Blah, blah, blah. Technical analysis is about probabilities, not certainties, and it fails constantly. Yesterday or the day before yesterday I saw an analysis saying that as we cross the golden cross, we are going to start going up to $200K or thereabouts. I look at technical analysis for entertainment, but as a long term investor it doesn't affect me. I know that Bitcoin in 5 and 10 years is going to be much higher than it is now, so what it does in the next month doesn't matter to me.

I am not surprised by this. They want to control Bitcoin in the same way they control banking transactions, whether they can is another thing.


Don't be surprised if they lower it to $600, as they want to do with bank transactions:

The IRS would know more about our bank accounts with new legislation.

What's strange to me is that these two pieces of news came out at the same time and have the $10k threshold for Bitcoin.

Incidentally, I have also sent him to ignore. He floods the Bitcoin Discussion with his mega texts, the last one I commented on even talked about aliens and I prefer not to waste any more time with him.

It may take you an hour or two, but not me, and I would say neither 99% of the forum or more. One thing is that you start a thread like fillippone's, in that case it is plausible that it took him that time, for example:

ALPS BLOCKCHAIN: mining in Italy from 100% renewable energy.

But let's look at this constructive post by LoyceV, for example:


That took him seconds to write.

Constructive does not equal a lot of text, a short sentence that hits the nail on the head is also constructive.

Regarding OP's question, as has already been mentioned, there are several causes, but I would say that one that has not been mentioned is that nowadays we want everything fast and with little effort. Many people take the easy way out, and more so in this forum where you can earn money by writing.

Probably because my knowledge of the subject is considerably less than yours.


All clear, I guessed that the fact that it was such an old transaction had something to do with it but I couldn't imagine what.

My technical knowledge is scarce and I am forcing myself lately to read some of these technical threads to see if I can learn more.

My understanding is that OP was asking a chicken or the egg question:



This false dilemma would be solved by coinbase (I'm not confusing it with the company):


But another dilemma has arisen for me while reading the thread:



In that transaction I see a "sender 0", which would be Coinbase, and 721 recipients.

Are the 721 transactions

1) those that miners validate in that block? or

2) is the miner sending the reward to 721 different addresses?

At first I thought it was the 1), but then I go in to see the transactions, and for example, the first two addresses, received a certain amount of Bitcoin and have not spent it in 10 years. The third and fourth ones did spend. Not clear to me. Also, I think if they were the transactions that miners validate they would have a sending address and a receiving address instead of "sender 0 Coinbase".

And the miner sending the reward to 721 different addresses (2) doesn't seem logical to me either.

I wanted to clarify that now when I read your comment and reread mine, I see that I've missed "is that right"? Rereading it, I find it a bit aggressive and it was not my intention. I should have written: "you haven't because you wait for him to defend himself before doing so, is that right?" or something similar.

Yes, lol, but other than that, OP asks if it will be accepted as a mechanism for change. I would say that, if Bitcoin ends up being massively used worldwide as we expect, there is a portion of people who believe it will be as a store of value primarily, and as an exchange mechanism alts or fiat will be used, while others believe it will be as a medium of exchange. I used to think one thing but now I am not so sure. Time will tell.

Yes you should. Now.

Gambling will only get you into trouble. And the younger you start, the more likely you are to have problems because it is more difficult to control your impulses when you have the hormones of a teenager. Follow philipma1957's advice.

You have to understand that gambling is a negative return game, you can win in the short term, but the more you play the more you will lose in the long term. Someone with a head can play for entertainment and maybe win money in the short term but knowing what the House Edge is.

Thanks, Captain Obvious.

I believe that this section of the forum, "speculation", is more for entertainment than anything else, as we try to predict the unpredictable. People who have a lot of knowledge and a lot of experience can make predictions with a certain degree of accuracy about what seems most likely, but there are always things that influence the price that we cannot foresee beforehand, such as what happened recently with the miners in China.

Yes, depending on what is meant by middle class. There are people who understand that someone who earns approximately the median income is middle class and I think that's what the OP had in mind..

I prefer the definition:

Working class: relies exclusively on their job to live.

Middle class: depends on his job to live but has financial assets whose income improves his standard of living and that would allow him, if he loses his job, to hold on for a while with that income and/or by selling assets:

Upper class: does not need to work to live. He can if he wants to, but the income from his financial assets exceeds his expenses.

