the problem is, it's not preserved in the sense that people lose access to bitcoin meaning there no longer 21M of them but less. i think if they could recycle lost bitcoins back into the system via increasing the coinbase rewards to miners then maybe that would help miners to not need to worry about decreasing income over time and thus needing things like ordinals to make up the difference. but even if not, it just makes sense that if 21M is really 21M then coins shouldn't be lost forever. because then it's less. 

just because something has proof of work done on it doesn't make it useful. maybe its a necessary condition but surely not sufficient otherwise all the bitcoin forks would be useful which clearly no one wants to use most of them if any at all.
 

Last year, the price must have reached around $45,000 at the time of the conference, but I doubt that will happen this year. With less than a month until the conference in Miami, I don't see a 50% price increase from the current price now. If the conference has such a large impact on the price of BTC, we may see an increase before the conference, but certainly not to 45K in such a short period.

I understand your point, but I meant something different. I can also afford to buy expensive clothes or could have bought my motorcycle with my debit card, but instead, I prefer to use my credit card, firstly because of the cashback and, secondly, because I'm basically postponing the payment of the item or service I'm purchasing for a month. I know the latter sounds a little stupid, but it's purely psychological and makes no difference. We also don't have the credit rating that the USA has.

The issue starts if you're overpurchasing things you don't actually need and start piling debt on your cards. An easy way to fall for this is with interest-free installments.

How do you propose law enforcement take down JoinMarket, which is software which is run on thousands and thousands of individual computers around the world, via Tor, and has no central coordinator? How do you propose they take down Bisq, which has the same set up?

The truly decentralized services are resistant to censorship in exactly the same way bitcoin itself is. A government could shutdown a centralized exchange or Wasabi's centralized coordinator, but they can't shutdown every Bisq trader or every JoinMarket user, just as they can't shutdown every bitcoin node.

---

On another note, and I am deliberately not going to link to any of the tweets, but in the last 48 hours there has been a bunch of Twitter drama due to Wasabi publicly doxxing their competitors.

Says it all really. The landing page of wasabiwallet.io says in big font right at the start "Privacy is your ability to selectively reveal yourself to the world". And then the Wasabi devs completely ignore that statement and start doxxing people who disagree with them. Imagine trying to pass yourself off as pro-privacy as you fund blockchain analysis and dox people you don't like? Absolutely despicable behavior, and should show everyone just where the priorities of Wasabi lie. They don't care in the slightest about your privacy.

Can't wait for our resident shill to come and tell us how doxxing people you don't like is actually fine.

As I have said many times when the topic of tainted bitcoin comes up: The correct response to some centralized service stating that your coins are tainted and they won't accept them is not to modify your behavior and sacrifice your privacy to acquiesce to the arbitrary demands of said service. Rather, it is to find a better service which does not enforce such absolute arbitrary nonsense. This applies equally to centralized exchanges as it does to Wasabi, both of which support mass surveillance, fund blockchain analysis, and arbitrarily refuse certain UTXOs based on secret criteria.

what's the real difference though? whatever you pay out the tail reward on, someone has to be willing to step up to the plate and buy those worthless piece of crap tokens...

why don't we push your solution to the extreme and say that someone invents a way to pay out the tail reward in ethereum. but they still need someone to put up the actual money...and that's the problem. why would people want to do that?

but there has to be a reason people would use a gimmick. no one wants their nft stored on some sidechain. that's why people use ordinals so it can be on the main chain. i think there's more than 1 million ordinals now or coming very soon.  

honestly it wouldn't suprise me if they raised that cap at some point or introduced some tail reward. look at society how they can never get things right and have to always invent new laws and regulations even though society has existed for over 100 years...some of them are in response to the way the world has changed, some not.

It depends on what you want to to with those mixed coins in the future. If you never intend to deposit them into a centralized service that might set its own rules on what is clean and dirty or suspicious and not suspicious, don't do it because of the potential of your coins getting confiscated or you having to explain things to them. If you don't even go near CEXs and services that are pro censoring, do it.    

The whole point is that the imaginary green checkmark that blockchain analysis companies give you means absolutely nothing. It's made up nonsense that site A might respect, while sites B to F have completely other standards, and so on.

I didn't say that taint existed. On the other hand, blockchain analysis companies and centralized exchanges believe it exists. Better yet, they want the users to believe it exists, as an excuse to gather more information on them that they can then sell and share with their partners in government agencies and elsewhere.  



I don't think that's good enough. I don't want to have that problem even once. Especially if everything worked flawlessly until it suddenly didn't, and my coins got taken by someone who gave themselves the right to do so based on the "proof" they received by a surveillance agency whose standards and methods are unknown. The solution is to abandon centralized exchanges, but not that many people will want to hear that message.  

