I am gonna go ahead and say it’s quick profit. Nothing beats the profitability when it comes to investing your hard earned money. But when you are Bitcoin investor since long period of time you would know that Altcoin isn’t the right choice to put your money into. The risk is high, sometime we could see lot of profits in the alts and quicker too but that ain’t guarantee for us. Alts specially those with meme category or has no real roadmap of utility. Those projects are very profitable but are garbage and could either give a lot or take everything from us. Peeps are just trying hard to get more and more from such projects. They are trying their luck I believe.
Well this is true. Majority of altcoin buyers always has the goals for profit, let's say majority of who are on crypto are for profits. It's the truth and we can't deny it. Most of the millionaires on crypto made their fortune thru altcoins. We know how altcoin multiplies like crazy if it has a demand on it. We've seen it many times and there are people who are targeting to getting lucky on altcoins and became rich quickly. The trade off is there's a lot of risk if we compared it to bitcoin but yeah it's how you choose what altcoin you will buy on how much you will profit and how quick you can lose money. Quick profits from altcoins can be tempting, almost hypnotic. Yet, it's dangerous. Profitability from altcoins isn't a surefire outcome, it's more akin to rolling the dice, and the house, unfortunately, has a way of winning more often than not. Comparing Bitcoin with altcoins is like comparing gold with fool's gold. Bitcoin, by virtue of its first-mover advantage, and well-established network, provides a relatively safer harbor in the tumultuous sea of cryptocurrency. Yes, the gains may not be as spectacularly meteoric as some altcoins, but the risk of total loss is significantly lower. Altcoins, especially meme coins and those without concrete roadmaps or use cases, are wild cards. They're akin to hot potatoes, with people trying to pass them on before they get burnt. The euphoria of making a quick buck often blinds investors to the inherent risks involved. Crypto-millionaires might have been minted from altcoins, but let's not forget those who have been wiped out. |
|
|
|
|
Meme coins are a peculiar breed, indeed. They're like the sitcoms of the crypto-verse. Do they serve a meaningful purpose? Not necessarily. Do they bring joy, amusement, and a peculiar sense of camaraderie? Absolutely.
The phenomenon of meme coins is essentially a social commentary on our collective zeitgeist. It's about how an idea, backed by enough people (no matter how ridiculous), can gain substantial value. While projects like Polygon MATIC serve a clear purpose in improving our tech ecosystem, meme coins are more about social dynamics and speculative economics.
Their impact on the broader crypto space is multi-fold. They act as an entry point for many to the world of digital assets, and they keep the mood light-hearted in a market known for its volatility. Will they revolutionize the Web3 realm? Probably not. But will they keep making headlines and causing a stir? You betcha!
|
|
|
|
Sabalenka made to fight, next casualty perhaps? I'm beginning to think to bet on Haddad now the way the women's seem to be going... Ah damn, I see from my previous post that my predictive text left out the 'nt from would.
Tsitsipas needs to ditch his family from the coaching team, I seriously think they
are more of a hinderance than a help at this stage.
I know you buwaytress like myself and others have been let down by his performances
in the past so at this stage of a GS its way too risky to bet on him especially against to top guys.
