I avoid debt like the plagueand therefore, it seems to me even worse idea to borrow to play EV-games. Debt implies risk and borrowing to play casino games implies a very high risk, whoever does so plays with fire.

In poker there are also those who get into debt calculatedly, for example people who are good and are banked to play higher levels or at tables where there are fish with a lot of money but they do not have enough bankroll to withstand a bad streak of the level. Then they make a pact with someone who does have money and bankrolls them, taking a percentage of the profits.

It's not bad, but I generally prefer to avoid any kind of debt.

It's not like that, there was an agreement of only 44 countries, so not the "WHOLE" world as you say, and the agreement was not about the dollar alone, it was about a USD convertible to gold, which Nixon ended in 1971, fact that is at the basis of the modern economy, the fiat and its massive printing and one of the main reasons if not the main one why Bitcoin was created.

The beauty would be in that everyone would pay at those stations every time they top up, but as has already been said the headline is kind of clickbait, and just because the payment option is available doesn't mean that people will usually pay with it, although that's something.

No matter how much facilities are implemented to pay with Bitcoin, I don't see that the use is going to be massive. What are people going to do? Spend the Bitcoin and save in fiat?

I agree with the general line of the comments. This is not so much for being a crypto millionaire, nor so much perhaps for the lifestyle he showed in social media, because today there are many influencers of that style and they do not end up dismembered, but for getting into messes he should not have. Getting into debt with someone you shouldn't and failing to repay the debt is the most likely cause of that.

I expect something similar. For the remainder of the year a rise from these levels but I think at most it will be to $45K. Next year is the halving and even if the bull run starts, the peak is likely to be in 2025, which I expect to be above $100K but not reaching $200K. All in all, along the way I expect major resistance. At $50K, to approach the previous ATH of $69K, and above all at $100K a huge resistance that will be hard to beat several times.

Here I have a point to make. For some poker players, I don't remember the exact statistic but they are around 10%, poker gives them money not takes it away. So you shouldn't lump them in with the rest of the casino games, which are inevitable money losers in the long run. With the general message of trying to control losses and accounts I agree but there are disciplines, like sports betting as well, where people make money, not lose it.

I'm afraid that's going to be a worldwide trend. The European Union has legislation in the pipeline in this regard, and while there will always be ways to circumvent it and trade P2P, this is going to make Bitcoin use far from Satoshi's idea.

This thread is a simple scam that anyone who knows anything about numbers or investing can see. Going from $1K to $100K in a short amount of time, which you don't specify but I understand will be a month or two at most, is not impossible to do, just like it is not impossible to hit the lottery. Now if you try to sell that you have a system to get that 10,000% return you are a fucking scammer.

This coupled with the buddy or alt from the same OP saying he has managed to go from $2K to $20K, which is a classic hook to lure the gullible.

Well, that is, unless they hit the lottery. I'm sure next cycle there will be altcoins that will make X100, while Bitcoin won't even remotely give that return. The question is to get which one right, knowing also that there will be many more than 100 altcoins that will go to 0 or lose more than 99% of value.

Today I think it is more worthwhile to invest in Bitcoin for its intrinsic properties, which is something the OP points out, than for the security of a moderate return, not because it will give spectacular returns in the next cycles, no matter what some influencers want to sell us.

You get yourselves into a mess...

No one should know that you have Bitcoin and if someone does (like your wife or your son, not normally a neighbor) they should be discreet enough not to go around telling drug dealers.

But as we say in poker, as played, once the mistake is made, what I would do is minimize the Bitcoin I have, even after a while say that I have sold it and no longer have it, and give the drug dealer the minimum information if it is going to be a problem not to give it to him so that he is the one who learns. He doesn't need you to learn a lot having internet.

I think this is the most interesting thing I've read in this thread, which is generally low level, and I completely agree with what you say. In any case, let's hope that the ruling makes the SEC think things over and they move to act in a less arbitrary way in this regard, although with the appeal announcement it doesn't seem so.

I am more of a libertarian ideology, that is, I believe that it is better for societies to keep subsidies to a minimum, because the problem is that they discourage effort. There are extreme cases in which I agree that they should be given, what happens is that politicians immediately take a liking to distribute subsidies, which in many cases is a covert way of buying votes and abusing them you get to extreme cases of societies like Argentina that are a disaster because they have a very high level of subsidies but the population suffers hardships.

