magnitude is wrong as I mistyped this and corrected it already in the original thread.

Not sure why you are concerned about my "richness" or lack of.
I am very happy.
Believe it or not, I did sell a lot between 1100 and 1200.
[/quote]

Not concerned about that at all. It's the accuracy of your claims I'm concerned about. especially the ones about outperforming buy and hold.

If one reads the title of your sub thread and your comments within it, one would think you've never made a trading mistake on the way up from $0.60  to $1200. If true, you should be richer than the many buy and holders who have indeed become rich over the same time period.
[/quote]

Just to put the ludicrousy in perspective, let's assume S3052 put $6000 into buying 10000 BTC @$0.60 in the middle of 2010 which is about where I can pinpoint his start in Bitcoin.  This is about 6mo  before me. Why $6000? because I know what his IRL day job is and that would not be an unreasonable amount for him.

Those 10000 BTC would be worth $12M if he just held into the top when he says he sold, a 200,000% return.  Not bad and certainly enough to thrust him into the rich category. Remember, he said his portfolio was 100% BTC at the top.

But, he says he's outperformed buy and hold with day trading by an order of magnitude which would be a 2,000,000% return. This is why he must be richer than rich.

[/quote]

Not concerned about that at all. It's the accuracy of your claims I'm concerned about. especially the ones about outperforming buy and hold.

If one reads the title of your sub thread and your comments within it, one would think you've never made a trading mistake on the way up from $0.60  to $1200. If true, you should be richer than the many buy and holders who have indeed become rich over the same time period.
[/quote]

Noone is perfect and neither me.
I have had losers as well in BTC trading, no doubt. What is accurate is the outperformance vs. buy and hold and getting out at 1100-1175. Since then, did only short term trades, no position trades any more. Will get back in if the technical picture warrants it.

Mine was a joke and also relevant to Bitcoin.

The development is happening - just taking longer than we thought.

http://otblog.net/2014/05/voting-pools-stop-plague-bitcoin-heists-thefts-hacks-scams-losses/

https://github.com/monetas/btcwallet/commits/vp

Can't tell if you guys are joking... so here's a hint:

6*24 * 14 = 2016

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY5KTVA_2ys

So then you should be richer than rich having sold a100% BTC portfolio @$1200 after having successfully navigated all the twists and turns on the way up from $0.60.
[/quote]

Not sure why you are concerned about my "richness" or lack of.
I am very happy.
Believe it or not, I did sell a lot between 1100 and 1200.
[/quote]

Not concerned about that at all. It's the accuracy of your claims I'm concerned about. especially the ones about outperforming buy and hold.

If one reads the title of your sub thread and your comments within it, one would think you've never made a trading mistake on the way up from $0.60  to $1200. If true, you should be richer than the many buy and holders who have indeed become rich over the same time period.

Guys you are how we in German say "Korinthenkacker". 1175 was the top and the selling range was 1100-1175 if it is so important to you.

>>logictense
My method was to store BTC in cold wallets and only briefly put them on bitfinex or stamp for selling and withdrawing thereafter. It worked.