I also don't think this fight will be decided by the scorecards. This is most probably ending in a knockout. Wilder is the potential winner here. It looks like Wilder has all the advantages over Ruiz: reach, height, power, and others. Early odds suggest the same with Wilder being the favorite at 1.43. But I still want Ruiz to give a good fight. I even want this underdog to win. He can upset Wilder, of course, but he and his team will have to develop a great strategy against the bigger man. And Ruiz has to train really hard and come out 100% fit and ready.

Everything is possible. There's no maximum. Each roll is completely independent from each other. So, even if you're already on a 20-roll losing streak, it doesn't mean the 21^st roll is more likely a win. It could still be a loss.

That applies even to 2x payout, which has almost 50% win chance considering there is always a house edge. So, how much more if it's 5x you are trying to hit? With 5x payout, the chance of winning is less than 20%. The possibility of losing is much higher, so the possibility of a longer losing streak is also higher.

As much as possible we should be avoiding importation. That's understandable. We should instead strengthen our own local production. However, self-sufficiency can't be achieved overnight. So, while we are trying to achieve that, we shouldn't also allow the supply to fall down so low that the price would reach the heavens. Insisting on cutting imported goods while the prevailing problems on local production remain unsolved is ludicrous. That's what also happened to sugar recently. 


The Kadiwa system is good, although the program is highly subsidized by the government, and it's also mostly focused on the national capital region. In which case, it isn't a sustainable solution. It still doesn't address much of the root causes of high production cost, among others. It has eliminated middlemen, though. That's enough to trim down the prices. I hope this program will continue and improve. But since this is more of a system for end consumers, I hope there will also be steps taken for the farmers themselves.

Fiat currencies and the larger global financial system are generally characterized by control, manipulation, debt, even threats and murder, and other factors which are not present with Bitcoin. Bitcoin is fundamentally ruled by codes. The rules are not imposed by rulers or by a few powerful elites or by power struggle. The basic rules the protocol is abiding with are set in stone. If this is the case, and many would shift to the Bitcoin way, then this global financial system based on fiat would certainly be weakened.

Clearly, the wallet that contained the $600 million worth of Bitcoin wasn't the scammer's wallet. It's one of Binance's wallets. And from this information, we can tell that the scammer is not really a wise scammer because he/she is using not only a centralized exchange but one which also requires KYC from all its users. Having said this, your brother should report this to Binance, along with all the evidences. This dumb scammer will not only lose his/her money, his/her identity would also be known.

Anyway, I'm not sure if there is an individual who owns 36,754.6BTC, but it is possible. Why will anybody possess such a huge amount? Well, it's probably the same reason that all of us want to have as much Bitcoin as possible, although I think such individual should be spreading his/her coins in different addresses. As to the consequences, I guess it's good because he/she doesn't have to be working anymore knowing that he/she's got $600 million already. He/she also won't have to stack more coins anymore because he/she's already got so many already. But he/she could also be targeted by scammers and robbers for owning so much.

Wait a minute, is this even possible? It's like saying 'run faster to slow down' or 'go farther to be near' or 'take a shower to not get wet'. I mean, using an exchange is the opposite of self-custody. It's impossible to self-custody by using an exchange. It's not just about ignorance or whatever; it simply isn't possible. Of all the centralized exchanges mentioned, is there even a single one of them that allows you to control your private keys? None.

That's another thing. It is normal for terms and conditions to explicitly stipulate that the company has the right to amend or change certain terms without necessarily informing the users. And everybody just clicks 'yes, I fully understand and agree' even without understanding nor agreeing. Heck, without even reading.

Many are probably like you who only invest in centralized platforms what they can afford to lose. Celsius claimed that it had around 1.7 million users in June of 2022. Let's say everyone of those believed that it's indeed safer to deposit just a small amount. The average deposit could just be $100 per user. That's already more than a hundred million of, well, donation or gift.

We have already been suffering from this even before the invasion in Europe happened. The war as well as the pandemic only exacerbated the situation. But even without them, fertilizer here has always been expensive.

Urea, for example, if I'm not mistaken, is at least twice more expensive than in other countries. This is one of the reasons why our vegetables here are expensive. The production cost is already high. The middlemen and the hoarders and the cartels are making everything even worse. Not to mention that there are also natural calamities and a worthless government.

