Hi buddy.

I don't quite understand what you want with this. The thread is about reporting good unmerited posts, and yours have been merited, all of them. Some with a lot of merits, plus you don't need merits to rank up, so I don't know what you want.

I don't know if the logic of your reasoning is that if some of those posts instead of having 10 merits received have 20, people in your local board will pay more attention to them.

Anyway, good luck.

I believe there is some truth in the two competing statements about whether bitcoin is a hedge against inflation, or whether it likes high inflation.

On the one hand, if we consider so far, yes, Bitcoin has been the best hedge against inflation since its inception if we compare it to gold, the stock market or the real state.

But what stompix points out makes sense, as it was a common thought that scenarios like this year, and more so given all that has been printed in the last two years, were going to drive the price into the stratosphere. Recall the predictions that were being made last year, before the war broke out, about ATH for this cycle, which were much higher than what actually happened.

Would Bitcoin have a higher price if there were no war and no inflation? I think so, among other things because some of the money that people spend because of higher prices due to inflation could be invested.

So, one has to ask whether once the Bitcoin market has matured, and has a decent market cap, whether the returns are going to be lower going forward in percentage terms, which is quite likely, and whether there will be other assets that are better against inflation, such as real estate in good locations bought at a good price.

I believe that in view of this we can only observe and draw conclusions in the light of events.

Well, first of all, what you say is not strange, when there is a crisis layoffs come and one way to avoid them is to be more productive. So nothing new.


I think that in some cases it could be positive for companies to reduce CEO salaries and make workers participate in profits, either with a percentage of net profit, stocks or similar options, but being private companies, it is something they have to clarify with their shareholders.


This example you give could not be more biased. For starters, Bill Gates was not just a CEO, he is the one who founded the company. But I can assure you that an important part of the work of CEOs of non-tech companies today consists of answering emails, in addition to phone calls and videoconference meetings.

But the emails they respond to are not the kind that can be answered by the last employee to join the company, which you seem to put on a par. Or I don't know if you are one of those who believe that for someone to get paid a lot for their work they have to sweat and can't get paid a lot for being in front of an air-conditioned computer in the office.

Anyway, nothing new, as soon as the economy recovers, these companies will hire again, offering quite high salaries, but they will not make a drama in the media about it.

It's clear already.

I was simply amused that someone who confesses to being an alt, distrusts JollyGood and has on his trust list those clearly opposed to him, which raised some questions that have now been clarified.


I'm looking forward to hearing about this new project, JJG.

Yeah, too soon to say it is over.

The current situation suggests that the most catastrophic predictions will not come true. The ones that talked about the price going down to $15k, and even to $10k.

In addition, there is a general improvement in the markets, which affects the price of Bitcoin. If it continues like this, I think the worst of this cycle will be over, but I do not expect great joy until the next cycle.

Well, that's pretty typical. Certain governments make a disastrous management and to blame for their ills they always look for an external enemy.

In this case, blaming Bitcoin for things like inflation, which has been historically high in the country, is laughable.

The bad thing is that this type of attitude on the part of governments does not solve anything, but tends to make things worse, as in Argentina.

Good luck to those of you who live there.

It's not dead, but with the European Union's penchant for regulating everything and imposing more and more taxes, don't expect the private sector to be very buoyant in the future. If you have countries like France with a public sector that accounts for 60% of GDP and in others like Spain or Italy that exceeds 50%, the most profitable in the European Union if you plan to start a business is that your customers are public administrations, and for that you need contacts and suckers.

I think the same way, and act the same way in fact. Having everything in Bitcoin, or everything in cash, seems crazy to me.

Just as it is good to diversify your sources of income, it is good to diversify what you accumulate. Some cash, bitcoin, RE, something invested in the Stock Market and something else gives you much more security than if you have it all in the bank, or all in Bitcoin.

What I don't see the point is to have a lot of money, like millions, and have it all in cash. In your house, no matter how safe you think it is, it can be stolen, or there can be a fire and it can burn.


