<…>
Take a look at the dates: - OP’s account was created on the 28/10/20 22- OP’s post was created on the 14/12/20 22OP was therefore fairly new at the time when he posted the question, and therefore it makes perfect sense. The thing is that this thread was resurfaced over a year later, which is somewhat odd, as the thread should have been deeply buried by now. As much as I avoid replying in a resurrected thread, I sometimes fail to take notice of the dates. I failed on this one once again. Thanks for pointing this out. I actually made my reply when the topic was at the top. And seeing that it was still at its first page and the latest replies were also posted very recently, the impression was that it was just newly created. I was wrong. But now I understand how this thread has resurfaced. Since this was bumped by a newbie, he/she might have been searching, exploring, and reading newbie topics. It so happened he/she made a reply on this one. |
|
|
|
|
I agree with all of the above. The advice is more of the defensive way to manage your finances. Although a risky approach could be more profitable in the end, a defensive approach is most probably safer and wiser. This applies not just in terms of investment but also in terms of handling finances in general.
Particularly about savings, however, it must be pointed out that it could be done in a number of ways. One doesn't have to keep money in the banks covering multiple years of expenses. Savings could be done in the form of investment. Saving money that's enough for half or a full year is probably enough. For the rest, one could save in the form of real estate properties, pieces of land in particular.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a bit confused with this question, or at least the way it's asked. It seems it's raised from somebody who's a newbie, which you are not. You're already a full member. Were you supposed to post this from another account, a newbie one?
Anybody please correct me if I'm wrong but I think a full member can already post replies on topics under Serious discussion. Are you sure that this account of yours which is already ranked full member cannot join discussions under the Serious discussion board?
|
|
|
|
|
LOL! You googled it and it seemed legit? How so? What did you find after searching about it that made you think that it is legit? There's actually not much that Google would tell you about it. It is pretty much unknown.
Its Trustpilot record is even zero. Not a single user of the platform has ever reviewed it. What's interesting, however, is how it boasts on its very home page of an excellent 5-star rating on Trustpilot. LOL! This alone tells me that this exchange is the exact opposite of legit.
Also, your account here is interesting. You're a newbie. This is your first post and it's a question about an unknown exchange. But the account has been in existence for almost 5 years.
|
|
|
|
|
I actually don't like comparing Bitcoin as a P2P currency and Bitcoin as an asset. Of course, a currency or money will have to be an asset as well, but I think the question here is framed in such a way that asset means something that people invest in or speculate.
Bitcoin as a speculative asset is only attractive because of what it is, a P2P currency. I mean, even if you're treating Bitcoin purely as a new asset class, that it is being popularly perceived as such is precisely brought about by its very features as a legitimate P2P currency. We, therefore, can never disregard Bitcoin as a P2P currency.
I highly disagree with BlackRock's Larry Fink in saying that Bitcoin is not "ever going to be a currency" and that it is only an "asset class". He is wrong. Bitcoin has become an asset class precisely because it is a unique currency. It is sought after not because of anything else but because of its features as a P2P currency.
|
|
|
|
|
The point is you have to stop. At some point, whatever happens to your session, it will come to an end. Whether you win, lose, feel happy, feel sad, entertained, bored, or whatever, the games have to end at a certain point.
I am reminded of the song The Gambler by Kenny Rogers in which the gambler reminded the narrator that if he wants to "play the game", he has to "learn to play it right". And part of playing it right is to "know when to walk away".
|
|
|
|
USD will still be the top reserve currency for the world in a few decades more. Even if BRICS are trying to distance themselves away from USD as a reserve currency, most of the world are still using the said currency in their international trades and transaction. There's only a handful of countries aligned with what BRICS wanted to do and they can't really push their agenda very easily. Especially with China manning the helm of this boat, a lot of countries might be wary of dealing with them and just move towards the lesser of the two evils which is the USA and its partners. Even within the small BRICS alliance itself, countries are probably wary of each other. China is, of course, generally a sneaky country. But especially with India, for example, we can't expect the two to be solid allies. And then there's also Saudi Arabia and Iran. They aren't the best of friends either, even in the Middle East. They could be together if confronted with a common enemy, but could also be the opposite sides of a coin. In Yemen, for example, they're against each other. This BRICS really isn't much of a threat if others expect it as the group that would challenge the US and the west and the influence of the USD. |
|
|
|
I don't share it. It's not as if Elizabeth Warren is some kind of boss to Gensler. There's a power play and Warren is but a single player. She's not the most powerful there is in the game that Gensler had to please. Gensler's job isn't dependent on Warren's pleasure. Elizabeth's ring needs kissing but it's not the shiniest of them all. Larry Fink's ring is a lot more powerful. So whether Gensler personally favors Bitcoin or not isn't the point. He had to vote for its approval because the kingmakers ordered so.
