Yes, I'm really surprised! I was expecting Bitcoin to hit a new ATH only after the halving, what means I was expecting to see what is happening right now only in the end of 2024, or maybe at the beginning of 2025. The market is moving faster than we expected and I think it's a general feeling many investors and adopters had, just like me.

However, I can't deny once more people who were procrastinating the day they would finally start investing in BTC have lost the opportunity. On that aspect, I'm not surprised, since we have been constantly seeing this happening bull season after bull season. People seem to never learn, as they keep buying on the top and selling on the dip... Anyway, I believe there is still room for further increasements in Bitcoin's price. People who buy for 70,000$ can still make some profit by selling it once the price hits the 100,000$-150,000$ mark, as many are predicting.

I'm optimistic we are going to head to those price levels soon, although I don't want to be too greedy to wait Bitcoin hit the 200,000$ zone or above. That would be too risky in my opinion, and I can't give myself the luxury of waiting another 4 years of my life to cashout some sweet profit once again in order to make some improvements in life.

People can divorce for several reasons, and some of them don't mean the love or connection between the couple has ceased. Maybe the person is just trying to tell or show the partner something he or she is unsatisfied about, so they get distant from each other in the process for a while, but as the time goes by, they miss each other even more, until finally giving up on their personal prides and reuniting once again. If it's common or not, I think it will depend on the country or culture we are talking about. When people are more strict on their decisions, it's likely you are going to see this often.

If it's good or not to reunite divorced couples, I also think we have to analyze the personal situations faced by each of them. If there is a history of abuses and violence, being it psychological or physical, I tend to disagree with the possibility of reuniting, because people have to walk ahead in life, and not get chained to suffering and anguish for whatever reasons they might consider, being them usually fear, insecurity and lack of self-esteem.

The reality is that sponsors will only fund what is interesting for them and will benefit them personally somehow. Even regards studentships it work like this. The student has his chances of achieving the studentship raised if he develops a project which awakes the interest of the institution which is going to offer the studentship. Therefore, if he wants to be sponsored, he has to adapt his project to a field of investigation which is useful for the educational institution.

Otherwise, the project can be really good and innovative, but he won't be able to find someone to fund it, if they don't have a good reason for doing so. There is also another issue inside the academic field: some people pay in order to have their projects and researches published at academic magazines and journals. If they don't pay (and it's really expensive), they don't get recognized and don't gain notoriety inside the "industry".

Capitalism is really good and allow us to have access to the possibility of thriving into a prosperous life, however, some people (probably most people) put money above everything else, and then we have these imbalances in life where money talks, and skills plus merit stays behind in second plan...

This person seems to know too much to be true... He claims no one owns Satoshi's wallet, but how can he be so sure about that? I don't think it's possible to be so assured of the current localization of Satoshi's Bitcoins. And even if the owner had to get rid of hard disks, it's not certain he would get rid of a wallet replenished by Bitcoins as well... Of course the possibility exists, but it's not a guarantee, anyway.

Unless the man who committed suicide, Len Sassaman, was Satoshi. Then it would make sense to say "no one owns Satoshi's wallet", since the poster mentions that and right after points out Len Sassaman got his door knocked by CIA, got paranoid and committed suicide. At least by my interpretation, it implies he owned the wallet back then.

The suicide story is kinda intriguing too. This version says the man was paranoid. On the internet we can also find he had neurological issues and loss of passion for life (depression?).

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29731438

Compared to previous times, isn't it better nowadays for underdeveloped countries, since they have access to technology, internet and mobile devices nowadays? Didn't it bring extra resources to the countries and improved access from poor people to food, at least a little bit? I'm not sure if the situation nowadays is worse than it was two decades ago or even more. But if it truly is, I guess it's because the population is increasing too fast, therefore, resources available in the country aren't enough to supply everyone's demands, neither jobs spots are.

There isn't an universal fix for our problems. We have to take responsability for our own acts and adjust our actions accordingly to not harm ourselves in the process of life. An example of that would be to avoid creating a family if you don't have financial conditions to afford it. That is part of being a responsible individual. If you do your part and try educating people who you are in contact with, you are already doing your part to solve the problems faced by your society. Just don't take the full responsability over your shoulders, because you can't and won't fix this wicked world by yourself. So, focus in fixing your life!

Indeed, everyone can save and should start doing this as soon as possible on their lives, so as consequence, they will be also able to start investing the saved sums of money sooner. Unfortunatelly, we can't choose being born rich, so we have to do the best we can with the tools and opportunities we have under our disposal.

It's true a rich individual will be able to grow his savings into profitable investments much quicker than an average citizen who has a limited income to invest. However, it doesn't mean average citizens should give up on savings and investments for that reason. Even if return is low, they have to persue it, anyway. Step by step they can achieve something better in the future if they are persistant on it.

I believe in life we have to keep trying to overcome challenges and to fulfill goals. That is what moves life further. And even if we fail after all, at least we failed trying, instead of resigning ourselves to a mediocre life of stagnancy and conformism.

