This would indeed be hilarious, but I think Buffett can't get around being connected to Bitcoin one way or another. Earlier this year, Buffett dismissed bitcoin as a "gambling token" in an interview with CNBC, saying bitcoin "doesn't have any intrinsic value ... but that doesn't stop people from wanting to play the roulette wheel." SOURCEEven if he still says that Bitcoin is rat poison or a gambling token, he is already implying that there is business to be made when he says that people won't stop playing the roulette wheel. As more and more banks will be heavily involved with cryptocurrencies and Buffett considers banks one of his investment targets, he will also be part of the game. If he still believed that Bitcoin is rat poison and he would never touch or get close to it, seems it doesn't mean he would refrain from buying stock in crypto-friendly banks that, by the way, outperform some of his major other investments. But he probably should. There was a podcast that had Warren Buffett's partner Charlie Munger, and Munger said that it's more difficult to find value investments in modern investing compared to the time when they started their asset managing company. He also said that it's because there are more and more smart investors who are competing for the same assets in the stock market. He said the solution is = expect lower profit. Perhaps the actual solution is to invest in the more volatile "Rat Poison Squared", no? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Higher Volatility = Higher Returns They are digging themselves out of that anti-Bitcoin hole that they've now created with full force. I have never fully understood why Warren Buffett would be so decidedly against it. He can have his opinion, but his wording suggested that there is more to this. Did he suspect that this industry could be eating away at his so beloved financial industry? Was his goal to win some time for his banks to prepare themselves to then successfully embrace crypto? It's probably because he has gotten VERY successful in his method of investing that he didn't believe that a new asset class, Bitcoin, would perform better in 10 short years than his DECADES of work.  Perhaps it's also because Bitcoin is changing "the concept of money", no?
Perhaps the actual solution is to invest in the more volatile "Rat Poison Squared", no?
I think that his voice loses influence among his shareholders because that is what's interesting here. He is the guy who combined with Munger is 192 years old and his shareholders are seeing this crypto industry grow by the minute, gain influence everywhere and the whole world and the investing youth is growing up with this stuff. Shares are losing appeal and I think it was Novogratz who said that when he asked his son what he is doing, the son answered "I'm sending my girlfriend flowers" and then Novogratz asked: how? Answer: digital flowers, emojis flowers! This is where everything is heading, whether one likes it or not. Bitcoin will be this standard investment among the younger people. Microstrategy is one of those companies that could become the next Berkshire Hathaway (I am saying this with some exaggeration). But if they explode in market capitalization, what good points could Buffett bring up against their success when rat poison outperforms his value investment strategy?  Although I'm disappointed in what Michael Saylor said that "we don't need censorship-resistance", Michael Saylor will be written in history books as one of the greatest risk-takers that made it. |
|
|
|
From the viewpoint of the network, I agree that "taint" doesn't exist in the blockhain. But in the real world, we have to deal with those exchanges that could lock our accounts, the government could order sanctions on public addresses that has been used in a way that they do not approve of - like the Trucker's Convoy donation address, and the merchants themselves wouldn't want to receive and hold "tainted" inputs. If Starbucks adopted Bitcoin, would it accept "tainted" Bitcoins if warned that those coins were tainted?
The answer is to not transact with people who enforce that view. Theoretically, that's actually what's going to separate "untainted" Bitcoin, and "tainted" Bitcoin in a "taint-aware" world. Plus it's not because of choice, it will be because of no choice.
If a stranger tells you that the money in your pocket cannot be accepted because he believes it was involved in criminal activity, would you try to prove to that random guy you are innocent or would you show him the finger?
