And here are some thoughts on Giants and "Number Go Up"

One characteristic of Giants is that sometimes buy certain classes of assets at what seem to be very prices.  All kinds of interesting stuff.  Below one case, who buys this stuff?  $91,000,000??

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/feb/04/wow-91m-jeff-koons-blow-up-dogs-record-prices-paris-oxford

Giants, defined in a certain way, have so much money (as well as more money coming in), that the LAST thing they need are more businesses, generating more CA$H.  It's almost a problem.  So what do some of them do?  They buy a Store of Value that they like and have confidence in.  The Koons Balloon Dog was bought by a Giant.  I presume he liked it, wanted it.  It's not generating income.  But as a Store of Value, it just could be that the owner could sell that Dog if he wanted..., to whom?  Another Giant.

Once a Giant has, say, 5 castles in Europe, do they want more?  Look, the Rothschilds have been GIVING away castles & palaces in recent years.  The Marginal Utility of another palace is NEGATIVE for them now.  Another example would be high-end car collectors, at some point it becomes more of a pain-in-the-butt collecting evermore Mercedes, Lambos..  There are several assets (perhaps better said: asset classes) that work a little better than others for Giants.  One clue: for some (most?) of these assets, as the price goes up, they are harder to find/buy.  Hmm.

Bitcoin behaves a little differently from typical assets owned by the Giants.  I'm still trying to figure this one out (where BTC falls on the spectrum of desired assets of Giants).  It does look like the Marginal Utility of owning more BTC declines slowly though, VERY typical of assets wanted by the Giants.  Let's see if this scarcity notion of most Giants' Assets holds in the case of BTC.  Perhaps rather than becoming physically more scarce, the BTC price increases might just be more dramatic than usual if/when the BIG $$$ start to flow in.  "Number Go Up even more Bigly."  But, like I wrote, Bitcoin may not follow the other assets I try to track.  It's a New Asset, really a new asset class.  And it is risky IMO, as .gov seems to hate it.

"Following in the footsteps of Giants" may require some out-of-the-box thinking.  But, almost everyone who buys Bitcoin is at least part way there.  We recognize value (and at least the idea, even if unspoken, of Marginal Utility).

I am extremely interested (and have been for years) in following BTC's price movements and acceptance in the years to come.  We will just have to see.

"We watch together, no?"

So which post is correct here on the actual meaning of target price and resistance levels?

Are you a time traveler from the past? Or your notifications are a bit late... 

Has everyone read this news today?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5476162.0

In this regard, the entire crypto-community has the following question:
Theymos, when KYC will be introduced at bitcointalk.org?

You know alot of stupid people.

Do you ask them why they didn't already do that?

I do agree there can be real life consequences.  This is why I am thinking of a different approach.  I think censoring from the start is drawing a very thin line and makes the future even more uncertain for Bitcoin Talk,

I think it is not as important for the safety of theymos to BAN Mixers straight away as it is to rather promote a strong statement against the use of criminal funds with existing Mixers.  I imagine the Dutch Local Authorities would not be too happy to find out theymos has banned Mixers only to continue promoting Coin Joins but will instead be much happier if theymos made it clear every single time that Mixers are NOT to be used with illegal funds.

Otherwise it sets a dangerous precedent.

I think of it like smoking ads.  You are being told cigarettes can destroy your health.  Now you know the risk and continuing to do so will only decline your health.  Even at a first glance, it would make Bitcoin Talk much less suspicious to Authorities than the version we have today.  Then the possible consequences are much lower for theymos too.  What can they do to some body who has explicitly publicly stood against the criminal use of Mixers?  Now compare that to what they can do to some body who banned Mixers only to continue supporting the one thing they hate the MOST.  Coin Joins and Monero.  They would have a much better case to form that way.

I guess.

I’ve thought this for ages, the last cycle was suppressed.

Diminishing returns will be proven false in the next 2 years.

Super cycle loading……


@Bitcoin_for_Freedom
It’s obvious that the last cycle didn’t play out in a natural way. «The Elite» stopped it with China Ban, Futures ETFs and FTX. They did this because they understood #bitcoin  and needed more time to stack.

https://x.com/btc_for_freedom/status/1730969813021790387

There are some confusion that might make me a little doubtful about the development of Bitcoin prices and adoption in 2024, which we all know that we will face Halving Bitcoin as well as the ETF agreement which is the most powerful indicator in encouraging Bitcoin prices, so that many people are speculating and accused The nominal is quite fantastic in Bitcoin in the last 2 years of the current cycle.

