Except he doesn't support both. He's a troll and he's undoubtedly gotten people burned by hyping Doge because he thinks it's funny. He's said Doge is a joke but there are far too many people who see memes like Doge and GME and diamond hands and that's their investment thesis. Those people definitely earn their losses.
Your statement doesn't make any sense. A lot of people are hyping DOGE right now, because they think it is funny. But that is not the case with Bitcoin. And how can you say that Elon is not supporting Bitcoin, when Tesla has gone ahead with the huge $1.5 billion investment (and in their official statement Tesla has indicated that they may make similar purchases in the future as well). On top of that, Tesla has made it clear that they will soon accept Bitcoin as a mode of payment. My statement is written in plain English, if you can't understand it then you should probably re-read it. It's not complicated. Your response has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Here's a recap: Me: Elon is a troll who has gotten people burned by hyping Doge. You: HoW cAn YoU sAy ElOn dOesN'T sUpPoRt BiTcOiN? Answer: I didn't, you just made that up. |
|
|
|
Harry Dent, economist and author of ‘Zero Hour,’ joined Glenn Beck on radio recently for a terrifying discussion about what may come soon for our financial markets. He says because the federal reserve and central banks are pumping money into our financial ‘bubble’ at record speeds, there will come a time soon that the bubble naturally will pop. Dent says, despite what the masses may believe, that fueling the markets with additional, printed money will NOT save us from an economic crash — in fact, quite the opposite will occur. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxUGlVKXI_M.... This interview resembles what we should expect from a legitimate analysis of current finance and economy situations. Except for it containing a few more talking points and contrived narratives than normal for it to be a work of independent commentary. I think the information laid out here about bubbles is ok. They try to spin the negative outcome of bubbles popping into a positive event by claiming it would destroy central banks. Which is ridiculous. Ruling elites would never allow the control and influence central banks give them to be tampered with. Well worth watching but be aware that for every truth spoken, there could easily be 2 lies intended to serve political agendas. The only thing that's been predicted to die more than bitcoin is the USD. If you can't see the irony in bitcoin people reveling in all the failed predictions of the death of bitcoin but also endlessly predicting the death of the dollar, that's funny to me. |
|
|
|
it is impossible to predict what the market is going to do, which means that the current top of 42k may seem high now but what if institutional investors get scared because of the aggressive policies of governments all over the world and decide to come massively to this market and buy everything they can, suddenly the price of bitcoin will grow up dramatically as the supply you can find in exchanges dwindles almost all the way down to zero.
If the governments get too strict about some things I am afraid they may do that for crypto as well. The moment there is a law about "you have to pay taxes for each crypto you have" that would be the end of it, because you could buy bitcoin at 30k, price could fall to 20k, and you will also have to pay taxes on the 20k you have even though you lost 10k, so both lose money from trading AND taxes on top of that. Does that sounds impossible to you? That could definitely happen if governments go crazy on crypto. It doesn't have to be this way, they could just ban ownership of it, they could have high regulations on it, they could basically do all they have to make sure it is not a good investment to make and try to sway all those big companies to get away. Sure you can still have some in secret but these huge companies can't do that so they will end up getting away from crypto as well. There are already laws about paying taxes on crypto and that's not how it works. If you buy a coin for $30k and it drops to $20k, you don't pay taxes on the $20k. You only pay taxes on gains, and only at the point of realization, either selling or buying something with crypto. Also, if you receive crypto for any reason, it's income and is taxable as such at that time, regardless if you sell it or not. You're not taxed on unrealized losses. |
|
|
|
Doesn't anyone else find it kind of funny he pumped up the price of bitcoin with just one tweet of Tesla buying 1.5bln worth of BTC and his other hobby of a job is running a rocket company? To the moon!  Except Elon wants to go to Mars, not the moon. But To Mars doesn't have nearly the same ring to it as To the moon. I like Elon. He's smart and likes to tweet things with ambiguous meaning and people love it because they feel smarter when they find they knew what he really meant and did what he wanted. It's like this kind of unspoken gratitude from the author.
That's just trolling and being manipulative. Not exactly admirable qualities. I used to really like Elon until it became clear how unstable and immature he is. Promoting Covid conspiracy theories because he's mad about lockdowns, threatening workers over complaining about unsafe working conditions, calling a journalist a pedo on Twitter, tweeting materially false information about Tesla... I mean the dude is smart but also unhinged. |
|
|
|
There's no paradox, because your logic is flawed. Bitcoin price won't reach infinity or any unjustifiably high value, it will never consume more electricity than the governments would allow - there are already precedents when governments had to restrict mining because it was straining their energy grid too much.