I think it's impossible to tell you to not feel bad about it, because we are talking about 7,000,000$ dollars. Anyway, you aren't the only one to face this harsh situation. There are some stories on the internet of another early investors who have also lost access to their wallets which were replenished of Bitcoins.

My doubt is, why some early investors were so careless over their coins back then? Didn't they believe Bitcoin have potential to become valuable like we see nowadays? Weren't they faithful adopters who were holding thinking on long term gains? What was their purpose by accumulating Bitcoin if it wasn't to store and keep it safely, then?

If we are talking about cameras installed on the company's areas or rooms, and surveillance over devices owned by the company, I see no issues, since these aren't private areas or devices of the employees.

It would be an issue if the surveillance was over personal devices and gadgets, besides the company monitoring their employees while they were at home or at public places. That is why everyone should have a personal phone number to be used on their privacy, and a professional phone number, to be used for affairs related to their jobs. This way, they can login a Whatsapp at the computer of the company, for an example, without worries of being watched and having their private life exposed.

Moreover, the decision to work or not for a company is always disponible for the worker. If he doesn't agree with the internal policy of the company, he can step down and apply for a job on another company which he thinks to fit his demands as individual and professional.

If it happened due to your presence or not, we will never know. The point is that your friend made big profit from his gambling session and since you were by his side on the moment of the winning, he wished to share part of his prize with you. He wished you to be part of that special moment, so it could be a special moment for both of you. For that reason, you should be thankful and feel happy for having such a kind friend in your life. Usually people get distant from others once they hit jackpots and big prizes in gambling, while your friend did exactly the opposite.

And if more people think you bring luck to them, better yet! It means you are a welcome and valued individual for many people inside your social network. Make sure to be reciprocal to every of them.

What you said is true. And for that reason, I don't think gamblers should hide their winnings from everyone. They just should know to who to share such news, that is, to share it with friends like you, who would feel happy for their winnings. Of course it doesn't make sense to spread to the wind every good thing which happens in your life, especially if it's related to a financial matter, because most people won't care about it and will even envy you for that, but at same time it doesn't mean we should close ourselves inside an untouchable dome where no one can enter and be part of it.

What I observe is that many jackpot winners commited the mistake of trusting people who weren't their friends, and ended taking these people to their houses and treating them as family's members. In the end, they were betrayed by these people and even murdered in some cases where they married women who were interested only on their wealth. These sad stories make people suspicious of each other, so they tend to not trust anyone, because if someone is approaching, it's interpreted as this person wants to take advantage of them somehow... However, even though it's a defensive mechanism people develop, it turns society into an hostile environment where every kinds of relationships become inconstant and uncertain.

Personally, I don't. I just prefer to earn in BTC through signature campaign and avoid spending it as much as possible, so I keep part of the earnings invested in BTC thinking on long term gains. Instead of buying Bitcoin, I just save it. Consequently I also save on fees, since it's very expensive to buy and cashout Bitcoin from exchanges. Some of them are charging abusive 50,000 satoshis fees, which in my opinion totally discourage small investors from doing DCA strategy and holding their funds in a safe personal wallet.

However, if you don't have the alternative of earning in BTC, your only chance is to buy it and pay the fees along the process... In the end it will be profitable, anyway, since Bitcoin is constantly gaining more value on long run, as we can see by watching the historical charts since the cryptocurrency was firstly launched 15 years ago. I would just be careful with withdrawal exchanges' taxes and the need of declaring how many BTC you own to your local regualtor, which is usually done yearly.

The youngest generations may need more socialization, since they grow since an early age aficionados on technology and digital gadgets, tending to isolationism and less interactions with another individuals, what is a new phenomenon in the world, since the previous generations were used to have more contact with the external physical world, where kids played on the streets with their colleagues, and there wasn't internet or digital gadgets to connect themselvse with each other and with people from every corners of the world. Instead, their world was their local community of friends and relatives.

The point is, do these new generations want to increase their social interactions? Do they see it's necessary to develop social skills? If they don't have it as a necessity, they won't feel motivated to do so, and I guess gambling companies wishing it and enforcing it won't solve the issue at all.

I guess it could work as a PvP team game, but not as a game where every players join together against the house, because it seems to not be profitable for the casino, so I see no reason why they would offer a game like this to their public. Maybe something like Clash Royale where players run 3x3 matches, while wagering money could be interesting. This way, we would still have the luck factor, but also skill factor involved, what could be interesting for many gamers to develop interest for this concept of gambling game.

Players would have to place a bet in order to play, and viewers could also place bets on third party games, if desired. In the end, the victorious team would win, side by side with external bettors and also the house, which would always collect a commission on every matches. In fact, I don't know why this kind of gambling concept isn't being widely offered to the gambling community yet. For me it seems pretty obvious something new like this could awake the interest from potential gamblers who don't feel comfortable playing games where they have to fully rely on luck in order to win, and that they can't profit on long run.

