For starters, what you would have to do is to study Bitcoin a bit and realize what makes it essentially different from the rest of the cryptocurrencies, which in the forum we usually call shitcoins. There are some less bad than others but they are shitcoins after all. Then you will realize that apart from some being pure scams, which are created as pump and dump schemes, the others are not worth it especially compared to Bitcoin.

A general rule to detect if an economic offer is a scam is that it has a too attractive profitability. In traditional assets, anyone who guarantees you more than a 10% annual return is probably trying to scam you, let alone if he offers you 50% per month and the like, as it is sometimes seen.

In the crypto world the returns are higher but there is no guarantee of anything and it is subject to extreme volatility.

It is actually half. It is 1 in 20,000. Apparently it should be 1 in 10,000 but the system is set up so that 00000 and 10000 are half as likely to appear as the rest.

I saw this explained quite some time ago in some thread and I am saying this from memory but I am pretty sure this is the case.

Apart from this, you have to count the variance. Even if you have a 1 in 20,000 chance of getting the 10000, if you have negative variance, you can play 100,000 rolls or more without getting it.

Well, I'm not surprised at the number of people in the thread saying it's good news, given the trend of this forum. Good thing there are those with knowledge:


This type of policy penalizes those who do well and rewards those who do poorly. Those who paid their student loans are now aggravated because Biden is going to pay for part of the party for the cicadas. In other words, two twin brothers studied the same degree and got into the same amount of debt. At the age of 60, one has long since paid off his student loans and has built up a good net worth, while the other has not only not paid off his student loans, but has many other loans because of his spending habits, among them regular parties with hookers and cocaine. But for the latter the state is coming to save him, lol.

Besides, without so much government intervention with student loans, college prices would not be so high and students would not need so many loans.
 
It is a typical example of politicians offering a bad solution to a problem that they have created and that only makes it worse.


Really? I would never have imagined it. 

Let's hope so. We are at 6-month highs, and seeing that the worst of the bear market is over and there is less and less time left for halving, what we would expect would be a sustained rise in price, although with ups and downs, until about $50K I would say, where I think there will be resistance. I think it is difficult for the price to go much higher than that mark before halving.

I don't see that graph as very different from the Bitcoin graph. Since May 1, the Bitcoin price had a slight sustained decline until about June 15 where it started to rise. Maybe the end of the chart is a little different, being the MSTR one more pronounced upwards, but if we take into account the leverage it uses to buy Bitcoin, it is to be expected.


An ETF will always be better than MSTR shares in terms of security, although in terms of potential return the shares can give you a better return because of the leverage. However, we must always bear in mind that leverage means risk and more leverage means more risk.

Of course the graphs include the UK. They are talking about geographical Europe, not the European Union. If they include Turkey (as well as Norway or Switzerland) why shouldn't they include the UK?

The problem is that people do not fully understand how to trade successfully, which generally involves a moderate return on capital. But if you invest $1K in trading, and expect to make $100K in less than a year, what you're going to do is lose the $1K in the blink of an eye. It doesn't matter if you join a Bitcoin signal group or what strategy you use.

If you are really curious, I would follow this advice:

In my opinion, that is not consistent with the ban being to the person, not the account. That's why banned people are only allowed to create an alt to appeal their ban.

What do first time offender cases have to do with this one of someone who has already been banned?

In the case of this thread we are talking about a full member account, which at a good pace can take 4 months to return to that rank with a new account, so we could understand that he has received a temporary punishment of 4 months. However, following what you say, being banned would take no punishment, especially for low-ranked accounts. So a newbie or jr member who is banned, to escape the ban they would just have to create another account. What would be the punishment they would receive?

As I commented yesterday, I miss in the forum a board, or better a sub-board, of personal stories related to Bitcoin to collect all those stories we see in the forum about how cool Bitcoin is and how it has changed my life or the life of my friends/family/dog.

At least that threads like that could be moved there by moderation. I meant it in a joking tone, and I don't think it's a pressing need for the forum, but I think it wouldn't be a bad thing if it was created.

Nice read. I have taken the opportunity to read the thread as well, from twelve years ago. In the end, the conclusion I reach with this thread is the same as the one reached by a forum member in that thread. Basically that making such scam attempts could only cross the mind of a miner with large amounts:


And the one who answered him I think he was wrong:


Apart from that:


I think that for a miner to think seriously about that nowadays it should be quite a bit more than block reward, I believe you here think in mathematics only.

If a miner can earn $170K or more by mining a block honestly, why would he try to scam someone for only $180K? That someone might later try to track him down to get revenge for the scam or be reported and wanted by the police.

With these considerations I conclude that this type of attempts, although possible, are quite improbable nowadays. In the thread cited by o_e_l_e_o perhaps the case that the OP tells is a case of this style, but the price at that time was like $1, and the block reward of 50 Bitcoins. It would be worth a dishonest miner's while to try for a few thousand dollars. Plus there were more individual miners, mining from a laptop from home, it wasn't as concentrated as it is now.

