38 out of 51.

Not really a good score. I pretty much failed at about all the technical questions.I guess it is to be expected from someone who doesn't use bitcoin nor have any intention of using it in the near future.

Didn't Ross Ulbricht tried to get somebody murdered?That sounds rather violent to me.

Firstly , credit card transaction felt instant because merchants trust the CC company to honour their part of the deal.Considering the amount of petty larceny and scamming attempt they already facing ,do you expect a chain retailer would trust some anonymous stranger that easily?


Secondly, I don't use CC or even debit card for very small transaction.Paying around 10%( even go to 50% for some of my smallest purchases) transaction fee  to use bitcoin isn't really a selling point.

That is until they compare electricity bill. 

The transaction time is actually a hindrance to that.The transaction fee also makes it unattractive for small purchases, especially when conversion favours the local currency(like in my case).

That is not the definition of a ponzi.In order of it to be considered a ponzi, the revenue needed to pay for those loans/deposit must come from other investors( whose ROI then would be paid using later investors "investment", at least until the system collapse) .Those loans were expected to be paid using genuine revenues from the  business( revenues from the banking business in case of bank deposits) , hence not a ponzi.

Ponzis are basically investments scam.The vast majority of fiat users sure as hell aren't fiat investors.


The reason why some people sees bitcoin as a natural occurring ponzi is because the major factor in the rise of bitcoin price is from" investors" pouring money into it, hoping  to reap profit from the rise in price(which is later fueled by more investors money).Such system is just as as unsustainable as ponzis and pyramids.Of course by this definition most bubbles(commodity ,real estate , dot com etc )can be considered as natural occurring ponzi.

Thanks  clearing that out.

I guess you're right.

This entire line of conversion was started by this post  which is pretty much seems out of the blue for me.

Trying to use bitcoin to break the law is a bad idea in general for lots of reason.I surely hope that isn't what the OP had in mind.

I don't think that is why he did it.After all he still need to pay tax unless he's living in a country( or a citizen of a country) that have zero tax.

This is just ridiculous. Many people who regularly uses the internet have never heard of ( care enough enough to find out when someone mention it) bitcoin.Most of my immediate friends and family who are quite internet savvy have absolutely no clue on bitcoin's existence(yes, it's  anecdotal ) .Even among us who knows/interested about bitcoin that doesn't mean we're using it.I myself don't see my using bitcoin for the foreseeable future.

How is that a ponzi ?

Strange ,google says otherwise.In fact most called this a food myth.

To be fair biggus 's post was quite ridiculous.Don't see why you would put him on an ignore list for stating that.

Agreed.I just wasted more around  20 minutes on what is  essentially just another sales spiel (yes, he's trying to sell you his overpriced junk ) .Don't bother with that video , it's garbage.

Unless there are very select cases (that property situated in a disaster prone area e.g) , it is highly doubtful that the annual maintenance cost and taxes exceeds its value appreciation .Of course,I could be wrong as I don't really know the detail concerning the house in question.

What a bullshit thread, there is absolutely nothing in the original  links that  ties Elon Musk to digital payments let alone cryptocurrency and bitcoin.

Shame on you OP.


What is hilarious is all the people chiming in (on how great this is) without even bother checking the link in the first place

By affirming to the ignorant suspicion that bitcoin is an anonymous payment system used by the underworld to circumvent detection?


"Anonymous" isn't exactly something that most people cares as much as the ones who frequent this forums do(besides, bitcoin isn't exactly anonymous).The fact the line was spoken by an outlaw pretty much means they're trying to invoke an  underworld connotation .While it may not exactly be a bad (they could do it a lot, lot worse)it may just draw enough attention for audience to conclude that it a "criminal thing" without bothering to look it up.Perhaps if a different type of character(nerd, political activist,fringe economist etc) saying might be less jarring to me.

I'm more interested in the  tv's show context ,though.Too bad we don't air that show here.Anyone can provide a summary of that episode?

 A criminal talking about buying  a jailbroke(I hope he's a talking about the phone, how do you jailbroke bitcoin?) untraceable phone to mask other illicit activity doesn't sound like ringing endorsement to me(its at best shady at best) .So we're rejoicing because they didn't portray it as bad as they could(they need to make Jamie's character likeable or at leas tolerable, after all) ? Hey at least he wasn't trafficking  cocaine or hiring a hitman with it

 I really don't get it why you guys are so excited about this.That scene didn't exactly portrays bitcoin in positive light,in fact in deepen the stereotype that   bitcoin is a criminal underground currency( not exactly favourable context).Heck,it's barely a second exposure with no clarifying whatsoever or even further mentioning for the rest of the movie.