I can't, but help feel like a lot of users are missing the point here. I do admit, Bitcoin will have different use cases, and therefore different opinions on what's important. However, for me why I see not only why Bitcoin will be successful in the long term, but why it's required:

First, Bitcoin allows you to control your wealth, without relying on a third party, but still be able to spend it globally. This is groundbreaking. Some users touched upon it by saying decentralised, but go get into the nitty, and gritty details: Fiat can't be used globally, without relying on a bank or payment processor to handle your money. I.e, to use Ebay, you need a Paypal account, Paypal requires your credit card, which in return requires you to have a bank. That means, you need to have money deposited into a bank, which you no longer control, and likely give permission to that bank to gamble with your money. There's no guarantee you won't lose that money. Although, there are protection schemes in place, in certain countries which cover you up to like £85k or something like that. However, that's only for certain circumstances. Bitcoin, removes that need for a middle man, and a payment processor. You store your Bitcoin, you control the security, and you decide what you can, and can't purchase with it. This can be done globally, the only thing that competes with this level of control is cash, if you keep cash in hand, and not stored in a bank. However, the convenience of moving cash on a global level or even long distances within your own country, can be rather limiting. Bitcoin solves this problem.

Secondly, tackling the inflation problem. In fiat, you're guaranteed to get poorer. I can guarantee you that in the long term. In Bitcoin, it's deflationary by design, and thus smarter to use in the long term. However, that's not only it, Bitcoin can be scaled in the future, by using denominations, whereas fiat you've to keep printing off money or alternatively come up with a million different coins of the denominations.

Thirdly, Bitcoin has come at the right time. The world is converting to digital money, and Bitcoin has hit the nail on the head, by becoming somewhat known to everyone out there, during the time of this transmission. Thus, converting to a cryptocurrency (which does have its differences to digital money) becomes easier, and by doing so, people are securing their future in a much more robust technology, than the current implementations of digital money will give you.

Finally, I won't go into any more because I could legitimately be here all night describing you the benefits of Bitcoin. Anyway, finally you have the freedom that no other alternative provides, and I touched upon this earlier. You can use your Bitcoin where ever, whenever, and instantly.  

This is without talking about things like the transparency due to the blockchain, chargebacks, security, privacy, which are all important factors to consider. However, I felt others talked about this enough not to include. PRIVACY is massive, though. If you don't care about it now, you'll probably be regretting that in the future.

Nope:

If the user was talking about these sorts of things without advertising their site, it would be a little better. Obviously, not to the amount they're posting per day. I removed several that was posted within a 24 hour period. So, for anyone wondering, the threads weren't removed because of the subject at hand, but rather the way it was done i.e using Bitcointalk as a place to advertise their blog, and pretty much using the Politics, and Society section as their own personal blogging channel.

I know they've used it as sort of "oh look: source", but my interpretation that doesn't mean you can spam, for the sole intent of getting visitors on your site. In reality, these sort of posts are probably touching upon a few of the guidelines, but I generally believe guidelines 24, is the best example case here.

This is extremely ironic. Since, everyone here has likely put their trust in a gambler. Have you used a bank? Effectively, they're gambling. It's just called investments rather than gambling. Just imagine, a business where you don't use your money, and therefore you mitigate the risk of you losing, but you use the money of your clients to gamble, to earn you profit. That sounds like it would be hard to convince your clients to do that right? Alright, offer them interest on their deposited money, the more they deposit, the more they earn in interest. The more money we have to reinvest, and make money.

This is exactly how banks work. This is exactly the reason why you shouldn't trust a gambler or investor whatever name you want to give them, with your money. It should be the one of reasons, you use Bitcoin today.

Quite frankly, and don't think this the wrong way. I wouldn't trust any of you with my money, and neither should you trust me. If you have to trust someone with money, make sure it's as small of an amount as possible. Hence why normally there are trustee's in businesses, and any one holding money for the business or whatever, doesn't have access to all the funds, but a share of it.

Right, it's something that happens in everything we manufacture. For example, when you make cars, millions get made successfully, but not every car is as reliable as another. There's certain defects during the manufacturing process, which is unavoidable. You look at a pair of shoes, and they'll be slightly different, whether or not that difference can compromise their function, but it could, potentially.

It's the same here, there's a margin for error where certain devices can or will brick. It could be anything, during the upgrade sequence it could be something like not having a heat sink, and the device goes above operating conditions, or anything really.

