What @gmaxwell wrote in his post makes sense, because it is not only CW Faketoshi who has already become a pathological liar, but all his sponsors are also infected with these lies. But when you are powerful enough and have a lot of money, you can claim whatever you want, especially that you are Satoshi Nakamoto, who cannot or does not want to defend himself against it.

However, I wouldn't completely rule out the possibility that someone who has a lot of Bitcoin because they bought it cheap or even mined it in the early days just wants their five minutes of fame.

It is said that whoever works makes mistakes, and in the future I will have to be much more careful when it comes to AI chat bots and public accusations for those who may be using them. I know I first used the disputed detector and it showed me over 70% AI content, then I checked with another one I found online (not entirely sure of the name) which also showed over 60%. I think you're right, AI will become so sophisticated that we will hardly be able to recognize whether people or bots are writing here.

---

What exactly do you mean? I just see that he quoted one of my posts, which the tool also detected as an AI generated post. Of course, it is possible to additionally disguise such posts in such a way that they are a combination of AI, paraphrasing and plagiarism.

---

There are definitely those who completely plagiarize or use AI, and I don't think that any justifications should be sought for them, but is it even possible to determine what is the permissible level of using AI tools, without having to react to it? A Legendary member was caught by you not so long ago using AI, although not in the worst way - but still in a way that his posts were not entirely original, right?

I wouldn't say that they (SEC) didn't really care that Mr. Mars was manipulating that altcoin, which managed to pump up to, if I'm not mistaken, $0.70 - and I see proof of that in the fact that he very abruptly stopped what he was doing because he probably received a warning that he could be punished much worse than it was in 2018.

---

I think they just wanted to ensure as much control as possible over such a way of trading when it comes to Bitcoin, and if they now have the largest company that is practically very close to political structures (BlackRock) and the company that will do the custodial part of the work (Coinbase), we can to conclude that there are conditions for approving such an ETF.

I have no choice but to apologize to the OP, because I checked his post with only one tool that I was sure could successfully detect content generated with AI, given that many people use it in the thread where AI generated posts are published. Obviously, it is a tool that no longer makes sense to use because it detects most posts as if they were created with AI.

I have to admit that I once tried to test LN and did not go further than that, because most of the services and payments I used with Bitcoin did not support that option. There is definitely a lot of repetition of what the members read, but they are far from understanding what they are actually writing about.


That would certainly be a big problem because miners are certainly not in that "business" because they believe in Bitcoin, but they are interested in profit. We can assume that with the reduction of rewards per block, there will be fewer and fewer people who will mine, and in some 6+ years, when only 1% (210 000) BTC remains, I don't see how mining will be profitable anymore if there is no significant increase in fees. All solutions that go in the direction of LN or something similar are only part of the solution, and without miners and POW Bitcoin would not be what it is today.

It is not at all strange considering that in the first half of 2015 the forum was hacked and many BTT accounts were compromised after that. If by any chance you were active at that time, this would not have happened because you would have changed your password.

Do you have a staked address? That's the only thing you can prove your ownership with, since I doubt the admins can do anything about the IP address, since it's been a long time since you last logged in with that account.

Why only last year, was 2023 so specific from previous years? Most people are not financially literate and spend more than they have, and with such thinking they cannot put some money aside.


What will you invest if you don't have enough to live on - or if you decided to create an emergency fund? Even if you have some money that you can risk to invest in something, how many people know how to choose an investment that is as safe as it is and has a solid yield?


You cannot spend more than what you have in your wallet, and before shopping, make a list and take as much money as you need, no more than that. Of course, leave your bank card at home because it is something that people spend the most with, because paying with a card definitely makes people lose track of how much they have spent.


The "problem" is that following such statistics makes people feel bad because they spent too much, and they want the shopping experience to remain a pleasant memory. If I bought something expensive and it makes me happy, then I don't want to be reminded that I spent too much money.

I think we can argue endlessly about which wallet is the best (whether it's mobile, desktop or HW), but everyone should actually ask themselves how secure is the device on which they will use a wallet. Of course, smartphones today have become something that almost everyone has, but very few users pay attention to their security, whether it's about having some kind of antivirus program or taking into account whether their phone regularly receives security/critical updates.

Given that many smartphone users download a lot of applications (mostly unnecessary ones), there is a high probability that they will also download one with malicious intentions, and then, unfortunately, it's game over. I would just emphasize that attention should also be paid to privacy when choosing a mobile wallet, which would mean that it would be very good if the wallet already had built-in support for Tor.

Most AI detectors show that the OP generated the content with the help of AI - so I would advise everyone who sees a beginner with such "quality" posts to check the content before replying - because it makes no sense to have a discussion with bots, right?

https://sapling.ai/ai-content-detector/301cc8d23eb5353a676f896eae67c756

Apologies to the OP on the AI generated post accusation, the tool I used (and another one I found randomly online) showed a result that was not correct.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I would not agree that we should draw an equal sign between a business man like Saylor and some "comedian" who mostly talks nonsense on US business television. As an investor, I would be much more interested in what a serious business man who has already bought around 200 000 BTC is doing, than what people like Jim and people like him are speaking.


I think that the halving is a secondary issue for now, because everyone is focused on the ETF - yesterday I watched several interesting programs on various US business TV and most of the comments are very positive. Of course, the outcome can always be negative, but either everyone lives in a very big delusion or they have insider information on which to base their statements.