What is clear is that in a hyperinflation scenario, and in life in general, those who have financial assets will always be better off economically than those who do not, even if in a crisis those assets lose value and their income is reduced.

I am going to comment on what Nutildah says in another thread, because he redirects to this one and I think this is the appropriate one:


But have you reported him?

If, as it seems, he is copying translating and pasting ideas that are not his own without citing the source, and on top of that repeatedly, not just once, he should be reported and banned. No you haven't because you wait for him to defend himself before doing so.


And if on top of that his alts have been banned, he should be banned for ban evasion.

This thread is the result of a thought process that originated from reading this:


Before reading that I didn't know anything about how he thinks, but since then, and knowing more and more how the forum works, I keep thinking how different the forum would be if instead of an ancap in charge we had a socialist. The hypothetical scenario of a communist, I don't even consider it, because they have the virtue of ruining everything they touch, so I think the forum would have run out of traffic and probably disappeared long ago in that case.

I will outline the three main things that I believe would be different if a socialist were in charge:

1) Political censorship.

That's for sure. It's along the lines of what we can see elsewhere on the internet. The freedom of expression here would not be the same. The degree of censorship would depend on how sensible the (socialist) person in charge was. But at the very least we would have seen censorship on the COVID issue.

2) The trust system would not be decentralized.

In the OP of DefaultTrust changes, Theymos mentions David Friedman, who is an ancap, and son of Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman.
Decentralizing the system is along the lines of believing that if you let people interact with each other, the system will self-regulate. It's kind of like what Adam Smith called "the invisible hand." You don't need a politician from above imposing laws, rules and regulations, people interacting with each other does much better.

3) The merit system would not have been created.

And I think another worse solution would have been implemented, although we can never know for sure. The system is not perfect, but it is very good. It rewards those who make an effort, instead of trying to equalize, redistribute and talk about "unfair advantages". It is a typically capitalist system of competition, effort and reward for effort and a job well done.

This is what I have been thinking lately and I would like to read what you think.

When a report is market as "unhandled", is it because moderators were busy or something or is it a way to acknowledge the report is not bad but not so good as to act either?

Hi buddy.

I understand that if you are from the Philippines, a hardware wallet may be a bit expensive for you, but make an effort and buy one. That way you won't depend on third-parties and you won't have these problems.

Probably, but the fact that the opt-out option is available does not prevent them from losing all their money. As I commented on the other thread:


Many times they either don't know that the option is available or they don't control their impulses to bet again even knowing it and only end up self-excluding when they have lost everything.

Lol, does this happen to you with all the merit you earn?

It used to happen to me before and it still happens to me but less frequently because I earn merits more often, but I have seen that you spend a lot of time in the forum and you write much more than the post requirements of the signature campaign, so I support your application.


I don't see why. The same thing happens to me, I end up giving 90% of the merits or more to high-ranked members, but there are already a few merit sources that are dedicated to help lower-ranked members so I don't see the problem and I'm sure Charles-Tim will give more merits to lower-ranked members if he is appointed a merit source.

Also, a while ago I thought about looking for a lower-ranked member to give him merits, because I felt that I was giving most of them to higher ranked and I found this:

A likely case of merit purchased.

And since then I decided to keep giving merits as I found the posts.

You look like a "gambler" so to speak. Someone who buys in the short term hoping it will go up and sell, and ends up selling out of panic at the first dip.

Educate yourself about Bitcoin, about its origin and its intrinsic properties. When you have done so, if you decide to invest, it is best to do it in the long term, it is what you will understand when you have studied it, and then you will care less about those things you mention.

Can you expand on that?

I have searched the internet and I don't see anything. I am quite surprised and I can see many reasons for it not to be so, since the political system of the USA and the USA are essentially different, but maybe if you explain the theory we can still see the logic behind it.

I, for one, don't understand why they don't approve, and for another, I understand that from the bitcoiners' perspective, we shouldn't care much either.

Today it's not like 2017, the average Joe has a lot of options to buy at the click of a button. Even verification on exchanges is almost instantaneous, not like years ago when it took weeks. There is MSTR and Grayscale GBTC which, although they are not ETFs, are largely being bought by those who would buy an ETF if there was one, so I think it's OK if the SEC rejects the ETF, it's not going to affect the market much.