If you're going to trade on another platform, you should study the rules of your platform and how they handle such situations. And not only read the official guideline, but also look for discussions of such cases on that platform that happened to other traders, because on practice things could be handle a bit differently from what is publicly stated.

No one can answer your question in general, because platforms can have different rules.

The biggest advantage of gold is that it has thousands of years of history behind it, and we know that unless its supply suddenly becomes overflooded, it won't drop in value much. But Bitcoin's value is not understood by anyone, it goes up and down, and so far the long-term trend has been positive, but it could just as easily reverse. To put it simply, Bitcoin is many times more risky than gold. That's why Bitcoin is not a reliable store of value right now, but rather a high risk investment.

I remember there was a lot of hype about the supposed supercycle in 2020-2021, and then it still player out the good old pattern of a big bull run ending with big crash. So the key word here is that a supercycle "could" become a reality, but the probability of it is unknown. Could be high, could be low.

But my worry is that there's also the probability of the opposite of the supercycle - super bear market that could happen if investors and traders get bored of Bitcoin and move on to something different, something completely unrelated to cryptocurrency. With a lot of money leaving the market and no new investments, there good be a very long depression with the price falling down by 80-90%. Essentially it would mean that majority of the Bitcoin market history was a big long bubble, and the bear markets were just corrections of this long mania phase.

The probability of this doomsday scenario is just as unknown as the probability of a supercycle.

Luck could indeed be a factor, as a person who would merit your post might just not read it or be out of merit, etc. But it affects everyone equally and you can't do anything about it, so you can just not worry about it. Length is also a part of quality. Posts that are just one short sentance rarely get merit because they are rarely qualify as "quality" - they don't provide unique or rare insight. But long posts are not automatically quality posts - there are many-many long garbage posts that are hard to read and are full of useless information.

But quality is not the only factor that determines merit gains. It's easier to get merit by posting what people would like to hear than by posting something that upsets them.

You are quite correct, although NFTs aren't even legal contracts or any contracts, they are just tokens on blockchain that have unique identifiers and that's it. The people behind them told that they give ownership, but ownership is not actually ownership without having any way to enforce it. Bitcoin is self-enforcing, the system doesn't need any outside help, but NFTs are not. You can put a link or even a file on blockchain, but it won't stop anyone from copying it, so it needs the help of actual legal courts, which is the opposite of what Bitcoin has achieved.

As you know, all transactions are public and don't contain any private data like private keys or real world identity. So just knowing about transactions will not cause big problems on its own. And also the phone is supposed to only be accessible to the owner, so if someone else has access - be it physical or through malware, they could do a lot more harm than just finding screenshots of Bitcoin transactions. Just inform you friend to not take screenshots of private keys and seed and he should be fine.

Even if ALL of Bitcoin's electricity consumption was generated by burning coal, that still would have been a tiny share of the global carbon emissions to the point where removing it wouldn't cause any observable difference as it would be within the statistical margin of error. But those who use energy as an argument against Bitcoin don't care about the numbers, they just need something for their accusations, so they say that big energy use is bad.

No it doesn't, there no such thing as scaling on blockchain. The world, or even just small country, or even just a single city with a few million people needs a capacity for many millions of transactions per day. It's impossible to effectively process and store such amounts of data on a home computer, you need a specialized server equipment for that. So any solution that tells to just increase blocksize will inevitably turn into a network of one or a few large servers controlled by an entity that could be blocked or physically raided by law enforcement.

It's extremely messed up to call the police on your own child if that child is not causing any violence and doing something truly bad. I think most parents in this world wouldn't do such thing even if they'd thought that crypto is something illegal.

But this story is another example why you shouldn't tell everyone about your crypto endeavors, even to your family, or maybe especially to your family, because there's lots of ways how it can create tensions in the future.

