a. Safiullin
b. Safiullin
c. 4
d. Monfils
e. Monfils
f. Safiullin
g. Safiullin
h. 16

31 goals

Mainstream adoption as in the number of micro transactions? How many things per day do you pay with gold and would you say that gold is mainstream or not? It is really a question of whatever benchmark you want to apply here. While I wouldn't say that BTC is mainstream yet in a broader sense, tendencies are clearly there that it is on a good way to become mainstream, but not necessarily for micro payments / daily usage.

I think infrastructure will develop over time and as Free Market Capitalist said, hairdressers and gas stations are not the places where people pay with BTC, but then again are those really the places to manifest whether BTC is mainstream? I rather go by public recognition, institutional, corporate and governmental stance on BTC. A lot of things have happened there. While I am kind of sad that BTC is a target of heavy regulation, you can tell that this is a sign for something being about to become mainstream.

You can also tell from cryptocurrencies being explicitly mentioned in tax filing reports. Who in 2012 would have thought that financial authorities will very soon change or expand the terminology in those reports and add crypto currencies? I was kind of expecting it because I never doubted its potential, but once an asset class finds its way into those reports, it obviously has to have some mainstream characteristics. 

a. Giron
b. Navone
c. 4
d. Giron
e. Navone
f. Giron
g. Navone
h. 20

The bookmakers would hardly consider a match from 2019 for their odds calculations. It depends on what the teams look like and whether they are still the same for the most part. It is now a new season and they give Manchester United the benefit of the doubt because they are supposed to come out on top in this match, but look how it ended at the end of last season. Manchester United 15th vs. Fulham 11th, 12 points ahead.

This game is definitely important for both teams. Whoever loses has a massively failed start and for Manchester United this would be worse than for Fulham. Both will feel the pressure.

A CIA operative wouldn't be the worst case I think. It will probably depend on how someone is publicly perceived. CIA wouldn't be a great scenario, but nobody would think they'd destroy the price by dumping it recklessly out of a sudden. I think it could be more problematic if Kim Jong-un's regime is Satoshi. Ultimately I agree that nothing should really change for anyone unless someone has moral concerns, but that could go for the CIA for some people as it could go for Kim Jong-un for others.

What really matters is whether it is possible for any actor to change how bitcoin works and whether its tamper-proof structure is at risk. As long as that is not the case, I would expect the price to take a hit, but to recover from it. The price would probably take a hit because there would be a short-term chain reaction from speculators who all think the same: there will be a wave of sellers, everyone trying to buy back cheaper, until resistance from purchases gets so strong that further dumps won't have any effect, then recovery from there.

There could be one problem though if a problematic actor is in possession of the Satoshi BTC: would the price increase potentially as much as it would if people didn't know who Satoshi was? If the BTC are in the hands of a questionable actor, would potential investors still feel as comfortable to invest and hence push the wealth of someone they condemn or fear?

BTC isn't a belief at all because it is all based on facts. What BTC does is deliver serious actions due to its mechanics being based on the skin-in-the-game. The system makes everyone act towards a united goal not because all actors in the system believe in BTC, but because it is designed such that everyone acting towards a unified goal makes the most economic sense for everyone. You don't trust because you believe in BTC, you trust BTC because the system has proven to not be compromisable at all. If this had been otherwise, you would not invest in BTC and this is not because you lack a certain belief, but you are confronted with the fact that the system is not reliable.

Courage and patience are subjective attributes that have little to do with BTC itself. Many things involve courage and patience. BTC's price is partially reflected by belief, that's probably true for those who don't really understand the system, but decide to invest anyway. But at the end of the day the price is a reflection of its uninterrupted continuous reliability and validity.

49 - tiCeR
50 - tiCeR

Time: 8'

$113,323
$112,678

How do you know that he is holding BTC, and not anymore able to access it? How do you know Satoshi is a man? How do you know Satoshi is a person? How do you know that Satoshi will overtake Bill Gates when actually Satoshi is 25 people and they have to share it, assuming they do not act as a conglomerate? How do you know Satoshi aims at becoming the richest person in the world? How do you know Satoshi can die if Satoshi is a project and not a single human being? How do you know that Satoshi is not 95 years of age and feels the desire to use some cash to live the best life in the last years? How do you know that withdrawing BTC from Satoshi wallets "would really affect the value of his Bitcoin"? I picked your post, but there are so many unfounded assumptions to be found in this thread. The list of questions could be 10 times as long.

Above all, if you were Satoshi, you would never touch your coins? Do I understand this correctly? You would never ever because it would be stupid?

This one is great! You must feel kind of sad you didn't have higher stakes at play.

I wanted to share mine, which was not a winner, but half pushback.

Bitcointalk Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=33155
Current amount of Posts: 3543
EARNED merit in the last 120 days: 23
bech32 BTC Address: bc1qzr52srev4vrruzel4rx34d57sjpflem5qc7hsd

They had some nice shots from the distance, but this proves that they may not have a center forward like the others do. This is what they had to offer in 24/25:



Rasmus Højlund with 4 goals in 32 matches. They are trying to do something about it, but getting into this new season with a home match without scoring must be discouraging for the next matches. A result of 3-4 would have been better than the 0-1.

$115,745

12. Zhang Mingyang
11. Aljamain Sterling
10. Sergei Pavlovich
9. Su Mudaerji
8. Taiyilake Nueraji
7. Maheshate Hayisaer
6. Lone’er Kavanagh
5. Rong Zhu
4. Michel Pereira
3. Yi Zha
2. You Su-young
1. Uran Satybaldiev


NOT go the Full Distance 6

28 goals

The safety question isn't as relevant anymore as it used to be when it was discussed back in the days. When bitcoin had no real legal status, I think one of the major risks was prosecution based on whatever legal authorities could have come up with to blackmail him or actually set an example. Now that this is not a risk anymore in most jurisdictions, I don't think risk exposure due to others knowing that he owns that many BTC is a big deal. If it was because $5 wrench attacks could happen (which I doubt a billionaire would allow to happen), then people like CZ or Saylor would be as much at risk as Satoshi would be.

This could still be a large organizational operation to put infrastructure in place that allows authorities to track down the flows of money. There are lots of interesting issues with negligently using cryptocurrencies: all these exchanges and swap services with those easy to use interfaces (one currency against another) are gathering an incredible amount of network data. They know all the input and output addresses and can hence provide not only single user addresses, but whole maps for single users, user groups and financial flows. And then they make that data accessible to authorities either because they agreed upon sharing the data upfront as a deal to not get their services shut down, or they sell the data.

I know the second part is a bit off-topic, but I bring this up because if bitcoin is a large scale organizational or governmental operation, then the individual Satoshi Nakamoto doesn't exist in the first place. But risk because of revealing his identity should be no more of a threat to Nakamoto than it is to any other billionaire and if anyone has the means to protect against potential risks, then it is the billionaires.

It was an exciting game given that these two teams are known for their defensive approach and nobody would have been negatively impressed if this game ended in a no goals draw. In that sense I think it was a good game with the better end for Bilbao. Sevilla has to work on their timings, 8 offsides in one game is ridiculous!

37 goals