BTC

plumpyplummy

I love how BTC peaked to 60k back in 21' then 2 months later it fell to 28k

sykemol

Here's the problem: If BTC drops 50%, it needs to double (100%) to get back to break even. But he's using leverage. So he's down way more on his BTC purchases, which means it needs go up way more just to break even. He's in a pretty big hole already. Worse, he's being forced to sell the underlying asset at a loss which means BTC has to go even higher just to break even. Mathmatically, it is easy to show that you can go bust using leverage on a volatile asset even if you are directionally correct. In fact, that's the probable outcome. Unless Bitcoin goes up by a lot, he's going to lose. And the clock is ticking. Interest on those preferreds keeps accruing. Which means Bitcoin needs to go up by even more, and fairly soon.

Arphinator

It’s a process that keeps BTC as good as stale. No owner, no liability, no progress. Just BIPs and high hopes that “anonymous” miners agree to mine the new chain.

Current-Champion7572

I looked this up bc this is an interesting point. Apparently, once the stablecoin is minted (t-bills bought by circle), they stay in circulation even if you sell/swap for BTC and are mostly only sold on the secondary market. I guess my broader point is that the US has incentive to push Bitcoin (and other digital assets) because that stablecoin on-ramp is a net buyer of t-bills

No-Masterpiece2246

Knots is hot garbage just like Core. Look at Cardano or Solana code. It's a big world out there. Bitcoin has been maligned, hijacked, and rehypothecated. It's fine to be idealistic about crypto, I share your enthusiasm. But try to be objective about the facts on the ground. Get your Bitcoin off that Lightning node before it gets hacked. Read up on BCH and I think you'll see the development happening there (BCH Node, Electron Cash, CashFusion, etc) exceeds BTC Core by 100x. Blockstream isn't innovating and Core is a bunch of pencil pushers.

Calm_Recognition_940

How? I’m ashamed you’re part of the BTC community. It’s a currency not an ETF

AwareGanache6190

It’s just whatever % of your net worth you feel like spending on something non productive. Things will still be priced in $ and if the combination of BTC you have and price equal a large enough that say buying a 10k first class ticket doesn’t make you worry about it, that’s the level. Different for everyone.

Capital_Situation961

Huobi’s role may potentially go beyond simply receiving stolen Bitcoin. If the exchange was warned in real time that specifically identified BTC was proceeds of theft, but still allowed it to be held, moved, converted or withdrawn, that raises questions not only about civil liability but also about handling stolen property and money laundering offences. The key issue is when Huobi knew or suspected that the BTC was criminal property, and what it did with those assets after that point. The fact that the exchange may also have derived fees or other economic benefit from assets held on its platform makes this worth examining further.

LionRivr

Nope. And I’ve been in since 2017. Have you ever heard “BTC is everything you don’t know about computers combined with everything you don’t know about money.”? Well, I understand the “money” part very well now after nearly 10 years. But for the node/computer part I just have so many excuses. It’s not even worth typing. Never got around to it, nor did I feel the need to.

DsrptFinance

Right conclusion, wrong mechanism. STRC issuance itself doesn’t dilute — no new common shares, BTC/share ticks up on day one. The erosion is downstream: \~$1.5B/yr in preferred coupons now getting paid by selling BTC and printing common through the ATM. The funding loop is what’s bleeding you, not the issuance. And “doesn’t matter what BTC’s CAGR is” is backwards — it’s a carry trade, and the problem is worse than that. STRC reprices monthly to hold par, so the hurdle rate rises as the collateral falls. Seven hikes since July ‘25, now 11.5%. That’s short vol with funding cost indexed to your own distress. The hazard isn’t dilution arithmetic. It’s the trigger: STRC slips below par, ATM stalls, and the choice becomes massive dilution or cumulative coupons stacking senior to common. Watch the funding spread, not BTC/share.

OkProject2361

The more I see these types of posts I wonder how BTC grows. It either grows via the very institutions we don’t want to take over OR it stays where it is. Normies aren’t going down this path. Hell, after the CC fiasco I’m done with self custody…It feels like the bottom is in. All I have to say is I’m not missing my next chance to exit during the next bull. I’ll keep 0.21 but everything else is for sale then.

iz_raymond

BTC will not survive another decade is quantum hacking became a thing and rampant in less than a decade from now

delenain

Those who understand the importance of BTC have no limit.

