I have a question because yesterday I sent a transaction with the minimum fee, when the mempool was almost empty, with about 1,500 pending transactions. The next block took more than half an hour to confirm and by then there were more than 5,000 transactions almost all with a higher fee than the minimum, but what was my surprise when my transaction was confirmed in the next block. In other words, mine was confirmed at the minimum rate and there were about two thousand at a higher rate that were not confirmed.

Does anyone know why this happened? As far as I know, miners give priority to transactions with higher fees, but sometimes they may be interested in confirming transactions with lower fees, for example if the miner himself has sent a lot of transactions with the minimum fee to consolidate.

But in my case I can't explain why it happened. Was it by mistake?

I am surprised by this exaggerated statement. It wouldn't be that you don't like his ideology or that for example, he would like to reinstate Trump's account and the rest is an after-the-fact rationalization?

To say that about the richest guy in the world is surprising, to say the least.

THE REAL-TIME BILLIONAIRES LIST

Although in his case he has also been greatly benefited by the massive printing policies that have made his companies trade at very high P/E ratios, as I commented in my previous post, but, come on, painting him as someone who has no idea about business saying that a 5 year old would do better.... I'd better wait and see where twitter is in a year. As you are well aware, many companies operate at a loss in the early stages and I'm sure he has a plan going forward.

What I see that he has done is to get rid of the socialists, and I think that is what bothers many of you.

Let's see if getting rid of all the people who were going to the office for entertainment and to censor what the democrats didn't like has worked out well for him or not.

For me, twitter is a clear case of what a book called "Bullshit jobs". It is clear that now they are understaffed, but in that company worked many people who were dedicated to do basically nothing and we can see an example in the following video:

A day in the life of a Twitter employee

These companies may have been inflated by the massive printing we have had in the last few years, which caused technology stocks to continue to keep rising even when trading at outrageous P/E ratios.

This is in terms of workers. And cost control in other aspects? I find it hard to believe this tweet from Musk, but I have no way of verifying it, and given how overstaffed they were, I wouldn't be surprised:

The problem with that you comment is that numbers are one thing, and Average Joe's behavior is another. From a purely mathematical point of view, it makes sense that they lend you money at 0% and you invest it for a higher interest rate, but that equation does not take into account risk, and on the other hand it also does not take into account that most of the population goes on what I call a "liquidity binge".

Are you telling me that most Americans are borrowing more because they are financial geniuses and are profiting from the interest?

I don't think so, because the money that the people I know are borrowing is not enough to make a difference. Typical person who has a median to low income, a net worth of $30k (mostly in equity in his home), and only $1k in the bank, who decides to buy a $1k Iphone in installments at 0% interest to "not decapitalize", when in reality he has virtually no capital, and if the move goes well, and they give him 1% for that $1k he has in a savings account, at the end of the year he gets the grandiose amount of $10! Lol.

In the end most do not spend the cash available on an investment but on stupid consumption, and then comes the whining.

Is that in Nigeria? I say this because of the large Nigerian community on the forum. In any case, it looks like an African country and we have seen several such initiatives in other posts to spread awareness and use of Bitcoin. I too doubt, like hugeblack, that this will turn into a significant volume of transactions in the barber shop, but you never know, as I have read that there is quite a bit of cryptocurrency usage in Nigeria.

Nigerians Turn to Crypto Assets as Currency Weakens

Cryptocurrency usage soars in Nigeria despite bank ban

It would be curious if they end up using Bitcoin more there than in El Salvador.

This sums it all up. The OP should not expect to get rich with free spins. In freebitco.in it can take years to get the maximum prize, which is $200, and the other free spins are given to you for having bet a certain amount, as a reward, as you said.

All this reminds me of "there's no such thing as a free lunch". If you want to make serious money, you better get off your ass to get it, and don't expect it to come to you somehow "for free".

I do care. After all, I do not want them to use the funds I deposit for a fractional reserve system.


Yeah, well, SBF had an excellent reputation, and so did Madoff in his day, so I prefer proof that my money is safe.


Wrong. The Madoff scam lasted more than two decades, so a scam can last a long time.

Really? How?

I changed my laptop and I thought about using the old one for a full node but I was looking at some information, and as I saw that it wasn't just two clicks, I left it for later and the old laptop is still waiting for me.

But I don't see the unbanked setting up a node. I doubt they can afford a laptop to begin with. If they had one, I doubt they would use it as a node, as there are much more productive things they can do. The node also has a cost in terms of electricity and we have to think that not all over the world there is broadband internet or flat plans, if they have to pay for GB used there's no way they are going to set up a node.

Maybe there is an easy and cheap way to set it up and that is what you are thinking of.

I agree 100% with this.

We have examples of people on the forum who are in my opinion overexposed to Bitcoin, although it depends on each individual case. If your net worth is $100M, you can have 95% of it in Bitcoin. For laughable net worths, I would start by accumulating cash, 3-6 months reserve of expenses readily available, either in cash at home or in a bank account that you can spend or withdraw from an ATM. That's what people call an emergency fund. From there I would go on to build investments. Actually that's what I did in the past and nowadays I keep adding to my investments having financial peace.


