Topic: Micheal Salyor decalogue for a 10x Bitcoin Appreciation (Read 1032 times)

I have already stated enough reasons.   You can believe it or not, and you can choose your investments according to your beliefs.  Also, this is not a gold versus bitcoin thread, so there is no need to get into those kinds of details, more than I have already referred to the various characteristics of money and that it seems pretty apparent that bitcoin beats gold in all of the areas, whether bitcoin merely catches up to gold (thus increasing in price 20x to reach gold parity in terms of market cap) or bitcoin goes 10x, 100x or even 1000x higher than gold is still to be seen... but you know the various measures (and you can go through them yourself) of scarcity, verifiability, transportability, divisibility, unit of account and costs in terms of needs for 3rd party involvement and problems with physicality... and perhaps gold's various industrial / jewelry uses distracts from its monetary value too.

As I already noted several times, we also can also clearly see that BTC has greatly outperformed gold, even if we might take away the earliest years of bitcoin (because of the unfair advantage of brand new adoption), but still if we measure from 2013 to present, we can see that bitcoin has done around 200x better performance than gold, and bitcoin has gone from just below 0.1 ounces of gold to 20 ounces of gold currently.. which continues to show the direction that we are going and likely to continue to go.. you can believe it or not. and you can invest accordingly.. hopefully you are not going to put very much value into gold relative to bitcoin, perhaps 10% of the size of your BTC holdings at most...and even that is likely to be a losing portion of your portfolio, but if you feel like hedging into gold maybe limit that size to 10% or less...  and surely in the end these are personal choices and you are free to do what you like, including having fun staying poor.

https://www.longtermtrends.net/bitcoin-vs-gold/


First of all, how many times do I have to repeat myself that we are talking about bitcoin here, not crypto.  Sure, there is no problem to weave crypto into the topic to the extent that it might be relevant to make certain points, but the thrust of the discussion is about bitcoin and if you have grievances and/or gripes about bitcoin, then state them clearly in terms of bitcoin rather than speaking in gobbledy gook, and yeah maybe I can infer that you are talking about bitcoin when you say "crypto," but surely it is not as clear as if you were to just use the right word (bitcoin) in order that we might be a bit more clear about what you are talking about.

Second, I don't really have any problem with the idea that some portfolios perform better than others, and portfolio performance is not completely measuring whether the portfolio had been successful in terms of protecting against downside risks...  So sure, I will grant you that  there are needs to mitigate risks; however, you could still mitigate risks and still be invested in bitcoin, and even in 2014, there are ways to get into bitcoin, at even 1% of your investment portfolio, and still you would have had sufficiently mitigated risks... but if you stayed mostly on zero and you traded in and out of bitcoin, you likely fucked up over the past 9-ish years.

A mere $35 per week (right around $5 per day) over the past 9.5 years would have resulted in right around $17.5k invested and an accumulation of right around 14.7 BTC (average cost per BTC of right around $2,400 and current value of $643k.. which is right around 37x difference between the amount invested and the current value ($643k/$17.5k)), and surely the amount would have been potentially reasonable, and sure if you have a smaller budget then the amount could be adjusted to your budget in order to recognize and appreciate that there is power in long term investing that that might even allow for the mitigation of risks by investing ONLY an amount that is fairly easily within your budget.


I probably already sufficiently and adequately addressed this, and surely people have differing opinions on when, or into what, and/or how much to diversify, so I am not against the idea of diversification.

For example, there is likely no need to diversify for the mere sake of it, if someone is starting out investing $35 per week, there may well be no need to diversify until reaching a certain level of investment.  Also before anyone should invest at all, it is likely better to make sure he builds an emergency fund that is 3 to 6 months of income and/or expenses, and having an emergency fund is a form of diversification; however, with bitcoin, I frequently suggest that people get started right away, and they can build their emergency fund at the same time that they are investing into bitcoin... so there could be some challenges with a person who might ONLY have around $35 per week of extra income to both build his emergency fund and his BTC investment at the same time.

Of course if you already have an investment portfolio that is about 25% to 5x the size of your annual income/expenses, then you are are at more luxury to start to diversify, and at what point would it be justified to start to diversify is a discretionary question, and then we get into what to diversify into and how much into each.. NO problem with those ideas, but people are still not going to necessarily agree on the specifics, yet I am going to argue to the death that diversification is not necessary for a brand new investor, and he may even be at liberty and even in a better position to not be diversifying until at least getting to a place in which his investment portfolio is reaching at least 25% of his annual income/expenses.

