Yes, it's a bit of a strange question considering where we are, but if you look at this board or Bitcoin discussion you will surely notice such questions, whether it is a comparison to gold, real estate or stocks. The problem (if we're going to call it that) is that most people see Bitcoin only as a means to achieve the goal (as much profit as possible), and very rarely as a currency that allows them to make transactions without intermediation anytime and anywhere every day.

Even when we talk about luxury watches in the form of investment, I think that such watches are generally no match for investing in Bitcoin in terms of profit even if we just go back less than 1 year in the past. It is true that luxury watches are similar to gold and we will not lose 10% or more of their value overnight, but we will also not be able to count on earning 100% or significantly more in a very short period of time.

Another important thing (at least for me) is that such watches are something that requires special storage in protection against possible theft, and we can be sure that every thief is looking for just such values, and that they will steal such a watch rather than a piece of paper on which someone wrote their seed.

Honestly, I don't see anything justifying the term "Most Effective" when it comes to mixers, because you don't offer anything that other similar services don't offer. However, you offer something you don't list as "Key Features", which is the ability to mix ETH and USDT.

As for Switzerland, I would not agree that servers in that country provide any extra security, and I believe that the Swiss cooperate with everyone who sends them a request when it comes to possible money laundering, terrorist financing, and similar things.

---

Since this service is new, I recommend caution until the legitimacy of the service is established.

Of course, database hacking happens almost every day and this is not at all controversial, but such things should not happen to a company that should be an example of security for everyone else with regard to their products. By showing that they are not capable of protecting even their clients' data, they have more than obviously shown that we should have all suspected that they were not and would not be able to protect another type of data for which we eventually paid when we bought their devices.

In the thread about their recovery service there is a video in which you can watch Ledger CEO Pascal talk about it as something that most did not even notice, let alone felt any consequences. Such relativization of a problem that is really serious is for me then and today quite a sufficient sign that in this company the safety and well-being of clients are not in the first place, but that it is exclusively profit.

I would disagree that everyone had such an opinion in 2013 when it comes to Bitcoin, because let's remember that back then there was Mt.Gox based in Japan and that many even famous people traded Bitcoin, and it is known that Tim Draper lost as much as 40 000 BTC when that CEX get hacked.

The Silk Road case may have changed the minds of many at the time, but then, as today, most illegal activities are associated with fiat currencies, whether it is the US dollar, the euro or some other currency. What has definitely changed when it comes to the broad masses is the fact that after 2017 there was a realization that Bitcoin is not something that will just disappear, and that of course you can earn a lot of money if you invest in it.

It's not bad and it's actually desirable to grow your own fruits and vegetables, but unless you have a very large garden you will still depend at least partially on others. Also growing something of your own is not as easy as some think, because it takes a lot of time, knowledge, patience and luck.

In addition, if you want to grow in a natural way without all the poisons they use, it will be even more difficult for you considering all the diseases and pests that exist in addition to the fact that the climate has changed significantly and you have to count that at any moment you can lose everything if there is a storm with the addition of hail, or maybe a flash flood.

Of course, this does not mean that you should not try, because tomatoes grown without any chemicals will taste much better than any produced in an industrial way - noting that you also need quality seeds of old varieties that have not been modified in any way.

When we talk about food produced in an organic way, then we have to start from the fact that such food is quite expensive than the one produced in a commercial way, and therefore it is something that most people in the world can not afford. The more people on the planet, the greater the need for food, and this means that those who promote genetically modified foods are taking up more space and offering more for less money - which combined with inflation means that fewer people are eating healthy food.

I think that vertical farms have potential, but that they are not in the interest of large producers who solve the problem with the lack of arable land with deforestation, which is obviously cheaper and faster than the construction of vertical farms.

The problem of healthy food is most pronounced in urban areas where most have no choice but to buy fruits, vegetables or meat in supermarkets, but this is the problem of today in much of the world where people have simply rejected self-sufficiency as one of the foundations of a sustainable society.

Don't be fooled by someone having the courage to risk $2 million like it was all they had, because such people were rich long before Bitcoin existed - so he only risked what he could have allowed himself to lose. The man in question has worked for Goldman Sachs for 25 years and obviously knew how to recognize the opportunity for a good profit, and such people do not fall under the influence of other people who might advise them that something is a bad investment.

---

I would disagree with that statement, because Saylor has bought more than 150 000 BTC since 2020, and I'm sure there are a lot of those who do it without such data appearing in public. I think it's more courageous to buy BTC worth a few billion today than to invest $2 million 10 years ago.

I don't find it at all strange that these two companies were not at that conference, given that they are EU companies, one of which has much more serious problems than participating in conferences. Besides what's the logic in looking for a link between those companies and FTX which was a crypto exchange?


The reputation you're talking about disappeared after the data leak, although Ledger then and today described the situation as harmless and overly stressed, because according to them, in fact, nothing terrible happened. They also claim that anyone who talks negatively about their new achievement in a negative way is actually just spreading FUD, because what they do is actually desirable and good, that is, it is demanded by their loyal users (especially their mothers and grandmothers).


I don't think anyone can give an objective answer to that question, especially if that question relates to hardware wallets - because after all, the question arises whether it all comes down to trust or the fact that something is open source?

I think that taught by the experiences of the past we should be extremely careful in giving opinions about which HW is the best, because even the seemingly best things can turn out to be quite the opposite.

Personally, it is not strange to me that such news comes to us from the UK, since for years the official position of their central bank has been very negative when it comes to Bitcoin and generally all other "cryptocurrencies".

