If you want to give some credibility to what you say, you better attach screenshots or some document, anything you can. There is a lot of scam in the crypto world but those of us who read you have no way to verify that what you say is true if you just provide your words.

I miss pecans in that list.


The bad thing about nuts is that they contain carbohydrates and also that it's easy to overdue them. I take them from time to time but they are not part of my daily diet. Fatty meats, eggs and butter are the basis of my diet.

This. The best way Bitcoin works for you is not by giving you interest or a dividend, it is by capital appreciation. A lot of people are fooled by this. I'd rather have something that gives me 180% annual appreciation on average than something that gives me 10% interest and makes me lose 20% capital.

As for gambling as such, I only see cons, disadvantages, no matter how much others have said the opposite. The only good thing I can think of is if you win the lottery or a game that has a high multiplier, and as I said in another thread, if we consider poker within gambling, there I see pros: acquiring patience, learning to think in the long term or learning the calculation of probabilities mixed with intuition.

As for cons, well, everything related to developing a potential addiction and loss of money, as mentioned.

Not to gamble, in any case to play poker, which in a broad sense can be included in gambling, but it is different in that it can earn money in the long term. Only in adolescence, from 14 or so, teaching them in general about probability and explaining why casino games are EV-, while in poker you can win.

Teaching them to gamble, like teaching them to play roulette and such things, seems irresponsible to me.

I'd rather say someone who was in a campaign managed by Hhampuz but was kicked out, or someone who tried to get in the campaign and wasn't accepted. It seems to me far more likely.

I also commented in the other thread and I think in this case the OP is not right. It sounds a bit tough to say it, but it seems to me that the OP is finding the problems he has been looking for. Giving your money to someone else to bet is on the one hand very naive, and quite likely to end up scammed, and on the other hand suspicious as you say.

Leaving aside that the guy is a scammer, I don't quite see what convinced you to send money for a guy to bet on you. What kind of game are we talking about? Sports betting? Casino games?


This forum does not moderate scams, but I think this quote should be well visible in several parts of the forum: in the gambling and lending sections at least and for when someone sends you a PM for the first time as well.

Not really. It's more an effect of the policies that have been taken because of the supposed climate apocalypse. Not an effect of warming as such. And then there is something else that has nothing to do with warming but also influences energy prices: the closure of nuclear power plants. Germany is closing its own (as are many other countries), while China plans to open 150.

This is one more step by the public authorities in the attempt to control all financial transactions. The use of cash has been declining markedly over the past few decades, and electronic payment alternatives initially looked like they might help control it all. But there will always be a loophole of freedom, either by using Bitcoin and taking maximum care of privacy, or currencies such as Monero, or even if cash is eliminated altogether, gold coins and other metals could be used again for face-to-face transactions.

The public authorities would like to be able to control all the payments and all the money, but they are not going to be able to do so.

Not in my particular case. I will not be afraid for the next few months. I have been investing for some time now and I know what the ups and downs of the market are. Also, playing poker, the spurts have a certain similarity with stock market cycles. When my investments go down or I have a losing streak, I continue to do the same, DCA and play my style, because I know that in the long run I win.

Another thing is the masses, they are already, not just in fear, almost in panic I would say, and as the fear and greed index shows. As the economic year in general does not look bullish, with rate cuts in sight, I guess this will last at least a few months.

That's why many people sold early. People who bought at $1 and sold at $20 for example. And also in all the bitcoins that were lost in the first years, if the owners had known where the price and market cap could go they would have been more careful. But at that time Bitcoin was the beginning of something experimental, cheap, with a very volatile price and about which there were many doubts.

The question for me after these 13 years is whether Bitcoin will stay with us for another 100 years, and the vast majority of the forum hope it will, but it remains to be seen.

Well, it is obvious that he has managed a good bankroll. Another thing is that these are only one month's results, and with so many people betting, it could be due to pure statistical variability. I would believe that the OP has good predictive capabilities regarding soccer if the results were consistent over a year (he wouldn't have to win everything, but at least show a clear trend of bankroll growth).

Anyway, congratulations to the OP.

Yeah, well, but, again, I did not create this thread to compare if the S&P 500 is absolutely the best investment, the comparison is with assets of the same style, that is, funds. Not compared to gold, Real State, etc.

Is it overpriced? Well surely, it seems so to me. That China can outperform the US? Surely also.

It seems to me that you look at it from your personal perspective, that you are very diversified. I'm somewhat diversified too, not as much as you seem to be, but I don't invest only in the S&P 500.

Anyway, do you think being so diversified saves you from the next crash? In the most recent ones, COVID and 2008, as far as I remember everything went down, at least initially. Being diversified is a protection against risk, but it is usually less profitable as well.

Lately there are many such scams. Others were also commented on the forum, for example, a Youtube video in which Saylor appeared and supposedly the captions said that MSTR was giving a giveaway. It consisted of the same thing, first send the money (lol) to get double or so.

Although in that case as far as I remember it wasn't that sophisticated because there was no website. It was just the Youtube video.

Those of us who have been investing for some time and have seen many scams do not get caught, but I suppose that some naïve or unsuspecting person always falls, and that if only a few fall, it is profitable for them.

If you had stopped to read the OP, you wouldn't be trying to counter-argue with something that is clear in the OP. It is not that the S&P was the best choice in 2021, it is that every year that passes we have more data to support that it is the best choice every year and in the long term. I'll put it again to see if you can read it:



From 1994 to 2021 the stock market went through two major crises, the .com and 2008, the S&P 500 was a better choice (see the bolded quote just above). Could this change in the future in the next crisis? It could, but the data we have available so far says otherwise.

I have not made any big mistakes, as both of you have described. Probably the only thing would be not to have started buying earlier, and not to have bought more. But with hindsight I don't consider it a serious mistake, because it is very easy to look back when an investment has been very profitable and think that you should have invested more. At the time you didn't know how it was going to turn out.

But that's not the point I am raising here. If you had purchased anything as an investment before the crash of '29 you would also be at a loss 10 years later and to conclude that therefore one should not invest is a fallacy, which is pretty much the same as what you are doing.

The question here is whether buying an S&P 500 index fund is more profitable than buying one of the tens of thousands of mutual funds that are available.

I didn't say you have to put all your eggs into the S&P 500 basket. You can own Bitcoin and Real State as well, for example, or other assets.

When the official inflation is that, the real inflation is even worse. The problem seems to be that the US is willing to fight inflation soon while in the Eurozone it is not clear, but if the FED really starts to act, the Eurozone will have to follow them. It should be remembered that since its creation, the ECB's most important mission has been to control inflation, while the FED, although it has also taken inflation into account, has been more focused on economic growth.

Germany has a central role in the Eurozone, and the specter of the Weimar Republic's hyperinflation (very unlikely nowadays I'd say) may force a change in monetary policy as well.

Either way, on both sides of the Atlantic, they are in a catch-22 situation. Monetary policy has led to high inflation, and with the economy relying on massive printing like a junkie relies on heroine, cutting back on buying, raising rates, etc, is clearly going to have an effect on the economy.

I guess they are going to try not to let it get out of hand anywhere, reduce the printing and hope that there is no big crisis or stock market crash, in which case they will go back to printing like there is no tomorrow.

Lol. And apart from that, we have no way of checking whether he did indeed tell his friends that. But I say more: even if he had posted such a bearish post on bitcointalk around that time, that wouldn't prove anything either. There are so many people making price predictions that by sheer statistical variability some of them end up being right, and not because they have divinatory powers or great predictive ability.