Showing posts in the last 8 days

Explore Satofan44's Insights & Posts

Re: Housing is no longer a goal for the next generation
in Economics
Yes basically if you grow up with parents who don't show you how they struggled. How can it be different-.
People compare, that is a native reflex. and that is what leads to envy.
That apart in some places a house is good base to start, a drywall house in the US is not an investment but anything else.
Most people need to struggle to grow at all because they are unable to even go beyond the most basic primal programming that humans have. That is the key, which means that most people are making huge errors in the modern parenting which then has spillover effects into everything once these children start joining the adult world and we are already there. You literally have Gen Z adults that are illiterate in the western world.  Roll Eyes

I keep thinking about the psychological dimension too. An unfinished house is more than a money trap. It traps your identity. You become “the person building a house” and all decisions you make go through that house, no matter how logical or illogical they might seem.
What kind of fucking weaklings think like that? Seriously, they need to get therapy if they are unable to get out of such nonsense. Building a house in steps is the right way to do for anyone who can't build it all at once, and whether it is the right decision should be a purely economic calculation and not a emotional decision.

Every young people that see now is hungry to have their own house and leave their father's house but what always set them back is not having sufficient funds to do this because in Africa there is a respect attach in owning your won house rather than living in another man's house or paying rent, it's not paying rent is bad some do this base on their work location. House is a goal and also an achievement you are either living for free or been get paid by tenants.
This is a sign of primate behavior and savage humans. These decisions should be based on rationality, analysis and financial calculation and not on emotions as I said above. Think and act like everyone else, stay savage, or grow up and advance -- everyone has to make this decision for themselves. We know how many people decide though.

This means that people of earlier times believed that the real success in life was to build their own house. People used to invest their entire life's earnings in building a house. Today's people's thinking has changed. Today's land and house prices have increased so much that it has become difficult for today's youth to buy houses. Many young people keep moving from one city to another for work and education, due to which they cannot buy their own permanent house because they keep moving from one place to another every day. Therefore, they find it easier to live in a rented house. Due to increasing problems and low income, young people can only fulfill their basic needs, which are also met with difficulty. As time is changing, human thinking and lifestyle are changing
Moving from city to city, or place to place in search of better opportunities is in no way related to the inability to buy a permanent home. In reality, in most cases where the move relates to accepted opportunities, it improves the chance of the people to own a permanent home. Those that are stuck in shitty jobs at shitty pays, that accept shitty pay during job negotiations and whatnot are those that are hurting everyone else with their decisions -- in the topic of opportunities.
#1
Re: Why are millions buying ETFs tied to Bitcoin and not owning Bitcoin themselves?
in Bitcoin Discussion
The US has indirectly taken control of the road used to access bitcoin.
False. Learn what the word "control" actually means. Providing another way to buy Bitcoin is not any kind of "control".

Controlling how to get bitcoin still holds great power as the protocol itself.
No, that is not what it does. Even if it were possible to control how people acquire Bitcoin, which it isn't, it does not provide any power that is similar to the power of actually controlling the protocol. Stop hallucinating with AI and using retarded shitcoiners for your thought process.

The main question is why would people take that route knowing fully well or maybe they don't that bitcoin aims for decentralisation and buying Bitcoin ETFs defeats that notion.
Why does anyone do anything differently than what you do? Ghee, I wonder how it is possible at all that anyone does something else than you. Roll Eyes Obviously there are only 2 big groupings that provide an answer: Good reasons to do it and Bad reasons to do it. If someone buys it for bad reasons, what is it to you? Why would you care about this particular error of theirs when you are ignoring thousands of errors of you, your friends, your family?  Roll Eyes For the good reasons, you need to educate yourself before you pose questions with false assumptions. There are many entities that could not buy Bitcoin at all without the existence of ETFs. We have ETFs for a reason, and that reason has nothing to do with Bitcoin.

Because they aren't interested in Bitcoin itself, but rather in the profits generated from Bitcoin's price fluctuations. These institutions buy Bitcoin and hold it on their behalf.
False, don't make up shit. That explains only a minority of the ETF buyers, and as such is irrelevant to this discussion.

