A long standing discussion yes indeed. The original idea behind bitcoin was to use it as a means for transactions, peer to peer, not fully anonymous but not fully named, uncontrollable and unstoppable. After a few considerations, the community did not reach an agreement so some bitcoin forks occurred, namely bitcoin cash being the most notable and oriented to a lower fee, making it similar to a currency.

As for bitcoin, there are two main reasons to consider it a store of value. Firstly, it is a fact that the amount that is traded is low in comparison with the stores. Secondly, the blocksize is limited so in case too many transactions occur, it actuates as self-regulating brake.

Re local Cuban board, that would be funny. The whole Spanish section of the forum is used by a few people only, but it is really good because we can talk about the topics with people who actually care. A Cuban section would be there, however I am not sure that Cubans would really be able to speak freely or at least to do so without a certain risk.

Cash is not really anonymous. You actually either make a transfer, and has your name or you give it in hand to someone who sees your face and can potentially be recording you.

I take it that you mean volatility other than the one you already have when buying with USD? I think there is a mix of things in your post. Firstly, temporal volatility that happens when the order in not executed immediately. I do not see how that can be an issue if you have an account in coinbase or any other for that matter where an order is executed in seconds.

Then you may have currency volatility, which is high no matter which fiat you choose. Since a stablecoin is pegged to USD, I do not see how does its use improve this. I think I am missing your point.


Whales using banks and delayed orders? Is there any proof or verification of that? Whales will have one or many accounts or use a trading firm.

In friendly matches it may be more difficult to really ascertain the teams strength because in many sports, particularly in soccer, motivation sometimes weights more than raw quality of the players. In a friendly game, it is much more difficult to figure out who is going to put more effort into winning. Also, some teams tend to play harder than other, and during friendly matches that may be much less and would result in a completely different strategy and possibly a different performance. Overall, I think is more difficult to predict.

Simple to answer: you get frequent headaches and your chances of dying of an aneurisma popping in your brain are high.

No, when that happens I will show you my stock ownership certificates of copper mines. They fit better in my cabinet than physical copper.

I am aware that "compassionate use" is used for a range of medicines that somehow are know to provide a healing or mitigating effects yet have not undergone the full testing procedures. Obviously, people who suffer the illnesses that can be treated would recur to the black market or to other countries if denied their medicines at home and would be ripped off in the process.

That would be the perfect legal loophole to apply these high-cost not widely available medicines to specific people who can pay for them and have access to preferential treatment. I am thinking of two presidents now.

As usual, my take on anything that Fidelity, Morgan, Blackrock or any other of the large wealth managers is the same: If they say buy "x" means that they already have a position in "x". Bitcoin is not different, the institutions will have bitcoin as it will serve a purpose and will dump bitcoin like a bounty hunter if that is in their benefit. Bitcoin is what it is thanks to all the community and we should be wary of strangers as their recommendations are no better than those of a shark advising fish.

Why do we end talking about the price everytime that one of the CEOs of large companies talk about adoption? I believe that future growth by use embedded in these platforms is not a great strategy for bitcoin. Yes, I do agree that they would represent a great backing but they are serving the people and that is were adoption should be focused. All large platforms are unlikely to use anything that they do not control and if they do, eventually, they will try to effectively control it.

I am actually paid in both, but most of my income is fiat. It is not much of a problem to convert if I need to do so and, being honest, real world prices in fiat tend to be more stable and predictable, at least in the short term. You could argue that you could also convert from crypto to fiat, but it is a question of covering your expenses in the currency these are indexed to. It would make the same sense to get paid in Yens when you live in France. Inevitably, you would face variations in your budget.

Again, fully confused by New Age gurus you are. People are not "naturally healthy", the life expectancy before there was anything that could be called medicine was 35 years and it still is in countries that cannot afford modern medicine. And it has only increased thanks to science, not just because the humans have become stronger.

Look



Now focus on on 1928 and how the curve goes crazily up. You know what is that? Fleming discovering penicillin. That is what true science and "pharma" do when correctly used. An now, do you see an sensible increase for some regions around 1880? That is Pasteur creating the science of immunology thanks to which you are alive. Don´t bother to go along the line of "I have never taken antibiotics"... your parents and ancestors expectancy of life would have been nil without these.

I can only imagine what you would say if someone got so off-topic in one of your posts. My query remains, is there a therapy that is very expensive, quite effective and personalised for each individual and available for just some people?

