I don't know where you decided I defend the fact he gambled taxpayers' money. I only stated some facts.

But I'll come to your "dilemma" too: people are defending the fact he adopted Bitcoin; they are proud to see such a bitcoiner (i.e. a president, please don't think too far). I'd guess that having a backup of state-owned bitcoins is part of the process. Keep in mind that while we have focused on the price/speculative component of Bitcoin, Bitcoin is a powerful (crypto)currency and I am sure he (or his advisors) have considered that too in the equation.

So let's not over simplify those actions. They are good and bad too, depending the angle you're looking from.


I feel we are going a bit too far off-topic with this. If you think we will keep going on with this debate, how about making a topic specifically about that?

While, as said, this is information/fact, not factoid (which has multiple meanings and one of them is bad), I do support this.
You've had a great initiative, you've done great work, it deserves more advertising. After all, it's in the best interest of Bitcoin.

If it's a sealed envelope with a bit of security measures they will not touch it. Of course, a very important requirement is to not brag about your coins if you have so many.
On the other hand, if one is paranoid enough and doesn't trust banks - understandable after all - he can do (as already said in some of the previous posts) something like Shamir backup and split the seed between multiple banks' deposit boxes.

The advantage of having the wallet seed at a bank is that it can be easier to get it into the hands of your family after you die.

I wrote a long text with possible options, then I saw the problem: you forgot to set in your profile the e-mail address stay private. So everybody can see your e-mail address in your profile. Anybody could have sent that spam.
Next time make sure "Hide email address from public?" is checked.

I use a password manager (Bitwarden) to avoid exactly this kind of problems. It's close to "browser saving password" as usability, but it's not in the browser, hence imho safer.

Plus, instead of having new e-mail for each new service, I have a list of e-mails I use for "not so important" things.
I will add that certain e-mail providers (eg. gmx.com) offer a number of alias addresses so you don't even need so many accounts, and in case of problems you dispose the problematic alias.

You are right and it's good to bring this in newbies' attention now and then, however I would extend this by recommending a good read of Why KYC is extremely dangerous – and useless. It doesn't cover the phone, still it's an eye opener for being much more careful on what data we give out to unknown people and businesses.

I will add that even e-mail can be tricky and could be good to use only one e-mail (or set of e-mails) only for crypto related stuff.. because even changing e-mail can be a problem (eg. giving up an e-mail all your friends know).

You came with a very good advice and a bad example.
USDT is a centralized coin. USDT being pegged to USD is not a given - sometimes it's closer to USD, sometime it's not - and you have to trust the issuer, which has the power to make your money worthless or freeze it.

So, indeed, not your keys, not your coin, but long time storing in your wallet makes sense only for proper decentralized cryptocurrencies.
Keep in mind that while "not your keys, not your coins" is correct, "your keys, your coins" is not always true.

That's what I also said: as it is, MetaMask cannot just add Bitcoin like it does with ERC-20 tokens, since we talk about different blockchains.

Whether they enhance it to cover other blockchains or not, it's up to them, but it would be quite a change. Only afterwards they'll be able to work with actual Bitcoin.
Just.. bitcoiners tend to be more careful and may not be so happy to use a browser extension with their money. So the effort may not worth it. And I have a feeling they're also thinking like this.

The default number of connections (nodes) Bitcoin Core works with is 125: 10 outbound and 115 inbound.
This number is big - leads to a lot of traffic - and, depending on your internet plan you may want to adjust.
Normally the peer nodes are "harvested" from the network, but you can add with addnode "fallback nodes" you may want to be sure you connect to (see here)
From the way I understand these numbers, I think that the answer to your intended question may be 10.


Nope.

OK, maybe my wording is incorrect. Many gamblers try to do it with money that's not theirs. However, Bukele is not gambling only taxpayers' money, but also his future in politics (possibly his freedom too).
Still, as I said, it can be one of the smartest gambling/bet I've seen.

About miners receiving coins:
First of all, the miners in the way blockchain sees them are the solo miners and the pools. They don't receive reward for blocks they mine (see it as a competition), not just because they're working.
A mining pool that managed to mine a block (i.e. add it to the ledger/blockchain) will receive the block reward and the transaction fees of the included transactions and all this is part of the coinbase transaction. (Here) it's not a separate transaction.

The miners from the pool will get then coins based on the pool calculation and based on the amount of work they've done. The miners will - sooner or later - withdraw their earnings, clearly, as different transactions.

But, coming back to the coinbase transaction, there is no separate transaction for paying the transaction fees, neither between the blockchain and the mining pool (the transaction fees are delivered in the same "special transaction" the block reward is also delivered - actually better wording would be claimed), nor between transaction sender and the mining pool.