I don't know if you've ever stopped to think that SEC, stands for Securities and Exchange Commission, which most of you who have commented on this thread seem to be unaware of or don't want to know. It is the public body in charge of securities in the USA, so whatever it has to say I guess we will have to take it into some consideration.


Not exactly breaking the law, but in law there are many areas that are not black and white, and many areas with legal loopholes. And it is not uncommon that in appeals the appellant is granted (it can be 15/20% of the cases, depending on the field).

Well, I think it only gets really dense towards the end of the fourth article. When someone writes divulgatively he always finds himself with the dilemma that if what he writes is very understandable for the lay public he is probably oversimplifying, and if the explanation is more technical the text will not be so accessible to the non-specialist public. In general I think the author maintains a good balance in the articles.

At the time I read the third and fourth articles, although since I commented on the first two, I had not said anything about them in this thread. Now I have taken the time to reread them and want to comment on them.

The third article in the series is about private money and its love/hate history with public money. Nowadays people take it for granted that the money they use is issued by a Central Bank and approved by their government, as if it had to be so, while if we look at history (in the article focused on the USA but similar in other parts of the world) we see that it was not always so, with its consequent tensions between who wants to have the monopoly, and who resists.

As is often the case, the tension was resolved by prohibiting the private issuance of money in the interest of security. Here, as in many other cases, we are faced with the eternal debate between freedom and security, with governments, especially those of leftist nature, placing more emphasis on restricting freedom in pursuit of the supposed improvement in security.

Satoshi must have been well aware of this when he created a P2P electronic cash to compete with national currencies, which is why he remained anonymous.

The fourth article analyzes the political side of Bitcoin, which according to the author is not the same as ideological, and on this point I do not entirely agree. For the author, although traditionally the defense of private money had been made from individualist ideology, Bitcoin is used by people of various ideologies, including radical leftists, and therefore makes the distinction.

I don't want to get too long on this, but that's like saying that buying houses to rent them out is Marxist because there are radical leftists who do it (I know a person like that). No, there are pragmatic issues that lead people of a certain ideology to act in a way that at first sight does not seem to agree with their principles. For me, Bitcoin, at least the private P2P use escaping state control is closely linked to libertarian ideology, that puts people and their interactions at the core of problem solving and good functioning of societies, rather than the state or similar structures.

Anyway, the article emphasizes that it is a tool that put in our hands can change the destiny of humanity as the printing press did. The end of the article gets a little dense, especially for those who have no previous knowledge of economic or monetary policy, but after analyzing the failure of some private money issuance with a wrong ideological basis, in my case the end leaves me waiting for the delivery of the next chapter.

I know you said you don't want to do it, but you better name names and let's see if they are really people who delete their own posts for certain reasons or if they are surely deleted by the moderators. The question so in abstract does not give for much, but the idea that you carry I think we are goin to tell you that it is wrong, as those of us who commented already did.

It is the people who end up losing all their money, entering when the shitcoin on duty does not stop breaking highs and selling out of panic at the slightest. They do it the other way around, buy high and sell cheap.

In the end, the best way to improve your financial situation is boring, but that's not what these people are looking for. Do DCA of good assets, in this case of cryptocurrencies the best would be Bitcoin, and don't even watch the news much.

Yes, send the link, so we can confirm what bullshit you are talking about. The way you talk you sound like someone who has a lot of ideas about how to launder money with Bitcoin but has no experience with it. It's the last straw when you mix traders with laundering and don't name the main ways to do it.

Those who advocate the opposite have a conception of wealth as something static, like a pie, so that if billionaires have more of the pie, there is less for the rest. They fail to understand that wealth is something dynamic and that the most prosperous societies are those where there are many rich, not those where the anti-rich discourse triumphs, and which end up with a worse inequality between rich and poor, but in this case between the ruling political class and their cronies, which is very rich, and the rest of the population, which suffers hunger and hardship.

I'm surprised the OP hasn't been tagged yet for asking for a non-collateral loan. Although that's not the only thing that looks fishy on his part in this thread.  I am in a cooling off tagging period, but he looks like a candidate to have justified tags in his profile.

Other than that:


If that was on the forum, OP should say who, although it seems that he has not logged in for a few days.