Me neither.


But I don't think it works anymore, does it? From that thread:


Do you use it?

On the other hand, it doesn't bother me much either, as I'm used to it. A mobile version would be better, but it's always worse than PC.

This is a consequence of the ideological garbage that wants to equalize what is not equal.

And I say this without having any religious beliefs myself, for example, I am in favor of gays being able to marry too, but things like this are way out of line.






Don't say that out loud or you will be accused of being sexist.


I would like to see the proof, because the problem is that when science is previously ideologized, it can end up demonstrating what suits the ideology. Did the woman born with a penis have chromosome 23 XX?

Yes, but the problem for the last year and a half is the acceleration in money printing, which is what is reflected in the graph shared by Hydrogen. Even the rise of the S&P 500 over the last 18 months has a lot to do with the massive printing of money, apart from corporate profits. If you look at a graph of countries with hyperinflation such as Venezuela or Zimbabwe, you will see that the stock market rises by a huge amount but this is due to the devaluation of the currency and that the devalued currency has to be put into assets to protect the value, and not to the evolution of the business and the profit of the companies.

I was going to say this. OP the basic concepts should be reviewed. I don't have much technical knowledge but that difference is clear to me.


What I see as good about the news is that it is one more step in the popularization of Bitcoin. Even people who do not understand much about Bitcoin but see the news thinking having a node=mining, see that someone known is getting more involved.

If that were to happen, the share price would drop significantly because Saylor has repeated ad nauseam that a premium asset you don't sell it, if anything you borrows against it, least of all in the case of Bitcoin, which is the best. Other times he speaks of holding at least a decade.

Giving up trust in a company's CEO is a good reason to sell the stock, which I did in the case of AT&T.

You should write more carefully, OP, nowadays you have online translators and a lot of tools you can use to write decently if English is not your mother tongue. Be careful especially the title.

Getting to the point, no, I don't think the purchase by MS has an influence on the price, especially in the short term. It is something that everyone knows he will continue to do. In the long term, if he buys those Bitcoin and takes them out of circulation (he does not intend to sell them), he may have some influence, but limited. Think that the trading volume in the last 24 hours is $41B.

I believe that his Bitcoin popularization efforts are more influential than the purchases he makes.

Even regulated fiat casinos. An acquaintance deposited $10 or so at Pokerstars, played a tournament and won $1,000. He tried to withdraw it but had to wait 24 hours and ended up losing it all.


It seems to me that you have not followed much of what has been said in this thread and in the official Bitvest thread. This kind of complaints appear with a certain frequency, and knowing Lightlord, who always pays but is not known for paying fast, what you say is unlikely.

It wouldn't rely on that country more than it relies on El Salvador nowadays.


I'm surprised you would say this, as I understand you have a more social democratic view of economics and politics than I do, and you are positing a sort of tax haven where people who have a lot of Bitcoin could escape.

On the other hand, this would not necessarily be the case either. I do understand that if the country were formed, it would initially have low taxes, but there is no guarantee that in time a socialist would come to power who would increase public spending, put more regulations and more taxes. That the only legal tender was Bitcoin does not prevent a politician from putting high taxes. What happens is that since with Bitcoin it is more difficult to know what you have/earn, taxes would have to be indirect taxes.


You don't have to. Nowadays you exchange currencies at the click of a button. Not to mention that it won't be long before we have a digital dollar, digital euro, etc.


I do not agree with that. Bitconia would not centralize Bitcoin in the same way that El Salvador has not. It would still be just as decentralized.

Well, I am not going to waste any more time because it is clear that we are not going to reach an agreement and even more so when I believe that we are already bordering on demagogy, such as for example


BLM's central discourse is not based on structural double-charging, as it is on structural racism, and BLM does not praise your supermarket, as it does the Cuban regime, so I'd better not waste my time answering this next time.


No.

You're off to a bad start too. Quote me where I said that, otherwise I don't waste my time responding to the rest of what you say.


