They can, but they aren't exactly suitable for proof of burn, because they are only unsepndable as long as it's unfeasible to find such a long address with vanitygen. True proof-of-burn addresses are 100% unspendable, because they use scripts that can never evaluate to true, the wiki article that you linked shows a good example of it - a script that allows you to spend coins only if 2 + 2 == 5.

Sounds like a clickbait, some very obscure dudes are saying that they are shadow banned because they get less impressions than usual, which is not what shadow banning means, they would get zero impressions if it was the case.

And I check Twitter daily, and all the crypto accounts that I'm subscribed too, mostly Bitcoin Core devs, are still there, and my timeline is full of their posts just as usual. Maybe some shitcoiners got hit, and if its the case, I say it's about time, they have always been engaging in shady stuff like buying fake retweets, likes and comments, and all they do is promote ICO scams and other crap.

Why do people think that faucets are some sort of charity that gives money away - at its core it's actually a business, just like any other business. Their model is to make profit from ads that they show to visitors, and if you use bots you are ripping them off, because they don't make any money for the site. This is stealing.

Even if someone will write a bot for you, you won't make money with it, because faucets are protected with captchas, and it costs money to solve captcha, and one captcha costs more than one payout from faucets. So, give it up.

It's not about small or big, it's about how much you are paying for electricity and maintenance costs, and how efficient is your equipment. There's a ton of variables at play, so you can't just simply say that big miners stay, small miners leave. And you also can't say that halving means that mining power or miners will be cut in half, the number of miners that will be forced to leave would likely be much smaller than that.

Even people who only want to get rich quick still contribute to the network. If they buy Bitcoin, they increase its price, and higher price means more hashpower for mining, and more hashpower means the network is harder to attack. So, without the "get rich quick" people the network won't be as secure as it is now. Also, traders provide liquidity, which makes the market healthier, and everything that is good for the price is good for the network. Also, the more people use Bitcoin and do transaction, the harder it is to spy on everyone.

This is one of those cases when something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. There's so much that can go wrong here, it can be just a scam when the owner of such bot just collects money from investors and disappears, or runs a ponzi scheme. Or maybe the bot owner is just selling a script that doesn't work as advertised. Or maybe it works under certain market conditions, and then breaks and starts losing money when the market trend changes.

What I'm saying is that if you could just make a program that makes money for you, everyone would do that, and humans wouldn't be trading at all these days. Yes, there probably are trading bots that make profit, but they require observation and control by professional traders, and I doubt that people who own them would be willing to sell them with the public.

You're just changing the definition of "negative", which is not what OP asked for. He asked if the price can be negative in mathematical sense, and the answer is clearly no, because Bitcoin doesn't have any big costs for storing/moving it, like oil does. The cost of mining isn't relevant much, it's miners problem, not holder's. And there's not even such thing as universal price of mining, every miner has their own bill that can be very different from what other miners have.

I'd say halvening is priced in until the day it happens. There shouldn't be any immediate price jump as soon as the reward drops, and we also went from $3k to $14k in last year, and then from $6.5k to $10k and now from $4k to almost $8k all thanks to the upcoming halvening - speculators are already testing if it can cause another bull or not, and that means it is at least partially priced in.

I used to have that one on, but then decided against it.

1. Sometimes I need to send pm to Newbie-ranked users, so I'd have to manually turn that box off and then on.

2. Sometimes there are important messages coming from newbies, I don't wanna miss that and I don't want to leave any other contact info on my profile.

3. When I said "newbies", I meant low-rank members, the last such message was sent to me by a Junior Member.

No need for that, I'm already legendary, and I made this thread because I was going though my inbox and realized that it's not uncommon to receive this kind of messages, and other forum members might be getting much more of them. So, better give your merit to some newbies who make really good posts.


It is sad indeed, I understand that some people might come from very poor countries and to them ranking up and joining a campaign seems like a good opportunity, but begging won't achieve anything, and even if some people would give them merits, this won't solve much, you can't really rank up from begging, and without good post quality you can't join well-paying campaigns anyway.

Occasionally some newbies think that they can outsmart the merit system by sending private messages to high rank members and asking them to give them merits - don't ever try to do that. Not only no one will give you merit, the people whom you send unsolicited message can give you negative trust or report you to the moderators, which can lead to a ban. Same goes for creating threads just to beg for merits - it is not tolerated on this forum.