E warren has been continuously been trying to rewrite the financial laws which SEC have to manage under. thus if she writes "jump" and it becomes law. the SEC then has to jump ~snip~
see how many strings ABOVE the SEC she can pull via her 'committee' involvement the SEC is not just about "running a clean business" its about auditing businesses for tax too and clamping down on tax evasion EG the "in-cash" vs "in-kind" ETF discussions were literally about taxes The senator has been barking against Bitcoin, but how many anti-Bitcoin bills has she written and filed already? How many of these bills are passed into law? It's not as if Warren, despite her influence, is running congress all by herself. If she files a bill directing the SEC to kiss her ass, would it pass into law? It might not. Even if passed, it could be challenged for many reasons, even in the courts if necessary. And with all her power over the SEC, overall influence, and clear strong stand against Bitcoin, where did it bring her? Did it even stop the SEC from approving those spot ETF applications? She must have been fuming now. She even ran to Twitter to say that the SEC is wrong in its decision. Did it help her cause? Did it change a thing? No. She's helpless. Warren isn't as powerful as she may seem to some. Even lobbyists in congress are more powerful than her. If she is indeed a boss to Gensler, then she is a weak boss. Gensler voted in favor of spot ETF approval not just of one but all 11 of them. His final vote could have prevented all of them. |
|
|
|
Possibly dust attack, but the amount spent on dust attack will be a lot less than 4 Euros and the attacker will send an amount that is the minimum funds that can be sent which poses a risk to your privacy.
I don't think this is a dust attack. Aside from the fact that the amount sent wasn't really typical of this kind of attack, if you take a look at the address' transactions, it seems obvious that the address isn't one that serves a malicious purpose. The owner of the address is kind of busy but it's not because he/she is sending minimal amounts to a massive number of addresses, which is normally how a dust attacker address looks like. A lot of transactions are not small ones. Many are even 6-digit transactions. OP should have a clue if he/she can remember which transactions he/she used his/her address with. |
|
|
|
~snip~
Its still the casino who manages their assets and the providers only get percentage as their share which I think its still the casino who owns their profit. No wonder game providers still are involve in resoling issues especially when theres cheat exploited by players otherwise there is no point giving commisions to them. Issues vary. If the issues are related to the casinos, then they're for the casinos to handle. But if the issues are related to the games, then they're for the providers to handle. Cheating is broad. Specific cheating issues could either fall under casino management or game providers. Cheating which involves multi-accounts, for example, is for the management to settle. Cheating which involves the game itself is for the game providers to settle. The point in revenue sharing is that the casino uses and earns from the games developed by the providers. Of course, the providers are also the ones who monitor and maintain them. |
|
|
|
my theory gensler likes bitcoin. in previous years he even taught it at MIT however politically. he has to save his job so with the likes of Elizabeth Warren and her anti-bitcoin crusade. he has to kiss the ring and call bitcoin out for the risks... whilst legally he let the ETF pass remember for years he has been saying that businesses need to regulate(kiss the warren ring) but has not been setting rules of regulation (which bitcoiners dont want rules) so he has actually helped us before by not setting rules and letting businesses run without setting too high a goalpost him saying things like how bitcoin ETF is not insured (meaning he didnt add a goal post min standard) him saying "Further, existing rules and standards of conduct will apply to the purchase and sale of the approved ETPs. " again not moving the goal post higher shows he is not pushing for new laws for crypto specifically. and instead is accepting bitcoin ETF under the same landscape as fiat ETF yes he washes those sentances with repeats of elizabeth warrens mantra. but i feel thats just protecting his job and kissing the ring this is a very good guess I don't share it. It's not as if Elizabeth Warren is some kind of boss to Gensler. There's a power play and Warren is but a single player. She's not the most powerful there is in the game that Gensler had to please. Gensler's job isn't dependent on Warren's pleasure. Elizabeth's ring needs kissing but it's not the shiniest of them all. Larry Fink's ring is a lot more powerful. So whether Gensler personally favors Bitcoin or not isn't the point. He had to vote for its approval because the kingmakers ordered so. |
|
|
|
|
It might not be worth it to DCA Bitcoin daily. That's too costly. Although the transaction fees have already settled down a lot these past several days, daily Bitcoin purchases could also mean daily movement of funds and that would probably be a waste of money that could have been added to your holdings. Especially if you purchase Bitcoin in small amounts only, it might do you well if you just save your funds and do the buying once or twice a month.
|
|
|
|
|
Most, if not all, gambling games whether fully-owned by the casinos or offered via third-party providers have house-edge.
