12-01 11:12 - 'Remember reading this back in 2013. Man accidently throw away hard drive with 7500 bitco8n. Not sure how he's feeling now.. keep your wallets safe!' (bbc.co.uk) by /u/thatsnotme91 removed from /r/Bitcoin within 116-126min
I feel like sharing these thoughts because I’m having a contemplative evening and they’re coming together really nicely right now. I think having a currency, be it physical money or even a virtual currency like bitcoin or anything along those lines turns humans against themselves by making them betray their very own nature. Here’s a simplified and true example. Condensed. Scientists taught monkeys to use a currency. One of the first things that happened is a female monkey had sex with a male monkey and used the earned currency to buy a grape. So within about one day of monkeys having money the first monkey prostitute was born. You’re welcome and have a nice day. How does money turn is against our own nature? It’s a simple trick of our reward system. It’s the psychology behind money that keeps it going. Without the thought behind it it’s just useless inedible paper, metal or a bunch of tiny bits of information on a hard drive. Human reward systems are wired to go after the things that give us the greatest perceived reward and to spend the least amount of effort possible doing it. In nature, if you have two options, eat the apple that just fell on the ground in front of you or swim across a river to eat a grape on the other side, you will pick the apple on the ground. Why? Because the apple is a bigger reward and requires less energy. If you kept swimming across rivers to eat things on the other side instead of eating what’s right in front of you, you would put yourself at greater risk of drowning and eventually drown, starve or both. So our minds are geared towards finding the simplest solution. We’re also geared towards solutions that solve the most amount of problems with the least effort. For example we could keep wearing fur coats and walking around in the bush and keep getting wet and cold and making a fire to stay warm...toughing it out every day...getting attacked by predators. Or we could build a shelter and solve all of our wet and cold problems forever...and then also not have to worry about predators while we sleep. Although building a shelter requires more energy initially, you do it once and most problems are solved. So we will pick options that require more energy if the reward is greater. When our brains logical center picks up on the fact that we have done something that was easier and worked out better for us they will release chemicals that make us feel good. The reward for surviving a night in the forest is good. But the reward for building a shelter is much greater. More dopamine. That’s the reason people get hooked on crack. You do very little and you get a massive dopamine boost. Your mind learns that this minimal effort gives you the biggest perceived reward...and it keeps going. Why not? Less effort, massive reward. It’s in your nature. It’s how evolution favoured us for millions of years. It never changed. So what does this have to do with money? Money is a dopamine shortcut. You acquire money. The perceived reward of the money is much greater than the perceived reward of anything else. Your mind clues in like this: “Wait? There is something called money and all I have to to is get enough of it and ALL my needs will be met because I can buy anything I want?” That’s the biggest dopamine reward possible without inducing a chemical into your brain. Money = All Needs Met Our brains are meant to get tunnel vision when there’s an opportunity for a reward. That’s how they work. That tunnel vision is meant to blind us to the adversity we will have to face to get the reward. For example, if you are at the base of a cliff and you haven’t eaten for two days, but at the top of the cliff you can see that there is enough food to last you a year, you’re going to climb that cliff. You will set aside your fear of heights. You will set aside your hunger and aching muscles. You will pump up adrenaline and you will climb that cliff. Your body will numb the pain in your hands and feet from the sharp rocks. And you get to the top of that cliff. And you’re set for a whole year. If it wasn’t for the tunnel vision because you perceived a reward, you wouldn’t have climbed that cliff. This is all perfect in a natural environment. But we also evolved a special part of our brain that uses all kinds of logic and worst of all allows for abstract thinking. Suddenly, vague concepts in our brain can seem just as real as reality itself. This was meant to enable us to problem solve. So that if there is a problem, the perceived solution creates the same focus and tunnel vision and enables us to get things done. Let’s say I am hungry. I find some food. But it’s honey. It’s inside of a beehive. All that exists in reality is me and the bees that will sting me as I approach. But then my mind will create an alternate reality in a sense. It starts throwing abstract concepts around until it finds a solution that works. It presents the solution to the reward system the same way that that the senses themselves are hooked up to it. Suddenly, I see myself lighting a fire and smoking out the bees and eating the honey. This now seems just as real to me as reality itself. It takes that solution and tells me “if you do this you will get your dopamine reward”. The mirage in my mind that shows me the solution by meddling with the part of my brain that processes my senses blinds me a bit to other sensory input because it has to take up that space in the brain to create a fake reality in the hopes it will