I am almost through this whole thread..
...First off, I will note that this surely is a bit of a superficial topic, and yeah, OP does seem a bit questionable in terms of a kind of superficial pandering he had seemed to be eliciting.. but there has been some substantive discussions, too.. even though surely some of us can become somewhat irritated that panderers are getting rewarded with merits that they may well not deserve.. .....
....but it is not always easy to figure out these kinds of matters, including more and more forum members may well be using some kinds AI to draft their post contents.. and can dee humanoids determine the difference? are good points made? Do merit thresholds need to be raised by theymos and even signature campaigns or other reasons that members will gain credibility through merits? There likely is no complete solution to these kinds of issues in which some undeserving members are going to slip through the cracks and even appear to be credible by their having had earned merits and even increased their post counts in ways that do not even appear to be overly superficial, non-substantive and/or non-contributory...
I surely am not going to deny some of the frustration in terms of my not necessarily wanting to reward certain kinds of lazy (and not real human content) behaviors.. and how are we going to distinguish?
You seem to not understand certain aspects of the power of bitcoin HajiBagi.
If you hold your own bitcoin who is going to stop you from transacting in it?
Sure maybe with the bank, mostly you don't have any issues or delays, and if you fuck up you may well get a refund.. but still... there is a bit of disconnect if you are trying to suggest that having your own wallet and going through some third party is some kind of very similar thing that is hardly even noticeable in terms of how they might be different.... In other words, you are glossing over a pretty fucking BIG feature of bitcoin that does not exist when transacting through a third party.
Yes.. bitcoin has disadvantages in terms of usability..
Yes, bitcoin has possibilities of losing your value in ways in which no one can help you to recover your funds.
But the mere fact that we can say that bitcoin has advantages and disadvantages as compared with banks (or using a third party) does not cause bitcoin to be substantially and materially similar to using a third party wallet - as you are lamely (and inaccurately) proclaiming. Are you doing it on purpose? or do you just not know what is bitcoin?
These statements are not based in reality.
People hardly know shit about bitcoin, even people who own bitcoin hardly know shit about bitcoin because many people think of bitcoin ONLY in terms of NGU technology potential, and if the ONLY thing that the HODLers know about bitcoin is that it has NGU technology possibilities, then it is quite likely that they do not hardly know about bitcoin.
Another thing is that if people are so damned attracted to bitcoin, then why is it that ONLY less than 1% of the world's population has price exposure to bitcoin?
Let me answer that question. Part of the reason that less than 1% of the world's population has price exposure to bitcoin is because they hardly know shit about it, even if they might have had heard the word, "bitcoin."
I would imagine that peak popularity might be around the time that more than 90% of the world's population has decent exposure to BTC's price, whether they are directly holding it or if they are holding it through a third party (and yeah we cannot be sure about the extent to which BTC's dilution of supply is going to continue to be affected and impacted by various ways in which third parties are involved in bitcoin and also the extent to which some people/institution/governments might also be contributing to the dilution of bitcoin's supply (its inflation) by entering into credit agreements that would thereby allow BTC to be doubly counted when multiple credit agreements and claims upon bitcoin might be made.. and later shown that all of the claims cannot be satisfied by the quantity of the bitcoin held and the number of credit arrangements that had been entered into based on some form of trust rather than actual verification... which likely ends up being that ONLY the person who holds the keys can really verify that they have the keys - so long as no one is able to take the keys from them..
Despite bitcoin being a good asset, it also has its own risk and every investment has its own risk, but the people who are really successful in it have invested early and were determined to trust and hold and actually benefited. Most importantly, we are to learn to take a risk, and in the past few years, bitcoin has attracted a lot of attention. Bitcoin is for everyone, and once you have the resources, you can invest in it, and set certain goals to accumulate.
I also invest in bitcoin and really hope it will be able to increase in price for me to be profitable. But we shouldn't pretend like many people are saying that they love bitcoin with all their hearts. We don't love bitcoin at all, we just love its returns. If bitcoin was only profitable and risk-free, then I would really love it with all my heart. But we are taking a risk to get the profit, so there is no need to love it wholeheartedly.
That's a decently good point aryana42. Even if many of us might have differing perspectives in regards to why we think that we "love" bitcoin, but the fact of the matter might be that bitcoin is providing a large number of people with some potential optionality that they might not otherwise have, and some of that optionality might come through the number go up aspect, but another of the optionality comes from the abilities of normies to potentially not end up getting trapped into a system of control that does not necessarily allow them to exercise their own individual sovereignty.. and being able to choose whether or how to transact or whether or not to save should be self-sovereignty optionalities that are seeming to be increasingly infringed upon within our traditional status quo (and non-bitcoin) systems, and whether or not traditional (non-bitcoin) systems are getting worse, bitcoin does seem to provide some optionalities for folks who are ready, willing and able to take advantage of such ongoingly developing optionalities.
...First off, I will note that this surely is a bit of a superficial topic, and yeah, OP does seem a bit questionable in terms of a kind of superficial pandering he had seemed to be eliciting.. but there has been some substantive discussions, too.. even though surely some of us can become somewhat irritated that panderers are getting rewarded with merits that they may well not deserve.. .....
