Oh my! And all this time I was amused at the news that it took 12 long years for imperfections to be found in the widely used Bitcoin logo by bitboy.

I hope somebody has already relayed to the likes of Arijit Sarkar who wrote Cointelegraph's Bitcoin logo imperfection found on original artwork after 12 years that he had incomplete information when he submitted that misleading article.

So it wasn't really Twitter user @_Bosch_ who made the discovery as this forum's roslinpl had already discovered it as early as 6 years ago. It's even possible somebody had already discovered it earlier.

I wish crypto publications add a comment feature to their articles so that historical information, even those trivial ones like this, may be corrected.

When the 21 million limit is reached, I'm already dead; my children are already dead; my grandchildren are probably already dead as well. So I guess I won't DCA that long. Although I believe that Bitcoin is a nice way of saving intergenerational wealth, I don't think I will just keep on saving for the sake of whoever will inherit my money. I'd be lucky if I'm still alive by the time Bitcoin hits $1,000,000. If it happens and I still can't live life with Bitcoin alone, I'd be more than willing to convert much of it into fiat and enjoy the money.

I'm not sure if Satoshi's motivation in creating Bitcoin were the financial crises that hit the world. He/she/they might have seen the shortcomings of fiat currency and the system that nurtures it, but Satoshi actually took off from the past creations of those who attempted to create a digital currency. To a certain extent, Bitcoin is an amalgamation of all those, together with Satoshi's own contributions.

In the whitepaper, the goal is very simple. It was to create an electronic cash system. There wasn't even a slight mention of attempting to provide solution to the recurring financial crisis.

As far as I'm concerned, it's actually very simple. I gamble whenever there is something worth betting and I only do that when I have the extra money, money that I can afford to lose because it's not intended for something else. That's basically it. I don't just gamble for the sake of gambling.

Also, having extra money doesn't mean you have to gamble because there's money to burn. In the same manner that having so much time to spare doesn't have to mean you will go to the casino, log in to your crypto gambling account, or search for something to bet on. There are as many ways to spend extra money as to meaningfully spend idle time.

Bitcoin is being treated differently, and subjectively at that I'd say, but I don't think it is fair to dismiss it as a digital currency. Admittedly, it is not widely used as a currency, but it doesn't mean it isn't a currency. As a matter of fact, even if there isn't a single store or shop that accept it as a currency, and you can only make use of it as such in this forum, it is still a digital currency. Or even if it isn't used by anybody at all as a digital currency, if Satoshi designed and created it as a digital currency, it must be a digital currency.

Bitcoin is a digital currency. It is digital and it is a currency.

Bitcoin is money, so it can buy you things. However, it is not widely accepted as such. So depending on where you are, it is possible that you cannot spend your Bitcoin in an actual store or shop. Online, it is easier, but still your favorite online shop, especially local, might not be accepting it.

I wonder where you're from, but if you really wish to spend Bitcoin in an actual transaction and you have a Bitcoin community there, you could agree among yourselves to transact with Bitcoin.

Yeah, as a matter of fact, these proposed regulations are only targeting the likes of USDT and other fiat-backed stablecoins. Although they're learning lessons from the fall of an algorithmic stablecoin, since these algorithmic stablecoins are not widely used as payment, they could be left unattended for a while. I suppose this approach includes crypto-backed stablecoins like DAI, non-collateralized stablecoins, commodity-backed stablecoins, and others; although they singled out algorithmic stablecoins to be banned "if they become too popular."


Well, it's basically to protect consumers and stablecoin users. It's probably the safest way for them. It seems this is the primary concern of Israel's Central Bank. They're probably not inclined to look after the welfare of stablecoin issuers.

Of course, FTX Japan isn't state-owned but they're strictly obliged to toe the line. They're free but within certain strict regulations. It's either strict compliance or they won't get the registration from the authorities and they won't be allowed to operate. I agree that the resumption of withdrawal a few months after the bankruptcy is largely a "fruit of their strict crypto laws."^[1]


I don't think you need to be an authoritarian government to mandate crypto companies to be registered with the Financial Services Agency (FSA), "introduced laws requiring exchanges to register with authorities and mandating that they keep their customers’ money separate from their own accounts," require exchanges to "hold at least 95% of customers’ digital assets in a cold wallet," require them to "entrust clients’ holdings of government-issued currencies such as the yen or the dollar to a third-party Japanese institution such as a trust bank," among others.^[2]


This is exclusive to FTX Japan users. That's why I'm saying that what's happening with FTX Japan isn't FTX doing its thing; it's Japan doing its thing. FTX doesn't deserve a credit for it. Users of other branches of FTX are not as fortunate. Not only will they receive their funds late or god knows when, they would also recover only a portion. Even those Japanese who are using different FTX platforms other than FTX Japan won't be recovering their losses soon. SBF himself has acknowledged that FTX US should emulate what FTX Japan is doing.

---

[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/some-ftx-customers-get-their-money-backin-japan-at-least-3e0f2d15
[2] Ibid.

I can only trust the experts saying the system is secure. That's something which is totally beyond my control. If my funds are stolen because brute-forcing was actually easier than what I've read, I wouldn't be regretting that much. On the other hand, if one day I wake up and all my funds are gone because my hot wallet was hacked or I fell victim to phishing or somebody gained access to my seed phrase, that's something I'd regret so much. And it's because I could have done something to avoid it or prevented it altogether.

