Great movie--but it's only a movie, and it's also a 50-year old one at that.  The Corleones were involved in criminal activities, not the least of which was murder, so it's not surprising that they tended to keep business discussions away from the dinner table.  In 1972, stocks weren't in a bull market either.  If you watch a movie like Boiler Room or even Wolf of Wall Street or TV shows like Billions, you'll see the exact opposite of what you see in The Godfather, where money is being discussed in bed, at the dinner table, on the couch, everywhere.  Times have changed.

And I'm pretty ignorant of culture in other countries, but I'd say money and the discussion thereof in the US is far more prominent than many other nations--or perhaps in a different context, e.g., discussing money as investment as opposed to talking about how to pay for daily necessities or whatever else.  And I think that's because right now Americans have more money than they know what to do with, which is in no small part because of all the cash that's been handed out by the government.  It's why Game Stop stock was pumped to the moon, it's why the stock market is in the upper atmosphere, and probably why bitcoin is sitting at $63k as I write this.

Plus Americans as a rule are greedy AF, there's no denying that.

Personally, I think getting a university education is important (unless you're an entrepreneurial genius like Bill Gates, Zuckerberg, and the like), but not all degrees are equal.  Some people major in subjects like history or psychology, and when they hit the workforce they suddenly find out that their four years of education doesn't really help them.  Majoring in one of the STEM field subjects is the way to go, but even getting a degree in business, accounting, or something that gives you a marketable skill is to your advantage.

Are you kidding?  It's only in times like these when FOMO rears its (often dangerous) head.  If you've got a real fear of missing out on bitcoin rocketing up to who knows what price, my advice to you is to keep that emotion in check as best you can--and I know it's hard when you're looking at preev or wherever and see it moving closer and closer to a new ATH.  Why?  Because I have a feeling that there'll be a dip either before it surpasses the ATH or shortly after if it does.  That'll be the time to buy.

Oh, man.  That sucks.  But if it's any comfort, I don't own much either and I'm more of a bystanding cheerleader of bitcoin.  It's times like this when I try not to think of the time I got scammed out of 0.3BTC by TimSweat.  Bitcoin was worth a lot less then and it didn't sting too badly at the time, but if I had that now....

Usually I have the Speculation section on ignore, but I just had to check the threads here today.  Have we not already hit a new ATH?  Per preev, bitcoin is at $63,280.

I don't even know why that's technically against the rules (though I can obviously see how it would be abused), since if a person creates a thread they might want to reply to other members' posts, even if that means making multiple posts within a 24-hour period--and I do realize you said as much in the part of your post that I snipped out.

I've started threads where I'm looking for feedback, and I've been guilty of inadvertently bumping my thread more times than the rule allows for, but it was never my intent to bump the thread in order to keep it on top of the section.  I also think the rule was made to prevent "spam bumpers" who do this primarily, but not exclusively, in the ANN sections.  Hopefully that was its intent; otherwise, it'd be hard to carry on genuine discussions.

Yep, when I used to visit the ANN section during the ICO insanity I'd see much the same thing.  Project owners were clearly hiring bumping services (or employing alt accounts) to keep their threads at the top of the page.  It was maddening to look at, because the posts that would bump the threads were all of the "great project!" variety, and it was obvious what was happening.

No wonder I have you on ignore--and I regret peeking at your post in spite of that.  Obviously you don't realize that there are legitimate, public companies that trade on the NYSE which pay an annual dividend rate of over 8-9%.  So you could make that level of return just from income alone, not to mention potential capital gains.

If a crypto operation promises returns in the ballpark of 20% and up, I'd definitely be skeptical and would look into how those kinds of profits could be achieved--but in most cases, such information isn't available and you have no idea how your investment is going to be put to use. 

The investbox feature of Yobit is nothing but gambling, and I think they think the words invest and gamble mean the same thing.  Anyway, since OP has been made aware that he hasn't stumbled upon a previously unknown scam, I think he should lock this thread now.

I agree, though it would be nice if members would post evidence if they've had a problem like the one you quoted.  There's no way of verifying whether that person is telling the truth, because he didn't provide any screenshots or TxIDs, etc.  But still, I'm inclined to believe him, as I've recently read similar complaints about Bitvest players not being able to withdraw their funds after running into an error that they'd never previously encountered (IIRC).

