Can you believe this guy from icoreview.site stating that lending coins are a Ponzi. They are not a Ponzi, though!! I've explained my reasoning. If lending is a Ponzi, then PoS staking must be also (but staking always inflates the supply whereas lending often doesn't and this profit can be used by the lending platform to get more users which increases the price - all coins need more users to increase the price so this doesn't mean it's a Ponzi). Most cryptocurrencies will also be ponzis as no wealth is generated unless profits are used to affect the coin price (which lending platforms can do as lending often generates profits for the company without stealing from anyone else).

No, I am saying that Bitcoin wasn't worth anything for the first 18 months and therefore people including Satoshi didn't care much about preserving the private keys. Remember the 10,000 BTC pizza transaction? That transaction took place at the end of May 2010 which kind of established any worth for BTC for the first time. Think of it like something that was like a penny but wasn't even close to worth a penny. If you dropped one of those pennies, I bet you wouldn't care much.

best form me

Because the rules that were set forth for this section were created for members of the forum to follow; not for the forum itself to adhere to. It's meant to inform members that they cannot advertise anything, such as sales or personal websites or whatever, which is why signatures are disabled for this board. But it doesn't mean that forum advertisements should be removed. The board relies on payments from advertisements to pay for servers, bandwidth, and to remain operational. If the Serious discussion and Ivory Tower boards weren't monetized at all, would you pay a small subscription to be able to post here? Would you rather have a premium model? Because that would be the alternative to having the forum ads removed from these boards.

I personally don't have any issue with the ads that are displayed under the top post, and I don't feel that it's breaking any rules. Because, again, the rule is directed towards forum members, not staff and operations.

Wouldn't it be abusing of the trust system, if you just give everyone negative trust who receives a significant amount of Merit from another user for a non-quality post? So if you want to give someone negative trust (and you don't care about your own) you just have to give him some Merit for a shitpost and he will be flagged even if he doesn't even know you and he had not the intention to abuse the merit system?

[red]

Hahahaha, gave me a good laugh! Man you're great!

I am also a little confused how he was able to sell that house at HILLCREST TERRACE 0136 UNIT 2, Brattleboro, VT without having someone going after it?  It was listed for $400,000!

Thanks for the help, much appreciated! Now to the posts:

My idea to easily flag some of the shitposters using the current system:



My list of currently active merit giveaways:


Man those merit giveaways are springing everywhere! I would really love it if the mods where to tell us of the best board to start such threads.  

-

Falcon still doing good and $1.50 last I looked and the transaction volume reaching the millions whereas before it was only about $50k a day.

I understand how people who tell the truth get hated on and it seems like you will never be able to see the truth as you have been manipulated to hate on bitconnect etc. What boggles the mind for me is your last statement. Crypto in general is all a Ponzi as nothing is backing the price (the only time it's not is when profits of the company actually REALLY affect the price with buy backs or they use profits to market the coins as in bitconnect's case - they could have done buy backs too but the lending was deflationary anyway throughout bitconnect's life so was obviously not a Ponzi and to buy back would be the same as them not selling all the extra BCC from the lending as profit). Where company profits are not directly affecting the price, all investors for most cryptos who win are taking it from others who lose or are left bag holding coins nobody else buys so are basically ponzis or bubbles (AKA greater fool theory) since NO MONEY IS GENERATED and often the devs hold free coins so they are NEGATIVE EXPECTATION FOR INVESTORS. Lending is obviously a better system than staking and nobody complains about PoS being a Ponzi even though it promises a percentage for holding the coins in the wallet which just inflates the supply. Lending produces profits for the company when it is deflationary (i.e. when they pay less interest than the growth of the coin) and even when it is inflationary it is no different to PoS staking*. Everyone else on this thread who doesn't agree is deluded.

* Although when it is inflationary, the company wouldn't be able to take profits without stealing from investors who are not in the lending or staking at the same rate, PoS in the same way favours holders of higher amounts of coins as they stake more often and compound their stakes more, so even PoS is unfair to small holders versus holders of higher amounts who will stake more often and get a higher effective interest rate when compounded.

Please check this post and thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2983956.0

You may also look into my post history. TY!