I had not thought of it that way, but, in general, it would be a conception more similar to that of the Austrian school than to that of Keynes, as I said at the beginning. What happens is that, at least in theory, right-wing politics advocates less regulations and less taxes, so that people are freer or less dependent on the state.

Going forward as long as the thread remains open and it has replies it is best that we do not go off-topic to the general left-righ topic but more related to Bitcoin.

Your post is an accumulation of nonsense, as some have already pointed out. It seems to me that you have written it without paying attention or thinking much about what you say, for example you say:


which is false, as pointed out by BlackHatCoiner, but it is not based on the article you cite (obviously because those who write these articles do research and check it before publishing it).

Of the things that others have pointed out as incorrect, this one has not been mentioned:


Take a look at this and you will see how wrong you are:

https://companiesmarketcap.com/assets-by-market-cap/

Next time do your research better.

It sucks but people have already told you: you just need to wait now. You will get your money, it may take a while, but you will get your money. If you keep bumping the thread you will only get more nervous and more desperate. As discussed, this is not the first time this has happened.

On the other hand, if I were Lightlord I would think about what to do to avoid having people in the forum every now and then with this kind of complaints.

Yes, but in a practical way: do you change your address every time you receive a payment from the sig campaign?

You can receive several payments in one direction, and if you want privacy, you pass it through a mixer. It sounds to me that o_e_l_e_o said he does that with the payments he receives.

Another thing: if you have small inputs but you are going to hold them for the very long term, do you think it might not be necessary to consolidate them? I got the idea from this:


Let's suppose you have two wallets, one that is for very long term hold (minimum two cycles) and one that is for expenses. If Bitcoin price rises as many of us expect it to in two cycles, it may not be worth consolidating the small inputs now. Although we would have to see if the fees go up proportionally as well.

What do you think?

Edit: after seeing pooya87's comment on that thread, it seems that swiftxi did not have a very clear concept of what dust is.

The problem is that if you want to spend those low amounts you are going to pay a lot of money in fees. For this it is often worthwhile to consolidate them into an input when the fees are low as explained in the following thread:

[Sep 2021] Mempool empty! Use this opportunity to Consolidate your small inputs!

This is interesting because it gives one to think that as the price goes up, what is dust today may be a respectable amount tomorrow, and therefore if one waits instead of trying to solve the dust problem today, one may find that the problem has solved itself.

Hey lovesmayfamilis. I don't know if I'm not explaining myself well or you're misunderstanding me but this is the second time in 24 hours that you've responded to me with something that has nothing to do with what I meant.

Maybe I've gone too far in general on the plagiarism issue, but I don't know why you say I deliberately missed that post.

No, in this case, I would understand it is right for the moderators to ban him. It seems a clear case of deliberate plagiarism, in this case twice, and of trying to hide the evidence quickly when caught.

Today the only unfair advantage is that you have a more prepared candidate, with more merits to get a job and the job is given to a less prepared candidate because she is a woman or an ethnic minority. That is the only unfair thing today. We live in the most egalitarian societies in the history of mankind.

I defend the classic feminism, the one that fought for women and men to have equal rights, for women to be able to vote, etc. I am against modern man-hating feminism, which once it has achieved equal rights, what it wants is revenge.

And of course I am not defending the movement Black Lives Only Matter depending on who is the killer. It is a movement that complains about the alleged structural racism in the USA, but not only does it not say a single word about structural racism in Cuba, it defends the dictatorial Cuban regime:

I know about the structural racism in Cuba because some time ago I met people who lived there, but googling:

"Manuel Cuesta, 57, an Afro-Cuban government opponent, says "there are the vestiges and remnants of symbolically cordial racism, structurally hidden, installed in the economic, institutional and political dynamics" of the country."

Source: Racism in Cuba: banned by law, alive on the streets.

Not a word from BLM about structural racism in Cuba.


