We have to have jobs, get salary or at least wage for our very essential spending, and when our finance is good enough we will be able to use just part of it for investment. Invest discretionary income into Bitcoin is very good, as we will invest, accumulate bitcoin in long term, hold it a long time together with gradual accumulation practice. With Bitcoin, holding it longer time means less risk and higher probability to get bigger profit.

If our finance is not like of the rich, we will surely need very long time for Bitcoin accumulation, that is like disadvantage and advantage as likely it forces us to hold our bitcoin a long time. It's not like we can make one or two purchases and think it's done for our Bitcoin accumulation, so with gradual purchases over time, it's firstly like DCA, and more importantly it can help us gaining very good ROI.

@Darker45, to answer your question directly: The proof lies in the specificity of the failed endpoint and the timeline of the resolution.

The Specific Failure: My logs showed a persistent 404 Not Found on a very specific internal API route: GET https://jackbit.co/api//Notifications/v2/user-notifications. This wasn't a general "site is slow" complaint; it was a pinpoint identification of a malformed or missing backend route.

The "Non-Concurrent" Fix: This issue persisted for days despite standard "user-side" troubleshooting (clearing cache/cookies, trying different browsers on Arch/Linux). It only resolved within hours of my technical report being escalated and posted here.

The Evidence of Action: A 404 error is a server-side response. For it to "resolve itself," Jackbit had to either restore the missing route or fix the API's base URL mapping. My reports (both private and public) provided them with the exact URL they needed to fix.


I absolutely have that. As a new member, I've linked the side-by-side evidence below, but for the thread record:

Email 1 (April 16, 00:07 EDT): Sent to Compliance flagging the exact 404 API route failure.

Email 2 (April 16, 00:30 EDT): Sent to Support regarding the CSP (Content Security Policy) violations blocking the dashboard.

Email 3 (April 16, 00:43 EDT): Notified them of escalation to the Curacao Gaming Authority.

@Darker45, I've uploaded the screenshots of the sent emails and the matching console logs here:
VIEW TECHNICAL PROOF & EMAIL TIMELINE

If anyone with higher rank wouldn't mind proxying the images for the community's visibility, I would appreciate it. It’s important to show that Jackbit is using PR scripts to dismiss legitimate server-side errors as "user inconsistencies."

@Jackbit.com, calling a 404 Not Found on a core API endpoint and a Content Security Policy (CSP) violation a "user-side inconsistency" is a bold move on a technical forum.

For the benefit of the community and @Darker45, let’s look at the actual timeline of this "inconsistency":

The Bug: I documented and posted logs showing that your transaction history dashboard was attempting to fetch data from a malformed/missing API route. My browser didn't "hallucinate" a 404; your server returned it.

The "Non-Response": I reached out via Trustpilot and here. I received the exact same word-for-word script on both platforms (see screenshot below) claiming "no changes were made."
https://i.postimg.cc/tRvNhrZt/Screenshot-from-2026-05-01-10-16-36.png
The Miracle Fix: Within hours of my technical report, the exact endpoint that was returning a 404 suddenly started returning a 200 OK.

If no changes were made to the "Transaction History page," then a backend routing fix or a CDN cache invalidation was clearly deployed to resolve the API failure I flagged. Claiming "no changes" while the site magically starts working right after a bug report is the definition of a silent patch.

@Darker45, to answer your question: The "proof" that they followed my findings is the fact that the site was broken for days, I provided the specific 404 logs, and it was fixed immediately following my post—all while they publicly deny any error existed.

I’m not looking for a script; I’m looking for an acknowledgment of the technical report. If Jackbit wants to claim it was a "user-side" issue, I’d love to hear the technical explanation of how a user's local "inconsistency" can trigger a 404 error on a remote server's API routing.

VIEW EVIDENCE: Side-by-Side Comparison of Jackbit's Scripted Response

As a newer member, I can't embed images yet. If a high-ranked member wouldn't mind proxying these images into the thread for visibility, the technical evidence is here: https://postimg.cc/XXF5Wkgp

The role of the Chairman of the Fed is to manage US monetary policy, control inflation and maintain the stability of the financial system. Therefore, the selection of the Fed chairman will be based on economic factors. Trump would not choose and the Senate would not agree to have Kevin Warsh take this position simply because he like or dislike bitcoin.

Bitcoin has never been a sufficiently important factor or criterion in appointments to such high level position.
By the way, do you still believe that Trump is a supporter of Bitcoin?

Thing is that this amount is not really leaving the market. It's the ficticious value of market capitalization which gets down by this amount.

This is not the same thing as you can see in a very popular example with an altcoin:

We have a premined token which just enters the market, with 1 million units. A buyer buys one of this tokens for 1$ each. The market cap explodes to 1 million. Then the buyer sells it but for 10 cents. He has lost 90 cents which is the money which really "left the market" because there were no other buyers and sellers. But the market cap crashes to $100,000 - according to that change, 900,000$ "have left the market"!

In the case of Bitcoin we have no premined tokens, but we have Satoshi's coins and a lot of early adopters' coins which were "valuated" the last time 10 years or more ago, i.e. there is a quite big percentage of the coins that never were moved for more than a little fraction of the current price. But for market cap, they count as if they were bought at $75000+ and not mined on a laptop for $0,01 or so per unit.

