I don't expect a massive dump. I even think massive dump is an exaggeration. It will have an effect if sold at once, of course, but Coinbase handled $1.2 billion in BTC/USD alone for the past 24 hours. So, $131 million is not even a tenth of Coinbase's BTC/USD pair.

Also, Coinbase has Coinbase Prime, their OTC exchange where institutions are making deals probably in hundreds of millions, if not billions. This amount coming from the US government might end up there. In which case, it won't be shaking the market much.

I am highly in favor of regulating centralized exchanges. They have to be regulated. For me, the contentious issue isn't whether they need to be regulated or not; it's rather the specific regulatory policies that would be implemented.

Taxes, for example, could only follow regulations. That itself is enough reason for these companies to be subjected to regulations. Also, they're custodians. It is, therefore, their responsibility to look after and secure the funds of their clients. That is a big commitment. It's just right that the government makes sure these businesses are taking such responsibility seriously. There has to be a way to make sure that the owners or CEOs of exchanges aren't gambling their clients' money away, or used them to buy personal properties and live a lavish life, or risk them somewhere else.

Everything's possible, but in a professional match, fighters are not just focused on their immediate monetary prize. Winning a fight means a lot. It means having a better record. It means you're rising through the ranks. It means you're one step closer to a championship fight, or becoming a star or a celebrity. It means you could fight the biggest name in the sport. This goes on. And all this implies bigger money, higher paycheck. Not to mention that this is also about your name, your pride, your legacy. So, why would you sacrifice all this for the sake of a single bet?

But, yeah, this might not apply to exhibition matches and those that are more of a joke like Jake Paul's fights.

In general, I'd say, yes. Sound money should be that which provides freedom to its users. It won't be sound money if the bearer cannot make use of it without somebody else's approval. It won't be sound money if it doesn't fulfill its very function without the approval of somebody in power.

However, in all fairness, from the viewpoint of a law enforcer, for example, it might be efficient to have a currency that can be monitored. This would at least make their job easier in terms of stopping illegal activities. This is problematic, though. Not only does it encroach people's privacy, it is also prone to abuses.

I admit that it's hard to hit a balance regarding money.

I'm not sure what's particularly new in this news. I've been reading news about the Switzerland city of Lugano being friendly with Bitcoin. Is Cointelegraph just recycling news or there's a new development about Lugano's Bitcoin adoption?

If we talk of Bitcoin being accepted by businesses there, this has been going on for a while already. If we talk of taxes and other government invoices in the city, I think Bitcoin has already been accepted by the city as payment as well even before 2024.

You might want to classify your tasks from beginner to intermediate to advanced or something like that to make sure the learner will have a smooth transition and overall experience. Running a full node, for example, can't be given to somebody who has just learned to use a Lightning wallet.

Anyway, beginner tasks could include create a wallet, create a backup, restore a wallet, make a transaction, sign and verify a message, and so on. Intermediate tasks may include creating a multi-sig wallet, replace an unconfirmed transaction with a higher fee, extracting private keys from seed phrase, and the like. Advanced tasks include running a full node and perhaps some others that involve mining like adding transactions to a block.

It's expected that Binance is going to be stricter now more than ever. Now that they've been slapped with huge fines and even had its founder and former CEO held in the US for his sentencing, they must already be walking on eggshells right now.

I hope they would allow you to at least make a withdrawal though. If that transaction would cost you your account, at least you can have your money back first.

It's unfortunate, but it seems that at this point in time, funds coming from mixers shouldn't anymore cross paths with centralized exchanges. They'll most likely be frozen.

Why do you have to resort to misleading claims in your promotions? Isn't it better to be transparent and straightforward?

No verification, but there is collection and even sharing of personal data? And how is it an advantage to have a minimum order amount of $1,000 locally and $3,000 worldwide? Also, your site claims that you've been operating since 2017 and you here is saying that you've been working since 2018. You might want to be more consistent about your details as it reflects your way of doing business.

You cannot even make it an advice for people to stop treating gambling as their only source of income because gambling cannot be a source of income, in the first place. Gambling can only become a source of income if you own or if you're operating a casino. But if you're only a gambler, forget it. You're the source of income of the casino. It's impossible to be the other way around.

I agree that it's quite dangerous to only have gambling as your only source of entertainment. Not only is it costly, it's also addictive and could even put your life and the lives of your loved ones at risk.

It's hard to answer your question. Certainly, however, it isn't just the approach or method by which countries build their economies that's the only thing that matters. The neo-liberal approach, for example, isn't a silver bullet. It may apply and be effective under certain circumstances but may not be so under different circumstances.

I think there is no single formula that addresses and solves economic problems all over the world. You simply cannot assume that since one approach works in one country, it must also work in another. For example, a government that stops implementing price controls may be effective in one case but ineffective in another.

Not a reason to be complacent. Surely, there are times when you go out from your community. Also, there are people from other places who visit your community. Some move there for good. Some just pass by. Further, how can you tell that you're the only one who's involved in crypto in your community? And even if that's right, it's just a matter of time before somebody in your community learns about it. It's not as if your community is inside a cave and nobody knows about social media.

