Me neither. I spent some BTC in the past, nowadays it would be worth more but it's tricky to count it like that. For me the point is to never spend (or sell) all your BTC. You can spend as the price rises to enjoy some profits, so if the price keeps rising (as most of us expect) you won't regret spending a little bit in the past.

I don't know why the OP opens this thread just now, because according to the website:

https://zerorealestate.ch/de/

"Dear guests
Due to the current situation and lack of resources, the Zero Real Estate project cannot take place this year. We look forward to welcoming you next year - where the only star is you.
Your Zero Real Estate Team"

I mean, it's funny, but right now they don't offer their services.


I guess they will offer it in summer only and when there is a good weather forecast, otherwise you have to be a real freak to go there. With good weather it can be an interesting experience. Like camping but without a tent and in a more luxurious way. I imagine that there will be some property nearby to store belongings and that they will have something designed for security. Anyway, that's Switzerland, not the Bronx.

If it got deleted it's probably because you are thinking more in promoting your channel than in contributing to the forum by exchanging knowledge etc. Also because you are posting it too many times. This one in this same thread didn't get deleted:


Your short post history is pretty much the same. This way, I think you are not going to become very popular here.

There is a lack of information in what you say. All in Bitcoin means you have absolutely nothing else. You don't have a paid off house or at least some equity in your mortgage? No cash? Another thing is that you are all in in terms of investments, and you have a half paid house with good equity, for example.

It's risky, but the risk carries a potentially higher return if you do well. In my case I am more diversified.

Hi thanks! I've done it just now. The thing is I was not thinking about the small inputs of that address for a while, because they were part of the same address and as I am a bit of a noob I was not aware that although they are the same direction they are small inputs that will cost me more expensive to spend in the future if I do not consolidate them.

Hi, thanks to this post I sent a low fee transaction yesterday that was confirmed relative quickly.

I would like to ask a (probably simple) question: until now I had thought about saving everything I earn in the signature campaign and leave them in the same address where I receive the payments.

After discovering this thread, I have made some transactions to consolidate small inputs but from other addresses I had years ago where I had small amounts.

What I have been thinking lately is that I will have to consolidate some inputs from the address where I receive the payments of the signature campaign, because the first payments were of very little amount (the payment system goes by tiers and the lowest tier pays very little). In particular, I see that I have several payments from the beginning, of around 0.0001 BTC.

What do you think about it. Should I consolidate them next Sunday if fees are still low or maybe just wait? Maybe if I save everything I have in that address, and the price continues to rise in the future, that amount might be more tradable even if I pay fees.

Good summary. I wish you the best of luck.

I take this opportunity to ask a question that I would like @CryptopreneurBrainboss to clarify and that may be of interest to all of us and that has to do with what I commented in my last post in this thead:



Is there a preference to rank up horizontally or vertically?

In a practical way: as vella85 leaves a spot in tier B of Hero/Legendary, Granzis could move up to number 1 in that position and iTradeChips to rank up vertically from tier C to tier B.
 
But on the other hand, RaltcoinsB is Hero member currently occupying a Sr member spot in tier B. He could occupy a Hero member spot in that tier and I, who just got promoted to Sr member move from my current member spot to Sr member in that tier, B, both moving up horizontally.

I would like Brainboss to explain what the criteria is in these cases, or if someone has been in the campaign for quite some time and this has happened before, to explain what the preference is.

Actually, I don't know if the concept of gambling could be applied to my case, because the most purist poker players would consider it a separate concept, in which you can make EV+ moves, unlike gambling in which they are inevitably EV- moves, since I only play poker (on rare occasions I have played casino games, just to try and just for fun).

In a broader, colloquial sense, poker would be included in gambling. What happened to me during the hardest moments of the pandemic, I would say that from March 15 of last year and for a couple of months, is that I won more money. I could tell that there were some bored people at home who didn't know how to play much and they decided to play poker while they had a few beers. Then the ease went down but stayed a little above the usual for the rest of 2020.

This year we are back to where we were before the pandemic. Tables full of regular players, little fish, more variance (because of the harder level) and less profit.

Or I know that in reality the psychologist's advice does not help me because during the coronavirus I won more money and on top of that I had a good time.

Yes, whatever. The fact is that I don't believe the official version that is told, neither in the nutritional guidelines nor with respect to vitamin D.


Lol, well, you know we don't have the same stance on that, although, in principle, I'm OK with social democratic governments intervening. The thing is that for them to do it right, besides being smart and capable they have to be good people, really altruistic, etc.

With less intervention, we depend less on the qualities of politicians and more on ourselves.