I should have known that's what you meant -- no idea about players and their relationships with family/coaches... Djokovic I believe has had several, and Raducanu seems to have parted ways with a lot of talk surrounding it, but I never paid attention to that news. Maybe I should start? But yeah, Tsitsi, I'm over him, to be honest. Would love to be proven wrong at some stage (as I actually like the guy) but I'm more inclined to put my hopes on other rising (youthful) stars -- a revival by 26 and powering on from there maybe? Hard to say. Sabalenka turning it around and looks like sure thing now even though result is not backing it yet. She started to simply overpower Muchova. Tsitsi had no chance against Alcaraz and before we start to pile on him let's wait to see how Djoković will fare tomorrow. I feel like there is nobody on tour capable of competing with Alcaraz when he is on his best. First 2 sets against Tsitsipas he was simply unplayable. But if anybody can test him it is player like Djokovic, full of experience and tricks even when he is not in his best form like here. Alcaraz managed to show an unbelievable performance against Tsitsipas especially in the first 2 sets. However if he becomes complacent as he was after the middle of the 3rd set, Djokovic wouldn't forgive this and he would send Alcaraz back home. Djokovic can still have a psychological superiority to his opponent somehow even in times his opponent is better than him. Therefore unlike the betting odds the person I expect to see in the finale is Djokovic. Indubitably, Alcaraz's performance against Tsitsipas was nothing short of impressive, however, his complacency during the latter stages was quite concerning. Should he exhibit such overconfidence against Djokovic, the result could be disastrous - like a mouse challenging a lion in his own den. Alcaraz might be packing his bags sooner than anticipated. Djokovic's psychological edge over his opponents is rather remarkable. It's like a chess grandmaster subtly manipulating his adversary's strategy. Often, even when he appears on the backfoot, he manages to shift the momentum in his favor. Betting odds notwithstanding, it's quite conceivable that Djokovic could indeed find himself in the final, capitalizing on the slightest of missteps by his opponents. |
|
|
|
Zinedine Zidane has once again rejected Paris Saint-Germain's offer as the French champions look to replace Christophe Galtier at the helm. https://www.goal.com/en/news/psg-approached-zinedine-zidane-over-replacing-christophe-galtier-but-former-real-madrid-boss-turned-french-champions-down-for-the-second-time/blt29f406b7d0e60ba6It doesn't even matter how many times PSG tried to approach zidane to be a new coach and the result will always be the same. I see no hope for PSG to get him. PSG seems very ambitious to get him as a new coach for the club yet zidane reject it again. It seems like that the possible thing for PSG to sign naglesman at this moment but yeah this guy is not having very good track record like zidane. Im willing to see who will become alternative coaches to be signed by PSG in the future. We can remove zidane from the list of potential coach that will be signed by PSG. I see no hope for PSG to sign him. Zidane was always rejecting PSG so many times. But I would even say that this is embarrassing if you can't get Zidane as a coach for the team of the main city of his home country. Zidane probably shares the opinion that many people have. The league isn't competitive and if you won the Champions League with Real Madrid and the La Liga title against Barcelona, why would you want to find yourself coaching PSG? That team is a step back and it doesn't matter how many superstars they have. I mean I think they have already reached the maximum with Messi, Neymar and Mbappe and even Ramos. There isn't much more you can do and yet they were without a chance against Bayern Munich. Zidane knows that. If he accepts an offer he can only lose. Winning Ligue 1 and Coup de France doesn't count for PSG's management. But I would like to know which clubs Zidane would accept an offer from.  There was a new update. It seems like that PSG was not sending a negotiation to the zidane. There have been so many fake news. it's very hard to determine which was true but the thing that makes me feel curious is with the confimation that came by romano and it seems like that PSG was not even willing to sign zidane as a new coach. This becomes even more non sense since zidane has so many good achievements in the past and PSG is not willing to trust him as a new coach. It seems like that if PSG knew zidane will not be interested on its offer or what? PSG is seriously in talk with naglesmann to be a new coach. I don't even what's wrong with this team. It's always refusing to sign a good coach to rebuild the club. Zidane has a lot of experience to make it happen. PSG can at least The situation around PSG and Zidane indeed leaves one scratching their head! Zidane, with his array of accomplishments, appears to be a perfect fit for any team wishing to ascend in the football hierarchy. Yet, for reasons as clear as mud, PSG doesn't seem to be keen on bringing him aboard. Football news can often be a mess. In this cacophony of transfer rumors and coaching news, we must learn to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to media outlets. It is absolutely crucial to ascertain the reliability of a source before taking the news at face value. Because, in the end, even the best of us can be led astray by fake news. |
|
|
|
If they wanted to run projects like PSg in the premier league they had to spend much more money because in the premier league, there are many ort rich teams and there is a closer race between other teams while in the French League, they could have easier days, if they were spending this money in premier they could even lose the top of the table easily.
