I agree 100% that multi-accounting takes a long time. I don’t know a thing about casino play. I’m just talking sports betting where the bet is a win or it’s a loss. No negotiations are needed and a win means winnings should be paid. Holy says a book can take winnings and that’s when we argue.

Putting all that aside, holy hasn’t met the standard posted by LoyceV for negative trust.

I do sports disputes here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=717790.4440. It takes days. A book makes an allegation. They have to prove that allegation. If they can’t , the player gets paid in full.

Edited to shorten.

I spoke with holy on telegram and gave my opinion, then Ratings Place via pm and both were nice but as you see neither listened. The red tag from holydarkness is borderline trust abuse IMO and should be a neutral.

Rating Place is showing how obsessive and , for lack of a better word, ignorant he can and will be over the tag. No-one wants to read or cares to read the walls of text that he is posting trying to get his point across in a poor manner. It's hard to follow as part of it I feel is only a partial quote and people would need to read each situation to even really get a good sense of what is going on.

Regardless of my opinion, these users are still able to do what they want with their tags or posts. I think putting rating place on ignore is the way to go at this point from the way they are handling the situation they are not going to stop acting insane til the tag is removed and holy doesn't appear to be removing it. I am removing myself from this thread after this post regardless as it's useless to keep giving input on an endless situation.

I'm here to vouch for Vlad2Vlad, and to say this is indeed the real Vlad2Vlad.

Most of you kids don't know any better and that's fine. But Vlad was an early altcoin supporter - IXC was the 3rd altcoin ever - and he is also known as creator of the world's first "Shit Coin", in 2013. That matters to me, because if he didn't, I would have been #1.

Anyway.

For the longest time I never really understood him, and I still don't, but with so many Fake OGs out there, the forum could use a real OG back, and that is Vlad.

If Vlad2Vlad promises to start abiding by forum rules (multiple-posting seems to be the biggest offense), then I encourage moderators to give him another chance as he is a unique voice in a sea of similar voices.


LOL. Vlad's gang:

https://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/the-colonel-and-his-droogs.jpg


Actually I care. IXC is the 3rd altcoin ever. Its okay for people to care about it from a historical perspective.


Wow. What a complete asshole of a thing to say.

Petitions from gangs are unlikely to be considered.

That's #5686 on CoinMarketCap. Nobody cares.

Seems like nobody gives a f**k about anything you feel, say, or believe in.

Just to keep it straight, I was about to write here about four hours ago, after Rating Place finally address a point that is relevant to the title of his topic instead of wall of irrelevant text. I happened to get a phone call from a friend for a quick lunch, thus I can only write this after I'm home. Just to be transparent that I'll address the matter regardless a post or two.

About whether my feedback is an abuse and didn't go in line with LoyceV's guideline, I would beg to differ. I do write to you, yahoo62278 that I'll mull over it, and when I wrote that, I was hoping Rating Place finally address the matter that will "force me" to change my tag to neutral, as I abide forum rules.

Loyce's guide to negative feedback is [I use RP's quote just because I don't want to hunt the original thread and I memorize the rough point, so I know he didn't manipulate that]:


Scam is defined by Merriam-Webster,


My tag is:


Rating Place opened the thead with wall of text, a massive one, that I countered with even more massive wall as mine are supplemented with evidences and basis. I narrowed each part down for easy navigation by framing them into a question to Rating Place, that he can answer as rebuttal. None of it were answered. Not even the simplest one.

Now, let's move to the point where I think the negative tag is correct and is according to Loyce's guideline; the very first one:


As it happened, in beyond abundant and redundant, Rating Place insist that I was misinformed and that he knows better, that flag from provider were just flag, [summarized and freely rephrased] a simple warning that sportsbook can ignore, despite my numerous attempt to tell him that it is not what he thought. I've seen flags from provider, I've asked my contacts of what'll happen if flag was raised by provider.

Now, this is the keypoint: Rating Place insist [and take pride on] that the fund of the flag were going into the casino's pocket and that casino can freely abide the rule or not, and by the sheer public pressure [that also involves in his art of snipping posts and twisting statements, of which IIRC fall under category "deceptive act"] he got the casino to pay.

THIS is where the negative flag instead of neutral tag is based on. His insistence that provider's flag is just a warning and not binding to casinos.