You might be willing to give lightlord the benefit of the doubt, but I'm certainly not.  This isn't the first time he's mismanaged his business or one of his campaigns, which tells me that it would be extremely risky to use Bitvest or to participate in a campaign that he's responsible for making payments for.  That's why my negative trust is going to stand, because I think the community needs to be warned that they might encounter the same problems that have happened in the past.

Yeah, the Silk Road stash--and who knows how much bitcoin they've seized from other criminal cases that haven't been front page news?  Law enforcement seizes money all the time from drug dealers, and if I had to guess I'd say it's likely that various LE agencies in the US have control of crypto wallets they've acquired from illegal activities.

But that's much different than what OP is talking about.  El Salvador actually invested in bitcoin (or at least bought it for a specific purpose, which I think was to fund ATMs in part), and they were the first country to do something like that as far as I know. 

I'm rolling my eyes at that post as well, and I apologize for repeating what you wrote about El Salvador's situation being different than bitcoin seizure.  Just put that idiot on ignore, because he has a habit of writing incoherent nonsense.

It'd be really cool if countries started buying up bitcoin, but I wouldn't really want my government spending taxpayer dollars on a significant amount of it unless they had a very good reason for doing so--and my opinion is based solely on bitcoin's volatility.  MicroStrategy might be iconoclastic by snapping up btc for its treasury, but they're taking a huge risk that could backfire.  None of us want it to, but if you've been into bitcoin for a few years, you know the price swings and prolonged bear markets can be morale-crushing to some.  If it were to seriously tank, that would be a massive hit to MSTR's balance sheet, and if we're talking about a government, they'd be losing their taxpayer's money (though even 700BTC is a fairly small amount relative to a decent-sized country's economy).

It's always nice to get input from moderators, as Theymos is mostly silent about conversations like this.  What I understand from your post is that more reporting of shitposts would be appreciated and perhaps handled if mods agree with the reporter--am I correct about that? 

Hopefully so, because I stopped reporting crap posts shortly after the merit system came along, and before that I got the sense that my reporting wasn't worth my time.  I'd often see a post I reported linger on indefinitely (though I did see mods take action on a lot of them as well).

That post right there, that's a head-scratcher.  I'm not sure what kind of mind links the existence of bitcoin to the non-existent right to post anything and everything on this forum--and I have to assume he means just bitcointalk, because I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he's not that retarded. 

If only more campaign participants thought that way and really did treat their position in a campaign (or a bounty) as a real job, where they should be a good worker.  That would mean not burst posting, putting thought and effort into their posts, taking their time when writing, and being at least somewhat proficient in the language in which they're writing.  Unfortunately we all know that isn't the case--and for some campaigners, the amount they get paid is more than they could make in a week or even a month in their country.  You'd think they'd try their best instead of dumping garbage all over the place for others to clean up.

Honestly, I don't think these guys are in competition with each other for the title of world's richest person--especially Warren Buffett.  I am kind of surprised that Elon Musk is worth that much, but then again I don't really know much about him (yeah, I don't follow the news all that much).

Regarding the retaining of the title: If Musk is worth $23 billion, I don't think he'll have much trouble remaining the richest person on earth.  On the other hand, I don't know a damn thing about what he owns as far as investments, properties, and so forth.  I know about Tesla, but I'm thinking that if he's holding risky assets or if any of his business ventures fail, his wealth could take a big hit.  No idea if that would shave off billions of dollars from it, but I guess it's possible.

And boy, what does a person do after he's declared the richest individual on earth?  I mean where do you go from there?  Lol.  I'd love to have that problem.

I'll be honest with you--I don't even know how Chipmixer works myself, but that's mostly because I'm too fucking stupid to understand the intricacies of things that can be done on blockchains.  I've picked up some knowledge over the years, but I never really had the time or the "tech intelligence" that it takes to understand how a service like Chipmixer works.  I'd admit to other things I'm ignorant about, but I don't feel like embarrassing myself even more.

