|
Bitcointalk Username: tiCeR
Merit EARNED in the last 120 days: 41
BTC {Segwit} Address: bc1q2prmvxprqvf784elttzygj9kcuytxwnejt4pq9
|
|
|
|
Hi shasan, I sent 53 USD instead of 50 USD.
0a2455662405ac98e04fd6c3b6197e34cd05d01f07d36d3805bef85d3bbd946e
As discussed I would like to extend for another month. Please let me know if everything is ok for now.
Thank you and best regards,
tiCeR
Thank you very much for the repayment of the interest. I am confirming that I have received the interest. Please repay the interest on time if you want to take an extension. The new repayment amount remains the same (550$) as well and the new repayment date will be 18th July 2024. Please repay the interest or the full loan on or before the due date of the loan. Hi shasan, I sent the interest 3f09e124e810697207ceaf5aad3bb84d6cbd0ea28794d25b27567110656931c8 and would like to ask for an additional extension of one month. Please confirm if that is ok for you. Thank you and best regards, tiCeR |
|
|
|
|
1. Argentina
2. Under
3. No
4. 2
5. Argentina
6. Argentina
7. Colombia
8. Colombia
9. Argentina
10. Argentina
|
|
|
|
|
1. Spain
2. Over
3. Yes
4. 2
5. Spain
6. England
7. Spain
8. England
9. Spain
10. England
|
|
|
|
|
a. Djokovic
b. Over
c. Odd
d. Alcaraz
e. Djokovic
f. Djokovic
g. Alcaraz
h. Djokovic
i. Alcaraz
|
|
|
|
 Bayern are in stance to sell De Ligt to the Manchester United. And Romano's tweet above has explained all. In my opinion, i don't like this transfer decision by Kompany and Bayern Munich. I'd rather keep De Ligt and sell Upamecano. Then, use the money from selling Upamecano to recruit Jonathan Tah. The decision to sell De ligt, then replace him with Tah is a blunder by Bayern munich. This is because it sounds like you're replacing De Ligt with a cheaper and worse player than him. Tah is playing in the same position as De Ligt. That is a good call from you I think as Upamecano barely plays a game without mistakes. It baffles me that he is part of the French core team. He is not only making mistakes in defending all the time, but also wasting chances when he gets to shoot a header after a corner. Bad call by Bayern Munich I guess, but the times are over when defensive players were much cheaper than offensive players. I think they know the transfer market is quite complicated at the moment, but undoubtedly for that reason I would think twice before selling De Ligt. He had a severe injury at the beginning of the season, but afterwards I think maybe he didn't get along with Tuchel and Tuchel is known for making emotional and tough decisions. If he doesn't like a player, it is almost irrelevant how the players plays, he won't get many chances. And they would be selling a 24 years old defender for a 28 years old defender who had an amazing season with Leverkusen, but I am still not sure whether he can play at the same level for Bayern. |
|
|
|
Is this an ongoing project on which you are working frequently? Are you still gathering facts, writing texts and so on?
