Since it's not over yet, I wish you can overcome this. Don't lose hope, there's always a chance.
My father had cancer, but his biggest mistake was giving up years before he died. I remember him  telling me that we may not see each other again every time I came to visit and so it went for more than 5 years, until he finally got it right.


Death is a concept that reaches far beyond trust, trolling, or anything a person said. You had your differences, but this is like kicking a downed opponent. If this is true and he doesn't make it, no disputes between you two will have meaning anymore.
I often think about death and the only thing I'm afraid is not being to feel anymore. I'm pretty sure OP would rather take shit from you for the rest of his life than die and never feel anything anymore. I doubt he's seeking attention at this point. When you know the end is near you just want people to remember that you were there, you want them to know what happened to you.

Take? Like what? Do you mean conquer? So, there's this thing called NATO. How do you expect Russia to "take" Finland Sweden and Poland if there are US troops stationed there?
How are they going to attack Finland if NATO (not counting USA) is overpowering Russia in the air?

First, there's Ukraine that Russia will never be able to conquer. It can win the war, but that win will only mean that Russia keeps disputed regions like Donbas. It doesn't mean Ukraine won't be hitting back if Russia starts a war with NATO.
To attack Finland, Russia would have to conquer Estonia, which has NATO forces stationed there, mainly from the UK. There's also Finnish-Estonian cooperation going back to the times when both countries defended against the Soviet Union. If you added together all the forces stationed around Finland in Norway, Sweden, it would alone be enough to stop Russia in its current state, especially with Ukraine hitting back in the South. In the following months you'd see combined NATO fleet secure the Gulf of Finland and destroy good old Leningrad and that would either trigger a nuclear war or make Russians rethink their moves.

A simple stupid thing like gambling is not worth ending your life. Don't do it, your life is so much bigger than this.

You'll be like a driver who crashed his car and decided to kill himself because he worked a few years to get it. Your life is so much longer and you can achieve much more. Everything that's lost can be regained, remember that. You can recall memories, fix bonds with friends. The only thing you cannot bring back is people.

Get someone to disconnect you from it. Make them drive you to the mountains, where there's no Internet, and no way for you to get back to the city on your own. Make them leave you enough food and supplies to survive and stay there for a few weeks. You'll calm down and feel so much better after.

This may look risky but it's really much worse than betting a thousand dollars and cashing out at small multipliers like 1.1. With Crash it's much better to bet big and cash out very early because the chancves of you getting to 10X are low. Sometimes you'll get there but you'll lose 12 rounds before that happens, being -$2 anyway.


He had a decent bankroll. Many people would get bankrupt playing like this.

I watch others when I play cards, sometimes backing their bets. It's not a bad strategy.

All the people I know regret selling. We all had bitcoin in 2017 and some of us sold some as we approached 20k, while others held it and later panicked in the bear market, selling lower.

I bought a lot of electronics in the last 10 years using bitcoin gift cards. I still have most of it, but not all were essential purchases. I could use without some of them and have more bitcoin, especially that I thought myself smart and sold in bull markets. The problem of that was that there were more bull markets coming.

The truth is, holding without spending anything for years is boring. It's important to give yourself a treat from time to time.

I know some smart girls who do business, so I wouldn't generalize. As a matter of fact, my richest neighbor is a woman and there's some really rich people living here, but she's on another level.
The example is good if we don't focus on genders, but rather on a situation an investor will find himself in when compared to a spender. Women are usually spenders, but it doesn't mean men can't be.
My father used to be a saver and he never made big money.

I sometimes feel like this all saving and investing is overrated. I've been in bitcoin for many years and I feel like we're being constantly abused by bad actors. It's scammers, market manipulators, politicians...
I admit that sometimes I feel like giving up and spending all my investments and showing off for a few years before I get too old to enjoy it.

That's what I thought after reading the OP. That's what they do in the Middle East and in Africa they often wipe with large leaves.
My ancestors used to wipe their butts with moss in summer and hay in winter, or they'd wash after. After WW2 when there was not much toilet paper, they used to wipe with newspapers cut into pieces.



Don't forget about strong alcohol. Spirits can be used to calm nerves, disinfect wounds and surgical equipment, you can burn it to warm up, cook food, light the room, even make molotovs out of it.

More likely rats will use it to make nests before he can make a profit

If you want a decentralized currency that is peer-to-peer then how is that good for Bitcoin. It only servers to give banks more control of peoples money.