As far as advertising for Chipmixer, I get SmokerFace's point, but it's kind of the same argument that bitcoin is bad because it's been used to buy drugs and all sorts of other illegal stuff.  From a campaigner's point of view, signature space is just being rented out in the same manner as a TV station selling ad spots to anyone that pays.  If what's being advertised is a known scam, then I have a problem with it--but just because a scammer used a service to launder money doesn't mean the service is in the wrong.  Perhaps they should have checked those incoming funds....but I really don't know how they do things.

Ah, thank you.  I got a PM from SmokerFace in which he provided the same links, and I was confused as to what I should be looking at since the QueenVera post had subsequently been deleted. 

As I said, I'm keeping an open mind about this--but SmokerFace, I think you're encountering resistance from the community partially because CryptopreneurBrainBoss has established a respectable repuation but also in part due to how inflammatory your accusations are and your responses to said resistance.  I get that it's frustrating when people don't see things that you see as obvious, but what can you do?  Lashing out at people isn't going to persuade anybody about the point you're trying to make.  If anything, it'll make them dig in their heels even more.

It's because they want to point out the perceived unfairness of DT standards and also it's much easier to create more drama if you attack someone with a positive reputation, as opposed to a bunch of average campaign participants who don't stand to lose anything if they're called out for something.

I second this, Desmongrel.  You clearly have no idea what the situation was, so your best course of action from here on is to just keep silent unless you know the facts--because you're talking to members who do know the facts, and you're coming off as an ignorant blowhard.

Well damn, my prediction was once again wrong--and I'm kind of happy it was, though I'm still a little bit leery of bitcoin's continued rise (and I've given the reason for that a number of times).

I've looked at the btc price chart on coinmarketcap, and it looks like the official ATH was $63,314.  Does that sound right to anyone?  I don't know what the exact price it got to going by their chart.  In any event, unless we see a massive pullback very soon it looks as though bitcoin is going to bust right through that ATH and keep going.

And to think that back in March 2020 I thought bitcoin wasn't even going to hit $30k for a year or two.  Silly me.

That makes sense (although I haven't looked at who's in the Bitvest campaign), and I was kind of wondering why members would continue to wear Bitvest's signature after so many weeks of nonpayment.  That seems ludicrous in my opinion; I would jump ship as soon as I realized that delays had become the norm.

I agree, but it's not surprising that dkbit98 might not realize that inclusions/exclusions are supposed to be used to reflect a member's feedback-giving behavior, not as a measure of how much they can be trusted.  It really is a baffling trust system we have on bitcointalk.

Is lightlord on DT by any chance?  I know I've been here over 6 years, but I forgot how to check who's on DT2.  If he is, in fact, on DT I think an exclusion would be warranted, regardless of what feedback he's left for others.

It's true OP didn't present any evidence--and he should have if posting in this section--but there's already a discussion about Bitvest's hot wallet being periodically empty and lightlord's managerial neglect of his site.  I don't know if anyone linked to that thread yet, as I haven't read this thread in its entirety yet. 

I agree--gamblers need to be able to cash out when they want to, because what happens if they're not able to?  A lot of them will keep gambling until they lose.  I can't see into lightlord's head and don't know what he's thinking, but that would be a great way to scam if a gambling site's administrator was of the mind to do so.

If that's true, lightlord should be given negative trust by DT members (I've already done so for the campaign mismanagement).  Members can be trusted for years and then suddenly (or gradually) they're not.  And when they're not able to be trusted anymore, their trust page should reflect that.

In addition, I really think people should stop participating in the Bitvest campaign, not only because they're promoting a site that's nearly into scam territory but for their own sake.  Who knows when the next time lightlord is going to fall ill and be unable to make payments to his campaign participants for 10 weeks or more?

I assume you're talking about the situation with Lauda and that extortion setup, but I may be mistaken since you apparently couldn't be bothered to elaborate on what I closed my eyes to.  If it is indeed about Lauda, I was conflicted about all the accusations made against him and weighing what accusations might be true vs. the overall good Lauda did on the forum. 

If you don't spell out what you're talking about, don't ask me to pretend to understand it, just for future reference.

Handing out negs for shady activity might not be a perfect solution, by why let perfection get in the way of at least attempting to do something about forum problems?  Should DT members just sit back and do nothing just because some members don't care about negative trust?  I don't think so.