However, this somewhat extends to software as well, since not everyone uses the software as specified, or if downloading, you might have not downloaded it correctly, or part of it was corrupted, which when the hardware wallet is fed that, it doesn't know what to do with it, hence the bricked device.

If they offer a replacement service for free, you can't really get any better than that. As long as you have your seed setup, it should be fine.

Always nice to see things like this, however I'm curious if this was a compulsory class or is this something that's optional? I'm glad to hear they responded well to it. I'm just not completely sold on the idea of teaching Bitcoin to children quite yet. Honestly, that might just be because our culture here, they probably wouldn't benefit from it, but I suppose in certain other cultures, Bitcoin is actually becoming pretty much something they'll encounter on the daily. So, I'll admit it might be the culture gap.

I'm not bashing the idea, I love it that there's people out there doing this sort of stuff, and I know in my teenager years I would've been absolutely loving a class like this. However, for any younger children I don't think teaching them quite yet what Bitcoin is, and what it can be used for will be that useful. Although, I tend to think we teach the concept of money too early to children anyway.

Umar, and Shavkat Rakhmonov would be my favourites, but the only issue with that is the bookies know it too. The odds aren't worth it. I'd say including Umar on a multi would be a good idea, as in my mind it would be a massive shock if he did end up losing here. Shavkat on the other hand, isn't as certain for me, despite probably taking it pretty easily.

I've been impressed by what I've seen from him in his last couple of fights. Obviously, not counting the one where he got choked out very quickly . Other than that fight, even when he's losing he isn't a long way out from winning. Usually competitive. Plus, Bautista will probably be looking for the knock out, and Kelleher I think will be that tricky self that'll just be able to avoid those bombs that Bautista is known to throw.

It has become an elitist mentally, that if you aren't holding you aren't a true believer in Bitcoin. It's starting to stretch to sort of religious levels of following, but it couldn't be anything further than the truth.

Sure, you're somewhat right. Although, we aren't saying to cash out into profit for fiat. We're saying to cash out at highs, wait for the volatility, reinvest into Bitcoin. Therefore, you aren't increasing your fiat reserve necessarily, but you're increasing the amount of Bitcoin you would hold.

I've never traded Bitcoin for profit in fiat. I've used it for things I wanted at the time, trips etc. However, if I was offered the guarantee of buying 1 Bitcoin, then later selling that for a 3x profit in fiat, waiting for Bitcoin to drop, and then reinvesting that entire amount back into Bitcoin to turn my one Bitcoin into three Bitcoin. I would absolutely bite your hand off.

If you believe Bitcoin will continue to go up, and down for the next few years or decades, it makes absolute sense to sell at highs, and accumulate more Bitcoin than you once had.

If you secure the hardware wallet fairly well, as in physically. You should be alright. Like I said, technically it can be compromised physically, however my philosophy is if you've got into the effort of getting a hardware wallet anyhow, you should be securing it physically as well. Even with secure elements, you can't be sure there isn't vulnerabilities in it.

I tend to believe that breaking into something physically, is much easier than remotely. That's simply because there's much more unconventional techniques you can use. There's been freezing of devices, and all sorts of techniques done in the past to compromise it.

However, if you're concerned then yeah use one with a secure element. I still wouldn't absolutely rely on it though, and would still take precautions.

Well, I don't think I need the weigh ins for most of my predictions. Feeling confident with the underdogs this week.

Here's the predictions:

Arman Tsarukyan
Gamrot definitely has a chance here, but I think Tsarukyan will get the job done.

Shavkat Rakhmonov
Should be a relatively easy fight, don't think his opponent has what it takes. Would have to be a knock out to lose this I think.

Alan Baudot
Thiago Moisés
Umar Nurmagomedov
Rodolfo Vieira
Carlos Ulberg
TJ Brown
Raulian Paiva
Cody Durden
Brian Kelleher
Jinh Yu Frey

Kelleher fight is going to be absolutely crazy I think. His opponent going into the fight as a favourite, and probably rightfully so. I just think Kelleher can be a tricky fighter at times, and will get it done. That's probably my fight of the night there.

It comes full circle. In the past some users have suggested holding the campaign managers more responsible for those that they're effectively employing. If they're spamming because of their signature campaign, I'd probably agree that signature campaign managers should also be at fault here. After all, if you're caught hiring a bumping service you'll be banned along with the bumpers themselves.