There are not really much more facts to find as long as Greenpeace and Ripple are zipping their mouths about Bitcoin energy  Now that you say this, you are indeed right, but since I didn't pay attention to that discussion anymore, it obviously has mostly to do with the fact that they shut up most of the time. Ripple has of course its agenda as a centralized shit slave of the banks. As for Greenpeace, one could have thought they might be able to think a little bit outside the box and see how Bitcoin could actually increase renewable capacity over time. But anyway, good you put that stuff together. |
|
|
|
I think 2.88 for Sinner is too low. That's almost as if he is close to guaranteed being the winner. Sinner and Alcaraz would meet in the semis, which makes it exceedingly Even at Masters 1000 level, betting on outright are often not worth it because of how physically demanding Tennis can be, I prefer to take my best favor maybe on Handicap winnings for a few rounds, I'm sure I'd would have gotten a better return cumulatively compared to chasing an outright for 2.88 in grand slam. Alcaraz vs Sinner is always a joyful matchup to watch, from the beginning to the end on any given day, too bad they're 1st and 3rd seeds respectively, I would have loved to have them in Final rather than in the semifinals, however it's still quite a very long way to go for both players and upsets are often order of the day when it comes to tennis. Yes that would have been a superior course of action for the tournament in Wimbledon. Sure Djokovic is still a great player and it's a joy to watch him play when he is at his best and especially when is facing Sinner or Alcaraz at their best in the final. But in this case I agree with you. If Djokovic wants to be taken as seriously as in 2023 when he won the Australian Open, French Open, US Open and played the Wimbledon final besides winning the ATP finals, he needs to have some kind of comeback. But talking about a comeback when the discussion revolves around a 37 years old player could be close to being pointless. Never say never, but I think the biggest highlight we could have been looking forward to would be if Sinner was 1st seed and Alcaraz 4th seed. Now it is what it is and I enjoy watching tennis anyway, perhaps with the links you provided! Thank you |
|
|
|
This thread is set up well! Good source to stay up to date, I like that. Let me add this overview showing the odds for the players to win Wimbledon. This could spur a great discussion.  I think 2.88 for Sinner is too low. That's almost as if he is close to guaranteed being the winner. Sinner and Alcaraz would meet in the semis, which makes it exceedingly risky to bet on one of them here I think. Djokovic's worst case would be Zverev. What do you think? |
|
|
|
This is a wonderful initiative. The site will be of great interest to Bitcoin enthusiasts. I encourage all members who are not participating in paid signature campaigns to at least wear signature and avatar until they are accepted into another campaign. I'm first on the list  Why hesitate to wear it then?  Once you had been first on the list, now you can become the last on the list, but still on the list  Came across this thread and yes, it is a good cause!
Hi NotATether, I tried to quickly get an overview about your project and now I understand. You are referring to that website stating that bitcoin is destroying the world due to its energy consumption and that is why you used this name for your website. Good choice! Is this an ongoing project on which you are working frequently? Are you still gathering facts, writing texts and so on? |
|
|
|
@Agbe how did you "lose" coins on a centralized exchange that needed to be refunded? Have you been hacked? Or why would the centralized exchange have to refund lost coins? If it was the access to your account, it all comes down to whether or not it was an exchange you have provided KYC to or whether you can prove the identity tied to the email address you used to sign up at the exchange. I am bit confused because losing coins that have to be refunded on an exchange is usually a case when the exchange is to blame for a hack. Otherwise it makes little sense.
I think you can get more information on what happened to me in this link. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5500004.0 read all the links so that will understand the missed coins. And to recap it all. I bought bitcoin from someone through p2p which I normally do, and send them to Kucoin but when I wanted to sell it I transferred them to ByBit which I didn't include the memo tag and the coins were lost so I have to battle with the two exchanges until finally it was Kucoin refunded back the coins to me although ByBit also refunded them to Kucoin and in return Kucoin also did their part. But I pay a service fee and the matter was resolved. Ok understood. I am a bit confused why would they ask for a memo tag for USDT transactions? That is the first time I have ever heard that. I know that exchanges ask for a memo tag when you send XMR transactions. But other than that, this is new to me and actually very confusing because it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But you know, most importantly you got your coins back. If you ask me, it is theft by ByBit, isn't it? Why would they need a memo tag if you can prove that your deposit address on ByBit was the receiving address of the amount you sent from Kucoin? Doesn't the blockchain show that your ByBit address has had an incoming transaction? As I said, good to know someone took responsibility although I doubt it was the right party here. Kudos for Kucoin although I am not the biggest fan of these exchanges.
