It does look like the price wants to go up. We are having a small spike at the moment, the second in the 5 days so far this month. I think it would be about time to go above $30K and stay above it. The pre-halving months there is usually a rise that looks like it wants to reach the ATH but never reaches it, only to come back down and start a proper bull run after halving. Hopefully this is the start of that first move up.

There was an old thread reflecting those that were KYC or not. Could you account for this? Although I think there are no longer KYC exempt or have ridiculous limits without verification, such as $50. If so I do not see much sense to spend with your card an investment that over time is revalued, although some people spend them because the Treasury of your country does not have direct access to the data of the exchange or company that depends on the card.

The other thread is not bad and has earned you some merits but I would recommend you not to open too many threads just expressing what you think or people may get tired of it.

That said, you are probably right that if it were not for Bitcoin the cryptocurrency industry would have gone much further downhill and possibly collapsed, although it is very difficult to make any claims about what would have happened if what has, in fact, happened had not happened. It enters the realm of pure mental philosophy or speculation.

The OP is most likely an alt account who knows where to get merit, first the WO, local Bengali, and now this Reputation thread. Not to say he is breaking any rules but with this data he has already put himself in the eyes of the DTs. He wouldn't be the first to show up here and get scalded by red tags. As for the TakeItEasy account changing hands, if it becomes clear can get him some red tags, because although not all DTs agree, there are always others who end up painting their profile.

Not really. I understand that people who make trading work for them is because similar to poker, it helps them make the right decisions most of the time, which outweigh the losses with profits when the analysis fails. But seeing that very few traders are profitable in the long term, I am far from believing that it is available to everyone, as many trading courses and influencers try to sell.


You are wrong. Those who master it can make correct predictions a majority of the time.


Here I think you contradict yourself, lol.

As an asset matures and the price and market cap increase, volatility decreases. The downside of this is that the positive returns going forward are also reduced. Bitcoin is going to be useful to get rich slow, not to hit the jackpot, as in the first cycles. I've been thinking the same thing since we didn't go over $69K in this cycle, and I don't believe any of the predictions that give outlandish results for the next cycle.

If you are offered that, it is because where you live inflation is higher than 13%. Or because it is a scam.


If it is for the long term, fine. What happens is that they are usually different investments. A deposit is not usually for the long term, because you lose money due to inflation and Bitcoin should be for the medium term at least, because in the short term the price can go down very fast.

Get a HW, preferably not Ledger or Trezor, and think about where you are going to buy the Bitcoin. If it is a centralized exchange you will have the problem of privacy basically. If it is decentralized or P2P you could have a problem tomorrow justifying where the money you have comes from if it becomes a fortune depending on what you do with it.

I just don't know how you can tell that lie to our face and expect us to swallow it. Not because of the supposed year of purchase, but because you evidently bought a ranked-up account, a full member account.

At that time there were ranks but no merits, and you bought a full member account that had ranked up based on activity and time since registration basically. That's assuming you bought it when you say so, which I find quite unlikely.

Maybe with your manager you will be lucky and you can continue in the campaign with the tags. And I'm not saying this because it's him specifically, because nowadays one or two red tags doesn't automatically mean that you get kicked out of the campaign. However, as you accumulate more, the probability that you will be able to stay in the campaign decreases.

What you have to do is to increase to income. I have been following personal finance for a long time, not only theory but experiences of people who paid off their debts and subsequently got rich. Each and every one of them increased their income. You can see many cases in the Ramsey show, in the debt free screams for example, especially to get rid of debt. Once people achieve this step they can take their foot off the gas and allow themselves to earn less, although many still earn the same or more.

When people start to get interested in this, what they think about is saving, but the second and very necessary step is to increase your income. When you have been saving and investing for a while and you manage to increase your income, your finances skyrocket.

Do you think if they are "only" going to participate in signature campaigns they are not worth the red tag? Or maybe just a neutral tag? If they want to do it honestly they can build up an alt account, but that takes time without getting money for writing. I would say that if they are able to get enough merits, and nowadays it is not that difficult with the number of review threads and that are offered, also forum members like The Skeptical Chemist, in about 8 months they can start getting paid with Mr Member rank. There doesn't seem to be a lack of campaigns lately either. I think it is very benevolent to assume that they are "only" going to participate in signature campaigns when they are bypassing the merit system.

Haven't you learned yet that it's your government that needs it, not you?


Well, it is rather worse than printed money, because with it you have privacy to some extent. If you pay for a car or a washing machine but you give your data (for example to have it sent to your home), you don't have privacy, but in the great majority of payments, especially small ones, you do. With CBDCs everything will be registered, even when you buy a fucking chewing gum, but seeing how many people pay for that with their mobile or smartwatch they won't care. Apart from the fact that it is easier to manipulate, seizing it, putting an expiration date on it or preventing you from spending it on whatever the government deems (as if it thinks you have bought enough meat or gasoline this month).


