There is a continuous leak, but it will not necessarily cause the currency to vanish or lead to a "limited supply volume" (if I am interpreting those words correctly).

Suppose 20 million of the 21 million bitcoins are lost forever. That still leaves 100,000,000,000,000 satoshis, each of which could be potentially be subdivided further into 2⁶⁴ "nakamotos", giving a total supply of about 2x10³³ nakamotos. We should be ok for a few more millennia with that.

Gemini has three markets:

1. The standard order book that all the other exchanges have. You can't trade $1M on this effectively because the liquidity is too low.
2. A "block trading" market, where the minimum to trade is 5 BTC. You place a limit order and market makers bid on your order. I think a reasonable limit for trading on this market is $1M.
3. A twice-daily auction, where 100 BTC might be traded.

Those sound like gambling tips. Gambling with BTC trades is ok as long as you realize that you are gambling and you are likely to lose in the long run.


There are certain reasons for using a stop-loss. They should not be used in normal trading. There are several reasons for avoiding the use of a stop-loss, but basically using a stop-loss is a buy-high-sell-low strategy, by definition.

There are many people that called the bubbles in 2000 and 2008 (even I saw and avoided both bubbles). Anyway, do all the people that called the 2000 and 2008 bubbles agree with this man? If not, then how do you know that he has the correct prediction?

Here is a guide showing how to dump the dust if you use Electrum: https://gist.github.com/ncstdc/90fe6209a0b3ae815a6eaa2aef53524c

The transaction sends the 547 sats to a miner. The benefit of the OP_RETURN is that it doesn't create a UTXO that will never be spent. It works with hardware wallets, too.

If you know it is the last word that is missing, then there are 128 possible choices for the last word (assuming bip 39). If the missing word could be any of them, then there are approximately 1536 possible mnemonics (12 x 128). Either way, there aren't many possibilities.

In the U.S., you pay taxes if you exchange it for anything else, whether dollars or another type of coin, and you don't pay taxes if you just move the coins.

It sounds like it is base-64 encoded. I have no idea what the contents might be. There are plenty of ways to decode base-64, though you should be careful because it is potentially a seed or a private key. Even after decoding, it might not be obvious what the contents are.


Good guess. If that is the case, then it is encrypted and you need the passphrase.

Check "Wallet Details" at bitaddress.org.

However, in general, you should never trust any site that accepts a private key in any form.
Also, you should never disclose a private key like you have here. It is easy for anyone to steal any funds that are at its address, now or any time in the future.

Here is what that page shows:


The private key also has these addresses. I found them by importing the compressed private key into Bitcoin Core:
bc1qz8qw3se7c8rr7vs6sgnp29xv2vsutamxyd839p
34rLuX6QStr8qJCbmWouBuVQGDrFT4h453

I believe that a UTXO was called a "coin" in the original nomenclature, but that is very rare now. So, now a bitcoin is just an amount, just like a dollar (excluding paper money and coins).

There is no benefit.

I'm not a tax expert but my guess is that when you file your taxes, you report when you bought them and for how much, and how much you sold them for. You pay taxes on the difference. I don't believe Russian law is relevant.

My guess is that you somehow triggered some AML flag, and they must do some investigating or reporting or get some sort of approval before they can send your money, and they are not allowed to tell you this.

Sorry for all the trouble you are having, but this is yet another example of "Not your keys, not your coins."

I wish the people that write these articles would state up front that an address is not a person. A single address can hold bitcoins for many people and a person's bitcoins can (and usually are) spread among many addresses.

Of course, they never write that because these kinds of articles are really just clickbait.


A whale used to be someone that could move the market. Now, it is someone that you envy.

The difference is the OP_RETURN prevents the transaction from being kept in the UTXO set forever. Though I guess if you can get the output amount to exactly 0, it might have the same effect.

Here is a guide showing how to dump the dust if you use Electrum: https://gist.github.com/ncstdc/90fe6209a0b3ae815a6eaa2aef53524c

Here is a guide showing how to dump the 547 satoshis if you use Electrum: https://gist.github.com/ncstdc/90fe6209a0b3ae815a6eaa2aef53524c

Price only matters as long as there is a subsidy. I assume that when we talk about long-term, we are talking about post-subsidy.

What do you mean by "sustainable"? How do you determine what is sustainable, and how do you know that fees won't provide it?


Why would there be a split? I don't think there is enough information to justify either side at this point, and it might become clear which way is better as more information is gained. For now, your prediction is based on nothing.

I think that there are two major questions left to answer:

1. What is the optimal maximum block size?
2. Will fees alone be enough to secure Bitcoin?

I don't think that anyone knows the answers to those questions yet.

Regarding the optimal block size, I think that there needs to be a way to incentivize miners to reach an equilibrium. Technocrats dictating a policy is the absolute worst way to approach it. An unlimited block size might be the answer, but I suspect that it would not as it would turn into tragedy-of-the-commons problem.

Regarding security through fees alone, there is no way to know if fees are enough without knowing what amount of fees are necessary to secure the block chain, how much people will be willing to pay, and how big the blocks will be.