On the contrary, I have been quite clear on this issue. In this forum if paid signature campaigns were to disappear I would expect a 99% reduction in traffic. In my case, I have been in other forums for many years, and I used to do this activity before registering in this one, without being paid. Now I am still registered in other forums, but guess where I write 95% of what I write.

So yes, getting paid to post is a very important component of the traffic here, but it is also very important to respect the rules. If you don't, you risk having difficulty or even impossibility to participate in paid signature campaigns.

The OP's theory is all well and good, but it would be much better if he backed it up with proof that the trading he does gives him consistent long-term profits, but he's not going to do that. Seeing that since he wrote the OP hasn't commented here I'd be willing to bet that he doesn't even trade and it was an attempt at merit fishing.


Would you care to elaborate? The vast majority of traders lose money but some make money. If you are one of those who win it would be interesting if you could share your experience, such as how long you have been trading, with what approximate capital, what profitability and things like that.

Not at all. Bitcoin was created as an alternative to banks but in its development we have seen that this is not the case, because what most people do is transfer from their bank to CEX to buy Bitcoin and/or shitcoins, sell and bring the money back to their bank.


Yes, but it is just another alternative, although use is growing. Before there was Bitcoin, people invested in gold, or in the stock market, as well as in many other financial assets to beat inflation.

Note the irony. I have seen Zilon's thread that he just locked and as I want to respond I thought of opening a new one that reminded me of BenCodie's one.

In it, Zilon asked:


As I am one of those who left you red tag I would like to respond. I am open to review of my tags, but in this case I see it difficult because it is a massive rule breaking with several alts accounts. If evidence were presented that all three of us red taggers were wrong I understand that we would delete or change the feedback. Another thing could be that over time you would continue to use the forum without breaking the rules and maybe it could be changed to neutral, or if you showed trustworthy in some way you could earn green feedbacks over the red ones.

Obviously the concern you have about this is monetary. The feedbacks at the very least make it difficult to participate in paid signature campaigns and if there are many without any green ones, they make it impossible. But they are not the end of the world, I have recently seen that Royse777 has accepted Digaran, who does not have a very nice trust profile, in one of his campaigns. Surely Royse777 has weighed other reasons that outweight his profile to accept him. One thing I see is that Digaran has been posting for about 10 months without getting paid and that could be one of the reasons.

I want to be clear that this is not a criticism of Royse777, just an example of how a member with bad trust profile could join a good signature campaign.

I suppose it has already been explained to you, but as I see that you insist with this thread after the red tags I would recommend you to think a little.

When someone lends you money for an interest they have to have a certain guarantee that you are going to pay them back. You do not offer any collateral, which could be a guarantee, nor are you anyone with a reputation on the forum making money on it that could lose more than gain if defaulted on the loan.

So it's not a question of respect or not, it's that you are banging your head against the wall since the only thing you will get are more red tags or you will be put on ignore.

Well, since you are saying that something that is evidently true is false, we will not discuss about this any further. In order to debate at least we must agree on the premises, on the basic principles on which the debate is based, otherwise it is more like bickering. Good luck and have a nice day.

There is no censorship in this forum and we, the users, have no power to censor any debate. The only one who could establish censorship would be theymos, and his political ideology is the opposite.


+1

Are you saying that because in those countries people usually have a lot of money to invest?


I don't know what you mean. A hedge against inflation is also an asset and an investment, like gold for example. They are not opposites.

If we talk about third world countries in general, the only way I see that they can take advantage of Bitcoin to try to beat inflation would be to legalize it as a currency, as they have done in El Salvador, to try to attract investment and have an alternative to remittances and the dollar.

On the other hand, if we are talking about people living in those countries, it will depend on the individual situation. Someone who has such a low income that he spends it all and still lacks it, the Bitcoin will not help him against inflation because as soon as he gets paid he will spend it, besides paying transactions fees and surely a fiat conversion fee to be able to spend. People in those countries that have a higher income and can save can use the Bitcoin against inflation, but as in the rest of the world.

He can do with his threads whatever he wants, just as you have opened one now to talk about the subject.


It doesn't matter, you can continue the debate here as you are doing.

You remind me of a thread recently opened by my recently reconciled friend. You're not going to get far with this no matter how many walls of text you write. Well, maybe you'll get JG to come around and respond with even longer walls of text.