That is exactly the point and that is why I am not a big fan of picking a league that is inferior and then invest a billion and celebrate the team for winning the title on a yearly basis. Not a lot of people are truly excited when they can watch Neymar, Messi and Mbappe play against Troyes. But what if they hypothetically be playing for Newcastle instead and people get to see them to play against Manchester United / City, Liverpool, Tottenham, Chelsea etc. Having those three guys play for the Ligue 1 title in the same team became very boring over time. Everyone was waiting for half a year to pass until the knockout games in the Champions League finally began and if PSG got eliminated early, then the season was essentially over. PSG spent a lot of money and signed several star players. Even then their performance was not good. Even though the Ligue 1 teams are not very strong, the PSG team cannot perform well. Even PSG spent a lot of money to win the Champions League title. But their performance in the Champions League was worse. Even though they have a lot of money, PSG management can buy star players even if Messi and Neymar leave the team. We will see a lot of star players in PSG's squad next season as well. However, Ligue 1 is not very competitive. And I think the Newcastle team is much stronger than PSG right now. Because the Premier League is very competitive. The standards of Ligue 1 teams are much lower than Premier League teams. PSG's spending spree, in contrast with their subpar performance, seems as mismatched as a bird at a fish party. Messi's situation in PSG is a stark reminder that the best of players can struggle under unqualified management. Galtier's public admission about struggling to tap into Messi's potential exemplifies this issue. The role of a competent coach, as you aptly pointed out, cannot be undermined. It's indeed true that Ligue 1 falls short in terms of competition when juxtaposed with the Premier League. While PSG may dominate their domestic league with their galaxy of stars, the real test of their mettle comes at the continental level, where they've been underwhelming. Perhaps the likes of Newcastle are indeed in a better position to compete given the rigorous competition they face week in, week out. |
|
|
|
I see many As Roma fans blaming Mourinho because of the bad performance he had this season and because he lost the game against Sevilla in the Europa League while in fact Mourinho had a good performance and we can't blame him for anything. The only thing they can blame Mourinho for is the place of As Roma in the league where they got 6th pale of the table.
For real, aren't we being a bit too quick to pounce on Mourinho with disapproval, given his tally sheet this season? Isn't it kind of off-kilter to point the finger of fault at him alone? C'mon, he brought Roma to the threshold of the Europa League final, a triumph they hadn't tasted for a fair bit, no? Even within the handcuffs of financial limitations, he's turned Roma around, like a master mariner charting a course through turbulent waters. Debate may rage over Roma's not-so-top-tier 6th place finish in the league. However, consider this: isn't it paramount to admit that soccer is a group effort, where, yes, the manager is critical, but the players' performance and other factors are also key players in the game's final tally? Mourinho's tour de force this season has been praiseworthy, and the fanbase seems to be tipping towards admiration rather than admonishment. |
|
|
|
Real Madrid has this confidence that they can still bounce back to winning the La Liga title next season with the way they want every quality players across Europe. Well they're doing all it takes to cover the spot in their squad.
With Benzema leaving the side I don't know they can get someone who's good as him or even better than him. Well the Madrid I know can get anybody in the transfer market but the question is, can they develop more in their scoring habit and try as much as possible in winning the league.
Indeed, Real Madrid has an illustrious reputation of springing back like a tenacious cat, always landing on its feet. Yet, they face an uphill climb, especially in the wake of Benzema's departure. Can they find a worthy successor in the transfer market? Only time will tell. This coming season, the club's performance must redefine their trajectory, and no stone should be left unturned in the quest for their resurgence. Their mission is not just to fill Benzema's shoes, but to eclipse his legacy, an ambitious endeavor. Could Real Madrid not just find but also nurture talent that outshines Benzema's accomplishments? What are the odds, right? |
|
|
|
Union Berlin was my favorite team this season and I was even hoping to see them at the top of the table and racing with Bayern Munich until last week when saw them having a bad performance because of having not enough potential for the rest of the season. I think Union Berlin could have much better transfers and they could hire better players to help them in this situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80%9322_1._FC_Union_Berlin_season#TransfersIndeed, Union Berlin has proven itself as a team to watch, especially at the start of this season. They took us on a roller-coaster ride, a captivating chase for the top spot against Bayern Munich. Yet, as the saying goes, "A chain is only as strong as its weakest link." Their squad depth—or lack thereof—may have precipitated their slump. In the spirit of constructive critique, I'd posit that it's imperative for them to focus on transfers and augment their player base with more high-quality players. The draw of the European competition might now prove irresistible for potential new signings, giving Union Berlin the much-needed lift. A fortified team will undoubtedly aid them in their quest for the championship in the upcoming season. |
|
|
|
|
Interesting perspective, however, I'd argue that the percentage of the bankroll used for bets should not be rigidly fixed. Factors such as risk tolerance, knowledge of the game, and personal financial situation can all influence this decision.
