_Hiloveua_
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 22, 2023, 11:56:11 AM |
|
30k is nice ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) 300k will be even better! ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif) That will be a dream. BTCThat's not dream, 300k Hit Halving 2024. 50k end of June.
|
|
|
|
ChartBuddy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1782
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/lamp.gif) |
June 22, 2023, 12:01:22 PM |
|
![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.talkimg.com%2Fimages%2F2023%2F05%2F13%2Fstamptabd4c8d77ff1434356.png&t=665&c=nXv9VrDDMSywTA) ExplanationChartbuddy thanks talkimg.com
|
|
|
|
BobLawblaw
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1853
Merit: 5621
Neighborhood Shenanigans Dispenser
|
|
|
|
|
El duderino_
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2604
Merit: 12721
BTC + Crossfit, living life.
|
|
|
|
|
ChartBuddy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1782
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/lamp.gif) |
June 22, 2023, 01:03:26 PM |
|
![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.talkimg.com%2Fimages%2F2023%2F05%2F13%2Fstamptabd4c8d77ff1434356.png&t=665&c=nXv9VrDDMSywTA) ExplanationChartbuddy thanks talkimg.com
|
|
|
|
xhomerx10
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3934
Merit: 8466
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 22, 2023, 01:08:41 PM Merited by JayJuanGee (1) |
|
Honey badger DGAF; especially when it comes to talking heads.
|
|
|
|
Hueristic
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3906
Merit: 5237
Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 22, 2023, 01:30:28 PM Last edit: June 22, 2023, 10:17:16 PM by Hueristic |
|
All 500 of Ethereum's Co Founders That bit's pretty funny LOL
|
|
|
|
ivomm
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1878
Merit: 3023
All good things to those who wait
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 22, 2023, 01:37:14 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
JayJuanGee
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3808
Merit: 10702
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
|
...I don't claim to know...
If you ever do the math it would be an interesting read. ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) Are you trying to cause me to do work? ![Shocked](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/shocked.gif) I will probably go through it a bit more thoroughly at some point --- I am still kind of shocked that it happened.. and still making little adjustments here and there to account for having that extra money (windfall).. .. Ok... I cannot resist doing a little something right now.. .so here's another ballpark quickie assessment: If the totality of the amount of my BTC that I had on that exchange was ONLY in the 2%-ish territory of my BTC portfolio, there is ONLY so much that I could have had profited from even crazy-ass price moves, yet those sell orders filled all the way up the line from $29.5k-ish to $129.5k-ish (in varying increments..and even varying amounts) to then end causing almost all of the BTC that I had on that exchange to sell (that's because I had already decided awhile back to mostly remove from exchanges the excessive BTC that I was not putting into sell orders or at least contemplating that I would put such BTC into a sell order in the near future). Therefore, when the BTC price went shooting up to $138k on that I exchange I ended up selling almost all (minus some slivers of coin) of the coin that I then had on that exchange, and so when I bought back around $28.8k-ish, I more than doubled the coins (something like a 1.5x increase in the value that I held on that exchange, but I did not use all the money yet to buy back BTC with it.. So far, I just bought back the BTC that I had sold plus an additional 30%-ish). Still since the total amount that I held there was ONLY 2%-ish of my total BTC stash.. so it seems to me that I profited by increasing the value in that account by something in the ballpark of 3%.. which would be a 1.5x increase of the stash on that account.. so it moved from around 2% of my total BTC stash to maybe in the ballpark of 5% of my total stash.. Of course, some of it is still in play because so far it did not get converted to BTC, and even though currently we see a lot of seeming FOMO going on right now, I have no reason to FOMO because I have plenty of BTC, and I had plenty of BTC prior to this incident - yet who is going to refuse receiving some freebies? Ok.. you tricked me into saying most of what I might be able to say right now.. even though I do sometimes create charts for myself regarding various statuses of where my BTC/fiat holdings (or even other investments) might stand (especially if decently sized changes have occurred in recent times), so sometimes when I create those new assessment charts, I will thereafter become motivated to tweak aspects of my investment portfolio or even my investment or my consumption strategies... not everything needs to be investment, to the extent that hookers, lambos and blow might be considered as investments rather than arguably maniacal consumption.
|
|
|
|
ChartBuddy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1782
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/lamp.gif) |
June 22, 2023, 02:04:52 PM |
|
![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.talkimg.com%2Fimages%2F2023%2F05%2F13%2Fstamptabd4c8d77ff1434356.png&t=665&c=nXv9VrDDMSywTA) ExplanationChartbuddy thanks talkimg.com
|
|
|
|
xhomerx10
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3934
Merit: 8466
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 22, 2023, 02:16:56 PM |
|
I have it on fairly good authority that this is JimboToronto. ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftalkimg.com%2Fimages%2F2023%2F06%2F22%2FHNBlb.gif&t=665&c=ZoyrzZ2Q12fC1Q)
|
|
|
|
philipma1957
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4214
Merit: 8324
'The right to privacy matters'
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 22, 2023, 02:21:49 PM |
|
...I don't claim to know...
