The problem with made up fairytales is that there are no references. 

The person who made this topic has probably made a dozen guesses about satoshi's identity already and none of those were right either.  Give it a few months and they'll have another new, but equally wrong, theory.  They don't know anything, they just want you to think they do.  It's either attention seeking because they're lonely, or clickbait to drive traffic to their crappy website.  Improve your forum browsing experience by putting them on ignore.

Yes, I'm going to keep accumulating bitcoins.  Unlike stablecoins, the number of advantages gained from hodling BTC appears to outweigh the disadvantages.  

All I can see for hoarding stablecoins is a long list of negatives:

• Your wealth isn't actually yours
• May not be backed 1:1
• Weak to regulatory shutdown
• Would be in direct competition with CBDCs if they launch
• Won't increase in value versus the underlying fiat currency

Now, please, either come up with some ideas that aren't as easy to criticise, because you've actually put some thought and understanding into them, or stop complaining.  If you sincerely believe that all ideas are worthy of praise, regardless of substance, then I'm going to assume I'm talking to a child here.  It's a simple fact of life that you need to demonstrate at least some basic competence in your chosen subject in order for your ideas to be taken seriously.  Anyone who has been around crypto for a while can tell right away that you don't understand what you're saying.



Again, no government or central bank in their right mind is going to give a private company that much influence over their economy.  Also, the underlying US Dollar isn't "accepted worldwide".  I can't spend American cash in any shop in my country.  So there's no point in pretending the token that (supposedly) represents US Dollars would be accepted in retail stores by the general public anywhere other than America either.

Enough with the flights of fancy and wishful thinking.  Stop dreaming.  It's time to get real and show some common sense now.

There are only two possibilities when it comes to stablecoins and savings.  Either:

a) they're not designed for that purpose, or
b) whoever designed them did a terrible job on fulfilling that particular aspect

Anyone who thinks they're going to strike it rich by hodling an IOU that's pegged to fiat is setting themselves up for a fall.  The only useful purpose of stablecoins is to daytrade with other coins in an attempt to turn a profit.

We've already seen pools that are volunteering to be regulatory-compliant.  I guess we'll see how successful/unsuccessful those are before we worry about the theoretical threat from forced compliance.  If push came to shove, I could see temporary pools forming and disbanding on a regular basis to play a game of whack-a-mole with law enforcement.

Hence the conditional "if" statement.  A lack of proof at this stage doesn't mean people aren't monitoring the situation closely.  I feel my suspicions are valid, but suspicions are all they amount to at the moment.

At the time of writing, it says 121,076 WBTC is in circulation.  How can that be possible?  The Lightning Network only has ~1,075 BTC circulating, so I don't see why over 100x more would be locked up up in some ETH farcecoin.  Either CMC is wrong or someone is printing that stuff out of thin air.

I've been thinking the same for some time.  If OpenCryptoSystem is an alt of polo7, then they're ban evading.

I suspect it would result in a few people breaking the layout of the forum.  If CSS were permitted and people can start using stuff like float/position/overflow/etc, I could envision all manner of unwanted fuckery.  It would open up some serious concerns over the potential for clickjacking as well.

Certainly appears to involve a greater level of trust than I'm prepared to afford it.  I do find it difficult to believe there's almost 120000 BTC tied up in this thing.  There's no impact on Bitcoin's supply if they are printing these tokens from nothing, though.  They're two very separate things.

Stop talking about yourself in the third person.  It's lame.

Also, you haven't provided anything new that hasn't been posted here on the forums already.  If you want to be known as a trash recycler who peddles old theories that don't stand up to scrutiny, keep up the sterling work, I guess.  No one needs to give page impressions to your website.  It doesn't have anything to offer.

Given that many places have been printing even more money than they usually do to bolster their economy due to the pandemic lockdowns, it's not a question of "if" there will be consequences on the horizon, but "when".  It's going to take a bit of time before the full effects are felt, but it will happen.  Inflation is going to become an increasing concern and it will impact how the public perceive their money.  Any arguments they make about "stable value" in Bitcoin won't hold up very well if fiat can't hold its own value.

In the grand scheme of things, he's not actually that late.  Bitcoin still isn't exactly mainstream yet.  History will still record that he was "in" before some of the other big-name businessmen.  And still before the vast majority of the general masses.  

