> FYI he's not gambling the bitcoin, he's holding onto it This is the type of cultish speak that makes it insufferable to listen to your sermons. Yes, he is "

> FYI he's not gambling the bitcoin, he's holding onto it This is the type of cultish speak that makes it insufferable to listen to your sermons. Yes, he is "holding onto" his Bitcoin. But based on the interview it represents something like >90% of his net wealth. Putting >90% of your net wealth onto an extremely volatile asset like Bitcoin can fairly be called "gambling". Some gambles have positive expected values and some gambles have negative expected values, but taking risks of such level should be called "gambling". There is very little meaningful distinction between "holding onto" Bitcoin and "buying" Bitcoin. The fact that he already owns the Bitcoin doesn't make it any less gamble-y. > At the "end" he will still have the same number of Bitcoin. Nobody here claimed otherwise. You're attacking some kind of weird strawman argument.