And in general, don't look for any methods that help you rank up fast, they can easily backfire, just learn about Bitcoin in your own pace and then try to make good contributions to discussions.

Even Bitcoin is quite risky, we all saw how it went down by 50% in a day and still hasn't fully recovered. With altcoins this happens much more often, and unlike Bitcoin, they don't perform good even in the long run, so the risk is really unjustified. Newbies should forget that altcoins even exist, and they only may start looking at them when they have years of experience with crypto. But after that, there's a good chance they will not be that interested in owning alts anyway.

Marxists were saying that capitalism has just a few years left to live for how long already - 150 years? And even though people think that capitalism emerged after feudalism, the core elements of capitalism existed for as long as civilization and society exist, because having property and exchanging it with others is a part of human nature. Capitalism will never die.


This is just bullshit from someone who has no idea how life was in USSR.

I have zero doubts that Bitcoin can survive nearly anything, the point is that just surviving is not enough, to be called antifragile a system should retain all it's qualities after the attack, basically emerge unscratched and even stronger than before. It can't be always the case with Bitcoin, even something as simple as a big price drop has huge consequences - it undermines its usability as a store of value or a currency. You're saying that only short-term traders worry about that, but short term traders actually like that, because they can make money on sudden price movements.

Regular people aren't comfortable with storing their money in something that can go 50% down in a day. Just imagine receiving salary in Bitcoin and finding one day that you can't pay your monthly bills because the price has crashed.

Or take something like a global ban - sure it's not 100% enforceable, but it doesn't need to be, it can scare off the majority of current and potential users. It won't kill Bitcoin, but it will make it small. Anything that reduces Bitcoin's number of users makes Bitcoin less valuable, the network is less secure when there's less hashpower and less nodes, it's easier to attack it or monitor it.

No one is even teaching economics in school, so unless someone studies it in college or on their own, they won't know even the basics of economics. Add the fact that the current mainstream school of thought is all about fiat money, and it's easy to see why Bitcoin isn't getting more traction. People see it as a risk and a liability, and unless they are attracted to the "get rich quick" side of it, they have little reasons to adopt Bitcoin.

It's actually very interesting, because the article tells how a long time ago Nassim Taleb developed this trading strategy which was losing money while the market was calm, but it greatly profited from a big and sudden movement, the black swans. So, even if a neural network trained on Bitcoin's price can't predict a global pandemic, maybe it can be trained to see patterns of sudden big price changes, and act similarly to the described Nassim Taleb's strategy.

I don't buy that. We have witnessed Bitcoin crashing because the stock market has crashed, so it's clearly vulnerable. Theoretical attacks like the 51% attack or quantum computers can undermine Bitcoin's security and as the result its value. So far big powers ignore Bitcoin or just let it be, or try to regulate a part of its ecosystem. But if they did a 180 turn and banned it, Bitcoin would take a huge hit, because many users would leave.

So, yeah, Bitcoin is technically indestructible, because it's decentralized, but it can be harmed, so it's absolutely not invulnerable or antifragile . Bitcoin devs and community are doing a great job to make it as resilient as possible, but still it's a system that can be attacked.

m0gliE most likely missed your original post, and he also might miss this one, especially if people will continue having their offtopic conversations here, or someone will start making applications just because the thread was bumped.

You should have and still should write a pm directly to m0gliE and explain the situation. If he missed your post he couldn't have known that you removed your sign in the last moment, so he assumed that it happened earlier in the cycle, so he acted as per the rules and removed your from campaign without payment.

Sometimes people can overestimate the significance of events like this, they think if Bitcoin is mentioned in some movie or TV show, then tomorrow millions of people will rush to buy it. In reality it's just a drop in the ocean, one single such event is not causing much difference. It's when Bitcoin is mentioned in many unrelated media over some time, then you can talk about Bitcoin becoming more recognized and popular.

Nassim Talem himself said that coronavirus was by no means a black swan event, and that he and others have predicted it long before it happened. And it wasn't even a hard prediction to make, China is responsible for multiple outbreaks already, and it will happen again, unless they seriously stop this wildlife meat trade, which they probably won't, as they have already reopened their wet markets.