Don't be fooled by someone having the courage to risk $2 million like it was all they had, because such people were rich long before Bitcoin existed - so he only risked what he could have allowed himself to lose. The man in question has worked for Goldman Sachs for 25 years and obviously knew how to recognize the opportunity for a good profit, and such people do not fall under the influence of other people who might advise them that something is a bad investment.

---

I would disagree with that statement, because Saylor has bought more than 150 000 BTC since 2020, and I'm sure there are a lot of those who do it without such data appearing in public. I think it's more courageous to buy BTC worth a few billion today than to invest $2 million 10 years ago.

I don't find it at all strange that these two companies were not at that conference, given that they are EU companies, one of which has much more serious problems than participating in conferences. Besides what's the logic in looking for a link between those companies and FTX which was a crypto exchange?


The reputation you're talking about disappeared after the data leak, although Ledger then and today described the situation as harmless and overly stressed, because according to them, in fact, nothing terrible happened. They also claim that anyone who talks negatively about their new achievement in a negative way is actually just spreading FUD, because what they do is actually desirable and good, that is, it is demanded by their loyal users (especially their mothers and grandmothers).


I don't think anyone can give an objective answer to that question, especially if that question relates to hardware wallets - because after all, the question arises whether it all comes down to trust or the fact that something is open source?

I think that taught by the experiences of the past we should be extremely careful in giving opinions about which HW is the best, because even the seemingly best things can turn out to be quite the opposite.

Personally, it is not strange to me that such news comes to us from the UK, since for years the official position of their central bank has been very negative when it comes to Bitcoin and generally all other "cryptocurrencies".

Also, I would not call it hypocrisy, but a combination of several factors such as incompetence, ignorance and of course an attempt to preserve the national currency as the basic mechanism of financial security. It doesn't hurt to mention that the UK has been part of the EU for decades, but it has never been part of the eurozone, which speaks for itself.

Furthermore, it should be known that banks protect themselves and their interests, but in a way also the interests of clients from various scams, more and more of which are related to cryptocurrencies. People who are scammed mostly turn to banks for help, and why should banks even deal with such things when it is much easier for them to put a ban on such transactions and protect themselves and their customers.

They actually say "if you really want to invest in crypto find another way, don't do it directly from the bank account".

You're repeating what OP wrote without reading other posts where you can see that the withdrawal threshold is much lower - although that doesn't mean it's a legitimate faucet. In addition, everyone who comments on faucets without even knowing how they work today gives the wrong information, especially when it comes to fees and dust transactions.

Most of the faucets are concentrated around one known microwallet and every reward that someone earns goes to that wallet, and when you accumulate a certain amount you can send it to your wallet.

---

There was no such faucet, you don't pay attention to details because it was a faucet who paid 5 BTC per claim and didn't work for a long time. Besides, most people have a completely wrong idea about how much the value of 5 BTC was then, so I wonder why people complain so much because they didn't know about this or some other faucets before?

If we take the average value of a claim on a faucet 5 or 10 years ago, it is actually very similar to that of today if we talk about the value expressed in fiat currencies. Faucets always paid small amounts in $, but because of the low price of BTC and large numbers it seemed that you were getting more.

I would just add that when it comes to altcoins there are also free desktop & mobile wallets that are probably less secure than the hardware wallets you mention, but still in the light of recent events for someone who has a couple of hundred dollars worth of altcoins it is not worth buying HW.

Of course, I'm talking about multicurrency wallets like Coinomi, Trust wallet or Mycelium that have their drawbacks - but they are still completely free unlike the HW you mention, and whose security policy makes less and less sense.

I want to announce that I'm leaving the campaign and that yesterday was my last day. All posts after that should not be considered for the current week.

Thank you @Royse777 for the opportunity and for the successful 3 weeks

It would be good for people to understand that all these big companies and some extremely rich and influential individuals generally want nothing but to make even more money, and that Bitcoin is just a means to that goal. Let no one be fooled that they will do something good for Bitcoin in the long run, because they have never been interested in why it exists, it is still completely contrary to the system that they fully support.

I'd compare their current attitude to chewing gum, as long as it tastes, they'll chew it, and then they'll spit it out.

You are wrong, because the SEC did not reject the request, but only asked for the filling to be supplemented with additional information and the whole process continued afterwards. The whole process can take up to 240 days, so the final decision can be made even at the beginning of next year.

Besides, BlackRock is not just any kind of company, it's the biggest in the business globally, and if the SEC (U.S. government) is going to give anyone a spot BTC ETF, then they have the best chance.

I'm pretty convinced it's not a service for mere mortals who want to buy a couple hundred or thousands $ worth of BTC - and if memory serves me right, shares in such funds are measured in tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's something that will be used by big and wealthy investors who have millions or billions of dollars under the management of companies like Fidelity or BlackRock.

Are you forgetting that this is about China? People in a country where communists are in power are not asked if they want something or not, and anyone who thinks otherwise is an enemy of the state. A country that censors the internet and has the most oversight of people through massive surveillance methods certainly has no problem with something as simple as CBDC.

Besides, they've been testing it for years on tens of millions of people in different provinces, I've never heard anyone complain about it.

Do you know how long it takes you to collect 1 whole BTC on that faucet? However, the FAQ says that the minimum amount is considerably lower.



