It won't go to $400K you delusional fools!
If someone really needs $400K to be rich... you are doing it wrong and it is more Bitcoin what you need so that you can reach your goals with a much lower price.
Fools.
Aiai..... bitserve.... the word “never” is just to strong to use though I do agree on trying to gain as much BTC as possible
I don't think I used the word "never"... but yeah, my main point is exactly that. Price alone won't make anyone rich if he doesn't have enough stake in the game in first instance. Never.
And I only made a "bet" that I would be perfectly glad to "lose". IF.
I see your point and I agree, except that the current price may be too high for a newcomer to be able to accumulate "enough stake" in the game to achieve financial independence at a much lower price...
Out of curiosity, what amount would you (or other fellow WOs) consider a healthy stash that one should have in order to realistically achieve financial independence? I know that it depends on country of residence, lifestyle, etc., but would love to hear your opinions on this.
If you are just getting into bitcoin, you do not have any choice.
You have to buy at today's prices, figure out your strategy and tailor your accumulating approach to your own circumstances. Accumulation takes time, so even though in 2013, I might have been hesitant to say that you have to look ahead beyond 2 years, I think that these days, bitcoin is much more of an established investment in which you can plan to stay in a minimum of 4 years, but really 4-6 years is a prudent starting point. If you are just getting in, you should not be expecting to retire in 4-6 years, but instead maybe be in a lot better position 4-6 years down the road to reassess what to do based on the BTC accumulation strategy that you have been following for the previous 4-6 years, which would likely including DCA, buying on dips, possible front loading and researching and tweaking your plans and system along the way.
Each person sets his/her targets in accordance with his own situation. A new person who comes in at 50 years old and an already decently established investment portfolio is going to chose how to allocate differently than someone who is just graduating high school and maybe living on their own for the first time, whether that is at 16 years old or 18 years old or 21 years old or whatever age it is that someone might be first establishing his/her investment strategies, including probably considering that college is part of the plan or whatever younger person early life plans are part of the expenses and investments.
Great for you, bitserve, to point out that thread with AlcoHoDL's own words.
Even though AlcoHoDL was somewhat insightful in putting in a pretty decent chunk of investment in to BTC during an extended down period, the more important thing in his two posts in that thread seems to be that he identified a variety of long term fundamentals of bitcoin (at least reasons that he wanted to be "into" bitcoin), and that he had considered that his timeline for investment was at least 10 years (which is actually longer than the 4-6 year minimum that I am suggesting in my above response).
So yeah 10 years does seem like a more reasonable investment timeline than 4-6 years, and so even though I was attempting to grant more shorter term flexibility and options, there remains a lot of wisdom if anyone who is just coming in allows for both the investing of money that can be afforded to lose and allowing the investment to play out for 10 years.. and might not even be as important concerning when the investor bought (top, middle, or bottom of the cycle) but just the fact that the investor is letting the whole matter ride for 10 years from the time of the investment... By the way, these kinds of long term allowances is one of the presumptions of the values of DCA investing also.
