Perhaps you should better read what was written by the one you are trying to defend for some reason, and if he admits that I posted a screenshot of the message he sent, what is this post of yours for? The way I see it, you (and some others) would very much like the one who sells his BTT account to become a victim, and the one who discovered this same member is to blame for the fact that the whole thing came to the public?

You are all wondering if the screenshot I published is credible, and no one has yet questioned whether the screenshot from Telegram is credible or fabricated - although even that has no significance in the whole story, unless someone decided to sacrifice their BTT account to trying to discredit me in some way.

The IMF has no power to ban Bitcoin anywhere, and all it can do is give advice or blackmail those who are thinking of doing the same or something similar to El Salvador. Their negative attitude is nothing that should surprise us, because it would be really incredible if they said otherwise.

To think that such organizations will "promote" Bitcoin in any way is not at all logical, because they will protect the system at all costs.

Let's put it this way, I hope you learned an important lesson that you only paid $11 for - a lot of other members lost a lot more, so you can count yourself lucky in a way.

As for scams on the forum, you are not far from the truth, because scams on the forum are not moderated and do not expect them to be. Trading with beginners without any reputation is completely frivolous and risky, and if you're already doing it, then don't do it without escrow - even though for such small amounts it doesn't really make sense.

What I can do is warn others about this case and tag that user, but he will continue with his scams, and it is probably not his only BTT account.

Judging by the screenshot you posted, it is possible that the ban is the result of the fact that the post contains links to something that someone has reported as malware. That's just my guess considering that the deleted post shares the same date as your ban.

Regarding the question about the year in the e-mail address, what I know is that the e-mail addresses for hacked accounts were changed in terms of the number of years in the e-mail, but I am not sure that this is the case for banned accounts as well.


Recovering hacked/lost accounts

---

You didn't post a link to your account ->

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=324791
https://bpip.org/Profile?id=324791

@Cz-Silk, this is the english part of the forum, so the links you post should be in English - most of us don't speak Spanish

---

I think this is the strongest sentence in the article, because it implies that Luke is the creator of Bitcoin, and if we continue in this direction, maybe all possible creators could write their opinion, so every day of the week we would have a new topic about someone's opinion about something that is so stupid and pointless that it's not worth wasting your time on. In fact, it doesn't matter at all what someone thinks about ordinals, because it's a passing thing that some people are trying to profit from, and these are the same ones who have already gotten rich promoting NTF as the next big thing.

I wouldn't really trust the data from the source you mentioned, because it is inexplicable that China is at the top, and we know that BTC trading has been banned there for years. Of course, no one will dispute that there are ways to buy BTC without the authorities finding out, but the extent to which this happens in a particular country is just speculation.

I sent several such reports, but I never expected that someone would get back to me with some information. A few days ago, I reported a PM in which a member offered me his BTT account for sale, and I asked for someone from the staff to confirm that the PM is authentic, but nothing happened. A simple public announcement in the thread I opened would not take much of anyone's time nor would it affect the security of the forum in any way - and who knows, maybe they are still thinking about it.

There was news during the last few years that some banks offered this very service, but if you ask me personally, it's a bad idea because in most cases the bank will not provide anything more than an exchange/custodial service, and that means a potentially worse situation than what we have with CEX. The advantages of banks becoming crypto exchanges would be that clients would not have to do additional KYC with various private companies, and that in banks Bitcoin would be secured in case of hacking, as is the case with deposits in savings accounts which (at least in the EU) are insured by the state in the amount of EUR 100 000.

But that kind of approach to owning Bitcoin would be completely wrong for me, because if you don't own your private keys, you don't actually own anything. Therefore, it might be better to leave banks aside, because as much as it seems that banks would be a system that would allow Bitcoin to become available in a simple and easy way, let's not forget that one of the reasons why Bitcoin exists is precisely to bypass banks.

The OP is a plagiarist, and maybe he uses an AI chat bot, so there's no point in asking him something, because he doesn't even understand what he wrote. FUD or not, we don't need to waste time on these kinds of discussions because they lead nowhere.

You're a bigger troll than I thought, but it's not worth arguing too much with such people, because you obviously have the attitude that things like this should be swept under the carpet instead of the community finding out what really happened.

My reputation is very important to me (regardless of what others think about it), and I will certainly not allow myself to be called into question by protecting someone who did something that the majority of members of this community do not approve (at least in principle).