If you can't find those legitimate faucets yourself, then you shouldn't use them at all. Don't get me wrong, I just want to tell you the truth - I have nothing against faucets, because that's how I "earned" my first BTC.

You can find more information in Micro Earnings

I guess (obviously wrong) that you should have at least seen (if you haven't already read) all the threads on the topic of BTC ETF that have appeared these days.

Another attempt at Bitcoin ETF..You knew it was coming once BTC raised above ATH
bitcoin ETFs
BlackRock and Fidelity both apply for bitcoin ETFs
BlackRock Bitcoin ETF to Partners with Coinbase


At least as many threads have been reported and have been deleted, and if you go to Economics boards, you will find at least 5+ threads on the same topic. Accordingly, I could very easily report your thread as low value/repetitive content, but I wanted to point out the meaninglessness of the questions you ask given how much we've already discussed it.

I also think I'm quite polite in my comments, but in the future I'll even refrain from trying to point out some things to people, and I'll use another option more

Maybe we're not intelligent enough to understand what Mr. Mars is doing with the company and it will actually be worth at least $250 billion in the future (so he claims), but to me who looks at it from the sidelines it seems like he's deliberately trying to destroy the company. In the context of everything that has been going on in recent months and days, the competition is about to make the final blow, and we'll soon see if the birdie manages to recover after Threads is released from the bottle.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who will leave their comments even on a completely meaningless post because they just want to add another post because of their signature campaign or activity points. What is true is that such users are very likely to end up on the ignore list of many other users, but I prefer to report such posts because hiding the problem under the carpet is not something that benefits the forum, but only individuals.

In addition, the quality of posts is not something we can precisely determine because members have different criteria, and beginners are often confused when they see someone rewarding a post of just a few words or one sentence - but the thing is that it is not always the quality that is crucial, but the post can be funny or sarcastic, and some members will want to reward it.

Quality is important, but there are some other factors that should not be forgotten, because after all this distinguishes us from artificial intelligence, which is increasingly present on the forum.

After all the hundreds of topics about BTC ETFs you still do not understand the difference between futures ETF and what has been talked about in the last few weeks, which is the spot (physical) BTC ETF that until now the SEC has consistently rejected. If such an ETF were approved in the US, then that fund would have to buy BTC to sell shares in that fund to clients. It is obvious that if someone buys BTC in large quantities the price will go up.

In other words, those who do not want to buy directly with CEX or DEX, and want to trade with BTC will buy it through ETF which will then keep them until the moment they want to sell it. I can also claim that everyone who bought BTC through CEX and keeps it there actually bought nothing but an empty promise that the number representing the amount of BTC they bought is correct, although the numbers on the screen are one thing, and the actual state of the funds is something completely different.

Yes, it seems we're getting older for all these new super-crypto innovations. They are deliberately complicated to make it seem that their existence is justified, while at the same time they are a real Swedish table for every little skilled hacker who wants to help himself from that table. However, one should not ignore the bad guys inside the platform who just want to go on the vacation of their dreams, and how to resist the billions that circle around you and literally beg you to take them


I guess no one cares about that hack, and I doubt anyone will care about this one now - to me this DeFi honestly seems like an ideal platform for money laundering - you just need to know how it works

I've always appreciated some other things with the name Poly more

I think the whole truth actually fits in these two sentences you wrote, and I've noticed that over the years when I've listened to what and how people talk about Bitcoin. That is why I have written many times that for most people Bitcoin as an idea is unacceptable because they do not want to move a millimeter from the simplicity offered by each bank - and that is a plastic card + PIN + zero responsibility for everything that happens to the bank or their account.

Unfortunately, human society has largely turned into a faceless lazy mass that increasingly allows others to think for them, and use their own brains less and less.

You've been a member of the forum since the beginning of 2020 and haven't read the rules yet? If you did, then you'd know that just asking a question like this probably entails the possibility of someone leaving you negative feedback - unless you think it's normal to buy something that is not legally sold?

Imagine if you used to get up in school in the middle of class and ask your teacher if you could buy a higher grade - how would it end?

Maybe there is some truth to it, but I wouldn't get too excited even if the price reached $35k, because despite all the "good news" that makes the market behave "optimistically", only one bad can very easily take us backwards. From whichever angle I look at the current situation I think that the market behaves in accordance with what has already happened many times in the past, and someone explained it nicely on the example of a child who can not get sweets, but does not give up on getting them at all costs. In other words, there is a time for everything, and it seems to me personally that this is not the time for big things.

---

Some would say that this is nothing new and that it has happened so many times that it hardly makes any sense to talk about it, but I will just say that sometimes one should not be the one to destroy other people's dreams, no matter how unrealistic they may seem.

What I see as a problem in that story is that a lot of these disappointed beginner investors eventually conclude that Bitcoin is really some kind of scam, because that's a lot easier to say, than to admit that you failed to profit from something that you didn't really understand from the beginning.

What you call "pump" is actually a recovery after the big "messiahs" of the crypto world Bankman & Kwon did their dirty work and knocked the price down by 50%, that is, right from where it is now. Anything under $69k can't and shouldn't be called a pump, but a lot of people believe in good fairies, dwarves and the like and you can sell them any news, and most seem to have already bitten the hook that BlackRock and Fidelity threw.