After twitter changed its name to X, indicating that the ownership and TOS changed very drastically, including the user interface, Elon has great characteristics and influence in the business world, and the idea of acquiring twitter was not playing games when he became the talk when his speech also inflated crypto prices. In terms of current development, twitter makes it easy for anyone to become a premium member by paying rent, purely not all current twitter users are not entirely achievement paths, there is indeed a fee for creators in contrast to the old days where everything was free and there was no reciprocity in terms of twitter user contributions. Reputation is not good if it gives an instant option to buy. for me the development of X is quite good and I think elon has gotten more benefits and material until now.
We cant really be able to tell if they are really that in revenue now or still at loss. If we do tend to look back on how much of that deal; about $13 billion
Elon Musk, to finance the Twitter deal, secured about $13 billion by bank loans. Elon Musk's Twitter deal was finalised on October 27. World's richest man initially wanted to limit his own investment in the $44 billion deal to little more than $15 billionLinkWe cant really be able to say about fall of twitter yet even just looking about its relevance and usage. It do looks that it did become even more better. Adjustments is made of course and it would be taking up some time. Although you're right that it's still too early to say if the Fall Of Twitter is truly about to happen, but "Twitter" which is now called "X" currently has more spammers, and many of them pay for promoted ads. But having said that, the social media still has the largest organic traffic and the least paid traffic compared to Instagram and Facebook.  Plus Elon Musk's release of xAI, Grok, and PromptIDE which might be integrated in X has a lot of potential. |
|
|
|
 First they said that there's nothing to be afraid about, then they said that inflation is "transitory" - it will go away once "supply open", then they said that inflation is "good" because it represents demand, THEN finally they are saying that "INFLATION IS YOUR FAULT". ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Do we control the money printer? Is it our fault that government spending is increasing? |
|
|
|
The problem I see with this is that it is just one more step in saying goodbye to privacy in Bitcoin. Mixers have been banned here because it won't be long before there will be regulations expressly prohibiting them. I said it some time ago: services that serve to obfuscate the origin of funds cannot have much future. The casinos that have been so important in the history of Bitcoin and Bitcointalk will have to end up operating like fiat casinos, with everyone perfectly identified from the beginning among other things. We are on a seemingly unstoppable path of loss of privacy in general, and Bitcoin is not going to be an exception. It won't be that. I believe it will be wallet apps that will start having features that will "warn" users that they are about to receive a "tainted" input. As more users become "taint-aware", the moment they receive a "tainted" input, it's going to be a game of hot-potato. - Users would sell those "tainted" coins as soon as possible, making the price of "tainted" Bitcoins lower than "clean" Bitcoins.
b. invent a new service that does not even mention privacy/cleaning, mixing.. and is more creative with how it takes in deposits and withdraws .. cough cough satoshi-dice cough cough
Isn't there an upgrade that would make transactions for opening Lightning channels indistinguishable from normal transactions? |
|
|
|
They also have one of the most trustworthy campaign managers to vouch for them. It will take some time for the users to trust BC.Game fully again, but personally there are making all the right actions to regain the community's trust back.
Good work, admins of BC.Game! Your actions show that you care about the community, and the value of how the community perceives you.
As long as the admin continues to maintain their good name and reputation on this forum, I'm sure everyone will come back to trust this site again, but it all comes back to the gamblers in this forum, namely the community who may feel disadvantaged, at least each case can be resolved immediately. and the problem is to prevent any accusations that lead to bc.game and involve the community. We all know that it is very important to maintain reputation in this forum because there are a lot of crypto communities in this forum so it is best for the casino not to have problems here because of course it will damage the reputation which is difficult to rebuild if it disappoints the many users who gamble on the site. I hope they show a serious attitude towards maintaining their reputation. Plus trying to regain the community's trust back is far more difficult to do than gaining it for the first time. But I believe once all matters have been truly solved, BC.Game should perhaps make a statement addressing the community and explain their viewpoint, their position on the matter/issue, and why they took their time before making the decision of resolving them. We might be of the more cynical sort, but we're also considerate if the situation calls for it. |
|
|
|
|
I believe if we try to look at the situation from theymos' point of view, it's either risk BitcoinTalk, and its administrators, to be tagged - or something more serious - by the government for allowing the advertisment of mixing/tumbling services, or removing them from the forum altogether. We may not like the decision, but theymos chose the path with the least risk, and with the least possible issues for the admins.
Plus for theymos to make that decision, the situation probably must be getting more alarming?
|
|
|
|
You raise a good point about playing it safe, particularly when there's shady stuff like scam accusations floating around about a casino. It's so important to take those red flags into account when you're evaluating how legit a site really is. Like no way would I put my own money in there right now. And for sure I wouldnt go telling people to sign up or anything before I knew more.