Interesting_Loss_907

Sure, it’s happened to many people. Lots of people bought into the hype in 2011 & paid almost $30 /BTC, only to see it shortly thereafter tumble down to just $3 (losing 90% of its value). They must have felt like real losers for a while… Others bought in around $240 in early 2013 & watched it fall to under $80 for months. Then there were those who paid $1000 /BTC in Nov 2013 & held on in 2014-2015 as it eventually fell to just $200… I think you get it now.

xylyze

BTC will be $250k and a loaf of bread will be $30

Brennapz445

If the recipient address owner doesn't return the BTC. You're fighting a lost battle.

redbow7

Once you realize BTC is everything you get so deep that you want to sell assets to buy more.

Dull_Reply5229

Honestly I know it's a running joke to say bitcoin is dead for the 17th million time but i think crypto has had its time and people have moved on. Trading options satisfies the gamblers, stock market ETFs satisfy the safe investors, the new shine of crypto has gone, young investors don't care about it, rugs and scams have scared people off, no one cares about the tech, the days of BTC doing 10x in a cycle are over, there's just no reason for it to blow up again

Riya-Brief-8162

Having a solid financial foundation probably makes it much easier to think long term with BTC.

Effective_Engine319

BTC is a tool for saving money into the future. As long as I'm earning an income I will be saving some of it. When I retire, then I'll start spending it.

parcelwing

If you are putting every spare dollar to bitcoin, you are in for a rough time. BTC should be 10% of net worth max

5nakeplisken

I am buying Kaspa. It's dirt cheap right now. The tech is far superior to BTC.

confusedguy1212

Let me save you the trouble. Invest in ETH or buy BTC. That’s basically it.

JimmySki6166

I’ve been purchasing large amounts of BTC monthly for years and will continue to do so!! 👌🏼

JimmySki6166

Don’t look at stable coins, worthless! BTC is the only crypto!

CommercialDuck7496

He needs to raise $6.7 Billion to pay the bonds anyways. It may not end up being a cost associated with STRC. Even to the extent that I agree that it's a cost associated with STRC, you can't just subtract 4 billion from the amount of bitcoin they purchased. First off, STRC is only 70% of the total dividend and debt payments. secondly the reserve is still an asset, its not a 0. Thirdly, that doesn't play into the calculation of "If they didn’t have any BTC to begin with and simply issued STRC at IPO they would have 0 Bitcoin at this point, so Bitcoin could go up 100% a year forever and it wouldn’t matter." AND even if it did, it STILL wouldn't be true...

Hfksnfgitndskfjridnf

It’s hilarious that since STRC IPO they now have about the same gross BTC per share than they did prior to the IPO. AND they now have 10 Billion in senior claims that cost them 1.2 Billion a year that they didn’t have before. STRC so far has been a complete disaster for common shareholders. Could future STRC issuance actually be accretive? Sure, but the current STRC they’ve sold is already a net loss and will continue to be a drag going forward. This is what happens when you issue STRC at 90, buy BTC at 117k and then wait until BTC drops to 60k before issuing common stock to build a 3 years cash reserve. 12% * 4 (3 years of cash reserve + 1 year of divs paid) * 2 (BTC price is half what they bought it for) *10/9 (issued STRC IPO at 90) = 106%. So they’ve already diluted more than the STRC IPO increased their BPS by. It’s already a loser and future payments just make it a bigger loser going forward. Shareholders better hope they don’t screw up future STRC issuance as much as they’ve screwed up what they’ve done so far. (Doubt)

fan_of_hakiksexydays

Going to? Strategy is already coming apart at the seams. MSTR has already dropped more than 80%. STRC still hasn't been able to peg back for the last 3 months despite all efforts. Strategy hasn't been able to buy BTC in 2 months. And now Strategy has had to break from its core "strategy" and has had to keep selling BTC to keep itself from spiraling too much.

Hfksnfgitndskfjridnf

The cash reserve came from selling MSTR but it’s a cost associated with STRC. It absolutely counts against the BTC yield of STRC. They wouldn’t have needed a cash reserve otherwise.

Nathaniel_Sparky500

In case anyone is wondering, the highest price BTC hit in 2011 was $26.15 USD.

crimeo

> LOL. Talk about paranoid delusions and zero self-awareness You've offered no other explanation for how you don't know basic english grammar rules. So that's the best theory so far. > The topic is "Russia central bank just named BTC, ETH, and USDT the only cryptos eligible for retail trading", to which your response was a copy-paste propaganda nonsense. Re-confirming that you don't seem to know how to read English correctly. I replied to commenters, not to the OP. The topic was in fact: "I wonder how their three day special operation is going after like five years. They are state level terrorists and we share news about them… I mean come on." and "you have been westwashed"

anycept

>But we can chalk that one up to your first language being Russian >paranoid delusion LOL. Talk about paranoid delusions and zero self-awareness 👌🤡 >still hasn't made one single point about the actual topic The topic is "Russia central bank just named BTC, ETH, and USDT the only cryptos eligible for retail trading", to which your response was a copy-past propaganda nonsense. Not only you don't know what you are talking about, but you also don't know when to quit, digging yourself deeper and deeper. LOL. Dumb bot.