The way I see it, casinos through their representative accounts are also part of the forum members. Thus, they're entitled to the same treatment, protection, and fair judgment as other members. Forcing "someone" to pay, based on outdated knowledge that Rating Place insist as the truth [and that I know nothing about, that the casinos lying to me and I take their words easily], be it by sheer force of peer pressure as result of his "deception act", or [this is where things goes snowballed] the personal behind-the-screen cases and/or cases that he handled on his thread, where he get the sportsbook to pay the player because he deemed the flag by provider was not good, put the member of this forum [the casinos] in financial loss and if people not warned through tag, the practica will continue.

Yahoo62278, I stick to my words when I said I really value your input and would mull over to change the tag. Yet, Rating Place's insistence and negligence to address my points [or even just one of the seven points I raised], especially the one above, is why the tag stays and why I think it should be neg until he learn to stop deceiving people.

Rating Place, you insist that I lied, I can easily disprove that, I've offered this over and over, and you always backed down when you realize the stake is real. If you're so sure that you know how things works in sportsbetting and provider flagging, and that I was being fooled by sportsbook [etc. etc. etc.], why were you so afraid to take my challenge?

Escrow 1,560,000 USD, I'll show you the evidence in abundance. The amount shouldn't worry you as you'll get it back, it is escrowed, I was wrong all this time, now you've publicly proven that I have zero knowledge of sportsbook and provider, and I have to retract the tag.

What stops you?

I spoke with holy on telegram and gave my opinion, then Ratings Place via pm and both were nice but as you see neither listened. The red tag from holydarkness is borderline trust abuse IMO and should be a neutral.

Rating Place is showing how obsessive and , for lack of a better word, ignorant he can and will be over the tag. No-one wants to read or cares to read the walls of text that he is posting trying to get his point across in a poor manner. It's hard to follow as part of it I feel is only a partial quote and people would need to read each situation to even really get a good sense of what is going on.

Regardless of my opinion, these users are still able to do what they want with their tags or posts. I think putting rating place on ignore is the way to go at this point from the way they are handling the situation they are not going to stop acting insane til the tag is removed and holy doesn't appear to be removing it. I am removing myself from this thread after this post regardless as it's useless to keep giving input on an endless situation.

Negative (shown as -1)
If you believe someone is a scammer, or someone is likely to scam, that deserves negative feedback. Please provide evidence.
If you really hate someone and he’s a terrible troll, that does not deserve negative feedback.

a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation

Rating Place, the written contract is still available if you really want to enter and bind yourself to it and prove yourself, as you basically claimed all my statements are wrong and fabricated to side with casinos. Escrow that number, I'll show it here to the entire overseers of this thread that you dedicate to expose me. I have it in my hand that Betby indeed flagged that user for arbitrage, the flag come from the provider.

You can either take the challenge or eat your word and take the shame all over your stay in this forum for pretending to know everything, even when it is factually false.[...]

How about some userscript that collects and halts all Merit transactions created by you, until you make a post? I'm just thinking out loud here, and it's not something I can build, but if this would be possible, you could more or less accomplish what you're looking for.

You've sent out double my number of Merit transactions, to more different accounts, and you often read and Merit old posts:
...
That's commendable, and takes a tremendous amount of effort. You must have one of the highest "sent Merit transactions" to "posts made" ratios on the forum, and that makes the privacy implications for you more than for anyone else.

You could collect good posts in open tabs until the moment you're making a post anyway, but it's cumbersome.

Something that has an immediate effect on any member reading your posts is that many are mostly far too long with quotes and replies. It will help make posts easier to read and understand if you somewhat reduce the size of your posts.

If you genuinely feel he has not helped people have their money back in the previous two years, put that in a legible list of complaints/concerns and ask him to address the points.

Again, if you are alluding to holydarkness taking payments from casinos in order to collude against a complainant then you must provide evidence.

In my unbiased opinion, I can state that I have seen him engage on a regular basis with members that are making complaints against casinos as well as the casinos themselves. He looks at the information the accuser has supplied and asks the accused to provide a reply. Then vice-versa.

If we are being honest here, we both know there are many cases of multi-accounting and breach of rules by those making complaints but that does not apply to all of the cases. Most of them are closed on the basis of that accusation and when made, what is holydarkness supposed to do? How much evidence will the casino show him to support their claim when they are tied in to various data protection laws?