When it comes to depositing and withdrawing, I'd advocate for responsible gambling practices. This could mean only depositing the exact amount intended for gambling, to ensure you're not tempted to exceed your budget. Discipline is key in any form of gambling and should not be underestimated.
|
|
|
|
|
Initiate remembrance mode, okay? Game's not over until you tap out. Your narrative is practically oozing with that rags-to-riches charm, transforming a wee bit of investment into a full-blown bonanza. Hats off to that! But the hitch, as you've duly noticed, lurks in the labyrinth of making that bonanza play nice.
The call of the wild, the adrenaline rush of putting all your chips in one basket—it's an irresistible siren's song, even for those grizzled finance veterans. It's like an action flick, yeah, but seldom scribbles a happy ending in the long run.
Ever thought about sprinkling your windfall across other not-so-rollercoaster-y investment paths? Like putting your eggs in a few different baskets to dial down the gamble and invite a steady stream of greenbacks. Okay, it might not be the same adrenaline shot, but it could fortify your financial fortress. At the end of the day, isn't the real dream a comfy nest egg rather than an arbitrary 'milli' goal?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago, my savings went down because of the FTX debacle. I've never used FTX, I've never been a customer of this company, but my savings are in BTC, and because of that failure, BTC's value went down, and so went my savings.
Today, bis repetita. I've never used Binance. I've never been a customer of this company, but because the SEC sues Binance, BTC is down, and so are my savings, so I have a message to all bitcoiners out there.
Exchanges and BTC are 2 different things. One exchange going down doesn't mean BTC must follow.
Binance will disappear? I don't give a damn.
Everything has its place. There are people who believe so much in exchanges to take care of their assets security more than they think they can do for themselves, and as such, most people save their coins on centralized exchanges with hope and believe that they are the best option. Which is the worst idea anyone can have. A true Bitcoiner knows the value and benefits of self-custodial. The price of Bitcoin always goes down based on the level of fudz, which is a cause against Bitcoin. The Bitcoin price is not controlled by anyone, but most times it can be manipulated, since the case of the SEC coming after Binance CEO is enough reason for non-believers to start panic selling, which can cause a drastic price dump, but this can only be temporary and not a permanent price. But you shouldn't be considering your savings gone until you have sold them out entirely. So long as you still hold your coin, there is a higher chance and possibility of regaining everything that you have calculated to have lost when the bull market comes. That's why we are always advised to hodl strong in a bearish market and never to sell under panic. I don't think it's about these people believing in the fact that Binance will secure their assets better than they could, I mean this is a CEX that gets hacked and robbed from almost every year by the millions, I don't think it's going to scream "security" anywhere, although you're right, there's a good amount of people in this industry who thinks that Binance will take care of their assets. Although going back, that is not what I think is the reason why. Bitcoin as it stands today's accessible through multiple channels, but it would be stupid and dishonest to say that Binance and Centralized Exchanges aren't a way for these people to get into crypto and start their cryptocurrency journey. It's been like that for years, and the recent barring of Binance and the legal implications it carries with it just spells "we can't use bitcoin anymore" to people who were introduced to cryptocurrency by Binance. And it being a major player in the industry too, makes a lot of people lose confidence in the industry, hence the drop in valuation. You could say that OP is right, people are giving too much importance over exchanges, but that attention is warranted and deserved, as they played a great part in introducing regular people into this industry too, especially in the 2019-2023 mark. Your viewpoint does carry weight; it's true that trusting centralized exchanges entirely could potentially be risky. However, let's not neglect that these platforms have catalyzed the crypto revolution for the common man. For many, exchanges like Binance have been the gateway to the world of crypto, simplifying the process of buying, selling, and holding digital assets. Yet, I agree that complete reliance on such platforms for asset security could be a bit naive. The mantra in crypto circles, "Not your keys, not your coins," still rings true. An ideal approach might involve using hardware wallets or other self-custodial solutions, along with exchanges. As for the FUD impacting Bitcoin prices, I concur that emotional trading often leads to volatility. In such scenarios, the classic advice of HODLing (Hold On for Dear Life) seems most apt, don't you think? |
|
|
|
That's what I thought too. Robbers probably aimed for the cash inside that ATM, but unfortunately It seems like the ATM wasn't really used that much for the people nearby to purchase bitcoin using that ATM. I am also wondering, there might be some cash inside since it might offer deposit and withdrawal feature like the fiat ATM. I didn't take a time to read the article though, dont know how the story goes, but if the Robbers were actually aiming for some physical Bitcoins, then I don't what else to say other than asking them if they just came out from the cave LOLOL!
