The DYOR phrase is frankly just stupid. An average joe who has no expertise in the field can't do any meaningful research. At best you can interpret it as "read multiple sources", but the problem is, all of those sources can be garbage or being owned by the same entity. Crypto sphere is full of paid shills, so when you google "should I invest in coin X", you will likely find dozens of paid articles and social media posts. Bounty campaigns are actually doing exactly that in the open.

If you will try to make an objective analysis, you will realize that nearly all coins are just worthless, they don't offer anything useful and their claims are unrealistic. Yet despite of that, they can pump like crazy, because someone is manipulating them. And there's no way to tell which coin will get pumped and when.

For Microstrategy to rug us, they would need to convince us to buy more Bitcoin, and then they would sell. But even that is not "rug" in a classic meaning of this word, because Bitcoin is a legit asset and not a project created for pump and dump. I fail to see how Microstrategy is manipulating the market if they only buy and never sell. Unless you have a proof that they sell on some OTC platforms or in other shady ways.

This is a really primitive analysis. War = inflation = good for Bitcoin. We have already seen a lot of cases where Bitcoin price tumbled as a reaction to negative news, because Bitcoin is viewed as a risky asset, and not a true anti-inflation hedge. If anything, the 2021 bull market shows that it's important to have a non-stopping hype train of positive news to sustain the bull run. If there's no good news, the price growth is limited. There's a ton of different factor that ultimately set up a trend, you can't just say that Bitcoin's price is only determined by the inflation rate of US dollar.

Considering that only a tiny percentage of the population of the world owns Bitcoin, a tiny portion of these people use Bitcoin regularly, that marketcap of Bitcoin is smaller than marketcap of some publicly traded companies, that Bitcoin processes hundreds of thousands transactions per day, while mainstream payment services process many-many millions; I would say the world would be largely the same. Sure, some people's lives would be absolutely different, but the life of an average person would not be affected.

Your own chart says 2040-2140, not 2022-2122, so you can't say "the next 100 years".

Microstrategy is now a Bitcoin investing company, because of how deeply they became tied to Bitcoin. Performance of their stock strongly depends on performance of Bitcoin. This can be either a genius move or a major disaster, basically a huge gamble. Recently Saylor told that all companies in the world should put their money into Bitcoin. Which is insane, because the world shouldn't depend on the price of a tiny less than 1 trillion asset.

"Adoption" is a broad term, because there are many potential uses, and Bitcoin might not be used for them for separate reasons. Merchants don't adopt it because there not a lot of demand from their customers, because there's no clear legal framework, because fees can get high at certain times. 10 minute confirmation time can also be pretty annoying, so Lightning Network is needed, but it's not officially released yet. Private citizens or organizations don't adopt it as a store of value because it's very unpredictable in short term. Also it's a purely speculative asset, and many investors aren't comfortable with such assets. Black markets don't adopt Bitcoin because it's traceable.

Software is a tool. You can't expect volunteers to develop all the tools in the world for free. Especially not the highly specialized ones. There's a reason why all the pros in the world use Photoshop and not Gimp.

Proprietary software is not inherently evil. It will always exist, and likely will always be dominant in most spheres. Or at least for a very-very long time.

Vitalik made a blog post in support of Bitcoin maximalism. Of course it's a trolling that exaggerates Bitcoin maximalism and tries to portray it in a negative light.


The joke is on them, Europe refused their ultimatum and they still supply them with gas. Apparently Russia needs those euros as much as Europe needs that gas.

No one will ever find the real Satoshi with just looking at existing facts. The only way real Satoshi would be found if a new piece of strong evidence will be uncovered. There's a chance that maybe one of theories being thrown is correct, but we have zero reasons to think that a specific theory is correct. So, speculating about Satoshi's identity is a waste of time. It's also a bit immoral to disrespect the privacy of a person who clearly wants to remain private. If I knew Satoshi's real identity, I would have kept it secret.

If this will lead to halting they supply Russian gas, Europe will take a huge short-term economic hit from a sudden stop of many of their industries, but it will stimulate them to immediately solve their dependency. They will quickly build renewables and other sources of energy, as well as increase their alternative sources of gas. EU will withstand this crisis, it will not be pretty, but they are very rich so they can afford setbacks. Meanwhile Russian economy will just accelerate its freefall.

The US and Eastern Europe has been criticizing the growing dependence on Russian fossil fuels for a long time. But Western Europe wanted to reduce American influence, and they believed that they can contain Russian aggression by being friendly. They miscalculated heavily, because Putin viewed friendliness as softness and invitation for more aggression.

