Lol. You can technically try to sell your coins at whatever rate you want depending on the platform, but no one would buy from you if you deviate too much from the current market value.

Also, the price at the moment is around ~6700 USD, so you'll be losing a lot of money if you sell. You're probably not looking for advice, but if you don't have urgent need of the money, I'd urge you to hold off selling until you can get at least 50% of your initial investment. It's also pretty much a guarantee that you can get your money back and more but it comes with an unknown time frame, so you may also want to wait for that.

You mean August 10th?

https://cryptovest.com/news/possible-bitcoin-etf-raises-market-hopes-as-us-sec-opens-public-discussion-for-cboe-fund-license/

I'm not sure how the decision will turn out, but it's worth noting that ETFs were (kinda) already launched in Europe and it doesn't seem to have had any significant effect on prices. I expect a SEC approval to have a bigger effect, but I feel like there's a strong possibility that it can't bring us over the bear market hump. I'd love to be proven wrong though.

The 21,000,000 supply doesn't matter because Bitcoin is (or theoretically could be) infinitely divisible. This is also the main reason why it will never be "too expensive." You could buy some for $1 even at its $19k per coin peak if you wanted to.

That being said, I do believe there could be a shortage because supply is fixed. If the entire world HODLs, there will be a shortage. Said shortage will incentivize hodlers even more because it'll drive the price up. This is purely theoretical though, and it's not going to be as simple as it sounds. Take note that it'll take more than a century for the last coins to even be mined.


How is this happening right now? Lol. The only ones who ever say that Bitcoin is too expensive are people who don't know you could buy very small fractions. People are buying alts because they can make money off them. People only really use a handful for utility, and Bitcoin owns the lion's share of that.

Holy shit lmao. This really is unreadable, so let's try to at least decipher what OP is trying to say?


I think they're basically saying high-rank members are promoting shady altcoins? You can't really do much about this without centralizing decision making. No group should have the power to decide which ones are noteworthy and which ones aren't. Not even outright scams are moderated, so all you can really do against this is to wise up. The trust system is meant to address this and they do tag outright scams as far as I can tell, so that's something.


Maybe they mean forks by Bitcoin2? Like, they should be celebrated or something? I personally don't care for as long as they don't attempt a hostile takeover a la Segwit2x.


Maybe this is basically an extension of the first question? Like, moderating bounties or something? But yeah this is never going to happen while theymos is in charge.

Of course they're effective. I always see people say that governments can't touch Bitcoin, and while that's essentially true, they can still severely affect user base. Take note that China hasn't even enforced a complete ban and it's been enough to decimate their market. It's hard to imagine that things could get worse, but a complete ban could certainly make that happen.

I'd also like to note that such tactics are only effective while Bitcoin is being used solely as an investment asset. People won't care if they can't convert to fiat if everyone else already accepts Bitcoin anyway. It all boils down to people actually using Bitcoin for its utility.


No, but it's pretty clear that China isn't too concerned about the subject. They're still evidently very competitive when it comes to mining though, which isn't at all surprising because it brings money in.

I'd say it's infinitely more likely that exchanges are simply vulnerable to hacks because of bad security and/or bad protocols. This has been happening forever, and I don't think any hacking has ever been attributed to any government, except maybe North Korea. I'd also like to note that the Bithumb hack barely moved the market at all despite being fairly big news.

Also, governments have shown that they can place bans to throttle growth. That's a much more effective way of dealing with the "problem" if they truly hated it enough to stage very convenient hackings.

But you know, if you say that's your opinion, then I completely respect it. All of this is conjecture at the end of the day.

Seems like the group is now live, and there didn't seem to be any sharp drops that could be plausibly attributed to its forming.

But yeah, this seems scary. We know that the IRS has resources, and if they start sharing intelligence with other tax agencies, I'd be wary if I were skimping out on any tax liabilities. I'm guessing they'll be focusing on the larger fish though, and those are typically skilled in hiding their tracks. I guess we'll see soon enough.

It's called recency bias.

...or is it, even? I mean, the Bithumb hack only happened a couple of weeks ago and crypto wasn't recovering then.

This idea may be outrageous to some, but wouldn't it be possible that there are no grand conspiracies against crypto? There will always be antagonists, don't get me wrong, but you don't always need to point your fingers at someone or something. Shit just happens sometimes.

Different countries have different laws. That should tell you a lot about one size fits all regulations.

I see KYC/AML as means towards enforcing regulations, and not an actual regulation by itself. You start with an identity first because you can't go after offenders otherwise. Even it is enforced differently across different places. I'm not necessarily against regulation, but I think universal regulations would be ineffective.