Although a thief in a cave cannot obtain Bitcoin from an ATM, it is not accurate to claim that 'Bitcoin cannot be robbed'. To this day, there are still numerous cases of theft and scams involving Bitcoin. Hackers can still target all our data, which poses a threat to the wallets we keep secure. As of now, I can still assert that Bitcoin ATMs (BTMs) are safe from thieves who are not familiar with the internet, technology, or blockchain. What we've been reading in the news is mostly about Bitcoin wallets with substantial balances. However, cases of Bitcoin wallets being hacked with small balances are not widely publicized. That means there's still a significant number of incidents that go unreported. I think it's critical to distinguish between physical robbery of a Bitcoin ATM and virtual theft of Bitcoin. The former, as you've humorously pointed out, is an exercise in futility. Cryptocurrencies exist in the digital realm; one cannot "rob" them in the conventional sense. However, you're correct that Bitcoin is not immune to theft. Sophisticated hacking techniques can compromise wallets, and phishing scams can trick individuals into revealing their private keys. We've witnessed these in the numerous high-profile security breaches that have hit crypto exchanges in recent years. I'd suggest the discourse should focus on strengthening the security infrastructure of cryptocurrency systems. This involves stringent regulation of exchanges, educating users on secure handling of their private keys, and promoting hardware wallets for long-term storage. That's the way forward, don't you think? |
|
|
|
I don't think they are. If Ledger is good at one thing, that's marketing and advertising their products and services. They did a lousy job with the PR for Ledger Recover the first time. I think they will hang back, gather their thoughts, and try again once the storm passes. We are forgetting that many ideas shared by members of this forum is not what the regular crypto user thinks. The average person isn't going to run their own node, stay clear of centralized exchanges, never submit KYC, or worry too much about privacy-invasive software and services. I don't think they will see the dangers in sharing their seeds with multiple online partners either if you package it and sell it to them in a nice wrapping. Ledger will probably lose a percentage of their current userbase because people have found out their hardware wallets aren't as safe as they trusted Ledger they would be. In the long run, they might make up for it with new users, like the millions of mothers  looking to purchase hardware wallets where there is a system in place to correct their mistakes. I guess you're right. The vast majority of crypto users want convenience on top of privacy/security/decentralization. While Ledger will lose customers because of its recovery service, it won't be much of a big deal compared to the rest of the people who really don't care about anything. For crypto veterans like myself, we would look into other alternatives that respects the true values of crypto/Blockchain tech. I'm glad there are plenty of open source alternatives on the market. This would make crypto stronger in the long run. Would you imagine hardware wallet companies being compromised by the government in the future? If there were no open source wallets, no one would be able to use a hardware wallet without giving away their privacy and freedom. I hope Ledger learns its lesson and decides to abandon plans to launch the recovery service. Maybe it will turn into an open source hardware wallet company in the long run? Interesting! Still, I’d argue that the crypto is diverse enough to accommodate a spectrum of user needs and preferences. While I acknowledge the flaws in Ledger's approach, isn't there room for a more varied ecosystem? Crypto veterans like us are likely to prefer open-source, non-custodial wallets for optimal security and control. However, there's a substantial chunk of crypto users who prefer a degree of convenience and user-friendliness, even at the expense of some privacy and control. Isn't the key here diversity? The more significant issue I see here is user education. Many newbies are unaware of the potential privacy risks associated with certain practices. Rather than demonizing Ledger, perhaps our energy should be focused on enlightening these users? Remember, a well-informed user is less likely to fall prey to pitfalls, right? |
|
|
|
|
Here's the thing - the financial jitters you're experiencing are definitely real, and your idea to use Bitcoin as a cash reserve echoes a predicament faced by a global crowd. But remember, you gotta tread lightly; Bitcoin, for all its worth as an inflation shield, comes packaged with its very own risks
Yes, it's out there in the wild, decentralized, and free from governmental puppet strings. But this digital bucking bronco is known for its epic mood swings. The value can rocket sky-high only to plunge into the abyss just as swiftly. Add to this, the ground rules and warm reception to Bitcoin varies widely from one country to another, and that includes Bangladesh.
