It is a small region, but every new usage opportunity is a positive.   I see you updated with the Honduras stuff, and that is good too. 

It is good to see it in various countries because then you can have competition for freedom within countries, not just between countries.

It is a debit card which is one issue given the lesser fraud protections for debit vs credit cards.  That said, at 4%, that is a good reward particularly if there are no limits, it would be nice if there was a way to instantly, automatically exchange it into bitcoin or cash.  One would also have to keep a balance there to draw against.  I also think that it might complicate one's taxes doing this unless one could automatically sell whatever the 4% reward is instantly so that there was no capital gain or loss which could take the reward down.

It might be useful for very large payments though.  You'd deposit the $X into coinbase, make the payment, take the crypto and transfer it to cash or bitcoin.  The difference between the 4% and 2.62% would add up.

Edit:
Looking at it, it says that the max Point of Sale is $2500 for PIN and signature for a total of $5000 every 24 hours which isn't all that useful.  And there is a 2.49% conversion fee per transaction if you are drawing on something other than a USD coin.   With limits like that and fees like that if you aren't in USD, it isn't all that useful.  The low limits is the big issue though.

In short, if bitcoin fails, liberty fails because you will have nowhere in the world to protect yourself from the authoritarians who continually want to control everyone and everything around the world.  It has been the same battle for millennia:  some people want to be free, some people want to control. 

I agree, I don't think that the US is far behind now, not really at all.  And the number of companies and people involved has only grown so the more that happens the more difficult it would be to "make bitcoin illegal" like people have claimed about various places over the years.  I just like competition because everyone benefits.

As far as the ETFs go, yes, I meant a "physical" backed ETF vs a futures backed one.  The futures one is better than nothing, but not much given the costs etc.  If you have a net positive demand $X/day from a "physical" ETF, then that will help demand at whatever exchange(s) are being used to fulfill the ETF orders and then at least in theory there will be market arbitrage to equalize prices everywhere.  Obviously it is all theoretical, but in general if you have positive demand from the ETF, it should increase the fiat price over time.

And devil's advocacy is a good thing because it helps to clarify points.


:-)

I hate to say it, but I will only believe it when I see it.  There have been so many rumors over the years that it seems unlikely.  Certainly it would be nice given the uptake on Apple Cash/Apple Pay, but I won't believe it until it comes true.

An ETF approval, more uptake of things like Taro to increase usage and stuff like that are important too.

I edited one post and it didn't ask me to answer a new question.

Of course this one:
"Which list contains the names of the Bennet sisters, depicted by Jane Austin in Pride and Prejudice?"

Jane AustIn didn't write Pride and Prejudge.  Jane Austen did.  E, not I.  So none of the answers are correct since Jane AustIn wrote nothing.

Even the answers offered - Jane, Elizabeth, Mary, Catherine/Kitty, and Lydia  -are INcorrect answers.  But the only one close says "Elisabeth" - S not Z - so not even the answers are correct.

Perhaps the AI IQ is the one who needs a downgrade.

uberspot/OpenTrivia is not a reputable source.

If you don't post, do you get a zero?

That is what they are saying, true.   Thinking as their law firm, my argument would go something like this:  Is the market mature enough?  As their attorney [not that I am of course lol], I would say that seems very subjective and consequently arbitrary.   Fake volumes, sure on some, but I don't think that is the case with ones like Coinbase.  I could be wrong, but I'd make that argument that, sure, some exchanges are showing fake/inflated volumes, but there are stock exchanges doing the same and "we wouldn't be using anything but reputable exchanges such as X,Y, and Z."  Likewise, regarding fluctuation, I'd make the argument that if you look at many futures or options markets, they are much more volatile than bitcoin given the amount of leverage involved.

I'd also argue that having an ETF (or more than 1) would help stabilize the prices because the volume could increase significantly.  The ETFs would wag the exchange price vs the exchange price wagging the ETF.

I would also make the argument to the Biden administration (Ditto Obama and Trump before): does the US want to be at the forefront of crypto or lagging?  Does the US want to be taking the same side as authoritarians the world over or supporting people who want the freedom to make their own decisions?  (That wouldn't help with this admin).  It is like online gaming today.  The US had the opportunity to embrace it and be involved instead of driving it overseas and offshore.  e.g. casino.com and gamble.com could have US based casinos on them or something vs whatever is on there now.

In a free country, one should not have to ask for permission to do everything or even most things. 

:-)

They could certainly argue it is arbitrary and capricious and certainly if the SEC didn't have a valid reason a court could impose a remedy.  Given the political nature of the left-leaning judges, much would depend on the judge that hears the case initially and then which group of circuit court judges hears the appeal, unless it was en banc.

I think you are right.  It does put some political pressure on them and could (I don't know the odds) have some chance of success if the SEC were to be found to be acting arbitrarily for example.  The administrative state structure is an issue for just this reason - you don't have elected people making the decisions, you have unelected bureaucrats making a decision without much in the way of checks and balances except via the courts.

To me he seems more of just a vulture feeding on whatever he can gorge upon vs a bear.  You are right though, he does often take a negative view of things.  Particularly things that he (and his minions) can't control.  They don't like things that give regular people the freedom to resist statism.