Also, with justice, if companies are lying about nicotine or food to make more profit, what they are doing is cheating and the full weight of the law should be on them.

I am not personally worried about a dowturn in the economy.

The market recovered from the 2008 crisis in about 4 years, and in theory it was the second worst since the crash of '29. The coronavirus panic seems to have been a brief blip from which we are emerging.

If you are prepared for crises, you don't worry about them. If you have assets with no debt or little debt relative to your assets and also different sources of income, you shouldn't worry much.

Some say that because of the massive printing, the next crisis may be like the crash of '29 or worse, but that remains to be seen.Another thing is that if a strong crisis comes, many people who are not prepared will suffer, and that is the bad side of the story.

Interesting. I didn't know much about privacy, but little by little I know more and more about coin control, mixers, or coinjoin.

I would say that to some extent, Bitcoin is similar to cash although you have to be more careful to maintain privacy.

Cash is not 100% anonymous. If you go somewhere, pay for something with cash but ask for a bill and give your ID so the data appears on the bill, there is no privacy. If you go to buy drugs with cash, the dealer sees your face. Also the bills they give you at the bank are numbered and in principle could be traced if it hasn't been too long since they were given to you.

With Bitcoin you have ways to maintain privacy, and Coinjoin looks quite interesting.

How much are you willing to bet? It can be easily done using a trusted escrow. In my case you'd lose it but I don't know how that could be verified, unless I recorded a video showing an ID. Not that I would want to reveal my real identity either.

Yes but not a lot. Just a couple of weeks of expenses or so, just in case. The fact is that the use of cash will continue to be progressively reduced over the next few years. Events such as the Visa system shutting down for a day happen very rarely and I expect that as we move to cashless societies they should be resolved even more quickly.

I think this probably belongs to the meta section.

It doesn't really bother me, although I rarely write from my cell phone. When I enter from my mobile it is only to read and although I recognize that it would be better to have a mobile version, I don't think it would make much difference (maybe later I would change my mind in view of the facts).

Yes, I've also heard about that.


This is just a typical case of "if you can't beat your enemy join them".

We have gone from banks saying Bitcoin was a scam, a ponzi scheme, etc. to them going to offer escrow services.

Traditional banking is dead, and with the introduction of digital currencies even more so. They are trying to adapt to save themselves.

Although I am one of those who think that in general, few regulations and few taxes are good, I am not against paying more for those who have more. What happens is that in reality measures such as those applied by Biden are more populist than anything else, and, in the end, the richest are not going to pay anything. In reality they are a redistribution of income from the upper middle class to the classes below, but the very rich escape.


For example, the increase in capital gains tax makes it more difficult for people in the upper middle class to continue climbing the ladder, but do you think the rich are really going to be affected? The very rich don't sell. Almost never, and with this law it will be never. Kiyosaki says he never sells. He pays 0 taxes. If he needs money, he goes to the bank and asks for a loan guaranteeing it with his properties. So do the Rockefellers and many others. Take Elon Musk for example:

Elon Musk, short on cash, keeps borrowing more and more money even as Tesla stock surges

Yes, I was aware. I think the first time i realized about it was during the 2008 crisis when I saw certain supermarket products giving less quantity for the same price. Typical of a bag of potato chips that is more full of air than potatoes, and things like that.

The story reflects the key point of addiction: winning.  To hit a jackpot provides an emotional state similar to that of taking certain drugs, and from then on, the gambling addict plays more and more in search of that hit again, even though his rational mind knows he is losing too much and should stop.

Apart from the remedies that have been cited, there is also the option of self-exclusion from Casinos, although people can always end up in illegal gambling, but it is a first step and greatly reduces the chances of returning to the habit.

The problem is that those who do not control think they do, until they fall very low. There is a fine line between one thing and another.

The normal thing is to control at the beginning, until the thing gets out of control, and when a person cannot control his addiction to gambling, the only solution is to quit completely for life. Not one more bet, in the same way the solution for an alcoholic is to quit drinking for life and not to drink one more beer, because one more drink will trigger the old self-destructive habit.

 


No, not really. I'm not very active there. I visit that board because if I write up to 15 posts a week I get paid some extra satoshis but I only write about 3 or 4 at most. I only participate when there is some poker related thread and then, in the other threads, when someone thinks he has found a good strategy to win with some variant of martingale, for example, I write to explain why it is wrong and that casino games have negative mathematical expectancy. I am sure that 99% do not listen to me but I think it is the right thing to do.


WOW! Thank you very much. The funny thing is that I wasn't expecting to get any single merit when I created the thread, as I was asking a question and just wanted to exchange opinions, but look at how it's turned out.