There is a dilemma that disturbs my mind, about the wider potential of war in the region of Palestine, we witness the reactions of various countries at the end of this week in the area, and show the great power of the eastern and western blocs, which we know that America and Friends said firmly that they became a strong supporter of Israel's annexation to the Palestinian region. Conversely Russia, North Korea and neighboring Palestinians, Turkey, Afghanistan, Iran and others support Palestinian independence and are ready to be behind Palestinian troops, which all makes conflict and political tension of the power of the world's major blocks that might trigger a big war to occur if did not find a meeting point in this conflict.

From various sequences of problems and many aspects that can be associated, I become doubtful with the price development of Bitcoin which in the event of this war is enlarged, so as usual Bitcoin will experience a price decline, even though we know it is not just bitcoin that will be a victim of this conflict happen.

I do not mean to frighten or make FUD, I just want to discuss to share thoughts, but for an bitcoin intelligent investor, how do you respond to conflicts that have probability to suppress Bitcoin prices?

Doge is also a meme, shiba is also a memecoin and they still exist today and thanks to them many people have become rich. In your opinion, are people who become rich by investing in doge or shiba stupid? In 2023 even though bear season is still raging and leaving many bitcoin investors unable to make significant profits. But in the market there appeared a memecoin project called PEPE and I bet you also know about it, it increased more than 1000 times and helped people make good profits, do you think they are idiots?

Altcoins are risky but that doesn't mean they are all scams. Just because you can't find the hidden gems, others won't either. Bitcoin is the safest investment and no one can deny that, but investing in altcoins is not as bad as you are saying.

It is pretty crazy. The price doesn’t seem to be that high so maybe some miners came off the network or something? I haven’t explored it much. I am surprised to see that even my old 1080ti rigs are once again profitable as a result. Those babies just keep on bringing profits year after year. Amazing really.

Silk Road: anonymous marketplace. Feedback requested

I wonder why this forum wasn't been seized during Silk Road's case, I guess that case was big on that moment because sometimes few people still discuss about that.


I'm not really know about legal and laws, if there will be a time where the government doesn't like this forum, will they directly seized the forum and include theymos as a criminal/wanted or they will give a warning first?

---

Below was the first censorship, it seems both theymos and Sirius are agree to not taking a big risk. Centralized mixer is always become a hot topic unlike Monero, CoinJoin etc, that's why I guess theymos still allow that.


This forum follows US laws, so those countries e.g. China, Bangladesh etc that ban Bitcoin doesn't have any relation to US laws.

Why blame altcoins when it is an individual's inability to understand investing in cryptocurrency? When someone doesn't want to invest in Bitcoin either because his investment failed in Altcoins or he heard that many Altcoins are scams, it is his own fault.
If he at least understands cryptocurrency, not just casually investing, he will definitely understand that Bitcoin is different compared to Altcoin, and its potential is much higher.

It can hardly look not strange anyway. Different government agencies of different countries say that mixing bitcoins is not illegal per se and they have problems with some exact mixers, we suppose that it is not anything bad per se. So it looks like we are saying that it is okay to use mixers, it is not illegal, but it is forbidden to talk about it on the forum and you will be banned for something not illegal and not bad. I don't know how to make it look not strange.

And partial restrictions look even stranger. Because to find that boundaries we should see what is exactly wrong. Because if all vegetables discussion is banned on the forum it is still strange, but at least consistent. And when it is okay to say that vegetables are healthy food, but I can not say you how to get some for you because it could lead to a ban, it looks much stranger.

We know that banks and investment funds go bankrupt and have problems with authorities on a regular base. Ponzi schemes of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, Chara bank and in Toronto-Dominion Bank, money laundering in JPMorgan Chase, HSBC, Standard Chartered, Deutsche Bank and Bank of New York Mellon, etc. So staying consistent should we ban discussion about banks and investment funds keeping in mind that they can face with problems with authorities in the future? Banking and investment in not illegal per se, but all that can be used by criminals. And I named some organisations which had some problems with authorities (I didn't link any of their sites, but I could). So how to find correct boundaries?

Several people seem to be concerned that the current policy will be too disruptive/constraining. How about I make this modification to loosen it a bit: you can direct people to mixers by name (even in something like a "top 10 mixers" topic), as long as:
 - You don't directly post their URLs.
 - It's not a paid ad, and you're not representing a mixer.

Would this be sufficient to address the concerns?