53 minutes ago, angryguy said:

Are you angry? Itll be 150k and you dont have any

I'm ok making 12% a year on average for over 40 years, thanks. It really starts to add up after you get your first million...

50 minutes ago, gargamon said:

I'm ok making 12% a year on average for over 40 years, thanks. It really starts to add up after you get your first million...

Inflation is eating at that faster than your roi

 

your balance grows but your purchasing power lessens 

 

you still dont understand the point of bitcoin but that doesnt stop you from posting in every bitcoin thread 

18 hours ago, angryguy said:

Inflation is eating at that faster than your roi

 

your balance grows but your purchasing power lessens 

 

you still dont understand the point of bitcoin but that doesnt stop you from posting in every bitcoin thread 

Inflation is larger than the 12% I'm making every year for 40+ years? You crypto idiots sure don't know much about money, do you?

Oh, maybe you were projecting the upcoming inflation due to Trump's tarrifs...

On 7/29/2025 at 6:35 PM, phetphet said:

Way back around 2009-2010 when I first read about Bitcoin in the media, I remember thinking to myself, "Sounds interesting. Maybe worth having a £300 punt and just sitting on it."

The only thing was, I couldn't figure out how to buy. The banks were not up on it, and there weren't all the wallets available like today. In the end, I gave up and life and work got in the way.

 

Bitcoin's story is now history, but I was wondering. How did early adopters manage to buy their Bitcoin?  If there are any here on AN, was it easy for you?

 

 

 

Early days you didn't even need to buy it. Just put up a laptop with Linux on it and setup a Bitcoin node (which includes a wallet) and mining software. Away you go , your laptop would start crunching numbers to increment the nonce and hash the block to see if it matches or is less than the difficulty target, the first one to "win" creates a block on the BTC chain. And walla, you mined some BTC. Impossible to do now as there are huge warehouses full of mining rigs churning out trillions of solutions a second to mine the dwindling supply of BTC.

On 8/3/2025 at 9:04 AM, gargamon said:

Sorry, they've already manufactured quantum computing chips... Do try and keep up.

There was no need for that. As you're simply displaying your ignorance as well as being insulting I'll call you out on it. Please cite the evidence of a single SHA-256 hash being cracked by a so-called quantum computer, how many qubits were involved (including the stuff used for error correction), how long it took to crack and how long it would take a classical computer to brute force the same.

 

I'll wait.

 

On 8/3/2025 at 2:28 PM, angryguy said:

Are you angry? Itll be 150k and you dont have any

Clearly a butt sore no-coiner who hasn't realised fiat money is barely better than used toilet paper.

4 hours ago, gargamon said:

Inflation is larger than the 12% I'm making every year for 40+ years? You crypto idiots sure don't know much about money, do you?

Oh, maybe you were projecting the upcoming inflation due to Trump's tarrifs...

Maybe thatll buy you .1 btc by the time you figure out your moneys not worth anything

1 hour ago, angryguy said:

Maybe thatll buy you .1 btc by the time you figure out your moneys not worth anything

Indeed. Bitcoin has no top, because fiat has no bottom.

 

On 8/3/2025 at 3:24 PM, gargamon said:

I'm ok making 12% a year on average for over 40 years, thanks. It really starts to add up after you get your first million...

That is a good CAGR, even when adjusted for inflation.

 

On 8/3/2025 at 4:02 PM, angryguy said:

Inflation is eating at that faster than your roi

 

your balance grows but your purchasing power lessens 

 

you still dont understand the point of bitcoin but that doesnt stop you from posting in every bitcoin thread 

Then you both clash swords over inflation, whose real rate nobody knows and nobody agrees on, save most (except most talking heads/ salespersons on MSM business news) who will admit official inflation is laughably understated.

 

However, let the no-coiner have an inflation-adjusted 12% (which might approach Berkshire Hathaway's 19% CAGR after inflation). Then let's check the  CAGR of BTC shall we?