become real. It’s a phenomenon that’s been proven over millions of years to work. It’s what gives humans an edge over most animals. Instead of just instinct, theres now a processing edge that takes in a ton of data and performs advanced risk vs reward calculations and tells us what to do. It’s better than instinct. Instead of fight or flight, there’s now focused intention. It works. So I light a fire and smoke out the bees ignoring the odd minor sting because I know this is sure to work and I will get my honey in the end. So now we are a species that is meant to specifically expend energy to problem solve ways to best meet the most of our needs as easily as possible. And we have a currency that exists as a social concept that presents a solution to rapidly meet all our needs. We also have a reward system that will easily justify making sacrifices to meet our needs. This is a massive problem. A reward as great as money doesn’t exist in nature. However it exists as an abstract concept in our head that carries just as much weight in our decision making as something that exists for real. And the abstract concept presents a perceived reward far greater than anything we could attain from out environment. Basically, money only exists as an abstract concept. But our brains are wired to work with abstract concepts as if they were real because it enables our survival and is a part of how our thoughts work. So at some point in everyone’s life they are exposed to the abstract concept of money through language. The language creates thoughts that enable us to fall into a dopamine trap looking for a reward thats greater and requires less effort to attain. So now our brains do what they do best. They generate a strong focus. They get tunnel vision. They prepare your body and mind to go through the hurdles necessary to attain a reward. And worse, our minds reprioritize. In the example with the cliff, reprioritization plays a role. Normally avoiding heights and not cutting myself is high up on my list if things I want to avoid. We are wired to avoid pain. But the years worth of food creates a reprioritization. Suddenly a couple cuts don’t seem like a big deal. The thought of falling to my death, a risk normally avoided at all costs, suddenly is an afterthought in the quest for food. In the example with the cliff though there are limitations. There’s an upper limit to how far it will go. So if the rocks turn out to be way too sharp or it’s seemingly impossible to climb, I will look for a way around it and it all else fails give up and look for food elsewhere. But once inna while I will think of the cliff and maybe come up with a solution some day. But with money because we aren’t aware of it for what it really is and we haven’t given much thought to it, it basically slowly corrupts us. Every time we get money we get a dopamine hit. The more money we get, the bigger that dopamine hit is. The more we get the reward, the more the behaviour we chose to acquire it is reinforced. Just like the example with the beehive. I got the honey. I’ll remember it and find another beehive later. It just works. This is good for survival. We remember that getting money worked. We will do it again. Especially once we have experienced the moment of spending it and seeing that it does in fact work and that other people are all in on the secret. And because money gives us the greatest reward possible, we will go after it harder than we will go after everything else. The reprioritization and tunnel vision this causes are the biggest problem. The more money you get, the more you repeat the cycle, the more of a cash junkie you become. Why do addicts lie, cheat, steal, neglect their kids and ruin their lives? Because their minds have reprioritized to a bigger hit of dopamine by getting it the easiest way possible. It’s the same with money. But almost worse because it actually does work. And the reward is bigger. But the reprioritization seems to know no bounds. Here is the evil this brings into the world. It creates a conflict of interest. Everyone is out to get money as their primary goal. Or almost everyone. Only those who are intelligent and see through the dopamine trap tend to avoid it. And they usually end up cast aside by society because the society has reprioritized money over these individuals health and happiness. We reprioritize our own children out of our lives. Suddenly we can justify making them go to school with complete strangers and we honestly don’t know what their day is like. But it’s okay because the money we’re making solves all problems after all. It can solve their problems too that’s why they have a college fund. So we raise lonely damaged kids who will have money and no happiness and we go against our own nature. Naturally mothers and fathers are wired to spend 100% of their time with their children and take them with them unless they are doing something dangerous. We now to against out own wiring and dehumanize ourselves and our children because money is around the corner. Let’s say you have to get therapy. The fact that the therapist, who is supposed to be helping you, earns money to help you creates a conflict of interest. They will have a dopamine system that naturally drives them to want to earn more money. Which means instead of helping you the best they can, they will want to help you in a way that earns them the most cash. To the point where if you go through a crisis and need help the most but can’t pay because you’re short rent, they will literally sever a 2 year long relationship when you’re in your biggest time of need. Sadly, money has taken priority over actually helping the client. Lets say a police officer responds