kyoukage01 - CryptoTalk.Org Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

343 Excellent

About kyoukage01

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

2009 profile views
  1. Some women beg to differ. Discrimination, they claim, is still strong today. A case in point can be found on this link: After they voiced their opinion about women being underrepresented in the field of cryptocurrencies, their accounts on one social media were blocked. Whoever reported them must have been a complete a** for putting a lid on a valid opinion.
  2. Another suggestion: If you have interesting and new content but find that there is already a preexisting but old and outdated topic, you can simply post your content there. There is no rule that states that necromancy (posting on old topics) is forbidden, and you can actually help in making those old topics become more relevant. This is better than posting a new topic but then getting warning points as a result due to violations.
  3. I just remembered that there were plans to update the Bitcointalk forum. There was even some sort of fundraising campaign, but even though a lot of funds were collected, nothing major happened, even now. The mod responsible back there was therefore being accused of embezzling the funds. Where did I got the information? From a Youtube video in another topic.
  4. There were previous users who posted that the 2x leverage was done to protect traders from losing too much, and they do have a point. But I still think that 2x is too little, a 10x or even a 5x would have made more room. As what the article I posted said, traders can use VPN to bypass those restrictions. But since they are doing it to evade their government's restriction, it's just like saying "do it at your own risk". As much as we want to complain about it, there is nothing we can't do about it at this point especially if we are not Japanese citizens. What we can do is determine whether or not news like these will affect BTC's price in some way.
  5. I've thought that it was weird that there are articles (which you provided) that state that there are plans being made for banning crypto there, while there are other articles that state that cryptocurrencies are projected to bloom. Just like this one. Now I know that there are pro- and anti- parties involved and that the official stance on crypto is not yet fully defined. Thanks for offering that possibility. Knowing that India has quite a large population size, any news about the legal standing of crypto there will definitely affect its market price. Let's hope that the final standing is positive.
  6. I have here a link to an article that further delves into the matter: It insinuates that even the courts have conflicting stances on cryptocurrencies' status as an asset. An excerpt from the link states as follows: If anything, the newest criminal case can at least serve as a test case for lawmakers to finalize the country's take on crypto. Until then, we might see some more cases like these in the future, since it will embolden other criminals to target crypto holders knowing that they won't be punished as heavily had they took other forms of assets. *sarcasm* It must be heaven for crypto enthusiasts there to know that crypto is getting popular to the point that many people, even the unsavory ones, are getting interested. And the government is REALLY taking good care of them. But seriously, we hope that whatever decision the courts make will go favorably to crypto users. There are some sections of their government who understands that it will be a wasted opportunity if crypto becomes heavily restricted and the crypto users become scared of being targeted just because they have no legal protection.
  7. This reminded me of another topic where users were asked what they will do if the forum stopped paying: My own comment on this link can be found here. There were users back then who threatened to quit if payment for posts stops. There were also users who professed they will stay. Now that payment for posts with BTC has stopped, there are users who really went through with those threats and are no longer active here, and mind you, they aren't banned or anything. And those who said they'll stay? I'd wager that around 80% of them broke their own statements and decided to quit anyway. First wave was when certain countries were blocked from payment. After that was when new members were blocked from registering for a limited time. And now this new announcement. If the new TALK token becomes available for trading, we will see by that time whether or not the token's performance will affect the number of online users here. If it does, it will vindicate the comments here where they say that people are only here for the money.
  8. I know. Just because the text is long doesn't mean everything on it is useful information. If the text is long but has trash content, I might even give negative ratings on it. Please remember that I included "useful, interesting and unique posts" condition in the +5 (and +4) rating above, first and foremost. I give out a high rating on long posts because there is also extra effort involved in typing those posts, even more so if it is chock full of information. Side note: If only there was a +6, I would have handed this out to posts with +5 ratings but with a bit of entertainment value (such as humor) as they make the discussions more lively and jovial. LOL.
  9. @Desais Thank you for answering my previous inquiries by putting them on a separate topic. Now I would like some clarifications on a few of them. Previously, we were given an allowance of around 10 reactions (or less, I don't know the exact number) to give to other posts per day. How many ratings can we give to individual users nowadays? For example, I gave out a total of 40 points to 10 different users today, how many more users can I give out ratings with? Did the number of users I can give out ratings with per day increased, and how much? Did it remained the same? Or does the number of users are irrelevant, as long as the 50 ratings are maxed out, you can't give anymore for today? Does this also apply to spam posts, especially from users who happened to flood the forum with it? Can I give negative ratings on each and every spam posts from the same user?
  10. My own basis for giving reactions with the new feature is slightly different: (this is only for posts, conditions may change depending on individual posts) +5 = useful, interesting and unique posts with ~1000 text characters or more +4 = same with +5 but for posts with ~500 to ~999 characters +3, +2, +1 = for useful but short posts, the more useful the content the higher the number +0 = I rarely use this -1, -2, -3 = off-topic content, the shittier the post the higher the number -4 = offensive and/or abusive content -5 = plagiarized posts Usually I don't give any reactions on topics since it is already a given that topics (except 'questionnaire' types, 'discussion' types and a few others) must contain useful information. But if the topic itself is compelling enough, I would give it a +5 (or a -5 if it violates anything). Criticisms are good as long as the content isn't offensive or anything. If the points given are valid, I would even give points on it (based on what I wrote above).
