Those of us who are active on this forum and just visit the shitcoins section are bullish on Bitcoin, especially in the long term. The longer the term, the more bullish we are. If anyone is concerned about how low the price is supposedly at the moment just zoom out a bit and while you're at it revisit old threads and see how bad the defeatists of years ago in the face of price declines have become.

This is happening in the post-Brexit UK, but unfortunately the EU is going in the same address. It will take a while yet, but I fear we are heading towards a Big Brother in Bitcoin control, or at least an attempt at it by governments. They want Bitcoin trading to be like stock trading, to have it all under control.

What I am curious about is to see if they will appear some countries as safe havens to be able to trade Bitcoin with minimum KYC requirements,  with amounts under certain thresholds exempt from reporting and things like that, apart from El Salvador.

I hope someone from stake comes here to give an explanation on the subject, although I understand that they are more careful with large amounts like this than if it were $50. In any case it seems fishy that they first accused you of multi-accounting, then said no, and now they come out with the opposite betting. I don't see what's wrong with it, I guess it's against the rules, but if I bet $50K and meet a friend or something who bets $50K, in the end what we're going to lose is the commission, no matter how much one of us wins. If I were the master of the casino I would want them to repeat the bet many times.

I don't see it. In other words, I am bullish on Bitcoin in the long term, but not for the reasons mentioned above, and I don't see this transition between currency and store of value, in whatever order, to end up as a unit of account. Today it has a certain use as a currency but I think it will lose meaning over time.

I think it will remain a store of value like gold, but as a digital asset.


It's just like that. I've never had any problem either.


I totally agree with your view which I understand to be more pragmatic, and in my opinion realistic.

Yeah, well, and if Vitalik is hacked, with all the knowledge and security measures he will have, are you surprised that people with much less knowledge are fooled?

Fortunately, those of us who have been doing this for some time have seen so many scams or attempts at scams that we have been scammed and at the slightest distrust is aroused, but unfortunately not everyone is like that, and the scammers are based on large numbers, because only if a small percentage of a large sample is successful, it is profitable for them.

Cruz talks about Bitcoin because it is logical coming from someone with his political ideology. Who is going to defend Bitcoin the most? Someone who believes that the state is the best guarantor of rights and freedoms, or someone like Cruz who believes that the best guarantor are self-organizing individuals? Like De Santis or Bukele. W

hat is paradoxical is someone from the Democratic Party defending Bitcoin, which was created precisely to escape the clutches of states and central banks.

Look at those who defend how bad Bitcoin mining is:

Bitcoin is next climate fight for Democrats

‘Just imagine the climate’: Bitcoin in crosshairs as Democrats target crypto mining in green energy push

Bitcoiners Protest Democrats’ ‘Misleading’ Letter Sent to EPA

But that's not my point. The point is that there is not a single one who disagrees with the flag. This would seem to disprove the statement that


This would also apply to the number of negative feedbacks after the event. There is not a single one, not even neutral, defending him, so I think there is a clear agreement from the community, including DT1, in this case.

Really?

I don't want to play devil's advocate here, because although it seemed like a good idea initially, and then seeing the arguments presented, I think it is better to leave things as they are, but when you said this I went to look at the first case that came to my mind, I guess because it was the most striking recently.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=140827

There is not a single vote against the flag.

What strikes me about this is that he's not just any old nerd: gifted child, cryptographer, former board of directors chairman of the Tor Project, won a bronze medal in the International Olympiad in Informatics in Italy, about $0.6B of net worth....

If they can hack his accounts, they can hack any of us. I guess the only difference is that hackers don't find us interesting.


There are many movements in that address, all from today. I guess the scammers are getting their rewards.

The first thing that strikes me is that the article states:


I don't know what type of cold wallet you are referring to, as I looked up when the first HW was launched and it was in 2014.

In news of this style, the normal thing would be to talk about the PC or laptop, but as you say "cold wallet" I don't know exactly what they are referring to.


Well, that would be if justice always acted with common sense, but that is not always the case. Sometimes the most surprising sentences are issued with long legal paragraphs to argue the sense of the ruling.


I completely agree on this, and I think the most likely scenario is that he would have sold much earlier, as did most who had Bitcoin in those years.