By the way, spot ETFs are supposed to buy BTC based on which they sell shares in the fund, but who says that's always the case? So-called stablecoins are supposed to be backed 1:1 by some fiat currency, and we know that's not always the case.
The extent of this is not possible to know. Either you believe in existing institutions that govern this or you don't, but if you don't then you have to question a lot more fucking things except paper ETFs. In the EU, every single institutions is practically corrupt and being exploited. Depending on the bias that one has about the turd called EU, they would think that the SEC is either less or more corrupt.  Wink
#2
Re: Is the 1–3% bankroll strategy realistic for casual bettors?
in Gambling discussion
You're damn right it's a matter of choice, because not everyone is really interested or is moved by the possibility of actually winning huge amounts of money. For some, gambling more or less about they win but how much they enjoy spending time in the casino, so yeah, whether they win so much or not doesn't really matter to them, as long as they enjoy the experience.
Yes, it's simply a matter of preference. From your answer, I can tell that you're most likely a small-stakes gambler who wants to enjoy your time while gambling. I'm on the opposite side, I usually make big bets in hopes of a big win, someone in our community once said: 'If you want to get a big catch, use big bait'.
Preferences as an excuse are bullshit, there are right and there are wrong decisions. Most people are cowards and when they do something wrong, say gamble the wrong way and get exposed or confronted with it they will make up all sorts of nonsense to justify their errors. The right thing would be to admit that you are wrong, but most people won't do that that is why they stay poor and dumb. I'll upgrade your statement to: If you want to bankrupt yourself, use big bait.

Of course it's realistic, but here I would most question the player's strict discipline, because I believe that players, no matter what game—poker, betting, or casino—have a very hard time betting in that 1-3% range for long. At some point, any player will simply want to raise their stakes more and more. I've been there myself, because the same old bets became too boring for me, even though up until that point I considered myself disciplined.
If you are limited with discipline, that does not mean that everyone else is limited. If you are not able to control yourself and stick to a strategy, that does not mean that everyone else has the same issue. The reality is that sticking to such betting is trivial in the effort required and everyone who is unable to do so is already halfway addicted to gambling. There is no reason to raise stakes "more and more" unless you start becoming delusional about the possibility of profiting in gambling.

There's no need to harbor illusions; we all want something more, because we're human beings and can't be robots that will bet 1% of their bankroll for years on end, unless they're professionals, of course.
Completely false and fabricated nonsense. Just because the majority of humans are obese or overweight that does not mean that this is the normal state of human beings, use your brain for Christ's sake.
#3
Re: Has any body you know made it in life through gambling?
in Gambling discussion
Is there anyone who you know who have actually made it in life through gambling?
Like the person used to be poor and or living an average life in terms of financial status, but today, that person has become a rich and successful person through gambling, do you know any of such person? And how much do you believe gambling can actually make a poor or average person rich?
There exist no such people. There have been occasional one-off big winners that have managed to retain the money and not lose it again, but that huge win came after a lifetime of undocumented losses which can easily amount more to the total "large winning". Some idiots on this forum will find some exceptions to this rule to try to invalidate the claim that you can't get rich by pure gambling, see 1 guy on the internet allegedly did -- they do this precisely because they are delusional idiots. A few exceptional cases does not defeat the rule, they are outliers and can be ignored. The only way that you can make real money is by becoming a top competitive, professional gambler like in poker. Anything else is an illusion.

In common sense, making it through gambling would be a 1% possibility,
Random number that you pulled out of your ass and has no basis in reality.

I don't know someone personally but there's a lot of people in our country who won the lottery and it actually change their life, from a hardworking man that retires to enjoy his winning and to someone who get blind by fortune and gets back to being poor again, I think there's a similar stories that was posted here. It's true that there's a lot of people who made it through gambling but they're only few, there's still a lot of people who are losing to gambling compared to those who one.
This does not mean that their life has changed, it means the exact opposite of what you wrote. They won, ruined their opportunity, and continued to be the same poor idiots as before.
#4
Re: Is the 1–3% bankroll strategy realistic for casual bettors?
in Gambling discussion
Quote
This management thing sounds like something for professionals. What you gonna do with $100, spend months managing it for 20% annual returns?  Grin
20% annually is a good return. You cant expect that to become from gambling, but rather some risky funds. This seems like professional because certain people have over-analysed the system and made it like that. Does not necessarily mean it will always be good.
There is not more than a handful of people that are making 20% annual returns, and for sure there is not a single one on this forum. It is even an insult to suggest the possibility of some returns. Having a one-off return of 20% for one year, is not equal to having 20% annual returns. Anyone can get lucky, doing it once is meaningless. Only if you can sustain it, which you can't, can you call it 20% annual returns since it is plural.  Smiley

Once you have tested that you can be profitable, like consistently making around 20% profit annually, then the next thing you can do is increase your bankroll. That $100 is just for testing the water and also testing your discipline.
So if you decide to increase your bankroll to $10,000, then 20% of that is already $2,000 per year. If you are satisfied with that kind of result, then you can slowly raise the amount and start your real journey.
Nobody here is making profit in gambling let alone 20% annually in a consistent way, so let's not entertain the delusions of people who do not know how gambling works. Raising your bankroll to satisfy delusions only leads to large losses and a sure path towards bankruptcy.

