From everything that could be read, not only will payments be possible in BTC and some shitcoin, but the victims could also opt for the payment option in fiat. In addition, it should be noted that not everyone will be paid at once, and considering the Japanese efficiency in this case, I would not be surprised if the whole thing takes years.

I think I could coin a saying that would read "God forbid that your CEX gets hacked, and even less if that CEX is in Japan".

Will BR ask you or me or anyone other than the SEC whether or not such an ETF can be launched? Of course, we don't have a say in all of this, and the fact is that Bitcoin is decentralized and everyone has the right to use it the way they want - even those who, for some reason, send it to burn addresses.

On the other hand, we are now in 2023, and Bitcoin has existed since the beginning of 2009, which was quite enough for anyone who wanted to take their share in it in one way or another, and they can still do so. However, considering how the majority perceives BTC, we can hardly hope that they will resist not selling it when some six-digit prices turn up, but there will always be those who will prefer to keep it or use it as a currency.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think the spot ETF we're talking about will result in some kind of massive outflow of BTC into custodial storage, and BR has chosen Coinbase for that anyway, which means that they will buy BTC for them on their exchange and send it to another coin address - which ultimately means that BTC will remain where it is now.

If there is a global economic collapse, do you think the price of BTC will remain intact, given that there have been talks about integrating it into the existing financial system for years? And that's exactly what happened, and the price of BTC reacts to every event that has global significance, such as the declaration of a pandemic, which dropped the price of BTC by 50% in less than 24 hours.

Holding is only part of the story, what happens when everyone who keeps their value like that starts selling to cover basic living expenses, and at the same time there is little or no demand at all?

The key is diversification and understanding the risks that we need to protect ourselves from in case everything goes to hell, and I personally am not so much afraid of an economic collapse as of a possible nuclear war, considering that a lot of crazy people possess enough nuclear weapons to destroy this planet and more than a hundred times.

In the long term, everything on this list except Bitcoin are classic shitcoins, regardless of whether they are cryptocurrencies, tokens or stablecoins. Apart from that, of the $3.4 billion that is being talked about, there is only slightly more than $500 million worth of BTC, so I don't see why some 1900 BTC that will be sold would signal a crash?

A company that dealt with shitcoins, headed by a little bastard who screwed up everything he could, will try to get away with selling shitcoins for a couple of billions - and the biggest fools are those who will buy those same shitcoins - I guess the same ones who have also lost money in that CEX.

I also wondered that until I once had to replace my old SIM and I went to the physical office of my operator who only asked for my existing mobile number and nothing more - in one minute I had a new SIM card. I never thought of using a mobile number for 2FA before (and especially after that), and as for how Mr. Vitalik managed to lose his account is something that speaks volumes about how intelligent he is.

A man who has been trying to dethrone Bitcoin for 10 years and who suddenly concluded that POS is better than POW is not even capable of protecting an ordinary account on a social network.

It's more than obvious that you didn't even try to get to any article, since I posted another link just fews post above to the article that is originally posted by @Don Pedro Dinero here -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5466479.msg62831747#msg62831747

What you are doing is called shitposting and signature spam

CAR rejected BTC as a legal tender a long time ago, and I don't understand why people keep repeating it as if something will change if we still believe that Bitcoin could have succeeded in a country where 90% of people do not have access to the internet. Even if you go to El Salvador, you cannot count on being able to pay with BTC anywhere, the law is one thing, but the reality is something completely different.


I assume you mean Slovenia, which is often mentioned (although I don't see any particular reason), because Portugal or Germany are also very friendly countries when it comes to Bitcoin, especially taxes. As for Honduras, it is not true that Bitcoin is legal tender there, but it is a tourist project of the Santa Lucia enclave called Bitcoin Valley. A similar thing exists on the Philippine island of Boracay, and BTC is not legal tender there either.

Your idea that Bitcoin can only prosper if it is legal tender is completely wrong, because forcing someone to use something they don't want is counterproductive in most cases.

Isn't it the same today, considering that we have millions of BTC that are under the control of CEX and various online wallets? What is changing is that the number of BTC that will now be in custody storage will increase even more, which means that the biggest risk will be in saving them from hacking.

Apart from that, I read something interesting in WO today ->



In other words, they are only interested in profit and don't care how they will achieve it. This is no surprise, we know that BlackRock or Fidelity are not doing anything for the benefit of Bitcoin, but to collect as much money as possible.

However, what worries me more is that BR has increasing shares in various BTC mining companies, which, along with their official position regarding a possible BTC fork, does not look very promising for the future.

When you read only the first post and the title, you can write nonsense without even realizing it - because how many times does it have to be repeated that it was not he who threw the HDD in the trash, but his partner at the time. Commenting without knowing some basic facts is sometimes more stupid than what happened to that poor guy.

---

In addition, no one mentioned that James claims that his HDD also contains an IP address from Satoshi and that he was one of the first six people mining at the time. And now we have to believe that Satoshi was so reckless as to reveal his real IP address - to me, that information seemed just like an attempt for James to attract even more attention and maybe charge for a few more interviews.

