Yeah, I had to look at bitcoin's price chart yesterday to confirm that, except I'm not so sure about the $35k mark you mentioned.  I don't check it regularly, but I had a feeling there was an upward trend and there has been ever since November 2022 (!).  There was a big dip in September of last year, but just look at the graph from CMC:



I don't know if this is from people speculating about the halving or what, but I'm not the kind of chymist that looks a gift donkey in the mouth, you know?

My politics tend to lean toward the right, and I find many things like ESG funding and forced diversity in media to be a horrible trend that's actually discrimination disguised as something else, and it only serves to divide rather than unite us.

So you probably know what my answer to this is going to be: if women want to get into bitcoin and become so involved in it that they actually become influential, they're free to do so.  I've never heard any stories of women being discriminated against when it comes to the crypto space, so the paucity of women in general and influential ones in particular tells me that the majority of bitcoin/crypto enthusiasts are male. 

It's been that way from the start based on the few books I've read about bitcoin's history.  We don't need more women necessarily, as I don't think there's any benefit to anyone if they suddenly started adopting it.  They can if they want to; nothing's stopping them.

I thought of that after I made my last post here--since it isn't likely that multiple participants are going to do what the member icopress called out, a PM would have sufficed instead of making a post that sends a strong (and obviously somewhat controversial) message to every person who's in one of icopress's campaigns.

And yahoo62278, you've got it right that campaigns are all about the money and I don't think I've ever seen a manager try to micromanage people's posts like this.  I'd also agree with whoever said there are a certain percentage of campaigners who don't even know what kind of service/product they're renting out their sig space to.  Most members just try to get into the highest-paying campaign they can and don't care what's being advertised and don't even care to even know exactly what it is. 

I disagree with that to an extent.  Renting out your signature space is simply a financial transaction, and unless there's a rule in the campaign that you can't express your own opinion about competitors, members should be able to do so.  Bashing whatever it is you're advertising is another story, but praising a competitor?  Eh.

Well, you are the manager and your statement speaks for itself as far as what you expect from the participants you manage, no?  A lot of those members are deathly afraid of losing a spot in a campaign or pissing off a campaign manager, so they'll avoid doing what you were so outraged about even if you didn't explicitly tell them to.  Doubt me?  Remember lightlord's campaigns and his failure to pay the participants?  Very few of them even said a word about it, and there were even some who'd defend him in spite of them being in the process of being fucked over.  Just saying that as a campaign manager, even a statement that doesn't include any new requirements might very well do so simply because of the power they wield. 

I don't agree with icopress's above statement at all.  It might be bad etiquette to bad mouth whatever you're advertising in your signature space (and it would certainly cause a bit of confusion/head-scratching to anyone who might not know much about sig campaigns), but requiring members to mention the product/service in their sig space if they're engaged in a discussion about a set of products/services in which it belongs is just not good--unless that sort of posting is explicitly prohibited in the campaign's rules, and even then I think it's crossing a line.

No.  Any issue like this should be a matter between the campaign manager and the participants.  There's no way Theymos would institute a rule of any kind dealing with how members should post when they're advertising stuff.

In any case, people probably shouldn't be renting advertising space to a wallet that they wouldn't even mention in a list of wallets they'd recommend to others.  I understand icopress's point, but if he was truly "extremely outraged" I think that's an overwrought reaction.

It does seem to be a bit different seeing bitcoin soar while some of the older, better-known altcoins (like LTC for instance) haven't been doing as well--at least that's my impression based on following the prices of each; I haven't done a chart comparison to check if that's really the case.

But damn, if you don't call this a bull run then how do you define that term?  Bitcoin was at $25k last September, so it doubled in roughly five months.  If that isn't a bull-something, I don't know what is.

Wowza!

Just woke up a little while ago and just happened to check preev about two minutes ago.  When I went to sleep bitcoin was just over $48k, so I was pleasantly surprised to see it break that $50k milestone.  It seems like forever since bitcoin has seen that level, even though it's only been several years IIRC.

I'm puzzled as to the results of the poll here.  I would have expected more bullish sentiment, but as I write this the votes are about 50/50.  What's wrong with y'all bears?  Can't you see bitcoin is in an upward trend and has been for a while now?  Dang!

Oh man....over the course of my time watching bitcoin I've seen gains of over 100x.  Specifically I remember being able to buy it at $200 back in 2015 or so, and every time I think about what could have been for me I just get this big ol' cloud of gloom come over me.  I do think you're correct that we're probably not going to see that type of growth over a period of 9-10 years, but as I've said many times before I never in my wildest dreams thought bitcoin would reach $1k.

