|
I think that exchanges simply play a different role and thus are very likely to stay. A person can send BTC from one address to another, and there's zero need for an exchange in that situation. But if you're a trader, you need an exchange, and centralized exchanges might be convenient for that. If you want to buy or sell BTC for fiat, that also often requires an exchange, although it doesn't have to be a place like Binance where they store your money. I, for one, usually use local exchanges where you, for example, send BTC to a certain address from your wallet and get a transfer onto a bank account, so nobody is storing anyone else's funds in this situation.
Also, if we're talking about active use of Bitcoin for payments, a custodial wallet can be more convenient if it's widely used because that allows 'instant payments' and very low fees.
I think it should just be accepted that there are some use cases for intermediaries, and that they are not going to disappear.
|
|
|
|
|
That's nice news, and from what I see, my country is among those where the service is available. My issue with eSIMs is just that a lot of phones don't support it, especially if we're talking about older models. I'm also wondering how it works in terms of local legislations. I mean, my country is pretty neat because you can literally buy a SIM card at a typical supermarket, and there are zero requirements on showing your ID or whatever. But I've noticed that it's quite different in many other countries, and you do need an ID to which the phone number gets registered, as well as some other data sometimes.
Another matter is that Bitcoin payments also aren't legal all around the world, so I'm amazed by 140 supported countries but also wondering whether it's all actually legal in all those countries. It's also a shame if one can only buy data, but not the SIM.
|
|
|
|
|
I find ChatGPT useful for some purposes, but analysing transactions is probably not one of them. It can read and summarize texts, it can brainstorm ideas on various topics, and it can help to find fitting interpretations. But it also loves hallucinating information to fill in the gaps. Some people also use it for coding, especially if they only have basic skills. In that case, ChatGPT can help write code, although it will make mistakes and will often not be able to reach the working solution alone. Perhaps it could help you write a transaction analysis program if you set your requirements specifically. Or, if you have resources, you could try to train a model for a specific task, as ImThour has mentioned.
|
|
|
|
At first I want to use this medium to introduce myself, I'm a Smartgoat and I have being studying the futuristic of Bitcoin and finally I have developed a hundred percent love to Bitcoin.
I have be wondering why people are queuing up in Bitcoin, then I began to ask if Bitcoin can make provision of food in our table. Because many people I know testify of Bitcoin and after I made my research concerning Bitcoin, I found out why people are comfortably investing in Bitcoin, is because it's a decentralized currency. then I have to come with the idea that Bitcoin can make availability of food in our table when we learn and understand the basic things of Bitcoin especially understand trading and long term investment of Bitcoin.
I think with trading they will be a provision of food in our table, when we understand the rules and regulations of Bitcoin, I don't know if this my concept can make a provision of food through Bitcoin. But I'm well convinced that with this my views over Bitcoin investment and trading it will provide or sustain human, if profit are been made. I know that Bitcoin should not be dependent on, and we suppose to make Bitcoin our side hustle but with seriousness on Bitcoin investment and trading, we can achieve a success.
You're talking about the reasons behind investing into Bitcoin, but IMO, if a person is investing, the food is (or, at least, should be) definitely on the table, and it's not a matter of covering basic needs. So, can Bitcoin investment improve one's financial situation? Somewhat, yeah. Can it reduce poverty, let alone solve it? No, I don't think so. A person can earn BTC and that can be a big financial factor, possibly the 'food on the table' part. But it's not Bitcoin alone, it's also about the job. And as for trading, it can work for some people, but also ruin the lives of others. |
|
|
|
Op, I think there's no need to diminish oneself, and losing life savings is not the end of the world. I do hope you'll read the messages and realize it, see how many people here think so. Some people have zero savings and live from salary to salary. I've been in that place, where sometimes I struggled to even properly cover the basic needs and couldn't even dream of savings. Some people not only have no savings, but also have tons of debt. And some have the sort of debt they can gradually repay, whereas others have debt they can't repay and live in a place where things can get very violent because of that. If you had savings before, there's likely a way to gather new savings in the future, but there's no need to focus on that right away. Yes, it's soul-crushing to go through such a change and to realize one's mistake, but taking things slow and trying to come out as a stronger person is totally an option. Also, please call a suicide prevention line if that's where your thoughts are currently leading you. |
|
|
|
|
To be honest, I don't think that this billionaire is the most important this that happened to BTC this year. I don't know what is, but it's not another rich guy changing opinion about Bitcoin when realizing that with Bitcoin, he has a change of becoming even richer. I understand he's the head of Blackrock, but impact comes with actual results, so if he manages to convince the SEC to get an ETF approval, that's going to be a different conversation, but now he's just a powerful applicant who is, IMO, not likely to succeed.
