I don't even know why I am replying to you because you just pour a dozen of paragraphs of verbal diarrhea and when I've replied to you in other posts you never come back to make a counter-argument.

That shit that you have just said is known as ad hominem fallacy, it's been known as a crappy argument for thousands of years.

To your knowledge, the interviewer is an osteopath.

Applying your argument, I suppose you are going to show us your MD credentials, right? Otherwise what you say has no value.

I know you won't, but come to this thread and reply to me with your fallacies, please. I'm quoting the British Medical Journal and a study published in Nature carried out in Wuhan on 100 million people. I don't know if those sources have enough status for you or what:

Vaccinations for the gullible start today in the UK.

I actually find what is happening to be expected. The days when the price doesn't stop breaking ATH after ATH are very cool but they can't last forever. What I'm sure of is that some weak hands bought around $40 and sold at a loss, since I think the general retailers started to influence the price somewhat from $20-25k as shown by google trends and stated in this article, and those retailers are more prone to sell out of panic.

In a study about 10 million residents in Wuhan, China, published in Nature, only 0.3% were reinfected.

"Of the 34,424 participants with a history of COVID-19, 107 tested positive again, giving a repositive rate of 0.310%" [..] "Results of virus culturing and contract tracing found no evidence that repositive cases in recovered COVID-19 patients were infectious, which is consistent with evidence from other sources."

Source: Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China.

Reinfection doesn't seem so dangerous to me according to this source.


I am also disappointed to hear that science is supposed to have only one view. I am quite disappointed to hear that, if you have rational doubts about vaccines, even if you are a doctor, they try to silence you, they call you a denialist and a conspirator. In my case, I am not an anti-vaccines. I was vaccinated as a child. I recognize that vaccines have been a great advance in human history. But I have rational doubts about vaccines that are released too quickly and with which companies are making a lot of money. I also have reasonable doubt that they have been exempted from liability if there are long-term detrimental effects.

In a democracy with freedom of speech, people should be able to speak freely about these things without being censored.

Now let's what some antivax imbeciles say about vaccines.

The British Medical Journal: Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us.

"The world has bet the farm on vaccines as the solution to the pandemic, but the trials are not focused on answering the questions many might assume they are." [..] "But what will it mean exactly when a vaccine is declared “effective”? To the public this seems fairly obvious. “The primary goal of a covid-19 vaccine is to keep people from getting very sick and dying,”" [..] "“Ideally, you want an antiviral vaccine to do two things . . . first, reduce the likelihood you will get severely ill and go to the hospital, and two, prevent infection and therefore interrupt disease transmission.”7

Yet the current phase III trials are not actually set up to prove either"

I suppose you are referring to Stock-to-Flow Model. Just a (probably dumb) question: does it predict a S-curve adoption? Because it doesn't seem to me and I've been seeing that concept mentioned a lot lately.


I believe it is quite likely. Searches show there is no FOMO but it's on the way. Also, in countries with very high inflation like Argentina, Venezuela or Turkey they are at an ATH


Yes, look at how bullish he is: Michael Saylor goes nuts: he predicts a $15 million Bitcoin price.

I'm bumping my question again to see if anyone has an answer. The conversation immediately was focused on the folk's complaint.


Have you got your money already? Please be fair and say it here when you are paid.

As you and BrewMaster have mentioned John McAffe I have to remind here that he wasn't so crazy after all. I don't trust him, I think he has the word scam written all over his face but his prediction, although it was done a bit early, too firmly and probably to gain publicity as @BrewMaster says, nowadays doesn't seem so far-fetched.

I think in both cases there is a mixture of what they believe and the character they represent. They believe that bitcoin has a great future, that it will go up in price a lot but also, consciously or unconsciously (probably a mixture of both), they exaggerate their predictions to the maximum. I would say that sometimes they even end up believing their own character.

Yes, well, in this case, Jack Mallers was referring to the United States. Anyway, I think the tendency of all governments around the world is to want to control all payments, absolutely all of them, and to charge taxes for it. Now maybe it's a little complicated yet but it's an information technology issue.

He's also opened quite a few threads in the Politics section.
It's seemed to me that he was drunk or something.
I suppose if he is reported a lot he will get at least a warning.

I don't know why you bolded just that sentence. As I said, I checked his post history to see if people had given him merits because there was something worthy in his post history. It was clear to me that he didn't deserve those merits just for that post. Although the logical thing would be to merit the other worthy posts.

As for checking the post history in general. I agree only partially that you should merit the post regardless of his post history because, sometimes, by checking his post history, if you see that he always writes crap and the post in question is exceptionally good, you might realize that he's plagiarized it.

There was a case here in meta of a guy who was merited and another forum member after going through his post history realized that he had been nuked and he was ban evading with that created second account.



I like the idea of altruism in general and I have to say that I'm also quite lenient when reporting people. I don't report a lot but I have 100% of correct reports but in this case I think merit has to be given for something worthy. I wouldn't have minded if you had read his post history and given credit to deserving posts but meriting for that post just for asking? Come on! The word merit has a meaning.

You don't mean to beg but you are begging. I will be full member when I get 20 merits more and I already have the activity, not like you that you have to wait and I don't beg like that.

As for those supposedly many members who beg for merits, share links please. You don't need to share them here, do it in the meta thread:

Isn't this considered merit begging?

Well, LOL. He's been given one merit more since I opened the thread.