How is ETF making bitcoin centralized? How much are they going to own? Microstrategy owns 200k bitcoin and that's still more than BlackRock. Is bitcoin centralized because of it? I don't think so.
Even if All ETFs together end up owning 500k, that's 2.5% of the supply. It's not going to change anything.


I'm not a socialist and I don't care if they get rich from it. That's how the world is, the rich get richer. The rich can put some money in the bank and earn more than you in your full time job. Is it fair? Probably not, but life isn't fair.


It's your choice if you want to hold  your money or give it to BlackRock. I prefer to hold, but I don't have anything against some rich people and companies holding it.
There's a simple solution if you don't want ETFs to hold your bitcoin. Don't give it to them!

Have you ever thought that people who are now in their 40s, could be young guys who got interested in bitcoin in it's early days (2010-2015)? If you got your first bitcoin as a 28 year old, you could be now over 40 and treated like an old fart who doesn't know his way around new technologies. I'm not that old, but my first computer operated DOS and Norton Commander and was buying bitcoin sub $1k

I think that you mean people over 60 are reluctant. I know a lot of people age 30-40 and age has nothing to do with it. It depends mainly on your character, hobbies, line of work. Someone who works in a server room will be interested regardless of age, but you'll have a difficult task getting through to a bank manager, or someone with a government position, especially in finances.

GBTC, miners, leverage traders who got liquidated and had to take a loss?



I see that you don't understand how trading works. You always need 2 people toi participate, one with fiat money and another one with the asset (bitcoin). When a sell order executes on exchange it doesn't matter how much bitcoin is on the market. It can be 3 million, it can be 1 million. What matters is how much money in open buy orders is there. If 100 bitcoin is worth 4 million dollars and there's only 3 million on exchange in open orders, you drop 100BTC and the market tanks completely, but it won't be the value that tanks but spot price. There's a difference!

What about people who commit crime because they want to keep what they already have? A good example here is a man whose house can be taken away by the city and, seeing no other way, he commits a crime on a city employee who wants to enforce that order. By law it's a crime, but ethically the man is protecting his home and his family.

Crime is not always good or bad. In fact it rarely happens that someone is deprived to the core and attacks another person because he feels like it, wants to calm his rage down, or is interested in financial gain.
Often it's someone who sees no other way out, someone neglected for years by family and the system he's forced to live in.

You either choose honesty in your relationship, or secrecy and the "I know better" stance. That's your choice.

Personally, I always choose the first one. We share bank accounts, cars, whatever and we talk about everything and make plans together. If your idea for marriage is that you keep your secrets, eventually he's going to find out because you're together all the time. You're going to let it slip somehow and then you're going to regret it because he'll know you were dishonest so you can do it again. It's easy to destroy trust and very hard to rebuild it.

I don't buy ETF because I'm a normal person who doesn't report buys to the government, but if you're a large company, ETFs might be your only option to get Bitcoin exposure.

If you criticize ETFs, how are you going to stop them from buying? They're a market participant like many other people and have the right to trade like anybody else.
The more they suck from the market the less bitcoin there's left for the rest to trade which means supply squeeze- I'd say that's good for bitcoin holders.

That's why they want to talk via telegram and not here. You can easily delete a telegram chat and the account if needed, but a forum account is worth some money and losing it trying to scam someone wouldn't be worth it, but on telegram nobody will know.

If you look at OP's post history you'll notice that probably half of his forum posts is him looking for work here, trying to claim a few dollars for reviews and such. If he's able to make up to 2.5 the bet and is good at it, why would he look to earn a few dollars? He'd borrow money from someone, or sell some of his belongings and double it in a few bets.

If any of you get asked for money by OP, you'll know where this is going.

It's completely normal if you're into online gaming (not gambling). When your device loses connection with the server you often experience a partial lag, where the whole world freezes for you, but you can still travel and perform actions, just that these actions will have no effect on the players. In games like Diablo, you can attack enemies, but they won't die nor move. When you regain connection you will see what happened to you while you were gone and the casino game will show you the result.

There are some games that allow you to get disconnected without repercussions, like if you disconnect at dice, you'll just see the result later when you reconnect, but it can be a win. In Crash you'll lose, because the game always ends with a loss if you don't stop it yourself and you were unable to use functions while disconnected.

I don't like crowded places. I used to go with friends to a pub to watch a game but it was too loud. You can't comment on it like you would at home, you have to bear in mind that other people are nearby screaming towards you. You get the negative sides of a live event without really being at a live event (stadium).

