You don't have to HODL all your coins and you don't have to sell all your coins. If you need to buy something and you don't have fiat for that, just sell some BTC if you really-really need it. Of course the problem here is that those coins can grow 10 times higher in a few years, but I think this is the beauty of BTC - it really makes you be more responsible with your money. But I think that HODLing forever is an unnecessary extreme, money won't bring you happiness when you are old and have more of them than you need.

Gamers are spending hundreds of dollars on their PCs or consoles and then hundreds of dollars on games every year, why would they need opportunities to earn some pennies? People play games to relax, not to earn money. When a game is turned into a job it stops being a game, it becomes a boring grind.

There are already enough markets for games that doesn't feature real-money trading directly, and the small minority of players that wants it uses them, so blockchain games aren't exactly revolutionizing anything. This is a typical case of blockchain devs having no idea what people want and need, and just trying to fit their "revolutionary technology" when no one asked for it.

People were saying that Bitcoin is the future for many years already, well that future is today, and Bitcoin didn't became the base currency of the world, it didn't even became a popular currency, it's mainly used as a speculative investment / store of value. Even becoming a popular store of value doesn't guarantee that it will become popular currency that will revolutionize finance and society.

I also think that it's naive to think that cartels will simply vanish if all drugs were to be made legal. They are so powerful that they can just switch to other activities and keep extending their control over society with their unmatched monopoly on violence. They have already amassed large amounts of money and resources which would allow maintaining their structure for a long period of time.

Blockchain games will never get any traction, gamers don't care about blockchain technology, NFT and other buzzwords. The people who engage with them are just those who try to get rich quick on a speculative market.


No, the real money isn't the main issue, the issue is that those games are created just to make people participate in speculative investing on a highly rigged market. Steam wants nothing to do with that, it's a gaming platform, not a stock exchange.

While EA's lootboxes are highly problematic, they are not the same as some blockchain game NFT's that people buy to get rich quick.

Good advice in theory, but doesn't work on practice. Newbies don't understate how to measure a coin's utility, and they get easily misled by marketing materials or shill articles/videos that make them believe that they are investing in a "good project".

Bitcoin maximalists are attacking shitcoins and banks all the time. And even inside Bitcoin community there was a large schism when big blockers split off to start their own coins.


Bitcoin is just a currency, stop inventing some magnificent and unrelated properties for it.


There's nothing remarkable about people from different countries having a common interest, it happens with every hobby these days.


And how many poor people bought $10 worth of BTC in 2012 and held it to this day? Dozens?

IMO this is one of the arguments against widespread Bitcoin adoption, because security against such attacks is one of the reasons banks became popular. And Bitcoin really does make such crimes easier, because you don't need to meet in person to get money, and you can anonymize it rather effectively. Bitcoin is already the go-to payment method for ransomware, it's only natural it will be such for real world ransoms too.

Telling people to not flash their stash  is a good advice, but there's also no security by obscurity. So this is likely another reason why in the future there will be Bitcoin banks.

Sure thing experienced junkies can get drugs as easily as picking groceries from a store, but for people who never done it it's not that simple, they don't have connections with the drug dealers, they have higher chance of getting scammed or meeting an undercover officer.

And currently America is undergoing a large opiod crisis which has its roots in completely legal prescription drugs. This is a glimpse to what a full legalization of all drugs could hold.

Decriminalizing personal use of drugs is very different from making all drugs legal.


Drugs like heroin basically replace chemicals in human body that are responsible for certain functions, so it can be impossible/deadly to get off such drugs as the body no longer produces those chemicals.

It's a really hard discussion whether such things should be freely available to people or not. Removing drug cartels is just one part of the equation. Lives ruined by easily available drugs is the other.

Yes, it's true that people find ways to get drugs when they are illegal, but this absolutely does deter some potential users. If getting hard drugs was as easy as going to nearest shop and showing your ID, a lot more people would get addicted. Anyone can have a bad day or a depressive episode and decide to alleviate it with some heroin.

The type of coin burning that you describe happens because of the centralized supply and the holders of said supply trying to improve the image of their coin. Bitcoin doesn't really need that, because no single entity controls a significant portion of all coins. Satoshi is likely the largest holder of coins with their speculated 1 million coins, but even that is just 1/21 of supply, which is not that big compared to shitcoins that have 50% of even the whole supply premined.

If Satoshi's coins are no longer accessible, you could consider it the biggest act of "burning" in Bitcoin history, though of course those coins were not provably destroyed.

Everyone feel like they are the next Warren Buffet when they make some profit in bull market, but sooner or later a sudden bear market comes and all your shitcoin stash will be worth 5% of the original investment.
Buying shitcoins and hoping that they will pump is really not a sound strategy, this irrational market will not last for long, sooner or later everyone will realize that there's no reason for coins with no user base and use cases to cost so much.

Can we please stop caring about what Elon Musks says? It really makes Bitcoin market look immature, when its price can be so easily influenced by a single celebrity. I'm sure that if Elon Musk tweeted "gold will reach $100,000" gold wouldn't move by even 1%


By whom? I'm pretty sure most people in the world don't read Elon Musk's tweet or pay attention to his statements.

I think fairness has no value on its own. It's better to have an unequal society where poor people have some decent living than to have an equal society where everyone is barely surviving. The global standard of living keeps getting better and better, things like child mortality or hunger have plummeted compared to 50-100 years ago.

Who says that Bitcoin's value is not speculated? But this doesn't make it unnatural. Bitcoin's price is not controlled by some small group of individuals.

Currently it gets more and more recognition as a store of value, so it's reasonable that it s growing. Demand is growing as more people realize that it useful for them, so there's nothing wrong with the fact that the network itself didn't go through some major changes.

How can you achieve this circular economy? When people have a lot of money, their desire new and premium things instead of buying something old and used, even if its fully functional. If a government tried to regulate this and limit how much things people could buy, this would have negative consequences for the economy and would be met with serious protests.

The fact that a large percentage of Bitcoin users is young doesn't mean that a lot of young people are using Bitcoin. In this context the important number is percentage of the population that uses Bitcoin, and currently it's in very low single digits for most countries, and much less than 1% globally.

Take marijuana for example, 15% of americans consume it regularly and over 50% at least tried it once, and yet it's still not legal in all states, and it was illegal for many decades and all the protesting didn't do much. Banning Bitcoin today would be an extremely easy action.

I'm not saying that it would mean more direct use of Bitcoin by merchants, Lightning adoption could also make the job easier for payment processors, so there will be more competition and better rates / less KYC and other bad things for consumers.

IMO things will change only after some years when:

1) Lightning network payments are the standard, so there's no problems with confirmation times and fluctuating exchange rate

2) Bitcoin is less volatile and more merchants are open to accept it directly

Until then payment processors will suck, and in general user experience for an average person without deep knowledge would just be way too bad to use Bitcoin payments regularly.

It's not exactly a secret that Bitcoin had great performance in the past, but this doesn't guarantee that it will have a great performance in the future. What you should be looking at is level of adoption, network metrics, code development, regulations in important countries and so on.