1. Let's get to the FACTS ? "but there are plenty of reasons to see that bitcoin is way stronger than gold in terms of each of the monetary characteristics... including in the neighborhood of 1,000x better." - please state the arguments that will prove your PROPOSAL ?

2. "If you are in cryptocurrency then you are pretty vague about what you are in and what you are talking about.
here we are talking about bitcoin, so maybe you would like to focus your selfie a wee bit moar better?
So maybe you want to clarify... Have you been in bitcoin since 2014?  Are you still in bitcoin? And can you show me where on the doll that bitcoin has hurt you?"
Let's emphasize your assumptions with the phrase "and it seems to me that" first, and then your fantasy. Otherwise it looks like a narrative that you are just trying to attribute to me

I answer - personally I have NOT lost, because I approach the question from the point of view of an investor who assesses risks. Moreover, I have earned money, and very well. And I continue to earn. But the problem is that 99% of ordinary people do not behave this way, unfortunately. if everyone were smart - everyone would earn, but as practice has shown - only a few people earn money on crypto.

3. "There is no need to diversify into gold ... especially if you have bitcoin. there is also no need to diversify into shitcoins...."

Diversification is one of the key rules for life and not only for investors. Anything that has potential can be a diversified asset. Anything you can get your hands on that is investable can and should be used to create a diversified portfolio. This is normal. Of course, I agree that you shouldn't spread yourself across 100500 assets. I have chosen a limited list of assets for myself - real estate, currencies, gold, cryptocurrencies (which in the medium term have the potential to grow) and some others. And this model shows itself very well, even in my country where the economy is unstable, because my country is now suffering from a terrorist war unleashed by a neighboring state.

Everyone can easily see how much knowledge and insight Michael Saylor has on the context of crypto currency mostly BTC, with his thought showing an appreciation for BTC. Well, he is a business CEO and is more than just a believer, but an investor in the crypto currency market.
I agree that cryptocurrency needs to be properly regulated so as more countries would allow it be a legal tender for transactions rather than it being termed as a tool for money launderers and terrorists elements. With such directional discussion, we hope to see the crypto market being more stable and less volatile, giving value in return for its decentralized and private nature of which makes many investors DCA rather than save their funds in the local banks.

BTC is still the leader in the cryptocurrencies movement because the management and developers are trying so much more to enact some regulations and initiatives to steady its vision of making it a profitable currency for both trading, certain transactional payments and a number one investment choice for good returns and security.
Michael understands this and we got to appreciate that he understands what is wanted and can say it without biase of belief.

Yes and TYI all bunisseses are conducted to create a profit.
Binance is, and Binance is able to pay a whooping fine over 4 000 0000 0000 US$.

We need sincere celebrities like Michael Saylor who are diehard proponents of Bitcoin to keep spreading the news about Bitcoin. We all know that institutional investors are in the Bitcoin space to make a profit but it also affects the price positively. We need this support in the bitcoin system but there is scepticism that institutional investors are driving the Bitcoin space to centralisation.

Banks are profit-making organisations that will accept any business that will bring more gains. Banks in my country were comfortable with crypto transactions until the government came up with draconian legislation that banned them from dealing with cryptocurrencies. So I agree that banks are not anti Bitcoin but they just have to respect the laws of the country.   

​I don't think that banks are anti crypto. They are just afraid of the pressure a government can give them.

Do you think that banks are against cash payments into bank accounts? They gladly would take millions if not for the government which would do something against them. If you have a licence, which moves money, employs thousands of people you just need to be careful.

Seeing how the ordinals are still in existence because we're so afraid of what the miners are going to do if we remove it says something about cooperation, bitcoin is just too profitable for some people that they don't like the idea of this even though they're still probably going to get more out of it if it comes to be, and there's also the anti-bitcoin institutions like banks and investment companies that will be trying to fight bitcoin from becoming a big thing that will eclipse them and the governments of many countries still resisting since they don't like the idea that there's financial freedom for people without their help or intervention.

