It all depending on the structure of your wallet.

Imagine you have 1 address 1xxx that received 1 BTC one time. You have no choice but to use it and anyone receiving coins from you could assume that you had 1 BTC.

Now imagine that you received 0.25 BTC to the same 1xxx address 4 times. Sending someone 0.1 BTC would require only one of those outputs, but it would still reveal the rest of the outputs of the same address, and it will be practically like the first case.

Now imagine you received 0.25 BTC four times, but into a unique address every time. Now if you send your friend 0.1 BTC, they will only know that you owned 0.25 BTC and not know about the three other 0.25 BTC  coins. However, your friend will know about your 0.15 BTC change, and if you will later use it together with the other 0.25 BTC coins (for example to send someone 0.35 BTC), they will learn about them.

To have good privacy you need to use mixing services and manually select coins (UTXO - unspent transaction output) when you make a transaction.

How does some random people tweeting to an old guy who will never read or care about those posts really means anything? Cointelegraph as always produces garbage articles because their business model is spewing out as much quantity as possible, disregarding all quality.

You can forget about this whole "Bitcoin will soon replace banks thing" until Bitcoin's technology is actually capable of doing this, which is not happening soon, maybe it won't ever happen. It's no secret that onchain capacity can't cover the daily need for transaction of even a small country, and even with Lightning Network, if everyone tried to open a channel, the backlog would be enormous.

I believe his sentence is extremely harsh and unfair, but it was his job as the site's administrator to not allow any immoral trades on his platform.

Anyway, back to the topic, why does this have to be an NFT? Why not just sell his artworks physically? If the artworks are delivered physically, what's the point of this NFT? If not, where are guarantees that they ever will?

This is my point, WoW Token is not "play to earn", it's a way to get subscription for free if you have time to grind, and a way to get gold if you have money (which I would say is bad, because what's the point of having things that require time and effort, but can be bypassed with money? it really cheapens their value in the community).


Tradeability is a design choice, you absolutely don't need blockchain and NFT for that, games like TF2 and CS:GO had it for years. My point is, NFT games are mostly just indie cashgrabs or scams, and technology itself doesn't offer anything revolutionary or useful. Yes a player owns an NFT on blockchain and can send it to anyone, but the company owns game servers and can at any moment change what that NFT represents.

Bitcoin is currently in its volatile early stage, it's not yet a hedge against economic uncertainty, but it one day could be. When people compare Bitcoin to gold, they not only talk about its market properties, but also about its monetary properties - ability to being transferred without third parties, resilient storage (if done correctly), unaffected by fiat inflation and so on.

And I also played a lot of games and were making money off them, and I still say that "play to earn" is unsustainable. When Diablo III was released, it featured real money auction house for all in-game items, and while some players made a lot of money from it, the majority of the community hated it and it was soon removed. Most of the gamers are not interested in making money from games, in fact they are very much against the trading of gameplay items - if you played WoW, you know how much the community hates gold sellers. Now imagine if Blizzard turned their WoW token into a blockchain token - now there's suddenly an extra huge incentive to run bots, scam people, hack accounts, etc. because there's an easy way to turn in-game money into real money.

AAA gaming industry is already making stupid money with their gambling mechanics and lazy-ass $60 releases and extra DLCs, whatever they can make with play-to-earn model just pales in comparison to that. But I believe this model isn't even profitable, because it pushes players away from the game.

NFT doesn't bring anything new to gaming, game companies like Valva have been allowing players to trade their items for real money for a long time already. Gamers don't care whether their stuff is stored in centralized database or on decenetralized blockchains, they just want to enjoy the process. "Play to earn" will never be popular, a large precentage of gamers are middle class people who absolutely don't need to collect pennies for hours of repetetive tasks.

I'm not criticizing Saylor here, but rather how a large part of this community has turned him into a celebrity. People shouldn't just blindly copy his strategy and buy Bitcoin whenever he tweets that he bought. This basically gives him power to influence the market in short term. We are not gaining anything from it, just creating a risk.

Except people were making tokens on Bitcoin blockchain for many years before NFT even became a concept, they were called colored coins. But it didn't gain much traction because fundamentally such tokens are not very useful. NFTs are only popular because the scammers that control the market invested a ton of money into promoting them and pumping the market with their fake trades. In a year or two NFT will be dead like ICO is now.