Bitcoin price doesn't need to be stable, and in fact no currency actually has a stable price - it's all just a degree of volatility. So, again, there's no paradox with "bitcoin stability" and "world stability".
It needs to be stable if you want to use it as a currency. And yes, the USD has a stable value. It may depreciate slowly over time, but the value of the dollar doesn't swing by wildly on a daily basis like bitcoin. The difference between the USD and bitcoin is that the USD is a useful currency and bitcoin isn't. |
|
|
|
Bad news for all the people following Elon like lemmings off a cliff into Doge. I honestly don’t know why people put so much stock into what Elon does, he has a long history of trolling and erratic behavior, and he’s not a particularly good role model (threatening to fire workers for not reporting to work during a pandemic when the county said it wasn’t safe to open his factory, calling a journalist a pedo on twitter because he criticized Elon’s narcissism, using twitter to pump his company stock with materially false information, etc.) Unfortunately, this board is going to be flooded with Elon worship even more now just because of this. We need better heroes.
Elon can support both you know that, its just that bitcoin is a far better investment at this moment. This will be a big move for Tesla, I would place my bet on the part where they would get their stock price more higher. Who should be the role model to follow then? I mean I don't know any one, almost every businessman that is famous that I know of is either private for their lives or straight up scummy, the best move is to not look at it emotionally, if this can make stocks and bitcoin go higher then we should just go for it, let it on the right ear and get out of the right, in fact, don't even listen what this billionaires says about everything online because most of the time it is probably a publicity stunt. Except he doesn't support both. He's a troll and he's undoubtedly gotten people burned by hyping Doge because he thinks it's funny. He's said Doge is a joke but there are far too many people who see memes like Doge and GME and diamond hands and that's their investment thesis. Those people definitely earn their losses. |
|
|
|
I think someone said they got 50 gold tickets which is worth a fair amount. So far as I know you can add your referral link, you should ask on that campaign thread though. Expecting 100k in earnings is not a safe assumption. Its safe to assume because its easily within an average occurrence. I got 5000 a couple times already just on 1 spin a day and sometimes I forget to check and lose spins so I've not done that many, I got 500 earlier just anecdotally its not going to be unexpected to gain 20 of this win per year if trying 6 times a day. I believe all the 5000 prizes are over 1% probability or 13m out 1 billion possibilities, bar the golden tickets the 500 and 50 are even more probable and likely to occur so its easy to speculate how much you might win of each after a year because it'll average out. 100k satoshi isnt a kings ransom about .66 gold grams now, its reasonable if you did play that much every day. Maybe we can test this out, the site can count my gifted wheel wins perhaps; some will be more lucky then this and some less but its entirely reasonable as an aspiration. I agree its a multi year prospect in its price vs this consideration, almost anything is multi year and this one isnt half as ambitious as half the hopium prospects I see around. Someone who adverse to gambling, risk and any uncertainties is entirely unsuited to this area but I wonder how they stumbled onto a gambling site then  I reckon crypto is always going to be transactional in its nature 68% probability is not a safe assumption of occurrence. Again, I'm not talking about limited number set anecdotes, I'm talking about hard math, and hard math will trump the handful of spins you've done every time. There is a high degree of variance the lower your data set is. 68% likelihood means something will probably happen, but it's a long way still from that thing actually happening and it's definitely not a guarantee. We don't need your gifted wheel wins, we already have the probability table and as long as that is faithful, that's all you need. The math here is an exact science. Variance from the expectation is what you would call luck, but luck isn't what people invest on, and FUN is very much being pitched as an investment. |
|
|
|
Coinbase IPO is a long-planned move that will make me never trade there again. Public companies need to meet the shareholders, stakeholders, and public demands. I prefer to keep my coins and making trades in a 'less demanding' environment.
What do you think is going to change once they're public? You think they're going to suddenly stop running the exchange in the same way that's made them the largest crypto exchange in the world? Private companies need to meet shareholder and stakeholder demands, the same as public companies, and they both meet public demands because that's literally what a successful business does. The arbitrary burden you put on them is one they already have and meet. |
|
|
|
SNB owns 245 BTC!
This is something that definitely has to be taken into account when someone will decide to “ban bitcoin”, or something like this.
