13) Amanda Nunes
12) Brandon Moreno
11) Derrick Lewis
10) Alex Perez
9) Anthony Smith
8 ) Matthew Semelsberger
7) Drew Dober
6) Dontale Mayes
5) Rafa Garcia
4) Michael Morales
3) Ji Yeon Kim
2) Nicolae Negumereanu
1) Mike Mathetha
Total strikes 89

It's good that the share of hardware wallets is growing, but if it's due to the bear market and people moving their money for hodling, doesn't it mean the trend can change when things get better on the market? Moreover, can the change fully be attributed to people living exchanges and opting for hardware wallets or could it be that the adoption of hardware wallets is growing, but not at the expense of exchange users?
Wallets are of course much better for storing coins. But if people do trading, they'll likely still use centralized reputable exchanges for that, and hardware wallets aren't a competitor in this regard at all.

I think it's still possible for the crypto adoption to properly kick in and for a billion of users to be reached. I'd say that less than 8 years isn't enough for that, though, and current world conditions aren't very favourable for larger development of technologies because the economy isn't doing well. 10 to 20 years- yes, sure. 7.5 years - highly unlikely. And then there's the concern others pointed out, regarding the way the number of users is counted (including the number of current users).

I'm pro-Bitcoin, but I don't think it's a fair evaluation of the level of contribution of Bitcoin into the paperless economy. It's an exaggeration to say that it's the forerunner, I believe. After all, there's PayPass, there is Google Pay, and the vast majority of people who don't deal with banknotes usually use something like this, not Bitcoin. It also only takes a few seconds for such a transaction to go through (not literally, of course, as the bank just blocks the funds while they still remain on your account for a while, but in practice you're free to go once this happens), whereas an on-chain Bitcoin transaction will take up to 10 minutes to get confirmed at priority fees.

Before reading the arguments in the thread, I was more tempted to agree than disagree that Satoshi left the project intentionally and was always planning to do so. But it seems that Dave1 and pooya87 are right, and perhaps it was a decision made later on due to certain circumstances. Then again, while the CIA sounds like an argument to stay anonymous, I'm not sure it requires leaving altogether because people and authorities will try to track you down.
It makes perfect sense for a creator of a decentralized currency to leave the project, so that it remains decentralized in terms of further development as well. Whether Satoshi realized it from the start or came to this idea later is something we might never know.

Nigeria is an okay country (maybe not great, but they're not waging a bloody war to grab more land from a sovereign state, and also less authoritarian according to democracy index than UAE), and I think helping it out is a good thing to do. More importantly, it's crucial to ensure Russia runs out of money for the war as fast as possible, so any reasonable short-term solutions can be explored. I don't know if Nigeria will technically be up to the task, so more options should probably be explored, but I like this line of thought.

I believe mk4 is onto something with the denominations of Bitcoin. We could to satoshis, we could go for mBTCs if people need to have a lot of smaller things to feel better about it. But honestly, I don't think it matters much. I am comfortable with 0.001, 0.002 etc., it doesn't bother me how much less that is than 1. Also, I have a negative association with too much of something because big fiat banknote denominations are a sign of hyperinflation. I think people with thousands of dollars are happier than people with Zimbabwe millions. It's funny from a distance, and it might be the silver lining (you poor but you're a millionaire), but it's still a bad thing.

Having a supply of food for 3 weeks is normally enough for most emergencies. If you realize that it will be longer, you can usually ration the 3-week supply for longer. My changes are based on observations related to the war (Ukraine) and how people were surviving in cases where you really couldn't buy food. Meat and nuts aren't a priority because you can survive without both and food supplies are for survival purposes. Same goes for cans of peaches and pears (unless it's a diabetic thing because you need to ensure you aren't low on sugar, but even for that you should probably store something smaller and more reliable). Water is a must if there is a risk there won't be any or it will be very unsafe to get any, but again, in case of emergency, you can survive on less water than you might normally drink, not to mention all the fluids on the cans themselves. So having 50 litres of water is probably enough. Cans with beans are good, but I'd also add rice, pasta, wheat or something like that because these can make other things last much longer (for example, you can ear chickpeas with rice), and it's more filling. If you are out of electricity, you might have gas. If you're out of gas, you can probably cook on fire. If you're a diabetic and you need meds or there's a chance you'll need them when a diet changes, you must store a healthy supply of meds as well.