If you ever do the math it would be an interesting read. ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) Are you trying to cause me to do work? ![Shocked](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/shocked.gif) I will probably go through it a bit more thoroughly at some point --- I am still kind of shocked that it happened.. and still making little adjustments here and there to account for having that extra money (windfall).. .. Ok... I cannot resist doing a little something right now.. .so here's another ballpark quickie assessment: If the totality of the amount of my BTC that I had on that exchange was ONLY in the 2%-ish territory of my BTC portfolio, there is ONLY so much that I could have had profited from even crazy-ass price moves, yet those sell orders filled all the way up the line from $29.5k-ish to $129.5k-ish (in varying increments..and even varying amounts) to then end causing almost all of the BTC that I had on that exchange to sell (that's because I had already decided awhile back to mostly remove from exchanges the excessive BTC that I was not putting into sell orders or at least contemplating that I would put such BTC into a sell order in the near future). Therefore, when the BTC price went shooting up to $138k on that I exchange I ended up selling almost all (minus some slivers of coin) of the coin that I then had on that exchange, and so when I bought back around $28.8k-ish, I more than doubled the coins (something like a 1.5x increase in the value that I held on that exchange, but I did not use all the money yet to buy back BTC with it.. So far, I just bought back the BTC that I had sold plus an additional 30%-ish). Still since the total amount that I held there was ONLY 2%-ish of my total BTC stash.. so it seems to me that I profited by increasing the value in that account by something in the ballpark of 3%.. which would be a 1.5x increase of the stash on that account.. so it moved from around 2% of my total BTC stash to maybe in the ballpark of 5% of my total stash.. Of course, some of it is still in play because so far it did not get converted to BTC, and even though currently we see a lot of seeming FOMO going on right now, I have no reason to FOMO because I have plenty of BTC, and I had plenty of BTC prior to this incident - yet who is going to refuse receiving some freebies? Ok.. you tricked me into saying most of what I might be able to say right now.. even though I do sometimes create charts for myself regarding various statuses of where my BTC/fiat holdings (or even other investments) might stand (especially if decently sized changes have occurred in recent times), so sometimes when I create those new assessment charts, I will thereafter become motivated to tweak aspects of my investment portfolio or even my investment or my consumption strategies... not everything needs to be investment, to the extent that hookers, lambos and blow might be considered as investments rather than arguably maniacal consumption. So you failed to properly prepare for uppity. only 2% on the exchange vs 5% sad so sad. I have 6% of my btc on coinbase set in ladder sales. live and learn JJG ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
|
|
|
|
nlovric
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 22, 2023, 02:45:29 PM |
|
Fed Chair Powell Says Crypto “Appears to Have Staying Power”In his testimony before the House Financial Services Committee Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell acknowledged the resilience of cryptocurrencies as an asset class. Additionally he acknowledged stablecoins as a kind of money and stressed the importance of strict federal control. Powell brought up current Fed conversations about regulating digital assets and emphasised that creating a CBDC is still a long term project. In general the statements show that the Fed accepts digital assets and intends to use them in its future decisions.