So if any media outlet came up with something like "1 trillion USD were destroyed in the Bitcoin crash", I would dismiss it outright as FUD. And yes, there is a huge volume on exchanges currently, but many coins are simply moved back and forth from one trader on the same CEX to another one according to their strategies, i.e. some coins change their owner frequently while a lot of coins are not really available at the markets at all.

There's no evidence for that. It may have happened, or it may have not. All what I was saying is that there was a probability (for me, higher than 50%) that the 2022 crash would have been significantly (i.e. 10 percentage points or more) less deep if Terra/Luna and FTX didn't happen. We will never know this but for me it's valid to try to evaluate the influence of crypto firm bankruptcies - because they erode trust in Bitcoin and the crypto sector, at least for some weeks, and they also are good "food" for shorters trying to capitalize from the resulting panic sales.

I don't know if what you say about silver is true, that is speculative imo. But I agree that the gold "dormant" at central banks is indeed a major factor to contribute to gold's stability.

Bitcoin is not really designed to be used as an everyday currency, but rather as an alternative currency that can be used in e-commerce. Just as the gold standard is the best, Bitcoin can be a great alternative. However, if it is only positioned as a small alternative currency, it is also enough to some extent. Bitcoin is a medium where people who do not want to pay through a third party can transact independently. The free payment mentioned in your comment is really attractive to many.

I think either you look at it in relative terms (i.e. 50% of current market cap - it is scary, but not that scary if compared with other bears), or it's legit to compare it to other sources like the stock market. And it would also come down to ... when starts a bear market to be scary? If it loses 1T or more? Or are almost 1T like in 2021-22 also scary if it was almost 80% of the market cap back then?

Where I can agree is that these "trillion" numbers make good headlines for the media. Which can scare some away, but imo only the absolute noobs

To address a frequent misunderstanding: this difficulty to move upwards depends mainly on liquidity on the markets (more orders), not so much on the price itself.

In theory, thus, increased liquidity should protect both from excessive upward and downward movements. It looks at a first glance that moving it up is harder now while the panic + liquidation mix you mentioned still leads to quite harsh downward movements like the 90->60k crash in a few days in February. But also here: there were more substantial crashes before, even in 2021 it took very short from a 70k to a 30-35k level - and that twice.

I'm in the low volatilty camp too. Above all the volatility reduction should lead to a virtuous cycle, where more liquidity comes in, and also less hyper-speculative trading schemes would become more popular. That may lead also to a spike in leverage as we've seen it often in the last years, but if the spectacular profits from leverage become a thing of the past, then these practices could decline again in the next years.

in the minepool i lost about 30k usdt  now with the recovery i didnt lose money yet because i found the whitelisting strange to cost me that much.. but that is where i suposidly got money back from the FTC wich i am really wondering too now if its all a scam again haha jeez

Fuck off, they are not entrepreneurs they are leeches like most middlemen and in this case they are doing something terrible. They are buying shit quality goods that are often dangerous with various toxic substances and then reselling them at an extremely exaggerated value and often hiding where it comes from. People who are like this should be put in front of a firing squad.

He just made up some bullshit because he knows some people who are reselling cancerous goods and instead of criticizing them for what they are doing, given that it is an evil "at all costs" kind of thing, he is acting supportive and providing excuses for them. Resellers are not entrepreneurs, street stands are not entrepreneurs, 99% of businesses have no relation at all to entrepreneurship maybe even 99.9%.

People should blame themselves in this case for being unskilled and shit workers. Jobs in good industries and extremely qualified people pay a ton of money. You could have a family of 100 members with them. It does not matter where you live, if you are a true expert the USA or China will gladly import you with a ridiculous salary. Stop blaming the world for your choices.

Exactly, most people here are complete idiots and wrote lies about this topic. They do not know a single entrepreneur.

This is not true. Many people have taken on huge debt in a gamble to try something, and ended up paying off that debt for a long period of time after the venture failed. You are focused on a subset of cases that are written about in the media, and have made false conclusions because of that. Innovation does not require any kind of safety net, a safety net merely helps. Actually, plenty of innovation does not even require taking on debt at all so the financial risk is 0 and a safety net is not needed.

Also false, most people are lazy in these 3rd world shitholes and justify their laziness with having been doing the most basic job with normal regular hours. Meanwhile a western entrepreneur is putting up 2 or even 3 times the amount of hours per week for months or years in order to innovate. Learn the difference, accept that these are lazy savages and most of the problems that their places have are their own fault.

File a report at ic3.gov (Internet Crime Complaint Center), FTC acts against companies in large-scale scams and not individuals.

scam may continue by diverting the deposit to 'another service' or requiring further deposits.
Scammers often try to tell others that they can 'recover hacked coins,' which is a trap.

And so its fairly safe to say that Bitcoin development is progressing as normal but with a
consideration to quantum computing as well.

I think Michael Saylor mentioned in the past about quantum computers that they would be
better deployed in strengthening the Bitcoin network rather than trying to attack it.

Would it be a fair argument that it takes greater computing power to attack the network than
to support it?