To be quite frank, I don't agree. It's as if the world's myriad of problems are all caused by the way money is, or money itself. Nope, I don't think so. Even during the primitive era, there was probably already murder and theft and robbery and rape and arson all kinds of crimes. When human civilization used the barter system, it doesn't mean there were no wars and conquests and bloody seizures of power and otherwise.

I am in agreement that fixing the money, which is dirtier underneath than how it all appears from the outside, would contribute in fixing the world, but it can only do so much. It's probably obsession to think of Bitcoin as a technological panacea. Truth be told, there's no silver bullet that could fix the world.

And I think this popular line is not originally coming from Bitcoin Magazine.

Again, this is not FTX doing something positive. This is Japan doing something positive, for the safety and security of its crypto users. Japan has regulatory mechanisms that protect its citizens from the dangers and risks involved with the likes of FTX.

The customers should be aware of this, lest they might indeed "write off all the wrongs done by FTX." But there are no dots to connect. This opening of withdrawal was already planned and scheduled as early as December of last year. And no thanks to FTX or SBF. Credits go to Japanese regulators.

I was a user of Shapeshift before. That was way back when the platform was a lot simpler and straightforward. I cannot remember the maximum amount I transacted with them, but it was a few hundreds of dollars. I started using it with small amounts. Everything went smooth and quick. I eventually trusted them with relatively large amounts. Nothing untoward ever happened.

I also got significant amounts parked in centralized exchanges before. I experienced a number of incidents. As a matter of fact, I only got lucky with Cryptopia because it reopened very quickly before it went dead for good. I got my Bitcoin back. The rest of the coins sunk with the exchange.

I don't actually trust any of these platforms. Even P2P trades are not worth trusting. Escrows and other security mechanisms should be in place every time.

I prefer to have a number of small transactions rather than a single large one, and for obvious reasons.

Although there are certain patterns seen in Bitcoin's price chart, I don't think it is strictly following a schedule for its price movements. Even that popular 4-year cycle is not guaranteed. A new ATH after the halving may or may not happen again. Nothing is guaranteed or scheduled.

But there are of course always reasons for Bitcoin's price movements. After all, it reacts to news and events and whatever it is that will affect Bitcoin. Generally, though, I think the movement is highly organic. Bitcoin isn't a pump and dump shitcoin.

I would hold myself from jumping into different conclusions. What is clear is that stablecoins should indeed have 100% reserve. The ratio should be 1:1. Whenever a stablecoin issuer mint a new single token, it should mean that another dollar has entered its reserve. Otherwise, it shouldn't be allowed to. This kind of regulatory policy is long overdue. This should have long been implemented, perhaps ever since stablecoins entered the crypto scene.

I'm not sure if there is really a significant effect of cashless policy over the rising prices of goods and services. On the contrary, it is even possible that a cashless policy would somehow limit the people's spending to the point that the demand on goods and services is significantly reduced, thereby causing the price to fall. Imagine how much money that should have circulated if bank withdrawals in some countries were not reduced to a very low minimum.

Inflation doesn't have a single effect on Bitcoin. On the one hand, somebody who is severely affected by the rising prices of goods and services could let go of his/her Bitcoin savings. But on the other, in a country where inflation is high and fast, saving in Bitcoin is a perfect choice.  

Exactly! So FTX shouldn't be getting any merit from this. This isn't about the FTX brand; this is about Japan's stricter crypto regulations. Not to mention that FTX Japan was more or less independent and very young. It was just launched in the middle of 2022, if I'm not mistaken. Many might have misconstrued the news because of the headlines. The headlines are giving more emphasis on FTX Japan and users getting refunds. But the truth is that it's Japan's regulators and policies that actually saved the day for the FTX users there.

Of course, there are no age limits in investing in Bitcoin, but just like in many decisions, age could be a big factor. At this point, Bitcoin won't easily just double or triple its price just like before. So if I am an old man dependent on my pension, I guess I wouldn't invest too much in Bitcoin. That could be more of a sacrifice than a way to make money and enjoy it while I'm still alive. But if you're an old man who wants to save and make money for the next generation, Bitcoin could be a good choice. On the other hand, if you're young, Bitcoin is a good investment choice because it's perfect as a long-term investment.

Welcome and explore the forum more. You will realize that the forum is not just about Bitcoin. Not "everything on the forum is about Bitcoin." This is an interesting forum; you could actually discuss anything you have in mind. Although this is Bitcointalk, you can actually discuss about altcoins and shitcoins here, as well as gambling, economics, even about politics and society, and all kinds of topics. Just don't forget about certain rules.

What do you exactly mean "playing?" Because if you mean they make use of the company's money to invest or even risk it somewhere else, or purchase assets, or lend it, and so on, these shouldn't be just rumors because these are normal business activities of a company. Companies don't just hold money. They don't just keep them sleeping and unproductive and being slowly killed by inflation.

Perhaps the question is whether the company is playing with customers' money and not their own. That would be questionable. That would be risky to the point that they might face insolvency. That's rather irresponsible.

Ray Dalio has been speaking things that could be perceived as anti and pro Bitcoin. And he has Bitcoin himself. While he acknowledged the uncertain fate or future of Bitcoin, he also admitted that having a certain percentage of your portfolio allocated to Bitcoin is also a reasonable thing. I don't think the man is particularly biased for or against it.

And I also largely agree when he distinguishes the technology from a certain crypto project; blockchain from DoggyStyle Coin, for example. We cannot just justify our investment in a certain shitcoin by citing the underlying technology that it uses.