Bitcoin doesn't need a marketing department but if no one what Michael Saylor does, Bitcoin may be less known, which would mean less market participants, which would mean less price. Same goes as not having fiat proxies, like ETFs, or MSTR itself, which I believe is better than any ETF. Michael Saylor uses debt in a great way, borrows at very low interest, buys BTC, and increases the holdings of BTC of their company. Instead of charging you management fees diluting your BTC exposure, he increases it. This guy is great and is putting his money where his mouth is. He isn't bluffing, and he gets BTC. As a result, he does great marketing for BTC while helping the price. There's also nothing wrong about being on BTC to hold and see the price increase, that is a legit use case, basically the most basic one.

That may well be your perspective in regards to my way of framing matters, and I have plenty of posts and even fairly organized information regarding my various theories of bitcoin and its price dynamics, and I even seemed to have explained it well enough for you in such a way that I don't need to explain any further than I already have.

Another thing, whether or not the specifics are correct likely does not matter very much, so there is no real need to get caught up in academic level justifications of the magnitude of the difference in value between bitcoin and gold, and we can even see that since bitcoin has been in existence (and we do not even need to go back to its 2009 beginnings or 2010 when it first started to realize some monetary value), but instead we might even start from something like early 2012 when bitcoin had a spot price of around $4, and if we go from there, we can see that bitcoin has been fairly consistency increasing in value compared to gold, and sure there have been ups and downs along the way, but directionally, it should be fairly clear to an overwhelming number of folks who have been paying attention to the space (rather than in their own fantasies that deny the value and/or the price direction of bitcoin) that bitcoin has been and will likely continue to eat gold's lunch, even though the magnitude and intensity in which bitcoin continues to eat gold's lunch might well be a bit of speculation, but there are plenty of reasons to see that bitcoin is way stronger than gold in terms of each of the monetary characteristics.. including in the neighborhood of 1,000x better.

Do you happen to know the monetary characteristics of verifiablity/recognizability, scarcity, transportability/portability, unit of account, divisibility (and sure there are some others, too, such as the use of third parties and expenses in using it)?

Do you happen to know that right now the world has around $900 Trillion in various asset classes and money that represents bitcoin's addressable market?  and gold is about $12 trillion of that and bitcoin is right around $0.7 trillion... yet at the same time, the addressable market is likely going to increase in the future, including what bitcoin brings to the table and we are likely quite easily able to imagine a future world in which bitcoin's addressable market is $2.1 quadrillion or more, which is already more than 1,000 times greater than gold's current valuation, and I really doubt that gold is going to end absorbing that addressable market, especially since gold had already had opportunities to gain in market share and to increase it's addressable market, yet gold does not even seem to be better than fiat and the various ways that fiat systems have been able to suppress gold over the last 50 years, in spite of your chart trying to show how wonderful gold has been since 1971.. which seems to be more of a fantasy in regards to golds future potential than anything.


If you are in cryptocurrency then you are pretty vague about what you are in and what you are talking about. 

here we are talking about bitcoin, so maybe you would like to focus your selfie a wee bit moar better?

So maybe you want to clarify... Have you been in bitcoin since 2014?  Are you still in bitcoin?   And can you show me where on the doll that bitcoin has hurt you?


There is no need to diversify into gold.. especially if you have bitcoin.  there is also no need to diversify into shitcoins.

So yeah, if you are referring to diversification of real world assets, then traditionally those would be considered to be equities, property, bonds, commodities and cash or cash equivalents.  If you are a new investor, you also may not need to diversify until maybe you build your investment portfolio and/or your savings up to a certain high enough level in which it starts to make sense to diversify, whether that is 25%, 50%, 100% or even 200% of your annual salary/expenses or some other level would be somewhat of a discretionary consideration and it makes more sense to diversify the larger amount of wealth that you have in your investment portfolio, but there is no reason to diversify for the mere sake of diversification, so a brand new investor into bitcoin, may well start investing into bitcoin and cash, and so likely with any investment there is a need to have an emergency fund of 3-6 months when embarking on investing and frequently there can be needs to get debt into a meaningful place, such as eliminating some of the debt that charges high percentages,

and so if someone just hears about bitcoin, they still might want to get started investing into it right away (which I suggest to be a good idea), but at the same time, they likely are  going to need to make sure that they get other aspects of their finances and psychology in order in order that they can be aggressive as they are able to be without recking themselves (and/or without putting their finances at risk).  In any event diversification for the mere sake of diversification is not necessarily a good idea, and probably not a good idea until a person gets to stage of having some decent sized investment portfolio, and there is no reason to actually not get started investing in bitcoin while they are getting their shit together and then focusing mostly on bitcoin while they are building up to a state of affairs in which diversification is starting to seem more justifiable rather than engaging in diversification merely because it sounds like a great buzz word and they don't know what the fuck they are doing so they merely diversify for the mere sake of diversifying.. 

