To me, this story seems like it's about children competing to see who will jump further or who will climb the tallest tree, or in the case of rich people competing to have a bigger yacht or villa with a bigger pool, which definitely makes more sense to me then people competing to buy more Bitcoin. It would be logical for them not to discuss such things at all for their personal and family safety, because such information often reaches bad people, and if you keep so much value in your house, you become a target.


Every obsession is bad if it can't be controlled at least to some extent, because why even set goals that are almost impossible to achieve? Most people today cannot afford to own even 1 BTC even for a period of several years, but that is no reason not to practice DCA and maybe one day achieve their goal. But all those who have had a goal in the past know very well that with each fulfillment of that goal, we set a new goal for ourselves, and we try to set new challenges all our lives.

Does fiat, gold or maybe shares have anything to do with crime? People who claim that Bitcoin enables criminals and terrorists to remain anonymous are unfortunately becoming more and more stupid, but these are the same geniuses who claimed a few years ago that terrorists use 500 EUR banknotes the most, so they started withdrawing them from circulation - while, let's say, the same terrorists do not use banknotes of 1000 Swiss francs (the value of the euro and the Swiss franc is almost equal).

In addition, all researches in the last 5+ years have shown that the share of Bitcoin in world crime is almost insignificant, just like the story that Bitcoin should be blamed for climate change because it consumes even 0.2% of the world's total energy with proven more than 50% from renewable sources.

I would not be surprised if such claims come from uneducated people, but mostly we hear them from various experts who present themselves as doctors, masters and super rich - but if we know the truth, then we should not consider them an intelligent part of our society, regardless of their status, right?

If the transaction of $1000 did not receive at least 1 confirmation, then the sender could simply spend the same amount in another transaction by using the same input with a higher fee than in the first transaction. This is the so-called double-spend in case the wallet has the RBF (replace by fee) option.

In anticipation of green dildos

I don't think that the hacker didn't want to take everything, but for some reason he couldn't empty the entire wallet. If we were to go beyond the technical aspect of the possible explanations of this case, this would picture some kind of debt collection where a person takes only what he thinks belongs to him. In any case, it's a very strange situation that definitely needs answers, because we know that things like this don't happen without someone initiating them.

These are all just assumptions and nothing more than that, because if ETH did not exist, there would probably be some other altcoin and attract people to invest in it for one reason only, and that is the price. Therefore, regardless of what features Bitcoin does not have compared to some altcoins, I don't think it would change the general perception of the average investor who doesn't really understand the difference between Bitcoin and any other cryptocurrency.

I therefore do not think that there would be fewer scam projects, but I can agree that more people would invest in Bitcoin if some other altcoins did not distract them, and not only the one you cite as an example, but also some others that have appeared in the past years and are presented as cheap alternatives to Bitcoin.

If you ever have the opportunity to ask the following question, what do you think the answer will be?

For the same amount of money I offer you 15 ETH or 1 BTC, which would you choose?

Doing nothing and making a profit is the fantasy of many, but the majority realized the hard way that it is mostly an impossible mission. However, if you have a sense for marketing and promotion, you may try to promote affiliate links of some centralized crypto exchanges or online casinos, and in case you manage to find referrals who are active and invest significant funds, it can be a passive source of income.

Of course, in addition to time, you should also invest some money and be realistic with your goals, or in other words, don't hope for overnight success.

I have never been in a bounty campaign, but in my beginnings I was also inclined to experiment with various crypto projects, although my focus was always on Bitcoin. I can't say that all these projects failed, but let's say 90% of what I was involved in no longer exists or is practically worthless with some exceptions.

On the other hand, I remember the price of BTC of only $200 and the possibility to collect the same in just a few months of using the faucet (1-2 hours a day max) with a note that back then faucets were much easier without short links and similar nonsense that they are full of today.

When you say that some profit and others lose money, you can conclude that the majority's loss is the minority's gain. It doesn't seem ethical to make a profit in such a way that you have to mislead someone else into investing money in something that you already know in advance will fail - but I mean in general that whole industry that actually sells a bunch of false promises and always targets the poorest who just want to make money no matter what.

I read some articles about the fact that most smartphones use various methods and show us advertisements based on that, but I don't doubt that this is the case with all other "smart" devices as well. Today's smart TVs are also real spy boxes, because every time they have a serious upgrade, you have to agree to a complete waiver of privacy and agree that all collected data is used by the manufacturer, but also by all those who will receive data from them. If you do not agree to the terms, you can no longer use the smart services of your TV.

The article you linked is from 2019, and the CEX in question is just playing a good guy, while at the same time they avoid doing business according to the rules and profit in billions without paying taxes. Most of the BTC that were seized from Silk Road were sold at auctions and, lo and behold, they are no longer taint because they were laundered by an agency with three letters


I've never had a problem with a transaction being rejected/frozen regardless of the fact that the coins were mixed, but I don't use CEX because I think they are more negative than positive overall. There are many ways to achieve privacy when it comes to the BTC you have in your wallet, but some things are not desirable to discuss publicly.

