There are hundreds of altcoins created each year, and almost all of them die rather quickly, and not a single one of them has became truly revolutionary, not even Ethereum. And then, you should also keep in mind that cryptocurrency is fungible, so even if you have a coin from early blocks, it stops being such when you transfer it to someone. And this thing with putting coins out of circulation does not happen with every altcoin. So, overall the chance that you can get some extra value from altcoin being collectable is astronomically low.

Can you elaborate? What is the source of this claim? Because there's a lot of professions like lawyers, doctors, engineers and so on that will still be relevant and high-paying in the future. And getting into trendy profession simply because it's trendy is actually not the greatest idea, those fields quickly become saturated, and employers aren't looking for just anyone to do the job, they are looking for people will talent and passion.

Real old coins are valuable because they are rare and have historical and cultural significance. Altcoins are not rare at all, there's probably millions more of those coins that you hold in the hands of other users. Altcoins also don't have any historical significance, I'm sure in 50 years no one will care about 1ST and thousands of other coins that came and went.

I hope that they bought more BTC than ETH, and not the vice versa or 50/50, because while Bitcoin is a relatively safe bet, ETH has only been riding the various useless hypes like ICO, DeFi, NFT - and it won't be able to ride them forever, at some point the market will tire of them like it grew tired of beanie babies. Ethereum, despite continuously making bold claims, still hasn't helped create something useful for the real world, and not just crypto speculators.

NFT's are not specifically recognized by any country in the world, so enforcing your right might be impossible in most cases. For example someone post an image on their site and you say that you own its NFT and go to court, the court most likely won't bother judging this case.

Blockchain also doesn't not and will never be able to automatically enforce your rights on anything that isn't a part of the blockchain. This is why many people call NFT a scam, you don't own the thing that supposedly backs the NFT, you just own a token on blockchain.

To me financial stability is more of a long term thing, for example - having a job that will still be in demand in 20 years, have passive income from real estate or other safe assets. And of course the amount should be enough to cover basic needs and some extra purchases.

Financial stability is also about being resilient to economic crisis when it happens, and as history shows, they do happen regularly, so in a lifetime a person would experience multiple of them.

Have you thought what are the odds that he would have taken your 50 grands, never contacted you again and the condition about not selling for 10 years was there to discourage you from filing a complaint. Scammers often use legitimate investments as a legend for their scam, so from my point of view you most likely dodged a bullet. Not only you would have lost those money, you could have easily got discouraged from participating in crypto market in the future.

This has been a suspicion ever since this whole case started, basically losing means winning for Wright, and even if the court is not interested in the fact whether he is Satoshi or not (which I find very dumb, because if they looked into it, the case would have been closed a long time ago), CWS will use it as an argument for his claim, and a lot of journalists and other writers who are not familiar with cryptocurrency will probably portray him as Satoshi because of this court case.

Sure, he filled the role of a leader when there was a demand for it, but he does not strike me as a talented and charismatic leader that won his followers with his words. He's not a good orator, he is not making good blog posts, he's not making inspiring speeches. If not for the blocksize debate, he would have been immediately forgotten.

The problem with this claim, and I will use the direct words of the mentioned service provider, is that when these declarations were made, Ukraine didn't have any regulations for crypto, so the officials could declare any amounts and they weren't required to show signature or even addresses. It is suspected that this is an attempt to legalize their dirty money.

Ukraine already made some important steps towards legal recognition of crypto, so maybe soon it will be clear exactly how many coins they own.

Faketoshi is a product of block size debate, his supporters are generally people who hate the real Bitcoin and its developers. We all know how tribal humans can be, so it's not strange that people would believe the most ridiculous claims when they come from someone who is opposed to the group that they also hate. CWS is not some genius liar and manipulator, he simply happened to be in the right place and the right time.

This is why when people start talking about multisig, encryption and all that stuff, they sound exactly like in that comic about $5 wrench. The real solution is to heavily invest in physical security - get alarm, strong locks, live in a safe neighborhood, hire private security if you are really rich. Do not open doors to unknown people, do not go to unknown places with strangers that you met 20 minutes ago. The list can go on, because there's so many possible ways someone can rob you.

World hunger is generally not a problem of lack of resources, it's a problem of delivering those resources. Hunger these days happens in heavily corrupt failed states, warzones, totalitarian countries like North Korea - all those places where you can't just come and hand out food freely even if you had unlimited resources.

So I found these comments about Elon Musk's net worth extremely dishonest, especially when they come from a person who is supposed to be an expert on world hunger.

This site works by generating private keys and corresponding addresses on client's side. It doesn't have a database of all possible private keys, because there's not enough space in the world for such database. You will not find any wallets with balance there, it would be like winning a lottery millions of times in a row.

Some of those addresses have transactions because someone chose manually their private key, for example number 42 or 666 or 1337. If you are generating all private keys in order from 0 up to maximum, you will see quite a lot of such keys and addresses.

But again, you will not see them with balance, because there are bots that are setup to monitor every new block to see if such a vulnerable address has received any transactions and immediately sweep it. This is why brainwallets are dangerous, someone can setup such programs and monitor billions of words and combinations to see if someone decide to choose one as their brainwallet.

But this is an argument for third-party custody, not against it. If the deposed Afghani government held their reserves in Bitcoin, there would have been a risk that the funds could have ended up in the hands of Taliban, because the government would either had to make a Bitcoin transaction to some other party outside the country or try to physically move the wallets. The first option requires a trusted third party, the second option is vulnerable to physical attack by Taliban.

I hope we all agree here that billions of dollars not falling into the hands of Taliban is a good thing?

Comparing prices only makes sense when the quantity is the same. 1 car vs 1 car, 1 house vs 1 house, one kg of precious metal against one kg of precious metal. But you took an arbitrary amount of gold and decided to compari with arbitrary amount of cryptocurrency. This information is literally useless, because it doesn't tell us which thing is more valuable. Comparing marketcaps would be a better approach and spoiler: gold is still bigger than all of crypto combined.

If this is what it will take decentralization, then it would mean that Bitcoin was always a flawed project. We are powerless to stop banks or companies from using Bitcoin, and we are can't prevent other people from choosing to interact with Bitcoin through these centralized intermediaries.

But I don't believe that this is a cause for worry just yet, as long as the critical mass of Bitcoiners is devoted to decentralization, banks or any other groups won't be able to hijack Bitcoin so easily.

The Bitcoin/crypto community has been like this for as long as I remember it; people spreading baseless rumors as "news", projecting their hopes and dreams, dismissing anything even slightly negative as "FUD". And when Bitcoin grows in price, they see it as validation of their views. This is not going to change anytime soon, not until Bitcoin's price becomes stable and "boring", so we just gotta accept it as a fact.

🚩🚩🚩

Such insanely high offers are usually used by scammers to make become blinded with greed and throw away all critical thinking. If OP asks you in private messages to visit some links, install some software, send your coins for "verification" and so on - DON'T DO IT.

What sort of plausible deniability are you looking for in online storage? If authorities will know your online accounts, they will be able to ask the storage providers to give your data, and after that they will be pressuring you to decrypt it. So, same situation as finding your local storage.

So, use throwaway emails and privacy tools like TOR when registering on sites that provide storage, and do a lot of online backups, because there's no guarantee that all these providers will be around in 10-20 years or that they won't lose your files.