Plus I'm holding off judgement too, but if any campaign manager in the forum won't promote it, then it's probably better to avoid it until the casino admins could prove that they are indeed trustworthy. It's nothing personal, but if a casino truly did something wrong with someone from our community, then our community should avoid that casino and tell everyone else to avoid it. Because the warning flag is quite loud, anyone should remain alert and not try to enter this casino until everything can be resolved. There are still many casinos that provide comfort, security and are supported by a good reputation. So there is no reason to enter this casino if you don't want to get into trouble. Lately, there have been a lot of problems with casinos which were initially well supported on forums but for some reason the reasons always involved insiders taking advantage of the opportunity to destroy their own casinos. My brother experienced problems at this casino and forbade me not to try playing there, coincidentally I had not touched this casino for quite a long time and when I got negative issues I was no longer surprised. But about two weeks later they resolved all cases that involved the users of BitcoinTalk.  They also have one of the most trustworthy campaign managers to vouch for them. It will take some time for the users to trust BC.Game fully again, but personally there are making all the right actions to regain the community's trust back. Good work, admins of BC.Game! Your actions show that you care about the community, and the value of how the community perceives you. |
|
|
|
somehow i find theymos step understandable and i also think it's very important that a big discussion has been sparked here 👍
i've just skimmed through a few pages and i don't know whether the following question has already been asked or answered by you
Big discussion indeed, but the protection of BitcoinTalk and its admins is of greatest importance. We can't let the government find any reason to take us down. A question for theymos/admins. If mixers started to hire the services of blockchain analysis companies to filter out "tainted" inputs, then would such a mixer be allowed to advertise in the forum? I also skimmed through the posts, pardon me if the same question was already posted. |
|
|
|
...the trader closes the trade for an insubstantial profit and his emotions will make him FOMO back in the same asset if he/she sees it's surging again. ..
The cryptocurrency market provides a huge number of opportunities to make a profit every day, so you should not get hung up on unsuccessful deals, especially since you have made a small profit, which in any case is better than a loss. That's not true for 90% of the participants in the market, because if that was actually true, then everyone would be making money easily through "trading". BUT trading is Zero Sum, those who profit take the profit from those who lose.
Better remember those moments when, after closing an order, the price decreases and you realize that you did everything in a timely manner.
It's actually not that simple, ask any trader. Although, it's expected that people in the forum could make their own claims. |
|
|
|
I "lured" people into using a mixer? You're gaslighting everyone now? Ser, in just another post you told me that I discouraged ordinary users from mixing their coins because of the risk that they could be considered "tainted". Why are you doing that? You're behaving like another user I know in the forum, who's a constant gaslighter. Read my posts about Wasabi and zkSNACKS' decision to hire the services of blockchain analysis companies. I believe I gave the more objective posts compared to most of the people who posted in the topic. Tell me if you think I'm wrong, but don't gaslight people. |
|
|
|
I mean. He's true in what he's saying. The appeal of bitcoin only applies to those who aren't lined with deep pockets. After all, the billionaires in this economy got from where they are right now thanks to their manipulation of customer information, something that bitcoin withholds. It's poignant and painful but at the same time Michael's only saying the truth in here. Sure there will be billionaire deviants who would still dip their toes in the crypto industry despite it not giving them true monetary value, but they wouldn't be significant enough to count amongst the hundreds if not thousands of billionaires right now who aren't keen on the protection and anonymity/censorship that bitcoin is providing its users.
Are you saying that you agree that Michael Saylor is right that we don't need censorship-resistance? Would you agree that Bitcoin should throw POW out of the window and let a group of "trusted individuals" edit and append the ledger? I could see an argument that Bitcoin doesn't really need to be private/fungible on-chain - But that's another debate for another topic. BUT censorship-resistance, NOT needed? What has everyone been doing here? |
|
|
|
Perhaps another cause for concern among Chinese investors, and it shows that there are people who are starting to become more distressed for their economy. The China International Capital Corporation, a state-owned multinational investment and financial services company, has banned/censored all of its analysts from writing or saying anything bad about China's economy, the Chinese market, and Chinese companies. That's Q.P. - Quantitative Pleasing. |
|
|
|
|
The topic has become a debate of buy the DIP vs. DCA, but it won't truly matter what you "must do". You just do what you want to do or what you're comfortable doing. Plus how you buy will never be as important as what you do after it, which is HODL. If you can't HODL and have a low time preference for Bitcoin, then you have already failed.
