Could you give more details? I imagine he sent you the transaction through the blockchain. Or did he use LN?

The bad thing is that it is more expensive for the customer to send you a transaction in bitcoin through the blockchain than to pay you in cash or cards. Even if it is little, and lately the fees have gone up.

Yeah, well, I guess I am "preparing" as well, as I keep accumulating but it's so routine that I wouldn't call it preparation.


According to Bitcoin Halving Countdown, it will be in the second quarter, but some other site gives it as early as March.


You may be right, and it should be taken into account, but I personally rule out a catastrophic scenario, such as not beating the $69K ATH. I think we will pass $100K, and then we'll see. If it's a bad cycle we'll get below that figure soon.

With the second, as you had said this before:


I have argued that I don't think it is correct in my previous post. The thing about the SEC not wanting a lot of money to go into cryptocurrencies seems more plausible to me but I don't have enough elements of judgment to pronounce with certainty.

This is a credit to you.



I too have long since given you the benefit of the doubt and I'm glad you did. Just to reiterate that I never contacted any of your clients, and, in fact, I thought you had made it up, somehow manipulating the screenshot (I was not the only one who thought so), but seeing according to joker_josue's analysis showing that the screenshot had not been manipulated, I ended up believing that, indeed, a client told you that I had contacted him, when I did not contact anyone.

If it happens to you again, please send me a PM and let's somehow confront whoever told you.

Lastly I wanted to give you some friendly advice. I would spend my energies on building the new and not fighting the past. Continue managing campaigns as well as you do, make your business instead of a serveral hundred thousand a year business, a $1M one. Most likely scenario is that you will continue to accumulate positive feedback and if you get to a point where you have 50 or 100 positive feedbacks, the fact that you have two negative ones from a long time ago will be completely irrelevant.

And since you talked about Best_Change, I think it's a good example, because as of today the only negative feedback and from someone who is no longer on the forum is buried under 25 positives and it doesn't matter.

Pointless drama. I doubt that not even 20% of those who have JG on their trust list are going to change it for this thread. JG has already been talked about a lot in the forum and some people have already excluded him. This thread does not add much more.


Since this thread is not about you and me, I'm not going to respond to what we've already talked about many times.

I don't know why you don't apply yourself. You have a garbage feedback in my profile that you yourself have recognized that it is in a grey area, that is to say, that you are veiledly recognizing that it is garbage. It prevents me from joining some signature campaigns.

Lead by example.

You only see the speck in someone else's eye.

I trust JG among other reasons because he made a perfect reading of the garbage feedback you left me.

I did that at first but with casinos. But you can do it only with casinos without KYC and without wagering requirements, which are almost non-existent nowadays.

To make potential outside observers lose track of my transactions on the blockchain, I deposited from different addresses of mine, but creating each time a different deposit address in the casino. Then I withdrew. The withdrawals always came from a large address that had nothing to do with any of the others, as my deposits had not yet moved from the original address. Once I checked a while after the withdrawal was done and I saw that my deposits had been consolidated at another address, which was not the one from which the withdrawal was sent to me.

If someone wanted to track me down, she was lost. Of course the casino will know more about me than an outside observer and the government might require the casino to give them information from me but good luck sending subpoenas to Curacao to find out what happened to a few hundred dollars in Bitcoin.

Obviously, mixers are better, but this type of "mix" can be used in some case, such as the one I have explained.

I totally agree with that (also that the OP has to change the link).

CBDCs eliminate the need for bank employment, and thus will cause unemployment, and not the opposite, which is what the title states. What happens is that the socialist politicians do not like this and what they are going to do is to maintain banking jobs that are not needed with CBDCs artificially so that these jobs are not lost.

At least in the first stages, in the same way that jobs were maintained in mining or other sectors with strong unions, but over time traditional banking will gradually change until it has nothing to do with what it is today.

Anyway, OP, you better take these trust things patiently and not get too emotionally involved. I'm telling you from experience.

There is a Thick-Skinned Gang Leader on the forum that we should all learn from in this regard, me included.

Well, I wouldn't call it stupidity out of respect for good debate among forum members, but I don't agree with the theory. Someone who has a lot of bitcoins from the early years, if a lot of money comes in to buy Bitcoin for the ETF, what they are going to be is richer. Besides that in the early years it was much easier to get them, even mining with a laptop and cheaper.

If someone had, for example, 200,000 Bitcoins from the early years, Saylor with all the money he has spent, several billions of dollars, would still not have as many Bitcoins as him (Saylor has personally 17,732 and MSTR 152,800).

