That was my initial thought, but considering from another angle, such shares (I'm not necessarily talking about MSTR here, but about a hypothetical company) would essentially be representing bitcoins, so my instinct tells me there should be an impact.

So what would happen if such dump caused the price of shares to go below the price of bitcoin (ie. they would be traded below company's market value)? If the arbitrage could be applied, i.e. new shareholders could force the company to sell bitcoins - then all is clear. But if new shareholders could not make the decision to sell, then the only impact on BTC price would be that some potential BTC buyers would choose to buy cheaper company shares instead (so reducing demand for BTC and causing the price to drop).

Sure, but that's a psychological effect, and I'm more interested in raw supply/demand market mechanisms.

On the back of another topic which I started earlier today related to Michael Saylor selling his 400k shares in Microstrategy, a question came to mind:

Does the selling of bitcoin-backed shares directly affect bitcoin's price at all?

As a thought experiment, instead of Microstrategy, we could take a hypothetical small (but listed) company that has minimal operations but buys tonnes of bitcoins, to the point that the value of its shares is almost entirely backed by bitcoins and their market price is 100% correlated with bitcoin price.

What happens when a shareholder decides to dump a large amount of such shares on the market? Would that be equivalent to dumping bitcoins? After all, it's just a change in the company's ownership and bitcoins held by the company remain untouched.

I just watched the Rockhold Vs Schilling fight, it was fairly entertaining.
Schilling took it easy in the first round, was pacing himself and trying to feel Rockhold but pressed harder in round 2. I think he broke Luke's nose and it looked like it's just a matter of time before Luke will get KOed, but the opposite happened. Joe got careless and got caught with a big right hook and that was it.
I didn't quite understand the rules. Apparently takedowns were allowed, but sometimes the ref would just split them up and bring it back to a stand-up and sometimes he would allow them to trade punches on the ground. I'm sure there must be some logic to it.

Johnny can be entertaining and fun to watch, but I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't valued highly among the Brazilian fans. I think they have a lot love for current, former or prospective champions and Johnny is neither of them. He has some successes but is not, and will never be, on the level of the top guys. So maybe the perception of him is a bit different than it is in "the West".

There's another light heavyweight bout at UFC 301 with Brazilian Vitor Petrino (currently ranked 15) will be facing Anthony Smith (ranked 10th). Petrino has a flawless record of 11-0 and will be a favourite with odds of x1.24. I don't know much about the guy but looks like the UFC is trying to prop him up by giving him Smith, who hasn't been performing that great lately. Could be an interesting fight to watch, and I think Light Heavyweight could use some new blood.

I'm not making judgements on the guy. He's free to do whatever he wants with his money, and sometimes you have to cash out, to pay bills/taxes, make purchases etc.
But for someone who has been preaching so hard against selling bitcoins and (if my memory is not mistaking me) even publicly suggesting taking loans to acquire bitcoins, selling such large amounts of bitcoins bitcoin-tied-stocks, can be viewed as hypocritical or dishonest.

I think the billions you are referring to are owned by Microstrategy, not him personally. However, if the article is correct, his previous shareholding was worth ~$2.7 billion, so he sold around 15% of it. We can only speculate on why he decided to do that (or wait till someone asks him about that in an interview etc.).

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/19/bitcoin-bull-michael-saylor-made-370-million-from-microstrategy-sales.html

So, apparently, Michael Saylor has unloaded 400k of his Microstrategy shares, which, at this point, are largely backed by BTC and could be used as a proxy for investing in Bitcoin.
What do you take of it? Was all his talk about accumulating Bitcoin forever and never selling just an act? Or was he genuine but just wanted to cash out with ~£370 millions for whatever reason?
Somehow I don't think he'll be buying bitcoins with his proceeds.

Bitcointalk profile link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=183781
Current amount of posts (including this one): 6608
How much merit have you earned in the last 120 days: 50
SegWit BTC Address for Payouts: bc1q79vqvnghljgu926g7gtuhnncq560kc24cur43t

Yup, they moved him permanently so the 2nd place contender was void.


Agree that UFC 301 is missing something currently.
That was a bold request by Alex, but there's no way the UFC would go for that. He's got too big and too profitable to be casually thrown in into 2nd class event on such short notice.
Maybe if the sales were much lower than expected and they could find him some "safe" opponent, but very unlikely to happen.

There are talks about him moving to heavyweight to face Aspinall and frankly, I kind of like the idea. There aren't many good options right now for either Pereira or Aspinal within their weight classes. And Alex doesn't have much to lose, other than health from being brutally KOed by Tom, which is what would happen.