I wouldn't say that Russia was fully prepared for sanctions. A significant part of their 600 billion reserves got frozen, because it was held in the west. Russia heavily relies on imported components for manufacturing nearly anything, so their military-industrial complex got hit very hard with sanctions.

Also, the full effect of sanctions will become clear in 1-2 years. But some of the Russian top officials already admitted that they didn't expect sanctions to be this harsh.

It doesn't completely negate a good back up, it rises risks against certain threats while lowering risks against other threats. In your example the person would have a drastically higher chance of losing their coins to malware, but the steel plate seed will give them a good chance of saving their seed from a house fire.


With multisig you can lose your coins if your friends start losing their keys. IMO this is even worse than a bank, because banks specialize at storing things, but regular people easily lose and forget things.


This can be the last resort in certain situations. Like being in a warzone or in a place affected by some natural disaster. When all your physical backups can be lost at any second, even the ones you store in other places.

IMO the method of storing your seed should be decided by what sort of threats you are trying to mitigate. And it's also important to remember that you don't have to use just 1 method, you can have many backups with different methods.

If you worry about theft, you need to use encryption. This also affects the physical mnemonic seed - you need to use a bip39 extension word, which is basically a password. Don't bother with changing order of words or splitting your seed - it's not secure and more likely to backfire. Speaking of backfiring, using a password means you need to manage one more piece of secret information, and losing it will lock you out of your funds. There is no "I forgot my password" button in Bitcoin. If you are not sure about your ability to manage a password, than don't use encryption.

The other threat is loss of your backup. It can happen due to damage or misplacing it. The best way to deal with it is to have multiple backups in different places. But since most people don't have multiple private properties, this means some trust is required. I.e. storing an encrypted seed in your relatives house or a bank deposit box.

Digital threats are also something that must be considered. There's already a lot of malware that targets wallets, and incentive to develop and spread it will only grow. The best way to deal with it is to use airgapped devices for doing operations with wallets. It can be tempting to use cloud storage for your encrypted seed or wallet file, but the password needs to be very-very strong, it should be truly random and has 128 or more bits of entropy. Which means it would be unfeasible to memorize it, unless it's a specially designed mnemonic system.

Why do we need any analogies about Bitcoin-altcoin relationship, if everyone clearly understands it? Ofc altcoin bagholders will try to push the narrative that the flippening is imminent, because alts are better than Bitcoin, but I don't see the necessity to try and convince them that Bitcoin is the only coin worth holding. They will pay a heavy price for this lesson when their shitcoins will crash and leave them at a loss. And for beginners it's pretty obvious that Bitcoin is the strongest coin.

Absolutely zero effect. Digital dollar has existed for decades, doing transactions via the Internet, ATMs, payment cards is exactly that. From a fundamental perspective, there's nothing revolutionary about creating another digital fiat payment method, even if it "runs on blockchain" or is a central bank digital currency. It's not competing with Bitcoin in any new way.

Why would hard cash fail? It's actually the most resilient form of money, because it doesn't depend on electricity or Internet. It's Bitcoin


This is extremely naive. When a person loses their job, or even worse, their home, it's very hard to recover from that during crisis. Bitcoin savings can help in short term, but they don't solve all the problems.

You are also making an assumption that Bitcoin will not be affected by crisis or that it will go up. In reality Bitcoin just as easily can go down. Bitcoin didn't prove itself to be a reliable safe haven yet.

Paper USDT sounds like an april joke 

Paper BTC is possible, but it will be a completely centralized project. Basically a bank holding BTC deposits and issuing banknotes for BTC. Just like they did with gold hundreds of years ago. This means fractional reserve, loss of control over your funds - the things that Bitcoin was created to avoid. So who would use paper BTC? Certainly not the people who are attracted to Bitcoin from the ideological perspective.

Gold is far from being the most expensive metal per unit of weight. Gold is simply the most common store of value among metals because it's not in high demand for any industry and its supply hits the sweet spot where it isn't too common and easily found, but also not too scarce so a lot of people can own it.

Bitcoin is an entirely different story. It's simply the best coin, because it has the highest PoW, the biggest community, the highest adoption, and its core goal is to be secure and decentralized, while its competitors have abandoned this goal, and it comes to bite them back when they get hacked or attacked.

Username: hatshepsut93
Post Count: 7718
BTC Address (must be SegWit): bc1qqspn43aulm6vyjw35a6snfp7hmn2hkkwjnkf5z

Russia is not fully cut from SWIFT, certain banks were, while others still work with it.


IMO it will be a matter of time until regulators will make it a law and crypto exchanges will face a hard choice whether they want to operate legally or not


Only international transactions are blocked, domestic still work.


And the total donations for Ukraine are even higher, if you consider that there's a lot of NGOs who work for helping Ukraine.