|
It won't go to $400K you delusional fools!
If someone really needs $400K to be rich... you are doing it wrong and it is more Bitcoin what you need so that you can reach your goals with a much lower price.
Fools.
|
|
|
|
But his lawyer said today that that was not the case.
“The file that he’s received did not include private keys,” Andres Rivero, partner at Rivero Mestre law firm, told Decrypt. However, Wright still expects that he will receive the keys at a later date. Rivero said the keys may come either whole or split into parts, but declined to discuss further the particulars around who has the keys and when they might arrive.
No way! This is a shock! BSVers are jumping off the bridges, markets are going crazy and no one knows how to react to this...oh wait, nope, no one with one brain cell and even jbreher expected Faketoshi to have the keys! Show me where I ever made that claim. Fuckin' liar you are, DaRude. Which puts you squarely in the class that you accuse CSW being a member of. That you shilling BSV because it follows truest implementation of satoshi's code? Or that you claim that it doesn't matter if CSW is Satoshi? Cause it's in like your every other post The following, you slimy bastahd: "even jbreher expected Faketoshi to have the keys!" Sorry to interrupt. But I think he meant that NOT "even jbreher expected Faketoshi to have the keys". The sentence is a bit confusing though ("and" should have been a "nor"). |
|
|
|
I'll interject with something nice. Congrats on your BSV investment, jbreher.
*ducks and runs*
Nobody said jbreher is stupid. ... Well, maybe some did lol He is wrong though. But it won't matter. He will do well. |
|
|
|
Edit: By the way my sub $9k incremental sell orders just filled, next ones at $9,200-ish.... easy peasy... little by little.. sell, sell, sell as the price goes up, but only a little. That's the mindless system that always attempts to stay ahead of the price moves... The price comes to your sell/buy orders, you do not go to the price.. It's making money in your sleep (kind of), as long as the underlying asset ultimately goes up..
Mines too. Now putting some buy orders at around $8.5-8.6K for the same amount. Same as you, this has nothing to do with where I do think the price is going next. Scalping needs no feelings. It only needs some (almost unpredictible) sideways volatility. Yep.. in these order settings, we are attempting to take advantage of BTC's almost inevitable short-term volatility like unemotional bots in regards to setting our orders.. [...] By the way, when i started doing this, at $250-ish [...] Hey JJG, serious question. Could you give some insights in this obviously well thought through strategy you are having? And have extensively shared numerous times? As well for the potential new people entering because of the recent positive price action. What percentage if your bitcoin holdings, perhaps calculated into today's fiat value, did you lose because of having your bitcoins on an exchange or hot wallet (exchange hacks, sim swaps, etc) versusYour gains applying this strategy? I lost more than I gained. Same here (Considering Mtgox... other than that I gained more). |
|
|
|
Please lock the thread. Thanks.
Why? He asked a legit question and haven't received ANY valid answer to the question he asked. Well, the question OP has asked, it's the goal of merit system. Theymos implemented merit system to encourage users create quality & useful post. And I believe most of user who know about merit they know also intention of merit system. It's not something new, hundred of post has been made about it. There is more better discuss if you search here. There is two reason why I request to OP for locked this thread. First I am assuming OP just want to gain some merits by creating merit related thread, because most of newbies are thinking this is a quick merit earning method (may be op intention is good, but who know). Second thing is, this thread would encourage more spam. That's why I had not feed OP. I will suggest OP, be more active and try to search before posting, if you were active on meta then you should got your answer a while ago. As a merit source I always want to encourage (by sending merits) newbies to make good post. I really do not expect a high quality post from them. Whenever I can consider a post at least as a good post then I try to send a merit, so they would more active and could make more good post. Op could do same, nothing wrong to promise them but most likely it won't work. They already know that it's possible to receive merit if they make good post, isn't? So who are preventing them to make good post? The thing is that the way I understand the question of the OP is not generic about the merit system but specifically he is asking if he can say/promise in advance that he will give some merit as a reward for some type of post/activity... which I assume it would be of some "quality" (even if subjectively) as expected. I don't think he meant to promise giving merit for just posting random shit (as some replies here are assuming). I also didn't assume the OP was creating this thread just to gain some merits. Maybe I am being naive here, but I try to give the benefit of doubt... when in doubt  I always try to check post history of newbies to check if I see something suspicious before replying... but in this case he mostly posts in a foreign language and I couldn't be arsed to translate it. Anyway, considering the OP is not a merit source, and his current rank, the amount of Smerits he may have available to give is almost insignificant. So I don't think it is such a big deal what kind of "experiments" (as long as it is not abuse) he decides to try to encourage quality posts in his local subforum. And if what he specifically meant is running some sort of "contest" in which the best answers to some Bitcoin related questions are rewarded with merit: Yes, that is allowed and in fact it is usually done (ie. The art contest and many others). |
|
|
|
P.S.: This is my nº 5000 shitpost!!!! WEEEEEEEEEEEEE 5000 There are many posts, it's a long journey, nice number Yeah, not everyone can reach such a HUGE amount of shitposting in just 7 years! I am so proud... But I also want to thank my dear friends here on WO: I would have not been able to make it without you all. Cheers! |
|
|
|
I have a dream, that the next time we cross $9,000, it will be the last time we ever see Vegeta memes.
