The term "legal tender" is only related to debts, what you are talking about is a "legal payment method". And that varies heavily from country to country. Some are quite liberal in this regard and allow people to use any currencies they want, while others are very strict and only allow the national currency to be used and punish those who use other currencies. This is actually one of the major obstacles in Bitcoin adoption - if they don't allow even the US dollar to be used as a payment, why should they allow Bitcoin? Bitcoin in this case is a lot like another foreign currency.

These crypto youtuber twitter medium influencers always talking out of their own ass, but unfortunately newbies trust them because they see large following and maybe some displays of wealth and think that a person is a financial guru. This guy is also likely an Elon Musk fanboy which makes his opinion even less valuable, especially an opinion involving Tesla.

I'll probably never get a hardware wallet, because despite them being generally accepted as very safe, I can't fully trust the devs to not put any backdoors or to trust that I'm getting the genuine device and not a malicious fake. Meanwhile I'm quite happy with using a software wallet on my ancient PC that is never online and whose only purpose is to launch my software wallet, because there's no chance there are any hardware backdoors on a PC that is almost as old as Bitcoin itself.

This question gets asked quite often, so maybe use the search function to read the past discussions.

Satoshi himself said that in 20 years either there will be a lot of transactions or very few, so he considered the possibility of Bitcoin failing.

I think it's not likely that Bitcoin can completely die, because all it takes for Bitcoin to exist is just a few or even one computer running the software like it was in early day. But I would say losing 99.999% users is the same as being dead, and we can't exclude that possibility. Right now Bitcoin is relatively popular because the price goes up all the time - what would happen if it was going down instead?

People would always mine BTC as long as it's profitable enough to cover the electricity costs and some of the equipment costs, which is a pretty low margin. But having 5M early coins on top of Satoshi's coins concentrated in the hands of a single individual would be pretty toxic, everyone would be afraid of a huge crash when this individual would start selling and the addresses would be closely monitored. But if the coins aren't moved for a decade, people would start assuming those coins as lost.

The problem is that you are viewing this forum as a career where you rank up, join a signature campaign and earn money, but in order to rank up you have to actually not care about ranking up, signature campaigns and just be enthusiastic about Bitcoin and provide your own valuable input in topics. So instead of wasting your time trying to earn merit and join a campaign, maybe refocus on finding success elsewhere? Like learning some skills that would allow you to earn money for long term in the real world.

These days it's so easy to fake wealth on the Internet and monetize it. You can rent a luxurious apartment for a few days, rent an expensive car, hire some escorts then post the photos on instagram claimed that all of that is yours and you can teach others how to be successful too. And then you make so much money that you easily recoup your "investment".

Musk is a believer of unrestrained freedom of speech and cutting the costs of business, so naturally he laid off a lot of people who were responsible for moderating twitter. And it all immediately backfired because the advertisers, who are the main clients of twitter, immediately started leaving the platform because it was becoming too toxic and they didn't want their brand to be associated with that.

So the growth of phishing comments is a natural outcome of Musk's incompetent management. Twitter still hasn't been replaced because it still has network effect and it's hard to beat that, but eventually it will fall.

I don't have a more specific expectation other than that BTC will enter a bull market sometime in close future. It could be that it will start around the halvening or 6-12 months after. I'm not in any hurry and I will patiently wait for an opportunity to take decent profit.

It could easily be counter-productive to think that the market will play out the exact scenario that you imagined, because it most likely will not, and you will miss out on opportunity to make a good trade. Remember, investing is about buying low and selling high - it's not about buying and selling at perfect spots.

These "crypto investment professionals" are making money by telling newbies to invest in scams. That's how they become rich - not by investing themselves but by scamming others. You should forget about getting good advice in crypto, you need to use your own skills and rely only on yourself.

Because those factories create goods that are useful to society or can be exported, they also create jobs. While Bitcoin mining enriches only the few and not very useful to society as a whole. Plus mining has potential to disrupt the energy grid because mining operations can pop up suddenly and draw a lot of power. There have already been cases in other countries when authorities had to step in and ban mining as it was causing blackouts.

