I think you are presuming that this cycle will be essentially similar to the past, as is often the case, and it doesn't have to be. People who make forward-looking predictions based on the charts of the past often forget one little thing:

Reality.

The institutional adoption we are having this cycle has never happened before, and I don't think it's going to stop because of Musk or China. The Bitcoin price does not follow a deterministic pattern that we can calculate based on past price performance. It is the events that are happening that drive the price.

Personally I still believe we will pass $100k at the very least.

I personally doubt that Bitcoin will become a medium of exchange, especially as long as fiat currencies exist. By Gresham's law, people tend to spend the bad currency and keep the one that is a store of value. If we were to reach a hyperinflation scenario in which the main currencies collapse and disappear, then yes, it could become a medium of exchange, but as long as there are bad currencies to spend on a daily basis, I think people will tend to keep Bitcoin rather than spend it.

Freerolls are a good way to get started and build up a small bankroll. In my case, I have been playing for many years, and I earn money regularly, I am only interested in tournaments with guaranteed prizes and not much either, since my main source of income is cash, but from time to time I do play a tournament. I don't like them so much because of the variance. Cash is a relatively constant source of income.

FOMO. They are selling for FUD now, and when it turns around and we beat ATHs again, especially when we pass the 100K barrier, they will be buying like crazy again. Bitcoin history is like that, and those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

It seems to me that you have a very 19th century mentality, or even earlier, because from other things you say, it is clear that you have not overcome the conflict between reason and faith.

Today there are no "races" belonging to borders. In all the countries of the world, people are mixed, in some places more than in others, but the tendency is to mix more and more as time goes by.

And it would be better to speak of ethnicity than of races, because races in the Darwinian sense do not exist in humans.

Regarding what we have been talking about, I would like to ask your opinion about a curious phenomenon that I have been observing for years and that I have come to call the leftist paradox. On the one hand, we must be tolerant of other cultures. And on the other hand, we have to adopt measures to achieve 100% equality between women and men or between gays and straights, for example.

I don't know how this is compatible with the growing muslim population in the UK and other countries. I know that not all Muslims are as radical as others, but I would say that in general they don't exactly have an egalitarian view of the roles of men and women, not to mention homosexuals. The Muslim world has not overcome the conflict between reason and faith, which in the Western world began to be overcome with the condemnation of Galileo and I would say that had its highest peak during the Enlightenment.

When I see criticisms of patriarchy, I see that they are more directed at patriarchy of Judeo-Christian origin, but not so much at the Muslim worldview.

So, this is the paradox that I see: we are tolerant of other cultures, but in this case the Muslim culture has a vision that is not egalitarian of the roles between men and women or of homosexuals, something that conflicts with our principles, but in this case we either keep quiet or minimize it.

I don't know if you have any statistics in this regard. You do have some good reasoning for sure.

Ideally, in the world we should treat each other fairly, but that doesn't just come down to racism. There will always be bad people, psychopaths, people who put certain ideals or lust for power, etc. above all else. Moreover, it will never be 100% achieved, although we should strive for it.

That is precisely what is supposedly wrong. It is taken as a symbol of the so-called heteropatriarchal society, macho, therefore. Add to that the fact that the road to equality is being taken more as a fight than a collaboration, and we see senseless consequences like this.

I don't say that.


Of course and just this week I donated money in person to a person who needed it.


Yes, of course I know. As I was saying, statistics do not serve to prove in most cases but if you support your arguments on them at least you give them more strength.


Yeah, well, I don't know if you think that 220 violent demostrations are not many. Although I understand that you don't support the violent demonstrations, but you do support the majority that were non-violent, is that right?

Going back to what I was saying, they went out to the street to demonstrate and I don't demostrate. I'm just expressing my opposition in writing.

By the way, I enjoy the debate although in this case it does not look like we are going to reach points of agreement. The only thing is that you give me a lot of work to answer you, and I am tempted to stop debating with you and start shitposting instead.

 

I suppose it is at least partly due to puritanism (in a broad sense). Gambling, alcohol or casual sexual relations have always had enemies and those who criticize them have taken the negative cases to paint a black picture about those activities. Yes, there are people who gamble fortunes and lose everything, just as there are people who destroy their lives with alcohol, but the vast majority of people gamble or drink responsibly.

