People must realize how unlucky a tycoon in Russia has been, who after criticizing the war in Ukraine, suffered an unfortunate accident in which he lost his life.

Russian energy boss who criticised Ukraine war dies after falling from 6th floor window

Moral. If you live in Russia and don't want to be very unlucky, don't criticize the war in Ukraine.

Well, one can mention these differences or others. The groundwork was done by Kiyosaki, explaining the second point mentioned, that the poor work to earn money while the rich make money work for them. An essential characteristic of the middle class being that they buy liabilities, such as cars or the house they live in, thinking they are assets. Although in the case of the house, this would be more debatable.

One essential feature that I do not see in the debate is the difference in the idea of rich.

If you believe that the rich are evil and that to get rich you are going to have to cheat, swindle, and exploit, you are never going to get rich, unless it is by committing crime.

The rich instead have an idea of rich people as generous, strong-willed, focused on the long term, and so on.

If you are poor or middle class and think like this, it is easier for you to become rich in the future.

Realistically, I believe that the subject of gambling will not be discussed in schools and if it is discussed, it will only be in passing. Even if it is for a good cause to prevent addictions. And I don't think that even if it were to be done, it would have much effect if we look at the effect that education in schools had on the dangers of drugs.

I think the most important work has to be done at home, and not to avoid taboo subjects such as gambling, drugs or sex.

I think it is rather the second option. Especially at the beginning. Now that it is more normalized, not so much.


And after a few years of enjoying little or no regulation on the Internet, casinos eventually ended up regulated and having to acquire licenses.

Something similar happens with cryptocurrency gambling houses. They enjoy a legal limbo, but in a few years the same thing that happened with fiat gambling houses will happen. There are going to be stricter regulations that they are going to have to adopt.

I'm glad for your excitement but Ledger Live implemented coin control two years ago.

Coin Control, Now Available in Ledger Live.

I like the price to recover but to call this recent rise a bull run is to have no idea what you are talking about or to want to mislead people.

Couldn't he make the transfer online? Banks are digitizing by leaps and bounds, so it is rare what you say, unless it is in a third world country. I do all my transfers online, although depending on the amount per AML policies they may make you fill out a form or do some paperwork before making the transfer effective.

You don't have to be an expert to know that after the next halving we will cross the $100k barrier unless a catastrophe happens. The rest of the predictions about what is likely from these experts I don't give much thought to.

Ok, so I'm unlocking the topic because nc50lc wants to reply. I have locked it before, because I saw an answer from him to which I was going to reply, and when I went to quote him, it had disappeared. It seems to me that he complicates it too much, because I think that the main confusion that I had is already clear to me.

But as I understand that he wants to answer with good intentions because he wants to help, I unlock the thread.

This was just a hypothetical question for better understanding, which has become clearer to me. I'm not goint to send anyone $0.06. In fact, I don't think there is any payment in my daily life that is of such a small amount.

In other words, the minimum number of satoshi you should have in that case would be 434 to be able to send a transaction and have it processed. 140 for the fee and 294 for the dust limit. Is that right?

This leaving aside LN, as LoyceV commented, which I know is better for micro payments.

I was trying to understand with this better the minimum transaction and fee limits.

This agrees with what I had understood but nc50lc's message confused me. If I have 300 sats, theoretically I could send them being the dust limit (segwit) of 294. If I have 280 sats, I cannot.

Is it like that?

Are you telling me that if I have just 1 280 satoshi input in my mobile wallet in a segwit address and I send a transaction with just 1 segwit output setting the fee to 1 sat/vbyte it will be processed? So, sending 140 satoshi and paying 140 in fees, being the dust limit 294.

Then it is not so clear to me anymore.

I thought that because of the dust limit it would not be processed.

Leaving aside the exceptions that BlackHatCoiner mentioned, I am not a miner and I don't know any of them.

Thank you, with this explanation the confusion I had is now clear.

But then, if I set the fee to 1 sat/vbyte for that 1 input and 1 output transaction, thus only 140 satoshi, it wouldn't be processed because the dust limit is 294 right? Or am I missing something here?

I'll have to reread the other replies.

Since the minimum fee to make a transaction is 546 sats, and less is considered dust, the question has come to my mind if it is per input or summed up for a transaction.

I suppose it is per transaction but assuming that it is so, I am not clear what minimum fees would be paid in the case that I have two inputs, with 547 sats, because having two inputs also makes the transaction more expensive.

I know this is very hypothetical, but it is to try to understand it. Then I can apply it to 10, 100 or any inputs of 547 sats.

No, I hadn't heard of them either, I don't think they are particularly important because of what you say, but I think they are another company that in a bullish market could hold its own. It's another one even if it's not very important and I thought I'd share it here.


In other words, an exit scam waiting to happen. In the end this will give governments an excuse for stricter regulations and more control.

Apart from those and the ones mentioned by the OP, one more can be added to the list:

Crypto Exchange Zipmex Pauses Withdrawals, Citing 'Circumstances Beyond Our Control’

It's a non-stop. I wonder if there is a single one that we can be sure has done things right.

That is what BTC is for Elon Musk, a speculative asset like any other, such as Doge or shares of another company. There is nothing special about it for him.


In this case I think it is different and Michael Saylor sees BTC in a different way than Elon Musk, and he has also tied his future to BTC. With most of the voting power in MSTR, the price would have to drop a lot before it would be forced to liquidate anything. I don't know if perhaps an attack of short positions could force him.

Saylor liquidating part of his BTC holdings would make him look like a big mouth much more than he is looking lately.

Sorry about that, I've edited the name to Dic3L0v3r.