 

https://charts.bitbo.io/rainbow/

 

2013.01.05 BTCUSD=13

2025.07.29 BTCUSD=117873

Siri via ChatGPT told me when I asked "What is the CAGR of something that on 2013.01.05 = 13 and on 2025.07.29 = 117873?" that the CAGR is 71.9%

 

Asking about the Sharpe ratio: Bitcoin's Sharpe ratio since January 1, 2013, has varied over time. As of July 29, 2025, the 1-year Sharpe ratio was 1.57, the 5-year was 1.03, the 10-year was 1.22, and the all-time was 1.79. These figures indicate that Bitcoin has provided returns exceeding the risk-free rate, adjusted for its volatility, with higher ratios reflecting better risk-adjusted performance.

 

The Sharpe ratio measures risk-adjusted returns, calculated by subtracting the risk-free rate from an investment's return and dividing by its standard deviation. For U.S. Treasury securities, the Sharpe ratio varies by maturity and over time. For example, the iShares 1-3 Year Treasury Bond ETF (SHY) had a Sharpe ratio of 1.24 over the past year , while the iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (TLT) had a Sharpe ratio of 0.32 over the past 20 years . These figures indicate that shorter-term Treasuries have historically offered better risk-adjusted returns compared to longer-term ones.

 

As of July 29, 2025, the S&P 500 Index has a 10-year Sharpe ratio of 0.75, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average stands at 0.55. These figures suggest that, over the past decade, the S&P 500 has offered better risk-adjusted returns compared to the Dow Jones 30.

 

Interesting. Despite its high volatility, Bitcoin's Sharpe ratio is better than USA Treasurys, S&P 500 and the Dow 30.

 

For context, IsaanT mentioned several famous bubbles/ crashes for context: 

 

Because I thought IsaanT brought up a very interesting comparison, I asked Siri (to ask ChatGPT) to compare Bitcoin bears with the Tulip Bubble, South Sea Bubble and The Great Depression:

 

Bitcoin's bear markets have exhibited extreme volatility, with rapid price surges followed by significant declines, often exceeding 80% from peak to trough. In contrast, historical events like the Tulip Mania, South Sea Bubble, and the Great Depression, while involving speculative excesses, did not experience such severe percentage losses in asset values. Additionally, Bitcoin operates in a decentralized, digital environment, lacking the regulatory frameworks present during the Tulip Mania and South Sea Bubble, and its market is influenced by factors like technological developments and regulatory news, which were not present during the Great Depression.

 

It's interesting to note that Bitcoin is still here, despite suffering greater drawdowns than the aforementioned "economic events". It's also older than the SSB and the TB, though of a similar age as the Great Depression. According to the ChatGPT response, Bitcoin has experienced more than one bear market, each of greater severity than the ones I asked about and is still here and has returned an astonishing CAGR of 71.9%.

3 hours ago, BeastOfBodmin said:

There was no need for that. As you're simply displaying your ignorance as well as being insulting I'll call you out on it. Please cite the evidence of a single SHA-256 hash being cracked by a so-called quantum computer, how many qubits were involved (including the stuff used for error correction), how long it took to crack and how long it would take a classical computer to brute force the same.

 

I'll wait.

I only stated that it was now possible to manufacture quantum chips. Here's the reference to the Nature article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41928-025-01410-5 I do hope it's not over your head.