|
|
|
|
ChartBuddy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1782
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/lamp.gif) |
June 22, 2023, 03:01:22 PM |
|
![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.talkimg.com%2Fimages%2F2023%2F05%2F13%2Fstamptabd4c8d77ff1434356.png&t=665&c=nXv9VrDDMSywTA) ExplanationChartbuddy thanks talkimg.com
|
|
|
|
JayJuanGee
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3808
Merit: 10702
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 22, 2023, 03:04:43 PM Last edit: June 22, 2023, 03:17:20 PM by JayJuanGee Merited by Gachapin (2), AlcoHoDL (1) |
|
I found this story fascinating: Apparently, there was a 'bug" (or rather technically undefined area) in the original bitcoin code that would produce ANOTHER 21 mil btc starting in the year 256 from the get-go. The "bug" was eradicated in BIP-42, which was done post-Satoshi. Without BIP-42, rewards of 50BTC would restart in 256 years, then halvings would continue again (from 50btc/reward to down). A bit of 'conspiracy' theory on my side, but how do we know that this was not the Satoshi's intent? I keep reading about 4 mil 'lost" already in just 14 years. What if Satoshi surmised that this loss in 256 years (with issuance stopping by year 2140) would bring available bitcoin numbers too low and actually designed the "bug" to revitalize bitcoin about a century after. Interesting, but would not affect things in our lifespan, perhaps. See the discussion of BIP-42 here: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4r878s/in_case_you_missed_it_two_years_ago_bip_42_is/You have a relatively creative imagination, yet what you are describing could not have been Satoshi's intent. It does not make any sense to start the issuing of blockrewards over again at 50 coins per ever 10 minutes... that would really fuck up incentives and overall value... so that's a bug.. not a "hidden - true intention" of satoshi. Perhaps it was not his intent, albeit we would never know, I assume, but, then, how to deal with bitcoin "evaporation"? We, as a humanity, seem to have lost about 20% of ALL bitcoins that would ever be in a short 14 years. I know that people dismiss it and say that the rest are just getting more valuable. True, but only in a short time. However, think about it long term: a complete loss is inevitable within relatively short historical time frames. So far, we were losing btc at a 1.36% 0.286% (of the total supply) a year. With the same rate of loss going forward, it would be 59.5 350 years until all btc is lost. If the loss would decrease by a factor of 10, then it is 595 3500 years. I don't have any problem with yor starting out by saying that maybe 20% of the Bitcoin have been lost or that maybe the loss rate is more than 1% per year, but even if we go by that math, losing 1% per year does not mean that the bitcoin supply is going to zero. you must not know maths. You can continue to lose 1% per year and the number will never go to zero.. it just gets smaller and smaller and smaller, but it does not go to zero... even if we were to assume 1.5% instead of 1% per year. In other words, the whole world economy could run on 1 BTC. or 1 Satoshi. .. just divide the units in order to allow it to be more liquid (able to be spread out).. yes we might have to go to sub-satoshis, so what does that mean? Sucks to be a hodler? I think not. Bitcoin is not broken due to its fixed and even shrinking supply... so there is no reason to fix it, and there would have been no reason for satoshi to put in such a dumb, illogical and inconsistent fix that started to issue more bitcoin supply, even though no coiners and low coiners frequently whine about such issues - partly based on their having had not sufficiently/adequately stacked up sats at earlier dates (and lower prices). I find it amusing that the original code of Satoshi had in it a "revitalization" of bitcoin by a new issuance cycle after 256 years. As 256 is < than 350 (my original number), but > than 59.5 there might would still be some non-zero btc remain when the new "cycle' would supposedly start, according to the original code, therefore, bitcoin never 'evaporates' fully and instead, revitalizes. If the rate of loss remains at 1.36% a year, all bitcoin evaporates before even the original Satoshi's solution (or omission/caveat) can work.
This is so dumb that I am not even going to talk about it. ![Embarrassed](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/embarrassed.gif) There could be another solution (but I like Satoshi's better): 1. Change to the address system so everybody has to send their btc every, say, 50 100 years. 2. From that, surmise the actual "losses" and make a small random seepage of new btc, so total number never exceeds 21 mil. Not sure how to do it in code.
Still presuming that bitcoin's fix supply - and shrinking supply is a problem. TL;DR All bitcoin will eventually "evaporate" according to the current code and historical human behavior.
Not true. You have bad maths... perhaps bad sciences, too?BIP-42 might have been detrimental to the future (hundreds of years from now).
What an imagination you have (a good thing?)![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fhistoryuk.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com%2Fs3fs-public%2Fstyles%2F768x300%2Fpublic%2F2020-07%2Fancient-aliens-1.png%3Fitok%3DWgzajK0a&t=665&c=2QuWPMLC4Yer9g) EDIT: the math is even worse: 1.36% loss a year, see correction. We would need to know the average loss per year pretty soon, maybe in the next couple of decades.
Not as urgent of a problem as you are making it out to be. Maybe you and Philip need to team up? Remember that Philip thinks that the mining reward crises is coming within the next few decades, too... perhaps in the 2056 time frame.. so surely bitcoin is broken, right? Whatever solutions I wrote in-I don't care about them, just a small suggestion, it could be something else, but the eventual "evaporation" problem is real and cannot be dismissed easily, and even mathematically as long as the loss is material and there is no add-ons after 2140.