I am somewhat surprised it is so little.  Of course the time to protect oneself and one's assets is well before something like an invasion or takeover by some authoritarian scoundrels, but even now a month ago it wasn't too late to protect oneself in Ukraine.  Really though, why aren't more people thinking about it?  Perhaps they are just trying to survive.

Using the word "Hoard" tells a lot about your mindset.  Saving is a good thing.  Investing is a good thing.  Protecting yourself from crazy leaders around the world who don't like people being free to use their money as they see fit is a good thing.  And no one knows what "bitcoiners do" - you are merely speculating.

Money is useful however each person wants to use it.  That's the nature of a free ecosystem like bitcoin:  A may not like what B is doing and B may not like what A is doing but it isn't A's business or B's business what someone else does.  They each are free to use it as they see fit.

First, one questions his judgment given Soros is involved.  Something like bitcoin would undermine Soros' entire gameplay since it would allow individual people to protect themselves from what he and his ilk want:  control over everyone and everything.  Is he truly giving his opinion or giving their hope?

Second, he may be right about the damage to the US dollar between the stuff with SWIFT, petrodollars, China and Russia.  The dollar has been in decline since the Fed came into existence and even more so since the 1930s when FDR (socialist democrat) confiscated gold and undermined the sanctity of the gold backed dollar.  This has been a long term destruction of wealth and property that was supposedly inviolate in the US as founded.

Third, as far as bitcoin goes, government may not "allow it" but given that it is permissionless, that that may just encourage people to get into it while they can and remain in it.

For example:  if the authoritarian players can cut Trump off from Twitter, FB and, most importantly, various payment systems, they can cut anyone off.  When a billionaire, President isn't safe from the tech fascists, no one is.   Just ask the people of Canada, Russia, China, etc.  

People who are being cut off will just not cash out of bitcoin and trade within it.  This is yet another reason privacy upgrades are critical.  Anyone world wide should be paying attention:  do you want thugs like Trudeau to shut down your bank account?  Biden on Russians?  Putin on Westerners?  Chinese on Taiwan?  Cuba, Venezuela, NK?  You name it everyone worldwide is at risk and a safe way to protect yourself is via crypto.

Crypto may not save Russia from sanctions, but it can save people in Russia, Ukraine, or Taiwan, or places anywhere near those places from losing money.  You can leave anywhere with your bitcoin.  Trying leaving, say, Hong Kong with a few ounces of gold.  Think about the rules for gold in India too. 

So I'd say crypto may or may not help the governments in these places, but it can definitely help people who are paying attention.  Of course this goes for everyone around the world.  A large majority of politicians are power-hungry crooks who are willing to sacrifice their people and liberty for money.

Yes.  Russia has Europe and much of the world at their mercy with the pipelines - note how they weren't targeted by sanctions etc. particularly now that the US has shut down so much energy production and in 13 months became a net importer vs exporter. It plays right into Putin's hand. China has the world over a barrel with chips and other manufacturing.  With a Taiwan invasion they have TSMC etc and can say "no chips for you" if you don't play along. With little chip manufacturing in the US (Intel is promising more) how long could the world survive?

And this is why analysts should be ignored.  They know no more than anyone else.

Nothing has changed in Ukraine except perhaps it will be completely conquered by this weekend and yet bitcoin is ~38800 right now and the war definitely did not stop.

The people of Taiwan should be watching this and moving assets out of there or at worst buying bitcoin so that they will have a backup plan if they are next. Both China and Russia know the US (even with the rest of the world along for the ride) cannot handle two large scale conflicts at once and with a blithering idiot like the current president in charge it makes it even more unlikely the US would be able to do so.  Weakness begets war as today illustrated again.

I hope the war stops and the people of Ukraine become free to make their own decisions but that seems unlikely.

That is a great montage.  I didn't see this until after my reply in the other thread, but you hit the nail on the head.  They cut off people's money and ability to work and they control the population.  It is initially more subtle than tanks and guns, but it is quite effective.

I also find it interesting what Canada did seizing assets from centralized entities - bitcoin, Canadian dollars etc.   If anyone anywhere in the world is relying on a centralized exchange/other entity to protect them from the police power of the government they are in for a rude wakeup call eventually.  If you have bitcoin at a centralized entity for anything other than trading, you should rethink that position.

Authoritarians like Trudeau want power and are willing to do whatever they can to get it.  There are people like that involved in the governments the world over.  Bitcoin, when you hold your own keys, helps prevent these evil people from controlling everyone else. 

Once that runs out, it will need to be controlled "to protect the children".  Or bitcoin might be racist or sexist.  Or transphobic.  Or perhaps they'll go back to the "fund terrorism" stuff.  They try to recycle this stuff to try and control and divide people.  Since they don't have a rational argument that can withstand debate, the standard canards are rolled out.

Just look at the Biden admin today in their terror threat statement arguing that speech is terrorism:

SUMMARY OF THE TERRORISM THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES: The United States remains in a heightened threat environment fueled by several factors, including an online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories... These threat actors seek to exacerbate societal friction to sow discord and undermine public trust in government institutions to encourage unrest, which could potentially inspire acts of violence. [emphasis added]...