Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 11352. (Read 26725292 times)

Humans don't act based on logic and facts and numbers. The few who do are the weirdos, the freaks of nature. Humans as a whole act based on subconscious programming. Literal NPCs. This is not something we can reason our way out of.

Even the billions he owns can't fix his shit taste on women. I am not even talking about the underage stuff here. (Which is a crime already)

I guess he is so retarded or egoistic (ot both), no decent woman with any self respect will show him any love.

His only chance for sex is buying underage ugly girls from Africa.

I am not surprised, Roger is also the same.

You can find many photos of Roger with underage Chinese/Japanese girls wearing "Bch pls" shirts.

The fertility level is the most basic of things to look at, yes. Doesn't change that we don't know what "too much" is. All we know is that Dunbar's number is 150.

My country is not Sweden or Germany or England or France. There is still a few years to work with.

Anywhere not europe or US or Canada or Australia or muslim or african.

Fair point. I just have a personal aversion to the term as its usually associated with "get rich quick" schemes on the forum.

Ummm these girls don’t look 18 to me

Brazil? I am pretty sure Barcelona is in Spain.

Unless he is mentioning some infamous small town with the same name located in Brazil.

I was in Barcelona (the famous one we all know) last summer and saw some "hodl" tags on the walls of many buildings. It is absolutely popular there.

Hey, nutildah, them is fighting words.



hahahaha

What I would like to say is that "passive income" is something that many folks aspire to.  Of course, there is some relativity to how passive is the income, which as you describe, even some passive income sources are going to require a certain amount of work through calculations, monitoring, rebalancing and/or other activities causing them from being less than purely passive.

At the same time, let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and let's use bitcoin accumulation as an example.  Let's say that you have a lifestyle that you believe requires around $36k per year of income to support yourself comfortably, so in that case you would need to have $900k in assets to reasonably generate that kind of income (that is attempting to apply traditional value appreciation assumptions to bitcoin and assuming a withdrawal rate of 4% per year 1% per quarter will not deplete capital, and largely just be digging into asset appreciation).  At today's BTC prices, that would be establishing a stash of about 233 BTC.  

In other words, if your income goal is $36k per year, then 233BTC should help you to largely and mostly achieve passive income status, and the only work that you would need to do is accounting for your withdrawal of about 1% per quarter and any other accounting or security precautions of moving around assets precautions that you believe would be prudent for your own piece of mind.. and/or perhaps changes in your perceptions of the security parameters of your assets.  

Of course, if you want to live in higher luxury or if you believe that you need a bit more of a value cushion in order to ensure your about $36k per year of withdrawal rate (aka passive income), then you could either acquire more bitcoin or wait for the BTC price to go up to a sufficient value before you begin to employ your withdrawal plan of 1% per quarter - passive income plan.

I understand that a lot of peeps here seem to believe that they need more than $36k per year, yet there are also people who definitely understand that they can live on a lot less too, such as $18k per year, and $36k would be a kind of doubling cushion.. nonetheless, because bitcoin has tended to be quite volatile, just to be a lot more comfortable there may be some justification to double your accumulation, or at least calculate your accumulation goal based on worse case BTC price scenarios... such as halfing the BTC price.. from today's price... or something like that.  

Of course, another error that guys in this thread seemed to have made in late 2017 was calculating their retirement and level of richness based on exponentially increasing BTC prices rather than based on correction prices, such as where we are today, and perhaps even using half of todays prices for safety measures.. just to be more prudent in NOT retiring too soon and expecting to live comfortably with the BTC level that you had then accumulated.  




I agree with you about the lighting network NOT being a good way to aim towards passive income, at least in the short term, and likely you would need to have way more BTC than what I had mentioned as the 233BTC based on a $3k per month ($36k per year) income from just expected continued BTC appreciation in the coming years of at least 4% per year.


Kind of reminds me of some folks who planned to get rich by BTC mining, when in the end, they would have done a lot better just buying coins with the amount of money they spent to mine bitcoin.  Though mining did pay off handsomely for some folks, too, and I certainly appreciate miners, and some miners actually feel more comfortable because they are engaging on a higher level with their investment, as compared with some smuck like me who only HODLs coins and spouts off on the interwebs on a regular basis without really engaging on a personal level with the BTC technicals.

LN brings efficiency and mass adoption as an additional layer on top of the choice of decentralization. The latter is currently not really possible in any sensible way. And even with LN, Bitcoin remains capped, so no more printing press to steal money from workers through inflation.

LN worries me, the ship heels to centralize too much, or am I not distinguishing the future LN correctly?
 

While accurate, I would consider the part after the completion of my due diligence process at least mostly passive. Some re-evaluation might be prudent every so many weeks, months, years depending on maturity. But it's different from the rat race of trading or working.
Basically, you create a slope and a ball and then bring the ball up. Then watch the ball as it rolls down. But if you built an elevator all you'll have to do in the future is to put the ball in and press a button. At least for as long as the mechanics don't wear down. So while not 100% passive, for all practical purposes passive income exists if you're smart about it.


Also, as LN matures there will be ways to automate data collection and adjustments of fee structure. The ramp-up takes work, but in the long run it's mostly passive once the work has been put in. At least if you work towards making it passive. And yes, it's nowhere close to passive income and likely won't be for years. But the groundwork is being laid.

At least good news from South America. After Argentina now Brazil is ready for mass adoption. A virus is spreading faster than I expected.

There's really no such thing as "passive income." There's legitimate income and then there's income from scams, like MLMs and Ponzis. With investing and lending you still need to exercise extreme diligence in order to make a profit, so I wouldn't call those "passive" either.

The whole point of using Lightning is that its faster and cheaper than on-chain transactions. If you set your channel fee too high people will bypass it and you will make less income than you did by setting a low fee. If the cost of doing a lightning transaction supersedes that of an on-chain transaction, people will simply revert to transacting on-chain.

Also, its not overly simple to set up and maintain your own lightning node (though it is a lot easier today than it used to be). Maintaining a consistent internet connection, having to pay for that and the electricity of running your computer also need to be factored into the overall cost.

It’s going to be a screamer once the exchanges get on board and allow lighting deposits and withdrawals.

I agree with you, BTCMILLIONAIRE, that lightning network is in a kind of practice stage, which means learning and building more tools and experimenting, and of course, if more and more tools are developed, then income opportunities will develop as well.

On the other hand, I doubt that such lightning network income is anywhere close to achieving passive income status (even though that does seem to be a reasonable long term goal).  The mere concept of "passive income" means that you earn money with little to no work, and from what I can tell, there are a lot of true believers involved in lightning network, and therefore, seem to be putting in way more work than what is likely to pay off for them on any kind of personal financial level.  In other words, even though failure of lightning network would not be failure of bitcoin, but overall success of lighting network causes the Bitcoin network as a whole to become more valuable, as well as those lil tokens that we endearingly we refer to as corn.    

A taxi accepting bitcoin in Barcelona.  The virus is spreading.  #bitcoin

Nice!

https://twitter.com/rivetacrypto/status/1105613744070164481?s=21

How does one become Trump and Thanos in one the same HAT?

Ask XhomerX he’s the HAT-takemi.....

Provide him something and he Will create you an Unique piece of HAT art

To learn how to use it. And to establish reputation for the future. Both of which imply a chance for passive income down the road.

No me to

They are Unique “codes” HAT attached to single persons

Only Maybe the birthday HAT etc is multi use