Queasy-Ride4291

There is no set end date for a cycle. It is generally 4 years from when it started with a 10% variance. It started in November 2022. So the reasonable ending point (which also begins the next cycle) is June 2026 to May 2027. BTC will bottom at some point in that year long period beginning in June. Well, since it registered a low in July. We know it wasn’t June. The bottom could have been July, but I doubt it. The last cycle ended on the early side of 4 years, the cycle before that ended on the lat side of 4 years. Due to the guideline of alternation, I would imagine this cycle will be on the late side. More towards 1H of 2027. 

iloverunning11

I don’t know man to me it sounds like you’re kicking him when he’s lying on the ground, sorry if that’s not the case. And yeah your opinion regarding BTC is reasonable imo

sssssssssssssss5s

Why would BTC ever reach 250k? People spout insane numbers but have no explanation. Its nonsense. MSTR already pivoted away from their hold BTC and never sell strategy. The writing is on the wall, but you dont want to read it.

airestotle092

The more I see posts of people getting there BTC stolen from cold wallets the more reason I see not to get one

TheCodifiedTrader

So it's an expensive lesson not to use BTC as a currency? I said it in a harsh way but I'm not kicking OP for inputting the wrong address, like those shits are so easy to fuck up we have to triple quadruple check them. We're human, we all make mistakes. I'm just shitting on BTC as a whole, like okay buy it, sit on it, wait for it to moon, whatever tf ya want, but using it as a currency is just silly and this is just one example of why. Maybe OP can contact customer support?

iloverunning11

TL;DR almost everyone buying BTC is a speculator. That said don’t kick the guy when he’s lying on the floor (he just lost money)

Itur_ad_Astra

Saylor makes money in two ways, none of which is simply holding BTC: 1) Diluting his shareholders for money. 2) Selling price manipulation services to big whales. The second, specifically, requires him to pump the price furter during bull markets (for exit liquidity) and create liquidation cascades/sell panics during bear markets (for stop loss harvesting). Buying high and selling low is a feature, not a bug.

CommercialDuck7496

Everything you just said is correct as far as I can tell, and none of it disproves what I said. You're explaining why net BPS is price dependent, which is exactly my point. A common issuance that looks net BPS accretive at a low bitcoin price can become dilutive if bitcoin rises enough, and the inverse applies to a fixed dollar financing like STRC. an STRC issuance that looks net BPS dilutive today can become economically accretive if the BTC it financed appreciates enough to overcome the preferred claim and dividends. So Bitcoin's CAGR absolutely matters when determining whether STRC ultimately created or destroyed value for common shareholders. Saying a tranche is net BPS dilutive today is not the same as saying it is permanently economically dilutive regardless of Bitcoin's future price. On another note, I don't disagree with you that CEBE is a flawed framework. My guess is that they are using it, because its the only thing that makes it look ok to issue more shares right now, which it seems like they want to do for raising capital.

MC_SKWAIRD

Just buy another asset on CEX, send to your nonKYC wallet, and swap for BTC there. I buy ETH on Robinhood, send to Tron Energy to swap for BTC, then send to my storage

CommercialDuck7496

This is factually not true. They bought like 120k bitcoin from the proceeds of STRC, and have paid 620 million in dividends, at current prices that would be like 10k work of bitcoin, He would have 110k more bitcoin than he started with if you ignore everything else. MSTR will not forever be worse off from what they've done with STRC. they currently have a lower net bitcoin per share because the price of bitcoin has gone down, so the relative burden of the liabilities is increased as a percentage, and they've had to pay the dividends, but if bitcoin goes back up, it will be a net increase in bitcoin per share again. I ran you through the math in a different comment. but the STRC IPO shares have not lead to a permanent decline in net BTC per share, if bitcoin gets to 185k by the end of 2028, Even the IPO, which is the worst out of all of the STRC issuance, will be accretive.

L4gsp1k3

Someone told me that the 4 year cycle ends in October and that's where things starts to go up, now I see this chart saying November. BTC needs liquidity, no liquidity no growth, with this prolonged still stand it will affect BTC negatively. But yea, 4 years cycle and whatever makes your boat float.

