No, I am not surprised, as it is within normal post-halving predictions. I think we will get to that figure and pass it simply by experience of tracking markets in general and that of Bitcoin, without doing such detailed analysis as Standard Chartered. I guess that news is more appealing for those who don't know much about this world, as $100K is a round figure that draws attention, than it does from those of us who know it.

The question you pose is quite a joke to be honest. If that has happened to you it is purely by statistical chance.

When I read the title of the thread I thought about the casinos' profits, they surely make more money when they have more customers, for example at Christmas time.

But gamblers? playing EV-games you lose in the long term, and if it coincides with a month in which you usually win, it is by pure chance. Neither EV+ game players have repeated moments of the year when they win more, there is a variability within the trend of positive results (just as there is within the negative results for EV- players) that is randomly distributed throughout the year, and if it is repeated in a month or a certain period it is by pure statistical variability, or luck, if you prefer.

You are absolutely right. Let's illustrate it in images.



To dethrone the dollar, those who are trying to dethrone it would have to have a currency that is less bad than the dollar, and it does not appear that the Indian rupee or any of the currencies of the countries that are trying to dethrone it are.

I take this as a very qualified opinion on the subject.

Great job nutildah and FatFork. In the end, the conclusion I draw from this is that where there is smoke there is fire.

As much as I have been labeled as aggressive when tagging, if you see that there is an account that has broken the rules in some way, and evidence starts coming out that he has alts, and that one of them was banned, etc. in the end it is because that account is untrustworthy.

Being "aggressive" myself, I changed the tag on Lordhermes from negative to neutral because he gave a reasonable and plausible explanation, which has been dismantled thanks to your analysis.

And the bad thing is that we don't find out even half the things that happen here, first because some rule breakers will be careful enough to do it without leaving traces to get caught. And another because of the general lenient approach that we have to treat these cases as if it were a murder case and not red tag someone unless there is evidence beyond all reasonable doubt. Add to all this not tagging people for having bought the account, or asking for a loan without collateral being a newbie, things like that.

This seems like groundhog day, because of the number of threads or comments I see every day in the forum.

I do not believe that it is a global payment method for all payments first because there is the problem of scalability, second because Bitcoin is valuable and it does not make sense to spend Bitcoin and keep alternative payment methods, such as fiat currencies or shitcoins and third because the trend that leads the history of Bitcoin tells us that it is not so. It was created as a P2P payment method but it is succeeding more as a store of value than as a means of exchange and I have no reason to think that this will change in the future, on the contrary, what I think is that as the price continues to rise and there is more and more scarcity of Bitcoin will consolidate even more as a store of value.

Given the history of the USA, and the power of certain lobbies there, I would not be surprised if this was the real reason, and the rest were ad hoc justifications.


I don't quite understand what you mean by this. From the part of Grayscale and GBTC I see that the structure is the same as a mutual fund, where one part is the manager, which would be Grayscale and another the depositary, in this case Coinbase Custody Trust Company. I guess you want to reaffirm with this that there is little risk.

Lol.

I can see that as there are several WO regulars in this thread, it is becoming a WO-style one and not a typical Meta thread, because of the overquotes for example.

I am the only one who misses JJG writing a couple of short paragraphs as is usual for him on the topic here? He hasn't even written in the other one, of which this one is a parody, I understand.

I can assure you that in my case this was the case. I had a considerable increase in my incomes in the fall of 2021. At that time the inflation due to the massive printing of COVID-19 was already noticeable, even if some politicians later wanted to blame it only on the war in Ukraine, but the fact is that I saw prices rising, people complaining, the news talking about inflation, and I hardly noticed it. I could pay for the price increase by spending more, saving more and investing more.

Normally financial discipline starts with a control of expenses and income to pay consumer debts, if you have them, and to save. The next step that makes your finances succeed is to increase your incomes and if possible obtain several sources of income.

In the end, it all comes down to having a long-term vision. Those who bought in 2013 if they have held at least part of their investment until today have benefited enormously, and those who bought in this cycle at $69K and sold when the downturn came will be pulling their hair out in the next bull market. Today there are a lot of Bitcoin haters who bought at the peak of some previous cycle, sold in panic shortly thereafter, and deep down want Bitcoin to go to 0 so as not to acknowledge their mistake. It would be better for him to recognize his mistake and buy back Bitcoin for the very long term.

When the price of Bitcoin reaches $1 million, they will continue to say that Bitcoin is dead. In the meantime, the best we can do is laugh at that FUD, especially in dips and bear makets and take advantage of those moments to keep accumulating, to buy cheap.

There is one thing that is clear and that is that whoever did not get carried away by that FUD, today is better off economically than if he did not have Bitcoin, and will continue to be so in the future.

