>>510941539
>just flex like you ain't a shitcunt supermarket urchin
lmao. just shut up

>>509759046

The thing about bitcoin that i never get is that it has a negative carry cost. Not an individual satoshi, but the network itself. The network has to be maintained, and that has costs. This creates a permanent selling pressure, structural to the system. If you don't have people constantly coming into crypto, it will go down because miners HAVE to sell coins to pay their costs. If at any time in the future you have more people selling bitcoin than you have people buying bitcoin, those sellers will need to compete with the structural selling of miners. Thus far, as nearly every satoshi ever bought has just been hoarded, this has not been a problem but a boon - the structural selling by miners has provided "liquidity" for the newcomers. However, if you ever have a situation (lets say, an economic depression) in which people who have invested into bitcoin in the past need to dip into their "hodl bags" in order to uphold a better standard of living or whatever, we will finally find out if bitcoin is "the real deal". When you consider the amount of leverage in the bitcoin market, with players such as microstrategy straight up doing a "all in, leverage to the tits" strategy, you don't need too much of a downturn for this to get really ugly really fast.

I really don't know if it will withstand this test, but something tells me that "bitcoin goes up forever" isn't as much of a certainty as most people make it out to be.

>>507684016
Lemme guess, you need moar.