Ser, the paper money in your pocket doesn't have a transparent history for everyone to see through a transparent ledger. No one truly knows where each bill went from its "Genesis". In Bitcoin, each Satoshi has its own history, its own "story", everything is known. |
|
|
|
Warren Buffett, the "Oracle of Omaha" who said that Bitcoin is "Rat Poison Squared", has made an investment in a "secret stock", but because it's required to report their investments, he's begging the Securities and Exchange Commission to make the name of that company private. Why does he want to make the name of the company private? I personally don't know, but how LAUGHABLE would it be for the Bitcoin community if that company is MicroStrategy. Would be a nice twist, but that's highly unlikely. Here's more on that story: https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/warren-buffett-berkshire-hathaway-secret-stock-sales-gm-q3-portfolio-2023-11The reason for them not wanting to disclose the "secret bet" is probably the fact that they are still accumulating and revealing that would drive the price up. It's not like they're trying to hide something because of being ashamed to admitting they were wrong on bitcoin. The secret bet will be made public eventually. Haha. I was merely thinking it would be laughable. Although, because Warren Buffett is a "value investor", he probably should invest some of their capital in MicroStrategy. It was $130.00 during January and it's currently $480.00, it's tracking Bitcoin, and it's probably not going to slow down. I believe as an investor, he should set his emotions aside and swallow his pride, no? . Earlier this year, Buffett dismissed bitcoin as a "gambling token" in an interview with CNBC, saying bitcoin "doesn't have any intrinsic value ... but that doesn't stop people from wanting to play the roulette wheel." SOURCEEven if he still says that Bitcoin is rat poison or a gambling token, he is already implying that there is business to be made when he says that people won't stop playing the roulette wheel. As more and more banks will be heavily involved with cryptocurrencies and Buffett considers banks one of his investment targets, he will also be part of the game. If he still believed that Bitcoin is rat poison and he would never touch or get close to it, seems it doesn't mean he would refrain from buying stock in crypto-friendly banks that, by the way, outperform some of his major other investments. But he probably should. There was a podcast that had Warren Buffett's partner Charlie Munger, and Munger said that it's more difficult to find value investments in modern investing compared to the time when they started their asset managing company. He also said that it's because there are more and more smart investors who are competing for the same assets in the stock market. He said the solution is = expect lower profit. Perhaps the actual solution is to invest in the more volatile "Rat Poison Squared", no? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Higher Volatility = Higher Returns |
|
|
|
With a community-wide awareness of "taint", exchanges, merchants and services would start rejecting transactions containing "tainted" inputs, making it harder for the user to spend or sell those coins, and therefore have lower value than "untainted" UTXOs.
"Tainted" coins are not harder to spend. Just because someone tells you your coins are worth less does not mean they really do. They worth exactly the same as long as you do not interact with folks who mistreat bitcoin. From the viewpoint of the network, I agree that "taint" doesn't exist in the blockhain. But in the real world, we have to deal with those exchanges that could lock our accounts, the government could order sanctions on public addresses that has been used in a way that they do not approve of - like the Trucker's Convoy donation address, and the merchants themselves wouldn't want to receive and hold "tainted" inputs. If Starbucks adopted Bitcoin, would it accept "tainted" Bitcoins if warned that those coins were tainted? |
|
|
|
The only way for Betnomi's admins to prove their trustworthiness and save their reputation is to pay ALL their users back ALL their money first, BUT it's also not a guarantee that they'll be trusted by the entire community again. Because if I had my money locked for months in a centralized service and the money was given back to me, I would never use any service owned or operated by those people again. One period of mental/emotional stress with them is enough. For the sake that have been in trouble with their funds as they have became trusted by these users. They will just have to accept whatever is going to be the feedback of these people, whether they will say that they will still be trusted then that is good on their part. But if these people after receiving their moneyback starts to say that they are not recommended and will never be back and gamble there again. They just have to accept any words from them and there is nothing they can do but to be in good faith and just return all of the pendings, either big or small amounts. As they have said, anyone who is eligible for that shall do. I think what is most important at this point is not wether the betnomi team gain the trust of the community of not because their have already been down and at some point they announce that they are going to have domain name changes, which means the Betnomi we used to know is now scam and should remain like that. But if the same team can make refunds as promised, it then becomes another challenge for them to win the trust of the community and how they can do that, is through adequate improvement and commitment to the promises. You have a fair point here. In fact, a lot of reputable experienced this kind of setback before but manage to regain their reputation. Betcoin.ag is the best example here because they once didn’t honor a jackpot prize win by one of their customers. They stick to their decision for a long time and remain with negative trust until they come clean with the new management. There’s always room for improvement here in the forum when all the previous problem was solved. They can always build their reputation slowly just like what they did when they are just new here. It's not the best example in my opinion, and in fact, it's like comparing apples and oranges. Not giving a jackpot because of technicality is absolutely a different situation from a casino that disappeared with their users' funds. Although some posters are right that it's within each of Betnomi's ex-users right to judge the casino, it's also probably better to wait for a reputable campaign manager vouch for the new Betnomi. Personally, I hope the users get their coins back, and that the new Betnomi is successful and honest. |
|
|
|
OP, welcome to BitcoinTalk ser, where all the people get together and debate about any issue about Bitcoin, Altcoins, Shitcoins, Forked Shitcoins, and Forked Shitcoin of a Forked Shitcoin that calls itself the "Real Bitcoin". Hopefully your casino doesn't accept the last one, because no one might go to the casino. Hahaha. Plus I noticed that you have Rock, Paper, Scissors available and you have "PVP coming soon". Will Rock, Paper, Scissors be one of the games available for PVP? Perhaps it would be nice to have a "BitcoinTalk Rock, Paper, Scissors Tournament". |
|
|
|
In fact, if you had mentioned this situation from the start, perhaps everyone would not have accused Betnomi of negative things and also been angry with you, as if you had abandoned everyone without any reason or information, thus making many people despair about their money on the previous Betnomi site. , but after you explain this maybe some people will be happy and at least their money will actually be returned.