It is the other cases where casinos have selectively scammed members that deserve more attention.

As we both are aware, holydarkness is not paid for his time, he is volunteering his time in an attempt to streamline a process that expedites complaints against casinos and seeks resolutions. He is the so-called man in the middle, he cannot force either party to do anything. If anything, he can express an opinion to both parties but I fail to understand why you believe he can influence the outcome.

I use theymos' weekly data dump to get all data at once, and I use individual profiles if I need an accurate Merit count.

ok, so what about running a merit update once a day or some similar timeframe. only the sender gets an ack, other than that no one has anyindication of merit sent/recieved. then once per period (like a batch update) the forum then will list all the merits and exact time in the list, and also populate the actual posts with its list of merit and givers.

so basically no one will see sent or received merits besides the sender until the forum wide update. at that point everything is the same as it is currently.

better? worse?

I remember reporting many of Vlad2Vlad's posts for breaking rule number 32 and now he is doing the same thing again even though he is surely aware of that rule.
This user doesn't deserve a second chance.


I reported prodigal son's posts too.

https://www.talkimg.com/images/2026/04/19/Ufc30w.png

Which 7 accounts? What makes you think we want you back? Even in this topic you're breaking rule #32 many times already.

Why did you think the topic was deleted? The topic hasn't been deleted.

missing 18 characters from my wif private key

Merit is for posts, not for users. If the post is deleted, you can no longer Merit it. If the user is banned, and the post is still there, there's no reason to restrict it from receiving Merit.

That's #5686 on CoinMarketCap. Nobody cares.

I find that hard to believe, but it's coming from someone who earned 3 Merits in 4 years.

It makes more sense if it's "locked for security", as "normal" permanent banned mean you lose your signature. Unless there's a new type of ban I don't know about.

Which 7 accounts? What makes you think we want you back? Even in this topic you're breaking rule #32 many times already.

as for BPIP etc scraping all that stuff anyway: thats their business. i just would like it changed here.

ill comment more later.

It must have been restored, as I couldn't access my link to this post earlier.

If really no one is buying they should be offloading them already.

I can imagine many companies shredding them for safety.

use Bitcoin Core with pruning mode, which allows you to run a fully validating node without needing more than 700 GB of storage space.
pruning mode, mean approximately 50 GB of storage space.

to enable Pruning open bitcoin.conf locate bitcoin.conf then
 

Are you telling me.. I should trust you?

https://loyce.club/PM_publisher/messages/11618662.html

You should clarify this part: "they must wait for at least 1 week to 1 month after requesting the refund". It looks like a month, but technically it's just a week you're guaranteeing.

As far as I understand, those are only at risk after exposing the public key, although given fast enough quantum decryption that could be enough time to replace a transaction after it's broadcasted and before it's confirmed.

Sorry, promise444c5 and Doan9269, this round is fatal for you. You have lost your last lives, so you are out of the game. It’s not your fault, blame LoyceV for failing to protect you.

Quoted.
You should clarify this part: "they must wait for at least 1 week to 1 month after requesting the refund". It looks like a month, but technically it's just a week you're guaranteeing.
And when that week start, you should probably only start counting from the moment you've added a big red warning to your 2 escrow posts, a new post in this topic, and a (neutral) feedback on OP to make absolutely sure people see it on time!
I like adding the week delay before paying back, it prevents exit scam scenarios like this:

You should have used a new account with Copper Membership for this. That would have allowed you to base the name of your website on something that makes more sense than an old farmed Indonesian account.

For the record: if you share when exactly you became the owner of this account, I can leave you neutral feedback so there's no doubt about it.

I doubt they would want to dump everything once that would be stupid
It would be slow and I don't see it been in the hands of an average man.
It's like picking losing the coins forever and making Bitcoin total supply lower
And Letting it be and increasing Bitcoin circulating supply thereby affecting the price
But Not Your Keys, Not your coins I guess

I'm not really looking forward to seeing 6.7 million Bitcoin dumped on the market. It's going to be one hell of an altcoin season if that happens.

