That's exactly the problem I'm trying to solve.

And I think that is an important issue, because 200 000 subscribers are probably getting their bitcoin news from reddit. Therefore we can not expect these agents to be well informed, and thus rational.

An answer from italeffect on r/btc:

> Except that a large amount of people posting in r/btc have been banned from /r/bitcoin, so can't post there even if they wanted to.


And my response to that:

1. Of course I submitted the exact same post to r/bitcoin. I'm asking r/bitcoin people to also post on r/btc, to increase the quality and diversity of r/btc, without the drawback of heavy censorship.
2. What r/btc people can do anyway, is to browse r/bitcoin, find a quality post (or just a funny meme or whatever), and post it here too, in order to broaden the conversation.

An answer from viners on r/btc:

> The problem is that the majority of people only read one sub and don't know that others exist.



My answer to that:

I think many r/bitcoin people know that r/btc exists, but when you look at the frontpage of r/btc, ALL posts are related to only two topics: BU vs segwit, or r/btc vs r/bitcoin.
This is unlike r/bitcoin, where, you could argue, MOST posts are also related to the same two topics, but at least there is a bit more diversity in the topics.
Therefore, I think we have to improve the quality of r/btc before we can expect most r/bitcoin people (most of the bitcoin community) to join r/btc.

An answer from frank01945 on r/bitcoin:

> great idea!

I care about this because bitcoin relies on a system of incentives, which can only work if most agents are mostly rationals. And for agents to be rational, they need to be well-informed. If information in the bitcoin community is sequestered into compartments with very different flavors, the community is bound to be split and the agents are bound to be ill-informed.



That is not my issue. I surely hope that different people have different opinions and different goals. And I do not want people to stop arguing against each others.
The issue is when one is exposed to only one side of argument, which shapes one's opinion, even though one would have reached a different conclusion if only one would have been exposed to the arguments of several "teams".
Therefore, I want to decentralize the discussions.



Now, that is exactly the problem! To have a constructive thinking process, you have to explore a bit away from your comfort zone.

Like many of us long-time bitcoiners, I'm sick of the war between "us" and "them" on redd1t. I'm talking solely about subs, not about different bitcoin implementations or proposals (these are fundamentally separate issues, only superficially related).

Obviously, no sub is perfect. I'm not going to argue which one is better than the other(s), nor even which flaws and advantages each one brings to the table. I'd simply like to suggest a way to improve the situation, by decentralizing these various advantages and flaws.

I'm asking the whole bitcoin community to do this simple effort: every post you submit to your favorite sub or on this forum, please submit it to at least one other bitcoin sub.

And if possible, if you comment on a post on one sub or forum topic, copy-paste the same comment if there is the same post on an other sub or forum topic.

"What if I get shitty answers/downvotes?" So what? Just ignore them. "Then what's the point?" To decentralize all points of control of discussions.

Bitcoin will never reach mainstream, because it is so difficult to use.

And this little piggy went hashing!

Customer #: 13517
Entry #: 61


A policeman in the big city stops a man in a car with a pig in the front seat.
"What are you doing with that pig?" He exclaimed, "You should take it to the zoo."
The following week, the same policeman sees the same man with the pig again in the front seat, with both of them wearing sunglasses. The policeman pulls him over.
"I thought you were going to take that pig to the zoo!"
The man replied, "I did. We had such a good time we are going to the beach this weekend!"

Why was there a forced buyback on May 21st on Havelock? Did I miss something?

Many asshole activities are totally legal and completely legit, that doesn't mean you are not being an asshole when you exploit a loophole.

Donald Trump endorses bitcom.

So, coolmist, what did you do after all?

So, did you make your mind? Did you invest $15,000 in altcoin(s)?

438

I also worked full time for the money I invested. Do I deserve this to go 95% to waste?

I think I can summarize as follows.

arij bought the whole operation from RG, and was informed, after buying, of some essential information, which indicates that the business comes with more liability than profitability. So basically, RG screwed arij. If arij was a reasonable person, he would go to the law to have RG pay for his actions.

However, arij decided not to, for some reason I don't understand. Then he thought that he could ask every investors to just forget about their investment, while at the same time insulting their intelligence by disguising a "here's a penny, go fuck yourself" as a fair proposition.

Of course everybody is protesting, and hoping for arij to come back to reason and turn against RG, rather than against an angry crowd of random people.

Why are we learning this essential information just now?!

Or did I miss some announcement?

I invested 700 dollars, and you think I can be content with your forced 20 dollars buy-back?
I would have been less offended if you had just said "Fuck you, I'm keeping your money."

You can keep your 20 dollars but I want you to remember every day that you screwed many investors who trusted in you.

779

838