to your call for help. If it’s something that is less likely to get them ahead in their career, like a burglary in a poor area, they will be less motivated to help you even if the crime is more serious. They want to advance in their career to get more money so they will be less motivated to spend time and effort on you even if a terrible crime has been committed. Our whole healthcare system isn’t motivated to find cures for diseases but just treatments. As that solution makes the most sense when viewed through the skewed lens of the money dopamine taking precedence over all else. Money is now valued over the health and wellbeing of the patients. So there’s a conflict of interest with the healthcare system, pharmaceutical system and so on. The people working for those companies all want to make money and whether doing it consciously or subconsciously they will tend to lean towards options that get them more money because again it’s a he quickest way to the greatest reward. I hope you see where I’m going with this. Money is like a fucking drug. It doesn’t exist in nature and just in our heads which actually makes it worse than a drug. At least you can see drugs and the effect they are having on someone’s life. Money is much more insidious. You can tell how high someone is by looking at them. But you can’t tell how much money they have. And even if you can tell they have money because they’re flaunting it, your goal will suddenly become to be just like them. Because you think that it they have money, you can have money too if you do what they do. No one looks at Joe the crackhead and thinks “Oh my God I want to be like him when I grow up.” But everyone looks at Trump the billionaire, whose ONLY redeeming factor is that he’s the biggest junkie to cash on Earth. He put kids in fucking modern day concentration camps. And we’re all ignoring it. Because we’re all focused on other things. Saving those kids will probably be inconvenient for us anyway because we might get a criminal record which will make us less likely to earn money later. Or we might ruin our social status by talking about it which will ruin our ability to earn money later. So basically in short the whole world is completely fucked because about 90% of the population has an addiction to a currency that only exists in out heads, is probably on par with crack addiction as far as the severity it causes us to reprioritize our lives around it, and instead of seeing it as a problem we see it as something to aspire to because it’s in our nature to do that. You see someone fishing you want to learn how to fish because it’s an easier way to get food. You see someone making money and you want to do what they’re doing damn you and their and everyone else’s humanity because your dopamine is now hijacked by a concept your mind will never drop because it gives the greatest reward with the least energy expenditure. We hurt ourselves by neglecting our own needs because or the tunnel vision. We willingly hand our lives and most of our time over to people who have more money than us or a greater ability to earn money than us (we call them employers to cushion the blow and to feed into our own junkie like denial that we have a problem). There’s a lot more money to be made in cutting down the rainforest than there is to be made in saving it. And here is the worst part of all of this: There is no way out. Because the majority of the world is ruled by money there is nowhere to go to get away from it. If you decide you don’t want money you’re going to be hated by all the people who want money first and foremost and are in denial. People don’t like people who don’t care about money. Because they think like junkies. Their minds are so reprioritized that they can see someone freezing to death on the street and just think... Well I could help them but it would be inconvenient because it might get in the way of my sleep which would get in the way of work which would get in the way of me getting money. That’s basically what this is doing to us. So when the fuck are we going to realize that as a species at this point in time on planet Earth we collectively have an addiction which is destroying us and the entire planet we live on? When are we going to put down the proverbial crack pipe and realize “we have a problem” and go do a fucking cashaholics anonymous group and say... “I need to make amends to all the people I’ve hurt and the planet I’ve destroyed because of my problem. I’m destroying myself and my children. I’m ruining everyone’s life including my own. Because I have an addiction to money.”
TL;DR - Guru schemes have led people to adopt an unrealistic idea of passive income. - As a result, people have adopted an opposing, negative view of passive income that is also unrealistic - Owning assets is realistic and is most often a better source of income then a job or an actively managed business. - But acquiring worthwhile assets is not an easy task and will most certainly require exceptionalism in some regard. - A black and white perspective on assets/passive income is a poor understanding and a higher level, nuanced perspective is needed.
"The universe can count beyond two, and so should you"
When it comes to passive income I generally see two dichotomies
Build a passive income business that lets you make 7 figures from your laptop on the beaches of cancun. Throw something like dropshipping, T shirt business, bitcoin, a mobile app, whatever in there while you're at it.
Passive income isn’t real, you’re going to have to be grinding forever. Queue the commenter that wants to feel superior by bringing the naive redditor with stars in their eyes down to the cold surface of reality.