Wow!!!!! ![Shocked](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/shocked.gif) You are really going to town in terms of describing this matter as "urgent." There must be some merit to your claims, no? #askingforafriend
|
|
|
|
philipma1957
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4214
Merit: 8324
'The right to privacy matters'
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 22, 2023, 03:07:21 PM |
|
I found this story fascinating: Apparently, there was a 'bug" (or rather technically undefined area) in the original bitcoin code that would produce ANOTHER 21 mil btc starting in the year 256 from the get-go. The "bug" was eradicated in BIP-42, which was done post-Satoshi. Without BIP-42, rewards of 50BTC would restart in 256 years, then halvings would continue again (from 50btc/reward to down). A bit of 'conspiracy' theory on my side, but how do we know that this was not the Satoshi's intent? I keep reading about 4 mil 'lost" already in just 14 years. What if Satoshi surmised that this loss in 256 years (with issuance stopping by year 2140) would bring available bitcoin numbers too low and actually designed the "bug" to revitalize bitcoin about a century after. Interesting, but would not affect things in our lifespan, perhaps. See the discussion of BIP-42 here: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4r878s/in_case_you_missed_it_two_years_ago_bip_42_is/You have a relatively creative imagination, yet what you are describing could not have been Satoshi's intent. It does not make any sense to start the issuing of blockrewards over again at 50 coins per ever 10 minutes... that would really fuck up incentives and overall value... so that's a bug.. not a "hidden - true intention" of satoshi. Perhaps it was not his intent, albeit we would never know, I assume, but, then, how to deal with bitcoin "evaporation"? We, as a humanity, seem to have lost about 20% of ALL bitcoins that would ever be in a short 14 years. I know that people dismiss it and say that the rest are just getting more valuable. True, but only in a short time. However, think about it long term: a complete loss is inevitable within relatively short historical time frames. So far, we were losing btc at a 1.36% 0.286% (of the total supply) a year. With the same rate of loss going forward, it would be 59.5 350 years until all btc is lost. If the loss would decrease by a factor of 10, then it is 595 3500 years. I don't have any problem with yor starting out by saying that maybe 20% of the Bitcoin have been lost or that maybe the loss rate is more than 1% per year, but even if we go by that math, losing 1% per year does not mean that the bitcoin supply is going to zero. you must not know maths. You can continue to lose 1% per year and the number will never go to zero.. it just gets smaller and smaller and smaller, but it does not go to zero... even if we were to assume 1.5% instead of 1% per year. In other words, the whole world economy could run on 1 BTC. or 1 Satoshi. .. just divide the units in order to allow it to be more liquid (able to be spread out).. yes we might have to go to sub-satoshis, so what does that mean? Sucks to be a hodler? I think not. Bitcoin is not broken due to its fixed and even shrinking supply... so there is no reason to fix it, and there would have been no reason for satoshi to put in such a dumb, illogical and inconsistent fix that started to issue more bitcoin supply, even though no coiners and low coiners frequently whine about such issues - partly based on their having had not sufficiently/adequately stacked up sats at earlier dates (and lower prices). I find it amusing that the original code of Satoshi had in it a "revitalization" of bitcoin by a new issuance cycle after 256 years. As 256 is < than 350 (my original number), but > than 59.5 there might would still be some non-zero btc remain when the new "cycle' would supposedly start, according to the original code, therefore, bitcoin never 'evaporates' fully and instead, revitalizes. If the rate of loss remains at 1.36% a year, all bitcoin evaporates before even the original Satoshi's solution (or omission/caveat) can work.
This is so dumb that I am not even going to talk about it. ![Embarrassed](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/embarrassed.gif) There could be another solution (but I like Satoshi's better): 1. Change to the address system so everybody has to send their btc every, say, 50 100 years. 2. From that, surmise the actual "losses" and make a small random seepage of new btc, so total number never exceeds 21 mil. Not sure how to do it in code.
Still presuming that bitcoin's fix supply - and shrinking supply is a problem. TL;DR All bitcoin will eventually "evaporate" according to the current code and historical human behavior.
Not true. You have bad maths... perhaps bad sciences, too?BIP-42 might have been detrimental to the future (hundreds of years from now).
What an imagination you have (a good thing?)![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fhistoryuk.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com%2Fs3fs-public%2Fstyles%2F768x300%2Fpublic%2F2020-07%2Fancient-aliens-1.png%3Fitok%3DWgzajK0a&t=665&c=2QuWPMLC4Yer9g) EDIT: the math is even worse: 1.36% loss a year, see correction. We would need to know the average loss per year pretty soon, maybe in the next couple of decades.