The managers either need to be more strict on who they hire or they need to remove those that are constantly spamming. SO while, new moderators would probably be something to consider, it's far more likely that there's a low amount of reporting going on. Whether that's because users have given up or because they just don't report. The community isn't required to report, but without that reporting, there wouldn't be any moderator candidates in the first place. So, like I said it works kind of in full circle, where we need reporters, to establish suitable moderators, we need campaign managers to become a little more strict, which will turn prevent the spam in the first place.

Currently, if there isn't a lot of reporters, then we're relying on the campaign managers themselves to kick out the dead wood.

One satoshi maybe, but I think most users could save multiple satoshis a day. Even, if that requires purchasing them. Might be a good way of looking at it, since I find these days people are way to obsessed over buying a whole Bitcoin, especially those that are new. People generally either forget or don't understand that's okay to have Bitcoin in lower denominations than one. It's not like fiat where 20 pence won't buy you anything. 0.2 or 0.1 can buy you a whole lot of things with Bitcoin at its current price.

That makes a whole lot more sense. I wasn't sure if you just missed something at first or if you lost the plot a little .

Rather interesting observation. Although, goes without saying really, but doesn't mean three's a correlation, and that's going to continue to happen. Very likely won't continue happening in the long term.

If I do put a bet on, it'll be a small one with most of the underdogs which have good odds. Apart from the main event, I can see most of the underdogs having a good chance. However, I might just save my money to bet against O'Malley in a couple of weeks.

I'll get my predictions out later once I've seen the weigh ins, and all that good stuff, I won't be putting a ton of research in on this one though, as I'm not overly interested. I'll be watching it, since I do think it's going to be a competitive card. We've been spoiled the last few weeks, with the fast knock outs, but I generally think this card will be more competitive, but as fun.

My early leans haven't changed all that much if at all. If I do go on to bet, I'll probably include the O'Malley fight in the accumulator despite the risk of it being cancelled, just because I honestly believe he's going to lose quite badly in that fight. Plus, good odds to go against him.

Even if the exchange was objectively better in every aspect, I'd avoid it out of principle. I've also talked about it before, but if an exchange basically didn't allow you, and forced you to remove your coins from their platform, i.e doesn't have a wallet for long term storage (long term being any more than 24 hours) I'd have much more respect for a platform that did that. Since, a the mere fact you advertise users to use your wallet software, is poor security practice to begin with.

Yeah, there's hardly any security checks that need to be done. It sounds awfully alike a bank, where they need to do these checks. The thing is, a lot of the checks are easier with fiat. It just stinks of insurance for me. If they were in troubling times, I bet they wouldn't look after their customers, and just fold like the others before them.

On the flip side it could also be rather annoying to certain users. I'd say it's a pretty insignificant feature, that a lot of users wouldn't even encounter (in your case), however if you start implementing a double check confirmation, everyone encounters it. So, is it worth hindering the process for most users, for the few?

I don't know the answer to that. Just putting it out there. For example, I've disable most of the confirmations on my side, since it helps with certain quick actions. Deleting posts is an example of this, you usually get a confirmation, but I've prevented that from popping up. If I did make a mistake, I'd seek out the users that could rectify it for me.

Same as I'd recommend here. Either move the post to archival, or report to the moderators. Better yet, do both. If you aren't ready to edit it since you're doing it over a few days, that would be the best option.

I might need a rewatch, but I honestly thought it was 2-2 going into the 5th round. Jiri looked sluggish, and was starting to get hit with some big shots. I honestly thought up until the final minute Glover was winning that fight. It wasn't a massive amount in it, but he was winning that 5th round for me.

I believe Glover said in an interview after the fight he felt like crying knowing he was ahead. I think Jiri would make the adjustments needed for the second fight, so I don't think it would be as entertaining or close as the first. Although, I wouldn't mind watching it again. Not sure what's next for Glover though.

I'll have to watch it again, I don't recall seeing them.

I'd consider myself a long term holder. However, if you offered me the opportunity to make three times more Bitcoin, without any uncertainty at all. I'd bite your hand off for it. Obviously, you can't guarantee it. However, there was definitely long term holders who were holding for a few years, that sold, and recouped much more Bitcoin during these times.

Also, I don't think long term holders should be seen as someone who keeps absolutely everything in Bitcoin no matter what. Most long term users will be doing trading every so often, especially when the market presents itself like it has now. Bitcoin almost has absolute guarantee of volatility in the short term. So, it somewhat makes sense. I imagine a few long term holders sold a percentage of their coins during all time highs, and then bought back in at lower prices, essentially increasing the amount they hold. Doesn't that make sense to do?

