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."

I was going to say something similar. But I think the panic will start again when we break $65k or so when we break the previous ATH.


I know some people who usually do that but I`ve lost hope. They are led by their emotions and keep doing the same, usually losing money.

Yes, but I like to base it on what I can prove, and not on whether I think China may bribe some journalists or not, without having more proof that it is what I think. I have been looking to see if there was more news or more data on the subject, and I see that the amounts paid are laughable compared to the total revenue:

The times of India doesn't allow me to copy and paste so I'll put a screenshot:



Source: CCP buys media influence by paying millions to US dailies

And I don't understand how The Times of India publishes that headline without looking at that for example, if the NYT received $50K, for a total of about $2BN of revenue, the amount received is close to 0%. I guess TToI is a right-wing newspaper that has signed up for the version without properly investigating the facts.

I agree with suchmoon that with those amounts we can't talk about the media being bought, in the same way that we can't say that McDonald's has bought them if they advertise in those media. And especially if they clearly appear as sponsored by the Chinese press as we have seen in the example above. It remains to be seen if all of them were clearly published as sponsored, but in view of the data, the accusation seems to me more and more ridiculous.

The paradox I see there is that lately I hear that phrase a lot from those who oppose vaccines, but also oppose abortion. I seems a bit contradictory at least. And conversely: many pro-choice advocating forcing people to be vaccinated.

My use of the term "communism" is perhaps a bit broad. In general I mean:



Countries that end up in hyperinflation are not typically countries with low taxes, low regulations, ease of business creation, etc. They tend to be the opposite, countries with a lot of intervention in the economy, with rampant and growing public spending, in a headlong rush that stifles private initiative as the engine of economic activity. In general, I would call the latter "communist", although some of them, if we are to speak precisely, are not technically so.

You could come for the P&S board. There has been a lot of debate there about vaccines and COVID, the thing is that many of the arguments against vaccines and the official version that are said there are very poor.

You would encourage the debate. If you don't come I reserve the right to quote you.

You certainly convince me much more than when you dismissed the information simply because you saw Tucker as a source, without seeing that there are others.

Without more specifics, about for example how much money it was out of the total revenue, the story sounds less and less credible to me.

That's what real democracies have. Since they are held every 4 years and there is rivalry between parties, few politicians make plans that go much further. In contrast, in a totalitarian system you can plan for many years ahead. That happened in dictatorships and in the old communist regimes. How well or poorly they worked was another matter. Hitler's plans worked out very well for him for years. Stalin, Mao and others also had a lot of planning power but they did not understand how the economy works, and the results were a disaster.

The best thing China did was to open up to capitalism, which is why it has lifted so many people out of poverty and is able to buy up half the world. Opening up the economy to create wealth and using the wealth created strategically to acquire more power in the world is what has made them so strong.

Although in general I agree very much with what you say, and as you specify, I believe that they can be compared, because at the end of the day to compare is to find similarities and differences. The differences would be the ones you mentioned. But I think there is a similarity between them that the OP has pointed out well: that they had a dream and were able to bring it to reality.

Preparing the next "scientific" study according to which Bitcoin is not going to be able to stay above $50k for more than 10 days.

LOL. I thing exactly the same. And I imagine that, just as the OP opened a post complaining that the price didn't go over $41K, if we go back in history we will see people complaining that it didn't go over $41, $410 etc. You have to look back and take a long term view. The current prices will seem like a bargain next cycle.

Well, that's the thesis of Saylor, Keiser and others. They expect Bitcoin to continue to rise with significant returns for many years to come, as they consider Bitcoin the best financial asset in the world.

From that point of view, it is foolish to spend Bitcoin, at best lend it for yield or borrow against it (and refinance as it rises to continue to get liquidity for practically free).

Another thing is that in the future Bitcoin has acquired the status of a store of value and replaced gold. Then I guess it will be more stable and maybe it won't be so crazy to spend it.

The question, posed in such a vague way as the OP does, may lead to a mega thread spam, but I guess it will be locked by the moderators first.

This is not a black and white issue. And the central question is what we consider a human being. Those who consider a one month old fetus a human being, do not want it aborted at that stage of gestation. Those who consider it to be later, at 6 months, the same. I am in favor of abortion in principle, but I would not know exactly up to what point of pregnancy it should be allowed.

Bitoin is the most bullish because it is the best. The only one that is decentralized, autonomous, the most protected against attacks, etc. In the short term some shitcoin may hjave a push upwards but in the short and medium term, the intrinsic properties of Bitcoin are reflected in its price in the market.

If that's how you use the campaign, no wonder you say that. This is not a campaign to be in just a couple of weeks. On the contrary, it is a campaign to stay in for a long time. It is the longest running campaign in the forum and precisely the structure of tiers what it does is to encourage people to stay. I am in tier B Mr member. If I make all the posts in a week I earn more than $50, which is in line with most campaigns of this kind. Although in this one you have to write more posts.

If you only use it between other campaigns, you will be in the lowest tier which only pays you a few satoshis.

Hey, thanks to you and the others who have congratulated/merited me. And congratz to you as well.

Regarding your comment on


I don't really like casino games, my thing is poker. And I play on fiat sites because the crypto offer sucks. What I did do some time ago was to make a small deposit in Bitvest.io and tried some casino games. I did it for the same reason you say, because I understand that if you are going to advertise a casino, you should try it to know what you are advertising.

As was most likely the case, I ended up losing what I deposited, but it was an amount I didn't mind spending to get to know the casino.

So we won't see each other there but I do know that there are other players in the campaign. Let's see if they add you.

As I told Cnut once, I think I'm going to stop debating with you because you give me so much work. I better go shitpost something quick.

You are right that it is clearly seen to be an ad. And about the rest of the articles that Tucker says were deleted and also says were posted as news instead of propaganda, I don't see any evidence in the links I posted.

It would be necessary to see if the deleted articles were published as news or as ad.


There is one thing to qualify here. One thing is for a company to advertise in your newspaper/television, etc. but another different matter is that : "revenue from China was an integral part of the Times’s business model. The paper received millions of dollars from Chinese government-controlled outlets,"

This is stated by The Spectator (link above), which is published in the UK and says it does so based on two independent sources.
In an environment of declining revenues because people are buying fewer and fewer newspapers in print, and Internet advertising revenues are much scarcer, having a state/party/company on which you are partly financially dependent can influence your editorial line, which is what The Spectator comments on.

You don't even need to be threatened. If the company that finances your newspaper the most is a bank, and accusations arise of the bank's president giving money to a politician, you don't even need to be threatened by the bank's president. If you publish investigations of the news, you already know that they will most likely withdraw your advertising. Media outlets that do not receive advertising revenue from the bank are much more likely to publish research on the subject than you are, and you probably know him and have had lunch with him a few times.