I'm not sure if all casinos share the same contract with their game providers as there are casinos that may want their games personalized, but I guess the standard operation is that casinos manage the finances. Casinos, after all, are the ones handling the pay-outs or paying the players.
Game providers will get a certain percentage from the revenue. Of course, winnings paid out by casinos will have to be deducted first. Otherwise, they might not register a profit. Percentage shares of revenue might vary from one provider to another.
|
|
|
|
That's a great list. It highly reflects the reality, especially in depressed neighborhood. But if I may add, since we are all part of the crypto community. If you want to stay poor, - invest heavily in altcoins and hodl them
- constantly look for low-market cap coins and put your money there
- always hunt for that altcoin that might give you x1,000 or more profit
- makes a rush for that money and trade with high leverage
- spend a lot of time waiting and hunting for what's free like airdrops and faucets
|
|
|
|
|
Not really. After all, I don't convince people to sign up here. I only suggest and that's it. If they take it seriously then they can create an account. They can ask questions. They can ask for help, and I'm very willing to give it. But if they don't take it seriously, no problem.
I have exactly the same approach with Bitcoin itself. When the topic is brought up, I might share a little. If they're interested, I could continue joining the discussion. If they aren't, then we could of course talk about something else.
It's different, however, when it comes online. I think I'm a little bit more aggressive online than when it's face-to-face.
|
|
|
|
|
It's here. Finally! This is another milestone for Bitcoin. This is actually huge. Notwithstanding the non-reactive price, as others might have expected an immediate spike once the approval is released, this is actually a significant stamp on Bitcoin's legitimacy. The full effect of this will reflect on the price, and adoption more importantly, a bit gradually.
It's incredible how Bitcoin started as a nerd currency, then as a currency of criminals, and then it was eventually acknowledged by companies, followed by countries, and so on. And now even the hesitant SEC in the US is seemingly left with no choice but to acknowledge it as well. The future is now even brighter.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, of course, you should own Bitcoin not just in 2024 but even beyond. Actually, you can't expect a different answer coming from this forum. This is Bitcointalk.
Let's not be stuck in the past. Owning Bitcoin when the price was just tens of US dollars or a couple hundred US dollars is of course great, but we can't turn back time. We have today when the price is just $46,000. The potential remains great. A new ATH must be reached soon. A 6-digit price would be in store in the near future. And it could continue to grow more.
And the most important point of course is that Bitcoin provides us freedom. No other currency offers what Bitcoin has.
|
|
|
|
There are already a number of threads compiling escrow services on the forum. Most of them aren't updated. The latest of these compilations is probably tranthidung's. It's also the most recently updated. However, even that list isn't accurate and comprehensive. DarkStar_, for example, is still listed as an active loan provider even if such service is not anymore available. The escrow list as well doesn't include active ones like minerjones or MoparMiningLLC. Shasan's compilation is longer, updated a few months ago, but I'm not sure if everyone on the list is still active. I don't know if SebastianJu's escrow services are still available. He's last active in November last year and last posted almost 2 years ago. Yeah, it's a pretty extensive list.. but agree with you that it is missing many escrow providers I used to recommend this list from Financisto: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=276897.0Indeed, Financisto's escrow compilation is probably the most comprehensive and helpful for anybody looking for the most suitable choice. Aside from that incredible and innovative scoring system and complete escrow details, it's also noticeable how he/she's keeping abreast of each escrow's reputation and even activities that may affect their services. Delisting Dabs from the list, for example, for having a huge loan and later on for having financial problems shows how discerning he/she is. That man/woman is diligent. It's unfortunate that he/she's been inactive now. |
|
|
|
|
The forum would grow tired of topics like this much sooner than the world would grow tired of the US dollar. Perhaps people would grow tired of fiat currency first before they would grow tired of the US dollar.
For all we know, joining the BRICS doesn't necessarily mean leaving the US dollar. And China, BRICS largest economy, is the top trading partner of the US.
Also, this is more of geopolitical posturing, and except those countries that have lifetime rulers, the rest could change their stance as soon as leadership shifts or changes.
|
|
|
|
|
The main lesson isn't probably about buying a hardware wallet. It's about safekeeping. Electrum, for example, is probably the safest and the most recommended hot wallet for Bitcoin users. But then there's somebody using it who lost his funds kept in an Electrum wallet. The lesson isn't necessarily avoiding Electrum. It's about safekeeping.
For somebody who DCA little by little accumulating $300 so far, an $80 Trezor is probably expensive for him/her. But it's not the only safe option out there. One can even have a hot wallet for it for the time being for as long as one is mindful with the basic safety dos and don'ts and actually practices it.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