|
|
|
|
|
I think volatility of Bitcoin is only weird when a person isn't used to cryptos and is way more used to thinking about volatility regarding fiat currencies. Yeah, Bitcoin goes up and down much more than typical fiat currencies on a daily basis, but significant increases or decreases are actually not that common, IMO. Bitcoin can stay within a certain price range for months, so it's not like the volatility is making it truly a wild card. It's around $30k today, which means it can be a bit closer to $29k or to $31k tomorrow, but it's pretty rare to see a change that goes beyond such differences.
And while for some volatility is perceived as a risk, to me, it shows that Bitcoin is alive, that the price isn't regulated. Moreover, many make profit precisely because of volatility at traders, so they wouldn't be thrilled with more stability either.
|
|
|
|
|
I must start by saying that I'm not a business person. Creating or managing my own business is not among my life goals, but maybe I will get there at some point. But just recently, a friend of mine wanted to give me her platform because she didn't want it to just die off but didn't want to keep working on it either, so I had a chance to reflect on a similar question. I realized that if I ever get into business growth, I want it to be my own thing, something I start from scratch, so that it feels fully mine, not just like something I worked on as someone's else's project. But that's just a personal feeling, whereas rationally, I think it's probably more likely to work out if a person gets someone's business and works on growing it rather than starts from scratch.
|
|
|
|
|
Op, you're right in your observation about the IMF pressure when a country wants to adopt Bitcoin, so if by some luck such organizations changed their position and became more open to Bitcoin not just as an investment, but also as a currency, it would have a big impact on adoption because that would greenlight it. It doesn't mean we'd see a sudden spike in adoption, but it could change the world over time.
But, like many others here, I'm doubtful that such organizations will embrace Bitcoin because it's not and can never be under their control.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think Bitcoin is any more complex than the traditional banking system or the way fiat currencies work. One doesn't need to understand something well to be able to use it, and people use things they understand very vaguely all the time without worrying about it. So complexity isn't a major issue, IMO.
Then, to be honest, I don't get the second point. People don't share their fiat profits with others, usually, and yet that doesn't hinder fiat usage in any way. And it's not like businesses that adopt Bitcoin somehow make obstacles for the adoption of Bitcoin by others.
But I did enjoy the parts about El Salvador's situation and what can be done about it, so thanks for sharing your thoughts, op.
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree with the op's idea that without altcoins, people would invest in Bitcoin more. If we look at the history of the market, there was a time of very few altcoins, and Bitcoin's market capitalization was very low at that point. Then more and more coins appeared, but Bitcoin remained #1 and continued to grow as well. I'm not saying that the growth of Bitcoin was caused by the growth of the altcoin market, but there's certainly a strong correlation there, at least. They fuelled each other, leading to higher demand for cryptos in general.
|
|
|
|
|
It's a good ethical dilemma. I think that in practice, we won't have any of these options but something in the middle. However, if there was a choice like that, I would choose the second option, where Bitcoin stays at $30k, but people have freedom of using it without having to pay taxes, go through KYC etc. I don't really focus on the prospect of growth of the price, I'm okay with the current one. And this way, Bitcoin fulfils its purpose better, being a currency that gives financial freedom rather than another investment asset that is fully integrated into mainstream economy.
|
|
|
|
|
The name of the club the op owns doesn't say anything to me, to be honest, so let's just focus on the prediction of the weaker EUR. For a prediction to be scientific in nature, there should be a way to falsify it (to disprove it). For that, we need more details. When will the EUR get weaker, by which point in time? How do we measure it? Is it inflation rate, value against something like the USD, or something else entirely? How much of a difference from 2022 would count as 'weaker'?