Interesting. In the case of Blackened515 and Lordhermes, when the Martyns case came out they were linked as possible alt accounts, and I remember that I ended up changing the feedback from negative to neutral in their cases, as for example Lordhermes gave a plausible explanation.

I have tagged most accounts as well, but in the case of Lordhermes it is not so clear to me, as it is not the same to deposit in the same wallet as it is to send funds from one address to another. Why do you think this proves they are alts?


I imagine you are thinking of a high profile bounty manager who lives in the same country as those who manage these accounts, but you have to think that he has been running an exchange service for a long time, although I see the thread locked now. So, receiving transfers from members of his local board is normal I think. I would be very surprised if he was in any trouble.

Seeing in another thread that hashrateproducts is probably an alt account of two other accounts, I took a look at the post history and there is something that is interestingly striking. The account was created on April 26, 2013, by someone located in Vancouver, BC.

Almost 100% of the posts in that first stage were written in Computer Hardware and the few that were not written there were written in CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware. The guy ran a website https://www.hashratestore.com/ which is still up and running but looks like it has been sold and today has little to do with hardware sales.

In the post history there is a gap between 2014 and 2017, where in 2017 hashrateproducts returns to the forum to write a single post in the Computer Hardware section, then there is another gap until 2022 and here comes the interesting part. From here on almost all posts are written in the Gambling section, mostly in soccer related threads.

It is clear to me that whoever is managing that account today is not the one who created it.

There is another interesting thing about it, and that is that whoever is behind hashrateproducts is not the original owner of the account, which I think deserves a thread.

I think it's best not to be too harsh on him now that he's shown up here and says he's committed to repaying what he owes.

Yes you are right that what he has done is not logical, but sometimes we humans get carried away by emotions knowing that what we are doing is not right, like the problem gambler who knows what he is doing is wrong but continues to gamble and lose.

I supported the flag btw, that doesn't change.

If anyone has a problem with their personal finances I would recommend that they follow Dave Ramsey's method. It is a simple 7 baby steps method, easy to follow and has helped a lot of people first get rid of debt and then become millionaires.

The point is that in personal finance it's not just about knowing what to do, you have to control your behavior. Someone who has a debt problem probably knows that they need to spend less and maybe try to earn more. It's another thing if he does it.

But Ramsey's method is very good, I have followed it and I can say that it has helped me a lot, being today in a good financial position that gives me a lot of peace of mind. It is not for nothing that his first book written in 1992 was entitled Financial Peace.

Well, I hope Bitcointalk doesn't disappoint me and give the OP a few merits for saying he wants to accumulate a Bitcoin.


Let's assume you can save $30 a week, which is going to take a long time to accumulate 1 Bitcoin. If it was $30 a month it would be even worse. Using https://dcabtc.com/ we see that if you get to start about 6 and a half years ago or so today you would have 1 Bitcoin. But the price in the future will go up and it will cost much more to accumulate, so it will take you at the very least twice as long to accumulate 1 Bitcoin. Think that 6 years ago the price was 10 times lower.

The good thing is not to get obsessed with round figures. If you start now and instead of accumulating a whole Bitcoin, let's say that in 5 years you have accumulated 0.1 Bitcoin instead of a whole 1 Bitcoin, the purchasing power of that amount will be considerable.

Although the OP is written in an ironic tone, I have to say that, to my mind, there is a lot of merit in the time JJG spends reading through the forum and distributing his merits, many times outside the WO thread as has been commented, and most of them one at a time. Although from time to time he gives two for one post.

There have been quite a few times that when I have logged in the forum I have seen that I have been given a merit, I have gone to see who and it turns out that it was JJG for a post I wrote months ago on page 3 of a thread. When I go to the thread I see that he has distributed other merits along the thread, so I can see that he has read the thread from cover to cover distributing merits to the posts that he considers worthy.

And the thread is maybe 8 pages long, being 3 months old. I think that level of dedication to distribute merits is unrivaled.

Yeah, OK. I think I'm a bit thick this morning as this is the second mistake I've made. Sorry about that.

OK, it was a message in CYBER_COWBOY's lending thread. It doesn't change the point anyway, and it's that he screwed up by posting that from the wrong account. And I think the explanations he tries to give here are even more ridiculous. As stompix says, I wouldn't be surprised if a few DTs now go through both accounts and find even more negative stuff.

Interesting for stats nerds but as mentioned, few conclusions can be drawn from it, as we don't know who they belong to, whether they are institutional or individual investors and how many of those addresses belong to the same wallet.


This is another good point. But there are also addresses with good amounts of Bitcoin whose keys have been lost, especially from the early years.


Yes, I believe that if individuals have large amounts they are more careful with their privacy and they split their holdings in multiple addresses.