I see only one possible solution, and that is that the backup simply has to be stored in different locations that are far enough from each other that they cannot be affected by the same natural disaster. However, it is not something that most people can afford because they simply do not have a location they trust, and therefore they have to be innovative and improvise.

In any case, being your own bank is a big risk and challenge, and there is no universal solution that could be called perfect. After all, in the situations mentioned by the OP, the primary thing is to save the life of yourself and your family, but also of other people - because what is the best backup worth if you lose your life or the life of someone who is of inestimable value to you?

I didn't say it won't happen, but only that it won't happen in the near future, although you should read the article that actually explains why Saylor thinks the way he does.

Of course, it should be taken into account that he is deeply involved in Bitcoin and that his words should be seen in that context, as many others have already commented on this topic. Therefore, I don't think that he is really talking about some distant future, but about something that will happen during his lifetime. However, the fact is that from 2009 to today Bitcoin has been accepted by less than 5% of the total population, the question is how long it will take to reach 10% or maybe 15%?

Why do you think that the games between the US and Russia will ever stop? I think that these "games" will only intensify, considering that the world is increasingly polarized between those who side with the US and those who side with Russia. However, this does not mean that the price of BTC will not continue to rise, because the demand is constant and will probably increase, and the max supply of 21 million BTC is still something that sets BTC apart from anything else.

If we know that the current circulating supply is close to 19.5 million BTC, and that in less than 10 years 99% of all BTC will be mined, I would conclude that we are in for very exciting times.

Good question, although I doubt you'll get an answer from the OP. Someone who has already spent a lot of time on the forum should know the answers to some questions, how to use the search engine or how not to be a thread spammer.

I'm not saying that what you wrote doesn't make sense, although I was convinced that you somehow want to create pressure on the authorities by showing them specific victims who have evidence that something bad happened to them because they used that service. The weight of their statements with evidence is far greater than the opinion of some people who, considering everything that has happened in the past years when it comes to that service, suspect that this company is doing something that is against the law.

Regardless of the directions in which you go, we all still hope that you will succeed in encouraging the authorities to act on this issue.

If you are referring to altcoins (and I assume that this is the case), is there any project that makes sense and that in some way brings some positive change? All I see are false promises, with the difference that they try again and again to pack it in the most luxurious and shiny packaging in order to sell their project as well as possible.

What I want to say is that the people you are talking about have their price and will promote anything if they are paid well, but that speaks volumes about them and how much they care about all those who will lose their money because of them.

Be smart, buy what they don't advertise, and we all know what that is, right?

It seems to me that it belongs somewhere else, maybe in the trash? Does anyone really think the OP wrote that post or is it plagiarism, paraphrasing or AI?

To me, this is Powell's best statement with a little help from the ubiquitous AI of course

I agree, the two can't be compared for anything, whether it's about things related to Bitcoin or the way they treat life in general. After watching the documentary about John McAfee, I got a much broader picture of him, so even though I'm not a psychologist to draw conclusions about someone's mental health, I would dare to say that a lot of things were not right in his head.

On the other hand, Saylor is a successful businessman with no scandals (as far as I know), and the only bad label that can be attached to him is his tweet about how he thinks Bitcoin will fail, as well as online gambling, but that was before some 10 years.

As for the speculation about $5 million, that's news from 2021 and I don't know why someone decided to bring it back into the public's focus - but even though I don't think it's impossible, I would still put that price in the context of the time it would take to make something like that happen.

If I'm not mistaken, we are talking about a market cap in the amount of even $100 trillion, and for the sake of comparison, that would be as much as 10 companies the size of BlackRock. This is simply too much money to be realized in the near future and could only be realized if central banks start buying Bitcoin the same way they buy gold today.

When you see the source of the news, then you are not at all surprised that someone is even discussing it as something that should be questioned at all. Although we who do understand some things a little better understand why that 21 million is so important, we should also keep in mind that there are those who would very much like to see that number change to more for various reasons.

Some would want it because then the price would drop drastically and then they could probably buy one whole BTC and then they would wonder why the price would never go up again - some others want it just so that one of their crypto kings would ascend to the throne and to profit.

In fact, there are many so-called Bitcoins (forks) that have a much higher max supply, but there is no need to say how successful they were with these changes.

Maybe you went in the wrong direction from the beginning, which is that you went directly towards the children, and you bypassed their parents, who still take care of these children and behave protectively. If you take into account all the scandals that have passed through the media and in which Bitcoin is mentioned in the past few years, then maybe you can understand why parents react in such a way.

Of course, it is not Bitcoin's fault that someone is not capable of running his company or has dishonest intentions from the very beginning of a project, but the media you mentioned write what people want to read, and bad news sells far better than good news.

Politics and banks are only (still) fairly static observers who do not need to make any big moves, because the average person is already instrumentalized to such an extent that he does not easily (or at all) accept anything that deviates from established norms of socially responsible behavior.