SNB doesn't own any bitcoin. If they did, this would be worth taking into consideration, but the concept that you somehow own bitcoin through the transitive property of having minority stakes in companies that own bitcoin is logically faulty, to say the least. Not your keys, not your bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Bad news for all the people following Elon like lemmings off a cliff into Doge. I honestly don’t know why people put so much stock into what Elon does, he has a long history of trolling and erratic behavior, and he’s not a particularly good role model (threatening to fire workers for not reporting to work during a pandemic when the county said it wasn’t safe to open his factory, calling a journalist a pedo on twitter because he criticized Elon’s narcissism, using twitter to pump his company stock with materially false information, etc.) Unfortunately, this board is going to be flooded with Elon worship even more now just because of this. We need better heroes.
|
|
|
|
I was simply amazed about how easy was for Elon Musk to never allow any of the fake talk of the Robinhood CEO to go unnoticed. At the start of the conversation he began explaining and pitching Robinhood App! Nobody asked!  The poor guy reminded me Mark Zuckerberg early versions were he was not even able to relate with his interviewers. Elon, on the other hand, is totally from another planet. Elon knows how to sway the hearts of the masses, especially on Twitter, with him having a cult following of nerds that accepts as the word of God every thing that he says, it is fairly easy to do that, now imagine if you are a nobody that talks back against a big personality like the guy from Robinhood, you wouldn't be heard or worse, you would be shunned. This is just the basics of public relations and Musk is winning the hearts because he lowers himself for the people to reach him, there isn't a lot of billionaires that accepts guesting in podcasts, be on a cameo on a cartoon show and be a meme lord on Twitter. Thing is he asked the questions almost no journalists had the guts to ask dear Vlad. In my opinion, Robinhood should be dead and buried by now and the filthy little tricks they used to survive should make any robinhood users mad! If I was one, and luckily I am not, I would start a f****** class action! There have already been lawsuits filed but they don't seem very likely to be successful given that the TOS every Robinhood user agrees to states that they understand that Robinhood can restrict trading in any security without prior notice. I mean, they have no legal foot to stand on. The best they can do is hope to drag out litigation to force Robinhood to settle because it would be cheaper than going through an entire court case, but on the merits, it doesn't look like RH customers have a case. |
|
|
|
Jeff Bezos owns crypto, no doubt. All the big players are diversifying their investments into gold, silver, and now Bitcoin because they recognize that crypto can compete against fiat if governments want to spend recklessly. I read some articles months ago that Goldman Sachs are included crypto into their portfolios so if giant financial firms are already in the crypto industry, safe to say high net worth individuals are too.
This also means that most of the big banks were WRONG on crypto a decade ago. They knew it was a competitor and tried to kill it early through misinformation.
You can't just throw out as assumption based on nothing and treat it like a fact. It's less likely that Bezos owns crypto than he does. For one, he's never expressed any interest in it. For two, he has absolutely no need for it because his wealth is tied to the company he created, not fiat. He has zero incentive to own crypto as a hedge because his wealth is not made up of dollars, it's only denominated in dollars. |
|
|
|
First of all, Bitcoin is not fully owned by the top 5 mining pools as you say. BTC isn't owned by anyone and if the mining pools ever decide to change the parameters as they like, we fork off and solve the issue within hours at most.
Then, there wouldn't be just 0.0000001BTC per person. 21M coins divided by 7,800,000,000 people is about 0.00269 per existent person. Bitcoin is way easier to be moved around in much smaller quantities - you can't pay with 0.0000001$, can you?
The global wealth disparity will be a thing no matter how much we change things. There'll always be someone who earns more (or steals from others). We can't really change that unless we apply communist rules.
The global wealth disparity doesn't have to be a thing. It's only defeatist propaganda you've been fed that makes you believe so. Similar to how creating a currency not owned by a central bank is not a thing that caught on until bitcoin. People who earn their money are not the issue, one could argue maybe they pay more taxes etc. but thats to be decided. The issue is with people who don't earn their wealth- either through stealing as you say or simply inheriting. This unearned wealth creates the issue because most people would reward someone for doing good. Almost no one would reward someone for doing nothing or worse hurting others. Yet in most parts of the world the wealth is held by people who were friends with kings, dictators, etc. from the last few centuries. I am not especially into choosing an economic side, I just believe we should develop the best system from the ground up. Rather than using a system biased by history to determine who is the wealthiest. This doesn't even make sense. Bitcoin solves nothing about wealth disparity. Bitcoin is just another asset like everything else, that you cannot acquire unless you already have wealth. There are exactly two ways to acquire wealth on an individual level: 1) you acquire it from someone who has it, or 2) you acquire it through economic participation. Bitcoin changes exactly zero of these possibilities. |
|
|
|
When supply reaches zero and demand is a positive number, Bitcoin’s price is infinite.