Not necessarily. I've been using a credit card since I was 20, in university, with a small credit limit though. I always paid the monthly bill on time and frequently used it for petrol, groceries, or even other purchases because I was receiving a small cashback each time. Now I have a proper credit card with a large limit that I used to buy my motorcycle in interest-free installments, on which I also received cashback. I'm using it almost everywhere to take advantage of it; it's not too much, but it's still better than nothing.

The trick with credit cards is to pay them always on time and to not fall into the trap of installment payments, buying things you don't need or can't afford and going into debt for several years in order to repay them.

i am studying in college, i was really excited to get my first credit card . i thought it will give me a sense of independence and allow me to buy things i could not afford with cash.

though, i quickly learned that credit cards can be a double edged sword. while they can be helpful in building credit, they can also lead to debt and financial trouble if not used responsibly.

at first, i used my credit card reasonably, only for like emergencies or small purchases that i knew i could pay off in full each month. but as time went on, i began using it more and more for larger purchases and impulse buys, without really thinking about how i would pay the balance off.

before i knew it, my credit card balance had  blown up to several thousand dollars, and i was struggling to make the minimum payments each month. the interest charges alone were eating up a significant portion of my income, and i felt like i was going under debt.

Just to add to what o_e_l_e_o said. Even if you "pass" all their imaginary taint security checks, there is no guarantee that other services and exchanges will consider your bitcoin "equally clean" according to whatever imaginary standards they have.

The following two scenarios can still happen.

A) You want to participate in a Wasabi coinjoin. Chainanalysis gives the green light and considers your coins as clean. You finish the process. After some time you move those coins to a CEX to exchange them for an altcoin or fiat, and there are no problems.

B) You want to participate in a Wasabi coinjoin. Chainanalysis gives the green light and considers your coins as clean. You finish the process. You deposit your "clean" BTC into a CEX, and the exchange freezes your account because you participated in a coinjoin with the Wasabi wallet. Yow now have to explain to them why you did that, the source of your funds, and whatever else they need.

It's a flawed concept where each party has its own standards and definitions of what is allowed and what isn't.   

I agree with you. Those who expect long-term profits from Bitcoin will be successful in Bitcoin investment. I have seen some investors Those who could not trust Bitcoin. They sold their bitcoins with loss due to a little bit of negative news and this incident could be October or November 2020.  But while Bitcoin was slowly trending upward, one of them was thinking that if Bitcoin came back into their buying range, they would immediately hold it. But unfortunately Bitcoin turned bullish since then and it rose to around $69000.
 
They had a good opportunities but they couldn't take it. It was their fault. The market is still in the deep and those who are smart must be holding bitcoins as much as they can.

do you really think that new gimmick would have a feasible chance at being adopted or having any affect whatsoever? drastic times call for drastic measures. a little side chain probably wouldn't be good enough.

that's the downside of my gimmick but i think one of the groups would end up being the minority chain and quickly forgotten about just like ethereum classic...

You could have the best of both worlds (altcoins/Bitcoin) if you design such a coin as a Bitcoin sidechain, i.e. with the ability to transfer Bitcoin's value on it and with a 2-way-peg with BTC, but with an own mining token.

Sidechains are seeing some development lately and aren't limited anymore to static federation-based chains, see Stacks. The problem of Stacks is that its token is premined, so it's conceptually centralized (not technically).

If we had a "decentralized Stacks" with community consensus, or even better several chains in this manner, we could not only use it for things like Ordinals, but also for smaller payments, which could increase adoption due to smaller fees.

This would mean the benefit for miners would be "doubled": first, they of course get the static block reward of the sidechain's "native" coin, and second, the value proposition of the whole chain ecosystem would be stronger, so it's likely that the mining reward for Bitcoin's main chain, even if it becomes very small, provides enough incentive for safety.

I'm sure some people and smaller entities are holding MSTR as a proxy for bitcoin, but I don't think it would be smart for a company as gigantic as Apple to do so. Unless they buy enough shares to have a good amount of control over MicroStrategy, it adds a lot of unnecessary risk and complications simply because MicroStrategy is still a company with products and not solely a bitcoin-holdings company.

Multiple trading may be represented like martingale and nothing wrong with that if you are experienced with such to be able to control it and monitor appropriately or use your stop loss intact. Multiple trading is for you to use your money management skills appropriately, lower your leverage, use stop loss and you must have sufficient fund to carry the waves of the market.

This is very much true. US dollar for decades has dominated the as global currency and most of trades including oil are settled in USD. Things are changing quite rapidly specially after Ukarine Russia war, as there are sanctions over Russia so there are few countries like China and India who are doing trade with Russia in currencies other then USD. Now India has signed an MoU with 18 counties, we need to wait to see implication of this deal.