Nahhh, Nothing will change if they mention this earlier or not as long as they still hold the funds of users because all players money should be backed 1:1 and can be withdraw at all time. There’s no excuse about holding their customers if they are having some inner struggle since customers money is not their money so they should allow withdrawal even if the problem is going on. Affected user will still accuse them of scammer even if they give this statement on day 1. It’s very simple that they should open all withdrawal at anytime hough if they didn’t runaway the money. We are not sure either if the OP is telling the truth because there’s no evidence that backed his word. The only way for Betnomi's admins to prove their trustworthiness and save their reputation is to pay ALL their users back ALL their money first, BUT it's also not a guarantee that they'll be trusted by the entire community again. Because if I had my money locked for months in a centralized service and the money was given back to me, I would never use any service owned or operated by those people again. One period of mental/emotional stress with them is enough. |
|
|
|
Although you might be right in holding off judgement, it's still not advisable to deposit any Bitcoins/altcoins to any casino that hasn't addressed any of the scam accusations made against them. One of the ways to verify if a casino is trustworthy is if a campaign manager wants to continue promoting a casino. If he/she stops, then it's an indcation that the risk for getting a negative trust-rating would be greater than the financial incentives from the casino.
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. |
|
|
|
I believe some of you might start going deeper into the argument for bigger blocks that you might also start to think Roger Ver and Bitcoin Cash made the right decision, and you might also start debating for Satoshi's original vision.
It really depends on what classifies as "right". Opinions fundamentally differ on block size policy. Is it because it would also depend on what that person's definition of "scaling" is? I'm actually now very curious. What is your definition or idea of how scaling Bitcoin should actually be? Because we might not have a common definition/idea, and that's where the issues start. It's not just for BlackHatCoiner. I want to know everyone's definition/idea about scaling. |
|
|
|
A user could make an argument that Ethereum is as robust as Bitcoin because it too has not experienced any down-time,
It depends on how you define downtime. In 2017 there were a couple of times that the exchanges were forced to shut down all deposits and withdrawals of Ether and its tokens because the network congestion had effectively crashed their system! A real down-time by its real definition is something that stops functioning, and in the context of a cryptocurrency network going through a down-time would probably be when it stops producing blocks and a majority of full nodes can't connect with the rest of the network to validate.
But that's how the network was actually designed, with the regulated blocks and the fee market. I know it's an inconvenience when the fees are high, but from an objective viewpoint, look how robust the network currently is in the middle of the so-called "Ordinals Attack".
the bitcoin network WAS NOT actually designed like that I'm talking about how the network is currently designed, and it's robust. |
|
|
|
Anyone else heard of the Sophon bot that snipes brc-20 in the mempool and front-run them?
Front-run them? By paying higher on-chain fees? That would absolutely make the fees higher and the network more congested, no? He's not making the situation better for the users in general in my opinion. Is it currently running? Because it could also be the reason why we're having record-breaking fees. Perhaps it was better to let users use the blockchain? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
|
|
|
what if the most popular wallets also started implementing warnings and alerts that the inputs coming in their wallets are "possibly tainted"? How would that make the users feel and what would they do? Those coins would be sold right away, and if enough users are "warned/alerted" by their wallet app, it's probable that "tainted" Bitcoins would be valued less than "clean" Bitcoins.