Is it really going to be on kickboxing rules? I thought it would be an MMA fight, given both have MMA experience and I thought the organisers would pick rules to fit Rockhold more, as he's a way bigger name, hence got more to lose reputation-wise.

But if it's going to be a kickboxing bout, I can't imagine any other result than Schilling destroying Rockhold.
Is there any reputable sport-betting site accepting bets for this fight?

Time: 34'

Time: 34'

I'm not against predicting or speculating on the impact of new things like ETFs could have on the price and Bitcoin as a whole. And I'm all in favour of trying to identify any future threats that ETFs or altcoins can pose to Bitcoin, so we can maybe act to prevent such etc. But asking whether Bitcoin would be better off if no altcoins ever existed is a pointless thought exercise at best with no value to it. Unless people get entertained by having such discussions, then it's OK I guess.

Is anyone here actually using app/voting/earning tokens and can explain what's the basic concept?
Like how do you earn token and what are tokens needed for? Do you use them to vote etc or can anyone vote even without tokens?
There's not much info on their website (unless I just can't find it).

I like their "combat pit", which has a lot of advantages over a cage and they are getting more higher-profile fighters so could be worth keeping an eye on.

Luck and skill/mentality are not mutually exclusive. Penalty shootout always involves an element of luck but with mental resilience (not cracking under huge pressure) and skill developed e.g. by practicing penalty kicks a team can shift luck to their side.
A penalty shootout is not the same as a coin flip.

---

Anyhow. Updated odds for the outright UCL winner:



No surprise here, Real is now the favourite with odds of x2.40

He might be disappointed, but, at the same time, he's pretty happy with the team's performance. At least he seemed so during the post-match interview.
They dominated Real in every metric other than goals. They had over 4 times more shots on goal than the Spanish team, but they were just down on luck.
For the tournaments like this, a little things can decide on who goes through and who drops out. Man City has nothing to be ashamed of for yesterday's game (maybe except for Silva who could've done better in his penalty attempt).

Only ~1 day and 10 hours to go.
I feel this is not celebrated as it should be on this forum. For one-in-four-years event that historically preceded massive pumps, I'd expect to see some celebration topic, contests etc, but I don't I don't think there's anything special going on. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Then again, I shouldn't be expecting others to do the work. I could've done something myself, but lacking on time and ideas...

I'm not sure if there's any point in having such discussion as we not going to develop an alternative universe in which altcoins don't exist.
Bitcoin is here to stay and so are altcoins. There's not much anyone can do about it, other than maybe governments banning them.

That being said, you can't ignore the positive effects of having multiple cryptocurrencies in existence on Bitcoin. First of all we have huge crypto exchange market, and altcoins act as a testing ground for many solutions/features that (if successful) could be implemented in Bitcoin.


Good question. If everyone could only use Bitcoin, I think the network would either get completely clogged or it would have to evolve into something completely different. In the first scenario, Bitcoin would be deemed as a failure in terms of transferring value and could end up with less demand than it currently has.

Could I get some clarification on the deposit bonus and withdrawals?
I deposited a small amount to test the site, and applied 5% deposit bonus. From the deposit info, I understood the wagering requirement is for the bonus to become withdrawable, but it looks like I can't withdraw any amount from the original deposit.

I'd imagine that withdrawing the deposit (or part of it) without the "1x (one time) the deposit amount" requirement should just cancel the bonus (i.e. 5% credited would just be taken back), I didn't expect the entire amount to be locked from withdrawing.
You have this part in the bonus T&Cs:
"The winnings obtained by using bonuses become available for withdrawal only after meeting the requirements of all wagering rules."

It doesn't say anything about the whole deposit becoming unavailable until the wagering requirement is met (note: I didn't have any winnings). If I knew that, I wouldn't bother with that 5% bonus tbh.

I have bad feelings about Man City. Only 5 minutes till the end of overtime. They had plenty of chances but couldn't score a winner.
If you dominate like this:

but still let the game go to a penalty shootout, that gives the other team a massive psychological advantage.
Hope I'm wrong though.

Still anyone's game really. The chances are estimated almost identically for both teams, with a slight advantage to Bayern:
38% - Bayern to win
27% - extra time
35% - Arsenal to win

as per Google.

And as I said before - Bayern is not doing bad at all this season. If you look at their average points per game (for the league games), they are doing slightly better than the last season, when they had won the league. It's just that this year they got overshadowed by Bayer Leverkusen, who are having their best season in history and might set a record for the most points.