Ubisoft removed their NFT announcement video from Youtube.

The response from gamers was so overwhelmingly negative that Ubisoft decided to "unnanounce" their NFTs. It could mean that they will even abandon this feature altogether, or will disable it shortly after it launched, when they will seen that no one uses it.

I have a strong feeling that majority of the people who express support for NFT/blockchain in gaming don't really play that much games or spend money on games, so basically don't understand gamers and what they want. Just like how people who cheered for "blockchain for medical records" and "blockchain for supply chains" 2 years ago had zero understanding of those things and how they work.

So even if the crypto crowd is expressing support for Ubisoft's decision, it won't help Ubisoft in the slightest, because those people won't bring a penny of profit to them, while their core audience could very likely start spending less money on their products if NFTs make their gaming experience worse.

95% of gamers hating the announcement aligns pretty well with my observations as a gamers that most players don't want NFT and overall it's a net negative for the industry, because adding NFT to a game makes gaming experience worse for most players. The percentage of people who want to earn real money from games is rather small, because most gamers are people who already have enough money, which they are ready to spend in exchange for good content, and NFT does not make content good, but actually makes games worse if it introduces pay to win mechanics.

Just because AAA company does it, doesn't mean it will be successful. The industry has a big history of major flops, especially recently with many big disappointments every single year. NFT and P2E is something that nobody asked for, Ubisoft is just trying new stuff, just in case it will turn out to be highly profitable, but it's likely to fail. Earlier this year Discord tried to add NFTs to their client, and it was met with such backlash that they immediately did a 180 and dropped their plans. Gamers want a good product that is worth their money, and NFT is not helping make games better, but it can make them worse.

I think it's you who should check things before posting, because the OP was made on Nov 30, back when Bitcoin actually had a small recovery from it's dip to $54k that happened earlier, which is what the meme is about - Bitcoin crashed from $59k on Nov 25, but "Saylor bought the dip" and it bounced back to the previous level.

When I started my Bitcoin journey by joining this forum in 2016, I didn't have any spare money to buy BTC, and as I was earning on this forum by doing freelance work and bounties, I even had to immediately spend my earned coins to cover my expenses. But I managed to save quite enough coins, so today a big portion of my stash can be traced back to those early earnings.

There can be people who hodl coins that were gifted to them, claimed from faucets, received as a payment, etc.

Crypto-related journalism has always been garbage, it's basically an arms race of clickbaits between dozens of low-quality sites, the only thing that matters to them is making SHOCKING titles and getting that ad revenue. I'm getting all my crypto news from this forum, because if something remarkable happens, someone will create a thread here.

It's kinda bad that a lot of beginners will get misled by these news, but what can we do? Not everyone visits this forum or social media.

It's not exactly fresh news, anyone who looked at Bitcoin distribution chart could have noticed that it will approach that number around this time. You could know it 1 year ago or 5 years ago or 10 years ago. The reason why Bitcoin is so high is because everyone knew about the slow down and eventual stop of emission, so they were accumulating while it's low. So, it has always been priced in.

KMSPico is so popular that there are countless malicious fakes, and if you are googling "download KMSPico", or looking for it on torrents, you're almost guaranteed to get malware. The original version was/is distributed on My Digital Life forum, but it's probably hard to get it, providing it's still there.

If you want to pirate Windows, use Microsoft Activation scripts - it's open source and is very popular, so a lot of people have reviewed the code.

If the owner of lost coins planned to never sell them and use them as a currency, then the loss wasn't really a donation, because those coins wouldn't have been dumped on the market anyway. Also, the market doesn't know if a coin is lost or not, no one can know that, aside from the owner. So the market can't react to, let's say some news that say "1,000 BTC was lost today".

You truly believe in that? Everyone in the world is still using banks and centralized payment systems. Bitcoin and even all cryptocurrencies together represent an immesurably small share of daily transactions of the world.


If Bitcoin was perfect, it would have been used way more. Try to answer yourself, why are companies and businesses not rushing to use it for "flexible payments across borders".

It's not fair to compare Bitcoin with stocks, since Bitcoin started from $0 while stocks had some initial value, and also using single timeframe for all assets. Because you can just as easily take a shitcoin that pumped like crazy a month ago and say that it outperformed Bitcoin by x100 times, so it's a better asset.

Bitcoin is a good investment because it has strong fundamentals - its network, its community, the codebase, innovation; not because it showed great performance in the past.

It's a very big misconception to think that staking or yield farming or whatever other altcoin investment instruments are better than buy and hodl of Bitcoin, because they are doing something over the time. The only thing that matters is performance measured in US dollars, and Bitcoin easily beats any altcoin investment over the course of 2-3 years, because while alts can have their moments of high returns, they will generally stagnate and slowly fall, so unless you are a genius short-term trader, you will be losing money by trying to play the long game with them.

If you're hodling shitcoins, you are losing value every day. Those DOGE buyers are sitting and waiting for the pump that could never come, because even now that shitcoin is insanely overpriced.

Anyway, what's so special about Saylor's investment, beside its size? Other people, who entered way earlier and hodl, have made much higher returns of investment. People like Winklevoss twins. But they don't post about it on Twitter, so no one talks about that.

Because that logo, as opposed to earlier version designed by Satoshi, is done in minimalist style, so it could only be a single color and no obscure/rarely used colors could be used. I think the point of orange here is that it's kinda like gold but also different from it, just like Bitcoin. And traditionally currency was made from shiny warm-colored metals like gold or copper, so orange fits this theme.

Because that transaction had one input and 2 outputs - my address and change. Services usually do batched withdrawals when they pay to many addresses at the same time, and they also use many small inputs in their transactions, which are the coins that were deposited by users. A single or a few large inputs happen when their hot wallet is empty and they use funds from the cold, or freshly refilled their hot wallet from the cold wallet, or if they had just consolidated all their UTXO. I find it extremely unlikely that when I received that payment, it was a service that had to process just one withdrawal and they only had a single 400 BTC coin and no smaller input.

A long time ago in 2017 I was doing altcoin bounties on this forum, back when many of them were paying in BTC, and one time I got really surprised when a payment for the work came from a single address that held 400 BTC, which I think at that time was already over $1 million.

What's your story of sending or receiving money from whales, if you have one? Not counting the wallets of centralized services, of course.

It all depending on the structure of your wallet.

Imagine you have 1 address 1xxx that received 1 BTC one time. You have no choice but to use it and anyone receiving coins from you could assume that you had 1 BTC.

Now imagine that you received 0.25 BTC to the same 1xxx address 4 times. Sending someone 0.1 BTC would require only one of those outputs, but it would still reveal the rest of the outputs of the same address, and it will be practically like the first case.

Now imagine you received 0.25 BTC four times, but into a unique address every time. Now if you send your friend 0.1 BTC, they will only know that you owned 0.25 BTC and not know about the three other 0.25 BTC  coins. However, your friend will know about your 0.15 BTC change, and if you will later use it together with the other 0.25 BTC coins (for example to send someone 0.35 BTC), they will learn about them.

To have good privacy you need to use mixing services and manually select coins (UTXO - unspent transaction output) when you make a transaction.

How does some random people tweeting to an old guy who will never read or care about those posts really means anything? Cointelegraph as always produces garbage articles because their business model is spewing out as much quantity as possible, disregarding all quality.

You can forget about this whole "Bitcoin will soon replace banks thing" until Bitcoin's technology is actually capable of doing this, which is not happening soon, maybe it won't ever happen. It's no secret that onchain capacity can't cover the daily need for transaction of even a small country, and even with Lightning Network, if everyone tried to open a channel, the backlog would be enormous.