It would be so weird and sense lacking. Think banknotes but you get less purchasing power the more used they look. Would mean we would have to play pretend every time. I could trade my 1 Bitcoin for some body elses 1.05 Bitcoin that were stolen from a kid. Then I would sell my 1.05 Bitcoin for 1.5 Bitcoin used in a hitman deal. Makes ZERO sense! But possible in todays world and not too far from where we are now. I'm confused by your illustration, but to simplify, it's not really an issue today if we receive "tainted" Bitcoins because our wallet apps are not "warning" us or making us aware that they are "tainted". BUT that would change if all wallet apps started using the services of blockchain analysis companies and make it easy for users to detect "taint". With a community-wide awareness of "taint", exchanges, merchants and services would start rejecting transactions containing "tainted" inputs, making it harder for the user to spend or sell those coins, and therefore have lower value than "untainted" UTXOs. |
|
|
|
 Ordinals and tokens might continue to exist "in the blockchain" longer than expected. Udi Wertheimer and Eric Wall, developers of "Taproot Wizards", were given $7,500,000 to "bring magic back to Bitcoin".  I believe with that money, they should hire developers to find solutions and make Bitcoin more efficient with the features they want, and they should definitely take their dick pics and fart sounds off-chain. Clowns. I wonder how all those posters who suggested to "don't be greedy add some extra sats" are feeling now? Ok ok I suspected you were retarded and didn't see this coming. Right now my wallet suggested me to pay ~$30 worth of BTC in fees for a ~$200 transaction. Am I being greedy? What's next? pay 1/2 in fees? But that's how the network was actually designed, with the regulated blocks and the fee market. I know it's an inconvenience when the fees are high, but from an objective viewpoint, look how robust the network currently is in the middle of the so-called "Ordinals Attack". A user could make an argument that Ethereum is as robust as Bitcoin because it too has not experienced any down-time, BUT try running an Ethereum node with your home computer. Ethereum developers gave up the ability to scale out for more transaction throughput, AND they're fees are STILL high. Fuck Casey Rodarmor and his retarded invention which broke down Bitcoin.  Although that's not my personal opinion, in another topic I did say that's how he'll be remembered. |
|
|
|
|
I believe some of you might start going deeper into the argument for bigger blocks that you might also start to think Roger Ver and Bitcoin Cash made the right decision, and you might also start debating for Satoshi's original vision.
They have their thesis, and the product of that thesis is BCash 32MB Blocks. It's probably a good network to test NFTs in the blockchain, no? Their miners might be very worried because their block rewards will be halved next year.
|
|
|
|
I asked myself and was a little curious about the economy and Bitcoin, as far as I know, every new ATH the price of Bitcoin continues to increase, maybe this is because the world economy is improving, maybe. Question...? What if the world economy is very bad globally, so can what OP says below continue? Prepare to experience a big surge for Bitcoin like it was 2015 - 2017 It's not that I'm not sure, but looking at the current economic conditions, on average almost all over the world is bad, could this phenomenon possibly happen to Bitcoin, otherwise. Actually, the economic conditions "going bad" could also be seen as = economic conditions "cooling down". Because after more than 10 years of low interest rates, Q.E., and easy credit, the economy for many regions around the world were surging. But that's not sustainable. We're paying for the negative effects of easy credit. Plus currently unemployment data and statistics are still low, but I believe because of Q.T. and high interest rates, we'll see those numbers surge, AND THAT'S WHEN THE PIVOT HAPPENS = BRRRRR-MONEY-PRINTING. Wait for it. |
|
|
|
Credit card defaults are surging faster than 2007 - 2008, during the last Financial Crisis.  The current economic situation might be worse than expected. Because of people can't pay for their credit card bills, that probably means they are out of savings, and if they're out of savings, then if they are out of savings and can't pay their credit card bills, then there will be = Low Demand, which will also mean low earnings for businesses. Low earnings for businesses = Employee Lay-off = Recession. |
|
|
|
windfury
none of your replies are about REAL data, code, opcodes, limits.
none of your replies are about REAL maths related to the data/limits
none of your replies are even about technology limitations IN REALITY
try for once to make an ontopic reply that show some thinking about the subject, outside of idolising certain people and insulting others.
