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.

I was not familiar with the story and around that time I started to learn about Bitcoin. I guess it was reported as something funny at the time but little repercussion. In fact, in all the time I've been in the forum, it is the first time I see talk about it, so it does not go beyond anecdote. This kind of things usually happen in this type of events for various reasons. If it is not inside when they are giving the conference, it is when the television interviews someone important.

To be honest, yahoo62278, that is a rhetorical question. With the same question you have already given the answer. Before reading the OP, just with the title, I already knew the answer was going to be "no, we should not hand out neutral/neg tags like candy".

Since apart from expressing your opinion in that rhetorical question you also seem to want to know what others think I will tell you my opinion, which I am sure is not the most popular, but it is mine.

For me the trust system should be a warning system, not just a system to verify that someone has scammed when there is irrefutable proof of it and he will not come back to the forum.

In another thread I was talking about the difference between civil and criminal cases in jurisprudence. Criminal cases require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, while civil cases simply require it to be the most likely hypothesis (at 51%) to convict someone.

The cases we deal with here are not remotely similar to criminal cases. A couple of red tags do not sentence someone to life imprisonment or the electric chair. To me they are more like civil cases, although when I write a tag I assign it a probability (subjective, according to my analysis) of at least 90%.

I do not know, call me crazy if you want but I have not plagiarized, I have not cheated, I have not been banned, and consequently I have not created alts to avoid the ban or things like that, and when I start to see evidence of someone who probably has done several of those things, what I think has to be done at least is to leave a neutral tag, but preferably a negative as a warning.

This is what I think, or at least what I have thought so far. I have given myself some time away from reputation issues, so I will control my so-called "aggressivity" and will give it a thought in the meantime.

I'm not clear to me if the discussion about block size is not a bit off topic here, but in any case I think it would not be convenient to lengthen it too much in this thread and maybe create one dedicated to it (although I'm sure it would not be the first by far in the forum, I imagine that in 2017 this was debated quite a lot).

Back to the main topic: does anyone know why there are still a lot of unconfirmed transactions and yet fees have dropped considerably? Have those spaming images in the mempool  decided to send their transactions with low fees? Or is it that they have stopped spamming and we are slowly getting back to normal?

I usually say that it is better to be wrong about your mistakes than right about those of others, although I don't mean that literally. Hypothetically it would be preferable not to do any research at all and earn as much money as possible following what this Youtuber or the media says.

In the real world, however, doing research usually leads to some failure but implies a desire to improve oneself, improve knowledge, which ends up giving positive economic results, so I agree with the picture painted by the OP.

Specify this, because it is not clear what you are saying. Being a newbie, if you don't offer something that is worth at least the value of the loan you are asking for, nobody is going to give it to you. And it must be convertible to liquid.


Your investment can't wait a week? Don't have a friend or family member who can lend you $250?

Well, although it is easier to happen with shitcoins, it can also happen with Bitcoin for those who have the wrong mindset. Of gambler, as we are talking about.

He is the typical one who will tell you that Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme, but next cycle, when the price goes over $100K he will be attracted. He'll see Youtubers say we'll hit $1M in another cycle or two, and when the price goes parabolic, approaching $200K, then he'll buy. And when the price goes down, instead of holding until the next cycle, he will sell at a loss out of panic because he will believe the price is going to 0.

Many of today's Bitcoin haters followed that pattern in the past. And instead of recognizing their mistake and buying Bitcoin now, they secretly wish the price would go to 0 to be right.

I'm thinking along similar lines myself, and judging by the responses in the thread, I'm not the only one. That's assuming we have a repeat of the pattern of previous cycles, which we can't be 100% sure will happen, but at least it's the most likely. There is usually a price increase in the year before the halving, as an exit from the bear market, but without reaching the ATH. I think that is where we are heading.