Add: [edited out]
As for a lost back up seeds, I think it is relatively hypothetical that someone finds it after 200 years when the initial owner probably did everything to detect them, or accidentally destroyed them. We could think of quite a few different scenarios in which keys might be thought to be lost over a very long period of time, and yeah, maybe the scenarios for recovery 200 years down the road are not as good as a shorter timeline, such as 50 to 100 years.. and a person could have lost his seed, or forgot that he put it on steel in the garden.. and a person down the road comes across the information and realizes that it is a seed phrase.. so then recovers the coins in whatever wallets are then available... or someone might even think that he had destroyed some keys.. but he did not destroy all of the copies... again someone else (in the future or 50, 100, 200 or some other quantity of years) comes across the seed words or whatever form of password (or recovery system that is then being used)... and he figures out how to check them and/or to recover them... sometimes it could be a matter of putting together a puzzle.. to put various parts of the puzzle together in order to see that it is a seed phrase.. and maybe even some of the seed words were written in order and others were written backwards, so there could be some back and forth tries before finally coming across the combination that opens the wallet. I get your point here as I myself have a good example. It is not about 100 years, but just recently I had to clean up a barn that was like in a horror movie full with stuff and spiderwebs and all sorts of dirt. It was from my grandfather who is now dead for a while, but nobody from the family got down to do it. Now my grandfather would probably not be holding any BTC if he still lived, but now the new generations might well hold some BTC and put the seed in any form in some cupboard or chest, which then gets carried into the barn when someone dies. I can tell that nobody ever had a closer look at that barn for well over 25 years. This would be a scenario where one day someone could find a steel plate with a seed. We found all kinds of stuff and if it was 30 years later now, I would have been watching out for any disks or mediums that could carry important data for sure. But I do think that the bitcoin blockchain is an architecture that has a very good chance to survive for a very, very long time. Because after all, what other architecture that is publicly verifiable for everyone, free from SPOFs and resolves the Byzantine Generals problem?
We still don't know what we don't know - which especially pertains to things that might happen in the future...so yeah, right now bitcoin seems as the best thing since sliced bread, but we cannot know if there might be some way in which it might be broken and/or superseded. I know, it is more like getting your opinion and do some speculation although neither am I a friend of speculation nor are you as I know. It is just that sometimes those are the things going through my head since I am involved with bitcoin. When companies like Neuralink are successful and we all control everything with our brains at some point, it would probably still not be possible to have a verification method that there is no double spending going on. I know Neuralink sounds like science fiction, but I doubt our brain would be able to process an entire blockchain in 200 years from now. Then again, who knows what's coming? We won't find out sadly.
I am not going to claim to know a lot of these things, and surely sometimes we might not need to know the specific inventions and/or break-throughs to predict the future, yet sometimes certain kinds of changes, inventions or happenings can greatly change future trajectories.. and perhaps some things (events/happening) could contribute towards changes in either direction in terms of loss of technologies and powers or the gaining of more technologies and powers, but then there can be various strains with social interactions and even the numger of people who might be able to have knowledge in certain fields and to be able to share or to pass down knowledge.. and maybe some kinds of knowledge come from doing things, and if we might not know how certain things are done, then the break down of some of the more sophisticated systems could end up in breakdowns of progress. and maybe having to start over in some technological areas. Very true and one day even one of the most important inventions ever might be gone: the wheel! Nobody would have ever thought that's possible, but levitation by electromagnets and other technologies are no impossibility anymore. I have just got the feeling that bitcoin could at least be similar to the wheel in terms of its significance as an innovation and its relevance and longevity. It is groundbreaking technology, not only an upgrade to something. But at the end of the day, via satellites bitcoin could be used in the entire universe even as a multi-planetary species. Interesting idea I gotta say! There still seem to be limitations regarding the ability to move information, so we can have our various imaginations regarding bitcoin in space - while some of the on the earth practicalities seem a lot more concrete - even though we might not be able to rule out various kinds of unexpected advances that could end up changing how we consider if there might actually be real applications that go beyond this particular planet.. so I personally don't spend too much time thinking about those kinds of BIGGER brained ideas that I have difficulties recognizing in terms of what I perceive to be more concrete real world applications. Makes sense, and it is not like I would spend all day with these futuristic scenarios. Sometimes it just results from the talks we have here. @Agbe how did you "lose" coins on a centralized exchange that needed to be refunded? Have you been hacked? Or why would the centralized exchange have to refund lost coins? If it was the access to your account, it all comes down to whether or not it was an exchange you have provided KYC to or whether you can prove the identity tied to the email address you used to sign up at the exchange. I am bit confused because losing coins that have to be refunded on an exchange is usually a case when the exchange is to blame for a hack. Otherwise it makes little sense.