Maybe try looking at a buffet of investments. How about dipping your toes in the stock market, trading commodities, or becoming a property tycoon? Or even stocking up on foreign currencies that are more on the stable side? Each investment has its own game of roulette, but scattering your bets can help soften the blow if one goes belly up. How does this game plan sound to you?
|
|
|
|
My younger sister told me that how you bear your pocket money because dad doesn't give you much money without education fees. I told my sister that I have a little investment in Bitcoin and I am a short term trader (though the fund is little). She told that she learned about Bitcoin at her ICT related books. But she has not much knowledge about it. Then I tried to teach him the basics of Bitcoin. At last I succeed though there are enough information to learn by my sister. She told me that she is interested to be a Bitcoin user. And already she started to keep some money from daily pocket money and after that she will invest in Bitcoin. I told that not only you but also other girls should learn about Bitcoin and Blockchain technology. She told me that she will share her experience about Bitcoin with her college friends. I am now much happy by sharing with my younger sister about Bitcoin and will be more happy if she share information and teach other friends.
When I first started reading your story I thought your story was going to be a really nice story and it surprised me that your sister was going to be interested in Bitcoin. It is not right to neglect her because she is a girl because in today's world girls are also working in many big industries and various types of technological companies and are doing very well. And women are also carrying out the government duties of many countries. But suddenly I noticed that your sister came to know about Bitcoin from ICT books. then it raised some questions in my mind. And I kept thinking and also searching on the internet if any country's ico book has anything written about Bitcoin. But I couldn't find it anywhere. then it made me think that your story might be made up and fake Can you tell what the purpose of making such a fake story? Lol Your skepticism is understood! Bitcoin being mentioned in ICT textbooks is uncommon, given its controversial nature and the general conservatism in educational curricula. However, this doesn't necessarily deem the story fraudulent. Some curricula might be ahead of the curve, incorporating emerging technologies like Bitcoin into their course content. Who knows? Also, remember, we live in the age of the internet where digital resources complement textbooks. She could have encountered Bitcoin in a wider context of ICT studies. The key takeaway here is the focus on financial literacy and technology understanding among girls. Whether the story is factual or not, it does spotlight an issue that warrants attention. Women's participation in tech and finance is a discourse we should be having, wouldn't you agree? |
|
|
|
|
The mystery around the signature from the 1018 block certainly fuels a cryptic narrative. Though, I'd advise caution in attributing this to theft or sale of Hal Finney's keys. It's a major claim and would require substantiated evidence to uphold. Considering the decentralized and secure nature of the blockchain, this could alternatively be a publicity strategy for the ordinal explorer that leonidas.og is developing. A publicity stunt, perhaps? Nothing draws a crowd more than a bit of enigma. What we must remember is that signing a message with a private key doesn't necessarily indicate ownership of the associated Bitcoins. It's a complex and multi-layered issue, worth following closely but with a critical eye.
|
|
|
|
Had you considered using bitcoin in your discussion of this topic or not.. or do you really believe that your use of the term crypto provides any kind of a less than vague depiction of what is happening and being attempted in El Salvador in regards to bitcoin and/or its attempts at tech-friendliness?