Having only $100 risks you having to sell at a loss if you have an unforeseen event that costs you money, and, besides, I do not know if you expect to have everything in Bitcoin to give you future returns like those of the first cycles. I doubt it, and what is happening in this cycle should make us think along those lines.

Although everyone does what he wants with his money, so I end up giving you good luck.

Is anyone else seeing an alt account here with a post designed to try to earn merit?


Yeah I don't know why the OP first talks about Bitcoin and then shoehorns Tether in. I agree that Bitcoin is essentially different from the others, but precisely Tether which is a stablecoin that raises many flags is not understood. In my case I only have Bitcoin and I do not see bad to have a small percentage of some alt, as I believe that in the future the Bitcoin will coexist with them, but the question is which ones will survive.

But in that case it was different. There was a crisis and a downturn in the markets but people stayed at home. And what did they do? In most cases, they ate more and had a lot more online leisure, including gambling. I noticed it in poker because it was like going back 10 years, the rooms were full of fish. Now it is not the same, and gambling is not immune to crises, as shown in the article linked by Davidvictorson

You left out one part of the story, the one involving Zelenski and Ukraine in all this.


Read more on: FTX partnership with Ukraine is latest chapter in shady Western aid saga

To all this, the left-wing, progressive biased Associated Press has been quick to deny it:

Posts spin baseless theory about FTX, Ukraine and Democrats

I think it's a good idea. Anything that helps to curb people who get out of control with gambling and end up losing much more than they can afford, even if they are in debt, is a good thing. Although it seems to me that with the ease of credit today the effect will be small. Nowadays many people have a pre-conceded personal that with two clicks on their cell phone they get the money in their account. Or instead of spending the credit card you can spend all the money you have in the casino and then pay the month's expenses with the credit card.

I have already said that I think it is positive but it will not be a panacea.

Why would they do that? To me they would be more likely to ban cryptocurrencies than to ban institutions from investing in them.

And anyway, this cycle that was known as the one of institutional adoption, I would rather call it the one of "institutional disappointment", because in the cycle in which more institutions have invested than ever before, we are having the worst return of all cycles by far.

Leverage, championed by the greatest institutional investor and the most media-acclaimed: Michael Saylor, is largely to blame for this.

So I'm not so much concerned about institutions investing as I am about what regulations the public authorities are going to come up with now that CBDCs are in the pipeline.

I question what you say that I have put in bold, also as other colleagues have commented to you. It is impossible that you always win in a casino.

To say something similar to what you say, it did happen to me in the past, when I had a bad streak, I changed rooms and had a fresh start in the new room and started winning. But over time I realized that it was more a psychological aspect than anything else. If I endure a bad streak in the same room, there comes a time when the results turn around and you start winning.

About this and as far as I am concerned, I have commented several times that one of the reasons why I do not play poker in cryptocurrency rooms without KYC is because it is much easier to cheat. Implementing KYC does not make cheating impossible, but it reduces it a lot. Besides, nowadays I play in Pokerstars which has a great anti-fraud department, so the possibility of finding someone in the room who is cheating is reduced to a minimum.

So your solution for a heroin addict is to give him large doses of fentanyl, right? What a genius, I don't know how I hadn't thought of that before.


Just like that. We have been in a forward flight for many years based on more and more debt, more and more printers, and now because the balance sheet of central banks is reduced a little, just a little, and rates are raised, the OP starts to cry. If they really raise rates to more than 10% I don't know what he is going to do.

It is that these problems arise when you intend to learn poker in a self-taught way. It is better that you get into one of the many schools that are online where they give you a structured content, step by step, which will help you to climb from basic levels to mid and high stakes if you are able to get there, because today the tables are hard and even if you put a lot of time and effort, maybe you stay in mid-stakes. But if you like it, at the end of the road you will be making some extra money which is pretty good, or even if you live in a poor country maybe you can live from it, but for that you have to have a very good bankroll management and control the psychological aspects, which are topics that are also touched in the poker schools syllabus.

To my understanding no, the company had a problem with their database, supposedly and they are hiding behind that to not pay the prize. To me that does not seem to me a defense that justifies not paying and unless they provide other elements of proof in the trial I understand that the most reasonable thing is that they pay him the lottery prize in full. Although it is also necessary to think that in matters of law what seems to be clear in favor of a part ends up with a reasoned sentence of many pages in favor of the other, that is to say that the plaintiff cannot claim victory.

If you notice, he is saying to write the seeds on two pieces of paper and store them in two different locations. The probability of getting the two papers burned or wet is practically 0, and the steel plates are also not 100% safe because they attract the attention of potential thieves and kidnappers, while the papers are easily camouflaged.

There is no system that is 100% secure, although some are more secure than others, but in this case having the papers in two locations is quite secure and used by many people.