Without any of that, it's just a vague phrase that some can agree of disagree with, but which there's no way to confirm or refute.
|
|
|
|
It would be great if the op actually added sources to the claim, so that we could see where the info is coming from, and how credible it is. The UK officially committed to stopping the imports of Russian oil and gas by the end of 2022, but that, of course, doesn't mean that it followed through. That being said, I don't see any credible articles that claim that the UK is still importing Russian oil as of Q2, 2023. And there is information that they're no longer doing that. As for the possibility of buying oil from an intermediary, it can be the case, but once again, actual sources would be appreciated. |
|
|
|
|
a. Southampton
b. 2-0
c. Southampton
d. Under
e. No
f. 17'
|
|
|
|
|
$1 million is a significant amount of money, but what's the point of gradually putting it into Bitcoin? I think people use DCA to invest slowly, at a comfortable pace, and potentially indefinitely. $50k weekly means $200k in a month, and a total of 5 months to put $1 million into it. I guess it does take a while, and it is DCA, but I just don't get the reason for doing it this way if a person is ready to put all of this money into Bitcoin.
As for Binance, at least it's certainly not a good idea to store BTC there. If there is an option to purchase BTC and get the money directly into a non-custodial wallet, that's the desirable solution, but it depends on a jurisdiction, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
There's no way to restore access to coins that were truly lost, and it's also next to impossible to assess which coins fall under that category. Estimations usually rely on presuming coins that weren't moved for x years are lost. But it's perfectly reasonable that some may simply have no reason to move the coins over the years while technically being able to do that, so those coins aren't actually lost. Then there are people who lost access to their wallets, but there's a small chance that they or someone else will find access to them at some point by stumbling upon a seed phrase or something. Finally, there are coins that were burned intentionally and those accidentally sent to non-existent addresses, in which cases the coins are truly lost, but keeping track of that isn't easy either.
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that all of that is not that simple. If a country doesn't have inflation, it can sometimes be viewed as a sign of stagnation of the economy. If the inflation rate is high, it's obviously also a big problem, bigger than close to zero or negative inflation rate. But if inflation is fairly low and stable over the years, many think it's a positive thing that encourages people to spend instead of saving, boosting the economy further.
And with other things there are different opinions and cases as well. If a country borrows a lot but never defaults on the foreign debt and keeps using the money to invest into its own economy, it can go fine. If the country relied on imported goods, it can be fine as long as there's something valuable that it gives back to the world and there's a low chance of supply line disruptions.
|
|
|
|
I agree with the op, of course, and I've mentioned it in a post earlier in another discussion. It was a clickbait title, and I wouldn't be surprised if a marginal outlet did it, but I think that the top media like Forbes should be above that and strive for a more accurate representation of events. The article itself is okay, but that doesn't justify making an inaccurate title. It might be just the author's style, though, as his most recent article at Forbes is named "Money Printer Go Brr" and then some. |
|
|
|
|
This looks like a mere speculation to me, and pressing the charges vs considering the charges are also too very different things. Binance is a pretty strong company, I hope they'll prevail over the US institutions or part on good terms. For now, the FUD doesn't mean there's any practical reason to panic, but I somewhat disagree with the op that it's strange how the news influences the market. In fact, it seems to me that the news is a primary factor, simply because people read about stuff, it provokes certain emotions, and those emotions motivate people to take action, both in case of FUD and FOMO.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