I think you can get more information on what happened to me in this link. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5500004.0 read all the links so that will understand the missed coins. And to recap it all. I bought bitcoin from someone through p2p which I normally do, and send them to Kucoin but when I wanted to sell it I transferred them to ByBit which I didn't include the memo tag and the coins were lost so I have to battle with the two exchanges until finally it was Kucoin refunded back the coins to me although ByBit also refunded them to Kucoin and in return Kucoin also did their part. But I pay a service fee and the matter was resolved. Your coins were not lost in the same sense that we are using the term in this thread. Between Kucoin, ByBit and you, there seemed to have been some confusion regarding who had the coins.. so yeah you sent them and the coins were moved, and between the two exchanges they also had to figure out who had the coins, but they were never lost... Now if one or the other exchange had lost the coins or sent the coins to a burner address or some other way of losing the keys, then the coins had the potential of actually being lost, but in your case they were not lost... just had gone missing (seemingly temporarily) with some potential lack of clarity (at least from you) regarding where the coins/keys were, and perhaps the exchanges knew where the coins were, but there seemed to have had been some automation of their coin processing systems involved and perhaps there were some needs for personal intervention to figure out where the keys (coins) were.. but the mere fact that you did not know or you could not figure out where the coins were, did not necessarily mean that one or the other exchanges did not know where the coins/keys were, even if Kucoin required you to start an investigation (and to pay them $40 USDT) in order to supposedly investigate into the matter. Your coins were not lost in the same sense that we are using the term in this thread. Exactly. Some years ago I have had a similar issue with some shitcoins when I deposited BNB to an ETH network deposit address or something. I can't recall exactly what it was, and the exchange first told me they didn't have the keys, which is bullshit as it is the same key for both the ETH and BNB network. At first they tried to let me hanging by telling me some absolutely ridiculous story about how keys work for ETH and BNB, and once they realized they won't get rid of me, they asked for an astronomical fee to send the BNB back. The fee was higher than the amount that was at risk. Ever since I am avoiding all of these shitty exchanges. That's why I am positively surprised that Kucoin solved that problem. It's usually not quite their conduct. |
|
|
|
Lost bitcoins are lost forever if the owner used self custodial wallet and once the person lost the seed phrase or missed placed it then the coins can't be recovered but if the person used centralized exchange then I think it is possible to recover the lost bitcoin because I am saying this from my personal experience. It was about two months I lost my coins in exchange and I chatted them up and we discussed for about one month plus and di coins were finally refunded to my exchange address. Most investors in the first generation lost their seed phrase and that becomes a lesson to the second generation of investors.
An exchange could be set up in such a way that the client holds the BTC or it could be set up in a way in regards to the exchange holding the key or some other custodial party holding the key or maybe some combination of key holders, so yeah, keys might not be lost merely by doing something wrong to fuck up your access to your account, so it still depends on who holds the key.. and yeah if you are hacked or socially engineered out of your coins, then those are not lost coins either.. You lost the coins, but they are not lost as far as the blockchain is concerned so long as someone has the keys.. Another thing might be that someone might believe that he lost access to his coins, but he might later discover that he has not lost access to his coins, or maybe he really did lose access to his coins, but someone 200 years later finds his back up seeds, so then those coins were not lost on the blockchain, they were just not accessible for 200 years until someone was able to come across the keys and figure out how to access the coins. Of course, my hypothetical is totally speculative since bitcoin has only been in existence for 15.5 years, so I guess I am speculating that bitcoin might still exist 200 years from now. @Agbe how did you "lose" coins on a centralized exchange that needed to be refunded? Have you been hacked? Or why would the centralized exchange have to refund lost coins? If it was the access to your account, it all comes down to whether or not it was an exchange you have provided KYC to or whether you can prove the identity tied to the email address you used to sign up at the exchange. I am bit confused because losing coins that have to be refunded on an exchange is usually a case when the exchange is to blame for a hack. Otherwise it makes little sense. As for a lost back up seeds, I think it is relatively hypothetical that someone finds it after 200 years when the initial owner probably did everything to detect them, or accidentally destroyed them. But I do think that the bitcoin blockchain is an architecture that has a very good chance to survive for a very, very long time. Because after all, what other architecture that is publicly verifiable for everyone, free from SPOFs and resolves the Byzantine Generals problem? When companies like Neuralink are successful and we all control everything with our brains at some point, it would probably still not be possible to have a verification method that there is no double spending going on. I know Neuralink sounds like science fiction, but I doubt our brain would be able to process an entire blockchain in 200 years from now. Then again, who knows what's coming? We won't find out sadly. But at the end of the day, via satellites bitcoin could be used in the entire universe even as a multi-planetary species. Interesting idea I gotta say! |
|
|
|
Even though there was no pure striker after Benzema's death, Ancelotti did not encounter any significant obstacles. Joselu doesn't have the character of other strong strikers, but he really helps the team and has proven it several times. I think that next season there will not be many changes in Real Madrid's attack line because Mbappe's arrival has also added quite a frightening strength and the wing striker position will still belong to Mbappe and Vinicius, and Belingham will still be used as a false nine player.