Ask yourself, why are central bankers offended by the existence of Bitcoin like it's a declaration of war against them? I honestly don't know why, but if they really hate it and discourage people from owning it, then it's probably doing something right.
|
|
|
|
I'm of the opinion that taking profit is always the wise decision. Paper profits are not real, it took me years to realize until my huge gains went down the drain for not taking profit.
Although that's true, I believe it would also depend on what kind of asset you're holding as an investment. Because with Bitcoin, if I HODL since 2019, would the gains accumulated since that time be truly considered mere "paper-profit"? If you ask me, it's already realized profit because I could always use my Bitcoin to pay someone else who accepts it. Plus I'm very confident a "participant" in the dark market would be very happy to buy it from me. A victim of ransomware would probably buy it from me for more than the fair market value. Such an asset shouldn't be sold early just to turn paper-profit into real profit in my opinion. If I were to elaborate further to my previous comment it would be; ..I should have converted those paper profits to Bitcoin. So there is your answer. Very good ser!
Plus, unless you are 'HODL' kinda guy, you could also convert your BTC to stables when you sense market top incoming, and repurchase later in dip, and increase your BTC holding.
That probably a good strategy for those people who can have a god sense of timing the market. But personally, I value my mental sanity and almost stress free life than trying to trade and time the market. If the market top is incoming, I'll probably start saving then I'll wait for the incoming market bottom that will definitely be there after one or two years to buy the DIP. Bitcoin will be one of three to five blockchains/networks left running after ten years. I believe the rest will die with the death of the "Blockchain Mania". |
|
|
|
That's what I said in many of my posts in the topic. In fact, I tried to defend Wasabi's decision when everyone who posted in here were attacking Kruw for it. It was merely to try to look at the situation from their point of view. We may not like it, but it was the right thing for them.
There would have not been much of a back lash at all if they had this decision with no resorting to deceiving, lying and accusing. That's true, but like any project that's building on top of Bitcoin, developers can't please everyone. I believe with Wasabi, they should encourage the community to start their own coordinators.
I can imagine their statement on Bitcoin Talk with a ton of Merits and almost every reply praising them for what they had done so far. It is what it is. I think and hope we all have enough maturity to understand where this decision comes from.
In BitcoinTalk? That can't be true. We're of the cynical sort.
How can I ever trust or view Wasabi the same however after their way of handling the situation? Think about it for a second. Speaking out of my own experience. I moved a lot of money through Wasabi. They earned a TON of commissions off me. And I willingly did this out of love and support. I used to Coin Join some of the Bitcoin I did not NEED to have Coin Joined but only to support their work.
It's as simple as if you're not happy with them anymore, then it's time to move on. Use JoinMarket, share your experience, and make ELI-5 guides for the forum to encourage them to use it in case they want to use CoinJoin.
Then I see Wasabi accusing me and trying to deceive me. Instead of saying 'Hey you idiot, for our own safety and out of fear we decided to take the wrong turn' they do this. How can I respect that? It is like a huge 'Thanks for the money, now fuck you' up my bum from their team.
A behavior that's not like any serious developer that I've met onlne. Probably double-check if Kruw is actually Kruw? "Don't trust, verify".
I promise I would have MOST LIKELY kept using Wasabi had they been sincere front up. And I am not asking to have my boots licked by Wasabi for being a previous customer. They do not know who I am anyway and I could always be just a liar. I expect them to treat me like any other customer they had. I just wanted to see them tell the truth instead of treating any body who critiques like the biggest shit they had ever seen.
-----
Anyway. Expect more anger every time another Service like Wasabi turns their back against us. It is anger that I and likely most of us who back lashed at them feel. Because we are running out of options. It is frustrating and annoying. Not even the decision but the way they handle the situation.
👍 |
|
|
|
I'm of the opinion that taking profit is always the wise decision. Paper profits are not real, it took me years to realize until my huge gains went down the drain for not taking profit.
Although that's true, I believe it would also depend on what kind of asset you're holding as an investment. Because with Bitcoin, if I HODL since 2019, would the gains accumulated since that time be truly considered mere "paper-profit"? If you ask me, it's already realized profit because I could always use my Bitcoin to pay someone else who accepts it. Plus I'm very confident a "participant" in the dark market would be very happy to buy it from me. A victim of ransomware would probably buy it from me for more than the fair market value. Such an asset shouldn't be sold early just to turn paper-profit into real profit in my opinion. |
|
|
|
That used to make sense when the block rewards were higher before the previous halvings, and perhaps during those times the competition between miners wasn't that hard. But currently why would a miner give away the opportunity to gain additional incentives "to sabotage" the network that incentivizes it? If they keep "sabotaging" the network, and if Bitcoin mining is a business of small margins, then they will just kill themselves. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I believe philipma1957 could explain why if it's truly an attempt to savotage the network. |
|
|
|
Like what I said in many posts in this topic. zkSNACKS' decision to filter transactions was truly never for the benefit of its users. It was made for the benefit of its own protection from government harrasment.