This is the reading I make, although obviously I am aware that I know much less about the subject than you do and I am open to your clarifications and corrections.

Yes, well, it's one of the many predictions we're going to see, and in this case it's somewhat conservative I would say. Passing $100K after halving is what we all expect, I would say. Failure to complete the beating of that goal in this cycle will be a disaster for return expectations and predictive models will have to be rethought. Although it could also be that the peak is reached in 2025, according to previous cycles. I find the $120K prediction for 2024 OK, but I would expect the price to go up some more, surely to $150, and who knows if even approaching $200K but probably by 2025.

OK, thanks for the info. I didn't know that.

No one has criticized you for being "aggressive" tagging newbies for asking for loans without collateral, as in the case of this thread?

Apparently not everyone agrees just like on accounts that are found to have been bought. I am in favor of red tag in these cases, both newbies trying to borrow without collateral and people buying accounts, especially if the purchase was after the introduction of the merit system.

Could it be that it happened because he was citing a post that got deleted due to necro-bumping or some other reason? It sounds to me that if you completely quote a post that is deleted, it will be deleted too. Anyway, there are many posts after the July 2 necro-bumping still in the thread. You might want to check that as well.

So, no merits for the OP?  Bitcointalk, you have changed.

In the end, these stories make me laugh. I have a mixture of tenderness and disbelief. I think a new section should be opened in the forum for personal stories, given the number of people who have stories to tell about how Bitcoin has changed their lives for the better.


In the end, it is that Well, it is that in reality, for buying and holding Bitcoin to change your life significantly, you would have to hold it for a long time without selling at the peaks, something that few people endure. If your personal situation only allows you to buy $50 in Bitcoin per month, after 5 years without selling you would have invested $3K and you would have the equivalent of $6K, which is not bad, but it does not change your life. To do so, you would have to hold out much longer or invest more, and if you can invest more, your economy is better and therefore the number to change your life must be proportionally higher as well.

Yeah, I have noticed that you have added two rather clarifying paragraphs.


In other words, in the scenario without malicious intent, it is rare that someone has actually attempted a double spend because it is extremely unlikely to happen and trying to guess when it might happen is like trying to guess the lottery numbers. Or even less likely.

*I mean the person has not tried to double spend. As said in the article:


And the malicious case, I see it as a fairly high level of conspiracy in addition to having the luck that miner to mine the blocks he needs, so that probability is almost 0 as I see it and it would only be worth trying with large amounts of bitcoins. Even more difficult and unlikely with 2 or 3 confirmations.

Well, I would like to try to understand it in a more practical way as follows: I am a miner, or whoever, and I want to try to scam someone with a transaction that is confirmed once. How could I do it? Does it make sense what I am saying?

It's just that it's clear to me how you can try to scam someone with an unconfirmed transaction, with RBF enabled, as I commented before, but not this.

The double spending thing is not new to me, I have a certain idea but one thing I read has made me think and look for information about it:


With this thread I would like to raise doubts as well as expose what I think I understand because explaining also helps to learn.

The first type of double spending I believe has little to do with what the quote raises, as it does not involve any miners. It is simply someone who sends a transaction with RBF enabled as payment for a product or service but receives such product or service before the transaction is confirmed and what they do is send that amount of Bitcoin to another address with a higher fee.

Now let's move on to the hypothetical double spending that already involves some miner, in my opinion. I have searched a bit to see if there have been any cases of double spending after a confirmation and I haven't found anything either.

I don't quite understand how this could happen. In theory a miner should somehow mine an invalid block in which there would be a transaction or transactions that we could not consider valid as such?

It is clear to me that as more blocks are mined and in turn the previous blocks are reconfirmed, the probability of invalidation of the previous blocks increases, up to 6 confirmations, which are considered safe, leaving only the hypothetical case of the 51% attack as a threat, quite unlikely with Bitcoin.

Can you help me understand what a double spend transaction that has already been confirmed once would look like?

Well, I'm going to continue with my usual skepticism with this kind of threads, in this case more, since I donate every month more than the one-time amount that the OP wants to donate and I'm not opening threads because of it. I donate in fiat, but I have also made occasional donations in Bitcoin.

This smells bad to me, or merit fishing or something.

For me, a loan for such a short period of time makes me suspicious. Anyway I have seen that he has been red tagged for supposedly asking for the loan without collateral but he claimed to offer collateral, which for me is not clear which one. I guess condoras is fed up with seeing loan requests of the same style in this section.

Well, you talk about those brands but not the typical ones that are usually talked about saying that they don't need to run ads because their products sell themselves:

This Is Why You Will Never See A Ferrari Or Lamborghini Commercial On TV

Although it could be said that these brands and others use a marketing strategy, as for example Ferrari spends many millions in Formula 1, but of course it is essentially different.

You are right that nowadays you have to apply some kind of marketing, especially if you create a product or service from scratch, so the CAC is budgeted as an expense to be taken into account.