The root of this starts with gurus like Tai Lopez, Tim Ferris, whatever. Hyping and selling the idea that its easy to start up a passive income business and live it rich while doing whatever you want. Well those gurus made a lot of money off of that and as a result many started copying what they were doing. This led to a big propagation of get rich schemes and gurus, giving way for the idea of “easy passive income” to enter the collective. But eventually as time went on, more aware individuals have caught on and guru schemes have started to come to light. Say what you wan’t about redditors, but their cultural skepticism means there is a demographic that is least vulnerable to these schemes. As a result you see a lot more guru-busting on reddit then you might on other platforms. The anonymity helps a lot too. But people don’t usually do well with nuance. Binary points of view are likely inherent to the human condition and redditors are not perfect human beings. (also water is wet and the pope is catholic) So on this subreddit you now see a different perspective that has formed as a reaction to the common naive beliefs regarding this topic: “Passive income doesn’t exist, life is a grind and you’re grinding until you die.” You can see this in recent movements such as the growth of sweatystartup. I’m not exactly in solidarity with the way the sub expresses the idea (I don’t think a labor based business is right for most) but the concept of moving away from flashy and sexy start up ideas and moving towards less romanticised business practice is a very positive outlook. As a sub It’s worth checking out and there’s a lot of wisdom in its perspective. Keep in mind that “Easy passive income” and “Passive income doesn’t exist” are two extremes. Most people are not either or but I believe that most will trend strongly towards one end of the spectrum. You can probably deduce that I will suggest a more healthy middle ground and you would be correct. Before I get to the main point I want to differentiate between practically passive income and technically passive income Technically passive income is things that you own that generate money with no time investment whatsoever. These aren’t common but are generally highly scaled conventional assets that usually come with some form of hired management. Most people don’t have this and its realism for most people is highly debatable. I will readily admit that I don’t know all too much about things that are pure passive income and won’t be able to give very good examples. Its not a common occurrence and I’m not really interested in it as a result. What is more realistic is practically passive income. Practically passive income is an income that will almost certainly require some mix of hard work, drive, intelligence, skills, and luck. It is a business and comes with the same demons. It usually requires some form of maintenance and monitoring. A good example is web and technological assets such as sites, apps, and software. These can also be real estate investments, business equity, and a lot of other things that probably don’t come to mind as I write this. This is very similar to the perspective offered in Rich Dad, Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki and Sharon Lechter. I haven’t read the book and franky haven’t heard great things about it but it’s one of the most notable resources that talks about the perspective of assets vs job. And that’s fundamentally what we’re landing on here. You have to realize when most people come to this sub they are coming from at least normal 40 hour work weeks(if not more) making a relatively average income. Any positive shift in the time-working/money-made ratio will almost certainly be better when those variables are compared. A resource that helps individuals learn how to acquire money making assets is incredibly valuable and a higher level of understanding is needed if we're going to understand more about it ass a community. And while this isn’t a subreddit for passive income specifically, it is a topic that I feel has been misinterpreted by black and white perspectives. Yeah, so thank you for coming to my TEDx talk now subscribe to my email list and buy my online course, or whatever im not your mom or anything
A Market Liquidity Theory of the Current Financial Crisis
Huge update from the Fed this morning: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20200323b.htm I'm not going to have a chance to look through this in detail this morning, but it looks like the Fed might be engaging in a massive loan program and taking just about anything as collateral. This is going to be a long post and analysis that I have written as much to get my thoughts in order as much to post on here for any feedback or criticism. Essentially, like many on here, I do not believe that the current situation is a temporary down-turn, but a full blown financial crisis. We have already been hit with the initial shock of this crisis, so the question becomes: what comes next? Helping us understand what is fundamentally happening in the market will aid in making intelligent future predictions and investments. That leads to the question: what exactly is happening in the market right now? What caused us to suddenly drive off a cliff? And is there any way we can save it? Unlikely many here, I do not believe that COVID-19 is the actual underlying crisis. In my opinion, our economy was basically the end stages of a Jenga game, and COVID-19 is just the swift breeze knocking the whole thing over. As I started looking for the next big market move, I started to wonder who