Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 2095. (Read 26710190 times)

Explanation

Explanation

 Their arguments are quite flimsy and could pertain to pretty much any human endeavour but I think they also have you in their sights:

"The environmental impacts of cryptomining exist even when miners use existing clean power. For example, in the case of communities with hydropower where cryptomining operations are often located, increased electricity consumption by cryptominers reduces the amount of clean power available for other uses, raising prices and increasing overall reliance on dirtier sources of electricity." <sup>1

1</sup>from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2023/05/02/cost-of-cryptomining-dame-tax/

 Apparently, by you putting up your own solar array and using it for your own purposes, you are still harming "low-income neighborhoods and communities of color" since it could have been used in a way that would offset the pollution caused by other forms of electrical generation, that would still be required to meet the demand of those poor bastards in New York who will be banned from using gas for their cook-stoves, such as natural gas turbines.  Oh the irony.

 Sorry for the bad news philipma1957 

 

What about the miners that use mining to create solar arrays.

Will my solar created be taxed?

Stupid bastards.

 https://cryptopotato.com/biden-administration-pushes-congress-to-pass-30-tax-on-bitcoin-mining/

 "Biden Administration Pushes Congress to Pass 30% Tax on Bitcoin Mining

 Author: Andrew Throuvalas

The White House views the Bitcoin mining industry as environmentally harmful and limited in economic benefit.

The White House is attempting to persuade Congress to pass a 30% climate change tax on cryptocurrency miners as part of its next federal budget.

The change, titled the Digital Asset Mining Energy (DAME) excise tax, is designed to encourage mining firms to start taking better account of their so-called ‘societal harms’, including higher energy prices and greenhouse gas emissions...

...The tax would be phased in over 3 years, starting at 10% in the first year before rising to 20% and eventually 30% in the following two years. Over 10 years, it would generate an estimated $3.5 billion in revenue...
"

 They (the gov't) wont make a @#$ cent.  The margins are not good enough to support such a luxury tax so miners will go elsewhere.


 

Explanation

if you have a 700,000  home with 100% equity. You do not take out a loan on it.

Unless rates drop to 2-3%

My example is 2,000,000 wealth

700,000 home
400,000 bond driven 401 k gets 5%
100,000 gold, silver

that is 1,200,000 wealth
and you have 800,000 more wealth do do as you please.

that adds to 2,000,000 wealth

the 401k earns 20k a year

you have 7,000 take home in pensions. since I said you have pensions you have to use some of the 401k eventually maybe now so 20,000 is the juice it gets. pull 4,000 and that is 2,000 a month but it is taxable so pull 30,000  this means the 402k will last close to a lifetime and you actuall income after taxes is 9,000 a month

This person has the ability to fuck around with 800,000 anyway they want to. Stock ,bonds, btc shit coins what ever.  But they are rare and they are dying every day as I type this out.

They can do an equity loan if rates drop to 2 or 3%. I said the chances are likely less than 1 in 25 Americans are in this spot.

 They can have a mixed blend of what ever the they invest.  They are rare.


Most Americans are paycheck to paycheck and will work way past retirement ages. 70 or later is common.

For these people savings in a bank are meh at best. They need to do 3 or more different  plays even if the plays are $25 a month for each month.

Explanation

Explanation

Explanation

You can't easily do it in Texas too because locals were burned on this before anyone else in US (in 1987) when people were mass-mailing the keys to their houses to lenders, apparently.
Typically, no cash-out refinancing. I know some people in CA that did multiple cash outs and now have a gigantic mortgage.
Still, there is some equity, but the cushion is much smaller that it should have been otherwise.

My mistake was in that i was thinking that Mr market would try to push banks up after FRC supposed "rescue", but it lasted for a whole 2 hours, then reversed.
My plan was to buy puts into a rally, but I am not buying those into a sharp decline and increase in premium and volatility.
Hence, still flat in the money market with about 5% returns (plus some long term time horizon stocks).

Nothing to report re btc (no change in position whatsoever).
BTW, I read (with a big surprise) that there are only about 1 mil wallet addresses with at least one btc.
I thought that there were at least 2-5 times more.