We should first think whether Bitcoin stability is desirable. While some might argue that it's desirable for Bitcoin to be less volatile because volatility is an obstacle for proper adoption of Bitcoin as money, others might answer that Bitcoin should actually remain volatile because traders are profiting from the volatility and hodlers rely on long-term positive change in Bitcoin's price (value). I think as a stable coin, Bitcoin would have gained way less attention and interest than it curently has. Let's now turn to stable coins. USDT is the most popular one, and its stability means that it costs $1 or something very close to $1 at all times. While you could say it's stability, it also means that it depreciates along with the USD, so it's not immune to fiat inflation problems. Moreover, there's always a risk that it will explode if too many people start selling rapidly at some point (kind of how a bank can go bankrupt if people suddenly withdraw too much cash from it). Finally, I think it's unlikely that making Bitcoin a stable coin is technically possible.

I agree with Upgrade00 about the long-term price prediction and that the long-term prospect matters more and is more predictable than short-term events. Even 20x from the current price is IMO quite realistic if we're talking about years into the future. As for the nearest time when Bitcoin will manage to recover, I think there's still plenty of time till the end of this year. Of course, it might not recover in the upcoming months, but it's not like it would be very out of the ordinary if it does.

While this looks bizarre, I think it's good that a church is doing a useful thing. Historically, churches have been responsible for education in many places, so the mission of giving knowledge (and not just the knowledge regarding a specific religion) has been implemented by churches for a long time. That being said, we currently live in quite a different world, where there are plenty of schools and other education facilities. Also, while teaching about Bitcoin and blockchain would be good, I am not sure about trading specifically. Trading is something that can lead to losses of money, and no prayer will save people from that.

I think whether gardening is therapeutic depends on a person. I know people who are really into it, but I personally hate sand and dirt, so doing something that requires a lot of contact with them is annoying to me. Also, while I've noticed that fresh produce is sometimes very expensive in Western countries, it's very cheap in my home country, so unless it's something like growing your own basil, chillies or cherries, it doesn't make any financial sense to put lots of effort and resources into growing your own veggies, for example.
It all really depends on where you live and what you have. If you live in a flat you're renting in a city, it's much harder than if you have your own house and land in a village. But even in a village, people tend to specialize (someone grows potatoes, someone grows corn, others have animals and get tons of milk), and then cooperation with others when you exchange goods works much better.

I agree with the op that it's great that Bitcoin creator remains anonymous. Whoever this person really is, not only would that person have a major effect on Bitcoin development over the years (which is a downside for something that calls for decentralization), I think Bitcoin would also be less popular. That's because no matter who that person is, somebody would be unhappy with this person's views, beliefs, actions etc. If it's a social democrat, conservatives would be very unhappy. If it's a person who committed some serious crimes, supports Russia or is a fan of flat Earth society, it would also put a ton of people off. The less we know and the less influence Satoshi has, the better. It is true decentralization in action.

I think in many places Bitcoin isn't legal tender but many people use cryptos regardless of state policies (Nigeria) or even the state itself is very crypto-friendly (Ukraine). I am not sure about the whole world adopting Bitcoin and the level of this adoption, but I do agree that it is likely to grow over time. Education is important, and it's a noble task to educate people about Bitcoin for free. People should stop seeing Bitcoin as first and foremost an investment, and they must understand the basics of safety when storing and transferring Bitcoin.