....but it is not always easy to figure out these kinds of matters, including more and more forum members may well be using some kinds AI to draft their post contents.. and can dee humanoids determine the difference? are good points made? Do merit thresholds need to be raised by theymos and even signature campaigns or other reasons that members will gain credibility through merits? There likely is no complete solution to these kinds of issues in which some undeserving members are going to slip through the cracks and even appear to be credible by their having had earned merits and even increased their post counts in ways that do not even appear to be overly superficial, non-substantive and/or non-contributory...
I surely am not going to deny some of the frustration in terms of my not necessarily wanting to reward certain kinds of lazy (and not real human content) behaviors.. and how are we going to distinguish?
My point here is that neither banks nor bitcoin wallets should be viewed as superior to the other; we should simply avoid being harmed by scammers; both are excellent places to keep our funds.
You seem to not understand certain aspects of the power of bitcoin HajiBagi.
If you hold your own bitcoin who is going to stop you from transacting in it?
Sure maybe with the bank, mostly you don't have any issues or delays, and if you fuck up you may well get a refund.. but still... there is a bit of disconnect if you are trying to suggest that having your own wallet and going through some third party is some kind of very similar thing that is hardly even noticeable in terms of how they might be different.... In other words, you are glossing over a pretty fucking BIG feature of bitcoin that does not exist when transacting through a third party.
Yes.. bitcoin has disadvantages in terms of usability..
Yes, bitcoin has possibilities of losing your value in ways in which no one can help you to recover your funds.
But the mere fact that we can say that bitcoin has advantages and disadvantages as compared with banks (or using a third party) does not cause bitcoin to be substantially and materially similar to using a third party wallet - as you are lamely (and inaccurately) proclaiming. Are you doing it on purpose? or do you just not know what is bitcoin?
Currently, Bitcoin has reached the peak of popularity. People are now very attracted to Bitcoin.
These statements are not based in reality.
People hardly know shit about bitcoin, even people who own bitcoin hardly know shit about bitcoin because many people think of bitcoin ONLY in terms of NGU technology potential, and if the ONLY thing that the HODLers know about bitcoin is that it has NGU technology possibilities, then it is quite likely that they do not hardly know about bitcoin.
Another thing is that if people are so damned attracted to bitcoin, then why is it that ONLY less than 1% of the world's population has price exposure to bitcoin?
Let me answer that question. Part of the reason that less than 1% of the world's population has price exposure to bitcoin is because they hardly know shit about it, even if they might have had heard the word, "bitcoin."
I would imagine that peak popularity might be around the time that more than 90% of the world's population has decent exposure to BTC's price, whether they are directly holding it or if they are holding it through a third party (and yeah we cannot be sure about the extent to which BTC's dilution of supply is going to continue to be affected and impacted by various ways in which third parties are involved in bitcoin and also the extent to which some people/institution/governments might also be contributing to the dilution of bitcoin's supply (its inflation) by entering into credit agreements that would thereby allow BTC to be doubly counted when multiple credit agreements and claims upon bitcoin might be made.. and later shown that all of the claims cannot be satisfied by the quantity of the bitcoin held and the number of credit arrangements that had been entered into based on some form of trust rather than actual verification... which likely ends up being that ONLY the person who holds the keys can really verify that they have the keys - so long as no one is able to take the keys from them..
With bitcoin, one can get hold of his or her assets without government interference or controlled by any third party system unless you transfer to exchange to keep under their custody or otherwise.
Many things have changed most people when they are successful in Bitcoin, not only do they get what they want, fortunately they can have a very valuable asset (Bitcoin), and yes when they already have Bitcoin which is safe for themselves and not involved whoever he is an individual, government or organization, maybe the journey of many people now continues to look for Bitcoin for their assets later.That's a decently good point aryana42. Even if many of us might have differing perspectives in regards to why we think that we "love" bitcoin, but the fact of the matter might be that bitcoin is providing a large number of people with some potential optionality that they might not otherwise have, and some of that optionality might come through the number go up aspect, but another of the optionality comes from the abilities of normies to potentially not end up getting trapped into a system of control that does not necessarily allow them to exercise their own individual sovereignty.. and being able to choose whether or how to transact or whether or not to save should be self-sovereignty optionalities that are seeming to be increasingly infringed upon within our traditional status quo (and non-bitcoin) systems, and whether or not traditional (non-bitcoin) systems are getting worse, bitcoin does seem to provide some optionalities for folks who are ready, willing and able to take advantage of such ongoingly developing optionalities.
I love bitcoin always because it is crypto currency and mostly you don't have any issues or delays, and if you fuck up you may well get a refund and I wonder sometime why some folks out there I have seen on television interviews, online media , YouTube and other social media platforms come out and raised some critics against Bitcoin that they don't like it, where some even end up calling it a Ponzi scheme and In other words, you are glossing over a pretty fucking BIG feature of bitcoin that does not exist when transacting through a third party.