Can you elaborate on this? What did I miss?

just unsubstantiated taking away of winnings, I made 3 bets on sports, all won, I showed them to the community, I saw these quotes in other bookmakers, and you're talking about arbitrage? so how do my bets relate to arbitrage, you're unlikely to prove something that doesn't actually exist. you're just a thief

Since you've mentioned me here: I don't like the banning of arbitrage betting. Even stronger: I think it's BS!....

Yeah, already on it. I've made contact with staff on XYes ....

Great news! If you have a chance ask them about that fake license......

So... I have my talks with their representative that's assigned to me, and we tackled several things. Basically, this thread is divided into two things: OP's main situation of arbing, and a sub-topic of their license, the 2022 GCB thing.

Regarding OP's arbitrage betting activity, I can't say much as I am bound by for-my-eyes-only basis] other than that I've given a glimpse of what led them to struck the gavel and draw a verdict of arbing. Regarding arbing is a smart strategy or prohibited, I won't dive deep into that discussion right now, because specifically for this case, smart or not, they're irrelevant because they're simply prohibited, as per their ToS that I've captured and sitting in my gallery since few days ago:

With above, unfortunately, like it or not, we have to consider OP as breaching the terms he agreed upon sign up. Thus, the casino is within their right to confiscate the rest of the fund.

Now, about license. They told me that it was indeed an outdated one. However, they're in the middle of acquiring a new one from Anjouan. I believe they'll properly update the page with the Anjouan licensing and their seal once achieved.

1. It wasn’t an outdated license. It was a fake license.

2. The rules say “guaranteed profit with no risk” How did the OP guarantee profit?

3. Xyes says this is their outdated license OGL/2022/501/017

Format of licenses in 2022
Curacao eGaming — 1668/JAZ
Antillephone — 8048/JAZ
Gaming Curacao — 365/JAZ
e-Management N.V. — 5536/JAZ

4. This isn't kept in secret since the bets are public. You either have the two arbitraged bets or you don't.

And I've told you, twice, one hinted and one explicitly, if you bother to read carefully, I've seen the evidence. The provider mark him. Hence the "looking at other things" of which I shall assume you're referring the instance of me bringing OP's other case. I am calling for a motive, as it might shows pattern, jumping from one small casinos to another and threaten the casino [this one might got threatened too, behind the scene, though I will strike that out from statement].

the thing is , holydarkness is prone to believe anything that the casinos say -although they are OBVIOUS lies- than the players claims which are supported by actual evidences......

holydarkness, he does make a good point. You have to stop believing everything the casino and casino reps tell you. ......

@holydarkness

If you are so much defending the books for consicating for value betting, do you even realize that 99% of the bets that are being placed are pure value bets for the sportsbook itself?.......

You keep saying that but you are the one that keeps confusing. You keep letting casinos or the casino reps here confuse you all the time. My case also was turned to arb betting by the rep, after he realized that value betting doesn't cause any winnings confiscation by any means.......

Then how about you hand over the evidence of arbitrage betting to the accuser himself? .....

This is not do-able on the same bookmaker (because they have a bookie margin that makes it impossible to arb within the same book) so the 2nd betting slip would have to be from another book (for example Pinnacle) and it would be impossible for you nor XYes to have obtained this.......

.....Speaking in general, the provider sent their flag to casinos about arbing or other violation the providers detect, and the casinos act accordingly to this flag. The casino does not need two bet slips to compare stakes of the opposite outcome of the same events, the provider did this......

I don’t know why you continue to make things up. The provider can’t compare. I have no idea why you are doing this to these players.

......Not to mention that it is not too far fetched to think that it is possible that those providers communicate with each others in terms of crosschecking violators. Everyone hates violators. And enemy of my enemy is my friend, so, is it impossible to think Betby say, "hi Pinnacle, I'm sending you user with this details, can you share me his betslips from date x to y? I'll return with the result."?...

Hahaha, you have absolutely no idea how sportsbetting works obviously. Pinnacle is an ARB-FRIENDLY bookmaker so they are never ever gonna share user details. ......

My purpose is not to sling mud at you, my purpose is to teach you a bit of how sportsbetting works. Because from reading your posts I can see you don't know much yet.....

The one thing that I am confident of is that XYes has no proof. They would have showed it 2 weeks ago to the players and the case would have been settled

3 bets

$94
$151
$259

No one in their right mind thinks you arbed for these amounts and they can’t figure it out in 3 weeks.