A massive sale is always possible in case of some extremely negative events such as hacking of one of the top CEXs, or some new pandemic, and possibly some war conflict involving countries with nuclear weapons. When everything goes down, Bitcoin is no exception - remember the declaration of a pandemic and a 50% drop in less than 24 hours.

It is not likely, but it is certainly possible. It should definitely be some kind of "black swan" event that would crash the global market and cause disruptions all over the world.

If it is more or less business as usual, then it will very likely happen like every time before, because all those who have invested a lot of money in Bitcoin will in any case use the halving as a trigger for a new bull run. Some believe that the price of BTC will go up after the halving because miners "produce" half as much BTC as before, but even though it may have made some sense before, today's 900 BTC per day is not something that has too much impact on the market considering the amount of BTC that circulates through the markets anyway.

I won't say that it would be different if you had a different strategy, but if you had offered all your "services" in one topic, and not in more than 10 (or even more), you might have passed under someone's radar. Now the only question is whether you were caught by someone outside the forum, or if you were reported by a competitor.

90 days is not such a terrible punishment, because last time some members got a permanent ban because they were selling a popular anti-malware software, and the real owners obviously didn't like that.

Do you think that people who invest in Bitcoin are some kind of rebels against fiat? Most of these people have never paid anything with Bitcoin, all their transactions go in the direction of FIAT -> CEX (cryptocurrency) -> FIAT = PROFIT.

I have to disappoint you that there have never been and never will be any cults when it comes to Bitcoin, unless you want to create one and attract a few weirdos to it

Why would that be a reason which caused the price to drop? Most agree that the reason was in the Matrixport report, which says that the ETF will probably not be accepted this month, which consequently caused liquidation about "$500 million worth of positions across derivatives exchanges."

I would also single out the news that Saylor announced that he was selling part of his company's shares, which some may have interpreted as negative news.


The fact that the price is x3 times higher than the time you mention is for me personally just a recovery after the scandals with Do Kwon and Bankman, and I wouldn't call it a bull market at all. Realistically, the price of BTC in this period should be around $35k, and everything else is pumped up due to speculation about spot ETFs - and as soon as bad news appears about it, everything starts to collapse.

Realistically, the real bull run has so far always happened after the halving and it will probably be the same now - except that now we have an ETF in the game, although, as always, the decision will be uncertain until the very end.

There are also those who think that this feature is actually positive, because insurance is still insurance, no matter how stupid and risky it seems in this case. On this forum, we can write "not your keys, not your coins" to the point of unconsciousness, but the average investor in Bitcoin has not gone beyond what every bank offers him in his thinking.

You open an account, get a bank card and PIN, and any damage caused by hacking/theft of the card will be compensated by the bank - just as savings deposits in banks (at least in most of the EU) are insured up to EUR 100 000.


Maybe it is like that in the US, but here we are talking about a company that is in the EU and where things are a little different. When we look back at everything that has happened around Ledger up to today, not a single company has appeared that would seriously compete with Ledger in any sense, whether it is about prices, marketing or something else.

Maybe some will not agree, but if someone who has close to 200 000 BTC says that he will sell the shares of his company, some may have interpreted it in their own way. Saylor usually has no influence on the BTC price when he buys, but people obviously react very negatively when someone like him sells even shares in his own company.


Source

It's strange how you didn't think of that ten days ago when you were giving advice to a friend, because it would help him a lot to save on fees every time he makes the new transaction. Maybe in the future, everyone who has a complaint about fees should forget about complaints (especially public ones) and simply start using LN? When the matter is already so simple, why at least twenty topics on the subject of high fees?

It's a bit strange when you leave someone positive feedback, and then you don't know who it is - but if I'm not mistaken, it's about the member whom you know by name @ETFbitcoin.

I have to agree with this, and I think I've already written it several times in similar topics - I think it's wrong to compare Bitcoin with the internet, even if it's an argument for some when it comes to putting in context the time it took for the internet to become something accessible to most people, with the same thing when it comes to Bitcoin.

I sincerely doubt that people will ever accept Bitcoin (especially as a currency) given that most governments in the world will never put Bitcoin ahead of their national currencies. If we exclude some countries with totalitarian-communist regimes, most of the free world has accepted the internet as something positive.

---

It should not be forgotten that Gavin was one of those who in some way "protested" because of the way Satoshi made decisions and actually "demanded" to take over the matter. In those early days, Satoshi was not a favorite person and regardless of the reasons, he left because he no longer felt comfortable.

Besides, glorifying Gavin shouldn't be a one way street, this is the same guy who believed that CW Faketoshi was the real Satoshi. For someone who is supposedly very well versed in Bitcoin matters, it's really strange that he would fall for such a cheap trick.

It doesn't seem to me that anything can harm them, and the reason is very simple - most of their users are completely unaware of everything that happened during the past years, some others don't really care, and only a small percentage have realized that something is really wrong.

---

I won't say that I didn't trust them, so I even bought two of their HW and we always advised others to invest in HW for security. Back then, there weren't too many choices except option L and option T, and I was personally (like many others) attracted by the device's design, which resembled an ordinary USB stick. Unfortunately, the security we once believed in has turned into a risk.