Particular_Pop_8548

Calling BTC “low risk” is the part I’d push back on . Low risk compared to random alts, sure. Low risk in general... not really. I also wouldn’t assume the next cycle has to look like the last one. ETH already showed us that playbook can stop working pretty fast. I’d rather watch where liquidity actually goes than bet on another copy/paste cycle.

magma_lakes

You don't need any online platform to send BTC, you just need a non-custodial Bitcoin wallet, such as BlueWallet. To buy BTC using fiat, yes, you'd typically need KYC, given the stringent regulations that governments impose on us. However, for smaller amounts, you could try [HodlHodl](https://hodlhodl.com).

Capital_Situation961

No. The right to recover stolen property doesn’t suddenly arise when BTC reaches an exchange. The exchange simply creates a point where that right may become enforceable. If innocent third parties held the coins in between, ownership becomes a much harder legal question and depends on jurisdiction. **That’s where real life enters the blockchain.**

Designer_Speech8942

DCA an amount you can afford weekly. If BTC price drops in the fall … raise your DCA. The key to dollar cost averaging is consistency as long as the underlying investment appreciates in the long-term (as BTC is very likely to do). Don’t wait for dips or crashes, the chances are that you’ll miss them at their lowest anyway. If you do get in at a low it will be from luck.

LionRivr

I want to agree with the 110 because I believe BTC should be a monetary asset. Can I legitimately ask though: if someone is willing to pay the fees or whatever to get their “spam” onto the chain, then what does it matter if its a valid transaction? How much does it hurt the network? And at what point does it become a precedent for censorship on what could otherwise be “valid” transactions, whether it’s “spam” or not?

Federal_Pie_8864

BTC is decentralised, USD, EUR, and other fiat are not…

Hfksnfgitndskfjridnf

I don’t think you get what actually has happened because it’s obscured by the fact that they started with over 600k Bitcoin before they issued STRC. If they didn’t have any BTC to begin with and simply issued STRC at IPO they would have 0 Bitcoin at this point, so Bitcoin could go up 100% a year forever and it wouldn’t matter. MSTR will be forever worse off from what they’ve done with STRC so far because they waited until Bitcoin tanked and then raised 3 years worth of dividend coverage. If they had done it at the same time they bought the Bitcoin this wouldn’t be the case. And future issuance of STRC may be accretive long term depending on how quickly BTC appreciates. But the STRC IPO shares have already lead to a permanent decline in BTC per share.

Ornery-Plankton9844

Every muppet thinks that they are buying Monero, until years later they realize thats what they should have, not BTC

devCheckingIn

I don't want to tell Saylor his business, but maybe a better Strategy is to sell BTC in the bull market to build up the USD Reserve so he can buy more BTC in the bear market? 🤔

CreativeMap2917

Appreciate this, exactly the feedback I wanted. To clarify it's BTC, ETH, SOL, XRP, not meme coins or stables. But your point still stands, majors go through regime shifts too, trending vs choppy, high vs low vol. Did you build in any regime detection, like something that flags "conditions changed, pull back" before PnL actually drops? Or did you mostly just notice after it already slipped? I don't have that built in right now, feels like a real gap after reading this. Did you find a way around it or is it basically unsolvable, is that why you moved on from these systems?

LaBeloMall

When BTC is at $250k the avg mag7 and gold will be 10-20x bigger yet BTC maxis will again ignore opportunity cost and be like "it doesn't matter up is up".

RoaringDragonSword

Duckling, let me say something that you are clearly missing. This is a perfect example of someone that has proven to everyone their "strategy" was not rock solid. The cracks are forming. The guy who said sell your kidney before BTC is selling BTC. Do not ever use that 3.3% to show that he sold little. Same thing was done when he was proposing to sell like 100 btc first time ever. It was far less than 3%. Stop trying to make this positive. It is not.

GrX69_

I think we are going to see BTC around 200k mc on June 2027.

SheikYerbouti_

How exactly does BTC allow the first one? You can't barely buy anything with it.

