191–193 of 193 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Complete nonsense.
don't worry, you'll understand it one day. do you own BTC? anyway, you don't have to believe me (again) > According to bitinfo, which tracks the total number and value of bitcoin addresses, 75% of addresses are home to less than 0.01 bitcoin, and 97.54% have a balance of less than one bitcoin hardly nonsense
I understand it fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was illegal for farmers to grow wheat above a certain amount... on their own land... to feed their own animals... The wheat limits already assumed that farmers would feed their own animals first and then sell the remainder on the open market. The goal was to prevent the price of wheat from dropping too low by limiting the amount available for non-feed purposes. However, by doing the opposite, selling up to the lim…
> The wheat restrictions worked for the purpose they were intended And they are unconstitutional.
The wheat restrictions were constitutional and the power to impose such restrictions is still part of U.S. law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
don't worry, you'll understand it one day. do you own BTC? anyway, you don't have to believe me (again) > According to bitinfo, which tracks the total number and value of bitcoin addresses, 75% of addresses are home to less than 0.01 bitcoin, and 97.54% have a balance of less than one bitcoin hardly nonsense
You conflate addresses with users. It's not good practice to keep all your coins on one address. I understand it fine.
It's bitcoiners that do that.
if they said there are 6 millions addresses but it's actually a couple thousands entities holding them, it would be too obvious that bitcoins serve an insignificant portion of the society, usually already very rich.
The fact that having a single address it's not good practice it's proof that bitcoins are inherently unsafe
imagine if bank said "it's good practice to own many bank accounts". how many people would trust them with their money?