And it's not about how good you hide your wallet or backup or how they would steal it from you. A robber doesn't have to solve a puzzle. He/she only needs his/her Bitcoin address and a kitchen knife to force you to send all your money to him/her. It's not about a perfect hiding place. It's either you take that out wherever you're hiding it or the knife will pierce through your gut.

In all fairness, there are reasons for KuCoin to be indicted. There were indeed legal lapses committed by KuCoin. They will have to face that. Whether this is harassment, whether this is simply an anti-crypto move, the point is that KuCoin knowingly and, therefore, willingly committed errors along the way.

I believe government agencies are selective in filing cases. They're not doing their jobs with integrity. Hell, they could even be used by rich and powerful companies like BlackRock to weed out competition. But what can we do? KuCoin failed to register with FinCEN. It failed to register with CFTC. It failed to comply with AML policies. This goes on. They will have to answer for all these failures.

Or how about we don't just believe right away whatever is written, shared, and posted on social media? How about we try to verify first whether it's indeed true or not?

After all, the poster didn't even provide further explanation or details as to what really happened. The poster didn't even say that his/her wallet is drained after connecting it to a website.

Who knows, those who commented that the poster is merely "engagement farming" or that it's a "troll" account or it's simply "clickbait" could be right?

I'm not familiar with how the Indian government works, but does getting an approval from the FIU automatically mean they're already allowed to operate? FIU is particularly focused on intelligence gathering or collection of financial data in relation to money laundering. So, does passing FIU mean having the green light? Or is it just a single step toward being allowed to do business in India? How about the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), for example, does it not have a say as to the approval?

Anyway, while this is indeed good news for Indian citizens, this is better news for KuCoin. The Indian market, after all, is a juicy prospect for business.

You've got a lot of questions which could be thoroughly discussed separately.

Anyway, in general, the good thing about Bitcoin is that we can finally have a money that is entirely independent from the state. It is global and decentralized so any disruption or intervention from the state is impossible. This makes Bitcoin a better money than fiat. Fiat is subject to whimsical policies of central banks and governments. Fiat is susceptible to abuses, incompetence, and unreasonable management. Bitcoin is insulated from all this.

Bitcoin's finite supply will remove the inflationary nature of money. Savings would be encouraged. But this doesn't necessarily mean economic activities would be greatly reduced. It could mean spending is more focused, commercial ventures more studied, capital becomes more valuable, and so on.

As far as wealth distribution is concerned, Bitcoin makes it fairer in a way because the power over money is already taken away from the state. If money printing and distribution are under the state's power, whoever that is close to the powers that be will have easier access and will get more.

There's no way to confirm whether this story is true or not. What's probably more important, however, is that it has a great ending. All's well that ends well. And because it has a beautiful end, I hope the story is true.

The point is that hodling is rewarding. DCA is rewarding. The price of Bitcoin will rise. Sometimes quickly; sometimes it takes time. The most important thing is to be aware that it will eventually rise and so one should have patience to wait for the better days. It will arrive.

I've done this a lot of times and in so many games. I've done this in online gambling and in real-life gambling. I admit this is, of course, a wrong strategy. This is a rough way of doing gambling, but sometimes my patience also runs out and I'd rather risk the rest of my money to either recover everything once and for all or finish the gambling session.

I've done this in dice, poker, blackjack, and even sports betting. But I cannot anymore tell whether this is effective or not as far as my record is concerned. I've done this for so long already. What I can tell is that there were times I was saved and there were times I lost everything.

I love how you put your question. You made me feel like I'm a student called by my professor for a graded recitation.

Anyway, gold and Bitcoin have their pros and cons. The disadvantage of one may be addressed with the other. I guess this is where they intersect. For example, storing gold is difficult. Storing Bitcoin, on the other hand, is relatively easy. Or moving gold from one place to another, especially in bulk and across borders, involves so much risk. That isn't the case with Bitcoin.

On the other hand, gold has already established its value for millennia. And it's not just aesthetic value or even monetary value. Gold has practical values as well. It's used in various technologies.

I guess the bottom line is that both deserve a space in the menu of wealth preservation. It's gonna be up to your preference which you choose. But you can always have both.

First, if you intend to hodl or keep it "for a very long time", then you aren't involved in Bitcoin trading. You are a hodler.

Second, forget about altcoins as they're not designed to be kept "for a very long time."

Third, hodling means not minding Bitcoin's short-term rise and fall. So, if you want to become a hodler, try not to react to hourly, daily, weekly, even monthly price fluctuations. A hodler doesn't mind much the bumpy road because he/she is in for the long ride. In the end, Bitcoin will rise.

It seems you're asking the same question over and over again. You've opened a similar thread more than a month ago. You didn't even care to respond to the replies. A month prior to that, you also opened a more or less similar thread.

Have you not found a satisfying answer to this question yet? If so, you could have just bumped your existing thread rather than open a new discussion of an already-discussed topic.

Anyway, after all the answers given, I guess the only way for you to find out is to try it yourself.