Happierdante19

holaaa gracias, la verdad la curiosidad me entro desde el 2015 que conoci algo de btc queria saber para que funciona esos numeros, en 2020 volvi a toparmelo pero no sabia como comprar ni como funciona el p2p, me deje llevar por los comentarios de mi familia y no compre BTC en 2020, (en ese momento tenia muchas ganancias de la panademia por vender en la tienda), obvio que en 2025 por ahi recien empece a aprender, pero llevo años queriendo entender como funciona, tanto los mineros, las verificaciones en los nodos (Creo que asi se podria llamar), la parte de enviar recibir y tambien lo de recuperar (no sabia que se podria recuperar), el punto es que lo veo algo increible me gustaria contruir un pequeño exchange de prueba, la verdad no es tan por dinero, sino por aprender (aunque tampoco tengo mucho dinero creo que solo me queda $20 mas o menos en mi cuenta ajajjaja), bueno seguire aprendiendo poco a poco, de igual se que necesito aprender a programar, por cuestiones de seguridad y demas, en verdad gracias

Objective_Digit

> But why would you suspect the exchange to freeze that BTC? Why would an exchange have to adopt the philosophy of Bitcoin?

Typical-Snow3034

Hey. CoinRabbit team here. Whether Bitcoin is “early” depends on which layer of adoption is being measured. As a recognized asset, Bitcoin is no longer experimental: it has deep markets, institutional custody, regulated investment products and global awareness. But practical financial infrastructure around the asset is still developing. Payments, collateralized lending, recovery models and everyday wallet usability remain fragmented and unfamiliar to many holders. At CoinRabbit, we see this transition in users moving beyond simply buying and holding BTC. Some use it as collateral to access liquidity without selling, while others want to store, exchange or spend it through an account-based wallet. That does not necessarily mean Bitcoin itself is still early. It may mean the asset has matured faster than the services required to use it comfortably. “Established asset, developing utility” is probably more precise than a simple early-or-late label.

youcangotohellgoto

I'm assuming you have poor understanding of the economic system based on your blind and simplistically binary assumption that fiat is bad. Why would anyone lend Bitcoin? What's the incentive? Will a deflation currency the incentive is just to hold. And even spending is discouraged. Something that costs 1 BTC (new car, for example) will cost like 0.9 BTC next year. The whole economy is based on consumerism. Bitcoin works against, rather than with, that paradigm.

ScaleneZA

Who told you BTC is private? It's the opposite of private, every transaction is on a public ledger. As for KYC, that's compliance regulation per country and its for fiat on ramp and offramps. You don't need KYC to send and receive BTC.

Current-Champion7572

To buy bitcoin people are generally going to deposit from their legacy bank accounts, which will arrive in their crypto exchange as a stablecoin (e.g. a deposit into Coinbase will show up in the account as USDC by default). And then if they go to sell their BTC, they’re likely swapping right back into that stablecoin. So by promoting/pushing BTC, the on-ramp (stablecoins aka US debt) are being purchased more and more.

Such-Elephant-9943

I went 75% net worth into BTC late last year, avg entry is around $98k. Still have enough cash and stocks runway to cover expenses if I get laid off. Glad I didn’t take on debt or YOLO money I can’t afford to lose. I have a really large buy order at 58k and i buy some every month regardless of the price

Odd_Balance7916

The reason it’s hard to understand is because it hurts your ego. You think you’re smart, most of us do. Turns out you’re far more gullible than you thought. Once you understand that you can accept your mistake more easily. “Oh I’m a dumbass, that’s why this happened”. It sucks, and it’s an expensive lesson, but it seems the mental aspect of it all is the more challenging part. Props to you for fighting as well as you did to retrieve the BTC and start the legal process. That takes conviction and a great never give up attitude.