And then I thought it'd never reach $10k.
Or $50k.

So I guess bitcoin is like a boxer that really shouldn't be judged a KO by the referee until the count is finished.  There's probably a way better analogy, but I've been awake for at least two sunsets so cut me some slack.

OP, I don't know what country you live in but any cigarette you can buy in the US for $2 is probably made from what's swept up off the floors of some big tobacco company and rebranded as a cigarello or some such thing--I've tried them, and it's like smoking sulfuric acid.

Even so, anyone who smokes ought to either quit or (this is not a health recommendation but a financial one) switch to vaping.  I'm a former cigarette smoker and would spend at least $10 a day on smokes until I started vaping.  It's so much cheaper than a pack-a-day cig habit it's not even funny.  And just my anecdotal experience: I don't have the dreaded smoker's hack anymore, and my lungs don't feel constantly congested with tar.  I'd love to quit altogether for health reasons, but haven't been able to yet.

Tying this back to bitcoin, I would certainly agree that with the huge amount of money saved by stopping an unhealthy (and stinky) habit, you'd be able to stack some serious sats--and pretty quickly, too.  Anyone living in the US or any country where tobacco products are hellishly expensive could back me up on that, because it's a massive expense.

Oh wow!  I'd checked the price of XMR a month or two ago, and it was holding steady at something like $140 or so while the rest of the altcoin market was experiencing some major pain.  Seeing it now at $119.41 (at the time I write this) is a bit of a shock. 

Not surprising Binance delisted it, but the Monero community and Monero owners in general seem to have strong hands when it comes to market turmoil or even events like exchange delisting--and this major drop is what surprises me.  Still, I doubt it's going to stay as low as it is and I don't think it's going to drop below $100 (though I certainly could be wrong). 

Having said all that, I don't know how many real use cases there are for XMR.  Dark web?  Don't know, but I thought bitcoin was still used there.  What I do know is that payment processors that take coins other than bitcoin pretty much never accept it.  It's a great privacy coin, and it really is a shame merchants don't (or most likely can't) accept it.

Hey OP, since you've gotten every combination and permutation of the same answer from multiple members, why don't you do the forum a favor and lock this thread.

And by the way, if you'd bothered to read any of the introduction stuff (the thread _BlackStar linked to is stickied in Meta) you'd already have everything you need to understand how activity and posts are related.  Try to practice better forum etiquette in the future, please.

I don't know, man.  That line of thinking sounds like a mixture of blind faith, following what others do, and second-sucker theory.

Solana has never been on my radar, so I'm not quite sure how a coin's network can have outages but as a disinterested observer that sounds pretty ominous to me.  And yeah, SOL might have shot up quite a bit in its history but so have tons of other coins (most of which are total crapola).  Then again I'm not a big fan of most alts in general, so my opinion is based not only on ignorance of Solana's mission but my own prejudices against any crypto that isn't named bitcoin.

For me personally, if I had a large amount of fiat to buy bitcoin with, I'd just do it all in one shot instead of DCA'ing--but that's just because I think the price is headed much higher.  But I don't, and I'm not even doing DCA so it's a moot point.  However, I think for those folks who also don't have enough to buy a big stash of BTC, DCA is probably a smart strategy.  I'm not sure if Michael Saylor has been doing that, but he certainly hasn't made one single purchase, and his company has the cash to buy plenty.

I think any kind of buying strategy in the crypto market takes a lot of discipline and steady nerves.  The volatility alone can make anyone doubt what they're doing if they've got any reservations whatsoever about bitcoin or whatever altcoin they're buying.  It can be a hellish ride at times, ya know?

Yep, and I really wish OP would go back and edit that to show the usernames instead of just posting a link to the members' merit pages.  That makes a lot of extra work for anybody who's curious enough to click on the links like I did.

I haven't read this entire thread yet (and probably won't, since I'm not interested in this particular drama), but unless LFC_Bitcoin is a merit source--which might well be the case, as he's one of the top recent merit senders--he can do whatever he wants with his sMerits.  But in his particular case, he's earned so many merits from his own posts that I don't think it's a big deal at all that he sends merits to posts that might not be substantial. 

What I don't like to see is negative feedback from members regarding issues that have little to do with someone's trade worthiness, and looking through some of the links here I did notice some of that.  But as long as the members who left such trust (like nutildah) don't have a habit of doing it, there's no reason to take any action.  So I'm not seeing a lot of wrongdoing here.