It's a funny meme, but I don't want any more "Bitcoin Jesuses". What if he will become a big blocker or a shitcoiner because he'll decide that it can be even more profitable or because of his personal arrogance? There shouldn't be any Bitcoin leaders, because beginners can very easily trust all their words, which can create a situation when one person has too much influence on Bitcoin.

Bitcoin holders shouldn't care about short-term price and  they shouldn't care if some Bitcoin celebrity buys the dip or not.

Bitcoin's current value is 17% of that theoretical value at 100% replacement (337k), but current adoption is nowhere near close to 17%. This is because Bitcoin's value does not depend on its adoption as a currency, so it can easily reach $1 million just by being "digital gold". Kinda like the real gold's marketcap is higher than base money, despite nobody using gold as a currency.

If you will enter a signature campaign as a newbie and be required to post, let's say, 20 posts per week, you will very likely just spam oneliners that experienced posters won't even read and just contribute to the problem of this forum. As a beginner, you should be reading more, using search function before asking questions, avoiding writing posts that don't contribute anything to the discussion. If you will do that and start making valuable contributions, you could join well-paying signature campaigns, but it will probably take at least a year of very intensive forum participation to get there. This path is not for everyone and I wouldn't recommend it if you aren't really passionate about Bitcoin and this forum.

Let's be real here, some day Bitcoin will enter a bear market similar to the crypto winter of 2018, and Microstrategy together with Nayib Bukele will look stupid for buying the dip that keeps dipping and dipping. Buying Bitcoin every single time it falls is really not the smartest strategy, the best strategy is to buy a lot of coins at the bottom of bear market and sell them and the height of bull market.

If you already bought Bitcoin when it dropped to $30k earlier this year, why buy it again now during a correction? Could have just bought more back then and had more unrealized gains now. I'm sure that their "buy the dip" campaign is just a way to influence the market and stop Bitcoin from falling, because they are very deeply invested in it.

First, don't mix Bitcoin and altcoins together. They might both be cryptocurrencies, but there's a key difference that Bitcoin is the most reliable project in this field, while altcoins are mostly just investment scams veiled as the next big thing.

Second, Bitcoin already gives you absurdly high returns of investment, so it's simply not worth the risk of losing all your coins to scammers/hackers to get some extra %. Practice shows that when there are centralized custodians that hold Bitcoin, exit scams and hacks are rampant.

Why would anyone add Bitcoin symbol to keyboard if Bitcoin is not widely used? The dollar symbol is there because nearly every person in the world that uses computers also deals with dollars on some basis. Bitcoin doesn't have even a 0.0001% of dollar's adoption. The only way I see it happening is if someone makes a keyboard specifically for Bitcoin fans.

When? In 2030s? In year 2400? In the next millennia? And in which country is this mansion? Because a mansion in a developing country is worth a fraction of a cost of a mansion in a developed country.

There's no minimum amount below which investing in Bitcoin is not worth it. People should be investing amounts that they can afford to lose, not the amounts that are viewed as a goal by others, like one whole coin.

As I see it, there are 4 scenarios:

1. Merchants make the first move and adopt it proactively so clients start using it more

2. Clients massively ask merchants to add Bitcoin option and those follow

3. Both happening simultaneously in roughly equal proportion

4. None of this happens and adoption stagnates



Was thinking more about PayPal and various Bitcoin payment cards on Visa/Mastercard networks, as well as some custodial wallets.

Can we really call it Bitcoin adoption when Bitcoin just gets incorporated into the Visa/Mastercard/PayPal systems and real coins are rarely moved on blockchain? I was thinking more about directly sending and accepting Bitcoin without any intermediaries, because that was the point from the beginning.


There's a ton of other reasons why people are not using Bitcoin as a currency, but here I want to specifically discuss the problem between merchants and their customers that neither makes a first move in adoption.

You shouldn't be doing something just because it's trending. Hardcore Bitcoin fans will be telling you to buy no matter what happens on the market. It's growing? Buy because it will break $300,000 by the end of the year! It's falling? Buy because it will soon start rising again! It's not moving? Buy anyway!

When it comes to investing, you should have a clear strategy of when and how much you want to buy, not just do so because the twitter crowd tells you to.