2) for the sake of argument, let's assume that there is some kind of problem with bitcoin, ... a very long shot, maybe in the less than 1% region,
So all that _really_ separates our positions is a relative likelihood.
One of my weak spots is never say never, especially when it comes to predictions, but I suppose you have caused me to breach my own principles a few times with your ongoing nonsensical assertions.
3) what you are really hoping is that your bags pump....
Sorta. Not really. I am
expecting that the strategic flaw within the Core philosophy will surface as soon as the next FOMO happens. Such FOMO will expose the folly of strangling tx capacity with a centrally-planned production quota thereupon. This strangulation will result in Blockalypse II, with another drastic drop in market cap dominance. Those wanting to use Bitcoin, but unable to due to long waits even with huge tx fees, will reevaluate the choices in front of them.
At which point the obvious set of choices would be the other Bitcoins.
Until then, I expect BTC will do relatively well in the marketplace. Upon Blockalypse II, I expect a massive move from BTC to BCH and/or BSV.
When FOMO? I can't predict. But I'm positioned to benefit.
Oh gawd.
Your description of your expectations is not really out of line with what I expected you to say. There are a lot of presumptions built into that, but likely your BTC holdings (profits) are sponsoring (or would the word be "enabling") you to engage in such seemingly preposterous pie in the sky speculations about a possible future that has quite less than 1% likelihood of happening.
Part of the problem remains that you are likely putting way more than 1% of a hedge into such a fantasy scenario because you are giving such scenario way higher odds, maybe even greater than 50% (no you are not that dumb, maybe 30%.. but still.. even that is high)..
By the way, I bet that you are giving quite less than 50% odds to your pie in the sky bcash hedging scenario, even though you are talking about your pie in the sky bcash hedging outcome as if the odds were greater than 50%. Don't you consider that representation from you to be a bit misleading?