There is still a chance that you will get the virus but a low one. Studies have shown that vaccines reduce transmission by more than 90%, and also prevent the development of a severe clinical picture. I don't know if this decision is a bit hasty, but people are dying to be able to return to normal life.

It's simply that you don't understand math very well. If your base reward is 4 sat, 100% increase would be 4 sat. 1000% increase is ten times that, so 40 sat. If you want to know more, tell us how you do the calculations and we will tell you where you are wrong.

I have also been stopped in my car when I was young simply for being young, playing loud music and looking a certain way.

If we do not have reliable data, we can only speculate.


You don't feel you are a victim but you tend to see others as victims, women, blacks, Amazon workers...


Well, I guess we are not going to agree on this, unlike other times. For me, this loose statistics thing proves little. Certain statistics can be used to support an opinion but little else. It would be necessary to see what the difference is due to.


It goes to your original point but not the point of this thread. Do you support the BLM movement? If they can vandalize and riot I don't see why it is wrong that I and others express our disagreement with the politically correct trend.

I usually lock my topics, when I see there is no much to be added. I'm not going to do it yet but you can report it and let the moderators decide. Apart from that, the thread might die by itself (by nobody else replying).

Screenshot of the Bitcoin Discussion board



I could have red-flagged a couple more, considering that the recent dip can be attributed at least in part to Elon.

Yeah, congratz. The only thing I would add to what the others have said, is that you make more posts like the one that has been merited if you want to progress in this forum.


I agree. It is better to be constructive and try to motivate him to write posts like the one that has been merited.

Attraction works somewhat differently in men and women, however much the progressive discourse insists on denying it. It has to do with our biology and millions of years of evolution. While men are more visual, women tend to consider things like the ability to provide resources for offspring. It's nature and that's it.

I partly agree, but how would you do it? I'm far from believing that the solution lies in a politician making laws to force mixing people in neighborhoods.


I think this is the first time in all this time that I completely agree with you.

First of all, you are only comparing feeling annoyed by one thing or another but you are not comparing the reaction. BLM caused riots in the streets, with arson, looting, etc. I am just complaining in an internet forum. I don't know if you mean my reaction is overreacting or something.

Moreover, do you really think this is going to make blacks feel less upset about having a higher probability of being killed?



Source: Billy Porter reinvents the fairy godmother as 'the Fab G' in Kay Cannon's Cinderella: First look

The problem is more complex than boiling it down to statistics like assuming it is simply due to racism, which I suppose it will be in some cases, but if you are a cop patrolling in a mostly black hood I say you will be more nervous and fear for your life than if you are in a predominantly white middle class neighborhood.

How many of those blacks killed were NBA players? Or doctors of quantum physics? Maybe we don't have to count only the variable of ethnicity but take into account socio-cultural and economic factors as well.


You'd better have a socialist mentality, or left-wing, or liberal in the US, whatever you want to call it. That way you will feel a victim no matter what your condition is (female, gay etc.) and you'll believe that the state has to come to rescue you.


Not really. Are you talking about Afghanistan? I don't think so, and neither do I, since I referred to developed countries. In the vast majority of developed countries, such as the UK where you say you live, gays are better off than ever, have more rights than ever, are harassed less than ever and are treated better than ever. This is not the case in all developed countries, and we are not yet 100% equal, but we are on the way.


I don't know if you have noticed but I am not a traditionalist, at least I don't consider myself one. I am an atheist, and in moral issues, I could be considered a leftist, because, for example, I think it is good that two people of the same sex can marry on equal terms as other marriages (of opposite sexes).

The problem I see is not that there is a small compensation with respect to traditional discrimination, but that in a historical moment where minorities are less discriminated against than ever, and where even if the public authorities did nothing, they would be increasingly normalized, certain measures that are taken, are a rather big compensation.

No. I mainly play poker and the crypto poker offer does not appeal to me. If on top of that I had to go through a KYC process even less.


Well, kinda. As someone has pointed out before, in a hypothetical situation, that I had to provide my data if it were a casino with a long history and a great reputation I might feel somewhat safe.