I don't know what the current holders of large amounts of early bitcoins will think, but if I were one, I would want a lot of money coming into the market.

Well, that's up to you. We all lie at some time in our lives. The problem is lying too much or some fat lies that cannot be forgiven.

If you believe that a certain person is lying and this makes you distrust him/her for a trade, leave him/her negative feedback. Others will exclude you from their trust list if they don't agree, but this is relative because if they agree with the rest of the feedbacks and not with one in particular they will not exclude you.

Well, at least you bought a copper membership and made a decent OP. It's just that we see too many cheap presentations and in such a competitive environment it's hard to stand out if you don't do things right.

I see on the one hand that you have KYC which I don't like in cryptocurrency casinos, but more and more casinos are implementing it, and also responsible gaming features, such as auto-exclusion which I believe should be mandatory for any casino.

I guess if you know the forum you know that the best way to popularize the casino is to run a signature campaign. You have a lot of reliable managers that can run it for you.

Right, but not only that. Maybe the world will go to shit because of a nuclear war in a few years and the ATH will have been the highest it has ever been until then. Or it's the Bitcoin that goes to shit in 50 years no matter how hard it is for us to conceive.

The point is that the price will most likely continue to rise in the long run, albeit with volatility, for two reasons: the devaluation of fiat currencies, which is not going to stop, and that Bitcoin will be an increasingly appreciated and scarce asset.

Making guesses about what the peak will be in 100 years does not make much sense, because you would have to factor in dollar inflation as well, if the dollar still exists by then; let alone the peak of all future history.

Of course, the most logical thing to do is to rely on what is most probable, not on what is improbable. You can think many similar things. What if I'm walking down the street and a brick falls on my head or I'm struck by lightning? These are events that can happen, but they are extremely improbable, and you are not going to base your life, your actions, on them, like staying at home to avoid being killed by a brick that comes loose and falls from a building.

The same with Bitcoin. Chances are that the price will continue to rise, albeit with volatility and slower and slower, over the next 10 years.

I don't find any of the 4 answers suitable for me. Maybe the closest to what I think is that it should be cleared quicker, but that's not going to happen as long as a lot of people keep spamming the mempool with ordinals. It's not so much a question of speed of clearance as of people willing to pay ever increasing fees for something that is not what the Bitcoin blockchain was originally intended for.

In the last month or so there were still a lot of transactions in the mempool but the fees went down. I don't know if it's back from the August vacations that the spammers are back to work, so to speak.

First we would have to see what we mean by risk, but in a general way we can say that yes, it has risk because it is a volatile asset. Then there are things that have more or less risk. For example, trading Bitcoin has more risk than investing in the long term. And if you add leverage even more risk. Although it can also be more profitable. In the same way that buying fixed income has less risk and at the same time is potentially less profitable than buying shares of a small cap.

I would recommend the OP to educate himself about economics and finance and learn about risk management.

In these cases the simplest explanation is the true one. We cannot be 100% sure but we can be something like 99.9% sure. It is not only in that text, later he also wrote something similar.


This type of multi-accounts when they are caught what they do is to invent sophisticated stories to see if they can get rid of the punishment, they put some element to make the story a sobbing one and make people feel sorry for them. I remember in the case of martyns when he was caught with that he was not the original owner of the account, because it had been created by an Indonesian and he wrote from Nigeria, he said that he had a brother in Indonesia who had given him the account. It could be seen in the comments on the subject that there were people who felt sorry for him.

The case went so far that it started a debate on whether to tag for buying accounts.

Discussion on buying/selling accounts/users actively seeking possible bought acc

But now look, it has been reliably discovered that he was part of a much bigger ring. It wasn't just about buying an account.

Right. Yes, I believe that in 10 years almost all the shitcoins that exist now will have disappeared, but I think that Eth has all the chances of being one that will remain with us.


Of course, the judges will have their reasoned opinion on the subject, just as Gensler has, and since we are in a forum exchanging opinions, I give mine in a reasoned manner.


I hadn't thought of that.

Naive I guess you mean. I also thought that maybe it's bad wording, since he doesn't seem to be very fluent in English.

I have interpreted that he has been paid in Bitcoin for some work he has done, and that he needs that money to pay his mortgage, but if he doesn't make it clear, who knows.


Right.


Lol.

I have also supported the flag as it is obvious it is a scam.


They must have deleted his other posts, then, because there is only one in his post history, which is the OP. That one I don't think they're going to delete.

At least in that thread we haven't had the show of other times where alts or related accounts start popping up, all newbie or brand new saying they have used the service and it has enriched them a lot.