I still expect a flash dip under $9K (which could go as low as $8K but most probably only to 8.5K-8.8K) when we go attack (and fail) $10K for the first time this year. But, if everything goes well, THAT will be the last time. The more we retest all these levels setting solid higher lows, the better in the long run. You are surely turning into a bit of an optimist.  Ok, guilty as charged. I forgot to say that is my most optimist (yet reasonable) scenario. Ie: In case Bitcoin were straight to test $10K during the next couple of weeks. P.S.: At least I am not a completely delusional fool like this one: https://beincrypto.com/bitcoin-will-reach-400000-after-halving-history-dictates/ |
|
|
|
No es que aclare nada en relación a la pregunta del OP pero vale la pena leerlo. Binance Blockade of Wasabi Wallet Could Point to a Crypto Crack-Uphttps://www.coindesk.com/binance-blockade-of-wasabi-wallet-could-point-to-a-crypto-crack-upAparte de la explicación general, privacidad, rastreo, sobresale el comentario del dev. de Wasabi confirmando que las transacciones hechas con su billetera tienen un identificador único que delata el uso de Wasabi Wallet. Wasabi transactions have a “pretty unique” identifier that makes it “very easy to identify them in numerous ways,” according to Wasabi developer Bálint Harmat. But he insisted that his mixer, and others, are not inherently illegal. He also noted that Wasabi has reached out to Binance and Chainalysis to clarify the situation and prevent future issues. Con el tiempo y una caña tu amigo si quiere quedar al margen de todo tendrá que tirar de ATM con +/-500 diarios, total le vendrá bien, hará ejercicio cada día al cajero durante bastante tiempo.  y todo legal. Es que es normal que con lo que están apretando con el tema de KYC/AML... el uso de mixers, si se detecta, esté penalizado. Aquí entran en conflicto los deseos (derecho?) de privacidad de un usuario y las obligaciones de KYC/AML de los exchanges. Si yo tuviera un exchange, y quisiera estar lo más "limpio" posible con respecto a los reguladores, también rechazaría ese tipo de tx's si las detectase. Al menos que pueda demostrar que se hace todo lo posible para asegurar la legalidad de cada transacción. Los exchanges no lo hacen por gusto ya que dejan de ganar al perder depósitos, al igual que los bancos tampoco tienen ningún interés en rechazar a quien llegue con 1 millón de euros en un maletín para ingresarlo en la cuenta. Pero tienen que hacerlo si no quieren que les metan sanciones multimillonarias o incluso se arriesguen a perder la ficha bancaria. El tema de los cajeros es posiblemente el que más me gusta a día de hoy para lo que estamos hablando. Pero en el futuro es de esperar que vayan bajando los límites libres de KYC, sobre todo y primero en los paises más desarrollados que irán creando regulaciones específicas. Así que igual Bob tampoco debería dormirse en los laureles. Y que mire a ver si esos objetos que sólo se pueden comprar con FIAT no puede obtenerlos a través de Amazon usando Bitrefill o algún servicio similar. |
|
|
|
I have a dream, that the next time we cross $9,000, it will be the last time we ever see Vegeta memes.
I still expect a flash dip under $9K (which could go as low as $8K but most probably only to 8.5K-8.8K) when we go attack (and fail) $10K for the first time this year. But, if everything goes well, THAT will be the last time. The more we retest all these levels setting solid higher lows, the better in the long run. |
|
|
|
Congrats to both winners and once again thanks to LFC for his fun and generous challenge! It's second time one winner transforms into two... this shit is getting expensive bro! Oh, and congrats everyone for the good start of the year. This is fine. |
|
|
|
You are in fact too early. The price was not OVER $9000. Damn! that was too close. It took me few minutes to figure out! How come it did not cross $9k! It's because of the big walls at round numbers. It's more difficult to cross round numbers like $9000, $10000, etc. Considering BTC wasn't able to surpass the wall at exactly $9000 I guess it cannot be considered it "crossed" it, yeah. |
|
|
|
Congratulations to the Vegeta meme winner!