I haven't had such rule before but I've tried using a fixed amount per bet just not a fixed percentage like 0.5%, 1%, 5%, etc. I believe the only people that can follow strict sizing rules like that are professional gamblers which much more bigger sports betting portfolio because they might be comfortable with doing 1% to 2% in gambling profits monthly but someone with a small portfolio can't do that unless they accepted the fact that they might not make much and that they have a chance to build their stack slowly and painfully because it would take a lot of wins and a lot of losses too.
False, anyone with even a drop of responsibility should be following such rules. If you are not, then you are not a responsible gambler. The rule that is proposed in this thread is trivial, following it is so easy that it is almost boring.
#5
Re: [NEWS]Philippines blocks gambling sites on government public Wi-Fi network
in Gambling discussion
Here is one example: Should someone be able to do massive downloads of whatever content using the public internet? Of course not, why should they be given this privilege? Why should someone else pay money so that some retard can download things that he believes he can't go without? Public internet is not free internet, it is paid by the taxpayer, and the taxpayer should get the best for his money -- hence why it should be very restricted of focused on useful and important things.
I think anything that gives public access is usually configured that way. It is not only limited to public WiFi paid by taxpayers’ money.

Even in schools, where students are paying for access one way or another, there are still many restrictions. I’m sure porn and gambling sites are also restricted there. So it looks like they follow a standard when it comes to implementation, especially if the network is meant for public or student use.

But if we really want to gamble using public WiFi, it is still possible in places like restaurants or coffee shops. The thing is, that is not really free anymore. The WiFi may be free, but you still need to buy food or drinks, which can be more expensive than just buying mobile data.  Cheesy

So for gamblers, it is probably better to just use personal data instead of public WiFi. Less hassle, less restriction, and less risk with shared IP issues.
I was just giving an example of what else should not be allowed with an explanation of why it shouldn't. Clearly, not all networks are properly configured yet otherwise this topic would not exist -- these measures would have been done ages ago, but they weren't so the banning of such websites only comes now. Limiting the speed and banning most gambling websites is very similar in the effort needed to set it up. There is no good reason for anyone at all to protest a measure like this at least not for reasons that are limited to the measure itself and its point, other concerns such as what I am talking about with SRF10 go deeper into other topics and issues.

And even if there was an ulterior motive, so what? If you can't learn to fucking behave yourself, you should be filtered -- it is the consequence of your own actions.
You have a point, but what I mentioned goes beyond the gambling & porn industries! If they go down that path, nothing could stop them from switching off the internet one day and forcing their own people to rely on whatever service/platform is available within their intranet [it's a private network that they fully control, so users will be left with local platforms that mostly offer subpar services/products and there'll be little to no competition].
Yes I agree that it is not limited to gambling & porn, but why do you think that has happened in China and Iran and some other places? Suddenly the government woke up one day and decided let's do this? No, it is the other way around. The stupid people were distracted and careless for a long time, failing to protest and block measures at key moments of the timeline. Using examples of activities of recent history as demonstrations, they were more concerned binge watching the next shitty Netflix show than they were with protesting key measures at the time when it was possible. In effect this is the way these things go:
  • 1. People misbehave in all ways, abusing all sorts of things that are available (such as the example in this thread, gambling on public networks like degenerate addicts). This is not only limited to criminal behavior, most people do this.
  • 2. The government starts preparing the first round of restrictions or measures, which may come under some pretext whether self-induced terrorism attack, CSAM bullshit or other nonsense.
  • 3. Instead of boycotting and rioting, people watch Netflix, spend another useless weekend with their useless family and whatever other nonsense they got on.
  • 4. Fast forward some steps, time, and measures.
  • 5. Now you have the Great Firewall, congratulations.
Who the fuck do you think is at fault here? In each place where there is such a thing, the population is extremely docile like sheep, brainwashed and out of control. The Chinese for example care more about getting good deals during shopping holidays than they care about the transgressions of their own government.  Cheesy Place the blame where it is appropriate, the people -- especially the individual person. FYI, Gambling is out of control currently in most countries of the world and most people that are part of the problem refuse to admit that they have a problem.  Smiley
#6
Re: "Blockchain is useful, Bitcoin is not" — How do you respond to this?
in Bitcoin Discussion
Without Blockchain there wouldn't have been bitcoin. So cut the crap. I am not denying the fact that bitcoin is by far the best application on Blockchain.
Most application of blockchain technology are shit, you are wrong and there is no discussion here.