Explanation

Taking equity out of ones home, another thing you can't do here (and people wouldn't understand). Of course we saw in 2009 that it led to plenty of people losing their home...

Explanation

Yeah.. I get your point, but how liquid is that wealth?  And are you valuating your wealth properly.

$7k per month is a good income.. and even in the current presumptive fuck you status level of income.. since $2million in wealth (or at least $2million of an investment portfolio) should be able to draw down 4% per year and thereby support around $6,666  per month of income.

Therefore such a person with that level of income already coming in and that level of wealth.. should already be able to fairly comfortably spend in the ballpark of $13,666 per month.. and sure if there might be some desires to keep a bit of a cushion, then s/he could spend less than the full amount... but still I would not consider any problem averaging $13,666 per month as much as I would have a problem for someone who spends towards the top of the range, but then ends up averaging way higher than $13,666 because s/he has some months of expenditures that go way beyond the $13,666 amount.. .. Therefore, it may well be better to spend around $10-$12k per month and then just have that extra amount of $1,666 to $3,666 around as a kind of cushion that would off-set the higher expenditure months.. and/or leave freedoms to have such higher expenditure months.




Some of this is overlapping?  or this is additional wealth?

Of course, you could draw upon any of the categories, or you could lump them all together in order to figure out your monthly budget and then your monthly cushion, too.... and surely, there can be situations in which you have way more wealth (or you are spending way under the allocated amount, so your wealth is still building, and so there is nothing wrong with that), and sure, you could put some items into a separate category or a separate budget.. which seems to be what you did with the $700k home that may well just be in reserves, and the $800k that you say that you can do whatever with it.. but if you have too many categories, then you do not really seem to be sharing any kind of information in regards to trying to exercise any kind of meaningful discipline (or attempts at learning) in regards to your allocations.

I don't have any problem with the idea of still allowing your portfolio to build, even though you may well should be getting to a stage (age-wise) in which you also want to make sure that you are spending, but at the same time, the mere fact that you might want to keep a lot of funds somewhat liquid, still does not seem to justify pushing IBonds, even if you are in a position (on a personal level) to continually max out your IBonds.. for your own allocation (and perhaps your wife's too).. and so that also would not justify pushing that IBond crap in a thread like this (or a forum like this, for that matter).


The current economic situation is not in any kind of a place in which interest rates on homes are likely to drop any time soon.... the next phase may well be having more people lose their homes because some rates will adjust upwardly.. and those with fixed rates might end up getting forced out of their fixed rate for one reason or another.. .. including if neighborhood (comparable) houses drop in value then they end up being underwater..... I am not trying to speculate on the specifics because there are still some neighborhood differences and also differences in terms of how long someone may have had been in their current mortgage set up... which goes back to the issue of how much "actual equity" that they might have and be able to potentially use as you seem to be suggesting to be "so easy."


You are likely in the ballpark of correct on these dynamics.


Yep.. that's right dawg.

These are the kinds of moments that "people" tend to NOT analyze, even though these kinds of moments have frequently happened in bitcoinlandia.. and when BTC goes back to "being correlated" then we are going to be hearing so much in regards to "how correlated" bitcoin happens to be... blah blah blah.... hahahahaha..

....while normies fail/refuse to sufficiently/adequately allocate some value towards dee cornz because they fail/refuse to recognize the fact of the matter in regards to bitcoin not being correlated to traditional asset classes (beyond from time to time appearances).


Ain't nobody got time for "actually proving" of reserves.

Don't u know nuttin Gachapin?

 

I wouldn't be able to hold on to chocolate bitcoins. I'd wash them down with my morning coffee.


Dude shows his true grit
Weights rise and so does bitcoin
Corn's strength and honor

Explanation

Maybe you should get ur lil selfie some of dee cornz Philip - in case it catches on?
and stop being such an ongoing bank/banker sycophant (fanboi)


........AND.....

They seemed to have had resolved the ever-present ongoing dilemma regarding the plurality of dee cornz... ... to deem dems as:

"bitcoins"


when there are a large number of "us" who consider the plurality of "bitcoin" to be "bitcoin"


Who would-a-thunk?


Shakey finger syndrome of the elderly, I suspect.


 


This people hasn't forgotten.