It is clear that franky1 is a peculiar guy. I put him on ignore for a while. Not only does he seem to understand it better than all the members of Congress, but also all the forum members who have commented on the thread and the other crypto news sites, Youtube videos etc. that I've seen have commented on the bill. None have the vision that franky1 has, but he has it so clear that he calls us trolls:


We are all mistaken and do not understand such obvious things. Lol.

Once again, and in view of what he says, I will agree with suchmoon, and PrimeNumber7 will not be able to say that I repeat left-wing propaganda.

The problem is that we all like to think we are more objective and unbiased than we are.

Leaving that feedback to Cnut237 is anything you want but unbiased, PrimeNumber7. I with Cnut237 usually have differing opinions, after debating sometimes we come to common ground and sometimes we don't. Precisely on the issue of structural racism I disagree with him. For me it is much less than what is painted, but to say that he simply repeats left-wing propaganda when Cnut237 is a person who always defends with detailed arguments what he says is completely misrepresentative. With that background, I don't trust you to do a good job as a moderator.

It's not going to "force" anything, the EU is already taking steps in that direction as I was saying in a previous comment:

EU wants to ban crypto anonymous transactions and wallets

The rest of the countries, maybe they have not started with legislative initiatives like that but that is what they want. They don't need much persuasion to take steps in that direction.

Another problem I see is that large institutional buyers, that could influence politicians, won't care that you can't do anonymous P2P transactions. The only thing they will care about is if it affects the price, but I think that influence will be short term only. Saylor, Musk etc, buy fully KYC. That we individuals can have a privacy space on the blockchain I think they don't really care.

I do not know the particularities of the US electoral procedure, but I find it very hard to believe that in a developed country a large scale vote fraud could take place. Elections are highly supervised procedures, with interveners from all political parties. I am not saying that fraud of a few votes can be committed at some small table or in some small place, but on a large scale I see it as practically impossible.

I am pretty sure I've reported posts in the P&S board and have been dealt with. The only thing is, I am quite lenient when reporting, so if I report some post it is because it is a huge nonsense crap, not because it expresses some weird idea.

I'm not sure I like your idea of a specific moderator for P&S. To me there is an essential difference between what you call spammers in P&S and in other parts of the forum like Bitcoin Discussion or the Gambling Section. BaDecker-like forum members and others who write outlandish posts on P&S are not doing it to make money from signature campaings.  They write those posts because they really believe in it no matter how odd it may seem to a rational mind.

I understand that if moderation is not harsher in that section it is out of respect for the freedom of speech that exists on this forum. As I say I'm pretty sure I've reported posts there that have been deleted, which I can't verify because I haven't reached 300 reports.

I would be concerned that posts in that section would start getting deleted because they are considered conspiratorial, as is happening especially in social media.

There was a time when if you believed that the invasion and war in Iraq was for oil instead of WMD you were a conspiracist. The same if you thought that COVID had come out of a laboratory in Wuhan...

Whoever supports censorship because it suits his political ideas should not complain tomorrow if they censor him too.

I agree but I think that if the problem of the miners having to leave China didn't happen, we probably would have reached $100K by now. It's a matter of demand was greater than supply. With the China problem, the miners had to sell to get out of there and it also caused FUD which caused more people to sell, but once we are past that, hopefully we won't have a similar problem this year and we will get easily to $100K.

Now it seems that we have broken resistance and that we are going to 50K in the blink of an eye.

$46,325.22 on bitstamp.

Waiting for trolldhon and his theories.

The source of value are its intrinsic properties, its decentralization, as you mentioned, its limited finite supply, its irreversibility.


Yes the Bitcoin will continue to be developed no matter what the government does or doesn't do.Governments will want to control it more and more, and it seems to me that to a large extent they will succeed, but I believe that there will always be a space for privacy. I think that the rise in price goes hand in hand with regulation and (attempted) control by governments, otherwise there would not be a massive adoption by individuals and institutions.

Although I generally agree with what you say, be very careful with what I have put in bold. House prices do not always go up. Precisely for thinking that, many people got into trouble in the 2008 crisis. In the short term house prices can go down, and if you are over-indebted you may have a problem.

Moreover, in general they are a good hedge against inflation but we must think about how much is due to the real increase in value and how much is due to the devaluation of the fiat currency that you use to buy houses.

Yeah right, and I assume you're not going to reveal your sources or expose your research because of...? that you are afraid we will laugh at you? I still think you are a troll playing a role, but if you weren't you would have no problem exposing your research so that everyone could see how correct it is.

So far they haven't given very good results in terms of predictions, so they don't look very rigorous.

I totally agree, although I saw some discussion also in the WO thread and I would say some other thread, but I don't remember now exactly.


