Countries can have different policies, and I don't think Brazil will be exactly like El Salvador. I guess the case of El Salvador is special because they don't have their own fiat (their fiat is the USD), which might be why they didn't think seriously of making their own CBDC. Brazil is a bigger country with more things to account for, and they have their own strong fiat currency. Maybe they'll make a CBDC, but it seems the plan is quite distant (for 2024), and who know if they decide to go through with it. But generally, I think a CBDC can coexist with Bitcoin. In my own country (Ukraine), there's a governmental plan to both accept Bitcoin as payment and explore a local fiat-based CBDC in the future, for example.

It is a bit weird to decorate everything with Bitcoin vibes but not accept Bitcoin as payment and not train the staff to at least know what Bitcoin payments are.
Inviting a person for Christmas dinner is nice, I think the traditions of who you invite can differ a lot within different cultures, and I think it was a nice gesture on the part of the op. It didn't strike me as weird, and I'm not surprised by op's answer to it. To be honest, I don't get why many in the thread seem so worked-up about a simple act of hospitality.
I hope the op will return and let us know if there was a continuation of this story (did the owner come to the dinner, did you visit their place again to discuss Bitcoin, etc.).

I'm not 100% sure, but I think it was because of the news of Silk Road 2.0 being shut down by the FBI. It was big enough news to make it to TVs and websites outside the bubble of crypto enthusiasts, so as you can imagine, my initial encounter didn't leave a positive opinion about Bitcoin. However, it gradually started changing as I learned more about banks, fiat, and how Bitcoin is different, and also figured that you can't really blame a neutral tool for being used for bad purposes (and all sorts of money are used by some people for bad purposes).

Russia hasn't been consistently anti-Bitcoin. While some people and institutions called for a ban, others have been playing with the idea of legalizing it for a while. The current position seems very pragmatic and practical: they don't allow their own citizens to engage with Bitcoin because it isn't going in line with the totalitarian regime and because they don't want to risk undermining their local fiat, but they do need to find ways of limiting the impact of international sanctions, and accepting Bitcoin for international trade is one of them. Russian economists seem quite smart, considering how they've been handling a very difficult economic position that Russia's in because of the war. But such a step, should they truly undertake it, can lead to reputation losses of Bitcoin as a tool to avoid sanctions.

Firstly, if there is an observable correlation between scams and low prices, it isn't enough to prove that the events are planned. Secondly, this isn't even correct because not all bear seasons start or peak at a scam event. In 2018, for example, it was just FUD about potential negative regulations of Bitcoin in South Korea. Thus year, we do have FTX event, but we've been in a bear market for a year now, so FTX didn't cause the bear market and didn't even make it much worse than it already was. Perhaps you meant only FTX as a planned event, and in that case, I don't have a strong opinion. I don't think the goal was to face criminal investigation and let down the crypto market, though, even if it was a planned scam.
I do agree that FTX is a private company and Bitcoin shouldn't lose reputation because of it.

I generally support bail, given that people shouldn't be imprisoned before they are convicted, and given that the sum is pretty big (so I don't think he'll run).
But substance abuse and mental health treatment? If these are requirements for bail, might it mean Bankman-Fried's defence strategy is to prove that he, suffering from addiction and mental health issues, wasn't quite capable of recognizing his actions (regarding FTX) and thus isn't liable for criminal responsibility? IMO, that's the most interesting part in this news. I don't think such treatment is a standard bail requirement, so it might shed light on how the trial will play out.

EUR 15,700
kryptonomous

If it's recognized officially as a means of payment, why isn't it like in El Salvador where Bitcoin is legal tender? Isn't legal tender the same as legal recognition as a means of payment? I understand the law is not as friendly as the legislation in El Salvador, but that's on other matters like mining taxes, right? So it's crypto-related business, but not Bitcoin's recognition and regulation specifically. To me, it seems like Brazil made a big positive step forward, and it's big news for Bitcoin adoption, especially considering that the population of Brazil is 216 million people, against 6.5 million in El Salvador.

I generally agree that CBDCs are another step away from privacy, although not a very big one after bank accounts and huge tech giants. For example, I recently visited one of those Amazon stores where you scan your Amazon account at the entrance, and then just take any products you want from the shelves (without scanning them anywhere) and leave without paying. The money is withdrawn later from the card linked to your Amazon account. While convenient, it does make you feel like you're in a Black Mirror episode. CBDC, IMO, isn't a big step further away from privacy after such things. And just like those Amazon stores, someone will find CBDCs convenient and won't care enough about privacy to be against them.

I believe in Bitcoin as money. Of course, it's nice to hodl some if it's possible, but even an investment should be something one can afford to lose, and as for money, it is meant to be spent. I think that if a person is in need of money to buy something, but only has BTC, this person should use BTC or sell it for fiat to use fiat. Even if it's not something urgent but to purchase something that will make a significant life improvement / make someone else happy / help improve or maintain good relationships, these are all good reasons to sell when needed, regardless of the price. Not everything in life is about making profits. That's the general guideline I follow myself.