 

0. - with that question I take it the question is closed ?

1. "I am not going to back up my assertion that bitcoin is around 1,000x or more valuable than gold." - then you should write - I have a FANTASY that bitcoin is 1000x better than gold If there is no argument - it is called a fantasy or a dream

2. "Sure it is.  But is it still your choice regarding what position size you take, if any, and yeah if you end up choosing not to get into bitcoin and staying on zero, then you probably are not choosing correctly, and you are free to do what you like.... and also to have fun staying poor, too." - you are so brave to paint my story as if you were my close friend ))))) But again, start such sentences with the phrase "I assume". I've been in cryptocurrency since 2014. Investing, accumulating, earning from it and not badly. So your assumptions are "not even in the target"

3. "About stupid and poor" - again your morbid fantasies Both charts show the REAL value of an asset in the real world, not the fairy tale world. At the same time you again make an incomprehensible assumption that I invest in gold. I take it the word "diversification of investments" is not familiar to you ?

I am not going to back up my assertion that bitcoin is around 1,000x or more valuable than gold.  You can choose to buy bitcoin or not, and the fact that it may well take 30 to 200 years to play out means that it is not any kind of a short-term guess, assumption, conjecture, speculation... .but if any of us have ideas of directionally where bitcoin is likely to go then we are better able to prepare, and we can see some of the historical support for the upward trajectory, even though there certainly are not any guarantees, and I have no need or reason to back up anything that I am saying.  You, as an individual, company or government, can choose to invest into bitcoin if you like or you can choose to refrain. You can also choose your position size in accordance with your own situation, and hopefully you are not so dumb as to not get off zero, so even if you are skeptical of bitcoin, it is likely best to get off zero, even though I frequently suggest to be as aggressive as you can without causing yourself to get reckt.



Sure it is.  But is it still your choice regarding what position size you take, if any, and yeah if you end up choosing not to get into bitcoin and staying on zero, then you probably are not choosing correctly, and you are free to do what you like.. and also to have fun staying poor, too.


Yes, you can choose to be dumb and choose to be in gold, and have fun staying poor.   Your first chart ONLY goes back to 2018 and shows bitcoin USD pairs, and your second chart shows gold dollar pair and tries to suggest gold is better than bitcoin because it has a longer history, and your chart going back to the 70s, but I already showed you the gold and bitcon pairs and you can go back and see that bitcoin is largely eating gold's lunch and likely will continue to do so.. and you likely don't even need to get involved in gold, except people who are already used to gold like to stick with it, even though it has been a loser compared to bitcoin and is likely going to continue to be a loser compared to bitcoin.. but you can do whatever you like in terms of holding gold, and sure maybe gold will do better than the dollar, but it has not really done very well compared to the dollar since 2011.. so kind of sucks to have been in gold during that time, and maybe it will do better in the future compared to the dollar, but probably not as good as bitcoin is likely to do.. buy hey, whatever do what you like.


Oh gawd WillyAp you are even devolving into even dumber claims throwing litecoin into the mix.    I am going to stick to what I already said. I see no reason to engage with your seemingly dumbness, and if you do not either understand and/or appreciate bitcoin as a good investment and/or you are getting distracted by some likely short-to-medium term fee issues in bitcoin that that is on you, and you can also have fun staying poor, if you believe that litecoin is going to be your savior... let's check back in 5-10 years, whether we are talking your getting involved in shitcoins and/or failing to invest into bitcoin and/or DrBeer's distraction into gold... and maybe both of you come from similar but different bitcoin hating schools, shitcoin pumpers and/or whaver denial distractions that might even be pretty well felt in the next couple of years, if you have failed and refused to adequately and sufficiently prepare your portfolios for the potential of bitcoin going up.

Well how wrong can one be. The very 1st sentence of the Abstract says it all  A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.

Purely P2P lets not second guess any further, a P2P, Person to Person tool is the true intent of Cryptos 1st Currency.
No trading, not taking over the world, topple the US or anthing else
 
Most are here due to money value and its raise. Which is also its downfall once we look at fees.
There Litecoin is the better Bitcoin jejeje
 

1. Sorry - is this your suggestion?

If you haven’t guessed, it was me who answered this phrase

2. This is your guess. The only thing you can offer as “proof” right now is that NOW 1 Bitcoin is worth more than 1 ounce of gold. But this is NOW. Regarding the ASSUMPTION that Bitcoin is 1000 times better than gold - can I ask a simple question? Give an economic justification for the price/benefits of Bitcoin, in relation to the real price of this asset?