That's what I understood from blog post written on Wasabi's website. But to be honest, there is nothing wrong if it was done to its own protection from government harassment because it's never a clever idea to get yourself arrested or bury alive a good project, or at least once a good project. That's what I said in many of my posts in the topic. In fact, I tried to defend Wasabi's decision when everyone who posted in here were attacking Kruw for it. It was merely to try to look at the situation from their point of view. We may not like it, but it was the right thing for them.
But my view still stays the same, I think Wasabi is not the best choice for one's privacy because they fund blockchain analysis and blockchain analysis companies are enemy of privacy, their main aim is to destroy the existence of privacy, that's what they want. Now one can call it whatever they want, fighting against crime or etc but it still destroys privacy.
From another viewpoint, if you want "privacy" + "clean" outputs, and you hold "tainted" coins but found a way for your inputs to pass through Wasabi's filter, do it. |
|
|
|
It would be laughable to believe that China's dometic demand alone would be enough to support their whole manufacturing sector at its current state and size. There will be a recession if international demand goes down.
It's not supposed to. It's not like Chinese exports have halted altogether or have had a significant decrease (like 80%) for them to need to cover it with domestic economy. But that's the point, it can't.
In the ongoing global recession, demand for Chinese goods hasn't really changed that much. Their exports were slightly decreased (IIRC it was something like 4%). That is why they only needed to cover that small deficit.
Which is where the decreased interest rates, other incentives for domestics producers and demand for them started coming out.
Perhaps not, and perhaps it's truly nothing, but they are starting offer unsecured loans to real-estate developers, and don't forget that's a first in their history and probably a sign of distress. Plus, currently, it might not be that concerning, but budget a deficit that's the highest in two decades? If export revenues go down, their deficit will definitely go up.
It's merely business, ser. The world needs cheap goods, China can manufacture them.
Unfortunately, because they do it by killing the economy of other countries as capital migrates to China same as the jobs. In fact this is why in a lot of countries including USA the middle class fell down to become lower class. China doesn't want the U.S. to enter a recession. What's bad for the United States - the largest importer, will be bad for China - the largest exporter.
There might actually be a Banking Crisis that could probably crash the whole U.S. economy next year,
There are a lot of different reasons why United States could fall apart in the near future. That is why they do what they've always done: start wars. War - like the pandemic, will be the next Black Swan? |
|
|
|
KYC is always compulsory to any casino that has a Curacao license. They just require it in random basis but all the account is subjected to KYC at some point of their game. Casino just imposed it during registration process but you automatically agree to undergo KYC once you are asked the moment you sign up and agree the casino ToS.
Do you, or anyone in the forum, know what licenses DO NOT strictly require or enforce KYC on their users? That might be a good tip for those who don't want to give up their privacy, no? Some casino even with Curacao license does not compulsory require their player to submit KYC, they always have this in certain situation where the casino might require KYC from the player. I have been playing in some casino that allows me to withdraw my funds without undergoing KYC so in honesty I am also baffled if the license from curacao really make KYC mandatory. What casinos are those, and what's your deposit-withdrawal activity like? Is it very active? Because another user suggested that it wasn't the amount that triggered casinos to request for KYC, but the activity of deposits and withdrawals. But for me, it was probably the amount. Currently, I play Craps only during Sundays, sometimes Saturdays too, sometimes I don't play. So I'm sure it's not the "activity", but I do - deposit then withdraw after playing. I never leave coins in the casino. That's probably why they wanted KYC. |
|
|
|
You could also "virtualize" the different tasks that you do by merely using a distro like Linux Mint as your base OS + VirtualBox. The base OS should NOT be used for anything else except to run your VMs to avoid it getting infected with malware and being exploited. Isn't Qubes OS more suited if you want to virtualize everything? I was merely suggesting an option if a user doesn't have the hardware requirements to run Qubes, or if someone is new to Linux. Linux Mint + VirtualBox + Lubuntu VMs are probably simpler, and perhaps it's easier to find resources if the user needs to troubleshoot or has unexpected problems with the set up. Linux Mint is probably good as a base OS + use Lubuntu for your VMs. That works very well too  Well enough for a not very technical pleb like me. Haha. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
