Yes, that's what I meant, sorry if I was not clear.
And you don't have to apologize to me  , just learn and do better for the future. I guess that the older posts will be (sooner or later) merged by a mod if you won't do that yourself.

OP, I advise you make longer merged posts and reply to everybody in a "grouped" manner, your way to make consecutive answers is not OK.


I agree that yours should be cheaper, just I find the word list to binary index file quite a drawback.
But it all depends on what each and everybody prefers, hence the more methods the better.


It may be because with the center punch it depends on how hard you hit with the hammer and you'll probably won't have all the punches at the same size (diameter).

Not at all. Imho they are not even related.
Politicians love to spend more than the country produces, because that makes them look good in the eyes of those electing them (yeah, most people don't think on long term)

Getting a house or a car on a loan makes a lot of sense, especially as paper money loses value hence you won't pay that much extra.
Credit cards offer better benefits and protection than debit cards. And while most cover then at next paycheck, it's still debt.

Bitcoin solving something that's related to fiat money while fiat money still exists? No.
Bitcoin changing human behavior on long term? Maybe, but small chance.

All that Bitcoin can do is help you not pay all that debt with your money getting less valuable by every passing day. Whether you help yourself or not, it's up to you. Most of "the world" doesn't, hence it won't even help them. Too bad.

I would also advise the same. That piece of paper belongs to OP and he has to find the legal ways to get the paper or at least a xerox copy of it.


I think that OP has shortened the story a little and it may have been "only" some 30-35k USD there back then (or even less).
At least I've seen a news about Bitcoin ATM in Chicago from 3 years ago and OP said "I purchased 4 bitcoins in Chicago when the bitcoin ATM's showed up there."

I've seen another approach not long ago. I don't know if it's new, but I find it rather cheap if you think that you do keep the seed on steel:
https://portofele-hardware.ro/pastreaza-seed-ul-intr-un-mod-ieftin-si-sigur/

Unfortunately it's in Romanian, but the images may be just enough. Or, translated with Google:
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ro&tl=en&u=https://portofele-hardware.ro/pastreaza-seed-ul-intr-un-mod-ieftin-si-sigur/

True fan, huh? Congrats!

I've missed the first 10 laps, when I've turned TV on it looked like a bad dream. I have to see a rerun of the start. It looks like it was... very bad.
Congrats to Ocon, congrats to Seb (although I've read that sadly he got disqualified) and congrats to Alonso too for the very good race.
Great move for Gasly with the fastest lap 

I can only partly imagine that kind of feelings and I'll tell you why.
There were plenty of opportunities in bitcoin. Ok, he missed one. Or two. Or three. But missing them all is something I cannot understand.
I could have bought good amounts at 200-250$ and I didn't. That's the train I've missed. But since then I've earned some more. Of course, I made other mistake too: I've sold now and then, or bought things for bitcoin.

If I look back, yeah, I probably could be kinda rich now if I wouldn't have made those mistakes. But dead inside? No. Life goes on and I hope that what I have and what I will gather will help me with an easier retirement in some more years.

Politicians are no better than their advisors. And they will more probably get advisors for financial problems from the banking sector, people who will not understand and won't care about bitcoin and will also obviously try to protect the status quo.

There are too few politicians who are bright enough to do different. 

Yes and no. It depends on what wallets will these "more users" happen to use.
If it's various online services and wallets to be used, the fees will not decrease. If it's proper wallets, it can, on the other hand.

Also, I (still) have a feeling that it's traders, trading services and trading bots who create the congestion on the mempool, not the average Joe.


However, LN success should attract more users than a (temporary) reduction of the on-chain fees.

Facebook failed, but Circle (& Co) seem to have been doing it right. So it can be done, although there are clear differences between what Circle did and what FB wanted to do.

The question is: would such a move be in Amazon's benefit? And imho it's not really (not for now).

That will be broken and without the "help" of this topic.
You guys don't know that much?! Some of you could have been checking it really when were playing in the future...