I insist that you choose a community in a COVID plant and have a traditional cuppa with them. Better if all you actually use the same cuppa to test your theory.

Re the failed treatment, I sympathise with your partner´s situation, it seems similar to one in my near family. Precisely, no one that calls himself a rational scientific will ever argue that all the answers have been found and that science and pharma have the solution for everything.  However, when a scientific truth is found and accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community it is because, as far as humans can reach "truths", that is one of them.

I perfectly understand that if there are no answers to an specific problem or those answers are insufficient, people try to look for alternatives and experiment with themselves. I would do exactly the same and I am not blind to the benefits of natural remedies and good nutrition (hint, is not a full English breakfast).

In the case of the vaccines, it is very clear that 1 year of testing is not enough to give full certainty of their efficacy nor of the long term effects. That is science. However, there is a long stretch from there to saying that is better to remain exposed to an illness that is perfectly known to be highly contagious and is know to cause enough ICU intakes as to block the sanitary system. Sometimes you have to choose the less of two evils, is as simple as that.

Now you are free to go into a denial "there is no problem in the ICUs, it is not really contagious, I am immune because I eat organic carrots, ....) and that is where you are going against truly established facts and your opinion becomes basically irrelevant.

I do not think that is a new currency at all. It would be the equivalent to say that the Euros deposited at a bank are different from the Euros that have in your wallet. In fact these euros are more different than the ones that would be emitted as electronic since the banks are entitled to print their own money by lending more than they have in deposits. The Euro will be the Euro even if it is stored in a different way, there is no need to submit that to the 19 on those grounds. The initiative may however require a certain level of acquiescence from all the countries involved, but IMO not any constitutional changes.

In financial terms, bitcoin is just an alternative asset and is only interesting for companies that want to make bitcoin an investment vehicle. Other than that, these business will probably hold just a small quantity of bitcoin or other just as they hold a certain amount of cash to serve trading purposes. Financially, companies try to minimise the amount of cash they have and tend to buy short term debt to simply keep it for a while.

My take is that bitcoin is not going to get a preferential treatment, at least not immediately.

See, that is exactly the problem of people that have a vague idea of what a proof or what science is.


For example, one case does not make a rule. I insist, you should stress test you theory going to a COVID plant. What could go wrong?

I am happy that there are vaccine passports. I sincerely hope they start asking for those in all public places so I do not have to share the same air in a plane with people who are scared of science because they have only weird ideas of how it works and what it is and think that they are "naturally immune".

You probably have not contracted COVID because you do not have any active social life, which is a shame if there are some nice ladies in their 80´s in the vicinity as you mentioned in another post.

I have heard rumours that certain people, including a president, were treated with monoclonal antibodies, a therapy that is not widely accessible and is extremely expensive. Anyone knows about this?

One of those successful cases of bitcoin hodling was a friend of a friend. They (a couple) took an important risk by investing 60k of a dismissal compensation into bitcoin and making a x100 on it before selling half. I do not know what they did with the rest. Now, these people were not rich, they took an enormous risk compared to their total wealth. They had to really believe on the project and pass though some of bitcoins usual "tests of faith".

For someone with let´s say, a net worth of 1M USD or more plus house, hodling 60k until they became 6M would have been not that much of an stress. Do you think it was easier to benefit economically from bitcoin if you were already a bit up in the ladder?

Simple answer, if you could spend 10 USD in 2011 yes. So it was accessible to everyone, it is just that to be in the loop you would probably needed to have the right interests and perhaps know the right people at the right time. Individuals claiming self sovereignty, cryptohackers, cypherpunks, doctors in math, ... all these got a better chance on jumping on the project early.

The thing is that for someone poor, it would have been very difficult to hodl when it made a x1000 or a x10,000, since that amount would mean a life change for the person.

Would not say secret at all. Most of the lobbies are well know and most of the campaign funds seem to be public. I am not so sure of how strong is foreign intervention in US politics compared to internal intervention. I am not naïve, even though the laws prohibit foreign donations and there is a limit to individual contributions, I am aware that there are ways to circumvent this, however it is also true that the press, the opponents and the whistle blowers are there.

At present, declaring that the USA is moved by foreign interest does look like a conspiracy theory. Some influence, maybe, that is all. Many strange things happen everywhere, it is just that only the ones in USA make the headlines.