Yes!!  Justice prevails on bitcointalk!  But seriously, I haven't noticed any threads getting locked by the mods for being idiotic as of late, though that could be because the creators of those turds don't make a big stink about it like OP is here.  It's nice to see mods taking some action by actually locking unnecessary threads, and I give 'em props for doing so.

Maaan, you could be listening to Kool Moe Dee on a ghetto boom box in your unsanitary bathroom and it wouldn't matter.  Don't start up stupid threads in which shitposters can shitpost.  There's too much of that going on, and you're not helping the forum by trying to be a writer.

Every economic term was newly invented at some point, with some being more idiotic and/or intentionally obfuscating than others.  And by the way, liquidity is also a term made up by somebody and is used often and often misused.

See that bolded part of your statement?  How are you defining liquidity?  How do you know that if money-printing continues that bitcoin will benefit from it?  There's no guarantee whatsoever that it will, I'd argue.

And finally, I don't care if you're the hardest of the hardcore bitcoiners, nobody ought to be rooting for more money-printing.  Why?  Because I would bet the ranch that you buy nearly everything with fiat, and loose policies regarding money supply will destroy your purchasing power.  And even if you buy things with bitcoin, there's most likely a payment processor involved that converts your BTC to fiat, which is what the merchant wants....and the fiat price of whatever you're buying is going to go up, and bitcoin might not. 

Note: when I say "you" I don't mean you personally, Wind_FURY.  I'm speaking in generalities.

Motivations have changed over time - but maybe, we tend to have a harder time finding bad posters when we ignore megathreads more often.
[/quote]Yep--I lost my motivation almost completely after Theymos created the merit system, since that seemed to reduce the motivation for idiots to continue shitposting.  There was a time when I'd visit those spam megathreads and spend an hour or two just going through them and reporting all the nonsense, no-value crap to the mods.  Usually I'd pick up on some alt accounts, too.

Speaking of spam megathreads, it's really, really unfortunate that Bitcoin Discussion seems to still be one of the sections that hosts many of them (although I've un-ignored it recently).  I've said that a few times before over the years and it holds true to this day.  Bitcoin Discussion should be one of the best-kept sections here, and yet it's a haven for crap posters with little to say other than some words strung together, maybe with punctuation, maybe not.  Ah well.

And yeah, I'd like to see some data on the current top reporters.  Theymos gave us what, two reports in total?  I know it isn't top priority for him, but it'd be nice to acknowledge the members who help keep the forum clean and do it for free and with nearly no recognition.

That's probably the harshest way to reply to OP, so I'll take it down a notch and just say that OP might just be taking out his frustrations--whether it's his own gambling problem, losses, whatever--on Rollbit, when it might not be their fault entirely for not closing all of his accounts.

Even if they didn't, OP ought to have un-bookmarked that site, erased whatever traces were left from it from his phone, PC, you name it and then shouldn't have tried to log on again.  On top of that, there's nothing I can see that would prevent him from creating an account on another gambling site if he decided to indulge his addiction against his better judgement.

In other words, this really isn't a scam accusation, just a complaint without much basis.  I understand how problem gambling can wreck lives, OP.  I sincerely hope you can get your life back on track if you've suffered any of the consequences of it--and if not, I hope you never learn how bad it can get.

Maybe.  I know I fooled around with very un-secure things like web wallets when I was first learning the ropes, but then there are people like the Winklevoss twins who did their due diligence around security issues before making their first bitcoin purchase.

Whatever the argument is here, OP looks like he's shilling and not sparking up a real conversation.  If I were him I'd lock the thread ASAP.

Neat!  This is the kind of stuff I've wondered about in the back of my head but never really sought out the answers to, and I appreciate the detailed explanation.

And here we are in 2024, where a bunch of shitcoins can still be mined using CPUs, GPUs, ASICs, and even hard drives but nothing comes close to bitcoin in terms of popularity or market domination.  If only I'd heard about it in the very early days and understood its significance (because as it stands, there was a disconnect between the two the way it happened for me anyhow), I'd be living a much different life right now.  In any case, it's wild to think about how easy it was to mine BTC then as opposed to now--the evolution from using a PC to high-dollar ASICs seems like something that would have taken place over decades instead of 15 years (in my mind at least).

Even the early faucets paid out what in hindsight was an incredible amount of bitcoin.  Even if you'd saved everything you received from faucets from back in 2015, you'd probably have a decent stash.  I hate thinking about this stuff.