Yes, it can be done. But the plan I am talking about is to accumulate a net worth of between $1M and $5M starting from 0 or very little. This would be for the USA but if you live in a not so rich country, maybe with a net worth of $0.5M or less you have already reached a considerable level of financial peace of mind.

For higher net worths, there is usually a need to create companies, leverage, influence management, things like that, which are not within everyone's reach. But getting rich, with time, working, saving and investing is within the reach of many people today.


Thank you for confirming with your experience what many of us know:

I think your post is not going to be very popular, because in theory the money that many of us earn with signature campaigns should be an extra that people who enjoy exchanging opinions in forums like this one get, and not the main objective.

Although the reality is that we know that there are many people who come to the forum basically attracted by the money and there are many who have been here for years like this.

Think that even if you make a good contribution to the forum it can take you a year to start making money here (if you are very good it will be less time), so I would take it as a long term thing where you worry about learning about bitcoin and cryptocurrencies and other areas, such as economics, and entertain yourself exchanging opinions.

I couldn't disagree more with this. From experience I can talk about building wealth, and I will not give you concrete data about quantities because you will have no way to check if I am telling the truth but according to my experience building wealth is a simple process, following a boring plan as follows:

1) Control income and expenses.
2) Spend less than you earn.
3) If you have consumer debt, get rid of it as fast as you can. And never get into consumer debt again.
4) Increase your income and get different sources of income.
5) Invest, invest, invest.

This is in line with the two most comprehensive studies on millionaires that have been done to date: The Millionaire Next Door and Everyday Millionaires.

You sound a lot like cryptoboss alt account or similar accounts to me. I guess I'll end up putting you on ignore but since I haven't yet, I'll reply.

Of course, it's not about one time luck, that happens if you win the lottery, and we don't call that "building" wealth.


No one builds significant wealth from trading with an initial capital of $50 without making additions. 

The rest of what you say are half-truths mixed with bullshit, but I'm going to stick with the positive: building wealth is a process where you have to know what you are doing, create a plan and follow it, which involves investing over long periods of time.

After seeming like a good idea to me at first, I think as nutildah says in another thread:


I suppose that as often happens with certain ideas, in an ideal world it would be perfect, but implemented in this real world it would add more complications and problems.

Glad to see that after time I am no longer, fairly, on this list, and kudos to Royse777 for doing the right thing.

I see that, in spite of me being off the list, there are a total of three more this week than last week and I guess this usually happens with DT1 changes that automatically make other members to be or not to be in DT2. That affects those cases of negative feedback appearing on this list that only have one. For example, teeGUMES appears this week but not for a new feedback, but for ones from long ago left by frankbitcoin.

By the way, the negative feedback did not appear and in order to see it I deleted my trust list, cutting and pasting it into a document, and then put it back. I don't know if I will appear this week as one of those who have deleted it. I don't know if you have any tricks to see it without doing this.

I like the idea too, agreeing with many people who commented at the time on this thread. What I see is that theymos did not deign to say anything, as is usual with him, but as far as I can see he is not one to say much on these issues and, if anything, after a long time and a lot of insistence, he implements the change.


I don't see the problem. As of today we don't have a problem, or at least a serious problem of people colluding with the trust system. And even less of colluding with the votes of the flags, which would be the closest thing.

Well, it doesn't really change my argument. What I was saying is that someone who pays you in cash or with a debit or credit card is not going to pay extra, but if they pay you in Bitcoin or USDT they are going to have to pay fees to send you the transaction. So, I think for this reason it will not become a very popular means of payment, although in some cases, someone who has a lot of Bitcoin or USDT may prefer to pay you with them.

About guiding you, well, the only thing I recommend is to keep your Bitcoin and USDT in a Hardware Wallet, but other than that I can't think of much.

Lol. I'm a lot more skeptical than you are about this. No matter how many scandals like FTX happen, most retail buyers of Bitcoin will continue to do it in centralized entities and many of them leaving them there, as they leave deposits in their bank.


We can see that there is a certain relationship, but I don't think it is the only one or that it is absolutely determinant in driving a bull or bear market.

Could you give more details? I imagine he sent you the transaction through the blockchain. Or did he use LN?

The bad thing is that it is more expensive for the customer to send you a transaction in bitcoin through the blockchain than to pay you in cash or cards. Even if it is little, and lately the fees have gone up.