 

Silicon photonics could soon be used to create the vast numbers of physical qubits needed to achieve useful quantum information processing by leveraging mature complementary metal–oxide–semiconductor (CMOS) manufacturing to miniaturize optical devices for generating and manipulating quantum states of light. However, the development of practical silicon quantum-photonic integrated circuits faces challenges related to high sensitivity to process and temperature variations, free-carrier and self-heating nonlinearities, and thermal crosstalk. These issues have been partially addressed with bulky off-chip electronics, but this sacrifices many benefits of a chip-scale platform. Here we report an electronic–photonic quantum system-on-chip that consists of quantum-correlated photon-pair sources stabilized via on-chip feedback control circuits and is fabricated in a commercial 45-nm CMOS microelectronics foundry. We use non-invasive photocurrent sensing in a tunable microring cavity photon-pair source to actively lock it to a fixed-wavelength pump laser while operating in the quantum regime, enabling large-scale microring-based quantum systems. We also show that these sources maintain stable quantum properties and operate reliably in a practical setting with many adjacent photon-pair sources creating thermal disturbances on the same chip. Such dense integration of electronics and photonics enables implementation and control of quantum-photonic systems at the scale needed to achieve useful quantum information processing with CMOS-fabricated chips.

5 minutes ago, gargamon said:

I only stated that it was now possible to manufacture quantum chips. Here's the reference to the Nature article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41928-025-01410-5 I do hope it's not over your head.

 

Silicon photonics could soon be used to create the vast numbers of physical qubits needed to achieve useful quantum information processing by leveraging mature complementary metal–oxide–semiconductor (CMOS) manufacturing to miniaturize optical devices for generating and manipulating quantum states of light. However, the development of practical silicon quantum-photonic integrated circuits faces challenges related to high sensitivity to process and temperature variations, free-carrier and self-heating nonlinearities, and thermal crosstalk. These issues have been partially addressed with bulky off-chip electronics, but this sacrifices many benefits of a chip-scale platform. Here we report an electronic–photonic quantum system-on-chip that consists of quantum-correlated photon-pair sources stabilized via on-chip feedback control circuits and is fabricated in a commercial 45-nm CMOS microelectronics foundry. We use non-invasive photocurrent sensing in a tunable microring cavity photon-pair source to actively lock it to a fixed-wavelength pump laser while operating in the quantum regime, enabling large-scale microring-based quantum systems. We also show that these sources maintain stable quantum properties and operate reliably in a practical setting with many adjacent photon-pair sources creating thermal disturbances on the same chip. Such dense integration of electronics and photonics enables implementation and control of quantum-photonic systems at the scale needed to achieve useful quantum information processing with CMOS-fabricated chips.

This time you spent researching this would have been better used researching bitcoin, ironically

18 minutes ago, gargamon said:

I only stated that it was now possible to manufacture quantum chips. Here's the reference to the Nature article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41928-025-01410-5 I do hope it's not over your head.

 

If you "only stated...", then the first word of your post below and the sentence after the ellipsis would not have been necessary. I fancied you were indulging in a little bit of pejorative just as you did in the final clause above, especially as you did not address any of my points. If you thought you had, then am I dealing with a room temperature IQ?

 

On 8/3/2025 at 9:04 AM, gargamon said:

Sorry, they've already manufactured quantum computing chips... Do try and keep up.

That Nature article is behind a paywall. The Abstract states only "could soon", which is classic defensive scientist code for we are not sure if or when these results will ever be useful outside a lab. If you subscribe to Nature (and do more than look at the pictures) I am surprised, but so far not impressed.

 

I was after evidence of the Bitcoin blockchain falling victim to the ravages of quantum decryption by the end of the month or even, at a push, by the time I have to do my 90 day spacetime coordinates report at the local immigration office. You see, I have already looked and found none[1], hence the "nothing burger" comment which attracted your original snide remark. Although I don't understand why you were triggered by that. Did a Bitcoin frighten you as a baby?

 

How does the abstract I just read address my questions? I fancy you haven't a clue about the intersection of Bitcoin's encryption and quantum computing, not that you need to know, so long as you pursue your current investment thesis (12% CAGR over 40 years, which is impressive) and it allows you to sleep at night.

 

Do try and keep up.

 

Anyhoo I am unshaken in my belief there are no feasible challenges to SHA-256[1], so this challenge is still confined within the Nothingburgerstan borders and doesn't even have a passport.

