Two types of people:

Those who think like you who think about buying at a certain price trying to guess whether it will go up or down to determine when to sell and will end up getting burned.

Also, those who will buy for the very long term, with money they won't need to spend for years, who know Bitcoin very well and know about the economy and society, believing that it will play a fundamental role in them, more than it does today.

Guess which of the two groups is better to be in.

I hadn't paid much attention to this thread but after reading it, I see that this from the OP is patently false:


I also see common things that we have seen in other cases, such as trying to give pity or appealing to a "brother."

All in all, and this is one thing I have no proof of but a clear suspicion, in the year and a bit that this thread has been going on, I wouldn't be surprised if the OP had a few more alts on the forum, skirting the rules.

The bottom line is that I don't support a lift to the ban, although I guess my support or not doesn't matter anymore. The OP has dug himself into a hole he's not going to be able to get out of.

For me the summary of what I think is to come in the second half of the year is sustained growth, with some ups and downs and maybe touching $50K or a little less. The worst of the bear market is over and we are in a pre-halving year, where there is usually a little upside.


That is my approximate expectation as well.

Am I the only person to whom John Abraham, i.e. naim027 has sent a PM regarding feedback?

Don't worry about that person. If he is someone who has a lot of money, he will have no problem bringing it to the surface. The problem would be for you if you suddenly recovered a few dozen bitcoins that you had on an old laptop from when they were worth pennies.

We have discussed this many times in the Legal section of the forum and the conclusion is that the best thing to do would be to hire a professional specialized in these matters to advise you, as what you can do will depend on the legislation where you live.

Well, actually as with gambling in general, it's all about EV. As far as I know, lotteries return in prizes between 50% and 70% of the proceeds, so the EV ranges between -30% and minus 50% and if we think that most people what they do when they win a small prize is to buy lottery tickets again, we can see the interest compounding but in a negative sense.

There are also some particularities, such as when there is a jackpot, where it can be EV+ but if they are of the Euromillions type in which the jackpot is concentrated in the first prize, we must think that we do not have many lives for the EV to materialize.

The bottom line is that the lottery is not worth playing from a mathematical point of view, only from an emotional point of view.

That's not exactly what I meant. I would rather say "spend too much money on eating the wrong food" and you will become obese. The cash crisis in poor people has several factors, but I don't think food is the main one.

If you want to close the thread, just click on "lock topic" at the bottom left. Here in my case I am going to respond because someone I have on ignore (2 in this thread) has said something about me that is false, and that I have read despite having him on ignore because you quote him.


I haven't given him any red tag. Condoras did.

As soon as I saw the main points I thought that the article on which you base your post is garbage, and, indeed, I see that it is written by a company (charity) whose business is based on defending the fact that there are many poor people. In those points they always make the same trap and it is a change in the definition of the poor, that 100 years ago they were starving and many millions died of hunger and cold, while today they are fat. With that alone you can see how biased the article is.

You only have to look at countries like China or Mexico and see the obesity problem they have. There are other countries where there is not and there is a problem similar to the previous definition but that is not what the biased article talks about, which has not lacked the diatribe against the rich.

Yes, it is. Better let Bitcoin popularize on its own without ambassadors. The first one I remember hearing was McAfee, I looked it up in case my memory was deceiving me and look:


There are many others better than him, such as Andreas, and others who are at least halfway there, such as Saylor, but let's not give them any more importance than these ambassadors already have.

If my memory does not deceive me, when debating on the subject you told me that the neutral tag can be used for anything, or practically anything. Does that ring a bell?

This is a topic I have talked about other times in the forum tangentially but I don't think in a thread dedicated exclusively to it. What is happening has already been summarized, the use of cash was gradually decreasing until during the Covid there was a push by the rulers saying that paying contactless was safer.

However, with the exception of specific countries, I believe that the elimination of cash will take time, although they will try to accelerate it. I believe that in most industrialized countries it may be at least a decade away.

As to whether Bitcoin is a good alternative, I don't think so, for reasons that have been explained a thousand times, mainly that it is a scarce commodity that is better to keep and not use to buy bread. But there will always be alternatives. Illegal businesses will continue to operate. Even corrupt politicians will continue to exist and if cash disappears they will use certain shitcoins or precious metals or who knows what, but there will be alternatives.

The bad thing is that everyone's daily life will be more controlled by companies and governments since many people of good taste do not use cash anymore, not caring that the data of everything they spend is in the hands of private companies. And essentially at the disposal of the authorities.

Don't you guys get tired? The umpteenth case of a newbie trying to get a loan in this section without offering collateral. To top it off you registered 3 years ago and haven't written a single post until this one. For this you have earned your first red tag.

I think it's going to be easier for someone to show up and donate you the $100 than for someone to offer to lend it to you.

This is the "not your keys not your coins" umpteenth case.

Michael Saylor is another one they often use. Like many scams, they try to expose a large number of people to the scam and if only a few people fall for it, it is profitable for them. They are usually quite successful, moreover. I remember the first time I saw one, I had Youtube on in the background while I was doing other things and I saw Saylor talking while a message appeared below saying that if you send x Bitcoin to such and such address, as a giveaway they would give you back double. To disguise it they put that you could only send a certain maximum amount, when if you think about it it's BS because if it was real, you could send from other addresses to skip the amount.

We will not fall but the bad thing is that there is always someone who ends up falling, so they do not stop making these ads.

Any special reason why you have posted the thread here and not in the Legal section? Here it is supposed to get more exposure but being a bit technical I think it will soon be buried below many other threads that are easier to answer.

Going to the topic: as I understand it, the issue is that there is an arbitration system enabled to resolve disputes between customers and Coinbase and what the Supreme Court ruled is that the judicial actions have to wait for the arbitration verdict. If the customers act as plaintiffs and do not like the outcome of the arbitration they can file a lawsuit but later.

Arbitration is cheaper for companies than going to court, and as it is a preliminary step, I understand that if a certain percentage of customers see that they lose, they will think long and hard before going to court and possibly losing more money.

At first glance, it does not seem so important, except for what you read at the end of the first article:

It seems that not entirely, because there has been another forum member who wanted to take merit for the success. I have linked to this thread before without thinking that nutildah could have discovered the cheater before. I don't know what his motives may have been but I'll keep an eye on him.

This may seem like a legal gimmick but on this point I agree with the company. I don't know exactly what the legislation will be like in the USA either, but it seems to me that the most appropriate thing for the Sheriff to do would be to put the money in court along with a report of what happened, and then let the judge decide whether to return the funds directly to the woman or have to gather more evidence before deciding to do so.

Those examples you give are too exaggerated to the point of being unrealistic. For me, the amount of regulations should be reduced to the minimum possible, as well as taxes, but for example for the nuclear or the petrochemical industry, of course there must be regulations. Besides, today we are not exactly lacking in regulations. There are thousands and thousands of pages regulating ad nauseam for even if you want to open a fucking souvenir store. Besides, if the creator of the submarine violated the regulations, he committed a crime to begin with.

On the one hand, if the OP is correct, you will receive the cheater's weekly payment, as the rules say in the OP of the signature campaign.

On the other hand, to be on the safe side, you better pass them through at least three detectors, as you can see in the following thread:

AI Spam Report Reference Thread

I am for the integration of AI in the forum, just as it is already happening in real life, but not just copy-paste. Also, I can see that he has one negative tag and another neutral but of negative spirit, so I think the future on this forum looks bleak for him, unless he changes his behavior right now.