This.

I don't think I've ever gotten that far, what I do usually write is about 5 posts in that time, which is when I usually connect during the week, sometimes it's in 50 minutes or an hour and 20 minutes. Or it's 4 posts instead of 5 but writing about a post every 12 minutes on average in an hour I do.

I was once accused of being a burst poster, which I didn't agree with, because to begin with I wouldn't be, but if you look at where I write (usually in the first or second page) and the quality of what I write, which without being top is not bad, and it was recognized by those who said that I was burst posting, it is clear that I am not. And precisely my manager, who is the one quoted in the OP, doesn't think I am either.

As is often the case, things happen when you least expect them, and given the poll, this was a case in point. It looks like we will soon be able to consolidate on weekends at 1 sat/Vbyte in a few blocks. I remember sending a couple of transactions at that rate last year that were confirmed in the next block.

In other words, what you have done is a simulation of those five years ago until now, and for the last 15 days you have been testing it with real money. It would not be the first time that when testing with money the results are not the expected ones, besides, past returns (and even more if they are simulated) do not guarantee future returns. But supposing you are one of the few traders that get long term profitability, yes, 20% per year is a good return.

It is not the first time I hear a similar theory, that bitcoin was created by the CIA or similar agencies, and in this case you do not mention it but it is said that it was to make people more willing to accept CBDCs, which seems to me a crazy theory at all.

Do you have any data or evidence to support it or are you just saying that because it popped into your head?

It won't be very popular with cryptocurrency casinos, where there is still some privacy compared to fiat casinos, but I agree. There is an eternal debate between freedom (or lack of privacy) and security; and in this case of casinos I am fine with such measures being taken to prevent underage gambling.


If more and more measures like this are implemented, the percentage of minors who are able to find workarounds will continue to drop. There is another thing that can be done very easily too: force that in every deposit to a casino, apart from putting your card details, you have to confirm with your cell phone, via the app of your bank or otherwise, so that the underage will need not only the card, but also the cell phone to deposit and this reduces the chances too.

I think you say that from your common sense, while I do it from a legal point of view, because whoever commits a crime does not change the typology of the crime. This of applying a penalty depending on the status of the person or the perception of whether he is going to scam or not, has a difficult defense based on laws and legal regulations.

In fact, it is not the first time that we see in this section that you should not red tag bought accounts for similar reasons and look, we already see that it is part of a farm that have participated in the same giveaway and a little more scratching sure we will see merit abuse, and the like.

The sum of the price of the two items with the supposed discount is €568. I doubt that the value when sold will exceed €100.

When you buy investment gold, like a bullion, if you buy a 10 gram bar of gold today it will cost you about €596 and if you sell it after 5 minutes they will give you €555 (source).

With jewelry it is much worse, since you are paying for the design and the brand, but when you go to sell it or pawn it you are going to be paid for the gold content by weight, and it is rarely more than 15% of what it cost you. The solution would be to find an individual who will pay you for the jewelry as jewelry and not for the value of the gold it contains to be melted, although you should also offer them a discount on the price in the store, but basing a loan on that has little hope of success. So, you are right.

I for one what I said in the OP is that I am sure he has quite a few bitcoins as of today, assuming he is still alive, but that no one can link to the name Satoshi, and that they are different Bitcoins from those mined those first two years.


Well, although we are speculating, this does not mean anything either, since it could be that he saw the need to leave suddenly or that he had planned to do so but was hiding it. Also, what you say doesn't square with this:


Lucius' analysis does not seem to support that version either.


What you mean is that it did not exist as a single person, but as a group, I understand. But I would apply the same argument here: I think most likely that group of people got rid of their private keys of the Bitcoins mined the first two years.


Good point but I think the likelihood is small.

I see the idea of ​​considering the penalty for a "crime" depending on the DT status of the person who commits it as legal apartheid, not very different from considering the penalty based on the darkness of the skin color of the person who commits it.


Well, that's not entirely true, as I remember you had a gap without tagging account buyers and I asked you about it.


That's what happens, when we discover one thing it's usually the tip of the iceberg. The clearest example can be seen in those threads that are opened in this section, protesting a single tag, sometimes even neutral, and that make the DTs investigate the person, who ends up with several more red tags for other reasons.

I remember DireWolfM14 defending that people should not be red tagged for simply buying an account, and there was a quote from theymos saying that there are many more accounts bought than we think, but I think they do not meet the characteristics of this case where it is clear from the posting style that there is something else behind it, as we can see with the analysis of Apocollapse. I believe the cases where someone simply buys an account and doesn't break any more rules, especially after the introduction of the merit system, are statistically insignificant.