I think I saw Finland stating intentions to send money from seized cryptos to Ukraine earlier, and now it happened. It's a huge sum of money, and as a Ukrainian I am very grateful for this act of generosity. What I don't get, though, is similar to concerns expressed by others in the thread: why they badly needed to sell cryptos and donate the cash to Ukraine. Major Ukrainian foundations accept Bitcoin (such as Come Back Alive), and so does the official initiative by Zelensky United24 (albeit via a payment processor rather than directly onto a BTC address).
Okay, a couple of things here if you truly don't understand why Ukraine needs weapons. You're saying Finland should donate food and water. Well guess what? When people were starving in Mariupol and many occupied and sieged cities (and I'm speaking not just from what I've read on the news but from what I know from my relatives who experienced hunger during Russian occupation in March), Ukraine had plenty of food loaded on huge trucks, ready to be deployed to help Ukrainian citizens. But Russia did not let the humanitarian aid pass through for a long time in many places. Food and water are useless when there are Russians with guns and tanks on the road, not letting the food trucks reach those who need them. You know what gets rid of those Russians? Weapons. And as for rebuilding safe houses, the issue is that you can spend a lot on rebuilding, and then Russian missiles or artillery shelling will hit the area again, destroying everything you've worked for. And what helps getting rid of missiles and shelling? Again, weapons. So Ukraine needs weapons to solve humanitarian issues. Not because Ukrainians are so eager to take human lives, but because of incredibly inhumane acts by Russians that cannot be countered with food or safe houses.

I assumed that a strong authoritarian state like China would actually have a strict financial control system to ensure that there are no bank scams. After all, isn't ensuring customer safety is among the reasons how anti-crypto policies are often explained?
Another fairly recent thing with outragerous bank behavior was in Russia, where a very popular bank Tinkoff set a flat fee of $200 for international incoming transactions, and the fee is taken by the bank regardless of the sum of the transactions (if someone sends less than $200, the bank takes everything).
Bitcoin truly is freedom.

While Russia's war against Ukraine is affecting prices on some products and economic situation in some countries, it can't be used to account for all economic issues. COVID was a big hit on the economy, so it's not surprising that it's finally feeling that hit now. Moreover, Putin doesn't seem eager to stop the war any time soon, and even once it does happen (which will only be when he finally loses), I don't think all sanctions will be lifted immediately. There's still a lot of destruction, deaths, torture, pain and suffering that this war brought. So just stopping the war isn't magically fixing any of that, which is why the sanctions should not be lifted until a major change occurs in Russia and significant reparations are being paid.

While the difference between Euro and Dollar wasn't huge, I was also very used to there being a certain difference, which makes the current situation quite weird. It's not surprising that there are significant economic issues, as Covid was hard, and now there's Russia's war, but also because even prior to Covid the timing was expected to be nearing an economic recession. And since the US is stronger than the EU, it's not surprising that it's experiencing smaller issues. IMO, though, we won't see anything very significant later on with dollar and euro. Euro fell, sure, but I don't think it will go below dollar, at least not significantly so.

Bitcoin doesn't have a totally systematic and direct effect on the market of altcoins, and if one is attentive enough, one can see major differences. Apart from there being many altcoins doing their own, so to speak, and rising or falling regardless of the market situation, there are also major differences with the top coins. For example, even at a current adjusted growth over the last 7 weeks (it was higher a couple of days ago), BTC grew by 11.4%, whereas Ethereum grew by 31.4%. They both grew, sure, but the difference is immense. There was also a notable difference in early 2018, when Bitcoin was already falling fast from its ATH, while Ethereum reached its own in the middle of January and got pretty close to it at the end of January again. Bitcoin, as that time, had already lost almost half of its ATH value.
But overall there's a strong correlation between Bitcoin and top altcoins because they are often traded in pairs, because Bitcoin is #1 by marketcap, and because this marketcap is a very big share of the total market.

While I agree that putting up an expensive Bitcoin add during the bear season deserved commendation, it should be noted that the exchange needs customers, so it's doing it out of its own interests as well. As for El Salvador and CAR, the former has been continuously committed to promoting Bitcoin, but the latter probably have just done it as a PR stunt, as the country has an incredibly low (4% of the population) Internet penetration rate, which means there's only a handful of people who would realistically even be able to consider using Bitcoin.