Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 9683. (Read 26609430 times)

Yes.


Mostly yes. Network efficiency will degrade, but difficulty will adjust to mostly compensate.

First of all, Ludwig, before asking you about a few more specifics about the strategy that you are following, if there is a kind of attempt to continuously accumulate bitcoin by injecting more money with a kind of dollar cost averaging approach, there are surely going period of time in which you might question your strategy because your portfolio might either be extremely lowly valued or even in the negative for a decent period of time, and extended down periods are surely going to be the ones that cause you to question why you did not sell and buy back cheaper... which seems to be a bit of a fools errand to try to play that game of trying to figure out when you can sell and buy back cheaper.  In other words, I don't think that way. 

So, then if we ask you about some specifics about what you are doing, then pray tell.

So I gather that you feel that you got burned by gox, and then thereafter you feel like you got in late, because you started back investing in BTC in early 2017.  What part of the formula are you following?  Early stages would likely be most effective to focus on accumulating BTC and attaining enough of a holdings that you feel that you are in a decent spot in terms of the total percentage of your portfolio that is allocated to BTC.  Second portion would be maintaining, which could still involve some injecting of new money but also perhaps could involve selling small amounts on the way up.  I know that some people are leery about selling any BTC until BTC reaches a price that is something like a 50x increase, which makes sense, but I think that it can still be helpful to sell small amounts on price rises, as insurance for price falls and just to cash some out.  It becomes safe to do this as long as your portfolio is profitable.

One thing for me, personally, is that I felt somewhat comfortable once I had acquired a decent amount of bitcoins below $250 to then be able to sell a portion of that stash, even though my average cost per BTC was then in the $500 range, but part of my comfort came from dividing my investment in three portions and I only would sell a small percentage from the portion of my holdings that was profitable.  Once BTC's prices went above $500, then I authorized myself to use the totality of my bitcoins as the measurement for how much I was allowed to sell.  Another part of my becoming comfortable with selling relatively small proportions of my stash at regular increments had come from a sense that I had overinvested.  In one sense I had gone higher than the percentage amount that I had originally authorized, especially based on a long period of down prices (in the mid $200s) in 2015, so during that period, I felt that I had overinvested a bit.   

Another happening that caused me comfort in selling was that my equity had risen sufficiently for me to feel comfortable selling.  I think that in the last year or so, I adjusted some of my thinking on it, but  largely I stick to my system of selling about 1% for every 10% rise as a kind of downside insurance, yet if I want to go above those levels of sales I am more than comfortable if I am selling at least 6x above my costs.  And current prices puts me in the 12x above costs territory.  So I feel pretty comfortable if I were to need to sell more than the regularly scheduled amounts of 1% for every 10% price rise.

Another part of the reason NOT to rush to sell too much, yet, is that I am pretty optimistic about the possibilities of the next 18 months or less, and if some decently BIG price explosion does not happen in the next 18 months, then absent some calamitous event, such as the physical Armageddon that Roach is banking on,  it seems that the odds are pretty decent that we are going to get a BIG price rise in the next 4-5 years as an outside timeframe.

So, for me, I am thinking who gives too many shits about the likely painful subsequent correction that likely comes after the next BTC price rise, because even the correction is likely going to still put us decently above current prices and even quite decently above $20k as the bottom - so even if we don't really know for sure about any of this, the great ongoing asymmetric bet continues, and there are not really any fundamentals that takes away the existence of the continued ongoing asymmetric bet in bitcoin - even if several more short term unexpected negative scenarios end up happening.

So this is my long winded way, Ludwig Von, to ask you for some specifics about what you had been doing and what is your current strategy.  Are you only buying and accumulating or are you engaged in a more complicated approach that involves some selling too?

Would transaction throughput increase with block size?
Would confirmation times remain the same?

No explicit limit, but other parts of the protocol limited the blocks to 32MB.

This one's got it all;

Bitcoin, money laundering, dark web, drugs and...wait for it...quadrillions of Zimbabwe hyperinflationbucks??

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49150912

I put spaces between the words, the principle is sound

You  might have mistiped.

Call for? No. Allow for? Yes.

Remember - permissionless.

---

Read moar. There are no hooks within the protocol to bar any entrant's participation.


Incidentally, it is working splendidly so far.

---

Where the hell do you get this tripe? That statement has no basis in fact whatsoever.

---

Riiiight. You 'read somewhere'. Care to post a citation?

Seems you also have no understanding of Bitcoin. Why would Satoshi choose a less secure cryptographic scheme to secure all his private keys, when he already employs a much more secure cryptographic scheme to define each private key? Answer: It defies credulity to assume this to be true.

---

Other than the fact that Satoshi's original release had no set limit on block size. Well, there is that.

---

Why the heck would anyone be foolish enough to enter their password into an online password strength checker?

I dunno, the above example sound pretty much like a 'brain wallet' that turned out to be very hackable.

It reminds me of a strange coincidence few years ago when in Megamillions (one of two US lotteries) four out of six numbers were those also depicted in a recently screened show "Lost". The end result was that more than 41K people won (much, much higher than expected).

They thought at first that someone hacked the lottery. A funny thing: if just one more number (a fifth one) would be chosen out of the "Lost" numbers, then the lottery would have gone bankrupt as they promised to pay 250K to EVERYONE who wins five numbers (out of six).
250KX41K=$10 billion. EOL.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hurleys-lost-numbers-win-fans-mega-millions-lottery-money_n_804723

15 octillion years is not secure??

that's what I was thinking, it passes the "correct horse battery staple" test

edit/   ahhh yes, I see this is most adequately covered above, good job guys

DAMN!

They just got your password lewl 

Take part in designing the "satoshi" symbol..it's fun, actually:

https://cryptoslate.com/the-satoshi-the-smallest-unit-of-bitcoin-is-getting-its-own-symbol/

I am sure we will have other problems to solve by then.

via Imgflip Meme Generator

Thx good to know

Seems they took advantage of very low transaction fees.

BTW Croach, do you know how much will cost sending 66 tons of gold from your seller to attic ?  

When i see this kind of discussion there only one things that comes into mind.
the always relevant XKCD:



https://xkcd.com/936/

If you check your password into this site, well, they are pretty secure apparently

https://howsecureismypassword.net/

(no, CorrectHorseBatteryStaple is not secure, actually)