I believe this shall be the closing statement of this case:

After a thorough discussion with the casino, as a gesture of goof will and show that the casino listens to the forum and have the forum's best interest at heart, they are agreed to recredit all of your winnings .........I'd like to stress this once more that this is not because XYes has no proof or arbing or anything else. I can vouch with my reputation here that the account did got flagged for arb betting by the provider. Nonetheless, listening to the input that's given by one or two prominent members advice, they agreed to initiate the gesture as they are planning to start their journey with the forum.

that's later revised and added one more point on #176. So, if you want to address anything and clarify your statements or salvage your face, it's post #176. Otherwise, it doesn't interest me to read and address any further demonstration of your incompetency and impotence.

the case is over. I’m not replying to your never ending personal attacks.

I was told (by listening to the Dutch Cryptocast) that Taproot introduced a vulnerability for quantum decryption comparable to legacy addresses with exposed public key.

-snip- and saying that every user is equally at risk right now, this muddies the picture. They are all living under the same eventual PQ cloud, sure, but some are standing in the rain already and some only get wet when they spend.

I was told (by listening to the Dutch Cryptocast) that Taproot introduced a vulnerability for quantum decryption comparable to legacy addresses with exposed public key.

-snip- and saying that every user is equally at risk right now, this muddies the picture. They are all living under the same eventual PQ cloud, sure, but some are standing in the rain already and some only get wet when they spend.

Can you elaborate on this? What did I miss?

I was surprised when I saw that Taproot addresses introduced risks

I was surprised when I saw that Taproot addresses introduced risks that Segwit fixed. But those 5 years, in some scenarios, may even be too late.

Several bitcoin developers and Jameson Lopp are supporting this proposal that would freeze quantum vulnerable wallets, including dormant coins for Satoshi Nakamoto and everyone else.
It is estimated that around 6.7 million BTC is currently held in legacy wallet addresses, that is almost 32% of bitcoin supply!

Useless signature spammer, and the last paragraph just rewrote my own words. Please do your magic @ABCbits.

Donneski

Newbie arzuo was already on my Ignore list, and is a candidate for this topic:
--snip--
I wouldn't be surprised if this is chatbot verbal diarrhea: who writes "flaws and issues" or "experts and users"?

In many cases, the wallet data may be interpreted as something completely different from the blockchain index! Sometimes, during scanning, the scan starts to load due to insufficient data or the estimated search time is longer.
Maybe the reload you were doing was related to some other large data or it could be caused by an error.
Although the apparent reason for this delay is hidden in the scan format or graphics feature, it is not clear what exactly is happening!!

You won't be allowed to quit!

It is Unfortunately, you can't buy a 0.30% bonus

-snip-

If you are referring to recent posts that was made then it is very simple to view from the bottom of the homepage. There are always 5 recent posts that are been updated immediately a new post is made

-snip-

-snip-

If I understand OP very well, for a topic to be hot, you don't need to like it or hate it. It doesn't need to be hot with you or cold with another member. It does not necessarily need to be a very quality post. It could simply be something trending, or an ongoing trolling but due to it has received highest number of replies in a short period, it becomes a hot thread .

This feature is common in other groups, but I am not a fan of it. That feature has a way to influence what people read in the forum. It could also lead to inactivity in some boards. Someone would just login, go straight to hot topics, contribute and log out, thereby missing other parts of the forum.

-snip-

It might be more interesting to filter this list by board or forum area.
I think you should definitely do that.

I thought I'd already suggested this idea, but maybe not. 

-snip-

Either we failed to understand you, or you failed to explain to us what you are talking about. When you are finding hot topics out of those with the most views, replies or merit, then you should also prefer based on what you want to see hot topics you want? Do you want to fire 🔥 back on the topic? Then will it be hot? The forum already has this system, as you can see on the screenshot above, so are you looking for a new board? Then what will be the board name, and how should the judge act?

However, the current forum without a featured or hot board looks pretty good. Btw, for your information, you may have noticed some topics featured by the forum on the top. This you could call a featured topic, though sometimes the forum shares some other important external links. Otherwise, the current hot topics' definition is fine to me.

Hot" posts on Reddit are fast-rising, popular content currently receiving high engagement (votes/comments) within the last 24 hours. "Top" posts are ranked strictly by the highest upvote count over a specific time (e.g., last hour, 24 hours, week, year, or all-time).