I don't trust people who were openly very negative about Bitcoin and then stopped. As I see it, they are unreliable, unless they specifically apologise and recognize that they were mistaken earlier. When I googled "Saylor admits being wrong about Bitcoin", I can't see any sincere apologies. I understand people who were mildly skeptical and then gradually became convinced Bitcoiners, but I wouldn't trust Saylor and wouldn't be surprised if at some point he starts spreading FUD about Bitcoin instead.

I was supportive of Snowden for a while because I really don't think whistleblowers should be prosecuted, given the importance of the things they make public. That being said, there are a couple of things to note in his particular case. One is that allegedly the majority of stuff he disclosed was not about mass surveillance and stuff like that, but about US military techniques and capabilities, which does pose a serious threat to national security. Another very major thing is that he not only fled to Russia but became a Russian citizen in 2022, in the middle of the war, and swore allegiance to that country. For me, as a Ukrainian, that's something I cannot accept. So whether he supports Bitcoin or not and regardless of how good or bad of a Twitter CEO he could be, I'm happy he won't be.

I think it depends on a couple, and people should do whatever works best for them as a couple. My spouse and I have a common budget, which means that while we technically have different bank cards, we use them interchangeably without thinking of it, and of course my spouse knows how to access my BTC wallet, although tends to be reluctant about it and let me handle it. So sharing access to seed phrase is a part of our general strategy of a common budget and common money. But we have friends who've been together for about as long as we have (which is 6+ years), but they have totally separate budgets (even though they live together), and they only use their own bank accounts, not those of each other. I don't think they're into BTC, but I imagine they wouldn't be sharing access if they were.
I also don't think the question should be addressed to men specifically and to them sharing access with women, as situations can be very different nowadays, and it's more about a matter of sharing within a couple than about gender roles.

Game 1:  27, 25'
Game 2:  27, 19'

Buying presents for Christmas is IMO not at all about showing off wealth to neighbours, but about helping to make some people happy, even if a little bit. I'm not a supporter of overspending, but I also think it's very wrong when well-off parents give no presents or very cheap presents to their children because children need to be loved and cared for. Also, some things can actually last for a long time and be of high significance in various relationships, and sometimes people need to sell their BTC not to buy expensive presents but to buy any presents for their loved ones. So I believe people should first and foremost treat Bitcoin as money and money should be spent when there is a need to spend it or when spending it can lead to positive improvements of someone's lives.
Also had Gobseck as obligatory reading at school, and totally agree with your point.

It's interesting how they talk to each other and how several top executives knew about the fall of FTX before it happened, it seems. I wonder if knowing about the crime (via group chat) and not reporting it to law enforcement amounts to being an accomplice. Could people from this chat also face criminal investigation?
I didn't quite grasp why Bankman-Fried wanted to decrease the value of Tether, but since he allegedly tried, it probably means others can try as well, and who knows, maybe one day someone will succeed. Tether is very stable, but it might also be much more fragile than many people think it is. It's not unthinkable that it would collapse, not any more unthinkable that a major exchange would collapse, and that has already happened.

1. NYJ
2. JAX
3. NYJ
4. Under
5. 2nd
6. Odd
7. Odd
8. NYJ
9. NYJ
10. JAX

Final Score prediction 19-17

Why was the video released? I understand why body cams should be there and record inspections, but isn't it just so it can be reviewed upon request if there are allegations of misconduct or if something bad happens? Why was the video published online at all? Obviously, the seed is enough to take the money out, and now anyone could have done it. It's been 8 months, though, as the cam says the date is April 22. So there must have been a follow-up, as surely someone typed in the words and took the money? I can't see information about such stuff, though. If the money was stolen, and it was the police who published the bodycam video, I'd say the officers should be held accountable for leading to a loss of funds.
As for prevention of such situations, I think it's safer to store a seed in a mix of other text, so that you know it's a seed, but others can't.

I am so sorry for your loss, it's a significant amount of money... Like Charles-Tim, I usually don't fully check the address but I check the first 3-4 characters and the last 3-4 characters to ensure I got the right one. I remember there used to be malware that targeted copy-paste and pasted the wrong address, sometimes even making it an approximation of the original in terms of the first few characters, which is why I always do the basic checking. I still don't fully understand how the op lost the money (was is copy-paste malware or copying a wrong address in the first place because the first few symbols were identical?), and I'm not sure if anything can be done to get the money back (probably not, unless you know to whom that address belongs and can reach out in any way).
As for what was wrong with old addresses, I believe Segwit was at least partially aiming to reduce transaction fees, and given how the fees have been for the last few years, I think it worked.

I'm a bit confused with the op, as it looks in parts as if the op is interpreting the words of Toomey as supportive of banning Bitcoin because of FTX. But the senator actually has a great reasonable position, and in the article there are good examples, like that mortgages weren't banned after 2008. The other guy also agrees that cryptos shouldn't be banned on the grounds that FTX failed. I agree that banning Bitcoin for what isn't its fault doesn't make sense. And yes, it's just going to lead to the USA missing out on a market filled with profit and tax opportunities.