What I don't quite understand about the story is why I couldn't pay the hospital bill by credit or debit card, bank transfer or check. Normally when restrictions like that have been put in place as happened in Cyprus around 2013, the restrictions are on cash, but you can still pay by other means.

As a result of these explanations, I am going to put you in my distrust list. 

Naaaa, just joking.

Although the doubt I had when I saw your trust list, it made me learn somethinh new, such as the fact that


I may have confused you with someone else as I remember someone saying they had two other accounts.

Kind regards.

I now have a doubt when consulting this trust list:


While scrolling down, I've seen that AnotherAlt trusts The Pharmacist's judgement.

So, I went to look, and saw that AnotherAlt has a trust list, which seems to be under construction.

According to him he has two other accounts on the forum, making three in total. Assuming he is cautious about privacy, the trust lists of the other two are not going to be exactly the same, but presumably some of the members he trusts have a boost in the DT system because he includes them in his trust list three times while he is one person.

I don't know to what extent we should consider this as acceptable. It's not completely unacceptable in my opinion but seems to me morally questionable.

Another thing is if we can not know which are the other two accounts and therefore, even if we consider that including in three trust lists the same person being you one is morally questionable.

I don't know what you think about it.

I am obviously referring to LoyceV, but I welcome comments from other forum members as well.

If we go to his trust list we can see that he distrusts JollyGood and trusts Royse777, dkbit98 and BitcoinGirl.Club, which after all the recent drama is a big lol and a half.

I understand that the question is rhetorical, as it seems to me that this has already been discussed many times, and I think it is because management prefers that this traffic stays here rather than go elsewhere.

If it were as simple as if they go elsewhere, the rest of the traffic remains the same and therefore there is more net quality in the forum, it would be desirable, but you do not know if it will reduce the overall traffic of the forum even more.

It's one thing that Dave Ramsey repeats quite a bit, supposedly based on studies, that people spend more when they use cards, because there is less of what is known as friction. From least to most frictionless payment systems are:

Cash
Debit Card.
Credit Card.

And if instead of having to take the card out of the wallet you use the mobile or smartwatch there is even less friction.

Companies know this and that is why, although years ago they were initially more reticent about the new payment systems, they soon realized that people were spending more with them and have been accepting them more and more.

Apart from the useful information provided by tranthidung, I would recommend you to visit the technical sections of the forum, because if you are a software developer you will not find it too difficult to understand what is discussed there (many people on the forum find it difficult) and you will see that there are much more serious discussions than in other sections.

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if we got back to $40k this year. The normal scenario is that after the next halving we will beat the previous ath of $69k, where the next strong resistance will be $100k, which I expect us to beat after several attempts.

But yes, we will definitely get back to $40k and surpass that mark.

I haven't either. But I haven't seen any list of banned mixers either and there are already a few that have had problems with the authorities, the latest Crypto Mixer.

The problem is not so much that certain exchanges believe it or that the community believes it or not, but that the authorities believe it.

I think mindrust is talking about ~ people in your trust list. When you say "exclude" are you talking about just removing those you trust now or ~ them?

I'd say if a couple of DT1 started changing a few of the ones on their trust lists to ~ we would have quite a bit of drama.

I don't think so. The more net inclusions you require the more oligarchic the system becomes. There are already people who disagree with raising the net inclusions by one degree, I understand that making it much more restrictive is not going to be popular.

Regarding the DT1 proposal I don't know what to say, I guess partly because I have never been to DT1 and have not been overly concerned with how it works, although I have an idea. So I leave it to those of you who are in DT1 and know the system better to discuss it.

I am not surprised.

States have an unlimited voracity for revenue and a hunger for control of the same magnitude.

We have recently learned that the IRS will be increasing its staff.

At best, Bitcoin privacy in the future will be like privacy with cash: most people will only be able to have it with small amounts.

Remember that legislation is underway in the EU to KYC all transactions, of any amount.

Be careful what you do, guys.


You are right. It will happen a bit like with the internet, in its origins there was more privacy than now, although there are still spaces of privacy for those who care.