Other than that, correct me if I am wrong, the bill could still be amended until it takes effect. It would be better if it was passed in a way favorable to the crypto industry now, because then it costs more to amend later on, but it's not like if it's passed today there's no chance of changing it.

That's what I've inferred from what I've read out there. Maybe that's why it doesn't influence the price much either, because the market thinks that if it's unfavorable there's still some chance to amend until it went into effect.

They are indeed essentially different. As I was commenting above, casino games are EV- which means that the player will inevitably lose money in the long run. The larger the sample the surer it is and the more he will lose.

In poker, on the other hand, there are many players who develop an EV+ game, where the opposite happens as in casino games: in the short term they may lose, even against very bad players, but the larger the sample size, the more likely they are to be in profit and the higher the profits. Some people say that this can be achieved with sports betting, but I don't know that for sure.

Yes, of course, I am also generally pro-choice and I think the key is what we consider a human being. We don't usually consider a 2 week old fetus and we do consider a 9 month old about to be delivered. The problem is where we draw the line that says what is a human being and what is not. There will always be people who disagree.


Although I get the idea, it seems to me that you are overdoing it with the example. To begin with, killing is voluntary and I believe that the vast majority of those who do not want to get vaccinated are not thinking of voluntarily killing people. In addition, the mortality of the virus is low, and we are in a context where there are already a lot of people vaccinated, so the people most at risk who are vaccinated also have a reduced probability of ending up dying from the virus. To say that anyone who does not vaccinate is potentially killing is too much of an exaggeration. 

I am locking this thread, thanking suchmoon, because it is not accredited what the title says, and leaving it open can be misleading.

If someone finds evidence to affirm that the US media were bought by China, let them open another thread, but in view of the analysis done, it cannot be affirmed. Moreover, what seems to be more accurate to say is that it is at least an exaggeration, if not a blatant lie.

I guess what they are similar in is the combination of mathematics with intuition.

But I see clear differences. For example, in poker there are times when you know 100% that you have the winning hand. Other times you know 99%, like when a very passive player reraises you (in this case you know he has the winning hand). I don't think you have those percentages in sports betting. Then, the example you give of 30% I suppose it is similar to when in poker you have the odds to chase a flush or a straight.

On the other hand, the bookmakers give odds for sport betting calculating also, you are calculating against the house and I see only a small margin of winning there. In poker if you want to win money you have to sit at tables where you know there are worse players than you. There I think there is more margin than your odds calculation vs the house odds calculation.

Of course neither activity is like casino games where you know they are inexorably EV- in the long run, even though you may have favorable results in the short run.

It is not very clear what you are saying. Which country are you talking about? As far as I know, in countries where the interest rate is negative, it is negative only if you deposit your money, not if you take a loan. Therefore we cannot talk about free money. Free money would be if you were to ask for a personal loan and the interest rate was -2%, but what happens now, as far as I know, is that if you ask for a loan they charge you 4%, or 8% or whatever depending on your personal situation and if you leave your money on deposit is when they apply a negative interest rate.

Greed would be one of the emotions that dominate the player who ends up having problems. Not infrequently the player who has problems with the game knows that he should not play anymore, that he has played too much and that he should not try to recover his losses. And conversely, the one who has a stroke of luck and wins a good jackpot, the best thing to do is to go away and enjoy the money, but the one who does not control his emotions cannot stop and ends up losing everything and more.

People who are very emotional, better stay away from gambling.

Yes, I think it's a coincidence too. I've been playing poker for many years, on poker and betting forums and I don't remember a single case of a winning poker player who said he was into sports betting as well.

Some people claim to win in sports betting in the long run, just like in horse racing, for example, but I would say that poker is the game that depends less on luck and more on knowledge.

I think OP meant "Is Bitcoin a good hedge against inflation?" although it is difficult to know for sure from his wording.

If this is what he meant, I would say yes, at least so far it has proven to be the best, despite short-term volatility. Just look at how many dollars you would get 10 years ago with 1 bitcoin and how many you get now. The limited, finite nature of Bitcoin is the key.

I think you actually hold quite a few Bitcoins and here you represent a character for fun.

I know there are some very stupid people in the world but I refuse to believe you are that stupid, that's why I think you are acting.

It's not uncommon to see Bitcoin haters saying Bitcoin is going down/going to 0 etc but when the price goes up they disappear. They don't come here to be laughed at. Maybe even, the next time the Bitcoin goes down a bit, they will create a new account to say the same again but without being recognized.  I'm mainly talking about other internet sites, as you don't usually see many Bitcoin haters here.

So yeah, it's funny. Can't wait for your next "Scientific fact, Bitcoin will not be able to hold above $100k, $200k etc."