But supply cannot reach 0. First of all, it will take decades before we reach 21 million, so you don't have to worry about it running out. Maybe your children will face this problem if Bitcoin exists in their age. As long as there are buyers there will be sellers. For every price level there's a seller. They're here now at 30k and there will be some at 300k USD. If Bitcoin is not grounded in some physical reality, we have no way to price it.
How do you price abstract items like art? How do you price domains? There are always buyers willing to pay what they feel is right. What for you could be worth $100, for someone else will be priceless. I don't see a problem here. Abstract art is an incredibly volatile and illiquid market. Not exactly a good example to counter the criticism here. Store of value is only useful if it has high liquidity and a common shared perception of value. |
|
|
|
Using a timeline far longer than any human being lives is pointless and purposefully deceptive. Nobody lives long enough to see dollars depreciate on that magnitude, so this graph is meaningless for practical purposes because not a single person in history has ever suffered anywhere near the depreciation the graph depicts. Second, people generally don't hold a significant amount of dollars for a significant amount, further diminishing the effects of the depreciation shown. Wealth is invested into assets in search of yield. The whole depreciation argument has always been grossly overstated.
Are you defending US dollar right now? I mean why would anyone really defend dollar on bitcointalk? But let's talk about how you are wrong just so we could maybe reel you back into the crypto world and remind you that fiats are horrible and that is why we are in crypto. You said " using a timeline longer than any human lived", so your point is that dollar didn't dropped that much in one life time and I sort of understand your logic there, if it was true that would have made sense. Let's put the last 80 years as one life span? 80 years ago was 1941 closest to that we have is 1935 and 1947, both of which are pretty close to 1 dollar of that day having purchasing power of 20 dollar today. That is just one life span. Want to see second? 80 years before that was 1860, it was literally the EXACT SAME 80 years before that. You see, dollar lost its power, it was consistent and powerful, 80 years ago it was beautiful, so beautiful that it kept its power for 150 years, what happened? It went down horrible in the last 40-50 years. I'm not defending the dollar, I'm attacking horrible logic. Using even your paired down examples, you're still grossly overstating the effects of depreciation any person experiences. The max depreciation any person could possibly experience is if they were born with all the money they'll ever have and then just hold it in fiat for their entire lives. If you can't see why that's such a faulty premise, I don't think I can break it down for you further. But to summarize the most easily identifiable faults in this logic: 1) the majority of wealth is not held in fiat, it's held in other assets; 2) fiat is not held for significant amounts of time in significant amounts; 3) people are not born with all the money they'll ever have, they're constantly earning new money throughout their lives. You're not having an honest discussion about what the depreciation of the dollar actually is, that's all I'm pointing out. The chart that I was responding to is a joke for anyone looking for an honest discussion and not a circle jerk about crypto, which is largely what this board is; more of a cult where everyone just shouts down people who aren't in the cult rather than a bastion of intellectualism. |
|
|
|
I looked at WOF spins primarily, as that's what I see as the biggest perk of the program. The extra interest doesn't amount to much by comparison. Here's what I calculated:
At 5000 Fun tokens, the cost is currently 500k sats (it was more when I did my initial calcs too). After a month you get 3 extra WOF spins and it scales up to 6 daily WOF spins after a year. For the sake of simplicity, I'm just going to calculate 6 extra WOF spins from the start. WOF spins are generally worth 50 sats. Either you get 50 sats or 50 rp which given enough time you can convert to 50 sats if you make it to 100k rp. Sometimes you get more sats on a spin, but sometimes you get lottery tickets too which in all likelihood translate to 0. So expecting 50 sats per spin is reasonable and I would say necessary when you're calculating time to recover investment.
At 6 extra spins a day, you're looking at 300 sats as the extra perk. On a 500k sat investment cost, that's 1667 days, or 4.56 years. And that's only if FUN holds the value you bought it at. Taken that as a given, it's not a compelling investment given the risks. I think you can get more perks at much higher investment costs, but honestly, that's even more risky in my view, so I calculated on what seemed like a reasonable test tier.
Happy to hear any input on where you think I've made an error in logic or if I'm missing something about the program.