The word crypto is a vague word that can be misused by many shitcoin promoters. They hid under the word crypto to promote their scam projects while telling unsuspecting clients that their coin and bitcoin are in the same category. So many people in my country assume that there are no differences between Bitcoin and other coins because they have been deceived that all of them are the same. This is why I always support it when people argue that the name of the coins should be mentioned because hiding under the term crypto can be abused and misused. There is a big difference between Bitcoin and shitcoin and shouldn't be used interchangeably and both terms should be clearly differentiated, but many members have misunderstood this fact and ended up. Making that mistakes each time their make comments, and also shutcoinairs have constantly and consciously used the term crypto to mean and promote the coins in the same category as bitcoin which is something we constantly discredit in our various discussions as related to Bitcoin or the entire cryptocurrency. But when it comes to El Salvador's Bitcoin adoption, the discussion there is no way we gonna accept the term crypto to be used in our discussions since El Salvador was specific in their approach to the adoption of Bitcoin and no other coin so shitcoinair can gain any place in this discussion and we must consciously and our words while having this discussion. It seems to me that there are levels of concern that come when referring to bitcoin within the concept of crypto or cryptocurrencies, and even if none of us can really figure out what the term crypto means, there should be some kind of an obligation of the person who chooses to use such word to be clear about what is the references. So the first level is merely just clarifying what is meant, and if someone is trying to suggest that there is some kind of an amorphous idea out there that involves crypto and bitcoin happens to be part of that, then even if they might be technically accurate, many times they are inaccurate an misleading by failing and refusing to clarify what they mean exactly - or alternatively if they are trying to suggest that various shitcoins are kind of like bitcoin, then that is also misleading... . ..so when it comes down to El Salvador, we know that they emphasize bitcoin and not crypto and not shitcoins, but to some degree, there likely needs to be some level of tolerance to shitcoins and other various products that might overlap with shitcoins, crypto and even sometimes it might not even be clear exactly how much any other party, person, business or other government is wrapped up into or confused by shitcoins, and so part of the process of promoting bitcoin and expanding bitcoin is going to have various overlaps with shitcoins that are affinity scamming bitcoin - .. so frequently it is not going to be clear where to draw the line exactly, even if some cases of promoting shitcoins or naysaying upon bitcoin are more clear than others and there needs to be some forced clarifications when some folks are either sloppy in their use of language, even if they might not be purposefully trying to promote shitcoins or to naysay on bitcoin and even sometimes there might be some useful products or ideas that they might have that might not be exactly bitcoin related, but in the end, likely bitcoin is going to end up touching upon all areas of life, even areas in which people are scamming and involving themselves into using bitcoin, too. Intriguing how your assertion just lit a light bulb in my brain! True, you could say there's a chasm of difference separating Bitcoin from the motley crew of cryptos often derisively dubbed 'shitcoins'. Bitcoin has demonstrated its muscle, bounceback-ability and capacity for disruption. However, does it totally nullify the use-value of the other coin-kids on the block? Sure, Bitcoin may be the cool kid now that El Salvador gave it a nod, but does that imply the entire crypto-crew is nothing but deadweights? Some of these so-called 'shitcoins' have gone through a metamorphosis, finding their own corner in the vast crypto world. Ethereum, with its smarty-pants contracts, is breaking molds left and right in numerous sectors. Are we so quick to ignore its worth? Moreover, 'crypto' isn't just some buzzword millennials love to throw around. It's a power-packed term symbolizing the revolutionary ability of blockchain tech. So, shouldn't we emphasize the gap between Bitcoin and its counterparts, but also push for a thorough grasp of the richly varied crypto-sphere? |
|
|
|
I believe it's kinda tricky .. if it is a one time payment , i don't because i believe it's the value of it at that moment but when it's little payments here and there i kinda feel as if i could've paid with fiat and it woulda been fine but with when i pay with BTC it makes me feel like i'm losing value ..
