Thread: RIP Bitcoin

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

as usual you missed the point,

regulating means also making examples by punishing the guilty parties,

banning is one option, but not the only option

obviously for stocks, it would be very very naive (like you just did) to think that a complete ban was the only solution, not taking into account the historical role of stocks in the financial system

but for bitcoins, they have no role in our financial system, so a complete ban is not going to bother anyone, except a few dodgy speculators, money laundering agents, chavs, plumber boys, and chinese peaseants

Where did I advocate a complete ban on stocks?

Do consider that punter Joe is always at the bottom of the food chain, often thick and gullible and easy to manipulate, which is why he needs regs to protect him while those higher up find regulation distasteful.

Originally Posted by jabir

Where did I advocate a complete ban on stocks?

you asked why the regulators didn't ban dotcom stocks as a counter-comparison to banning bitcoins, which was a very naive counter-argument of your part, hence me explaining you why

Originally Posted by jabir

Do consider that punter Joe is always at the bottom of the food chain, often thick and gullible and easy to manipulate,

yes he is, and this thread is the perfect example

I am also in favor in banning all vice games, like gambling, betting and casino roulette

Originally Posted by jabir

which is why he needs regs to protect him while those higher up find regulation distasteful.

yes, the average person needs the protection from himself

as for the attitude of the rich and famous, they can afford losing money so the rules are not the same

who cares if a few hedge funds lose billions in bad decisions for their rich clients, part of the game

Originally Posted by jabir

As for his attempted evasion to remind us that punters sued brokers for pushing the dotcom 'bubble', he forgot to mention it was because the brokers breached regulations and ethical trading practice which allowed the punters to sue.

jesus, you have a wild imagination, do you hear voices too ?

I didn't forget anything, brokers have a "fit product" requirement, which at the time wasn't violated. Only if you could prove the product wasn't fit, you could sue your broker. And the definition of fit is also assimilated with the investor financial capacity. If the broker ignored that financial capacity when soliciting clients, then he was violating his duty.

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

you asked why the regulators didn't ban dotcom stocks as a counter-comparison to banning bitcoins, which was a very naive counter-argument of your part, hence me explaining you why

Mild correction: I didn't advocate or ask for anything to be banned. Would you like me to, just to make you right?

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

jesus, you have a wild imagination, do you hear voices too ?

I didn't forget anything, brokers have a "fit product" requirement, which at the time wasn't violated. Only if you could prove the product wasn't fit, you could sue your broker. And the definition of fit is also assimilated with the investor financial capacity. If the broker ignored that financial capacity when soliciting clients, then he was violating his duty.

You go on about missed points, and continue missing them yourself.

You keep using distractions (and false accusations) about what is fit, proper, legal ethical or unethical, while utterly dismissing what makes them so. I suppose it's regulation, you seem to think it's something else.

Those who called it a ponzi scheme im starting to agree with.

Why do every single one of them either go up or go down at the same time?

The bit about 4% owningt 95% is the answer i reckon

Originally Posted by jabir

Mild correction: I didn't advocate or ask for anything to be banned. Would you like me to, just to make you right?

again you are going in circles and denying what you said, your clearly made the comparisons as an argument. At least be courageous and own what you said, instead of being a little weasel

bitcoins are frauds, and the public deserve to be protected. It's really that simple. Not sure why you can't agree with that very simple and noble principle

Originally Posted by jabir

You go on about missed points, and continue missing them yourself.

You keep using distractions (and false accusations) about what is fit, proper, legal ethical or unethical, while utterly dismissing what makes them so. I suppose it's regulation, you seem to think it's something else.

false accusations ? more voices in your head ?

where is the distractions, when it's not fit, you can't sell it to that person, that's what the regulations say. Again quite clear in principles. Bitcoins are not fit for the public and therefore should be protected with possibly a ban if there is no way to regulate exchanges. In a regulated exchanges, the margin account will automatically filter out 95% of the public.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem or simply a critical thinking problem ?

Originally Posted by Dillinger

Those who called it a ponzi scheme im starting to agree with.

Why do every single one of them either go up or go down at the same time?

The bit about 4% owningt 95% is the answer i reckon

of course it's a ponzi, it's a game actually

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

of course it's a ponzi, it's a game actually

You really haven't a clue.

Bitcoin is pure Austrian economics, completely unlike the USD Ponzi scheme..

Bitcoin is a new animal humanity has never seen before.

Just check my original gamble of £473 is now worth £251 But with buying and selling the original same 2 LTC I now own 2.2 LTC. I owe an enormous debt to them for limiting me to a £500 gamble.

Originally Posted by buriramboy

I owe an enormous debt to them for limiting me to a £500 gamble.

You owe them for setting a limit on how much you gamble?

^^ Inspired me to total up my long term portfolio.

Currently -5.4%

First minus since starting in late November.


Think was 33% one week ago, and 10% during the week.

Think the most I was up was around 170%.



There's a fun year ahead.

Correct think LTC was about £230 at the time I bought and I tried to buy 10 but they would only let me invest/ gamble £500. So by limiting me to how much I could deposit/ gamble, this is coinbase they've saved me a £1000 give or take.

^If you bring a note from your mother will they let you up the wager?

he knew as much about litecoin as he knows about butterfluffers delights who is running after horse cock in the 6th at flemmington

all this spank wanieling - I am still 4 times up on what I have put in

but shortly there will be someone along to explain EC cryptology , DH keys , blockchains and trustless exchanges

and they will know as much as burriram boy about horseflesh buggering butterfluffer

hey plumber boy, how much have you put into that scam ?

don't be afraid, tell us like it is

the following banks have banned crypto-currency purchases on their credit cards:

jp morgan chase
bank of america
citigroup
capital one

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...n-credit-cards

^I bet they let you use them at ATM's in Vegas casinos though

It is probably because of the amount of people doing charge backs on the cards

Originally Posted by baldrick

It is probably because of the amount of people doing charge backs on the cards

Or is it wise self-interest that if customers spend up large on a BS fad investment and lose, there's a good chance the banks lose? They can't get blood out of a stone.

Some cardcos treat payments to crypto exchanges as a cash withdrawal. Never miss a trick!