You'd be surprised to know that my poor country has more expensive carrots, potatoes, cabbage, onions, and other vegetables than rich countries. We're a developing country with food prices higher than in highly developed countries.

This is definitely discussed elsewhere but I just want to specifically put it here as a warning for beginners.

How many of us actually read the terms and conditions of any site we sign up for? They're usually kilometric. To those who read, how many of you actually understood the stipulations therein? To those who think they understood everything, did you consult a lawyer or any professional to make sure you got everything right?

Celsius, to those who don't know, was one of the largest crypto lending platforms in the world. Aside from offering loans, users could also invest by depositing funds to the platform. No minimum required. They could earn as high as 18.63% APY which is paid on a weekly basis. Last July of 2022, however, it went bankrupt. It owed billions to its clients.

Just a few days ago, the bankruptcy judge ruled that the money deposited by users are owned by Celsius and not by the depositors. Surprised? Unbelievable? Well, that's what each and every user agreed to when they signed up for the platform. By depositing, users are actually giving their money to Celsius. Deposit is like transferring ownership from the user to the platform.

Of Celsius' hundreds of thousands of users, was there anybody who noticed this particular term? I doubt. So, what happens now? I guess the ruling could still be appealed, but for the meantime, it seems Celsius doesn't owe a Satoshi to its client. So, those who have lost their life savings in Celsius could probably say good bye to the hope of getting it back.

Lessons?

There's only one: keep your Bitcoin to yourself! No company will have any power over your funds. No possibility of bankruptcy, mismanagement, rug pull, and others. No sneaky terms and conditions. No unfair ruling. No frozen funds, locked accounts, whatever. Forget about passive income, yield, and the like. They're baits!

---

Source:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/01/05/celsius-crypto-bankruptcy-ruling/?isMobile=1

Luke's case is possibly a targeted attack. Others say the man is rather complacent in his setup. Still others say that Luke was a man, however technically knowledgeable he is, and he committed a mistake in securing vital information.

Whatever, the point is that it cannot be used as an argument to push for custodial services rather than self-custody. And it is utterly absurd and irresponsible for the likes of CZ of Binance to share the advice that people shouldn't manage their own keys because a Bitcoin OG messed up.

This is just an opinion, not a financial advice.

Bitcoin won't always be as cheap as now. A year or two from now, we can only look back and wish we could turn back time. Failing to buy Bitcoin at $16,000 today is a forever missed opportunity. It might not come back at all. It might already be as expensive as $100,000 per coin. So I guess it is wise to do the buying today, a bit faster if possible. If I can exaggerate a bit, panic buying should be done with Bitcoin below $20,000. I myself am trying to make do with whatever fiat I have because I won't be converting a single Satoshi from my wallet.

What price would I sell? I might sell when Bitcoin hits 6 digits.

This is a direct result of a poor policy, which certainly is also a direct result of a poor policymaking process. This should serve as an example to other countries how a policy could actually backfire if it is not well-studied. Well, if it is India's intention to shoo away that huge crypto volume, they are successful. 81% of domestic trading volume is already lost in as quick as 4 months.

If this is a way for India to discourage crypto, however, they're failing miserably. The domestic crypto industry might die, but it certainly doesn't mean Indians stop getting involved with crypto altogether.

But it seems there will be a review on the flat 30% tax on profit and the 1% TDS. A better version might soon be implemented.

Just like many of us, we're initially attracted by the prospect to make money. The interest to really know more about Bitcoin came after. But I guess it would have been better had I familiarized with Bitcoin more prior to me wanting to make money out of it.

But it's all right. I'm only saying this because you're asking about building up a foundation. The most solid foundation of all is knowing Bitcoin. That would make you want more and HODL firm and strong, that is, if you still stick to making money. Others would probably say Bitcoin is to be spent because it's a currency, that 1BTC is 1BTC, blah blah blah, but, you know, we cannot just brush off the fact that 1BTC=$100,000 is much better than 1BTC=$15,000.