I'm not defending Royse777 for buying an account.  I don't believe he did.  Do you see the difference?

I looked at OP's trust page and LOLLed my ass off.  He registered in January and has nothing but negative feedback.  Great job you've done so far on bitcointalk, OP.  And props for all the incontrovertible evidence you've presented that Royse777's account changed hands.  That's sarcasm, just in case it doesn't register in your pea-sized brain as such.

Dude, that's nothing.  Members have taken breaks from the forum for far longer than 5 months, and their return rarely arouses suspicion.  It's also been pointed out that English is spoken around the world, even if it isn't people's first language.  There could be any number of reasons why Royse777 switched to the English section, and that's also piss-poor evidence of an account changing hands unless there are other factors that would lead one to believe that's what happened.  In this case, there aren't any such additional factors, so your accusation is BS.

Don't bother slinging mud unless you've got solid proof of wrongdoing.  I realize you're probably pissed about being negged past the point of ever rehabilitating your reputation, but don't start attacking DT or any other members for flimsy reasons.

Am I the only one here who's going to question the context of Vitalik standing in front of that particular slide?  Personally, I have no idea when or where that presentation was or what he was saying at that moment.  Thus it's very hard for me to draw any conclusions from a single picture like that.

That's not why stablecoins are important at all.  First of all, I doubt you know anybody who gets their paycheck in bitcoin, let alone in something like USDT.  Second, the only purpose that I can see for stablecoins is to protect against volatility on exchanges (not in real life like your example), in between trades when you're waiting for a buying opportunity.  But I'd love to hear your counterargument if you see this.

But let's assume that Vitalik was arguing for all of those points shown on his slide; I agree that the current financial system does indeed serve most people quite well--at least as far as having checking accounts and basic banking functions available to them.  That's why we haven't seen people clamoring to adopt bitcoin, nor a groundswell of outrage that their debit cards don't work or that it's too costly to send money to others through services like PayPal.  If you're being honest with yourself, you'll admit that's true no matter how much you love bitcoin.

He's obviously not here to learn much if he's instantly concerned about how to rank up, as Ratimov suggested.  I can't picture myself joining a forum, presumably dedicated to a subject I'm interested about, and in my first post ask about how I can rank up.  I would be reading threads replying to posts that caught my attention--or simply just reading and not posting.

Anyway OP, if earning is your primary goal on bitcointalk and you think you can maximize those earnings if you have a higher rank, you're in for a surprise courtesy of the merit system, which makes it extremely hard for members who don't contribute significantly to discussions to achieve a rank higher than Jr. Member.  

I'd wish you luck, but that would be insincere.

There was probably a flyer hanging on a community notice board in some village square somewhere in Asia or S. America, proclaiming the riches than can be gotten by simply posting on the internet.  That's always been my theory.

I looked at that link, and maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see a post made by queenvera.  Similarly, I don't know where the thread is where CryptopreneurBrainboss changed the Satoshidice.io escrow address from 19xMwMtNEv5iaEpxSjA85uHuB9iKoUVDKu to 1NVG4YK77hTDMahADQCG78gwA7TKgNE3n8.  Is the original post archived, and if it is did I somehow miss the link?

I don't know why this thread got bumped exactly, though I did read the post that did it, but I'm kind of glad it was.

The very early threads on the forum are indeed fascinating to read.  I didn't know of bitcointalk's existence until about 2013-14 and even then didn't read it frequently--plus that was during/after the Mt. Gox debacle, which was well after the beginning of signature campaigns and the rampant shitposts that followed.  Posts made in the 2010-11 era should be browsed through for anyone interested in the history of the forum, because they were much different than the typical posts you see today (plus a lot of them were made by members who've since disappeared).

But any member can read those threads if they want to, so I'm not sure if we need an additional section for bitcointalk history.  Theymos probably wouldn't go for it, either, and the fact that he never responded to this thread when it was started last year is a good indication of that.

Yeah, excellent thread from 2010 and it seems like that was decades ago rather than just over one decade.  Maybe my merit source philosophy is warped, but I wouldn't merit posts that old--especially not if they were made by Legendary members.  I try to help members rank up with the merits I give out, and in threads that old there are a lot of Legendaries and members who aren't active anymore.