  11. Before we go on with the discussion on this topic, we should read this linked article first (the topic title was ripped off from here too): (First, let me point out that the world was never safe, even until today's modern times. There are literally vast scores of information on this, from the mouths of ancient philosophers to modern trolls on social media, but since we are discussing about Bitcoins here, we will limit ourselves to it.) From the moment Satoshi Nakamoto mentioned about the use of Bitcoin as a tool for anonymous transactions, it must have reached the eyes and ears of criminals as a potential tool for their illegal activities. This has been highlighted in the now infamous "digital Silk Road" that (thankfully) has been taken down by authorities. Thus even today, there are still people who view cryptocurrencies in general as being pegged to criminal activities. However, I, and everybody else here will surely agree, view this thinking as being unfair. The fact that crypto is used for crimes is indeed undeniable. But let us not forget that even before digital currencies came into existence, there are already valuable objects other than fiat that are used for the same purpose, and there is a certain allure to those physical objects which can literally be slapped on the face of the nearest enemy or henchman, something that obviously cannot be done with digital assets. So if Bitcoin is going to be declared illegal just because it is used for crimes, shouldn't this be done to gold, gemstones, antiques, artifacts, etc. as well? Another thing to be considered is that Bitcoin introduced the blockchain. Actually, the idea of digital peer-to-peer connections is nothing new (take Bittorrent for example) but Bitcoin can certainly claim the spot of being the pioneer in peer-to-peer digital monetary transactions, one that is virtually impervious to alterations by hackers. Even if the world rejects Bitcoin itself, it cannot deny the fact that they find plenty of uses for the blockchain technology: the internet world is full of such reports of nations and organizations exploiting the possibility of its usage to their systems, if not being used already at the time of this writing. There are still many things to add to the benefits Bitcoin brings to the world, which I will leave for others to comment on. To say that Bitcoin, which in the end is only a tool and an asset in the digital world, is making the world less safe is fallacious. To point the criminals and other entities who deviously use crypto to their advantage as being the ones who makes the world less safe would be a far more accurate statement.
  12. Anyway, here's my two reports: Offender: robio01 Profile Link: Comment: This guy is a tricky one. It takes a very careful look into his writing to realize he has been extensively altering the original text to make it difficult to detect. Evidence: Offending post (Again, please look carefully. The paraphrasing tools are strong in this one.): Original website: Offending topic (even the word 'Tether" was altered LOL): Original website:😎:9/IMG_20200604_140346_449:5 Offender: vietcool999 Profile Link: Comment: Virtually all the topics he made so far has been copy/pasted, please check out the rest on his profile. Evidence: Offensive topic: Original website: Offensive topic: Original website:
  13. I do vaguely remember Zuckerberg saying such a remark. (Maybe I'll do a search on it later.) If such a time comes where the internet connection becomes as free as radio and television signals, then the tech users will sure have a jolly good time. (I sure wish to get to that point in my lifetime.) As for the cost of maintaining internet service, advertisements can provide significant funds, just as they do with TV commercials nowadays. However, we are also aware that there are countries whose population are simply too poor to afford any modern gadgetry. More developed countries may be able to gain access to satellite internet more readily, but this will increase the technology gap between them and the poorer ones even further. Something should definitely be done about it, but it won't be easy. It is a pleasure to see one of the moderators posting here. I do agree that this is oftentimes the case. But I also think that those people maybe do not understand such technology simply because they do not find the need to utilize it. As a personal example, I myself have very little knowledge about current smartphone technology (embarassing, I admit!) not because I am too stupid to use it, but because I had no compelling reason to do so since I prefer PC than mobile. Similarly, those people do not want to understand the latest technology, even if they have the capacity to do so, as they prefer to stick to their current lifestyle and would rather not mess with anything new if there is no benefit to them. Taking the topic we have here into account, people with no internet access will prefer fiat for transactions because for them this has always been things are. If somehow there is ready access to cheap internet in their area, and cryptocurrencies are found to be a great alternative to fiat transactions, then even the most stubborn individuals might get to change their minds. The idea of built-in cryptocurrency wallets on smartphones is already a great idea for people to get curious about such a feature. So I think we can let the other organizations go ahead with their plans for more accessible internet. We can deal with teaching people to understand the technologies that goes with the internet, crypto included, as we go on. This has been one of the goals of this forum the way I see it, anyway. 😉
  14. Well, not really. I was actually anticipating the 1000 satoshi per post will be halved to 500 (coinciding with recent Bitcoin halving) back then, LOL. The forum did something different from what I was expecting, but it did something drastic nonetheless. No surprises there. And it looks like the number of active members went down these past few days after the news becomes old and everybody calmed down. It seems to me that there are users who still has reservations regarding the use of a new token instead of the good ol' BTC.
  15. Well, okay, the linked article has actually nothing to do with humans traveling into space, but rather, the man-made satellites that are being planned to be launched into orbit. What makes this relevant to the cryptocurrency world? We know that crypto is a digital currency, and as such, it is entirely dependent on digital networks such as the internet. Despite today's progress, there are still around over 4 billion people that does not have ready access to the internet (according to the article). To address this issue, organizations (SpaceX was given as an example here) are planning to launch satellites that will provide 'satellite internet' which may be accessible to every people on the planet. Hopefully, the cost for internet connections and such will be cheap enough for the poorer people. And if more people have access to the internet, then that would mean more potential users of cryptocurrencies. Those who previously have no access to the internet can now learn about, and use, crypto which in turn will give a boost to its global use and acceptance. source:
  • Create New...