(and i think richie, too, probably even more WO's)
Not me. To what end? IDGAF. People get judged on the quality (and in one case, the length) of their posts.
Yeah, i was wrong on this. That's why i wrote
i think. Somebody else was explaining to HIM, but i am too unfocused to scroll back to find out who i meant, sorry.
Just the occasional OutOfMemory Error...
No offense.
I wanted to say that I really like the idea of the WO sign being flashed in pictures of things or places we’ve been lucky enough to experience due to Bitcoin. Would love to see that continue.
I also wanted to say that I don’t think we’re going to see the CME gap close today… Maybe this week.
I get the WO sign idea, it’s fun for the culture, but honestly it can get a bit repetitive if
overused. As for the CME gap, I wouldn’t rule out today just yet Bitcoin has a habit of surprising everyone when most are already leaning one way.
Overused?
Now i think i don't get
it!
[Edited out]
Don't trust, verify.
Imo, you can't be
very pro Bitcoin
if you don't embrace this soul statement, which is one of the core aspects of the Bitcoin blockchain.
Many of us already know that owning Bitcoin ETFs is not the same as owning bitcoin, and sure there can be some legitimate reasons that guys might own bitcoin ETFs rather than owning bitcoin or perhaps to own both bitcoin and Bitcoin ETFs can also be acceptable in certain circumstances.
I won't completely bash folks (especially newbies) for owning bitcoin ETFs, yet I may well bash newbies and others for arguing that bitcoin etfs are the same thing or close enough to the same thing as owning bitcoin directly, when they are not.
There is a difference between owning price exposure to bitcoin and owning the underlying bitcoin directly, including that some folks hold their bitcoin on exchanges (or with other 3rd parties) which can be problematic depending on the relationship and perhaps how much of their bitcoin stash are held in those custodian relations, and sure sometimes there might be a role for price exposure and/or third party custody arrangements in certain contexts.. even though the actual power of bitcoin comes from holding it and transacting in it directly, which sure bitcoin might still have some power even when it is not held by individuals, yet bitcoin may well end up getting neutered quite a bit if it were to go down a path of having hardly any individual ownership.
Yes, i got you, and i can relate, mainly because ETF Bitcoin are actual coins held by custodians.
But when i would say i am "(very) pro Bitcoin" i would literally mean Bitcoin, not BTCETFs. But that's probably only my nitpicking me.
On the other hand, when one says things like "i am pro Gold" and actually "holds" paper gold at Robinhood and the likes, doesn't he make a bit a clown of himself?
Maybe i was a little ashamed of BTCETFInvestor's toxicity and tried to teach him too much from my Bitcoin-maximalist point of view?
Anyway, i decided to let go of discussing with him, his recent out-of-context replies were too much (or less than needed?) to go on with a meaningful debate.