If you want to watch live buy a ticket and watch it live. If you can't, it's often better to stay at home, or go watch it at a friend's house. Beer is cheaper there and you can talk all you want.

It was possible for the SEC to ask ARK to reapply, so that they could get a March deadline along with Blackrock and the rest, then delay other funds on January 15, move them to March and then approve them, but what would that change for the SEC? They'd get more paperwork to review when it was clear that they'd eventually have to approve them or get sued. The way I see it, Gensler knew that and wanted it all over sooner than later.

They were denying ETFs before because that was the official stance of the party and Biden administration, especially after the FTX drama, but Gensler was put between a rock and a hard place. On one hand he was destroyed in court and later in Congress, did not apply the case against Grayscale, so he took a big L, knew he'd lose against BlackRock if he denied the ETF, so he wanted to do by his masters, but also did not want the SEC to be humiliated in court once again, which is why he voted the way he voted.

They act on reports from whistleblowers. These aren't investigators but normal people who usually don't do it out of the goodness of heart but want to destroy either their own company, or competition and make some money in the process.

Yes, check this out:

May 5, 2023 —
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced the largest-ever award, nearly $279 million, to a whistleblower whose information and assistance led to the successful enforcement of SEC and related actions. This is the highest award in the SEC’s whistleblower program’s history, more than doubling the $114 million whistleblower award the SEC issued in October 2020.
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2023-89

But in such case ARK would sue since it was their final deadline and they'd probably accept the others on the 15th. It would be stupid of the SEC to deny 1 applicant and approve the rest a few days later if all of them wanted the same thing, which is why I'm a bit surprised that 2 people voted to deny. Maybe they wanted this to look like a split decision for the media?

I'm sure there's more to it than we know from the media. For instance, the SEC allows companies to snitch on each other and pays them some of the profits from fines if the information leads to such fine.
Therefore the SEC allows these companies to manipulate the market. Company A gets some information about shady tactics at company B for instance from a former employee. That employee gets paid for snitching, company A reports to the SEC. The SEC checks the information and contacts company A about planned enforcement. Company A shorts B stock with leverage. The SEC goes public with the investigation, the stock falls. If B is found not guilty, A gets to keep profit from shorts. If B is found guilty, its the money from shorts plus the SEC pays A for the tip. A win - win situation for the snitch.

My post wasn't about whether playing video games is bad or not, but about avoiding things that turn off your thinking and disconnect you from the world. In this sense video games are the same as drugs and alcohol. Playing video games for money is fine as long as you can treat it like work, especially if you can do it in the evening and have a whole day to do other things. Compare 2 random situations:
John wakes up at 10 am, starts his stream, plays for 14 hours straight with only bathroom and food breaks, then it's bed until 10 the next day.
Tom wakes up at 7, goes to school, comes back in the afternoon, eats dinner, goes to the gym or rides a bicycle, at 7 he starts his stream and plays until midnight.
Tom earns 30% of what John does, but his life is better, more full and more productive. If you play because you want to be far from society and/or your thoughts, you're lost.


Actually I'm more of a guy that doesn't like to work 9-5 every day, so I quit my normal job over 10 years ago and chose to work part-time. I did the math, compared my options and came up with a plan that my family had an old abandoned house in the woods and we were living in a city apartment, so we came to an agreement that I'd get the house for free if I can fix it and take care of the property. We moved there and rented out our apartment to have some additional income. My wife didn't want to quit her job, so she was driving there every day and I was working on the house basically doing everything by myself from plumbing to painting. We only had a few things done by contractors like roofing and insulation, so I'm not the wage slave you think I am.

I don't know why they'd vote against, knowing that it would mean a number of lawsuits that they'd most likely lose and have to cough up some money and apologies? They lost a case, did not appeal which means they knew it was a lost cause. It's rare for the government to give up unless they know they don't have anything to support the claim. I read a few articles by lawyers who said that the SEC has now only 2 options. They can either approve a spot ETF, or they can admit to being wrong in the first place and cancel approval for futures ETF. In both cases it would mean the companies would take them to court and win again because futures ETF was trading with no issues since 2018 so there's no way for the SEC to claim that the market is too dangerous to investors.


I don't care about ups and downs as long as they remain proportional. If we go +10% up on a given day and then 10% down on the next, it literally means nothing to me. On the average we were at 45.8k yesterday and over $46k now. That's a pump if you're looking at it on the daily like I do. Pump or no pump, bitcoin is going up in the long run.