Lol, you must be kidding. If any of those so called long term investors would have been true bitcoin believers then would have been buying bitcoin directly instead of buying ETFs.
If you are not holding the private keys to your bitcoins then you are just "speculating" that bitcoin price will pump and so you are holding bitcoin ETFs.
There's no adoption happening with bitcoin ETF but just speculation.
Bullshit. You do not know even the basics of why ETFs need to exist because you live in places that do not even have basic legal systems working properly. Such countries are stuck in the stone age as far as the legal systems are concerned. There are many legal entities that are unable to buy Bitcoin directly, they can only do so through vehicles such as ETFs. Educate yourself about the basics of modern legal systems before you write nonsense.

Furthermore, not even 1% of 3rd world pajeets have adopted Bitcoin or crypto in any real capacity. There are just here to pillage and get fiat out of it. ETF holders, including those that hold pure paper Bitcoin are incomparably bigger Bitcoin adopters than any of these pajeets -- in this forum and outside of this forum. 3rd world savages continue to behave like 3rd world savages, there is nothing surprising about them. A daily poop in the Ganges river after shitposting is not Bitcoin adoption, thank you.

If we look now in 2026, all of the big business people have basically forgotten about blockchain.

AI is the new hype, and everyone wants a piece of it.

Accordingly, people, especially charlatans, will only be interested in talking about building stuff with whatever the current trend is.
That is just temporary, and if you are not involved in business building or trying to gain funding of anything right now you will know the full picture of what is going on now. If you want to get funding to create a new kitchen pan, you will be asked why you are not adding AI to the pan and will be rejected funding without AI. That is how ridiculous it got, while 99.9% of AI applications are shit. The pendulum will swing back in many ways, don't forget that the next hype will be funding quantum computers that are "able" to unlock Satoshi's coins. Charlatans move along these waves, and inevitably as soon as crypto regains some more popularity again so will emerge again "innovative" applications of blockchain.
#7
Re: Is the 1–3% bankroll strategy realistic for casual bettors?
in Gambling discussion
Do you actually follow that 1–3% rule every time you place a bet, or do you just wager whatever amount feels right at the moment?
If a person is wagering "whatever amount feels right", they are not following any single strategy or any kind of discipline relating to gambling -- they may delude themselves that they are, or that what they are doing is right but their approach is completely backward. Do not play this way, this is a way towards bankruptcy, addiction, or a little bit of both. It is precisely this kind of playing that creates lifetime losses in hundreds of thousands of dollars or even millions depending on where you are from and what your income is. I've seen people put $100k bets after a massive win because "it felt right" and then they lost all they won and more.

And if you already know about this strategy, did it actually sink in your mind to follow it strictly, or is it something that sounds good in theory but hard to apply in practice?
It is absolutely trivial to apply this in practice. If you are unable to follow something so simple and relaxing, then you do not have any discipline of any kind and you have issues. I would suggest getting your act together, and you can do that by following this very same strategy that you propose here. I stick to a very low amount, sometimes even 1%. I am not here under illusions of making money like many users are, I play for some entertainment, sometimes. If my wins are very small, who cares? The fun is in playing, both winning and losing, not in the money.
#8
Re: New Documentary "Finding Satoshi" Claims Finney & Sassaman as Bitcoin Co-Creator
in Bitcoin Discussion
There has never been proof that satoshi owned anything more than a smaller amount of coin.
There is no proof that Satoshi owns 1 million bitcoin, but there's pretty solid evidence that one entity (which was named "Patoshi") mined around 1 million bitcoin in the early days. It's a case to be made whether this entity is Satoshi (there's some link there), but the entity that owned (or owned) those coins did exist.
That is an important distinction to make, because the most common cited misinformation about this topic that surfaces is that Satoshi owns 1 million Bitcoin when there is no proof of any of that. It could have been some partner, it could have been a system that was dumping keys soon after mining and all sorts of possibilities exist in relation to the "Patoshi" theory. We can speculate, but what we can not speculate on is that there is no proof that Satoshi mined 1M Bitcoin -- which there isn't. Therefore, let's try to be clear on this in every thread where it comes and try to dispel misinformation that many users here are sharing and on other places. There is no need to place a target on the back of Miss Satoshi, especially not if she really does not have the Bitcoin.  Smiley