3. The price of Bitcoin is also speculative and manipulative.

4. We can use graphs for a long time. There will be only one answer - gold has a more stable growing chart. I'm just providing historical data.



[ /url]

Great read. Saylor is on the money but everyone should be aware that he is speaking long term. Short term, so much can happen because of some of the flaws that he mentioned, such as the hundreds of unregulated exchanges, the opaque stable coins, the lack of regulations, etc.

Whales will continue to take advantage of this over the near term. There's no doubt about it.

One thing I think is important to facilitate this change is the creation of a bitcoin-mainnet decentralized exchange with the blockchain that connects the government sponsored fiat stablecoin chain. After that, goodbye stablecoins, margin/unregistered exchanges, etc


Yes, he would have said UST, referring to Terra Luna's stablecoin, that collapsed in spectacular fashion.

I don't know.  You tell me. It's the area that you seem to want to talk about, and surely it would be nice if we were able to somehow relate the discussion to the topic of the thread.


Yep.. It is an estimate, and I am not even suggesting that the BTC vs gold pair would reach those numbers until some time down the road maybe 30 years at the soonest, but it could take between 100 and 200 years, perhaps?  there are a lot of variables that can affect relative BTC to gold prices, and one of the reasons for me bringing up gold is that we might be able to determine a longer history of value in order to make comparisons (as compared with fiat), and sure maybe there are some real world goods that we could compare too, such as how many 1,000 pound cows we might be able to buy for 1 bitcoin... or how many 3 lb roasting chickens, or barrels of crude oil.


We are not talking about shitcoins here.

If you meant to talk about bitcoin, then o.k, at least you are close to being on topic.


Bitcoin is the same, except it is right around 1,000x better than gold, even though it has a much shorter history, merely coming upon 15 years of existence in January.


I already provided that chart in my earlier post, and it appears that bitcoin is ongoingly appreciating relative to gold.

https://www.longtermtrends.net/bitcoin-vs-gold/

Bitcoin went over 1 ounce of gold in 2017, and then it got up to nearly 40 ounces of gold in the various 2021 peaks, and then it went back down to nearly 10 ounces in late 2022, and now it it bouncing around 20 ounces currently as I type this post, and it is likely going to get way past 100s of ounces in the fairly near future.. or at least in the next 4-10 years or so.. I am not going to claim that I know exactly how the BTC versus gold price dynamics are going to play out, but since bitcoin is still about 1/20th the value of gold, that means that bitcoin has around 20,000x to go up, relative to gold in the coming 30 to 200 years or so.. and yeah, no guarantees, even though any of us with eyeballs and a brain should be able to recognize and appreciate the direction.


I am talking about the 200-week moving average, the 400 day  moving average would only be the equivalent of the 60 week moving average, so it's timeframe is too short in order to have longer term meaning. 

You likely are going to be able to learn more about what is going on with bitcoin by looking in longer trends such as 4 years or longer rather than getting caught up in looking at price movements (or whatever else) in terms of trends that are right around 1 year because  that can be quite misleading.. especially since bitcoin has already been shown to historically have had 4 year cycles, and sure I am not even suggesting that 4 year cycles are guaranteed to continue, but they are way more accurate and informative to look at as compared to looking at 1 or 2 year trends that could be quite misleading and out of context.


Probably more and more people are learning about bitcoin, but I cannot really know or say how long it is going to take for bitcoin to be accepted in more locations and for more products, and even in El Salvador apparently they still ONLY have low levels of adoption, even though quite a few of the regulatory barriers have been removed that might exist in some other jurisdictions... but at the same time, there are pockets of communities in which bitcoin is widely adopted, and it is likely that those kinds of pockets are gong to continue to grow.. even though sometimes it can be difficult to measure and appreciate some of the growth dynamics.. including maybe measuring the growth in the various (7) network effects as outlined by Trace Mayer.


You are likely lacking in investigatory skills if you believe that you have to convert bitcoin to fiat prior to being able to use it, and sure there are going to be quite a few folks who do convert into bitcoin from fiat and out of bitcoin to fiat, but there are also individuals who earn bitcoin and who send bitcoin to others without touching fiat... and no those peer to peer networks are not necessarily widespread, yet.