was going to feel the most pain in these markets. Some reading led me to the thought that what we were seeing in the markets was a liquidity issue, and that companies with poor credit ratings will be most affected. I posted about this a couple of days ago, and several others came to the same conclusion as me. 123. There are other obliviously other problems in the market at the moment, but this analysis will focus on this problem in particular. I now strongly believe that this hypothesis was correct, even if my initial reasoning and analysis was flawed. I outline a theory, followed by some supporting evidence, and finally some speculation. Finally, I don't think the Fed understands the actual problem the market is facing right now, nor does it have the tools to deal with it. There are three prerequisites here: repos, collateral transformation, and rehypothecated collateral Variation-Separate has already written an excellent technical analysis, and explains repos in part I. I will assume you have already read that section. 2 The basic idea behind collateral transforms is this: Your company needs some short-term liquid cash. In order for someone to give you this cash, you need collateral. You only have risky assets (such as junk bonds), but no one will accept them as collateral precisely because they are risky. Everyone in the market wants a secure asset (such as a Treasury). Instead of giving up, you go out and find someone who will loan you their Treasury and accept your junk bonds as collateral. You then use that Treasury to obtain the cash you need. This process can be repeated among many parties in order to create a "collateral chain". Finally, we have rehypothecated collateral: Someone comes to you and wants to borrow an assets for a short period of time (such as a stock). They give you another asset (such as cash) as collateral in exchange for the stock. You know the borrower won't be back to collect this collateral for a while, so you invest that collateral to make money off of it in the meantime. As Variation-Separate explains, there have been problems in the repo market recently, and the Fed has acted as the believe appropriate. However, this is not the first time the Fed has run into this problem . In fact, we had a problem a problem in the repo market just in Sept 2019 and "Not only did the spike in the repo rate come as a surprise to the New York Fed, but they also haven't been able to normalize it as quickly as they thought they could". Finally, let's consider that even though the fed has offered to pump massive amounts of liquidity into the market, banks aren't taking it and are quickly repaying that which they do take. What exactly is going on then? The Fed tries to pump liquidity into the economy, and nothing happens. The reason for this is that the Fed knows that it doesn't understand the underlying problem in the market, and knows that is powerless to stop it. The Fed is trying to unleash every tool in its toolbox on the hope that if it just throws enough money into the market, eventually the problem will go away. So what is the root problem? Essentially, liquidity. More specifically, collateral transformations and rehypothecated collateral. In fact, this has been written about extensively: 45, with Snider in particular making a strong case that today's crisis fits the analysis of the collateral markets that he provided in 2018: 6 How are collateral transformations and rehypothecated collateral affecting liquidity in the markets? There are numerous ways, but let's start with 2: Let's say someone gives you cash as collateral, and you rehypothecate it as described in the example. However, instead of putting the cash in a safe asset, knowing you have to repay it, you put it in a very risky, high-yield asset such as a junk bond or MBS. Things go wrong, you lose your money and can't pay back your end of the repo. This is exactly what AIG did during the 2008 crisis. 7 Now let's say you engage in a long chain of collateral transformations. You start with a really risk assets, trade that for a sligtly less risky asset, trade that for a moderately risky asset, etc, until you eventually get a pristine asset. Now anyone along that chain can rehypothecate their collateral into some risky investment, causing a huge number of problems. Not to mention that if you, for some reason, can't fulfill your end of the repo, you screw a whole chain of people who have traded with you. Now, if we are in a strong market, these problems won't arise too often. But what happens if, say, a virus comes out of now where causing wide-spread economic disruptions? Now, maybe those risky investments that would have paid out more often than not aren't pay out at all, causing systemic problems. Now let's add a couple of things that exacerbate this problem even further: These chains get so complicated that no one even knows who owns which assets anymore 4 When these chains collateral transformations start to fail, people may become less willing to take the risk of engaging in them 5 All of this caused heavy regulation on the exchange of collateral by primary lenders after the 2008 crisis. This has pushed these transactions into dark markets where we don't really understand what is going on. Here is my hypothesis, heavily taken from Snider's analysis: Corporations have become heavily reliant on short-term lending for liquidity. However, most of them don't have pristine assets to exchange for cash, or DisneyBucks to float them through hard times. So what to do? You engage in collateral transformations: keep exchanging your junk assets until you get