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.

I understand that this is B&H but I do not predict a promising future in this forum for someone who asks such simple questions. Anyway, I don't want to sound too unwelcoming but I would recommend the OP to have more initiative to find out things, especially the basics. Then when he has more basic knowledge he can ask more questions and learn more on the forum.


I found this question interesting and I think the summary is given by EFS. A lot of people got Bitcoin in the early years and are not billionaires. They just sold at peaks or had pressing needs for money, and when Bitcoin was trading at pennies, that getting to $1 seemed like an unattainable milestone, whereupon a lot of people sold when they got to that figure, and when it got to $10, and to $100.

Those who took a longer view and were able to hold a good amount for a couple of cycles today are multi-millionaires but those are a few.

Well, I, as one of those who left the red tag I have to say no, because what the OP would want is for us to delete his red tags now. In the future, if he would continue using the forum in a responsible way, respecting the rules, maybe in a couple of years I could change it to neutral but seeing how he has acted, which has led to receive those tags, no way he is going to stay in the forum using it indefinitely without being able to earn money on it.

No. What has happened to me, always from mobile, is that when I try to click on the number of the next page, I accidentally hit "all" and it starts to load, but between the fact that it takes a long time and that it was not what I wanted, in the end I never let it load. I go back and click, this time correctly, on the page I wanted to go to.

By the way, out of curiosity I tried for the first time in my life, this time from PC, letting it load and I don't like it. I prefer it separated by pages. Or I don't know if it's that I'm more used to the other option, but I see that the answers so far are along the same lines.


It was probably implemented at the beginning, which was a time when there was still a lot of printing, people still printed emails, still bought the paper newspaper and either didn't have internet on their mobile or hardly used it at all, especially compared to today.

This is one thing I have said in comments in other threads but I think it deserves a thread in itself to comment on, even if we can only speculate. I have searched and I see that it is usually claimed him to have lost them as most likely. In a quora thread the voted as best answer is:


There are three possibilities:

1. He still has the private keys.
2. He does not have them or cannot access them (this includes his death without leaving them in inheritance).
3. He got rid of them on purpose, as a donation to the rest of Bitcoin holders. Recall his "lost Bitcoin is a donation."

Obviously I am referring to the million Bitcoins or so attributed to him for having mined them at the beginning. If Satoshi is still alive (or if they are still alive) I am sure he has a good amount of Bitcoin but that nobody links with Satoshi's name.

I think the most likely is option 3. Just as he started up Bitcoin for humanity and stepped away from the project I think at some point he purposely disposed of the keys to those Bitcoins, either for privacy, as a donation, or both. I find it hard to believe that someone as careful as he was would lose the keys and not have multiple backups.

Well, I'll get to my point, there is one game in the casino where skill matters and can make you money, and that is poker. Then there are other disciplines where skill influences, such as sports betting or horse racing that are not played in casinos, such as physical casinos, although nowadays there are websites that have everything mixed.

But yes, in general you are right, and it seems that many people in this section do not understand it. If you are going to play EV games such as slots or roulette, you better take it as entertainment so you don't get too much trouble.

I don't know what you guys are so crazy about trading. It is clear that the marketing that promotes it has you well eaten in the head. If you are afraid of trading, just don't do it. I'll give you another reason, well over 90% of traders lose money, this in the stock market, and I'm sure that with cryptocurrency trading is even closer to 100%. So if you are afraid of losing money with trading, you are right. So don't do it.

So, it's not just that you made a Bitcoin Core tutorial and it was deleted, you were actually selling it. Did I understand correctly?

Moderators can make mistakes and we as forum users can sometimes disagree with what they do but seeing the great idea you had in the other thread it seems to me that the moderator who deleted it should not have been wrong.

The only thing missing is for Bitcoin to be a security and Eth a commodity, the world upside down. Without knowing about technical issues such as the Howey test, it is clear to me that securities are issued by certain corporations at will, they can issue more or less, as many as they want, while commodities are the ones that exist, at most they can be produced, but not issued at will. For example, wheat has to be produced, and gold not exactly produced but extracted, which we could consider a form of production.

It seems to me that uncle Gary is clear about this, although he supports it with more technical arguments. I don't think we should worry too much.

When I read the title I thought I was not going to agree with what the article says, but let's say, not to give away the mystery to those of you who are going to read it, that what the title says is only partially true.

Anyway, I wanted to comment on one specific thing that is said even if it is not specifically about his political ideology but about his mentality.:


I believe, and it's one thing I've said in several threads on the forum, that Satoshi got rid of the private keys to most of the Bitcoins he mined. It wouldn't make sense that such an altruistic person would be keeping them, and even more if we take into account his famous quote "lost Bitcoin is a donation." Obviously, this is something we cannot know with certainty because we do not have the means to verify it, but I think it is the most likely scenario.

Well, I'm starting to get a little bit fed up, and after a while of moderation and reflection on my supposed aggressiveness when tagging, and in light of what has been exposed in this thread, I have also left a negative tag for the OP.

It's just that we have already seen this story more times in this section: someone opens a thread complaining about a tag, sometimes even a neutral one, and we end up discovering that he bought the account and/or is part of a farm and/or plagiarized and/or exchanged merits with his alts, etc.


Now I hope that the OP does not come out saying that the account was given to him by his brother who lives in Japan, we have already seen that story, and I also hope that we do not reopen a debate about whether people should be tagged for having an account that they did not create, we have also seen that story in the section. I mean, I don't mind the talk about it, but I hope that if the debate is reopened it's not because the OP is now telling us a sobbing story that contains his brother living in Japan and giving him the account.