I'll admit I never read the whitepaper for bitcoin, but it's my understanding that Satoshi did intend that bitcoin become a form of currency, which would kinda-sorta imply that one of its primary uses would be to buy things with it.  That certainly hasn't been its primary appeal to people, but people also use currency as savings too, right?  That's where things become grey, because currency doesn't fluctuate in value as much as bitcoin does, and that's the big reason people the latter as an investment.  Well, that and the fact that fiat works just fine for people and the average person isn't looking for a replacement.

MS is a bitcoin evangelist if we have the same definition of the word.  What he shouldn't be treated as is a bitcoin guru and--I agree--a mentor or a figurehead, spokesperson, whatever.  He's definitely a huge bitcoin supporter, and for that he's got my respect.  That and that only, because I don't know much else about him aside from the fact that he's the CEO of MSTR.  But as I've said before, his company's value now very much hinges on what bitcoin does, and that wasn't originally in MSTR's business plan.  For his sake (and for the rest of us, too) I hope bitcoin doesn't tank.  I've also said that before and the company didn't implode, so who knows.

1. We're talking about completely different things. Corruption and totalitarianism are completely different entities if we are talking about total control of the media and the possibility or not of access to real information. I understand both the idea of outrageous run away inflation and the fact that USA is attempting to cover up the inflation numbers in order to attempt to camouflage the ongoing depreciation and debasement of the dollar" - the issue here is about COVERING up real information by using power and leverage over free media. What does this have to do with corruption ?
2- That bitcoin is 1000 times more valuable than gold is your assumption. The price of cryptocurrencies, for the umpteenth time, is formed by purely speculative market and manipulation. Gold, unlike bitcoin, is recognized as an asset to preserve value, both in good times and in difficult times. It is enough to look at the chart of the price of these two assets in relation to crises - and it will be immediately obvious - what people invest money in unstable times.
3. "200-week moving average it continuously moves up" - I can show a 400-day moving down chart, from 2018. Or a two-year downward moving chart, from 2021. The latter is very telling - no one in the world has decided to buy bitcoin en masse until 23, as the chart confirms.
4. "You are quite unclear here." - It will be possible to talk about a non-fiat world only when at least 30-40 products on earth will be priced in bitcoin and it will be the official means of payment.  So yes, the example is for today's world.
5. So far, I consider bitcoin and some altcoins as an investment instrument with its own peculiarities. Yes. Because for real everyday life I cannot use bitcoin without converting it into fiat bills to buy goods and services.

Are you really saying anything?  Sure the degree and the extent to which there is corruption in countries varies, and the ways in which various kinds of corruption is hidden also varies, including that some of the current corruption involves ways of trying to control information, but we still have the physical world, and we still have various values in the physical world, even though it can take a decently long time for people to figure out that bitcoin is about 1,000x more valuable than gold, but we have the relative prices moving in that direction... but still bitcoin is about 1/20th the price of gold when we are referring to the respective market caps of bitcoin versus gold.


Perhaps we cannot completely discard the role of shitcoins, but yeah bitcoin ends up being a base, and there will end up being transactions at various other levels that will also likely include several shitcoins, in terms of some of the transactions and then also sometimes some of the distractions into various scam products, ponzi schemes and those various ways in which people will likely get distracted into various inferior products.


No one is saying that, but if you look at the 200-week moving average it continuously moves up.  You can look at my entry-level fuck you status chart that shows both the present and the future projections that I attempt to formulate fairly conservatively, but even my own attempt at conservatism could end up being too optimistic because there surely are no guarantees, but the 200-week moving average is a bottom measurement (relatively speaking, so far), a lagging indicator, and something that largely averages out the BTC price over the past 4 years.. ... so there has always been a ongoing grind UPpity, and the lowest period of UPplty has been the last 18 months or so, in which the 200-week moving average has ONLY moved up around 10% for each of the 6 month periods (which equates to 20% annually), and so yeah, I would expect the 200-week moving average to increasingly gravitate towards a lower and lower upward slope, and that's much of the reason that my future projections of it's upward slope is flattening out towards something like 3-6% per year.. which also may be too optimistic.. I am not sure.