CommercialDuck7496

That was not false! We are actually agreeing here. you already understand the mechanism, and explained it well. You just highlighted the inverse of what I was saying, not realizing the mechanism also applies in the other direction (which is what I was saying before). In the same way that issuing common stock above 1x net mnav can be accretive to net SPS today, and dilutive later if bitcoin rises, issuing STRC can also be net dilutive tdoay, and and net accretive later when bitcoin goes up. A simple example Say Strategy issues $100 of STRC but only receives $90 because it is issued at a 10% discount. They use that $90 to buy Bitcoin at $100k. They acquired 0.0009 BTC, but created a fixed $100 senior claim. At $100k BTC, that $100 claim is equivalent to 0.001 BTC. So initially: +0.0009 BTC acquired − 0.001 BTC-equivalent claim = −0.0001 net BTC Net SPS went down. By your framework, the issuance was initially dilutive. But now Bitcoin doubles to $200k. The 0.0009 BTC they bought is still 0.0009 BTC, while that same fixed $100 STRC claim is now only equivalent to 0.0005 BTC. So now: 0.0009 − 0.0005 = +0.0004 net BTC The exact same issuance that was net-SPS dilutive at $100k has become net-SPS accretive at $200k without Strategy issuing or buying anything else. Obviously, dividends raise the actual break even price, so I'm not saying every STRC issuance is profitable at $200k specifically. The point is that the result is not permanently locked in at the bitcoin price when the financing occurs. STRC creates a fixed dollar senior claim while the asset purchased with it is bitcoin, so the bitcoin equivalent burden of that claim falls as Bitcoin rises. A cleaner example would be something like this: Assume Strategy issues $100 of STRC at par and uses the full $100 to buy Bitcoin at $100,000, acquiring 0.001 BTC. At issuance, ignoring dividends, that is exactly net-SPS neutral because the 0.001 BTC acquired is offset by a $100 senior claim worth 0.001 BTC at that price. Now Bitcoin falls to $60,000. The 0.001 BTC is still 0.001 BTC, but the $100 STRC claim is now equivalent to 0.001667 BTC, so the tranche appears net dilutive. Then assume STRC costs 12% per year for two years, or $24 in dividends, and Strategy funds those dividends by selling Bitcoin at an average price of $60,000. That requires selling 0.0004 BTC, leaving only 0.0006 BTC attributable to the financing. At $60,000, the tranche now looks deeply net dilutive: 0.0006 BTC of remaining assets against a senior claim equivalent to 0.001667 BTC. Gross SPS has also fallen because Bitcoin was actually sold. But if Bitcoin later rises to $200,000, that remaining 0.0006 BTC is worth $120 while the STRC claim is still only $100, or 0.0005 BTC at the new price. The same tranche is now net accretive by 0.0001 BTC. Its exact break-even is about $166,667 BTC. So a tranche can be net-SPS dilutive today, pay years of dividends, even force Bitcoin sales at lower prices and reduce gross SPS, and still become net-SPS accretive later if Bitcoin rises enough. That is why saying the tranche is “permanently at a loss regardless of Bitcoin’s future price action” does not follow from the fact that it is dilutive at today’s Bitcoin price. That's exactly why I said being accretive in bitcoin/SPS at a particular point in time is different from being economically profitable in dollars over the life of the financing. Your argument demonstrates that net SPS is price dependent. It doesn't demonstrate that an STRC tranche which is net dilutive today is “permanently at a loss regardless of bitcoin's future price action.” In fact, the price dependence you described is precisely why that conclusion is incorrect.

Nice_Material_2436

I'm using "they" as a placeholder. How am I supposed to know which Youtube channels you're watching? It's not like you stumbled upon Bitcoin yourself, someone must have orange pilled you. What's wrong with "favorite fork"? Some people prefer BCH over BTC so yeah the concept of a favorite fork exists.

No-Head1851

Markets tend to follow up trends, not fundamentals in the short term. Speculation chased BTC a while, with the "friendly to crypto" Trump administration, then it got bored and is now chasing unprofitable AI projects, not only with the promise of future profits, but the wild dream of "AI is gonna solve everything and destroy millions of menial jobs to increase profits".  Relax, the World financial system still has an unoayable cross-debt and is running on cheapened paper money.  Once short term delusions and FOMO are perceived for what they are, what asset do you think everyone is gonna be after? Gold? The yellow metal that was already stolen by goverment from private hands in the XXth century?  If you have strong convictions aboit an asset fundamentals, and good risk management, that's all you need to have tbh.  If you are silly enough to believe the pyramic scam bs as with most people who jump on this market thinking bitcoin and memecoins are the same, then not even God can help you, cuz He won't help people unable to help themselves. 

Capable_Swordfish_30

The consensus rules should not be easy to change at all, this is a feature. We cannot give the impression that filtering data in BTC is easy, because if it were law enforcement would be there the next day asking for black listing in the protocol and things like that. The inflexibility here is a good thing.

kljsandjb

If the big stock market crash happens, I'd rather shift my attention back to the feared market instead of half dead crypto lol, don't think BTC can outperform QQQ or even SMH in long run from now

No-Head1851

I wouldn't put all my life savings into BTC. Not because its volatility, the BTC fundamentals are strong, but simply cuz... it is my life savings.

HodlusHereticus

Totally wrong. Cost of production has no relation to market price, ie what someone is willing to pay for it. BTC trades at whatever buyers are willing to pay. Miners can sell below cost, just as producers of any commodity can. Saying sellers are “acting against their own interests” because BTC is near production cost is a non sequitur.

Laukess

>....money flowing to BTC is essentially minting more stable coins. Care to elaborate?