Benzema's death? What the ...? Ancelotti did not encounter any significant obstacles, but I am sure that he didn't anticipate it would work out the way it did with Bellingham. At the same time he knew that this is not a solution for the long run. Hence, he decided to give it one season, make the best out of the team that he has and then bring in Mbappe. I believe that there was some agreement last season already. Otherwise they would have probably taken action and brought in some other striker in addition to Joselu. This way they took the risk with Joselu and gave it one more year until finally they have their desired center forward. I believe we will see Mbappe play a center forward position quite often. Although it is very likely that he has a lot of freedom in the front line and he is allowed to play highly variably. Change positions, sides and so on. I am not sure whether Ancelotti believes that false 9 is Bellingham's best position. He did it well, but that doesn't mean it is his best position and it is not very likely that he will score 20 goals again. I think in a position that is a little bit more defensive, Bellingham can be even stronger and still has his impact on the entire pitch and team. |
|
|
|
|
Hi shasan, I sent 53 USD instead of 50 USD.
0a2455662405ac98e04fd6c3b6197e34cd05d01f07d36d3805bef85d3bbd946e
As discussed I would like to extend for another month. Please let me know if everything is ok for now.
Thank you and best regards,
tiCeR
|
|
|
|
Ten Hag is a hard-working coach and he usually makes hard training for players and that's why people know him as a coach who usually punishes players because of bad performance. Ten Hag is a coach who had a good performance in the last season when he joined Manchester United because he made the team to be on the top side of the Premier League but during this season he was not really successful and this made Manchester United to think about using another coach instead of keep working this him while I think changing Ten Hag would be a big risk.
I don’t think changing Ten Hag will be a huge risk to the club but since they know better and have done what is best for the team, maybe he can show a more effective performance in the next season. I don’t really fancy clubs sacking coaches just after a few mistakes and not doing up to their expectations after showing a lot of good performance in the prior season or even during the season. Sacking of manager’s too much really does destabilize the team and makes them not coordinated most of the seasons. Long lasting coaches in a team always have the best performance when it comes to rating overall performance of the team. This should be seen from Arsene Wenger of Arsenal and Alex Ferguson of Manchester United. I agree that it would not really increase the risk if they change the coach. I mean how could it get worse? Manchester United finished 8th in the Premier League and I doubt they would finish below that with any coach in the world. Ten Hag got lucky that Manchester City messed up the FA Cup and he got lucky that Tuchel decided to terminate the talks and negotiations with Ratcliff. I am convinced if Tuchel said he wants the job in Manchester, Ratcliff would have sacked ten Hag and gone with Tuchel. Lucky for them that they are playing Europa League. It would have been an awful boring season if they didn't play any of the European competitions. I am looking forward to what their plans are in the transfer market and whether they become very active and ten Hag gets fulfilled some of his wishes. The money is there. |
|
|
|
-snip-
This is a basic thing that must be owned (must exist) in planning for good money management because after all, even if we have a large amount of money or income every month from the income we have but when money management is poor and does not anticipate basic things such as for needs and reserve funds then indeed income will continue to run out without leaving anything. This is clearly dangerous because after all we cannot predict what will happen in the future that we will pass through and with the reserve fund that has been prepared from the start, we will indeed be more able to breathe freely when there are things that are not wanted considering the money we will use for other things is not used by unexpected needs because we already have a reserve fund as a form of anticipation of it. Setting aside income to be used as a reserve fund will not make you hassle, instead it will make it easier for you because in the end if the funds are not used then it can be used as a better thing such as investment or other things so that it will not make you lose. The main aim of investment is to generate returns, this can be short term or long term. If you have a good long-term financial plan, then you will never ignore the opportunity to invest when you have a budget. Bitcoin investment is one of the most recommended besides real assets, but you should not invest 100% in bitcoin because at the same time you still have to have a reserve budget for other needs. Prepare for the future better than now, invest the money to ensure that in your old age you won't have financial problems. Prepare your finances for the future so you