You are quite unclear here.  You seem to be talking about the fiat world.  Even though there are no guarantees that bitcoin is going to continue to go up in value, so far bitcoin has continued to go up in value, so it purchases more and more and more.  And, yes, at the same time most products and even services should be going down in value because of various efficiencies in production (consider the ideas of Jeff Booth, the Price of tomorrow), but fiat perverts a lot of the perceptions of these kinds of valuations because we perceive goods and services to be going up in price, even though they don't because the money is actually perverted to create such impressions.. and the perversion of value has likely gotten worse and worse and worse and worse..

Anyhow, maybe you can try to explain your seemingly nonsensical assertion (above).


You are correct that the better your discretionary income situation, the easier it is for you to save and benefit directly by bitcoin, but people can still benefit if they have lower levels of discretionary income and they can also benefit from the various ways in which bitcoin contributes towards making monetary systems more honest, so if monetary systems do not try to make themselves honest in ways like bitcoin, they are going to continue to lose out to bitcoin.


Well no one should be buying bitcoin with expectations of profits with money that they need within the next 4-10 years or more for their expenses.... including that everyone should also continue to maintain an emergency fund... so discretionary income is money that you do not need right away, and if you are using non-discretionary money to invest, then you are not managing your finances in a prudent way.  Yes.. bitcoin can serve as both an investment vehicle and as a transactional vehicle, but if you are planning to make money off of bitcoin in the short term there are no guarantees that the price is going to move in your direction for the next 4-10 years or longer, but still the bitcoin has been the best long term investment amongst broad swaths of the world's population (if it is known how to get in and to manage it), and there is no infoirmation that bitcoin is worsening rather than improving in the strength of its investment thesis.


I think that both of you are getting off-track in your framing or even trying to suggest one thing - even though I think that fillippone was getting at bitcoin's sound money angle and you (WillyAp) seem to be distracted into the bullshit BIG blocker talking points about buying coffees with bitcoin .. Surely, bitcoin's history has been showing it to have a broad set of use cases, but the sound money (and strong store of value) seems to be the back-bone of why anyone would be incentivized to want to receive bitcoin - in the peer to peer transaction sense..    Surely, in current times there are difficulties (and more and more obstacles) in transacting with bitcoin in a peer to peer sense, and some of the distractions and barriers might even relate to various attempts to attack bitcoin being able to be transacted freely, and surely a decent number of people get exposure to bitcoin prices through their buying it on exchanges and then also using various other third-party services to hold and/or to transact with bitcoin - while at the same time, there seems to be a decently large number of coins that are kept in private wallets rather than being held on third party services.  Some of the third-party services allow for the moving of coins into private wallets, and some of them serve as traps for the coins (so the client may or may not realize that they likely do not legally own the bitcoin that they are holding in an overwhelming majority of those third-party services, to the extent that they care beyond wanting to get exposure to BTC prices), and surely if some of the coins that get moved into private wallet are not moving, either, even if they are safer and also more self-sovereign, then we might wonder how many of those privately-held coins are still capable of being moved, but even the non-capability of coins to move does not break bitcoin, but instead makes the remaining coins (that can be moved) towards being more valuable.

There are no doubts that bitcoiners are going to continue to have challenges in terms of the adoption of various ways to self-custody their coins and also ways to transact in their coins in peer to peer manners, and even the creation and facilitation of various bitcoin circular economies in which fiat does not need to be touched.

Here we go

Yes there are many more use cases but the decentral ideal is P2P.
To set everything into a blockchain as the web3 theory is daydreaming.

1. In the US, the power structure is such that it is not possible to hide real data, as there is quite strong opposition between the two key parties, which use such data to "fight" their competitors. Hiding and manipulating data is possible only in countries with totalitarian or close to totalitarian regimes..... And as you know - they officially classify many indicators - from the volume of natural resources extraction, to the real state of affairs with gold and currency reserves of central banks.

2. Such a picture can take place only in the case of global recognition of cryptocurrencies. If you look at the volatility of bitcoin - yes, there will POSSIBLY be spikes up to the levels you mentioned. But it will not be a guaranteed linearly rising rate. Today you have 1 bitcoin 1 lambo, and then 3 years later you have a used volkswagen And I will add - for investors working "for a long" distance - it is still profitable. Such investors can wait 3-4 years and get x10 for example. But for the average person such a scheme of bitcoin ownership, with, I will remind you again about volatility, is not acceptable. If he bought bitcoin for 60.000 today, and in 3 months the price became 18.000, he will be upset, to put it mildly, because he can not wait 3 years for growth, and he has to feed his family today....