Also, I would not call it hypocrisy, but a combination of several factors such as incompetence, ignorance and of course an attempt to preserve the national currency as the basic mechanism of financial security. It doesn't hurt to mention that the UK has been part of the EU for decades, but it has never been part of the eurozone, which speaks for itself.

Furthermore, it should be known that banks protect themselves and their interests, but in a way also the interests of clients from various scams, more and more of which are related to cryptocurrencies. People who are scammed mostly turn to banks for help, and why should banks even deal with such things when it is much easier for them to put a ban on such transactions and protect themselves and their customers.

They actually say "if you really want to invest in crypto find another way, don't do it directly from the bank account".

You're repeating what OP wrote without reading other posts where you can see that the withdrawal threshold is much lower - although that doesn't mean it's a legitimate faucet. In addition, everyone who comments on faucets without even knowing how they work today gives the wrong information, especially when it comes to fees and dust transactions.

Most of the faucets are concentrated around one known microwallet and every reward that someone earns goes to that wallet, and when you accumulate a certain amount you can send it to your wallet.

---

There was no such faucet, you don't pay attention to details because it was a faucet who paid 5 BTC per claim and didn't work for a long time. Besides, most people have a completely wrong idea about how much the value of 5 BTC was then, so I wonder why people complain so much because they didn't know about this or some other faucets before?

If we take the average value of a claim on a faucet 5 or 10 years ago, it is actually very similar to that of today if we talk about the value expressed in fiat currencies. Faucets always paid small amounts in $, but because of the low price of BTC and large numbers it seemed that you were getting more.

I would just add that when it comes to altcoins there are also free desktop & mobile wallets that are probably less secure than the hardware wallets you mention, but still in the light of recent events for someone who has a couple of hundred dollars worth of altcoins it is not worth buying HW.

Of course, I'm talking about multicurrency wallets like Coinomi, Trust wallet or Mycelium that have their drawbacks - but they are still completely free unlike the HW you mention, and whose security policy makes less and less sense.

I want to announce that I'm leaving the campaign and that yesterday was my last day. All posts after that should not be considered for the current week.

Thank you @Royse777 for the opportunity and for the successful 3 weeks

It would be good for people to understand that all these big companies and some extremely rich and influential individuals generally want nothing but to make even more money, and that Bitcoin is just a means to that goal. Let no one be fooled that they will do something good for Bitcoin in the long run, because they have never been interested in why it exists, it is still completely contrary to the system that they fully support.

I'd compare their current attitude to chewing gum, as long as it tastes, they'll chew it, and then they'll spit it out.

You are wrong, because the SEC did not reject the request, but only asked for the filling to be supplemented with additional information and the whole process continued afterwards. The whole process can take up to 240 days, so the final decision can be made even at the beginning of next year.

Besides, BlackRock is not just any kind of company, it's the biggest in the business globally, and if the SEC (U.S. government) is going to give anyone a spot BTC ETF, then they have the best chance.

I'm pretty convinced it's not a service for mere mortals who want to buy a couple hundred or thousands $ worth of BTC - and if memory serves me right, shares in such funds are measured in tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's something that will be used by big and wealthy investors who have millions or billions of dollars under the management of companies like Fidelity or BlackRock.

Are you forgetting that this is about China? People in a country where communists are in power are not asked if they want something or not, and anyone who thinks otherwise is an enemy of the state. A country that censors the internet and has the most oversight of people through massive surveillance methods certainly has no problem with something as simple as CBDC.

Besides, they've been testing it for years on tens of millions of people in different provinces, I've never heard anyone complain about it.

Do you know how long it takes you to collect 1 whole BTC on that faucet? However, the FAQ says that the minimum amount is considerably lower.



If you can't find those legitimate faucets yourself, then you shouldn't use them at all. Don't get me wrong, I just want to tell you the truth - I have nothing against faucets, because that's how I "earned" my first BTC.

You can find more information in Micro Earnings

I guess (obviously wrong) that you should have at least seen (if you haven't already read) all the threads on the topic of BTC ETF that have appeared these days.

Another attempt at Bitcoin ETF..You knew it was coming once BTC raised above ATH
bitcoin ETFs
BlackRock and Fidelity both apply for bitcoin ETFs
BlackRock Bitcoin ETF to Partners with Coinbase


At least as many threads have been reported and have been deleted, and if you go to Economics boards, you will find at least 5+ threads on the same topic. Accordingly, I could very easily report your thread as low value/repetitive content, but I wanted to point out the meaninglessness of the questions you ask given how much we've already discussed it.

I also think I'm quite polite in my comments, but in the future I'll even refrain from trying to point out some things to people, and I'll use another option more

Maybe we're not intelligent enough to understand what Mr. Mars is doing with the company and it will actually be worth at least $250 billion in the future (so he claims), but to me who looks at it from the sidelines it seems like he's deliberately trying to destroy the company. In the context of everything that has been going on in recent months and days, the competition is about to make the final blow, and we'll soon see if the birdie manages to recover after Threads is released from the bottle.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who will leave their comments even on a completely meaningless post because they just want to add another post because of their signature campaign or activity points. What is true is that such users are very likely to end up on the ignore list of many other users, but I prefer to report such posts because hiding the problem under the carpet is not something that benefits the forum, but only individuals.

In addition, the quality of posts is not something we can precisely determine because members have different criteria, and beginners are often confused when they see someone rewarding a post of just a few words or one sentence - but the thing is that it is not always the quality that is crucial, but the post can be funny or sarcastic, and some members will want to reward it.

Quality is important, but there are some other factors that should not be forgotten, because after all this distinguishes us from artificial intelligence, which is increasingly present on the forum.