 

To get a better theoretical idea of what is involved: https://search.brave.com/search?q=best+quantum+algorithm+challenge+to+sha256&source=llmSuggest&summary=1&conversation=e90560e32df00bff833928 reports (sorry, no pictures for you 😞  )

 

Quote

Quantum Algorithm for SHA256

The best-known quantum algorithm posing a theoretical challenge to SHA-256 is Grover's algorithm, which provides a quadratic speedup for pre-image attacks, reducing the effective security from 2^256 to 2^128 operations. However, this attack remains impractical with current technology, requiring a quantum computer with over 6,000 qubits and extremely low error rates. For collision resistance, the BHT algorithm is the most efficient known quantum method, requiring approximately 2^85 operations for SHA-256, which is still considered computationally infeasible. While research has demonstrated quantum attacks on reduced-round versions of SHA-256, these do not apply to the full, secure algorithm used in practice.

• Grover's Algorithm: This is the primary quantum algorithm relevant to attacking the pre-image resistance of SHA-256. It leverages quantum superposition to search an unsorted database, offering a quadratic speedup over classical brute-force methods. Despite this theoretical advantage, the required computational resources are far beyond the capabilities of today's quantum hardware.

• BHT Algorithm: This is the best-known quantum algorithm for finding collisions in SHA-256, with a complexity of approximately O(2^(n/3)) for an n-bit hash, translating to around 2^85 operations for SHA-256. Even if a sufficiently large quantum computer were available, the time and energy required make this attack impractical.

• Research on Reduced-Round Versions: Recent studies have shown that quantum algorithms can achieve better results than classical ones on reduced-round versions of SHA-256 and SHA-512, but these attacks do not extend to the full, secure versions of the hash functions. This indicates that while quantum computing poses a theoretical long-term threat, it does not currently compromise the security of SHA-256 in its standard implementation.

 

[1]: I am aware that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but absent (Ha! Ha!)  some heretofore unexpected advances in factoring large numbers and then turning the advances into a working machine, the Bitcoin blockchain is safe for now.

11 minutes ago, BeastOfBodmin said:

12% CAGR over 40 years, which is impressive

Way more than impressive, this kind of consistent return over the last 40 years makes any trader belonging to the world trading hall of fame.  

8 minutes ago, Yumthai said:

Way more than impressive, this kind of consistent return over the last 40 years makes any trader belonging to the world trading hall of fame.  

True, but he doesn't say how he did it.

 

Berkshire Hathaway have a CAGR of 19.8% since 1965. I believe it has fallen off since the GFC that started 2007/ 8. Then again, Berkshire Hathaway do write a lot of options and do not just deal in "standard" shares. For example, warrants, convertible preferred, private placement (Vampire Squid bailout).

 

Anyway, for me, 79.1% is the CAGR to beat, at least in the short term (I suppose BTC-TCs are the place where that is most likely to happen at the moment).

18 minutes ago, Yumthai said:

Way more than impressive, this kind of consistent return over the last 40 years makes any trader belonging to the world trading hall of fame.  

Wouldnt be the first time that guy lied to make himself feel better

 

why continue posting on a topic you have no understanding of?

On 8/2/2025 at 8:11 PM, IsaanT said:

Personally, I'd disagree but I recognise that you might have no time for an alternative opinion, and that's OK.

The rise in Bitcoin exists because of greed, fear of missing out, and new buyers being willing to pay more than the last ones did; in two words: irrational exuberance.

Back in 2012 I worked with a colleague who had 6,000 bitcoins.  He'd had them for many years at that time having got in right at the beginning, and he wasn't remotely interested in selling them.  I occasionally wonder if he still has them but I've long since lost touch with him. 