The immigration issue is a question of the speed with which you let immigrants in. For me the brexit in the UK was a mistake. But that's not what I was talking about.

I was talking about the left wing navel gazing discourse not wanting to understand why the indigenous working class vote has swung to the right. And the summary of it all is that left wing politicians have abandoned them.

Among the people who immigrate, the poor people, most of them are honest and very valid, but if you let in many very quickly what you do is to put pressure on social services, push wages down and give less social benefits to the natives, so you can not be surprised that the native worker stops voting for you because that is what you have sought. It is not about any kind of alienation by which he wants to be part of an elite.


No, no prejudice, see the previous comment. I see a leftist tendency also that if you do not support massive immigration (only the controlled one) you are racist, that although you do not say so it seems that is what you imply, and nothing further from reality.

I am talking about Muslims. Tell me how integrated second and third generation Muslims are in France. On this forum I can say that God (whether Muslim or Christian) is an invention, a pre-scientific human creation, which makes no sense in a modern world and that believing in God is like believing in ghosts.

For saying that I risk my life in France.


Great strawman arg. I am claiming that this is true to a significant percentage.


Of course I have read 1984, but what you are doing in the paragraph is assuming as a premise the conclusion you want to reach.



We are not going to reach an agreement on this.


Well, here I have to agree with you because it seems to me that in the UK the subsidies are much lower than in other European countries. But in general, this type of aid is a redistribution from those who work to those who do not work, not only for the poor who have nothing and are starving.


The left-wing politician who has put more obstacles, more regulations and more taxes on the labor market, in addition to filling the country with immigrants at too high a rate, which put downward pressure on wages.

Yes well, I gave that example, but the criminal could claim it was in 2017 at the peak or whenever suits him best for tax purposes.


That is not clear to me. If you would just say "below", but when you say "far below" I would like to know what you are thinking of.

To launder money you would normally have to set up a company/business and declare more income than you actually have (if you have any income at all). Money laundering with Bitcoin in the mentioned case would definitely be much more comfortable, especially if we compare it with setting up a physical business, but even if we are talking about an online one you will have to set up a website, you will have to keep fictitious accounting, you will have to pass fake payments through the payment gateway etc.

Maybe you're thinking of buying winning lottery tickets, or something like that, but it's also difficult.


That's what I've been repeating ad nauseam, in this and other threads.

I would like to see the face of the tax official if someone goes there to declare that he has $50M, saying that he bought it a long time ago and can not justify more than the movements of the last year (although nowadays the normal thing that the tax return comes to him by internet, but still, I would like to see his face).

Well, maybe the moderators are taking a more lenient approach, after the Mpamaegbu case. To me what LoyceV said the other day comes to mind: we are in a forum that does not ban you for stealing money but for copying two lines. Maybe a more lenient approach would not be bad, especially in cases of someone who only plagiarized once or twice in the past, since we are writing forum posts, not PhDs.

The case you comment on seems to me a bit ridiculous, and that he has put google as a source, very poor. I guess he was in a rush after being discovered.


I don't think so. As tradinghunt says:


But



Well, I tell you, I don't know if the moderators act more leniently now, but this is a forum, not a Doctoral Thesis tribunal. I wouldn't mind a slightly more lenient approach to cases of plagiarism (especially minor ones, not from someone who has copy-pasted dozens of posts), although what I think counts for little.

Hey, no. It wasn't an irony. I just didn't remember aboit that rule of page 5 but I also write in places where I know I am not going to get paid.

Best, Poker Player.

It is curious that you bring this post, which is from May. How did you do it? Did you find it suspicious and started to look at the post history?

By the way, I have also reported cases of plagiarism but via the report button. I didn't realize that reporting it here is better because it counts for the posts of the week. Also, because people can comment.

You can reply via PM, btw, if you prefer because you don't want to give clues to plagiarists, although I doubt they are going to read this thead before they are reported.