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.

The pattern here is "lower highs and  lower lows", which means there's a bear market. After each decline, the price failed to return to the previous tops or surpass them, which means that bulls have lost momentum. Just like the price doesn't smoothly go up in bull run, it doesn't smoothly go down in a bear market, so this is really a very basic pattern.

Do millionaires not allow retail investors to buy during markets and sell at ATH? And Michael Saylor could easily get rekt as Bitcoin's current price is approaching his company's average Bitcoin buy. And don't forget that there's no good way to identify a Bitcoin wallet, because you can only see addresses. Exchanges are technically the richest wallets, but they represent millions of customers.

Even fiat can't exist without fiat in a sense that you're describing. I recently signed a deal where I would need to make a payment later, and as a part of the deal the payment in my local currency will be tied to the value of US dollar.

If Bitcoin exchanges were to get closed, Bitcoin would be in a big trouble, because its price would be determined by very low volume darknet exchanges, so volatility would be huge.

What's so good about over a billion of people losing access to easily buying and selling Bitcoin and legally using it as a currency? It's quite negative for long term of Bitcoin, though it was kinda expected for a long time already and it's not really going to stop Bitcoin. Would you be cheering if even more countries in the world have banned Bitcoin?

There's no reasons to think that Bitcoin is repeating some pattern from the past, because on small timescale these patterns are nothing but market fluctuations. It's generally a good advice to hodl, because it's safer than trading, but buying more coins now, especially if you're already deeply in red, could be irresponsible. Don't forget the main rule of investing - invest only what you can afford to lose.

It's always theoretically possible not only with Bitcoin, but with any other asset. You could wake up tomorrow and find US dollar worthless, because the US was nuked by China or Russia. Or maybe a huge gold asteroid will fall on Earth and make gold worthless. Or maybe all governments in the world will ban Bitcoin and it will crash by 99.9%. But the probability of such events is so low that it's pointless to worry about them.

Bitcoin though can easily fall much lower than the current price, so if you don't have strong hands, or if you can't afford to lose money because you have debts or some other necessary spendings, then buying Bitcoin now is not the best idea.

If something like that happened, Russia + China would ban Bitcoin and everything related to it, and Bitcoin on this network would either be abandoned or forked to be more like Monero - more private and mined on home computers, because big mining farms would be impossible under ban.

Theoretically, it could be possible to make an algorithm to merge both chains into a new one, minus the inputs that were spent on both chains (but if this percentage is huge, that would be a big problem). But I doubt that existing holders would be happy about it, so such fork would most likely be doomed to fail.

You make some art, mint an NFT of it and hope it will sell. But most of NFT's aren't actually being bought. Those who can reliably make money off it are celebrities or owners of some existing popular content, like meme pictures or viral videos. Also, there's a theory that a lot of NFT trades are actually money laundering, so you shouldn't feel like you're missing out on easy money.

Some people would say that you can buy an NFT and sell it higher, but IMO that's a stupid idea - there's no way to objectively calculate how much an NFT could cost, this market is driven by hype, and you can easily end up bagholding a useless token.

Privacycoins are a very risky investment, they could get outlawed in the future much more likely than regular cryptocurrencies. Privacycoins have already been delisted from many exchanges and have no chances of getting listed on some major exchanges like Coinbase. No institution would want to have any ties with privacycoins, considering their strong reputation of being criminal's tool.

Wallet files are usually encrypted with symmetric cryptography like AES, so quantum computers actually won't be able to help a lot here, but a growing speed of regular computers might do the tricks, although it's hard to predict how many decades would it take to crack 128-bit AES.

But I would assume that most coins are lost in the second sense, with no encrypted file available, because that's what happened in early days - files were lost with OS reinstalls, hardware got thrown away, etc.

No. A signed transaction is what you broadcast and what gets included in blocks, not only your online PC knows about it, but the whole network too. Private key cannot be extracted from signature, if this was the case, public key cryptography would be useless.

There is a flaw in ECDSA where using the same k value in the process of signing more than once would allow attackers to extract the private keys from resulting signatures, and this happened with some wallets in the early days, but there's no such vulnerability in Electrum that anyone is aware of.

You should be a bit worried about some airgap-jumping malware, but even this threat is more theoretical, because I can't recall any reports about coins being stolen from cold storage setup in this way. I prefer to scan the QR code of signed transaction and broadcast it from my tablet instead of transferring it to the online PC with USB sticks.

Stablecoins are centralized, they have a company that manages the peg, and this company can easily censor transactions or freeze accounts, so stablecoins are more like payment companies than cryptocurrencies. And if payment companies don't comply with regulations they get shut down.

There are also algorithmic stablecoins they are supposed to be decentralized, but these algorithms can be gamed to attack these coins.  Recently a stablecoin IRON dropped to $0.7 instead of $1 as the result of its own tokenomics.

Blockchain doesn't really solve many problems, it was just a massive hype that started with ICO craze, and then traditional companies jumped on it, because it allowed them to boost their stock by claiming they work on blockchain, and now it transformed into DeFi and NFT, but it's still all the same - unrealistic solutions for made-up problems.

Software engineers have been dealing with data integrity and database permissions for decades, it has never been a big problem to anyone, but blockchain people proclaimed themselves saviors even though no one needed their saving. Blockchain doesn't really offer good security or higher efficiency or scalability, so no one is actually going to use for medical records or supply chains. They have zero reasons to turn their servers into inefficient and redundant p2p networks.

Calm down, Bitcoin is just open-source software, no need to make poetic comparisons to impress newbies. Yes, Bitcoin is cool and unique, but it's just a payment network that still needs to solve some big problems before it could even technically be able to serve all the people on the planet.

I think IMF here is worried that if a government converts a large portion of their reserves into BTC and then BTC crashes, they won't be able to repay their loans. Because if IMF had a goal of stopping Bitcoin from being used, they could lobby very hard against it, like demanding from countries to just ban it. But they never showed any big interest in BTC until now.

Judging by the supply available on exchanges, most people are actually hodling, so the selling is mostly done by short-term speculators who will instantly make trades based on the sentiment of the news, regardless if those news posses something fundamental or not. And this FUD is not only causing the price drop by making people sell, it also turns away potential buyers, so price growth starts stagnating, and speculators decide to sell when they see that the hopes for price growth are disappearing.

Is this statement backed by any data? And preferably more than just a few anecdotes. Cause people sometimes say that Bitcoin enables renewables, makes them economically viable, but this sounds more like a theory to me than actual practice.

My stance on Bitcoin and environment is that while Bitcoin does negatively impact it, this impact is so small compared to other industries, that even if all mining stops, the difference in carbon emissions will be within the margin of error.

Did you learn nothing from the Elon Musk drama? Celebrity influence is not what we need, it only introduces more volatility which makes Bitcoin look bad and weak. And Ronaldo never said anything about Bitcoin, he has no reasons to promote it, unless someone pays him to, which I hope no one will.

Bitcoin doesn't need to be advertised, in fact I consider advertising it harmful, because if you didn't find Bitcoin on your own, it means you're not ready and will be sensitive too all the risks.

People only lose money in Bitcoin when they FOMO in a middle of a bull run, then panic sell when there's a dip or a crash. What I'm saying is that it's better to wait for the bear market to buy, instead of FOMOing during a bull run, because the price will likely be lower.

I agree that it's better to invest in one ago instead of doing DCA. Bitcoin is growing in long term, so you're missing out on profits by not buying early.