Bitcoin has no intrinsic value.  One day, as is always the case in the long term with these things, the bubble will burst.  At first, holders will be shaken but will quickly try to reassure themselves that the price will rebound and restore the damage.  In the meantime, the price will continue down.  Because of the entrenched mindset, desperate searches for more evidence of a rebound will be sought; and the price will continue down as they do.  Most will exit too late.  I've seen it happen.

History has many precedents for this:

a) Tulip Mania, Holland (1636-7), when tulip bulbs became a status symbol and investment object. Prices rose 20x in a matter of months.  Prices suddenly crashed when buyers vanished.  Many were ruined.

b) South Sea bubble, UK (1720), when the South Sea Company was granted trade monopolies in South America (which never materialized). Shares were heavily promoted to the public.  The share price rose from £100 to £1,000 in under a year.  The bubble burst almost overnight. Prominent investors (including Isaac Newton) lost fortunes.

c) Mississippi bubble, France (1720 - a bad year, apparently), when the Mississippi Company was granted control over France’s North American colonies. Backed by paper money issued by John Law’s Banque Royale.  There was massive buying of shares and currency.  In the end, paper currency became worthless, shares crashed, and the French economy destabilized.

d) Roaring Twenties stock market bubble, USA (1920's), when there was widespread speculation on stocks, often with borrowed money (margin).  The peak was in 1929, with record highs on the Dow Jones.  The 1929 Wall Street Crash triggered a global economic depression lasting over a decade.

e) Japanese Asset Price bubble (1986-91), when Japanese stocks and urban land prices skyrocketed.  At the peak, Tokyo was worth more than all of California.  The bubble burst in the 1990's, triggering the "Lost Decade".

f) Dot-Com bubble (1995-2000), when internet-related stocks surged on hype, despite many having no revenue (sound familiar?).  The NASDAQ quintupled in five years.  By 2002, the NASDAQ had lost 78% of its value.

g) US Housing bubble (2002-2007), when housing prices surged due to cheap credit, risky lending, and financial engineering (CDOs, MBSs).  Then prices fell, subprime defaults exploded, and major banks failed. Global recession followed.  It is interesting to note that history shows that there was overconfidence in the "safe" nature of property—similar to the "store of value" argument used for Bitcoin.

History repeats itself.  Time will tell.
 

@angryguy  Just wondering where the Bitcoin champions are now...
 

5 minutes ago, IsaanT said:

@angryguy  Just wondering where the Bitcoin champions are now...

 

Busy buying the dip maybe?

10 minutes ago, IsaanT said:

Just wondering where the Bitcoin champions are now...
 

See below:

 

4 minutes ago, Caldera said:

 

Busy buying the dip maybe?

That's me, while nagging my siblings to at least take a look and consider getting off the no-coiner couch.

 

I can't prove Bitcoin isn't going to zero with the certainty I could predict the trajectory of a thrown object and I shan't try.

 

Whether one is pro-, anti-, neutral towards or unaware of Bitcoin does not make one more or less qualified to predict its future. I am convinced that the future of its main opponents, namely government-issued toilet paper, is continued debasement. This sentiment is implicitly shared by anyone who goes long a non-fiat asset (e.g. stocks, commodities & shiny metals) since by doing so they are shorting the currency that must be used to pay one's taxes.

 

I am drawn to the non-monetary implications of a world containing private, self-sovereign, seigniorage-free money - which relies on neither the permission nor the tyranny of governments and central banks to transact in it. Perhaps that is where I see its value.

21 hours ago, IsaanT said:

@angryguy  Just wondering where the Bitcoin champions are now...
 

Oh we are still here. Plus wondering why you no-coiners are still not taking advantage of the current sale price?  It's ok, we wont hold it against you if you have finally had the BTC penny drop moment and are a bit embarrassed to say anything. Alternately you can remain a no-coiner and Peter Schiff us to death all the way up to $1m per coin and beyond. 😁

On 11/21/2025 at 4:21 AM, Caldera said:

 

Busy buying the dip maybe?

Aggressively