And you're acting as if Biden already banned mining when this is just a survey that it aimed to just study whether there is a negative impact or not.

Never trust for these influential people are talking about Bitcoin. They are not your friends, they are not your allies, their only goal is to enrich themselves, not help others get more rich too. If they are praising Bitcoin, predicting high prices or talking about BTC replacing something, it's because they bought a lot of it. And you know what comes after that? Some day they will sell to take a massive profit. And it could very well be that while these guys will pocket hundreds of millions, small investors will continue holding and waiting for that predicted magical price range that might never come or come decades away from now.

Bitcoin itself doesn't fork, it's only correct to say that Bitcoin forked when there's a major split in the network and both are claiming to be Bitcoin. Instead you should say that people are creating altcoins by forking Bitcoin. I don't know if people still do it, probably yes, but it's irrelevant if those forks are not listed on exchanges, because you can't do anything with them. The hype around BTC forks died a long time ago, these days the hype is about Bitcoin NFTS and new altcoins.

The fact that this whole "Blockchain technology" isn't really useful and Bitcoin is really the only succesful use so far. All the attempts to build something other than a cryptocurrency on blockchain has failed, and cryptocurrencies fail to compete with Bitcoin because they have far worse security both in terms of network fundamentals and in terms of code quality. So it's actually very hard to compete with Bitcoin because it's being developed by the most skilled people in the world in the field of cryptocurrency.

Wallet is just a collection of addresses, having a new collection won't help your privacy if your transaction history leaves a trail. For example, you create two wallets, but then send coins from these wallets to the same deposit address on some service. Instead you should focus on practicing coin control to make sure that you don't obviously link your coins.

Big companies are funding open source projects that they are using all the time, sometimes they even hire the devs as consultants or to make some custom modifications for their use cases. Why should it be different with Bitcoin? If big companies that participate in Bitcoin ecosystem want to stimulate Bitcoin development, there's nothing wrong with that. If you want to throw accusations, you'd better back them with proof that there are actually development decisions being made that benefit those companies as the result of donations.

You shouldn't really invest in anything with borrowed funds, even more so in a risky asset like Bitcoin. This is basically a more extreme version of leveraged trading, because for leverage you have to start with something, but if you're taking a loan you could be tempted to invest without any of your own money.

And with Bitcoin specifically, its volatility plays a huge negative role here. You don't know when there will be ups and downs, but you have to pay back the loan at a fixed date. Now imagine that when that day happens Bitcoin is in a huge bear market and you have either to sell at a loss and find more money to repay the loan, or suffer the dire consequences of defaulting.

Not a good question, because risks heavily vary even among those activities. Some businesses are riskier than others, some "online investments" are riskier than others.

The fundamental difference between these money making methods is that if you invest in your own business, you have a large share of control over the outcome, while with investing in something you have on control at all, but also no responsibility too. But choosing the right investment is a skill in itself, so it's not like investing is fool-proof.

IMO people who have no clue about business or investing should just stick to low-risk investments like savings accounts and with some time and learning dip their fingers into other more demanding activities.

Banks are not threatened by crypto payments because so few people actually pay with crypto and the total transaction volume is just a tiny drop compared to global fiat payments. But the competition in the field of investment is more likely to happen - if people would buy Bitcoin instead of opening bank deposits, that could force banks to act. The first thing banks could easily do is to disconnect all crypto exchanges from their system, and that would kill a large share of crypto market liquidity. If that would be not enough, they could start lobbying the government to impose more restrictions on crypto activities. But so far we have seen nothing like that happening on a large scale.

I'd say volatility is the biggest issue for merchants. The worst case scenario is you accept some Bitcoin, hold it and it crashes and now you have to sell it at a loss to keep your business going. And this is bound to happen at some point, because Bitcoin has many crashes per year, which can be 5% or 10% or even 20-50%. You could say that they are cancelled by the price surges in the long run, but still some unlucky timing can cause immense damage to business.