But you can still make an observation that people own both Bitcoin and fiat would rather spend fiat before Bitcoin, because Bitcoin increases in value while fiat decreases. It's not the exact formulation of Gresham's law, but it is quite similar to it.

Okay, $350k in 2022, then what? $3.5m in 2025? $20m in 2030? Bitcoin can't exponentially grow forever, in fact if $64k was the top of this cycle, it would already mean that it slowed down its growth rate, and people really need to readjust their moonmath models, or they will keep getting disappointed.

First, there's not enough resources in the world to make everyone rich or middle class. So, no matter how hard you try to solve this problem, poor people will always exist. And next, social status can change. Poor people can make smart decisions and get a great career or become entrepreneurs, and rich kids can absolutely go broke by mismanaging their inherited wealth. Children are not copies of their parents.

It's not exactly "same" thing. Bitcoin will not increase x100 in one decade like it did before. Bitcoin can't grow at the previous rate forever, it's pretty obvious that the growth has to slow down, and it probably already slowed down, as this bull run is already smaller than the previous ones. So, timing becomes more important, because it would help getting much more profits than FOMOing at whatever price and hodling. Of course for those who are bad at trading hodling is great, but it's not the best trading strategy.

I really hope this ruling won't be used as a precedent in any other cases of CWS, would be really bad if the law decided to see him as Satoshi. Imagine if CWS could now automatically takedown Bitcoin-related sites because of this stupid case. But you can't blame Cobra for this, everyone has a right to privacy, including to stay anonymous on the Internet.

Bitcoin already had 2 major upgrades - SegWit and Taproot, and more will be coming in the future. Bitcoin doesn't need to radically change, like adopting PoS, for example, because it already works great. Bitcoin is decentralized, and it is its greatest achievement, there's no coin more decentralized than Bitcoin, and you don't want any centralization on a network that holds hundreds of billions of value.

I think Bitcoin could "change" meaning adopt a hard fork if it was necessary, like if some unforseen circumstances demanded the change of mining algorithm or block rewards. But so far it's not needed.

The only thing we can assume is that much more coins were lost in the past than now. Things like mnemonic seeds or hardware wallets didn't exist in early days, and people didn't value Bitcoin much, so it was pretty common to forget about your wallet files. But today almost every newbie has wallet backups, and people pay much more attention to storing their coins, because now they view it as a strong investment. Also, coins were much more concentrated in the past. People had hundreds or thousands of Bitcoin and were losing them, today if BTC is lost, it's probably less than 1 coin.

Are you thinking of some sort of loophole like selling BTC in El Salvador to avoid paying taxes because out there it's a currency conversion and not taking profit on investment? I'm pretty sure the US or any other government will view it as taxable event, because generally governments always expect taxes from doing foreign investment activity, which usually results in a person having to pay taxes in both countries, unless there's an agreement between both countries.

The most popular for of corruption is when government officials buy something for higher than market price and split the difference with the seller. And they do it even under full transparency, they just say that the price is justified and that's it, they never get prosecuted, because law enforcement and courts can be bribed. I live in a country with high corruption, and detecting corruption was never a problem, as long as journalists aren't being thrown to jail for doing their work, corruption will be uncovered, but what's next?

And blockchain works best when it has a decentralized network of nodes and no trusted input, which is not what most non-crypto blockchains offer. Especially not the blockchains for government.

If someone started adding all the coins claimed to belong to someone (Satoshi, Winklevoss twins, Mircea Popescu, Bulgarian governments and so on), they'd quickly find that Bitcoin's supply is more than 21 million 

I don't know much about Mircea Popescu, only that he had some controversial reputation. Could he be faking his death? Does he have any reasons to?

I'm pretty sure that at some point of history Bitcoin will stop to exist. Either practically, meaning it will be preserved as a collectible/historical item, or literally no computer in the world will run Bitcoin software and mine new blocks. But this will not happen anytime soon, probably not in our lifetime. Maybe it will happen in a few centuries, maybe even thousands of years. Just like Bitcoin changed the way money is organized, something radically new might come up.

You don't need blockchain to have transparency, simple public reporting and maybe a bit of cryptography is enough. Corruption happens when the government is unwilling to fight it, in that case transparency doesn't help, because even when everyone knows exactly who and how much is stealing, no one gets punished.

People, especially lower class, occasionally find themselves in need to tap into their savings to cover some spendings, and that's how Bitcoin would likely work - it will be a saving account first and currency second. In my country people prefer to keep their savings in US dollar, as it's more reliable than the local currency, but people occasionally have to pay with US dollars or convert them and spend them.

Some people might go 100% on Bitcoin if it will be convenient enough. In that case they will be spending Bitcoin like any other currency.

It would be wise for other countries to wait a bit and see how it goes. Maybe it's still too early to adopt Bitcoin as legal tender, because of problems like fees and volatility, as it would make people develop negative first impressions if they will be forced to deal with it. I wouldn't expect more legal tender adoption in the next months.

The narrative behind this bull run was that US dollar is experiencing rapid inflation, so the companies will convert their reserves into BTC. But the Fed decided to take measures against inflation, enviromental FUD became quite strong, there are concerns about regulations by western countries, and price decline and volatility have also scared away potential investors, including institutions. There needs to be a large shift in sentiment on this market, but I don't see this happening in this year or maybe even the next year. El Salvador adoption is not enough to create FOMO.

This narrative is a bit overrated, because some bitcoiners expect to see Zimbabwe-style hyperinflation of dollar, and this is very unlikely to happen anytime soon. Even recently the US decided to take measures to slow down the inflation, which contributed to Bitcoin's price drop, as this bull run started over fears of inflation in the first place.

But still Bitcoin is a good long-term asset, and it's more convenient than gold or real estate, because it was created as a currency. So the money printing argument is not completely invalid.

It's absolutely not a commonplace. Microstrategy is the only company that accumulated close to 100,000 BTC. The rest of them have much less than that. And public institutional buying has stopped months ago.

Majority of Bitcoins are still held by non-whales, and a lot of the "whale wallets" are just exchanges and other services. Also, whales sell too, they aren't going to hodl till they die of old age.

You can't get rich if you're not taking risks, that's the reality. The key is to keep risks low and have positive expected value. This is what separates investing from gambling - gamblers are losing money over long period of time, investors are making them, if they are somewhat competent. Sometimes it happens that investors get rekt and lose everything, while gamblers win big, but those are just exceptions from the rule.

But I would agree that you shouldn't take investing advises from strangers or friends or even family - always do your own research.

So, when Bitcoin is rising very fast, it's all organic growth and a result of mass adoption, but when it's falling after that, Bitcoiners start looking for manipulators, coordinated attacks and "weak-handed traitors". Why it's so hard to acknowledge a simple fact that what rises fast also falls fast? Bitcoin had a bubble, just like many times in the past, there's absolutely nothing out of ordinary going on.

This is just copium, something that inexperienced investors have to tell themselves to stop panicking.  If you're a holder, you should never care about what's happening on the market, hodlers don't need to rationalize dips and crashes saying "this is good for Bitcoin", hodlers have a long-term strategy. If you're a trader, then you should understand that there can be both bullish and bearish periods, and you should be ready to cut your losses and re-enter at better price instead of watching your loss grow.