Well that's charming.  I have a suspicion that openly admitting you'd blackmail someone who is revered within the community might not be a great way to make a name for yourself.   

Right... so this entire topic is just a diversionary way of pretending that you know satoshi's identity and you figure you'll stir up more interest if you make it sound more mysterious and act like there are other people involved.  There is no "journalist" in the accepted sense of the word, you're not in contact with anyone.  You are the discredited loser behind "Hoffman investigations" and you are weaving fictional tales.  Thanks for letting us all know you're full of shit.

Obviously the reason you were asking how much people would pay to read the article is because you wanted to check if anyone was stupid enough to give you money in order to see your lies.

It's still a pretty big "if".  Journalists have been trying for years now and still haven't had any success.  It's also worth considering that most reporters probably lack the knowledge and understanding necessary to carry out such an investigation.  We all remember Dorian when a journalist "found" satoshi because "hey look, it's the same surname".  If this example is representative of the pinnacle of everything the media are capable of, I'm pretty confident they're not going to be the ones who unmask Bitcoin's creator.  

Even if we take into consideration all the forensic blockchain analysis certain companies are doing to monitor and track Bitcoin transactions, that would still be largely ineffective in tracking down the real satoshi because satoshi wasn't known for sending many transactions.  If some of the sharpest minds in crypto have tried to figure who satoshi is for ever a decade and the answer is still not known, then we'll probably never know.  Many of the people in crypto wouldn't want to unmask satoshi anyway.  Beyond simply wanting to respect their privacy in acknowledgement of the gift they've given us, there's also the safety implications to consider.  If the world knew who satoshi was and the wealth they possessed, it would paint an enormous target on not only their back, but the backs of their family as well.  They would almost certainly become targets for harassment by criminals.  So it stands to reason that those who would be most capable of identifying satoshi would generally prefer not to do that conclusively, because it would be a dick move and they would be putting innocent people in danger.

And finally, it doesn't matter who anyone publishes a story about claiming they're satoshi.  There are only theories and coincidences.  Never any substantial evidence.  Many people still won't accept whatever "proof" is given unless it's a cryptographic signature from an address satoshi is known to have used.  There have been too many impersonators for people to take it seriously now.

Worry about more important things.  It doesn't matter what theoretical price an article would cost to read if the article in question is total BS.

There have been numerous discussions about the possibility of decaying the airdropped merits over time.  The tricky part is all the accounts from the early days of Bitcoin which are no longer active.  The contributions people make to a project in its infancy often has a larger impact than someone contributing to a well-established project.  Some of those users, due to the nature of network effects, did more for Bitcoin adoption than any user could ever contribute now, so it would be disrespectful to deprive them of their rank.  

If we did implement decay of airdropped merit, I think it would have to be tied to activity.  For example, if an account is completely inactive, there should be no decay.  They would effectively have an honourary rank.  But if an account's activity is increasing, then airdropped merit can decay over time.  It's the only way to do it fairly.

I don't get the sense from the article that the author is saying BTC markets can be shut down (aside from any on Robinhood, of course).  The main commentary just seems to drawing parallels around the price surge and the part where some institutional investors have left themselves in a precarious position with shorts that are currently losing them money.

They posted this with their other account, so I'm guessing it's that.

It does once again raise the question as to whether our markets are genuinely capitalist or not.  Apparently it should only be a case of "let the market decide" when it suits the establishment.  If hedge funds are gambling recklessly to the point where they risk bankrupting themselves, I'd say this outcome is their own stupid fault.  If they hadn't taken dumb risks, it wouldn't have mattered if Reddit was plotting against them or not.


//EDIT:  Facebook have subsequently shut the Robinhood Trader's group:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jan/29/facebook-shuts-popular-robinhood-stock-traders-group-amid-gamestop-frenzy

The establishment is apparently a bit flustered and looking to put the kibosh on this uprising.

They won't really be comparable.  I still think CBDCs won't even resemble a cryptocurrency in the sense we're accustomed to.  The infrastructure will be entirely different and I'm fairly certain they won't appeal to the same audience as crypto does.

People often give me the impression they think a CBDC will be something they can send to an exchange and use it to trade with like they do other coins.  I don't personally see that happening.  My suspicion is we'll see the shortcomings of a total lack of censorship resistance right away, when people discover their bank won't allow them to send payments to an exchange using such a platform.