Even if it's small amount, I would advise you to not pay with Bitcoins. These coins are limited in numbers, hence very valuable, so if you just pay with Bitcoins and give away all your hard earned coins, then no one can stop you from this foolish act. Instead of accumulating these valuable coins, you just giving away the coins. Moreover I always feel bad when I pay in Bitcoins, but I do that only when I don't have any options or it's just an urgent payment that needed to be done. But one advise to everyone, soon the Bitcoins will rise in it's price, so buy and hold as many as you can. This will indeed be different from a perspective perspective because with something like this there will definitely be someone who wants it and someone who refuses too because of various considerations but I think that's normal because of course things like this can still happen because we are free to do whatever we want. We want. I also actually quite agree with you because even though it can be done for payment but I don't know why it feels quite unfortunate to do that but on the other hand in this case I also still want to feel that way because it's not wrong to do it once to do buying with bitcoin regardless it's small or big but feeling something new of course it's not wrong. Intriguing perspective! While I concur that Bitcoin's finite supply makes it inherently valuable, I'd argue it's a simplified view to discourage its use for transactions. Isn't the primary purpose of any currency to serve as a medium of exchange? Applying this logic, hoarding Bitcoin in anticipation of a price rise is akin to betting on a speculative asset, not utilizing a currency. Besides, widespread usage of Bitcoin for everyday transactions can potentially stabilize its value and reduce price volatility. What's necessary, in my view, is a balanced approach - HODL (Hold On for Dear Life, for those not in the crypto loop) some for potential future gains, and use some to encourage its mainstream adoption. That would help Bitcoin fulfil both of its purposes, wouldn't it? |
|
|
|
There are different approaches and varying degrees of flexibility or restrictions that can be applied in the development of a protocol like Bitcoin. Bitcoin's protocol development involved finding a balance between flexibility and rules to maintain the security, integrity, and consensus of the network. It is a complex task to meet diverse use cases while ensuring the network remains robust and resilient. Regarding the Taproot upgrade and its impact on space requirements, Taproot is primarily focused on improving the privacy, scalability, and flexibility of Bitcoin transactions. Although Taproot introduces new codes and features, it is designed to be backward compatible, meaning it does not significantly increase the capacity requirements for individual instances. The aim is to provide more efficient transaction processing while minimizing the impact on the size of the blockchain.
isn't the beauty of Bitcoin in its simplicity? Its core principles, its resilience, its immutability? Let's mull over Taproot a bit. Sure, it brings improvements to privacy and scalability, which sound like unicorns and rainbows. But isn't there a chance it might actually complicate things further? Are we just making Bitcoin's transaction processing fancier without addressing the elephant in the room – the ever-growing size of the blockchain? And let's not forget, Bitcoin was built to be decentralized. But with these upgrades, are we making it more complicated, potentially requiring more advanced systems to participate? Could we end up centralizing what is fundamentally decentralized? That's something to scratch our heads about! |
|
|
|
- When self-control is used correctly, it will followed by self-limitation, therefore losses can be avoided. Because most of the time gambler cannot get rid of the words "I will bet again because I feel that this time I will be right and I will recover my loss" these kinds of thoughts are what drives them that they don't realize they are getting loss continously without noticing it.
Then in the end they will say that "I should have stopped betting earlier so I wouldn't have led to a big loss" their regret its too too late.
Thoughts like that can trap gamblers to keep betting because they think this one round will be the last time they gamble and will stop after that. Even though this is not the case because most of them will continue to say things like that because they think one last round will recover their losses. And what's even worse, many of them immediately place bets with big money so that the losses will be even bigger when they lose. After that loss, they said they were sorry but oddly enough, they didn't realize it the next day when they gambled again. And that caused them to experience another defeat that could be even bigger. Indeed, the person you've been conversing with has presented an astute observation of human behavior in relation to gambling. Betting is analogous to a moth being drawn to a flame. Despite the inevitable harm, it is irresistibly lured by the prospect of light. The psychological trap of "just one more bet" is a potent one. It's akin to the infamous paradox of Achilles and the tortoise. Despite all logical indicators suggesting otherwise, gamblers believe they can catch up with their losses. The subsequent regret is a fundamental aspect of the human condition. We often fail to act in our best interests, leading to remorse, which unfortunately is short-lived. It's somewhat similar to the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
