As soon as I saw the main points I thought that the article on which you base your post is garbage, and, indeed, I see that it is written by a company (charity) whose business is based on defending the fact that there are many poor people. In those points they always make the same trap and it is a change in the definition of the poor, that 100 years ago they were starving and many millions died of hunger and cold, while today they are fat. With that alone you can see how biased the article is.

You only have to look at countries like China or Mexico and see the obesity problem they have. There are other countries where there is not and there is a problem similar to the previous definition but that is not what the biased article talks about, which has not lacked the diatribe against the rich.

Yes, it is. Better let Bitcoin popularize on its own without ambassadors. The first one I remember hearing was McAfee, I looked it up in case my memory was deceiving me and look:


There are many others better than him, such as Andreas, and others who are at least halfway there, such as Saylor, but let's not give them any more importance than these ambassadors already have.

If my memory does not deceive me, when debating on the subject you told me that the neutral tag can be used for anything, or practically anything. Does that ring a bell?

This is a topic I have talked about other times in the forum tangentially but I don't think in a thread dedicated exclusively to it. What is happening has already been summarized, the use of cash was gradually decreasing until during the Covid there was a push by the rulers saying that paying contactless was safer.

However, with the exception of specific countries, I believe that the elimination of cash will take time, although they will try to accelerate it. I believe that in most industrialized countries it may be at least a decade away.

As to whether Bitcoin is a good alternative, I don't think so, for reasons that have been explained a thousand times, mainly that it is a scarce commodity that is better to keep and not use to buy bread. But there will always be alternatives. Illegal businesses will continue to operate. Even corrupt politicians will continue to exist and if cash disappears they will use certain shitcoins or precious metals or who knows what, but there will be alternatives.

The bad thing is that everyone's daily life will be more controlled by companies and governments since many people of good taste do not use cash anymore, not caring that the data of everything they spend is in the hands of private companies. And essentially at the disposal of the authorities.

Don't you guys get tired? The umpteenth case of a newbie trying to get a loan in this section without offering collateral. To top it off you registered 3 years ago and haven't written a single post until this one. For this you have earned your first red tag.

I think it's going to be easier for someone to show up and donate you the $100 than for someone to offer to lend it to you.

This is the "not your keys not your coins" umpteenth case.

Michael Saylor is another one they often use. Like many scams, they try to expose a large number of people to the scam and if only a few people fall for it, it is profitable for them. They are usually quite successful, moreover. I remember the first time I saw one, I had Youtube on in the background while I was doing other things and I saw Saylor talking while a message appeared below saying that if you send x Bitcoin to such and such address, as a giveaway they would give you back double. To disguise it they put that you could only send a certain maximum amount, when if you think about it it's BS because if it was real, you could send from other addresses to skip the amount.

We will not fall but the bad thing is that there is always someone who ends up falling, so they do not stop making these ads.

Any special reason why you have posted the thread here and not in the Legal section? Here it is supposed to get more exposure but being a bit technical I think it will soon be buried below many other threads that are easier to answer.

Going to the topic: as I understand it, the issue is that there is an arbitration system enabled to resolve disputes between customers and Coinbase and what the Supreme Court ruled is that the judicial actions have to wait for the arbitration verdict. If the customers act as plaintiffs and do not like the outcome of the arbitration they can file a lawsuit but later.

Arbitration is cheaper for companies than going to court, and as it is a preliminary step, I understand that if a certain percentage of customers see that they lose, they will think long and hard before going to court and possibly losing more money.

At first glance, it does not seem so important, except for what you read at the end of the first article:

It seems that not entirely, because there has been another forum member who wanted to take merit for the success. I have linked to this thread before without thinking that nutildah could have discovered the cheater before. I don't know what his motives may have been but I'll keep an eye on him.

This may seem like a legal gimmick but on this point I agree with the company. I don't know exactly what the legislation will be like in the USA either, but it seems to me that the most appropriate thing for the Sheriff to do would be to put the money in court along with a report of what happened, and then let the judge decide whether to return the funds directly to the woman or have to gather more evidence before deciding to do so.

Those examples you give are too exaggerated to the point of being unrealistic. For me, the amount of regulations should be reduced to the minimum possible, as well as taxes, but for example for the nuclear or the petrochemical industry, of course there must be regulations. Besides, today we are not exactly lacking in regulations. There are thousands and thousands of pages regulating ad nauseam for even if you want to open a fucking souvenir store. Besides, if the creator of the submarine violated the regulations, he committed a crime to begin with.

