For the end user, after the initial buying price? Probably.
Overall? No. The batteries are expensive and their production is harmful for the environment. I don't think that most countries will even have proper battery disposal facilities by 2035.
Even the charging of EV is a difficult problem, because it can drain the grid under safety levels. EV can have a proper future only after we (humans) invent much better ways of storing electricity for both EV, charging stations, regions (!!).


No. But it will ensure steps towards that.
Remember the original economy light bulbs? They were all neon bulbs with toxic materials in. Meanwhile we switched to LED bulbs. I think that this is the intention: a push towards evolving.

There's a saying that all USD bills smell of cocain. And they are well in circulation.
Tainted bitcoins? Well, it depends greatly on who is looking at them. For now the majority tells that 1 BTC = 1 BTC and those telling stories about tainted coins have a different agenda.
All in all, some (rather few) businesses pretend to have problems with tainted coins, but most of them don't do the right thing (alert the authorities and hand the funds to the right owners), instead they spread big words on tainted money and, when they get such funds may just try to get them for themselves.


What if the miner has processed the transaction without knowing it's stolen money? Who decides what transaction is illegal (and does it makes any use if the miner has already processed it)? Who decides if the first one deciding the tx is illegal was deciding that correctly or not? (Because, sorry, but that's how law works).


So the only sane approach is to leave miners process all the transactions (because any kind of censoring can lead to bigger problems overall) and get hold of stolen money as soon as that money reaches an exchange, for example.

As said, it's not normal to ask for higher fees since the buyer sends the funds and pays the network fee. But I can easily guess that some payment processors may try to get some extra money by exploiting the busier-than-usual mempool and the lack of knowledge. I would not be surprised if BitPay does this (again) in order to convince people use the altcoin they're supporting.

I guess that the merchants in question are using the wrong payment processors and have to DYOR and change to different ones.
Or, if there's a bit of technical knowledge, consider installing your own BTCPay server.

There are plenty of ways. One of them is to install the BPIP extension to your browser (Chrome/Chromium based or Firefox) and, amongst a lot of other nice features, you can enable one of the dark themes from there.
The BPIP extension topic is: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5224821.0
and you can find it (for free) in the browser's add-ons/extensions "store". The links are also in the topic I've linked.

While for short term I cannot argue, I don't think that it'll go too high this year (and whether the high point will be in May or later I don't know), on long term (decade) you seem to have missed the halvings and the ever increasing difficulty; this cannot be sustained for 10 years only with max 60k price (and usually lower).


Please edit and merge your posts instead of making consecutive ones. May worth reading the forum rules too.

For me Bitcoin is an investment and also the currency for my extra income(s) or side jobs (tasks).
This means some extra money for the monthly expenses and also an unimaginable peace of mind because I know I have something there for the rainy days (although the fiat value of that something has its ups and downs).

Thanks for "translating" this 
I've read the news yesterday and I was surprised, because at first it sounded too good to be true (hence some alarms got triggered). Now I know why.

That's by far not expected unexpected. Institutions have more likely (and bigger amounts too) liquidity saved to buying at bottom whatever they can (usually competitors, but Bitcoin is also very appealing at this price).


My economics background is not strong enough to check this. Whether the recession is avoided (again: for now) or we're in deep sh#t and they're covering it, I don't know and I guess that there are (oh, so) many in this situation (of not knowing the difference).


Interesting. And what you think Bitcoin price will do in this equation? Will it follow the other assets and will go down again big time?

Edit: fixed typo

I agree with @Charles-Tim here. Electrum can easily show you what's real.

You download it from https://electrum.org , run it together with your Trezor HW (Standard wallet, then Use Hardware device), in Tools->Preferences you set the base unit from mBTC to BTC, also set View->Show addresses, go to the Addresses tab and click the Balance column's header to sort by amount (you may need to click twice to sort descending). Then you'll see what addresses have money.
Plus, the window's footer area tells the sum / full balance.

I think that the best use case for stable coins was arbitrage trading. For that, some sort of stable coin, preferably accepted by most exchanges, is a must.
For all the other cases, yes, the "good old" fiat would be better. For start it may deflate the market a little until only real money is in, but on long term it should be more fair.


Well 1 BUSD = 1 BUSD and people don't understand that 16 billion BUSD can become easily = 1 cent. Some might need a cold shower in order to improve their math. Sorry, I was wrong, Terra has provided that math lesson, but people have still missed the point.


