Quote from: jcojci on Today at 11:15:53 AM

Quote from: Poker Player on Today at 10:04:03 AM

Quote from: jcojci on Today at 09:35:16 AM

Quote from: serveria.com on Today at 09:17:17 AM

Haha found this funny article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2017/08/15/a-bitcoin-is-worth-4000-why-you-probably-should-not-own-one/?sh=40081f113b08

Pay attention to the date it was published (Aug 2017). The conclusion was the best part haha:

Quote

Unless you are a professional trader, or you simply want to gamble, stay away from Bitcoins. They have no inherent value, because they are a currency which represents value rather than having value themselves. The Bitcoin currency is not managed by any government agency, nor is it backed by any government. Bitcoin values are purely dependent upon holders having faith they will continue to have value. Right now the market looks a lot more like tulip mania than careful investing.

So beware guys, Bitcoin is a bubble. Grin

I am curious what he will do after he sees this bubble Grin

Maybe he is crying not involving in bitcoin.

There must be thousands of such articles. That one was published in Forbes, which is prestigious, but I think a compilation of articles warning that Bitcoin had no intrinsic value and the like would be enough to write a book.

Btw, thanks to xhomerx10 for designing my new hat.

I wonder if he got paid to make that article and tell the public that bitcoin is not worth the investment because, as an expert, he should search for more info about bitcoin before writing the article. Many articles about the bad investment in bitcoin, but the author does not know anything about bitcoin and does not follow the bitcoin journey from the beginning until now.

Huh?

What's new about that?

Many mainstream writers do not know very much about bitcoin, but does not stop them from writing superficial hit pieces about it, whether we are talking historically or currently. Surely the talking points and the distractions are going to change with the passage of time, so some kinds of arguments are not going to play as well now as compared with 4 years ago, but does not stop them from publishing superficial hit pieces, even if they are publishing from a supposed credible financial journal.

They do begin to look more and more stupid, if they fail/refuse to account for some of the more in-depth analysis, but some of those "credible" journals are ready, willing and able to take such chances... and come up with some excuse later (maybe 4 years later) regarding how wrong they were and how dumb their article looked in retrospect.

Quote from: philipma1957 on Today at 12:25:27 PM

Question for BobLawBlaw and all of the Wo

I am a 64 year old white straight guy. If I wear these eyeglasses

and a dungaree jacket with the wording

"I am taking back the rainbow for straight people"

across the back , am I an a-hole?

I always liked rainbows since I was kid and now rainbows seem to be gay property.

Not trolling just starting a dialog.

BTW I could write "rainbows are also for straight people".

Much less aggressive your opinions are welcome

How about: "rainbows are for everyone" or some variation of that ? Without getting into any mention of straight or gay or whatever.