Missed you both by a fucking second.
Now if we look closely, AlcoHoDL's Bitstamp screenshot is a few seconds earlier that ivomm's.
That's because ivomm edited the Vegeta post to add the Bitstamp screenshot after he posted the Vegeta.
I was thinking about that tbh. Whether I should do the same or not.
I'm not trying to say ivomm did something wrong, I'm just stating the facts, cos LFC asked for a clear picture.
For myself they are both winners.
I also thought about this, but decided it would not be fair to use BitcoinTalk's grace period to edit my post and add the screenshot after the fact. So I just posted both in one shot, and NEVER hit the Edit button. The timestamps on the screenshots confirm this as you say. Anyway, it's LFC's call. And strictly speaking, the game is still on! I can confirm I saw your post with the graph and no graph on Ivom's one. Unfortunately I didn't quote his post to see if maybe he added an image that wasn't being displayed for some reason. Next time I refreshed it was there. Anyway, from what I SAW, you had the price graph (which also seems to have been snapshoted at an earlier time) and Ivomn didn't. Maybe Ivomn can confirm if he added the graph later or not. Also even if he did... maybe that is in accordance to the rules? Donno, LFC's call! And also, has the price CROSSED $9K? LOL P.S.: This is my nº 5000 shitpost!!!! WEEEEEEEEEEEEE |
|
|
|
Edit 2: I personally believe that AlcoHoDL is the true and sole winner of the Funzies by LFC Inc.... lil play thingie.... since he has both the bitstamp price captured in an image and the vegeta in compliance with the terms of the gamsies.
Yeah, I noticed the same, but I am not quite sure if it was an error of the forum the reason Ivom's graph wasn't displaying or if it was added afterwards. Good thing that anyways it wasn't OVER $9000 |
|
|
|
A hedge! give me damn break. If you are a believer you don't hedge. Does a Muslim also practice a bit of paganism to hedge his bets. If he truly believes that BSV is better, and right, why hedge? it makes zero sense unless he doubts that BSV is actually the right one.
I added some more comment on my post that maybe clarifies that part. He doesn't need to bet to all or nothing. He already have "all" in any possible outcome. That's a pretty comfortable position and it would be really stupid to fuck it all for "religious" reasons. That's my opinion about what I understand about his position. Other than that, you should directly ask him  |
|
|
|
Has anybody here ever bought BSV?
Please, be honest guys. I could do with a good laugh.
Don't be coy. You *know* I did. Laugh all you want. Just getting started. Genuinely hope you sell before 3rd Feb. Take your profits (probably handsome profits) and run. And abandon the truest implementation of satoshi's documented architecture? Not on your life. If you seriously think the BSV is the best, and the one, why do you still own Bitcoin? You should sell all of your Bitcoin and only own BSV. Unless you do this you are nothing but a shitcoin shill and you don't actually believe in satoshis vision at all. How about we get some transparency and you tell us what percentage of your crypto investments/savings are in which coins? Because if Bitcoin is more than 0% you are dishonest prick who doesn't follow what he preaches. He has disclosed it in the past. He had more BSV coins than BCH coins, and more BCH coins than BTC coins but... considering price, he had much more MONEY in BTC than anything else. He had just said that he considers BTC his hedge, not otherwise. Which is bonkers and I am still "processing" that statement but... I can't say I don't see some coherence in his stance: If he really expects BSV to surpass BTC in price (yeah, he has just said that!) and he already has more BSV coins than BTC coins then the "hedging" might make some sense and there would be no point in buying more BSV. Except he is wrong and BSV will never succeed. Bleh, everyone is free to do whatever they want with their money. And one thing that maybe you should be aware of is that (IN MY OPINION) jbreher has more than enough BTC, BCH and BSV that, no matter if he is right or not, he will DO VERY WELL in ANY case. Not everyone can say the same. |
|
|
|
Edit: By the way my sub $9k incremental sell orders just filled, next ones at $9,200-ish.... easy peasy... little by little.. sell, sell, sell as the price goes up, but only a little. That's the mindless system that always attempts to stay ahead of the price moves... The price comes to your sell/buy orders, you do not go to the price.. It's making money in your sleep (kind of), as long as the underlying asset ultimately goes up..
Mines too. Now putting some buy orders at around $8.5-8.6K for the same amount. Same as you, this has nothing to do with where I do think the price is going next. Scalping needs no feelings. It only needs some (almost unpredictible) sideways volatility. |
|
|
|
PREPARE THE VEGETAA!