About transaction verification:
A transaction, when it's sent, all the inter-connected nodes will verify it when they receive it. Ultimately, the miner node, depending on the fee used by the transaction, how busy the network is and other rules, will include the transaction into a block when it will mine it (keep in mind that blocks are mined at an average of 6/hour).
When one sends transaction to another, the recipient will probably see it almost instantly, but that's an unconfirmed transaction which is safe to not take into consideration until it actually gets confirmations (without confirmations you can see it only as a promise - which can sometimes be an empty promise).

All this is correct, but... with recession knocking at our door people may not be so much willing to invest in anything, including Bitcoin, no matter how appealing it may look.
And this can affect the price in a bad way even if the bear market ends.

You're wrong. I've looked up for you a little and you can see here some math about 15 reds in a row. It's an example and it shows that the chance does exist.
Indeed, for 15-20 reds in a row you have to be very unlucky, but it's basic math, the longer you play the bigger the chance even the events with small odds can happen.


When I play dice I do something somewhat similar with your logic, but with a very big difference: if I get to a 4-5 losing streak already I stop and go back to the initial amount. And you know why? Because it's not worth to wager 1000s of dollars to basically try to recover 20$ (give or take).

I don't know how big is this as kWh, but I guess that they do this because it's profitable. And I salute the idea that instead of burning gas for nothing, they use it better, mining bitcoin, reducing pollution, and yes, making some profit too on the way. It's one of the rare cases everybody is winning.

Your method is just another variation of Martingale.
You forget that the value the dice shows is not related to the value it has shown at the previous throw.
You forget that you don't have infinite money and the casino doesn't allow you wager over a certain amount.
And you're wrong, there can be that you fail 7 or more times in a row.

So no, sorry, imho your method is not as good as you would think. Do some research on how tricky and bad Martingale is.


Edit: I see hosseinimr93 was faster; I will leave this because I feel I covered a bit more, but if somebody more objective considers this as being duplicate please PM me and I'll remove.

Your account is made in 2017, yet you misunderstood bitcoin completely.
* Bitcoin aim is not to make people rich
* if Bitcoin would be unlimited, its value will be very small or or zero
* one can buy 0.001 BTC and hold, he doesn't have to start with 1BTC

Time will tell. Using Bitcoin was a great advertising for El Salvador. If Bitcoin price will go again over the roof, El Salvador can even sell and get some of their problems fixed, or at least boast their performance (it would mean a couple of % of their GDP).
It is a gamble and Bukele is a high roller. But the history shows that those who did bet on Bitcoin were winning and there's a very good chance Bukele will win too.


Nope. Ethereum with the move for PoS is downgraded to security, no longer safe. Most of the other coins are either centralized, either too small to matter for now.


Exactly. These countries are going for Bitcoin because it's unstoppable and it helps them avoid sanctions, not because they are interested in freedom.
Even more, in Iran Bitcoin can be used only to import from abroad, not for the population.

USD is losing value as we speak. It's called inflation and this year it's big.
It doesn't mean 1000 USDT will become 900 USDT. It means that if you go to a grocery store with 20$ you'll buy less stuff than one year ago.
I will add that right now USD being strong it simply means the other fiat currencies are even worse. Plus, never trust in news from China (I don't say they're fake news, but the event you're scared of may or may not actually happen, there's no certainty at all).

Then, Yen is the Japanese currency, China has Yuan. But I would not go for various "exotic" stable coins, since, depending on who is issuing them, the may not be as stable as their advertise (never forget what has happened with LUNA). There are gold-backed stable coins, you can look into altcoin announcements, some are pretty old and reliable (but some may be charging you for depositing the actual gold on your behalf!!), still, it's a risk there and you have to be willing to accept that risk (trust the issuer + trust that the underlying asset - in this case gold - will not go down).

I will add that $12k per bitcoin may or may not happen, hence DCA may be a better strategy than waiting and risking to miss the train.

That's correct: OP make sure you don't create another accounts on the same platform, that's usually against the rules and you'll give them ammo to flag you as cheater.


Indeed, however an ongoing investigation can be a good official reason for the limiting. But with no word on that it's a bit odd imho. I didn't know though that this is a common (and legal) practice.
I do find it odd that OP haven't received (or posted) and answer to "why limit". I feel that an official answer to that would have been normal / more professional.


Some awareness never hurts. And I guess that if OP would be indeed so much understanding he would not complain. I understand your point about spam though.

Well, if you count the quarters in the same year, you're right. Still, Q3/2014,Q4/2014,Q1/2015 for example were also consecutive red and, if we look like that even 4 consecutive red quarters did happen.
Plus, these 3 months were not as bad (in percent) like the 2018-2019 reds.


30-35k is a good range for the end of the year. Even maybe a bit optimistic.
I expect the bear market end in this Q4 and the price start slowly rise. Depending on how early or late the reversal happens, the price may get to only 25-30k, or to a better 30-35k.


That's correct. All the charts tell we're in HODL/buy zone (pricewise).