I also think it could be Len sassaman, because Satoshi disappeared during the period that sassaman died. It might be coincidence though, but that's is the best theory since there's no solid proof linking them together. To me it's a good thing that he kept his identity if not the world governments would have look for every possible way to pressure, control, influence, or even silence him in order to gain some level of control over Bitcoin itself. To me I don't think we will ever know his true identity, because his disappearances is what is making Bitcoin to be stronger and decentralized. What still surprises me is about his wallet being untouched.
How about you read some posts here before you write some generic shitpost? It is more likely that my pet snake is satoshi than fucking useless Len Sassaman. Stop playing favorites using nonsense reasoning.

My current feeling on Satoshi's identity is:
 - Sassaman is a very bad candidate. If this is their conclusion, then they totally failed to do proper research.
 - 50% chance it's someone nobody's ever heard of, and nobody will ever figure it out
 - 35% chance it's Hal Finney. (Over time, I've moved more probability into this category.)
 - 10% chance it's someone else in the Bitcoin-verse
 - 5% chance it's a group within the CIA

But I'm really not a fan of the whole "search for Satoshi" genre. Being anonymous, Satoshi is an excellent myth and source of inspiration, since we can't see much of his flawed humanity. Mythical-Satoshi is a humble man who, with a lot of persistence and skill, but not with a level of brilliance beyond the reach of us mortals, single-handedly created a clockwork device so powerful that it shook the world. And then, in an action which nobody in the traditional halls of power would ever take, he had the wisdom to walk away: a modern Cincinnatus. I like that myth very much, and I'd rather it not be tainted by association with an actual human.
Do some basic research first next time, and stop spreading misinformation by hiding behind the "opinion" bullshit.
#9
Re: [NEWS]Philippines blocks gambling sites on government public Wi-Fi network
in Gambling discussion
Also, I had no idea gambling and pornography were such huge troubles there in Philippines. I would have guessed their most important societal problem was sex tourism and not gambling.
Yeah, the gambling problem here in the Philippines has significantly increased in recent years, especially when online casinos became popular and a lot of them started popping up here. As for pornography, the Philippines has ranked number one multiple times as the country that spends the longest time when visiting a porn site, but that probably has something to do with our internet, which can be slow at times. So, the government's decision to block these sites on the free wi-fi they are providing is very reasonable from their point of view, and I actually agree with them.
The addictiveness of various behaviors such as gambling is increasing and becoming more widespread, surely it is not just limited to Philippines. We see these trends in many other countries, although this one might be suffering an above average negative effect. Measures that combat these things should always be utilized, and people who are against such measures should be silenced. Humanity does not need to listen to every twisted individual that is simply a parasite in society. Many measures are objectively good, and as such they should be ubiquitously welcomed. Public internet should actually be the most restricted kind. Here is one example: Should someone be able to do massive downloads of whatever content using the public internet? Of course not, why should they be given this privilege? Why should someone else pay money so that some retard can download things that he believes he can't go without? Public internet is not free internet, it is paid by the taxpayer, and the taxpayer should get the best for his money -- hence why it should be very restricted of focused on useful and important things.

they also said that they "continue to strengthen the monitoring and filtering system".

What's your opinion on this? Personally, I think it's common sense that they would implement the restrictions of blocking websites like online casinos and porn, even if people can easily bypass the restriction using VPNs, especially when this program can be accessible to everyone, including children/students.
It depends on whether there's an ulterior motive behind it! If they'll be using the public Wi-Fi to run a pilot program, nothing good comes out of it... It always starts small before it turns out to be a lot bigger than most would probably imagine [e.g., they begin with improving their filtering system in dealing with VPNs & detecting any website that belongs to either of those two categories and then, they'd eventually expand it to other categories (this is the part that scares me the most since they might even invest in improving their Intranet as well and that's when Great Firewall of China 2.0 might be born)].
And even if there was an ulterior motive, so what? If you can't learn to fucking behave yourself, you should be filtered -- it is the consequence of your own actions. You are all surrounded by at least some gambling, porn, or other addicts. You get what you tolerate, and consequences are coming for various things because the average "adult" is not able to fucking behave better than a 3 year old toddler. There would have never been a need to introduce this ban in the first place if people knew how to behave -- which they don't. Most (but not all) things come as a result of idiots who are in adult bodies, the more you tolerate shitheads and their behaviors the worse the world gets.
#10