You are assuming that the odds of winning 5000 sats are 0% but it is above 1%. At 6 spins per day you should win 5000 sats more than 20 times in a year. That's 100k sats and 100k reward points in a year. There will also be smaller prizes that could give you another 100k sats and 100k reward points per year. Plus, you'd also be getting interest on sats you otherwise wouldn't have. As I said, it was very rough math done quickly to get in the ballpark of what the return on investment is. But let's correct a couple errors in your logic. First, you're deducting sats from your account to buy FUN, so you're not making any extra interest until the purchase price of FUN has been fully recovered. In fact, you're making less interest until that point, so that's an additional cost of FUN that has to be taken into account when calculating break even. Second, your expectation to win twenty 5k sat prizes on 1% probability in a year on 2190 spins is overblown. You have to use a binomial probability equation to solve this. Saving the hardcore math and just using a calculator for this, the odds of winning at least twenty 5k prizes in 2190 spins is only 68.7%. Expecting 100k in earnings is not a safe assumption.  Under the best circumstances, the end result is still multi-year repayment period on an alt coin that will probably not hold its value it attains during this pump and which most people buy in at. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin supporters mostly agree that Bitcoin has no intrinsic value. Au contraire. I'll contend bitcoin has intrinsic value in the form of its supply limiting algorithm, construction and design. That doesn't make it intrinsically valuable though. The value comes from everyone agreeing it has value, that's extrinsic. The difference is that a business that generates cash flow has intrinsic value regardless what people's common opinion is on the business. Whatever cashflow it produces for shareholders is the intrinsic value because it's value which doesn't come from an opinion. Bitcoin doesn't have intrinsic value because it's value comes entirely from people's perceptions of what it is worth. If Bitcoin’s price continues to rise, we’d be spending more and more energy to mine it. The majority of electricity for bitcoin mining is derived from surplus energy. Which does not affect or strain existing grids. The productivity of mining hardware increases over time due to moore's law. While the energy consumption of mining hardware decreases for identical reasons. Power plants scale to energy demand. There is no such thing as surplus power. When more energy is demanded by miners or for any other reason, power plants scale to meet the demand and use more resources to do so. Further, your second point ignores that fact that power consumption goes up over time because more and more miners are brought online to compete for blocks, far more than offsets due to efficiency improvements. I don't necessarily buy the arguments against bitcoin because of energy consumption anyway, but your points don't prove it. |
|
|
|
I'm sure the OP has never been forced to use bitcoin if transaction fees were an issue for him.
I am sure some users are very concerned about transaction fees and I also believe others only care about the convenience, privacy and convenience of transacting. Decentralization has helped many people to manage their money without always having to rely on a bad banking system. Developers are constantly thinking about how bitcoin can be used by users for even small transaction. LN is an option for them and I believe that in the future there will be a better solution.
Fees will not render bitcoin useless and die without being used by anyone. If you are worried about fees, then altcoins are the solution if you still want to live in the crypto space.
Bitcoin isn't a viable currency. It's slow, it's expensive, it's extremely limited in the amount of transactions it can handle, it doesn't hold a stable value... all things that are horrible attributes if you actually want to use it as a currency. It's use-case is as a long term store of value or cross border transfers that are immediately converted to the local fiat. I have my doubts it can overcome the limitations preventing it from being a viable currency. |
|
|
|
The guy can still bank with other banks of florida bank seems or finally decides to block him. He could even own a foreign account in another country which no one knows about. And I also feel he will invest in cryptocurrency in the future, thats if he has not purchase any and stored it already.
USA have influence over many countries. Yes he can have account in North Korea or China or few other countries but not in most. If somehow USA government want to sanction Trump they will be very successful doing that. It's illegal in the US to have a bank account in North Korea or do any business with North Korea because of sanctions against the North Korean government. |
|
|
|
I'm not familiar with some of these names on here, but Microstrategy is one of the few that actually owns the bitcoins they hold. Entries like Grayscale or Mt Gox own bitcoin on behalf of others, so there's no conclusion to be drawn from them holding it.
We do not even know if that company really holding more than 10000 bitcoin. Even if they claim that they holding that amount, but without showing their wallet address that holds that amount, we do not have to trust it. Let them saying like that while we can do our business to get more bitcoin in many ways, so we do not have to miss the chance to sell bitcoin at the highest price. I am not familiar too with that list, so I do not overthink about them because what I am concern about now is I need to make a profit in bitcoin before it is too late for me to have many bitcoin. They're a publicly traded company. Making a statement like this without it being true would be a material misrepresentation and Saylor would be hit with investment fraud by the SEC. I'm guessing he learned his lesson from the first time that happened when he was hit with fraud for overstating MicroStrategy's books during the dotcom crash and paid more than $8.6 million dollars in fees and penalties. I'm not a fan of Saylor at all but I believe him when he says he MSTR owns X bitcoins because the penalty for lying about this would be so severe. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