If you ask this question, it is because you still have not learned, or have not wanted to learn, what the trust system is all about. Unless you are referring to a neutral tag where almost everything fits, but seeing where the story comes from I don't think it goes that way.

And by the way the premise is false, JG is not censoring the community because he couldn't even if he wanted to. The proof is that you yourself are talking about it.

The OP's advice is bullshit to be honest so I ask the beginners who visit this section to ignore it, for their own good.


A concept you put in capital letters (ironically) but have no fucking idea about.


No. It is simply that what you invest is capital, not that it is a major or minor factor, it is what you invest.


I think you should be given an award for this thought (note the irony).


You see, because you don't know what capital is, you talk nonsense like this.

You can have all your material capital in your home. Let's say you have a house valued at $300K and you have paid $100K on the mortgage. You have no other loans or assets. The $100K of equity you have, how are you going to invest it in Bitcoin? Are you going to ask for a HELOC? I can tell you are thinking only about money but there are many forms of capital, like if all you have is farmland, or a pension plan or a combination of these, which is usual.

The ideal percentage to invest in Bitcoin for a person depends on many things, and should be included in an overall wealth-building plan and ignore bullshit like your advice.

I can't see the tweet either. I imagine that must be in Lugano, Switzerland, or El Salvador, as far as I know there are no other places accepting Bitcoin at McDonald's.

First thing is for the OP to fix the link and let's see, because we don't know what date it is from or where it occurs:


Or maybe that happened at another time, when the price was different.

When he created the second account is not relevant. Bans apply to people not just to accounts.

If what you say were true, those who come to the forum to break the rules with premeditation would only have to create a dozen accounts on the same day and start using the last one. Then when they were banned from that account they could move on to using the second to last one without evading ban, and so on.

Very interesting OP, I remember reading the white paper in and didn't remember anything relating to store of value, now I see why. As of today bitcoin succeeds more as a store of value than as a currency and I see he took that into account as well.


I repeat that a lot in threads about Satoshi, although not in those words. As time goes by, and even more so with the amount of time since he disappeared, the idea of him is less and less important, and I say that without taking away any merit from him. His creation can go far beyond what he thought.

So, you say this:


But then you focus only on the price or fiat countervalue of Bitcoin. Wrong. Inform yourself why it was created, what problem it solved and what its nature and intrinsic characteristics are. That it goes up in price is all well and good and we all hope it continues to do so but if it goes up it is for some reason that has to do with what Bitcoin is, a scarce commodity, limited and finite in supply, decentralized, autonomous, and extremely difficult to seize and censor.


The link you post does not support what you say.

I think quite a bit in terms of probabilities, not just in the realm of investing or betting, but in life in general. In this regard I think it is most likely that we will have a bull run after halving and the price will go over $100K. After that I am not sure of anything and given what has happened this cycle I do not trust much of any prediction I see, because there are so many things that can happen that can influence the price and that we cannot foresee a priori, that no matter how much data is taken into consideration and how many charts are drawn, for me they have a low reliability.

There is a thing called contentment, which you haven't discovered yet.


Not true. Some people's, or a lot of people's if you like, but not everyone's. I insist on the previous comment. The rest of what you say, since it is based on a premise that I consider false, I do not agree with it.


Sounds to me like wishful thinking about spending, or something like that. Remember: contentment.


I do agree on this.


Ok so learn from the mistake and don't make it again.

I was reading the thread and all the time I was wondering the same thing until I read your answer. I am surprised they have to process and pass a law now for this.

It's like if they process a law to be able to seize gold or money in online accounts, or paypal balances.


I don't quite understand how this is supposed to answer LoyceMobile's question, which is the same question I have.

What I see here is that you are a very good business for casinos. You are driven by emotions and not by rational thought. The fact that you might get it right once in a while doesn't mean that this "strategy" only accelerates your losses in the long run.


Of course not. What I do is try to control my emotions as much as possible and make decisions as rationally as possible. Also playing an EV+ game, instead of EV- games.

Well, that's relative, do you think Daniel Negreanu or Phil Gandolf (famous professional poker players) are going to hide from their children to play? From a young age they will teach them what poker is all about naturally.

The problem is in playing EV-games that make you lose money in the long run and that brings problems to many people, but with a serious education to the children on the subject they should not have them. The education comes down to making them understand that if they want to make money with a casino they have to be the owners of the casino or investors in it, not players. With the exception of poker and some other disciplines.