Without adoption there won't be any effects on global economy. And legalization won't necessarily increase adoption significantly. Because crypto would still be volatile, have scalability problems, altcoins are full of bugs, and so on.

And you should never forget that crypto is just a form of money. Money alone can not create prosperity. It can't turn a broken economy into a booming one.

What advantages? The dominant use case of crypto is speculation and investment scams. Name any crypto project, aside from Bitcoin, that is actually used in real world by real people. Because crypto people are always talking about the future and never about the present, and it gets old fast. The blockchain hype started 5 years ago, how many promises were delivered since then? Zero. All the projects from those times that promised to revolutionize everything are now dead.

First, you need to know from which address you will receive the coins. In many cases it's impossible, because your counterparty will refuse to tell you. Second, there's no objective taint. It's about to whom you will send your coins. Some services might not care about history of your coins at all. Others might hire chainanalysis companies or perform their own analysis. Some services don't want to receive coins linked to gambling. And so on. There's lots of possibilities.

"centralized" - "decentralized" is not a good way to describe a wallet. Technically running your wallet is centralized, because only you have access to it. Your confusion came from the fact that you thought about exchanges as wallets, a place were people store Bitcoin. When you are analyzing them, think about these functions separately. Exchanges can be centralized or decentralized. Centralized exchanges can be used as custodial wallets, though they really shouldn't be.

Dead tokens never make a comeback. Scammers keep creating more of new tokens to get interest of the potential investors, because it's impossible to keep hyping up an old token when people can look at its history and see that it's a failure.

Let this be a lesson that the only safe coin is Bitcoin - it's not going to disappear, it's not going to get replaced by a new coin, and if it will crash to the ground, the whole crypto market will follow, so there's no point in taking extra risks with other coins.

Can these speculative bubbles go on forever? Or will they become smaller and smaller as market participants try to dump Bitcoin and take profits before it crashes? I think the recent bull market already showed that the market participants know that Bitcoin is not going to the moon with a plan to stay there, so it's more like a gambling game where people try to guess how high it will go before it crashes.

Well, the whole point of privacy is that such data is hard or impossible to obtain. Adresses that hold a lot of coins could belong to organizations and not a single owner. Individual whales could have dozens of addresses with moderate amounts of coins, instead of putting all eggs in one basket. There are attempts to count the Bitcoin whales, but I seriously question their accuracy.

So, this is a question that no one can give a good answer.

It's hard to talk if CBDC is good or bad for the economy if they don't even exist. And there's actually not that much interest in them as you might think. It's just that officials from some countries are saying a few words about them a few times per year. But there's no indication that countries are making serious effort to create such systems.

In general, I see no mechanism for CBDC having any significant effects on the economy. It's just a payment methods. It doesn't allow you to fund projects in some new ways, or combat inflation or boost consumption. So ho can it be good or bad for the economy?

Yes you can. That's the nature of software. The risk of introducing bugs is well worth the benefits of updates, if the changes are thoroughly tested, which they are. The argument that changes to the code would normalize removing the supply cap is also wrong. Community can decide to do that even if the development would be frozen for years. Bitcoin is governed by its users. If there's a disagreement over the fundamental things, then there will be a split. We've already seen BCH do that, so we have a good idea how such splits play out.

Why should anyone care about what Peter Schiff will or will not do? Or about what he says? Stop looking up to some authority figures, stop seeking approval from celebrities, use your own brain and deduction. It's especially true with Bitcoin, as it was created to give more freedom to the people, and becoming voluntarily dependent on opinions of one single person is against the ideals of Bitcoin.

If any entity tried to corner the Bitcoin market, it would just increase the price of coins and prevent them from buying the rest of supply. Even if we imagine that someone managed to buy all coins, Bitcoiners could just agree to print more BTC or start a new blockchain with the same code. This is one of the most expensive and unrealistic attacks on Bitcoin that can be imagined. It's better to just spin millions of fake nodes and disrupt the communication between nodes, launch an information campaign against Bitcoin, cut it off from traditional finance and so on. But why would a government do it? Bitcoin is not a threat to fiat.