Actually, he posted in this thread:

[Merit] Help newbies and those who have a little left to the next rank

and got no merit, which isn't surprising to me


Yeah, well. I quite like that thread because it is more like being in a pub with your friends. It's totally different from the rest of the forum, so it's not surprising that merit is given in a more funny way I'd say.


Well but my understanding is that if they agree they will delete the post but he will still keep the merits. I've googled the subject and it doesn't seem to me that he is going to be nuked for that. I've also given him negative trust, as I've seen some people do in these cases.

I am going to quote what I've just written in the WO thread:


I've checked his post history and it doesn't seem to me like it is so great that he deserves those merits just for asking. I'd like to know what you think about.

I am really surprised about that. Isn't that considered merit begging? Some people get negative trust for that and it goes against unofficial rule number 7.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaFVNBG9-Lk

I wish he is right but I also wonder if he is delusional.

In the above video, minutes 14:28 to 25:25 he speaks of gold being totally replaced by bitcoin as a store of value in the same way that wooden ships were replaced by steel ships. He also gives other examples of this style. Just because something has worked for 5,000 years doesn't mean it won't be replaced by new technology.

He also talks about 50 to 75% of the money going nowadays into bonds, index funds, etc., going into bitcoin in the future because, according to him, it is purchased as a store of value. He estimates that the total of the world's money currently invested in those assets but as a store of value is between $100 trillion and $250 trillion.

That calculation leaves a $15 million price per Bitcoin in today's purchasing power terms.

Bitcoin would become a cyber index of the entire world global economy on the blockchain.

Yes, I agree with the other that the supply is not going to be "drained". If OP means a reduction in offer, we are seeing it already: an increase in price. Also because there is more demand.

As for what happens next, it depends. Is more institutional investors start buying bitcoin and people keep withdrawing bitcoin from exchanges, thus reducing offer, there will be more increases in price but we don't know until what point. At point the price will be enough for people to be more interested in selling and not so interested in buying so the price will go down.

I was thinking that too. I hope he is not going to die when we get to $50k lol.


That's a true bitcoin believer. How do you see the future of bitcoin for the next years? What do you think it will happen after 50k? Any other price targets?

First of all, for those of you who don't know anything about Strike, like me a couple of days ago, here is a 1-minute video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt2C3CsLi7k

and here is a summary:

Announcing Strike Global

"Today we are announcing that Strike:

    Has partnered with Bittrex Global and will be launching in over 200 countries.
    Has added support for USDT, USDC, EUR, GBP, CHF, and more.
    Will be onboarding all 1M+ Bittrex users onto Strike and Lightning.
    Will have the Strike Card available in the US Q1 2021.
    Will have the Strike Card available in the EU and UK Q2 2021.

Strike’s US rollout has been an immense success. In our short 6-month public BETA, we’re well into 5-figure registered users and currently process millions of dollars in volume per month. With our announcement today, the first of its kind, Bitcoin-native, neo-bank is expanding its reach to over 200 countries.

We’re not only bringing bitcoin the asset and Bitcoin the network to billions of people, but we’re also disrupting the international funds transfer sector while doing it.

<...>

On January 3rd, 2009 the world was gifted the first ever natively digital, inherently global, asset known as Bitcoin. Bitcoin provides an open network of its own that enables parties worldwide to send and receive information about financial transactions. Sound familiar?

The Bitcoin network, however, came with its own flaws:

    Variable cost to achieve transaction finality.
    Variable time to achieve transaction finality.
    Must use bitcoin the asset on the Bitcoin network.

Enter the Lightning network. Lightning solves the first two issues, both the cost and delay in achieving transaction finality. With Lightning, the Bitcoin network can now achieve physical settlement and final clearance immediately and at virtually no cost.

    V̶a̶r̶i̶a̶b̶l̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶s̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶a̶c̶h̶i̶e̶v̶e̶ ̶t̶r̶a̶n̶s̶a̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶f̶i̶n̶a̶l̶i̶t̶y̶.̶
    V̶a̶r̶i̶a̶b̶l̶e̶ ̶t̶i̶m̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶a̶c̶h̶i̶e̶v̶e̶ ̶t̶r̶a̶n̶s̶a̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶f̶i̶n̶a̶l̶i̶t̶y̶.̶
    Must use bitcoin the asset on the Bitcoin network.

That leaves us with the last flaw, the requirement of using bitcoin the asset. However, now with Strike, users can use the Bitcoin network with only their bank account or debit card. They don’t need bitcoin the asset to benefit from Bitcoin the network."

I also opened a thread about the tax implications:

How are lightning payments going to be taxed?

But got no replies so far. So please, if you want to comment on taxes, do it so in that thread.

Finally, I would like to say that I am not very familiar with the technical side of this. I don't know if it will work or not, but if it does I think it will be a huge deal, even increasing the demand because people who don't have bitcoin but want to send money faster (instantaneously) and with cheaper currency rate, will create more demand for bitcoin via Strike.

Hi mate, I suppose you haven't realized but I'm advertising the site. I'm not going to listen to you just because you say so. Casino owners have less trouble and make more money by running a honest business that by trying to scam people.

Hi,

Does anyone know which is the highest risk bet you can do in bitvest.io?

I mean, if I play roulette I prefer to bet on a number instead of red or black. Among all the games offered, which would be the most risky?

Hi, I've just created an account in bitvest.io because I thought that it would be a good idea to know the place as I'm advertising it but I have a question. Can I put my referral link in my signature campaign signature? I seem to remember that it was allowed but I've googled it and I can't find information confirming or denying it.