There are other things like altcoins, NFTs, DeFi, staking, trading, and so on. Quite frankly, it is also possible to make money from them, but pretty risky. So, for a start, it would all be about getting to know Bitcoin, probably followed by accumulating and keeping Bitcoin in the safest way possible. The rest you could learn later.

The Ronin attack was indeed huge. The damage was at least $600 million, but I don't think it started a contagion in the market. It didn't cause a domino effect. It was more of a niche-based damage, although it's not even the cause of play-to-earn NFT games losing popularity. Axie Infinity, of course, as well as Ronin itself were severely affected. But, again, it didn't really wreak havoc in the larger crypto industry.

Terra's collapse, however, sent big ripples across the crypto industry. To a certain extent, it contributed to the fate of Celsius, 3AC, Voyager, and others. It was a popular project. It was very quick to rise and even reached the top 10. Promoted by popular influencers, the likes of crypto billionaires Novogratz and CZ, it quickly attracted massive retail and institutional support. Its collapse, therefore, was huge.

However, I agree that as far as the effects on regulators are concerned, it might indeed be SBF's FTX that immediately caused it. But sometimes I wonder how much of what the regulators and even congress itself are doing now would have been done had FTX not been owned by this altruistic gentleman, Mister Sam Bankman-Fried.

The options would only increase over time, but I guess the support for legacy address will remain. What's the cost of not removing it? What's the cost of removing it? There's probably not much reason to remove it. Although a bit discouraged nowadays, and probably very few would be using it in the decades to come, there will surely remain wallets that offer legacy support. As a matter of fact, there might also come a time in the unforeseeable future when both SegWit and Native SegWit addresses would no longer be the most popular addresses, but support for them might still remain.

What's a good plan, by the way? Or more specifically, what's a good plan for the year that has just entered?

I don't think the ends or beginnings of years are to be given too much importance. The Bitcoin market, for example, doesn't shift from bear to bull or vice versa just because a year has ended and another one has begun. So rather than looking at it through the lens of time, I'd rather look at it through its price. Time only matters if there's an anticipated event that affects the price. Otherwise, it doesn't matter whether it's December or January, or 1st or 2nd quarter, or 2023 or 2024.

Proof of reserve should be that if there are 100,000BTC deposited by clients, there should also be 100,000BTC kept in a safe storage. There's big trouble when clients deposited a total of 100,000BTC and the exchange simply says it has $1,683,140,000 worth of assets that back it.

There's even bigger trouble when 100,000BTC is supported, still by an equivalent worth of assets, only that it is in their own tokens. Alert bells should be ringing extremely loud. So, if 100,000BTC is supported by $1,683,140,000 in FTT or BNB or BUSD or KCS or HT or whatever exchange token, everybody should start worrying.

All of us have our own fair share of newbie days. To many, that means falling victim to all kinds of schemes. I used to be a victim as well. I learned lessons from it, but I payed for it a bit dearly. Later on in my Bitcoin journey, I fell victim once again, this time to a centralized exchange that went bankrupt. Again, I learned my lessons, but not before I payed for it.

I guess many of us here in the Bitcoin community share the same rough road. But we're still here. We're still going forward. Instead of crying over spilled milk, we're making the most of the opportunities at hand. I guess there's a reward waiting for us in the end. Or so I hope.

I'm simply talking of the country's GDP. It's indeed consistently increasing. In short, the country is indeed getting rich. Infrastructures are improving so much.

In terms of agriculture, technologies are also getting a lot better. Vietnam is now exporting agricultural products. But on top of this, they are actually exporting electronics and electrical equipment, mobile phones and telephones as well. 

But I'm not talking about the living conditions of the people. It's one thing for a country to have nice GDP figures; it's another to have a high standard of living. China also has a dragon economy. But how's the millions of Chinese at the bottom? They're living in dire poverty.

If cold wallets are your friend, hot wallets aren't; centralized exchanges aren't. Cold wallets are highly recommended precisely because they are cold. So if you intend to split your crypto portfolio across multiple storages, why don't you split it in different cold wallets? Why does it have to include centralized exchanges and web3 wallets? You're only increasing the risk. If the only risk in keeping funds in a hardware wallet, for example, is when you connect it online or in the way you keep your seed phrase, it is multiplied a number of times when you're keeping it in Binance, for example.