Observing $8930
Uh Oh! I was so focused doing other things I didn't even notice we are so close! Thanks for the head up. I do not participate though. I am too slow to take the snapshot, upload it to imgur, etc etc... Will get some popcorns instead Good luck!! |
|
|
|
... Or maybe they are inflating their stats. I remember when the first big ISP's started here in Spain (around 95) one I knew their owners decided to be the biggest in the country by having as much users as they could. The price they were charging didn't make any sense because it couldn't cover the variable costs. Also they didn't even care if people opened the account and the bank charge was bounced or stopped making payments afterwards, they never closed any account nor seemed to bother claiming the amounts due. They even gave many accounts for free, (and probably even created thousands of "bogus" accounts themselves). All terrible operational practices that I thought would led them to bankruptcy soon. ... And a few years later they were bought by British Telecom for a **HUGE** price... which was calculated by a fixed amount * Nº of accounts. Clever guys. So, there's that. |
|
|
|
Lol, monopoly is more accurate than I thought... They need to make a bitcoin/crypto edition too where bank is non existent in the game, I'm surprised they haven't come up with that yet
Bitcoin won't make banks magically disappear. If Bitcoin succeeds, banks will adopt Bitcoin, and you will use banks. ... banks, central banks in particular, wont magically disappear. They will most likely disappear in spectacular catastrophic collapses, fiatnado firestorms that take large parts of the global economy with them. Or they will disappear with excrutiatingly slow economic stagnation epochs; creating zombie-stumbling, wealth-destroying behemoths roaming the financial landscape preying on anything that looks like growth and suffocating it in command-and-control stymying decline. Banks in their current incarnation of the modern era only 3-400 years ago came about with the rise of paper money, double-entry book-keeping and credit. Bitcoin's invention of money-as-a-data-type and money-over-internet-protocol makes it hard to overstate the leap ahead these technologies provide versus fiat money, centralised ledgers, fractional reserve custody and command-and-control economic (mis)management through monetary manipulations. The writing is on the wall for banks, we just don't know what will replace them. A lack of imagination in that regard is no excuse to lazily proclaim that "nothing really changes". It's not unrealistic to expect that now the basic building blocks of money-as-a-data-type and money-over-internet-protocol are demonstrated to the information age, and now being built out to a production ready state, that many of the 'services' of modern financial institutions can be simply replaced by algorithmic tools and machine programmes, i.e. code. This is a very interesting debate. There are some semantics involved... What are banks? Yeah, central banks I guess are those that really do print fiat money (even if by mandate or in according to regulations of their respective governments). Those would be the most affected by wide adoption of Bitcoin, yes. But then there is "regular" banks. The ones that provide "service" to their clients (business, individuals, etc). Currently most of those don't want to have anything to do with Bitcoin. But I don't think the widespread adoption of BTC would mean they would disappear. And it doesn't matter if it is the same "brands" that we know and hear about every day... even if those would die in a catastrophical financial collapse, other new ones would replace them. For example, even in current early stage of adoption, we are seeing how many business are being born around BTC that resemble "banks" or at least some of the services of "traditional" banking: Exchanges, ATM providers, custodial providers, margin/loan providers, debit card providers, etc... In some way we could even call them "banks" right now, in a sense. What's the difference if it is called "Banco de Santander" vs "Xapo"? And what stops "Banco de Santander" buying "Xapo" in the future to integrate it in its core if "traditional banking" stops being profitable for them? The idea of replacing those services by "algorithmic tools and machine programmes" is great but not only we are not there yet but also some of those services would be pretty hard to replace just by that... Unless we are talking about several decades into the future. And then there is loans/credit. Which is why banks were born in first instance. As long as there is people that do have "excess" and some others that "need to borrow" some of that excess... there will be "banks". Be it FIAT money with its unlimited printing and fractional banking, be it grains... or be it Bitcoin. Banks in their current incarnation of the modern era only 3-400 years ago came about with the rise of paper money, double-entry book-keeping and credit Yeah, I can agree that if Bitcoin succeeds surviving banks would probably not fit into that definition anymore. Also there were banks way before the introduction of FIAT money which proves it is not a requisite to their existence. My opinion is that they would just evolve and adapt to the new paradigm, at least the ones surviving. For me that's not disappearing but just evolving. Also I think we will see traditional banks (not talking about central banks) integrating Bitcoin in some ways during the next few years... way before the FIAT system disappears (as in cease to exist... not just "another" financial crisis). It's governments who perverted banks with the introduction of FIAT and "economic policies", not the other way around even if nowadays they dance in unison. |
|
|
|
"services"
"People" need those "services". Specially loans... they do love to spend money they don't have. It doesn't matter if the denomination is USD... or BTC. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
