I think that BTC is still a clear buy. Trying to time the market has never really worked for me and if I have cash left over, I usually use it to increase my holdings. Unless something unforeseen catastrophic happens to the network, I have no idea why it would not go back to its former ATH and then even higher. If it wasn't about to go to new heights, why the recovery until where we are now? A lot is happening and now it is only legal stuff that could get in the way of it and slow its development down, but stopping it completely won't happen. As Jamie Dimon said he would shut BTC down if he was part of the government. I wish someone makes him president so we can see how this genius will "shut down" BTC!

This doesn't really sound any less criminal than Binance and their activities, but the penalty differs by a lot. The banks are still powerful and a penalty of $920 million doesn't hurt them either. They are making a net profit of around $15 billion per year and yet they are given a three-year deferred prosecution agreement? Why is that even the case? I am not sure why they would need a deferral why they are granted it at all? I guess they have enough liquidity to pay such a penalty with their pocket cash. But it is what it is, double-standards all the time.

Of course there is no need to share any more information with us that you have already done, but it would be interesting to know whether this is an observation of yours that only occurs when you are gambling? What about a bad day at work or a good day at work? Perhaps your boss was angry or some people were attacking you at work, what is your emotional state after other bad experiences? Is your behavior towards your family similarly dependent on other negative or positive events in life? If not, it is psychologically interesting and there is probably something to be found about that on the Internet, but narrowing down the scope of a problem would be a good start.

But we are still far from large scale adoption for the LN network. Actually we are very far from that. You may find users or groups users occasionally here and there, but the single button push setup would be needed similar to an app on the smartphone and people can instantly get going. Until now you still need a certain level of expertise to not get confused and to also set it up. And I think we would again observe a slope from the rich to the poor where the rich have more time and resources to invest into learning and running/using the LN network whereas the poor, who would like and need to benefit from micropayments, would tend to be overwhelmed by the terminology and resource requirements.

I am mentioning time as a resource because I know how careful I was when I first set up hardware wallets and stuff. It's the unknown that makes people be cautious and LN network sounds great, but it has to be as easy as placing an order on Amazon. Things should be taken care of from the first to the last step with minimum input from the user. I feel this is still a long way off.

As always, the market is unpredictable for the most part, but I think the market has also noticed that huge crashes of exchanges that are a major part of the global infrastructure, don't cause BTC suffering from lasting damages. It is all very temporary and the more often these crashes happened, the less the market reacted to them.

Now the story with Binance is different because that exchange is not any exchange, but the biggest there is in the world. And additionally, it is not only the biggest, but the biggest by far. This could have an impact on the overall sentiment in any industry when the big players faces a potential meltdown. But I think the allegations and settlements were more or less clear in the direction that Binance was not supposed to cease operations. The question is whether they have the liquidity and reserves to pay the penalties.

But assuming that Binance would crash, I doubt that this would have an impact on BTC's price, or put differently, a significant impact. Because it is more like a bank run then. People would not sell their BTC, but try to withdraw it. It would need some time for consolidation in the market until people found a place they think is safe for trading or they take it off market and keep it in their own wallets. But I don't think it would initiate a sell-off. I can't see why that would make sense.

Anyone a different opinion on this in the hypothetical scenario of a Binance meltdown?

It probably depends on the portfolio someone is holding. If you are invested quite a bit already, FOMO may not be a big deal every single time the green candles pop up. But if someone just found out about BTC or dared to invest small amounts, I think FOMO is much more of a thing to that person.

But yes experience is huge here. Everyone who went through the stormy weathers that BTC held for us in the past, is better equipped with the tools to cope with emotions during crashes or moon rides. We all know where it can end!

I remember the days when FOMO hit me hard or anxiety to lose it all. I think nothing can take that away from you except for experience.

Yes but it still shows a weak spot within the mechanics of the Bitcoin network. I understand that it is all supply and demand, but the problem about supply and demand under capacity restrains is that the rich can move their assets while the poor can't. This is somewhat an exaggerated version rhetorically, but it reflects what's going on in the network. People who have large transactions or don't care can just jump to the front of the queue whenever they want whereas those who want to use the network for daily causes get excluded factually. I hope that substantial development is underway to further solve and optimize capacity problems. I think it is one major reason that keeps Bitcoin from being adopted among all groups in society.

This is nuts and it doesn't make a lot of fun when you got some BTC stuck in some wallet and want to move it, but it isn't a significant amount. Sure if somebody wants to send a million dollars from A to B in BTC, this is the perfect way to do it. But having funds stuck because it is uneconomical to send them is bad. It is even worse when you use a wallet and got several inputs on different addresses, damn I was just checking what it would cost me and it hurts.

It is quite volatile as well, sometimes it is getting closer to 100 s/, but then it jumps up again towards 200 s/b. Now I am asking myself for how long this might be going on. When there is a lot of action in the market, it would not be surprising if it stays like this for a while.

I think we have long entered the bull season, but we don't see it like that anymore because 100% or 200% doesn't sound like much compared to the outrageous gains Bitcoin has made some years ago.

We need to be more realistic about what is happening not only on the infrastructure side of things and how institutional money keeps flowing into the space, but also in terms of the price. just remember where our last low was and where we are now and how much time passed in between, then I think we could with certainty say that we are in the midst of a bull run that has been going for a while. We had some sidewards movement from time to time and it was pretty quiet I admit, but still these corrections and going back and forth at some price points wasn't really that Bitcoin didn't move.