Reddit determines "Hot" threads primarily by calculating the velocity of engagement (upvotes, comments, and views) relative to a post's age, aiming to highlight content that is trending right now rather than just the most upvoted post of all time.  The algorithm uses a combination of factors to rank posts, giving early engagement significantly more weight than later interactions.

Reddit uses a logarithm to weight votes, meaning the first 10 upvotes are worth as much as the next 100, which are worth as much as the next 1,000. This prevents old, popular posts from dominating the feed indefinitely.

I was thinking of the same link, but I can't say the list is very useful. I have my own list of active topics (per hour, day or week), based on posts instead of Merit, but topics with many shitposts can easily make it to the top.

He's not the only Newbie shitposting attempting to scam in that thread. The other Newbie hasn't been banned yet after 3 deleted posts in that thread alone, so he'll just keep trying.

Especially when there is a transaction congestion in the Mempool. Today I will discuss some common problems of the Bitcoin network and easy ways to solve them.

Hot topics with you can be likely not hot topics with me and the other members.

It's similar to how people see a post is a good post, quality post, constructive post or not helpful post. Surely shitpost is clearly realized while to say it is a good/ quality/ constructive post, it depends on whether it is helpful for the reader sometimes, and for the forum member generally. It's hard to agree with each other about a post like it is helpful or not helpful.

With a newbie, it's a helpful post for me but with a legendary member, it's not helpful for him. While generally it is still a good post for the community when a question asked and a helpful answer given.

Thanks, I feel much better now

Cute? Can't we go back to just hating me?

Maybe if “Hot topics” is considered to be applied in the future, we need to use a weighted scoring system based on merit, views, and the number of replies, with the final decision based on votes from moderators or users like you, LoyceV

That's very unlikely.

I have toyed with this feature in the past, not once or twice then things started working better than before especially when it's syncing related issue.

-snip-

-snip-

It depends on your definition of a hot topic or a featured topic, you will find them in one of those places

-snip-
I was thinking of the same link, but I can't say the list is very useful. I have my own list of active topics (per hour, day or week), based on posts instead of Merit, but topics with many shitposts can easily make it to the top.

But then, the contribution to the chainwork will be still calculated in the old way.

ASIC miners can do that already if they want. So it comes down to the same problem: convince some ASIC miners to wipe out CPU blocks.

Don't do this! This is how you get scammed by an anonymous Newbie!

This is typical scammer mumbo jumbo. There are no patterns in random keys.

What's the verdict on Newbie aldianoktoey?

We’ve seen massive growth in Layer 2 solutions and sidechains throughout 2025 and early 2026. While this is great for scalability, it feels like the main chain is strictly becoming a "settlement layer" for institutions and whales.

If the majority of daily transactions (coffee, retail, etc.) move to Lightning or other L2s, does the on-chain velocity even matter anymore for Bitcoin's fundamental value? I'd love to hear your thoughts on whether we should stop looking at on-chain volume as a health metric for "money velocity.

You’re spot on. Looking at raw on-chain data in 2026 without filtering is like trying to count real traffic by including every car that just pulls out of a driveway and backs right in. The UTXO model inherently inflates 'volume' because of change outputs.

If you're digging for the 2025 stats, here’s the state of the art right now:

Entity-Adjusted Volume is the Standard: Most of us now rely on Glassnode’s 'Entity-Adjusted' metrics or Chainalysis reports. For 2025, the 'clean' volume was significantly lower than the raw total, especially with the massive 'Whale Shadows' we saw late last year when long-term holders moved millions of BTC.

The 2025 Sell-off Data: Reports from early 2026 (like TRM Labs and Bitcoin Magazine Pro) indicate that 2025 saw a record transfer of BTC from early 'whales' to retail and ETFs. That 'velocity' is real economic activity, but it’s often buried under billions of dollars in internal wallet reshuffling.

The 'L2 Leakage': We also have to accept that 'Money Velocity' is increasingly invisible on-chain. With the Lightning Network and other Layer 2s maturing in 2025, a growing percentage of medium-of-exchange volume never touches the base layer. On-chain volume is becoming more of a 'settlement' layer for large chunks rather than a daily spending metric.