can pay for your children's school fees and so on. By investing, these goals are possible to achieve instead holding fiat. I see this slightly different. Of course an investment could in general generate returns both in the short and in the long term, but from what I understand investing is more about a long term strategy aiming at building wealth over the longer period of time and in a best case with a strategy in place. If someone aims for short term returns, it's pure speculation. There is a difference between flipping a coin and knowing whether your doubled your money within seconds, or whether you have a plan in place, put effort into the analysis of a potential investment and have a long term plan both for building your position and a possible exit scenario. When you flip a coin, what is the exit scenario? I wouldn't call that investing. |
|
|
|
[edited out]
Well said, everyone is entitled to there own opinion and choose in any form to go about there Bitcoin portfolio. The end game is profit, I doubt that the end game is necessarily profits. Sure, we would like to be profitable 4-10 years or longer down the road, but we also would like to have decently good chances that our investment into bitcoin had given us more options as compared with not investing into bitcoin. It tends to be especially problematic for bitcoin newbies to be worried about the extent to which they might be in profits in their first cycle in bitcoin, and maybe they won't be very profitable, and that should be o.k. as long as they are continuing to accumulate bitcoin, and hopefully figuring out some BTC accumulation strategies that largely tailored to their own financial and psychological circumstances, but also accounting for their 9 individual factors. but also the end game can be regret after profit, we choose to hold long term because the yield cannot be compared to those who were present for short term without accumulating any considerable stash of Bitcoin. The end game for me is to continually invest in Bitcoin, reaching a maturity stage were I can be selling off anytime and still have more left, still accumulating too. Short term is never guaranteed or will it be a good approach, I know there are individuals or firms who accumulate in bulk, they can choose to sell anytime but would always have a reserve for long run.
You seem to have the right ideas Bravut - especially if you lose that dumbass language about profits, even though technically we are expecting that our chances are pretty good to be in profits the longer that we are investing into bitcoin, but we might not want to get too caught up on profits while we are still engaging in BTC accumulation, and surely there are a lot of folks - especially newbie investors who may well take 10-15 years or longer just to get to a point that they are able to transition from BTC accumulation stages and into something else. Yeah, it seems strange to talk about bitcoin as an investment that may well take 15 year or longer to accumulate, when bitcoin is ONLY barely older than 15 years right now... but still if someone comes into bitcoin right now and they are a new investor who is investing $10 to $100 per week, they surely may not be able to get out of BTC accumulation stages until more than 15 years down the road. I doubt that the end game is necessarily profits. I thought about this for a moment and I think there is a lot of value to that statement. I think we are both on the same page when we say that most people speculate on profit in terms of more USD in their pockets once they have bought and sold BTC. But you have been criticizing the word profit here, and I say rightfully so! BTC gives you benefits and options. There is a whole branch of science on the value of options. That's why your statement is so valuable because it captures what many of the people who do understand BTC a little better have in their minds. Owning BTC gives you options like no other asset can give you. BTC carries value and BTC is convertible in literally any life circumstance at any place and at any time. If I own an Amazon share, it is not the same. Gold is not the same because I can't carry it with me anywhere at any amount and it comes with more problems than that. The moment someone sells BTC for USD profit, the same moment the person sells options and opportunities. The real life profit in the moment of the sale is the USD surplus minus all the options that BTC potentially offers to the holder. It could be the obvious further potential price gains, having to leave the country without nobody noticing you are taking value with you, it could be Wall Street burning down and share prices going down the toilet while BTC remains stable due to its security architecture, it could be protection against expropriation in some places, it could be many things and the list is long. Nice phrase I have to say and while I act that way and think that way I have never put it into a single sentence like you did: "I doubt that the end game is necessarily profits." = "The end game of holding BTC is not necessarily USD (or any other currency) profits." Awesome! The end game is options, having options! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