Bitcoin didn't actually face any serious media wars. There was never any coordinated attack on it from large media. Bitcoiners just have a persecution complex, so whenever some random news website says that Bitcoin is dead, they say that the whole media attacks Bitcoin.

And which corporations have attacked Bitcoin? Because I'm now aware of any long-term effort to do so by any large corporation.

Even governments aren't seriously attacking Bitcoin. China simply banned it, but they didn't order their propaganda machine to constantly bash Bitcoin. EU and US also don't care much about Bitcoin, there are some regulations and occasionally some officials make some statements that enrage Bitcoiners, but that's it.

If the powerful organizations actually decided to fight Bitcoin, things would turn pretty bad for it. If centralized exchanges got shut down, if banks would go after p2p transactions, if merchants were banned from accepting Bitcoin, the price would crash badly and would take decades to recover, if ever.

This kinda of uncertainty about Bitcoin's future is one of the factors why its so volatile and why not everyone rush to adopt it.

You are putting it as if these are the only two types of occupations in the world, and there's no other ways to make money. What about doctors, police officers, military servicemen, freelancers. engineers and countless other professions?

Everyone should figure out what works for them. And it's not only about earning money, it's also about being sustainable. It's better to earn less while doing something that you like, rather than earning a lot but doing something that you hate.

I doubt that one single event can bring us back to the ATH levels. For that to happen it must be a wave of events, similar to the institutional adoption hype of the latest bull market, or the blockchain hype of the 2017 market. One company getting into Bitcoin, no matter how large it is, won't push the price that high.

The idea that Bitcoin mining would make renewable energy more attractive is not new, it started floating around the same time when it became clear that Bitcoin's energy use is rapidly increasing and already became noticeable on a global scale. So it's already time to show the real world examples of how Bitcoin helps renewables. Where are they?

Storing gold is not a problem at all, it's not too difficult or too expensive. Just because Bitcoin has some sort of advantage here, doesn't mean that Bitcoin will get adopted. It's just one of the factors, and a very minor one.

And I'd say Bitcoin is actually less safe than gold. Have you ever heard about a gold vault heist in real life? That stuff only happens in movies and games like GTA. But Bitcoin hacks happen often. One rogue or corrupt employee could rob the whole country of their reserves if the Bitcoin storage is poorly implemented. And once its gone, its gone for good, recovery of stolen coins is a very rare occurrence. While moving tons of gold leaves lots of traces and is just impossible for one person or small team.

Why would any government want to back a currency with Bitcoin? Bitcoin is highly volatile, while creating their own fiat currency would allow them to continue doing what all central banks are doing - stabilizing the currency against market volatility.

I think  crypto community shouldn't pay as much attention to CBDC as they do right now. CBDC is not cryptocurrency. It's not affecting existing cryptocurrencies. It's not a competitor to cryptocurrencies. It's just a government-owned payment network.

Not everyone comes to this forum to sell some kind of service. And if you don't count people who participate in signature campaigns, then such people are a minority. So worrying about presentation and image is not necessary for everybody. And not everybody has the creativity to choose an original and remarkable forum name.

The only thing that newbies should do is avoid choosing a name that would seriously harm them. For example, choosing a name that it very close to a name of another forum user - might create an impression that you are impersonating someone. Using an offensive name is also a very poor idea.

Don't use projects that can be hacked. Don't put your money in DeFi. Don't buy algorithmic stablecoins. Don't invest in NFT, ICO and other tokens. Trust only Bitcoin, because it was tested and reviewed by hundreds of the best professionals in the field, while all the new blockchain projects were tested by no one.

Volatility is not creating profit for investors. If Bitcoin is $20,000 today, $40,000 tomorrow, then on the next day again $20,000 - that's a zero sum change, and some investors became poorer while others became richer. A profit for investors is created if Bitcoin consistently increases on a certain long-term scale. Like a year-to-year or 3 years to 3 years. So far that's the case. But why should it be the case forever? Some would say that fixed supply guarantees it, but value is a combination of supply and demand. If demand will be stagnating, then the price will stagnate too.