I will take into account only poker, which is what I play the most. For successful poker players, there is a fine line that separates what is work from an addiction. If we take among the cast of the best players today, such as Daniel Negreanu or Phil Ivey, we see that from very early on they played many hours, more than psychologically recommended, and precisely that was one of the key factors that led them to where they are today. This was especially true in the early years of their careers. Today they also have poker as a full time job, its success and its complementation with other sources of income make them able to lift their foot off the accelerator. They are a kind of poker workalcoholics that has led them to success.

This is not always the case, however. There are also many people who spend many hours playing poker and losing in the long run, like those who play slots.

The essential difference here is whether or not all those hours bring you an economic benefit. In the case of Negreanu or Ivey we can say that they are workaholics who have achieved success. In the case of people who spend a lot of time playing poker and losing money, we can speak of addiction, in some cases disastrous.

I wouldn't be surprised if that term was used for the first time by a non-native English speaker.

I have seen that there is also another proposal in this regard btw:

None. They are two words that mean the same thing.


Good point. I had always used "halving" and didn't know it was the more formal version, although the meaning is the same.

This phrase was popularised after the stock market crash of 1987 by the CEO of Volvo, highlighting the importance of having liquidity.

The cash itself is garbage because of what has already been discussed, the devaluation due to inflation. But especially in times of crisis, what people need is liquidity. Either to meet payments, to avoid bankruptcy, or to buy cheap assets.

In the end, both for a company and for an individual, the smartest thing to do is to have a combination of financial assets, plus a cash reserve. Of the financial assets, ideally some that produce cash income, such as rental houses or companies that pay dividends.

Many people find themselves in crises such as the last real estate crisis, having assets that on paper were worth X a short time ago, but that today no one wants to buy if not at half the price and what they don't have is money, when it is needed more than ever. That is why, even if it is essentially garbage, it is necessary to manage a certain amount of cash or to be able to get it quickly in a healthy economy.

Not bad. I obviously knew the meaning of all of them, although some of them I don't understand exactly like that, for example.


As the name suggests, a donkey is someone who plays like an ass, and who can often get on the nerves of those of us regulars who have some emotional control. An example could be someone who you are already seeing that he has no idea, you raise to 6BB with a premium, he pays with garbage, you pot bet on the flop, he pays you with nothing (let's say he has 8Qo and the flop is A92r), you bet on the turn and he raises because he gets a gutshot (let's say he gets a J), and when on the river he completes the straight he checks behind.

One or two hands like that are funny, but seeing him play like a retard while you keep getting fleeced by him for a while sometimes gets on your nerves.

Are you serious? In a Bitcoin forum what do you expect us to answer? The people I know who buy expensive watches is because they already have enough wealth accumulated in other ways, so I would expect the same from someone in this forum. I mean, someone who has a couple dozen bitcoins accumulated and buys a couple of watches to diversify, but if you are in Bitcoin accumulation phase I don't see the point of wanting to buy expensive watches.

For me not really although I agree with what you say. For me, learning will stop at death, not only about cryptocurrencies, I mean, but in general. Another thing is the intensity. Many topics, such as those related to Bitcoin can be difficult to understand at first but if you are willing to learn, with time and habit you always end up knowing more. Although age is a handicap in certain aspects. For example, if you start learning a language, playing an instrument or programming when you are over 50 you will have a hard time reaching a proficient level, but you can always learn. 

I have a question about this rule that I don't know if it has been asked and answered already in any of the 48 pages of the thread.

What does "unsolicited" really mean here? I mean, if I send a PM to someone on my own initiative it is always going to be unsolicited. I imagine it's a way of saying that any PM can be reported and the moderators will exercise their judgement on the provenance of that message, or not. Is that so?

I think the key is in this, and it is similar to what I was saying before about poker.

This is more of a psychological reading of the subject than an actual observation of a pattern. This reminds me of people who complain that every time they move up a level in poker they get bad cards and if they change sites for example, or modality, they get a good streak, when the reality is that streaks do not exist from a mathematical point of view.


I understand that your comment is a bit ironic, but how big is the sample on which you base your superpower. 10 transactions sent? 100? 1000?


And what does that have to do with his "ability" to delay the founding of a new block?