I see a lot of arguments for or against whether the Satoshi era coins are lost or not.  It does not matter and it should not matter.  This subject shall be treated in the least subjective way possible.  For that to happen, we have to imagine the blockchain is private for a second.

If Monero had this subject discussed, there would be no way of knowing whether old coins have moved and which precisely.  It is dangerous to introduce a mandatory migration because it is a precedent and it significantly lessens the credibility of Bitcoin and the bit of our community that feels safe with Bitcoin.  If this becomes mandatory, as much as I love Bitcoin I will likely move on to Monero or just quit.

The world provokes enough stress.  I do not want to move from the stress of my bank freezing my funds for no reason to the stress of my Bitcoin turning to the void when I lack the time to migrate my coins in time.  Because who knows what other threat comes after Bitcoin, and if we made Quantum Computer resistant Bitcoin mandatory when why not make the next threat a mandatory change too!

Imagine the headlines of all news outlets.  They would thrive off this subject, it would keep many people distant from Bitcoin.  People who do not understand Bitcoin entirely may get out of it scared that one day they may not have access to their coins any more.

More over.  I do not understand why this has to affect the early adopters when it could simply affect the people who are not responsible enough or are just unlucky enough to not find access to their keys before a Quantum Computer successfully generates or breaks it.  One of them definitely affects a lot of UTXOs, the other is simply a possibility.  Why affect the UTXOs?

And then, by giving the Bitcoin users more time to migrate IF they will, this means a lot more UTXOs will move to the Quantum Computer resistant addresses before Quantum Computers get to actually do damage to Bitcoin.  IF they ever even get to damage it in any way.

To me, not obliging everybody to do this is a win win situation.  If Quantum Computers do damage then the 'rewards' will be way less, if they do not then a lot more people have the opportunity to move their coins before a situation like this occurs.

Man.  James Howells would pull his hair out of anger if the migration becomes mandatory.  And so would I, for the lack of sense this would make.

You are not proposing anything very controversial or even interesting, yet sure, it is possible that some member might agree to take the other side (bullish side) of such a bet.

I already explained why I was not interested in my earlier response to Biodom, which relates to our distance from the 200-WMA, which is currently right about $50,200.

I already stated that I would be willing to bet that the BTC spot price won't go below 25% above the 200-WMA until after the end of 2025, which currently 25% above the 200-WMA is right about $63k.. but I also said that I would be willing to bet that the BTC spot price does not go below $75k, even though currently $75k is 50% above the 200-WMA.

Useless thread, seriously. Blaming people for wearing a signature is utter nonsense. If you had the possibility of earning some money on the side, just wearing some signature, you would also do it.

Just-Dice still accepts investors but the site has moved to CLAM gambling instead or DOGE like it used to be. I stop in from time to time and still see people using the site, I think investors get a % based on their investment every few minutes.

You likely need to be more specific.

You are betting 50/50, and what do you say within the next 3 months or some other timeframe?

50/50 odds is not really very compelling, even though there are guys willing to bet one way or the other, I have my doubts that you are presenting any kind of a compelling proposition about sub $100k still being in the cards.

By the way, it seems that this conversation about sub $100k no longer being possible was that Biodom was wanting to bet me and he was taking the downside with a presumption that I was already leaning way over 50/50 that sub $100k was no longer in the cards, which I hardly even came close to saying any thing like that. He was imposing that belief on me and trying to suggest that he was being charitable in making such a bet, when in fact he was merely changing the subject away from his original proposition in which he was saying that bitcoin prices would spend somewhere in the neighborhood of 2,518 within 6 digits and then presuming that 7 digits would come after that.  I proposed what I thought to have had been a fairly reasonable bet in regards to his claim, and he changed the subject..  My proposition was that within the next 7 years that bitcoin would spend way less than 2,518 in the six digits and that bitcoin would likely be spending its time in the 7 digits by the time we get to 7 years down the road.  I actually don't even have strong feelings on the topic, even though I was willing to take the other side of Biodom's proposition.

quote author=Not in Town link=topic=178336.msg65602266#msg65602266 date=1752989774]
I'll take the bearish side of it 'Not going under 100k' (within a certain time-frame), if anyone is interested. I am always interested in throwing bitcents around in gambles such as this.

If you think it'd valid then give him the loan 

I have seen some good number of people offer such collateral (NFTs) for loans in their own threads, and I haven't seen a single one of them acquire a loan. The fact is that NFTs are illiquid especially after their hype died down.

Is that so? This is the first time I'm hearing about it.

Are there any Cryptopia victims that are happy with the way Grant Thornton have conducted themselves ever since they were appointed as liquidators?