Joe_In_Paris

Just wait until the USDT, BTC or ETH funds get confiscated, frozen or siphoned! For anything else, there's always Monero.

shleebs

BTC Pay Server

chainglance_cm

probably dumps hard at first tbh, BTC still trades like a risk asset when stuff like this actually happens, not some magic safe haven after the initial panic it depends. If china capital starts trying to flee (sanctions/capital controls type stuff) you could see BTC catch a bid from that, kinda like what happened with russian money in 2022 also random but worth remembering, taiwan = TSMC = chips = mining hardware, so a real conflict there isn't great for miners either short term: bad. long term: depends how ugly it actually gets

AutoModerator

Post is by: Beginning_Health9584 and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1vmgpdt/i_spent_6_weeks_grading_crypto_kol_calls_against/ Rules I set at the start: a call only counts if it has a level and a date. It gets logged while the outcome is still unknown, graded at the deadline price by a fixed rule, and the result never gets edited — misses stay on the record next to the hits. Six weeks in, 33 forward-logged calls have settled. 7 graded HIT. What I've learned so far: 1. Most influencer "calls" are unfalsifiable on purpose. No level, no date, or hedged both directions. Maybe 1 in 5 posts survives the intake rule at all. 2. Both directions get punished. This morning a BTC-downside call missed its deadline quietly while everyone was busy with CPI. Nobody reposts their misses; a ledger does. 3. Hit rate is less interesting than call shape. The survivors are mostly short-horizon, single-level calls. The dramatic "generational bottom/top" posts almost never carry a date — so they can never be wrong. Honest caveats: n=33 is small, my KOL selection skews to large English accounts, and deadline grading punishes early-but-right calls. I count that as a feature, but reasonable people can disagree. What would a grading system need for you to actually trust it — independent price source? Pre-registered rules? Public misses? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Romanizer

Alright. Imagine quantum computers get build out step for step and they become commercially viable. Large corporations rent their compute to calculate logistics route, research material design or new forms of medication. Wall Street may pay for compute to calculate financial models or trade more efficiently. All these use cases are allocated across the total compute while the quantum data center is growing. Now at one point of that growth and development, quantum computers may become cryptographically relevant, when their total power and capabilities is enough to calculate a private key out of a known public key. Now to use this power, the operator needs to tell all their clients that they don't want their business anymore because they want to crack Bitcoin. Revenue drops to 0 immediately and likely won't come back. The first cryptographically relevant quantum computer will likely take one day to calculate one key. Satoshi's wallets hold about 50 BTC per key. At current prices that would mean $3 million of sales per day for investments of $50-100 bn or much more, depending on timelines. Assuming the price stays stable and there is no fix implemented. Payback time for investments would be unacceptable for any investor or shareholder. Cracking all of Satoshi's wallets would take about 60 years for the first cryptographically relevant quantum computer or about 70 days for the most aggressive assumptions of the final stage of development. That's why it's more of a thought experiment than an immediate threat.

quintavious_danilo

Nope. Why would BTC go out over freaking Taiwan? 😂

scaleordietrying

Compared to now, the ‘fear’ at 90k was nothing. Only the people who just got in BTC felt fear. More experienced people felt faith at 90k, thinking it was just a quick bear trap.

CheddaKnottz

Just hold and DCA. Could take awhile tho. I'm assuming you truly believe that BTC will hit 200k someday. Just think, what if you would've bought last cycles top?

MCL-Jonathan

1 BTC could be a very meaningful retirement asset one day, but I’d still build more around it rather than assume 1 BTC alone is enough. If you’re young with a good income, diversification can help reduce risk. Personally, I’d also separate Bitcoin into two buckets: **HODL bag** : long-term, ideally untouched. **Swing bag** : buy lower during bear markets, take some profit during strong bull phases, then recycle that capital back into Bitcoin or other investment later. Rinse and repeat. The key is not to trade your entire stack. Protect the core, but let a smaller portion work harder for you. [Bitcoin Bear Market DCA Playbook](https://youtu.be/JXvr49ECTuo)

SoggyMacaroon5623

When it will make you happy regardless of the price — that's a mindset thing, not a price target. Nobody here can tell you the number that lets you retire, and anyone who tries is guessing. If you need 3 BTC to hit a specific number to feel okay, that's worth sitting with on its own, separate from the market.

mrb000

I mistakenly sent 1 BTC years ago to the huobi cold wallet, do you think it is recoverable?

para1131_F33L

October with barriers at 45-48k BTC. This much we can predict with what little we know. At some point in the next two months it will steeply drop. I would hold off buying until Oct or late Sept. I'm basing these predictions off the BTC chart but I think the community agrees.