PS. Some of you can still go to the future, right?!

This is the central point. It's hard to tell if this bot was better indeed, or was the market better for what the bot can do. I think that it was a good mix.

So the other bots may not be too weak, you just didn't get the right market conditions for them (and when the market changes you may end up with this bot doing not-that-great any longer).

I don't want to "negate" your findings, I want just to put everything in the right context.



Now, you are new, but your post is a wall of text i.e it's hard to read. You may want to format it better, else you'll lose audience.

Second, bringing Martingale in the context of trading makes me think that you may not really know what you're doing and you only got lucky...

Also, the fact that your first post sends to youtube where you have ref links to the trading bot makes me think that you may not be the actual trader and instead you want just to earn from referrals (I didn't watch the video hence excuse me if I'm wrong).

Nu am gasit nimic altceva decat limbaj de lemn, si in acesta postare, si in articolul din ZF; in ZF se incearca explicarea un pic mai pe larg, dar insuficient, iar articolul easte unul platit. Clar, cine l-a scris nu a vrut sa "dea din casa" pentru ca sa nu preia altii ideea, dar rezultatul este ca pe mine nu m-au convins.

Par sa vrea sa ia bani pe un token si sa dezvolte ceva, dar pe de alta parte eu cred ca cloud computing se poate implementa si la modul in care datele sunt criptate peste tot, fara ca acel CLOUD sa fie decentralizat. De fapt cred ca facandu-l decentralizat chiar creeaza premize pentru ca datele sa poata fi furate in caz ca ceva nu este implementat perfect.

True. However, many people buying or selling crypto only now and then still use the convenience of centralized exchanges, where the interface is helpful and there's tech support. Some did start moving to Bisq and such, but after Binance asking KYC, more will migrate.

Of course, day traders will remain, although now for them will no longer matter if it's Binance or other centralized exchange and they'll have to start being more careful with their earnings and reporting them (!), hence some may go "out of business".



Until now Binance was no-KYC and at hand. With this option no longer available Bisq and such may start growing.

One of the reasons Amazon pays so small tax is because they reinvest most of their profit. So they don't sit on a pile of cash that loses value by every passing day, they make use of it.
So indeed, Bitcoin may just not be the thing for Amazon yet. Of course, that can easily change in some months or years. (Again, the fact that they've reacted this fast on that rumor may mean that they do keep an active eye on Bitcoin).

This is somewhat sad news and it explains the last move(s) of Binance.
And this may be the end of an era, the era of big centralized exchanges (if getting regulated I expect Binance "deflate").
Maybe this is when the era of decentralized exchanges begins for real?!

For many it's the better approach, just because they would clearly not be able to handle wallet safety and "what's the better exchange" and tx fees and everything.
On the other hand, I also feel that's a shame since some will not get to "taste" the actual Bitcoin...

But yeah, companies repackaging derivatives is ugly and can lead to other problems too 

It was not a surprise at all. It was clearly all about "when" never about "if" this is going to happen.
At first I thought that it's getting into effect immediately, but no, they were nice and gave about one week of notice. And frankly, whoever keeps more than 14 BTC on an exchange and doesn't expect to need KYC sooner or later is kind of "asking for it".

If they buy derivatives their "participation" to Bitcoin economy is basically zero. If they buy derivatives they will not care to "accept Bitcoin", they won't see nor care what this (micro?) economy offers or needs.



Clearly. I think that I've said this at least once: it's a Bitcoin forum here, it;s clearly that our declarations here is also biased and - back to the topic - right now Grayscale and our interests are somewhat similar.

While I agree that it's (or will be) inevitable, I can't say that the sooner the better. We have to learn patience; imho whenever it happens it's good and we just cannot rush it.

In moments like this it can help the price fly again. But do we really want a new FOMO run?
And yeah, as said; even though it was proven to be just a rumor that won't come to reality in the near future, the price has started to move nevertheless.