If you are worried about things like taxes, you think that someone is constantly following you, eavesdropping or something similar or you are too paranoid, then maybe Bitcoin is not for you, considering that you are turning a solution into a problem.

I personally (and many others) have no reason to doubt Bitcoin because it has proven itself through more than 10 years of existence as the only decentralized cryptocurrency that was created with a purpose and has its own practical application. What you are talking about is something completely different, because if someone creates a token/cryptocurrency only with the intention of making a quick profit for himself (or someone else), then that is diametrically opposed to what Bitcoin represents.


According to what you say, most of these altcoins/tokens are actually gambling chips, and the people who buy them are actually gambling with them because that's their only purpose. In that game, most players lose everything they have, and they say that this percentage is around 95%, while only 5% profit.

I wouldn't call it a fair game because all these projects promise something completely different, while in fact they are essentially frauds that only individuals get rich from. In the eyes of the regulator, this is a problem that is being tried to be solved, despite the fact that most people think that someone is taking away their right to trade.

I didn't go in the direction of checking what the OP is promoting, but I looked at his post history and in most of his posts he mentions the same company, which means that he uses apparently hidden advertising, which is more than obvious. 

It would be nice if they did something useful for young people, but what exactly are crypto/blockchain experts? Maybe those who create meaningless tokens and altcoins and try to convince others that this is the next big thing they should invest their money in?

It seems to me that you are an alt account from the guy who recently asked for something similar, and as a reference he states that he lost everything he could lose, except for the house he supposedly bought for his parents. Even if you're not the same person, you share the same failed visions about how to achieve success - but that's pretty useless on this forum where most don't even have enough money for basic life needs, and those who have been around for a long time and have some savings are not naive who fall for such cheap tricks.

If there is any truth in what you wrote, I suggest that you start from scratch and start solving your mess, but not in a way that asks for money from others.

Another story that doesn't seem true, and it wouldn't be the first time that some people use their imagination to try to get some merit. To me, it would be logical for someone to protest because his father left him nothing or left him debts, and for someone to protest because Bitcoin was left to him really makes no sense.

If there is any doubt about what Bitcoin is, can't it be found out within a few minutes using the internet and a search engine? That imaginary friend is therefore a rather unintelligent person if he behaves in that way.

Just to add that it should also be taken into account that most non-custodial wallets have an option called RBF (replace by fee), and that everyone who does BTC transactions should know that if this option is enabled, they can react at any time and increase the fee and thus give the transaction a higher priority. What confuses some people about this option is that they think they are paying for the transaction twice, but of course the old transaction is canceled by creating a new one, that is, by confirming the transaction with a higher fee.

Desires are one thing, but reality is something else - and what is happening now has already been seen many times, and I remember it well because I am practically reading the same things that I have read many times in the past. The difference, of course, is in the numbers, that is, in the price of Bitcoin. It's strange that anyone expects something like that to happen before the halving, as if the past doesn't suggest that the exact opposite should happen.

In addition, not only some investors in Bitcoin are nervous, but also those who are in altcoins and are waiting for something to happen, and everyone knows that there is only one locomotive that can pull all these wagons forward.

It seems to me personally that we should not expect too much influence from the bulls until the end of this year, and possibly in the first months of next year, because it should be borne in mind that all those who invest in Bitcoin currently want to keep the price as low as possible. The accumulation phase is still ongoing, and the only factor that can disrupt this situation is the possibility that the spot BTC ETF will be approved in the US before the final deadline, which is sometime at the beginning of next year.

Actually OP mentioned it, but you seem to have missed it.

---

It seemed to me that you got inspiration from that page, because if you start your website, then it would be logical that you first check if there is something similar. Personally, I don't think it's intended for advanced users, because what's advanced in HW reviews or book recommendations about Bitcoin?

In your specific case, there is no doubt that this is true, as well as in any tourist country, where real estate owners in tourist locations make more money by renting out their properties than by renting them out to the local population. Given that I live in a similar country, I know how things work and unfortunately you cannot force anyone to rent or sell their property to anyone, and that would actually be wrong in principle.


Everyone has their own preferences when it comes to the environment they live in, but I would personally look for a quieter location outside the big cities where the prices are the highest. Of course, this raises the issue of distance from the workplace if it is located in the city, but sometimes you cannot have cheap and ideal accommodation near the workplace.

When it comes to tourism and climate change, I have read predictions that summer temperatures will be higher and that this will affect everyone involved in tourism, especially in the Mediterranean, where this summer broke all temperature records with extremely strong storms. The question is whether you can wait for it and whether you should even hope for it, because tourism is very important for your country.

It's not something we haven't seen before, and maybe you got an idea from one such project that is already very well known to those who visit the Development & Technical Discussion board. To me, the first website is much better because it is designed with much better quality and provides much more information, but that does not mean that you cannot be a good competitor if you make an effort.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5416497.0