Whether they've done their homework or not it doesn't matter. They still may get checked. And I've read that people started moving their funds from USDC to USDT (which imho is just as bad, or actually even worse).

Can it be maybe also the fact that the inflation slowing down can be a sign that the recession was - at least for now - avoided and everybody starts putting to work the liquidity they may have been keeping at hand for the dark days?
Plus, the trend is pretty clear now, which can increase the appetite of the investors.

You seem to have no idea what you're talking about. Binance is a centralized exchange. Whatever happens in their internal data (mostly trades) doesn't reflect on the blockchain. Only the actual deposits and withdrawals do. Plus, binance has no block explorer. Plus, Binance may convince those who don't understand bitcoin to withdraw wrapped bitcoin (ie on a different blockchain); this last one may make transactions "made by binance" not be visible, but not the other way around.
If Binance cannot find a deposit made on the actual bitcoin blockchain, then they have an error.

BSV is a shitshow, not a story. BSV was greatly centralized. This allowed CSW push code that offers him control.
BTC is still decentralized and I expect the vast majority of BTC users would not accept such a change (at the very least they would not update to that version).

The hate may come not because of the question per se, instead for the fact you didn't search. I am sure this was asked plenty of times already....


There's a difference: bitcoin has a history of recoveries from low prices to new ATH; most altcoins never recover from the low price.


Possibly; sooner or later everything turns to dust. But most probably Bitcoin won't go to zero in the next 20-80 years.


Most probably nothing special. Bitcoin becomes worthless either because there won't be humans left (or internet), either because humans have invented something better and lost interest in bitcoin. Probably at that point there will already be no mining. However, all the relevant things would have happened before bitcoin going to 0.


Previous levels as 60k, or previous levels as 1k? About 1k the chances are slim (but see point 1); for new ATH the chances are very good (although it may not happen this year). But please don't make purchases based on my expectations, I can easily be wrong.

I think that deflationary means that the supply is meant to decrease and in case of bitcoin, especially in the last 5 years, I expect that the amount of bitcoins lost is tiny.


Well, at least the miners cannot just keep HODLing, they are businesses that have to pay their bills and they can do that only by selling some of the coins they obtain.
(Plus, I think that there's pretty much always a price target for the HODLers, and after that target is met, they'll also sell some.)

It's nice they want to help, but no matter how you look at this there will be reasons for criticizing it:
* If it's done based on KYC then it's about getting more users to Binance ecosystem and, well, KYC is not great to just give away to all the platforms asking for it.
* On the other hand, if KYC is not involved then it will greatly be abused.

I don't know why didn't Binance just give funds to some NGOs that are actively helping there...

I've just read that the new season of "Drive to survive" will be going live from February 24.
I don't know if the launch date was announced earlier, if so I've gracefully missed it.

USDC and the rest; maybe Tether too.
There was a tweet at some point - as an idea backing - that maybe they'll start doing stable coins that are not pegged to Dollar; although if they do peg it to at least one fiat they'll still be in trouble, see Facebook, and even if they will be pegging it to Gold or whatever, it may not be as nice an simple as you'd think (if they want to properly back a stable coin with actual gold then its storage needs to be paid).

Not necessarily. We have a history here of money exchangers that work only with paper money, even in 2023. Getting paper in money can be more reassuring than getting it in bank (with possible questions asked) and the exchanger knows this.
Actually the fact one gets paper money in hand can make this kind of exchange somewhat safer than on a DEX because the bank may ask about the money from various (maybe very odd) sources your money comes from and you may have no good answers.

Of course, this doesn't mean your use case is impossible. Just it's not the only use case.

Multumim de anunt!
Nu ma pasioneaza prea mult revistele in general, nu sunt convins ca as putea sa le pastrez ca lumea, asadar o sa zic pass de data asta.
Multa bafta celor care participa!

It doesn't matter, the point was that 10k is 20% or less of the total in the first case, while in the second case it may be even the full price. And then in the second case, indeed, they send you to the bank 


Yep, that's what I also said: this can cause the (Italian) state lose big bucks due to underreporting for taxes, hence it cannot work on long term, hence it's just political.
I'm so sick and tired of politicians (here too) promising nice things that they cannot fulfill on the long run...