Not as urgent of a problem as you are making it out to be. Maybe you and Philip need to team up? Remember that Philip thinks that the mining reward crises is coming within the next few decades, too... perhaps in the 2056 time frame.. so surely bitcoin is broken, right? Never said BTC was broken. But they will need to adjust fee system faster than many think.
|
|
|
|
sirazimuth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3458
Merit: 3568
born once atheist
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 22, 2023, 03:09:57 PM |
|
I made out bigly on that Binance flash pump. My 10 doggie doo coins multiplied 10x. I immediately filled out appropriate paperwork to have them cashed out and have the evil fiat deposited in my criminal bankster account. Yes, I kyc'ed myself and now my life is ruined, but I think it was well worth the effort. After all, I got a free six pack out of the deal. Now I gotta work on making sure those scamming bastard Ledger folks don't make off with all my remaining riches of various other airdropped shitcoins and the like.
<BATSLAPPENING>
|
|
|
|
Antisthenes
Copper Member
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 115
Merit: 5
JJG AI, is an attack vector on humanity. Beware.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 22, 2023, 03:23:09 PM |
|
Don't mix up exploration and tourism.
Indeed. For example, I’m aware of a guy that explored your asses, and then toured right up them! #nohomo
Tourist…
The “Tourist syndrome” seems to be adjacent to the Stockholm syndrome, with the difference that it always comes with a bag of dildos and butt plugs included. On the house of course, the end user does not have to pay for them.
Regarding the Binance shenanigans … and JsnowG: ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftalkimg.com%2Fimages%2F2023%2F06%2F22%2FHEnx9.gif&t=665&c=26FCMsFhHruu-A)
|
|
|
|
Learn Bitcoin
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 22, 2023, 03:26:51 PM |
|
Over the years, I have used quite a few different exchanges, and it seems that I have figured out some ways to not hold large amounts on any exchanges, even though surely some might consider my amounts to be large and the risk NOT to be worth it, and yes, each of us needs to figure out our own risk tolerance and even if we understand the risks. I did not have any money on Terra luna, Celsius, Gemini earn, GBTC, Voyager, Blockfi, or FTX.. so maybe I am just lucky? And my time is going to come. By the way, I did lose some money on BTC-e.. so maybe I am just too stubborn? And I have been hacked previously (through sim swap techniques), so maybe I am just too willing to lose money? I know you won't keep your coins on any exchanges unless this is an amount you don't care about. I have used a few exchanges as well and I still do. I never been hacked or non of the exchanged freezer or seized my balance. So, you can consider me lucky as well. Why would I blame myself? I already know that Binance and Binance US has been on the hotseat for quite a while.. and what about Coinbase, should people stop using Coinbase too? Oh no the Binance situation (level of scary) is much moar worser, right?
I know that binance (and binance US) are not even close to the same kind of shame as FTX, even though a lot of dumb and ill-informed people talk about Binance and FTX as if Binance were the same as FTX. Nah, Binance has a way better reputation than FTX. Binance becomes a giant exchange in the last few years. If somebody compares Binance with FTX; they don't know much about it. But since the platform is in question; I don't see any reason to use it with a large amount (At least for now) just sayin. Of course, everyone has their own Point of view and they might not agree with me. There are probably dumber decisions that people can make in life... so by definition, whatever I am doing could not be "the dumbest".. if you even know the meaning of the words that you choose to use, and I am thinking that it can be quite dumb to assume too much about the situation of another person.. of course, you are just trying to help, right? Especially since I likely suggested that you were not as smart as you are presenting yourself as being. I am sorry if that was offensive. Maybe because of the language barrier? I am not trying to be a smartass. Just curious about it. I know you are an old-timer Bitcoiner. You must have good experience with using various services. Still, if you choose to use a platform that is in question; of course it's up to you. Once again, If you felt offensive by the word I have used; I apologize for that.
|
|
|
|
BitcoinBunny
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1554
Merit: 2728
Far, Far, Far Right Thug
|
They found a debris field in the hunt for the Titan submersible.
At least they died quick by the looks of it and the families can have closure if confirmed it is indeed the Titan later today.
I'll say it again; OceanGate was more reckless than the White Star Line.
Especially sad for the 19 year old student who studied at a British uni. RIP.
|
|
|
|
|