You can't really learn how to be a high rank forum member (and join a signature campaign, because let's be honest that's what you want). It's eaither something that comes naturally because you are enjoying it, or it does not. If you are forcing yourself to make posts, to chase "quality", then you won't ever be a good forum user. A good forum user is first of all just a Bitcoin enthusiast. If you're only interested in Bitcoin because its price is growing up - that's not enthusiasm.

It can't be called degeneracy because Satoshi and Core developers didn't put any features in Bitcoin that would prevent centralized use of it. The very nature of Bitcoin allows such use. There nothing anyone can do to stop insitutions from buying BTC and locking it in ETF. So it's rather a sign of maturity, that Bitcoin survived long enough to be recognized by the mainstream economy as a valuable asset and not a temporary mania.

And it's possible to theorize about negative effects of centralization of a large part of supply, but it's important to take a step back and remember that everyone is free to use Bitcoin however they like, including selling it to ETFs. Because ETFs can't really tell you how to use your coins either.

But you know what's even better than this so-called "smart DCA"? A lump sum investment ideally in the bear market, but early in the bull run works too. DCA should only be the tool for those who have no savings and want to save a little bit of money from their montly paycheck. But they shouldn't hope to make big returns, because you need money to make money. Even if you DCA $100 every month and they got up 10 times, it still won't change your life.

The problem is, all patterns end at some point and new patterns replace them. It could be that Bitcoin at some point in the future will reach a certain peak, then crash and never revisit that peak ever again. Or it could decades to see that price again. Bitcoiners tend to brush off unrealized losses with their "just hodl" mantra, but not everyone can just hodl. Sometimes life makes you spend money whether you like it or not, and this is where having all your wealth stored in Bitcoin would be a major downside.

Is Ripple even still relevant? Thought it's on its own way to zero like the rest of the altcoins. Its creators should really stop wasting their scamming profits on trying to pump it one last time and just let it die.

In the long run Bitcoin will win against every last altcoin, because they will run out of money to pump themselves or spread FUD against Bitcoin, since they don't have any fundamentals that could give them true value.

You should build the project first and then community will form on its own if the project is worthy. Otherwise, if you're building community before project, that's just a scam, you are making promises to people so that they would invest in your token, and then you fail to fulfill your promises yet take the money.

Satoshi didn't build community and ask for money to make Bitcoin. Why crypto devs think that they are better than Satoshi and ask for money for development in the form of ICO?

If BTC falls, Microstrategy will fall too, ever since they started getting involved with BTC their stock became tied to BTC price. However, Microstrategy is also perfectly capable of screwing things up on their own, like dabbling into altcoins, dumping their BTC, and in general doing stupid decisions. So compared to BTC it's extra risky, since it has all the risks of BTC plus their own.

Because salaries also go up. In the developed world most people don't have to spend all their income on basic necessities.


This isn't true for countries that are considered rich. Their citizens spend less than 10% of their income on food, while people from the truly poor country could spend even 50% of their income on food or more.

This is true as long as status quo remains - Satoshi is inactive and his coins are considered as lost. If that would change then suddenly Bitcoin's price would be very dependent on the Satoshi factor. It doesn't even matter if it fundamentally changes nothing, because the price is driven by speculators who look for the slightest reason to make a move.

That's what the smoking comparison is about. Not that he simply thinks that Bitcoin is harmful, but that he supports the right to buy it despite him viewing it as harmful. I'd say that it's a better position than the stance of Warren Buffet who would love to see Bitcoin banned, but it seems it's still not enough for most Bitcoiners who expect everyone to praise Bitcoin the way Miachel Saylor does. But I would personally rather take a honest skeptic who supports the right to use Bitcoin because it's an expression of freedoml; over some fake Bitcoin guru who will switch sides and start promoting altcoins tomorrow.

Short-term traders can profit from price fall too if they open a short position. Also, it's often the short-term traders who are causing these crashes by taking profits, so you can't really say that they get sad. They only get sad when the price is stagnant


DCA performs poorly when the market is already in the bullish phase. Your $100 monthly investment will maybe double or tripple at best, but if you'd put a big sum during the bear market, it would grow  6-10 times.