Probably not, that's because I'm a mere pleb. I'm not a coder, I'm not a very technical person although I try, BUT I understand enough to know who is LYING/spreading MISINFORMATION, and who are the trustworthy people in the community. It's NOT YOU frankandbeans, and it's there in your trust-ratings for everyone to see! Plus who should the community listen to, to learn more about Bitcoin? Gregory Maxwell and Andrew Chow? Or a charlatan? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
|
|
|
I'd say there's a good chance the company is taking some time to think through how to respond. Cant blame them for not firing back right away. Better to gather all the facts and perspectives first than risk saying something they'll regret and who knows - maybe they're even doing some internal searching about the actions that led to this. Either way, I think we should hold off on judgments until they've had a fair shake to tell their side.
Although you might be right in holding off judgement, it's still not advisable to deposit any Bitcoins/altcoins to any casino that hasn't addressed any of the scam accusations made against them. One of the ways to verify if a casino is trustworthy is if a campaign manager wants to continue promoting a casino. If he/she stops, then it's an indcation that the risk for getting a negative trust-rating would be greater than the financial incentives from the casino. |
|
|
|
That's because that's what you believe. In my personal opinion, it's probably better to maintain its current course of development and value decentralization and security more than the accomodation of a higher number of transactions through bigger blocks.
that is not your personal opinion. its plageurised script from a group of idiots that lulled you into repeating their narrative just reciting the mantra of the party line.. without doing any math, or independent thought/analysis of what he is about to write You're right, it's not my opinion, BUT in my personal opinion, I agree with the fact that the Core Developers have made the design decisions that value maintaining decentralization and security for the network MORE than increasing the transaction througput per block. I know you're gaslighting everyone into believing I am wrong, and therefore you are right. BUT OK, they either DYOR and learn the truth, OR they listen to you and learn the truth the HARD WAY like I did. Plus do you actually believe a single decentralized database could process all of the trillions of financial transactions per day? No? Then use Netflix's centralized/federated data centers with their very-low-latency, high-rate-of-data transfer. That would probably fix the problem. But that wouldn't be a protocol called Bitcoin.
you then double down by using nonsense exaggerations, exaggerations that are not even original or well thought out there are 8 billion people on the entire planet. and not all of them use one currency.. but lets say they did.. for "trillions of transactions" requires each person to buy 12 items a days SEPARATELY for one trillion.. you used plural so multiply it by your magic plural amount you have in your head.. but becasue not everyone uses one currency naturally, lets take yours 250m mature people(toddlers dont shop for themselves) using the dollar. they do not even do 3 billion transactions per day so stop with the exaggeration that one currency needs to do trillions.. let alone billions of transactions a day you training of a discussion of reasonable adjustments at regular periods vs your stupid training of pretending the argument is about "gigabytes by next year" huge leaps, make you look foolish get away from your training officer(forum-daddy) and think for yourself. he is not helping you try to use actual data, real statistics, math and logic.. not some story some troll you call daddy tells you Is that you trying to convince me again that "bigger blocks are better"? Pardon mer ser, but I have already learned the hard way that you're wrong. Roger Ver and Jihan Wu had a thesis that if they hard fork to bigger blocks and call their shitcoin "Bitcoin", then the community would follow because "big blocks are what the community needs". How is Bitcoin Cash today, frankandbeans? |
|
|
|
What if all users have been refunded and you build back good reputation, are you coming back or no Betnomi again?
We'd be looking forward to seeing when you will refund all customers back their money.
They clearly said that, they have made a great platform and software which is worth millions of dollars, but as Betnomi’s image is not good at all, so they will make a comeback but with different branding. My question to OP is that, will you associate the new brand with Betnomi? Or it will be completely a new independent company operating in an individual level. Yes, don’t forget to refund the money of the gamblers, that is lost due to the company’s failure. I believe it would have been better for OP to quietly pay all of their users, then simply become a silent partner with another casino, or become a mere investor. It would be easier, simpler, and there wouldn't be any day-to-day stress to work with. They would also not be exposing themselves. The community should also probably more cynical if OP is truly the same person who controlled that Betnomi account before the casino admins left. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