On the one hand, if the OP is correct, you will receive the cheater's weekly payment, as the rules say in the OP of the signature campaign.

On the other hand, to be on the safe side, you better pass them through at least three detectors, as you can see in the following thread:

AI Spam Report Reference Thread

I am for the integration of AI in the forum, just as it is already happening in real life, but not just copy-paste. Also, I can see that he has one negative tag and another neutral but of negative spirit, so I think the future on this forum looks bleak for him, unless he changes his behavior right now.

The other day I read the first article, which I quite enjoyed, and I had pending to read the second one, which I just did. Apart from being very well written and touching on several points, I enjoyed the account that the libertarian ideology that was at the birth of bitcoin and even in its prehistory. Today there is not so much libertarian ideology, something that can be seen in this forum, and probably has to do with what is mentioned in the article that the early adopters did it for ideological reasons while today the main motivation to get bitcoin is usually pecuniary.


I see that the second one was published about two weeks after the first one, and now it is almost two weeks since the publication of the second one, I would still publish with that time interval. Twice a month. They are quite elaborate and dense articles and I think it justifies a lower frequency of publication than the usual of once a week.

The news raises many doubts in my mind.


Where do you get that from? I didn't see it in the news. Alleged scammers told her that to avoid a fraud she had to withdraw $15,000 and deposit them in a Bitcoin ATM. But those ATMs deposit it in an address generated by the ATM, as far as I know, they do not allow you to send it to another address, which would be the one of the scammers, and I do not see anything in the news that speaks of sending those bitcoins to another address.

IMO as well. I hold both actually, although the amount of gold I have is much less. But it doesn't make sense to buy gold to not hold it because the buying and selling fees eat you up. It is not an asset to speculate in the short term, nor in the medium term I would say. Bitcoin has more advantages, the main one being digital and being able to transport and transfer large amounts very easily, which is impractical with gold.

So the best thing to do is to hold both.

This has generally been the case and will most likely happen again in those two quarters, although we cannot exclude that due to some specific events that negatively affect Bitcoin this may not be the case. But Bitcoin is affected as part of the financial markets by what happens in the markets in general and what happens in bullish times is that more money is put into Bitcoin in the same way that more money is put into Nasdaq 100 stocks than into the S&P 500 ones. However, even if the downturns are more spectacular, it is more profitable in the long term.

I don't know why you include fiat currency, because the only way it will "outperform" the rest of the investments is if there is a downturn in the markets, which would leave the investments in negative, that is, worse than fiat despite inflation.
 

You answer yourself. You pose the problem in an objective way, as if it happened to all of us, to finally recognize that you are to blame. It is true that society encourages spending, but ultimately you are responsible for it, because it does not happen to me and many others.


It looks like that what he does.


This is essential. If the OP wants to start spending less, the first thing he has to do is to make a budget, and try to get in the right mindset.

That had given me to think at first, that the account was sold, as it had two previous positive feedbacks for financial issues, and scamming someone for an amount of $63 doesn't seem very consistent with someone who seemed to show integrity in these matters in the past.

But if he didn't change passwords, I see it as much less likely.

I agree that today it is more of an asset than a currency but the volatility problem, at least in theory, will be reduced as time goes by and the price and market cap continue to grow. As of today, no. To be able to buy bread, you want a stable currency.

Then, for it to become a real currency there is the problem of scalability. The blockchain cannot support billions doing Bitcoin transactions every day, and LN has its limitations as well. Then we also have Gresham's law, according to which, if several currencies coexist, people tend to spend the bad one and keep the good one. For me there is no doubt that Bitcoin will continue to coexist with fiat currencies/CBDCs/shitcoins, so I think this is also why people will use it mainly as a store of value and not as a currency.

In the past, when I had less experience, I used the free accelerator sites, which, as has been said, are usually useless. If I had to accelerate a transaction, I would simply bump the fee, as I usually have RBF enabled, and ultimately if I didn't have it enabled I would use viabtc, from what I have read on the forum.

Regarding the red tag, I don't understand it either, when I saw this thread, I thought that anubizz had opened a thread to talk about these sites, but it is a simple comment in another thread.


That's my opinion as well.