I didn't. Probably because I'm not much of a speculator. Do I wish I did now looking at the price? Absolutely, I would've jumped right back in, and accumulated at least double of what I sold. Sometimes, you've just got to make the most of how the market is reacting. For example, I'm willing to sell anything in my house that's just been lying around now, and the reinvest that into Bitcoin at its current price.

If anyone wants some old crap, hit me up

Was this just a theoretical example, or could you make this a reality?

Right. Although, I'd go a stretch further than that. To mitigate the risk as much as possible, you should be selling in increments, rather than all at once. Fees might be more depending on the exchange, and whether they charge you to deposit, as well as obviously fees for selling, and potentially withdrawing. However, if a exchange is that restrictive I'd probably recommend not using them anyway.

Anyway, back to the point; selling in increments at least mitigates the risk if the exchange seizes trading during the time you're depositing, even if only for until you buy/sell. I know a lot of users aren't going to have the patience for that, but I'd seriously consider doing it considering the amount of exchanges that have pulled this sort of thing now.

I think this cements my point even more. Alright, my recommendation might not be suitable for traders looking to make the most money for their buck, but it's the safest way. Personally, I wouldn't be using an exchange that requires holding your coins for security checks.

Almost, always a indicator of someone who doesn't really understand Bitcoin, and things it should be leveraged to earn more. Don't get me wrong, there will be people who understand the risk of that, and will actually benefit from it. However, it does make me uncomfortable a little bit when I see newer users asking these sort of questions.

I like Glover, proper work horse. I felt he had it, until he didn't. That's against a younger guy who looks in very good shape. The fight was a good one, it pretty much had everything. Big hits, good grappling, wrestling, and at one point Prochazka did a very slick move to get out of control on the ground, I'm not sure if it has a name, it probably does. He used his arm as leverage, and I just remember it being very slick at the time.

I felt Glover gassed out though. I mean Jiri was also gassed, but Glover just melted in those last few minutes. Well, actually come to think of it, the fight was a weird one. For the whole fourth round I thought Jiri was gassing, because he looked sloppy, his hands were down, and finally Glover was managing to hit him with some big shots. Then he pulls out that second wind in the last minute or so, which ultimately won him the fight.

Definitely my fight of the year so far. Also, don't want to see him retire, but as he says usually after the fight, he still looks good so he'll carry on.

Yeah, I can understand the subjective aspect of it. If you feel more comfortable just reporting the ones which are clear spam then do that. I don't mind getting bad or unhandled reports obviously, so I might take a look at some of the places where there's a bit more spam around. I've been meaning to start reporting more again, anyway. Plus, it's one of the sections I'm fairly active in.

It might be the solution, self moderated threads for anything that users don't believe to be breaking the rules, but to be low quality enough to annoy them. At the end of the day, those that are actively participating will actually have a better feel for a user, if they're the ones communicating with them. Moderators get a report, and will have to look at the discussion, but we might not get a gist for what has happened prior. You know, someone talking about a transfer or whatever, might sound on topic enough, and okay quality to a moderator, because we only get a small picture.

However, the thread owner if they're reading absolutely everything from day one will recognise patterns of a user, and if they do the same thing over, and over. So, self moderated threads definitely do make sense in some scenarios, but for the above example I'd still recommend reporting them, since if it's a common occurrence of this user, they might need a little more persuading to cut it out. 

I'd recommend it in combination. Self mod for anything that's not breaking the forum guidelines, but is still you know not your original intention for starting the thread. If anyone dislikes it they can start a new thread. Otherwise, anything that's breaking the forum rules, it's always best to report them even if it's in a self modded thread.

Oh yeah. I do remember that now . It was only a couple months ago too. Sorry, I do tend to get a lot more messages these days.

Trezor if you want to just use it without needing to learn all that much. ColdCard if you want the best security, while still having the benefits of a hardware wallet, although it takes some setting up, so if you aren't confident, I'd absolutely recommend Trezor over ColdCard for the complexity issue.

There's other alternatives, but these have everything that you'll ever need. The price of a Trezor is decent, whereas you'll be paying a little more for the ColdCard, and depending on where you live might have to pay a hefty shipping bill also.

Any hardware wallet that doesn't have a secure element could be compromised, but the chances are still slim. Someone finding your hardware wallet, which should still be locked up under key, and secured physically as much as possible, and at the same time finding someone capable of breaking into it physically, is slim. Although, remember it can be done.

That goes for anything though, usually I say if someone has physical access to any of your devices, whether that's your computer or hardware wallet, assume it might've been compromised.