If you're worried about viruses, just install Linux and you'll be (mostly) rid of them forever. I mean, I agree with your point to just not download programs you don't trust, but that can't really be avoided if you're toying with new alts and/or forks. It's definitely safer to avoid them outright, but virtual machines do offer some additional defense in situations where it can't be helped.

This isn't about avoiding viruses, this is about making risky activities less risky.

Oh I'm fully aware, which is why I dedicated this to them:


They can and will spin everything to fit their narrative so it's just better to outright ignore them for the most part.

Also, they're at what now, 16MB capacity blocks? Good luck filling that up. Most crypto enthusiasts I encounter don't seem to be very fond of Bitcoin Cash. Even Litecoin handles more transactions than them if I remember correctly.

For as long as it's non contentious, I don't think it would have any long-term damaging effects. The term implies that it works out for everyone. People within the community will say that it's for the best, and people outside will realize that problems could be (easily?) fixed. The haters in between will hate regardless.

Short term, speculators may dump because it's going to be an opportunity, and it could possibly cause a bear market, but nothing beyond that. That's just how I see it though.

Trading isn't illegal. You just can't use your bank account for anything crypto related. Likewise, crypto businesses won't be given access to bank services either. Peer-to-peer is essentially the only way to go from this point and it's still perfectly legal. For your situation specifically: you can use localbitcoins but you can't cash out to your bank account (or you can, but your bank might close it).

It also has to be noted that this central bank ban is not permanent yet. There's still a hearing scheduled on July 20 so it's possible for it to be lifted then. Cross your fingers, there's still hope.

Hype has already come and gone -- for Bitcoin's use as an investment, at least. It has already become a household name last December, and I assume those who truly wanted to invest in it has already dipped their toes at that time. Every news outlet was talking about it and was churning out guides on how to invest. Based on the drop, I would assume most have already pulled out their money, too.

Hype on Bitcoin's utility as a currency hasn't come yet though, and at the rate things are going, it may take a while. It's a bit too niche as it currently stands and has a lot of issues it needs to overcome first. It's going to be worth the wait though, because this is what will drive true adoption.

I don't know about an 18-24 months timeline, but that would certainly be possible if institutional money comes in, which has been speculated on for a while now.

Excellent advice! Virtual machines can be rather resource intensive, but it's true that they're safer to use especially when you want to run untrusted software (Though I would like to note that doing this is still very much a bad idea unless you absolutely know what you're doing).

I would just like to add, though, that they don't protect you against phishing attacks, so you can't just download forked wallets and be 100% safe, among other things. Some viruses could also still infect your main system from within them, so I would advise against being too adventurous. You should also run a Linux one if you could. Flavors like Xubuntu or Lubuntu are pretty light on resources so they would be helpful for outdated hardware.

Get started with what? Trading? Hodling? Using? If so, you might as well just put in like $10 of your money, because that's just about how much you would optimistically earn by doing stuff like this in a month, provided you do it religiously.

As others have stated, you can make Bitcoin out of your marketable talents. You should also be eligible for joining campaigns once you become a productive forum member. Relying on freebies is just about the least efficient way to earn and get started because you could easily use that time to be productive with other things.

I didn't mean that literally, of course. I was under the assumption that Bitcoin ETFs would be the key to the market taking off. If this were the case, then it's ultimately meaningless from a utility standpoint because adoption would technically be unaffected and the vast majority of money in the market would be there for investment rather than utility (which is also the case right now sadly lmao).

...or that's just my stand on the matter anyway. Only time will tell. Sorry for the late response, been busy irl.

What exactly do you mean by this? I know that there has been conflict but what is this about escaping? And how will it trigger a collapse? I don't see it happening short of a second Cold War, which is probably the worst case scenario, and one that all sides will try to avoid.

I personally don't see why you think a speculative asset class would be less risky than actual good property (given that you can afford both), but if that's your opinion then okay lol.

Lmao would you look at that.

I am in no way saying that $25k isn't possible because it seems everything is in crypto, but it's always funny when "experts" go back on their predictions. Man I can't wait for McAfee! I mean, I know they only say what they say for money or exposure or both, but I still find it oddly satisfying.

Lmao. How do they even begin investigating Bitcoin itself? It doesn't set the prices, which is what you assume will be the reason to bring about an investigation. It's just code that people use in the most basic sense.

It doesn't matter what HYIP scammers use because they all collapse in the end. Not even Bitcoin can fund them enough.