[EGreg]

No, this is the bitcoin halving event coming up in April 2024 and also the Jan announcement of ETFs in USA which open the door to institutional investment.

The graph of the price of bitcoin has been going up exponentially since it launched. Every four years starting one year before the halving event it shoots up for a year and then falls:

https://www.monochrome.au/research/articles/why-do-people-lo...

[EternalUsenet]

The ETF angle makes no sense to me. An ETF is designed to be based against a basket of securities. A bitcoin ETF seems really pointless. Why not just gamble on the token itself?

I see this as a means to sucker more retail cash in and have the early adopters of Bitcoin hoover it up.

For the record, my statement as of right now is still true. Remember that Bitcoin peaked at nearly 69k a piece and it’s currently at around $42k a piece.

[gruez]

>An ETF is designed to be based against a basket of securities. A bitcoin ETF seems really pointless. Why not just gamble on the token itself?

Dunno, maybe you should ask State Street Global Advisors[1] or Blackrock[2] why they have gold ETFs, when investors could just gamble on the yellow stuff itself.

[1] https://www.ssga.com/us/en/intermediary/etfs/funds/spdr-gold...

[2] https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239561/ishares-gold-trus...

[cykros]

You can't just put BTC into your Roth IRA. You can, however, buy a Bitcoin ETF in your Roth IRA. Or SEP, SIMPLE, many 401(k)'s, Traditional IRA, or any other number of accounts that actually ARE covered by SIPC insurance (which your crypto wallet isn't).

There's a good chunk of money that for regulatory reasons CAN'T touch it until it hits this structure.

[deweller]

Because IRAs cannot purchase BTC directly.

[EternalUsenet]

I can’t imagine why I would want to purchase BTC on a vehicle intended for retirement savings. This is absolutely asinine to me and I see so many people losing their shirts and could be rife with abuse. If people really want to, they can gamble their money away at Coinbase.

This is really feeling like tragedy of the commons and needing to find more ways to pull in real money into this system so whales can swim in their piles.

[gruez]

>I can’t imagine why I would want to purchase BTC on a vehicle intended for retirement savings.

No capital gains, for one. "Buy BTC for my IRA" =/= "Bet my entire retirement fund on BTC"

[EternalUsenet]

I never said entire retirement fund. Way to put words in my mouth. I mean having access to this at all is going to allow degenerate gamblers to have an avenue to spend on BTC and the contagion will spread further, like a self fulfilling prophecy.

Also, the halvening I imagine will be a very bad thing for miners, unless it’s guaranteed to double in price, miners are going to suddenly make less in value after the event occurs. Just because the halvening happened to behave a certain way in the past doesn’t guarantee future results.

[gruez]

>I never said entire retirement fund. Way to put words in my mouth. I mean having access to this at all is going to allow degenerate gamblers to have an avenue to spend on BTC and the contagion will spread further, like a self fulfilling prophecy.

You asked for good reasons why someone would put BTC in an IRA, and I gave you one. Whether or not "degenerate gamblers" would follow that advice is moving the goalposts. You can responsibly use your IRA to buy stocks as well, but that's irrespective of whether "degenerate gamblers" would abuse that.

>Also, the halvening I imagine will be a very bad thing for miners [...]

Are you replying to the wrong comment? I thought we were talking about IRAs?

[cykros]

If you saw what sorts of stocks people put in their IRA's, putting Bitcoin in there would be the least of your concern.

Remember GME, AMC?

[chomp5977]

No one who has bought and held Bitcoin in self custody has lost their shirt.

[ur-whale]

> No one who has bought and held Bitcoin in self custody has lost their shirt.

Yup.

Better yet, they own Bitcoins.

[EternalUsenet]

For some reason, I am unable to reply to the original thread I was on and I need to start another one here. Probably too far down the tree?

At any rate, one consideration folks don’t seem to have for the halvening is the reduction in rewards for miners.

As mining becomes more expensive and transaction fees increase exponentially, I see more and more smaller miners dropping out of the pool as it becomes too expensive for them to operate (and we are in a high interest rate environment, so capital for borrowing is much more expensive to acquire). Then the miners that are left start to concentrate and potentially cause a security concern. It becomes too top heavy.

I’m not sure why alarm bells aren’t going off for Bitcoiners?

[npoc]

Because Bitcoiners know that the nodes are what defines bitcoin, not the miners. Learn about the blocksize wars

[EGreg]

As long as the bitcoin price goes up more than 2x every 4 years it makes MORE rewards for the average miner

[nytesky]

You act like this behavior makes sense, but no other asset acts like this, except maybe penny stocks?

[ur-whale]

> no other asset acts like this

You say it like it's a bad thing?

The fact that Bitcoin behaves like no other asset on the planet is precisely what makes it interesting, worth understanding, and if you can stomach the volatility over sizable stretches of time, worth owning.

This was true (although hard to understand back then) on January 3rd 2009, 18:15:05h UTC and still holds true 15 years later.