It felt a bit as if some of the things have to fall into place first before it gets going again, but it is more like a bull that was held back by some ropes. So technically, I guess you are right because we had some phases that were so calm, but it was a gradual and strong increase for quite some time now. It depends on how you draw the line in the charts and what time window you choose.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't recommend JJG's links and posts because I wanted to tell you that it would be good to follow his advice blindly. A lot of the things he has written is not like advice, it is more of an overview of different approaches and potential outcomes as can by yourself be calculated and understood on the website that allows you to choose your own inputs. It is not anyone's parameters, you can put in whatever you think reflects your personal situation best. That was my intention and yes, never follow anyone's advice blindly and make sure you educate yourself to not keep your own eyes closed forever while trying to invest

If I may chime in here, but please keep in mind that this is no investment advice and it also has to do with taste to some degree? I personally would prefer Bitcoin over Ethereum for several reasons, but my conviction doesn't mean that Ethereum can't outperform Bitcoin over a certain time window. This means when you only look at price, the worst pump and dump around here could be the right place for you... But if you want the most promising crypto asset in terms of societal impact, my strong believe is that you want to hold the vast majority of your crypto portfolio in Bitcoin.

I am not a maximalist, but in regards to my portfolio I am quite close to it. But if someone likes to play around with some other cryptos, don't go and waste your money on the worthless penny stocks because you get fooled by the hope that the green candles may one day look like those of Bitcoin's long term graph. 99.9% of them won't.

There is a variety of posts written and a website shared by JayJuanGee that I would like to refer you to and recommend to you to take the time and read them. Those are valuable insights and he takes the time to break it down comprehensibly.

JJG’s Outline of Bitcoin Investment Ideas

In this post you will find an interesting link where you can do some calculations regarding DCA. It's a nice tool to get an understanding of the effects that DCA can have on the development of your investment.

JJG has lots of posts about this topic, but I can't dig them all up now. Check out his post history and you will find some good educational content.

I was about to say a few words concerning the fees and a comparison between single-sig and multi-sig, but I recalled this overview, which I think is quite helpful as fees are often underestimated when the setup is chosen:



But I can only support your intention to keep funds secure especially when the amounts are significant.

Cutting corners may save you time, but not money, as it is only a question of time until it costs you money!

I am pretty sure that a casino (apart from wagering requirements) works perfectly fine as a type of mixing service. I haven't checked every single transaction from the past, but as much as I can remember I never received the same coins back.

Even if you receive the same coins back, usually you can specify a new withdrawal address. How can anyone now be sure that the same coins hit a wallet of the same user? That data set can only be analyzed more or less conclusively if interested parties (investigators) have access to the account data at the gambling site. I think this boils down to small accounts mostly being ignored as the effort required by investigators may not be in line with the results they are hoping for. Not to forget that we are still talking about no KYC accounts, which means even if the relationship between two addresses could be established with increased effort in hindsight, it would still be a non-identified holder.

Username: Dump3er
segwit BTC address: bc1qujgavsym6jk3m6m4tw7esmhtzt6lwjw4ccu9kr
Merit earned in the last 120 days: 6

I ask myself that question, too. What about services like changelly.com? You could essentially create privacy with going the BTC->XMR way. But maybe the plan is to ban XMR from being traded on any licensed exchange, which would make it more difficult for users seeking privacy to turn their XMR into cash in a simple way.


lol! It's not really funny because stompix is sadly right.

Sherbet username: dump3er
Prediction: $38,525.28

Yes that's right, and this is also why I linked the paper because it really explains in simple terms how these attacks work, how they are set up (calculated) and executed. They provide an example based on the Neutrino protocol.



But they also provide some insightful stuff for Electrum Light clients. "By default, Electrum tries to maintain connections to ~10 servers."
This is not a whole lot compared to the example given for the Neutrino protocol in the paper. The required number of attacker Sybil serving nodes to achieve reasonable probability for success isn't that high.

But all of this is no reason to freak out as there is a number of other factors that have to be sorted out first before an attack 1) can be executed and 2) makes any sense at all.

But dealing with potential security issues is fun as I think it contributes a lot to expanding one's knowledge about the technicalities of the network. And trying to understand its vulnerabilities contributes a great deal to understanding Bitcoin's robustness. Because most of the attacks that are discussed here on the forum have never really led to publicly known large-scale damage, which means Bitcoin is really resilient because there is no lack for people trying to attack it. They do, but they can't get it done in notable ways. Yet, having some good talk about security can never hurt.

Correct and the group of people you are mentioning here are often users of light weight clients. The most fatal attack is a double-spend and that is what most people have in their heads when they hear the word "attack", but likewise an eclipse attack can as well be used to disrupt network communication and thereby delay or censor transactions.

The issue with lightweight clients like Electrum or the Neutrino protocol or even the Lightning network is that they are dependent on communication with honest nodes. If those communication channels are cut off and infiltrated with malicious sybil attacks, there is all kinds of shenanigans an attacker could do. It's not necessarily the double-spend someone loses it all problem. But it could be the case for lightweight and second layer solutions. Communication with "honest nodes" is key to security of funds, aka for funds to stay with the rightful owner.


Thanks for sharing this and this paper is also worth having a look at although a bit outdated maybe (from 2020).

I think some sense of openness towards other projects can't hurt. That doesn't mean anyone should shift their BTC holdings into some alternative cryptocurrency, but absorbing new developments and understanding potential future technology has never done anything bad to anyone. If you are talking about all those ICOs that were intrinsically worthless, then I agree. But in general I like to read up on new stuff that I find interesting and if there is really some available cash, I wouldn't mind investing some if a project gets the basics right and has some innovative technology to offer. With the basics I mean not some hot air white paper, but maybe some prototyping that already makes sense and is practically useable. I think any inflexibility is as bad as greed and dumping money everywhere.