It's a very common misconception that Bitcoin is less scarce because it can be divided. Bitcoin is Bitcoin and satoshi (1/100 000 000 of Bitcoin) is satoshi. 1 satoshi is worth 1/100 000 000 of Bitcoin, and smaller divisions would be worth according to their proportion. When you are dividing Bitcoin, you are not creating more Bitcoins.

How can we know that that transaction wasn't made by the scammers themselves in order to create a fake perception that other people are sending money to them? This is one thing that gets rarely discussed with these scams, as everyone assumes that all the incoming transactions to doubler addresses come from victims.

Metaverse is nothing but hype. Basically Facebook the site is not doing great, young people don't want to use it, so Facebook the company decided to rebrand and make a new product to win back the kids. Virtual reality is at very early stages at the moment, we are miles away from what you see in sci-fi movies like the Matrix, and it's not like Facebook is going to make some breakthrough in the next few years. It's not even a fact that Metaverse is going to be popular, there's many examples of game-changing products from big companies that were a complete failure, like Google Glass, which could also be called "Metaverse", by the way.

Drugs are popular because it's a fast and simple way to achieve pleasure. That's why people are willing to take risks and pay a lot of money for them. And functionally there's not much difference between banned drugs and legal drugs.

Bitcoin is not the same, banning it would actually severely limit its utility, because you won't be able to spend it legally, and it won't be growing fast or at all without a large open market, so hodling will not be as lucrative as it is now.

Bitcoin's share of transactions on BitPay decreasing doesn't mean that Bitcoin payments have declined. They didn't release the absolute number, maybe Bitcoin payments were actually up, but altcoin payments on BitPay grew faster.

In any case, the data from one centralized service is not enough to judge the whole ecosystem, even if this service is one of the biggest players. And Bitcoin payments are gradually shifting towards Lightning Network, while many altcoins don't have similar technology and rely on stupid big block scaling.

Yes, a reputation loss when NFT hype dies down and their tokens become worthless. Also potential lawsuits if they give people a reason to sue them. For example, they could promise shareholders how useful NFT/crypto/metaverse will be for the company, then it all fails and shareholders sue them for false claims.

I'm not going to get hyped about something just because it comes from Elon Musk, especially with his less than ideal track record of delivering on promises. It's not yet clear if this brain-machine interface is any good, so no point in making conclusions.

But in general, any new invention will be used for both bad and good. Technology like Neuralink, if it is working, could help people with disabilities, could make certain workers more productive and some jobs more safe, it could be used in entertainment and so on, but it could also be used by totalitarian regimes to create even more dystopian society.

It's not a coincidence that ICO craze and NFT craze look so similar, this is because crypto and blockchain are fundamentally weak innovations that don't have a lot of use in real world. I fully agree that blockchain is a "solution in search of problem". People are giving it the benefit of doubt too easily, new technologies need to show at least some early prototypes and models, but with NFT and crypto it's always just a whitepaper and a github repo with broken code.

You can know that forecasts are worthless when you look back and realize that no one ever successfully predicted anything in Bitcoin. No one predicted the first rise to above $60k, no one predicted that it would touch the same ATH again and then correct. All we had last year was the "$100k in December" mantra. It was the same in the last bull cycle - "experts" were saying that Bitcoin has reached the top when it was at just $1,200, then at $3,000 and so on, but when it was hitting above $10,000 in December 2017, everyone got euphoric and though that $100k is imminent.

It's better to just relax, HODL and not worry about today's or this year's price too much.

If you look at alts objectively, none of them are worth investing into. Time has proved that there are no problems in real world to which altcoins/blockchain/tokens are a good solution. And there's market data to support this, because if you look at the top 100 coins from 5 years ago and see where are they now, you will see that alts were a terrible long-term investment.

Michael Saylor is telling people to buy no matter what happens with the market. It works for him (so far) because he can afford to do that. Even if his company fails, he probably has a few millions stashed away for some worst case scenario. This man will never work from paycheck to paycheck.

Poor or middle class people are in a vastly different situation than him, they need to be more careful with how they make investments. There was a post on reddit about a guy who watched to much Saylor's videos, though that Bitcoin will be going up and up, so he started doing leveraged trading and lost all his savings.

This is not a good thing, Bitcoin is just a very young payment network and currency, it's not going to change everything in the world. It's normal to be excited about something and spend a lot of time around it, but keep in mind to not let it have negative influence on your life, like abandoning your connections with people who don't share your passion, because some day you might regret it.


If not for Bitcoin, I wouldn't care much about cybersecurity and privacy.

Just a fresh portion of useless blockchain hype. We have seen how DAO has replaced traditional companies, how ICO replaced stocks and IPO, how DeFi replaced all of traditional finance, now NFT is going to replace real estate registration (/s obviously).


There's really no big difference between NFT and traditional database owned by a company, both solutions are centralized. NFT database is public, but it doesn't mean it's a good thing, especially from the privacy point of view. So all this noise can be summarized as "lets have a private company managing property rights, instead of the government". But it's being misleadingly presented as if it's all decentralized because of blockchain magic.

They are just planning to make an open-source ASIC, how is it going to help with electricity or expensive hardware? Their ASIC is not going to be significantly cheap, especially at the current age of silicon shortages.

The fund for legal protection of Bitcoin devs is much more interesting, it can positively affect Bitcoin ecosystem by allowing people to work on Bitcoin without the costly harrasment done by Craig Wright and similar legal trolls.

Musk and Saylor didn't become rich by being early Bitcoin adopters. "Hodler" is just a meme way of saying "long-term Bitcoin investor". Saylor swears that he will hold his coins forever, so he might qualify as one. Musk did dump a portion of the coins rather shortly, but AFAIK still holds the majority of them. He probably could also be called a "hodler" even if he's not a bitcoin permabull.

Very few people dig deep into someone's post history, especially if they have no good reason to do so, like investigating something. If you're hinting at signature campaigns, managers don't check the first posts made by applicants, they only care about the last few months.

There really is no secret to suddenly turn a shitposter into a great poster, writing good posts comes from practice and experience.

"Blockchain" is much more of a marketing term than a technical term. No one cared about blockchain until Bitcoin started pumping hard, and people realized that they can replicate this growth by selling their own "blockchain technology" to companies and investors. There is no excitement about blockchain among developers in the same way they are excited about neural networks or big data or other trends in IT.

There is no way this system can be decentralized, because in case of successfully receiving compensation, someone would have to distribute it to token holders. And if this system is centralized, it can be regulated just like any other. So using tokens solves absolutely nothing. People are very naive if they think that tokens automatically put them out of reach of regulators, the SEC did shut down a lot of high-profile ICO scams. It's a matter of time until a crypto/token specific regulations will be adopted by majority of the governments.

So, Kasparov got approached by this NFT company who offered him help in releasing NFTs for a cut, and now he shills for them. I think it's really dangerous when people start their talk about Bitcoin and its benefits, and then bait and switch into talking about garbage like NFT or shitcoins that only makes investors lose money, because it sorta puts false equivalence between that and Bitcoin.

I am one of those people, and Bitcoin gains were responsible for the majority of the payment. I can easily say that Bitcoin greatly and positively affected my life, and I wish the same to new investors. But people should be cautious and have some patience, because trying to get rich quick with things like altcoins or leveraged trading usually ends with losing all your investment. Waiting 2-3 years to achieve your dream is far better than gambling with your dream here and now.