They don't even care about making the audience to believe their lies to be true anymore. When politicians are confronted for the contradictions between their words and actions, they simply order their fanbases to attack the person who is pointing out the politicians to be liars. As consequence, the fanbase won't exactly deny the politician they idolize to be a liar, rather they will simply focus on the lies of the adversaries, claiming that they are much worse than the ones perpetrated by their personal idol. That is what we have been seeing on the political discussions on the internet in social medias platforms.

There is a constant argument going on between dirty and poorly washed people, which won't take society to anywhere in a constructive way. For those who still value their mental sanity, it's advisable to stay away from such conversations and such people, be it on the internet or on physical world. Nowadays it's pretty obvious when someone is lying, due to the speed information reaches us in real time. So, if there is still people believing on these things, let it be. Don't waste your precious time trying to convince them the opposite.

Even if everyone in the world were interested in acquiring a portion of Bitcoin, they wouldn't be able to have that sum of satoshis, anyway, since large portions of BTC are already heavily concentrated in few whales' hands who own hundreds of thousands of BTC. These people will always be the main benefited ones by increasements in Bitcoin's price, while for the vast majority of the world Bitcoin will have zero impact over their lives, at least directly, although indirectly they can still be benefited when hired and paid by Bitcoin adopters for supplying goods and services, thanks to the BTC profit they have been making along the years.

Some people have the wrong perception Bitcoin is going to bring financial equality to this world, and everyone will be richer. The truth is that only the ones who were awake to understand the potential of Bitcoin on the early years have been able to thrive financially, while everyone else is still struggling to survive in the current traditional financial systems where they are inserted.

How is it that no one can explain? It's quite simple to explain: people do like liars. People ask to be lied to. People have a thing for liars, maybe because human beings tend to feel attracted by what is similar to them, that is, to what they identify to. Politicians and governments are just the reflex on the mirror of the population they represent and rule.
  
Well, after all human beings still have 'free will'. If they are consuming or buying such lies from the media, it's because they consciously went for that. I don't buy what I don't want to consume. They must feel fascinated by one aspect or other of those lies (or of the liars) to keep buying them.

It wasn't supposed to. But everything in this wicked world is subverted from its original purposes. Politics is dominated by propaganda or illusion, because politicians know that is how they can divide to conquer.

I advised someone close to me to invest in AVAX and so far he is making nice profit from it, side by side with Bitcoin investment. I read a month ago or so on this forum AVAX was a good alternative of investment, and heavily hyped by some institutional partnerships like Amazon, so I thought it should worth to give it a try. I still believe it has potential to deliver superior results by the end of the bull run, so it may be still a good idea to invest on it right now.

I wouldn't split 1000$ into 5 altcoins, though. I prefer to invest 90% in Bitcoin and only 10% in altcoins. Therefore, in this scenario, 4500$ in BTC and 500$ in altcoins.

Self-examination or scrutiny compose a portion of the daily life of every healthy individuals who seek self-development, self-knowledge and self-enhancement on every aspects of their existences. It's necessary to analyze our actions continuously to conclude if they are being benefical or harmful to us somehow, so we adapt our actions accordingly, always aiming personal growth, while also analyzing how our actions are impacting people around us and society, since it's important to remain ethical to live in harmony with each other.

In gambling it's not different. You have to watch yourself constantly. Compare how much money you are spending on this activity to the amount of money you used to spend when you firstly started gambling. Check how your gambling habits are impacting the relationship with your family, friends, social interactions in general and professional career. Conclude what the long term impact of gambling in your life is and adapt the frequency of time and percentage of money you destiny to it after reviewing it.

It can help in some gambling games, but to have access to informations isn't the decisive factor, anyway. Gambling is a game of luck and results are random and unpredictable, therefore to solely have access to informations won't decide the game at your favour. Moreover, informations will always depend on the interpretation your will make from them. Informations are facts, they are always correct, but the personal meaning they have to you might be wrong or innacurate, leading you to mistake when gambling.

Let's point out an example. In a sports match you have access to many informations about the two teams involved on the competition. However, you value one information more than other in order to choose which team to bet on. However, the information you valued the most, might not be the one you should be paying attention to.

That is what happens in many games where everyone is focused on the advantages of the favorite team, although in the end the underdog wins, because people weren't judging the informations which favoured the underdog to be important. As you can see, it's not an exact science, and the variables are many.

Always. Sometimes I have the impression the low bets you win work as baits to encourage the gambler to raise the bet size and once he does this, he start losing bet after bet... Of course it must be just coincidence, but I can't deny that kind of thought pass through my mind. It's even worse when you face a long loss streak, even when the winning chances are pretty good for you. Anyway, there is nothing we can do about it, since it's the nature of gambling games.

Results are unpredictable and even when the chances look decent for the player, the risk of losing continuously is always there. That is why even when a game looks promising to you, or a safe bet as many say, you should never increase your bet size solely for that reason, because even with massive odds at your favour you can still face a harsh loss. It has already happened to me and after that I got really fearful of placing big bets. I really felt like a hooked fish going directly to the grill!