The-great-phoenix

Strong selection indeed BTC and XRP will be more stable than the rest because already very mature

para1131_F33L

Meh I'd wait for the next leg down of BTC. Open up a BTC one year chart and you'll see what I mean and the others by saying October

Epictricker2025

Personally I think I will go heavy into BTC, XRP, some SOL, LINK and HYPE too.

digital__bits

Yes, "working as intended". That's what Satoshi himself wanted. Also as someone once said: "Bitcoin isn't for people that live on less than $2 a day". The hijacking of BTC would be its own disgrace in the future. See you on 20 years.

parcelwing

in 20 years bitcoin is likely to be worth 300-400k in today's dollars. Up to you to decide if 3x that's enough for you to retire. Don't listen to any clowns talking about a single BTC being worth millions

BuyIndependent2319

And for what it’s worth, if I had the Bitcoin, I’d pay you the 24.46 BTC that you lost just to restore some of the karma in this universe

leonidlomakin

> owning Bitcoin requires giving up your right to legal protection when it is stolen Bitcoin ownership is anonymous, which makes it hard to define "theft". The one who holds the keys is the one who owns the coins. You gave away the keys, someone else now owns those coins. But this is irrelevant because you decided to get FIAT (not the "stolen" BTC) from the exchange who had nothing to do with the "theft". I would understand demanding BTC from the thief but demanding FIAT from the exchange is just... well, absurd I would say. Just as demanding from the shop, which accepted the stolen money and sold something in return, would be to give another analogy. Again, appealing to some "Blockchain investigators" (what are they? Some Power Rangers coming to the rescue?) is a bit naive. Nevermind the judgement, do you really think an exchange should react to some anonymous claims and stop the transactions based on that? That judgement is just immoral.

Sad_Government_6534

Al momento il prezzo di BTC è pari al prezzo che serve al massimo per produrlo. Di conseguenza chiunque lo venda sta andando contro i suoi stessi interessi.

iloverunning11

It's never a good idea to tell others to buy BTC, much better to tell them to learn something about BTC if they find it interesting, they will invest if not, they won't, this is no longer a lottery ticket, it might easily reach new ATH within 5 years (still only 2x which is very easy to achieve with AI stonks in a couple weeks' time these days) but it could also collapse further

Capital_Situation961

That’s a fair question. Bitcoin obviously doesn’t carry my name on individual sats. The attribution comes from blockchain tracing, not from claiming that a particular satoshi can be visually identified as “mine.” The stolen BTC were traced from my wallets into 1GLef, and the subsequent movements from that address were analysed by CipherBlade and independently flagged by Chainalysis, Elliptic and CipherTrace. So I’m not asking anyone to take my personal interpretation of the blockchain as proof. That tracing formed part of the forensic evidence in the case.

Capital_Situation961

Sure: 1GLefw1owvMqs5azmjV79NH4Fgdwvq5sWE That’s the address the stolen BTC were sent to. I followed that address for a long time, almost daily. My BTC remained there until the funds started moving directly from that address to the Huobi deposit addresses in October 2021. And mine weren’t the only funds passing through it. At one point, the highest balance I saw in that address was around 644 BTC. It’s all on-chain. Feel free to verify it yourself.

Majestic-Penalty-433

Everyone stressing over BTC getting rejected at $65k again needs to log off and get a coffee. With oil surging past $81 and CPI data dropping later this week, institutional spot ETF demand is just getting swallowed by macro sellers. I'm just leaving limit orders at $61k and touching grass today. Anyone actually trading this chop?

Capital_Situation961

**No. The 24.465 BTC was the total amount of BTC stolen from me. It did not necessarily move as one 24.465 BTC transaction every time. The blockchain investigators traced the stolen UTXOs and their subsequent movements.**

Capital_Situation961

I’m really sorry you’re going through that. And for what it’s worth, I don’t think losing those Bitcoin says anything about your intelligence or your ability to think clearly. In 2009, nobody could possibly have known what 50 BTC would one day represent. The regret can become its own kind of prison if you keep replaying the decision with everything you know today. I hope you can find some peace with it. The Bitcoin are gone, but your life isn’t. Take care of yourself.

Capital_Situation961

It wasn’t simply “my word.” I’ve explained this several times already. Huobi was provided with the criminal complaint, screenshots and tracing evidence, independently backed by four blockchain analysis platforms. The investigators contacted Huobi within hours of the stolen BTC beginning to arrive there. Of course an exchange should not freeze accounts because a random person sends an email saying “those coins are mine.” That is not what happened here. Whether the evidence was sufficient to require action is a legitimate question. But reducing what Huobi received to “your word” simply isn’t an accurate description of the facts.