the pristine assets you need to get liquid cash. A bunch of corporations do this over and over again, and eventually they really don't have a clear of idea of what assets they really own. Further, in these collateral chains they are rehypothecating collateral to make a quick buck. All is well, until this virus comes along. Suddenly, corporations are losing their collateral in these risky investments. Further, they need cash. The first thing they do is try to transform their collateral for short term liquidity. However, a bunch of people have just lost their money playing this game and don't want to play anymore, so it becomes more difficult and expensive for the companies to engage in these collateral transformations. The assets they have are worth less, so they have to sell other assets to compensate. However, everyone is doing this at the same time, devaluing the assets. Devaluation of assets makes it even more expensive to engage in collateral exchanges, and the cycle continues. Finally, when these companies take account of their actual assets, after all of these complicated exchanges, they realize they don't actually own what they think they own, creating additional panic when they are already in crisis mode. This causes huge turmoil, and the markets fall off a cliff. If this theory is correct, what will we see next? Whether the markets will go up or down is dependent on too many factors to predict. However, I do have some speculation. First let's categorize corporations as follows: Type I: Safe Large banking institutions Large P-1/A-1/F1+ Companies Companies with huge cash reserves Type II: Possibly Safe Small businesses "Essential" business (i.e., Boeing) Type III: Doomed Business with >500 employees, no large cash reserves, not P-1/A-1/F1+ The self-employed Type I businesses will certainly weather the storm. If they don't have the direct support of the Fed, they have large cash reserves on hand. If they don't have large cash reserves on hand, they have the credit rating to make use of corporate paper. They can find the short term funding needed to make it through this. Type II businesses may be safe depending on the government response. I am currently underwhelmed by the "support" for small business in the stimulus bill, but there seems to at least be talk about this so maybe things will change. "Essential" businesses may receive a bailout to get them through tough times. Type III businesses are completely screwed, no one seems to know they are even there. They won't qualify for support as "small businesses", and they have no way of obtaining liquid assets in this market. In particular, the larger businesses don't have the pristine assets to obtain liquidity in these markets, they are dependent on collateral transforms. I won't predict whether the markets will go up or down this week, next, etc. But I will speculate this: I think the calm we saw in the markets was an actual calm. I think there was panic as businesses tried to obtain liquidity. They now believe they have the liquidity to make it through the near future, and are satisfied. There could be fire-sales in the near term for other reasons, but I don't think short-term liquidity will be the cause. However, most corporations don't speculate very hard when it comes to the future: they listen to the "experts". And these "experts" in government and the financials have been predicting doom and gloom for the next couple weeks, but that things will "bounce back" afterward. This is flatly false. As this becomes more apparent to these companies, I think we'll see another run on the market. Particularly, it will be the large Type III business that will be the most vulnerable. They won't have any government stimulus support, and they won't have access to their normal modes of obtain cash. The last panic in the markets pushed bond yields so high that issuing new bonds will be completely out of the question. For them, it will be like a game of chess where your 4 moves away from being mated no matter what you do. Many of them will decide that bankruptcy is the best option in front of them. Can the Fed prevent this? I don't think so. The Fed has the ability to soak up P-1/A-1/F1+, but they can only do this through the banks. But the banks aren't the ones in trouble this time, its the market itself. I have not read anything that leads me to believe that the Fed would be able to purchase junk assets from non- P-1/A-1/F1+ corporations without an act of Congress, and Congress is too slow and incompetent to see this problem coming or fix it in time. The Colosseum will be protected as Rome burns around it. Sorry for any typos, poor wording. This was a long post.
That means the bitcoin stored on the hard drive would have been worth around $975,000 at the time the device is said to have been ditched. Today, they would be worth $85,125,000 (£63,284,463). James Howells, 32, made headlines in 2013 after it emerged he had accidentally thrown away a computer hard drive containing 7,500 bitcoins, worth around $4 million at the time. The hard drive now ... A British man realized he threw away a hard drive containing 7,500 Bitcoin, now worth $7.5 million, which is likely lost forever, buried in a landfill. 'At the start of 2010, Bitcoin trading wasn't even really a thing. It was hard to find anywhere that would accept BTC,' Mr Simpson wrote. 'I used the hard drive for a whole bunch of things. Man Throws Away Hard Drive With More Than 7,500 Bitcoins Within. 8 shares; Share; Share ; Print; E-mail; Reddit; Gabriel Roşu / 7 years ago. Bitcoin, the virtual currency that has gained plenty ...