Check out the NVT (Network Value to Transactions) Ratio on Glassnode—they specifically use the adjusted volume you're looking for to filter out the noise. It's probably the most honest metric we have for 2025's actual throughput

Litecoin is not getting the same attention it had years ago, but it still has a place because it keeps doing its job well. Low fees, fast transfers, and a network that has been running for long time without major issues still give it value for everyday use.

The market just changed a lot. New projects came in and most people started chasing newer trends, so naturally Litecoin became less talked about. But that doesn't mean it failed, it just moved from being a hype coin to a coin people quietly use when they need something simple and reliable.

I totally agree with this, especially on the part about knowing what kind of trading suits you. A lot of people jump into trading thinking it's just about being active every day, but it's really more about understanding your approach and sticking to what works for you.

Some people do better with slower, safer trades, while others can handle higher risk. It really depends on your mindset and discipline. At the end of the day, it's not just about showing up consistently, but improving your decisions over time.

I get why that prediction sounds believable right now. When the whole market is bleeding, even extreme targets don't feel that crazy. But this kind of situation isn't new in crypto. Ethereum has gone through big drops before, especially during weak market conditions, and it has also recovered in past cycles.

One thing i've learn is that analyst predictions usually follow the current trend. When price is going down, you'll hear lower targets. When it's going up, you'll hear higher ones.

What matters more is how you handle it:

• don't make decisions based on fear
• understand that volatility is normal in crypto
• focus on your time horizon (short term vs long term

Markets can stay weak for a while, but they don't stay that way forever. The key is staying level-headed instead of reacting to every prediction.

Altcoin season usually doesn't come when people expect it, that is why many got caught last year. Most of the time, it only starts after Bitcoin makes a strong move and then slows down. That's when money rotates into alts.

If the market is still red, it's better to stay careful. Chasing alts too early is where people lose. My advice is not to rush into hype, stick to solid projects and keep some funds ready. If altseason really starts, you'll see it clearly, it won't be hidden.

I think one of the underrated lessons in bitcoin is learning to sit through volatility without overreacting. For example, some people focus only on price swings but understanding network fundamentals, like adoption, on chain activity, and supply changes, can give a realistic view.

It's also interesting how different strategies work for different people. Some prefer gradual accumulation, others use DCA, and some only step in during big market dips. I'd be curious to hear how others balance long-term holding with active learning from market behavior.

I hate when people touch my clothes or my stuff in general. It’s not about germs or anything like that. I just don’t like seeing someone touch something that belongs to me. I can deal with it if it’s someone close to me, but if it’s a stranger, I’ll openly show I’m not happy about it 

I can’t really say where this came from. No one took my toys away on the playground or anything like that. I’m probably just possessive. If someone needs something, I’d rather buy a new one and give it to them than let them use mine. People around me know about this little “quirk” and they’re fine with it. Even though yeah, maybe it’s not totally normal.

Overall it doesn’t ruin my life or anything. But sometimes I get this flash of anger inside when someone grabs my pen like “just to sign a couple things, what’s the big deal,” and I’m standing there already annoyed and about to snap 

4. Use the tools that gambling platforms give you. Most sites have things like deposit limits, loss limits or even a cool-off option. It’s actually a good idea to turn those on, because sometimes relying only on self-control isn’t enough.

5. Also learn to stop even when you’re winning. Everyone warns about chasing losses, but winning can lead to the same thing. After a good win many people keep playing and give it back later. Sometimes the best move is to stop while you’re ahead.

I don’t see it as a bad idea by itself. Money is money, whether it’s fiat or crypto. If donations are legal, the form shouldn’t matter that much.

The problem is transparency. Crypto is traceable, but not always in a simple way. You can still route funds through multiple wallets, mixers, etc. That’s probably why some politicians don’t like it, harder to control and track compared to banks.

There’s also politics in it. Some just don’t trust crypto at all, others don’t want new systems they don’t fully understand.

Using crypto for donations is fine in theory, but rules and tracking need to catch up first.

Feels like they’re just gonna keep tightening things step by step. More KYC, less privacy stuff, more pressure on exchanges. I don’t think they can fully stop people from launching coins though, anyone can still deploy one.

What they really control is access. Listings, fiat ramps, big platforms. So crypto won’t die, it’ll just split. One clean and regulated, the other more underground.