Apart from me, only one DT member left a red tag, so that also clearly shows that the majority thinks like you - that is, they gave him a second chance.

In that case, we can conclude that a fairly large percentage of people think in the wrong way, or it would be even better to say that they want to get in quickly and get out quickly with as much profit as possible. I am not at all surprised at such an attitude of an average person who is brainwashed every day by various government officials, especially those who come from central banks and similar financial institutions. When you hear the same phrases being said with ease like "it could all collapse at any moment" or "Bitcoin price could go to zero" it's clear why most people don't want to "take risks" in the long term.

I agree, they Not Going To Make It.

It's not about whether someone needed money or sold BTC because they were curious or maybe wanted to be recorded as someone who wanted to go down in history, but about the fact that the OP is wrong when he claims that this is the lowest price at which someone sold Bitcoin. In my previous post, I wrote that back in 2009, Martti Malmi sold as much as 5050 BTC for only $5.02, which means that the price of 1 BTC was only $0.00099.

Maybe you're right, and maybe the OP really wants to go in a different direction and I think he should be given a chance. I checked his post history and since December last year he was not active in the bounty, and the merit was an additional motivation in order to encourage him to make a change. It is true that he needs many more merits to become a Full member, but every journey begins with the first step - we can say that he only needs 9 merits to become a Member, which is a much more attainable goal.

I would answer you with a counter question - can "our" man be someone who works for the US government and according to the guidelines of that same government? The article you linked also states that this man worked for Goldman Sachs for 20 years, and after all that time he is certainly not inclined to any ideas like Bitcoin.

The only thing I agree with him on is the following statement :

Without getting into how unintelligent someone is or isn't, I don't think Bitcoin is so complicated that an average person with at least a high school diploma can't figure it out in a very short period of time. By that I mean maybe 2-3 hours of lectures, with the condition that the person teaching knows what he is talking about and knows how to make a presentation, because pictures sometimes speak a lot more than words.

From my personal experience, I didn't conclude that people can't understand Bitcoin because it's too complicated, but because the idea itself is quite meaningless to them, considering that they are too deep in a system that suits them (most of them). Being your own bank is not something most people want, or better said, people don't want that risk or responsibility.

I would therefore conclude that we don't need a simpler Bitcoin, but we need people who think outside the generally set frameworks, and there are very few of them in the world, to be honest. For such a drastic change in thinking, children should be taught from the moment they start elementary school - but it is hard to expect the authorities to work against themselves and suggest to anyone that Bitcoin is something better than what they represent.

@Kalam001, I thought I was clear enough in my post, but apparently I wasn't considering that you ask the same questions and that you didn't read the forum rules as I advised you. You have already violated one of them (posting multiple posts in the row), and there are many more that you should read - take your time and read ->

Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ 

Also, read all the sticky threads at the top of this board, because that's the only way to learn some things - you won't achieve anything by repeating the same questions.   

Given that you defend it so ardently, the question arises whether you are in some way connected to that account/member? In your opinion, everyone should get a second chance, regardless of what they do, to the extent that it can have long-term, very bad consequences for any member of this forum?

Not only is he more than obviously guilty because he had the intention of selling his BTT account, but he also involved me in all of that - and regardless of the fact that people who think logically think that I am not the person who contacted him on Telegram, the doubt always remains - or better to say that the damage he did to me is irreparable.

Maybe that was his intention from the beginning, even to the extent that he consciously sacrificed one of his alt accounts - because I doubt that it was the first and last BTT account he sold.

And what about Martti Malmi who sold 5050 BTC for only $5.02 back in 2009? It was also the first official transaction when it comes to conversion from BTC to fiat. I don't see that it was a big problem then, because everyone could mine BTC with their personal computer and mine a few thousand BTC every day without any trouble.

Source

If I understand correctly, you mean that the price will go down because there is not enough BTC in the "system" for trading? Fewer available BTC on the market with the increased demand that has been evident since the beginning of this year should have quite the opposite effects to those you describe.


Just listen to what they write and say on the mainstream media and everything will be fine - it seems that their "experts" have some bigger problems with mathematics, because it is stupid to say that 10 years ago more people traded Bitcoin than today.


You are obviously still under the impression of what happened 1 or 2 years ago, so you don't understand that losses are an integral part of trading on every market. In addition, Bitcoin has grown by more than 50% compared to the bottom (below $16k), and you are talking about some kind of "price creeping" - first you need to look at the real data, and then draw conclusions.