I don't know; it might not be selfish not to tell everything to a friend, but if he/she's asking sincere questions, especially because he/she is having a hard time, it might be selfish if you're withholding information that might actually help him/her. I also don't go around telling my friends what I'm doing in life. But there was a time a friend asked me about Bitcoin. I answered him with what I know, without sharing whether I own some or not. OP talked about a very close friend.

Positive energy is a myth in gambling. The same is true with grace and goodwill and the like. Luck is just luck. Results are random and whether you're positive or not doesn't matter. What you feel doesn't have any influence over which random number will come out.

Gamblers here in my country do all kinds of things to attract luck. They pray about it, feel positive of a great result, even light a candle for it, or slip the lottery ticket into the pages of the bible, or place it under religious statues, and so on. All of this doesn't help.

If it's your friend, and not just your friend but a very close one, I don't know why you would withhold information that might actually help him. I mean, shouldn't we extend a helping hand to a very close friend who is obviously in need and who is scared of the economic prospect of the future?

It seems to me this may not be envy. If you are having a hard time and you see your friend seemingly doing well, I guess it is natural that you would approach your friend and seek advice or inquire about what he's into as it might also help you in one way or another.

That sounds risky. There is no assurance that Bitcoin would still be relevant 40 or so years from now. So I guess the safer option is to diversify your retirement savings. Bitcoin, of course, is one great option, but you can't entrust your entire retirement solely on it. You can have fiat-based retirement plans as well. You can also make investments in stocks, real estate, and others. You can dispose them with a much higher value when the time comes.

I'm not in any way justifying Kraken's lack of immediate response but it seems 48 hours isn't a big deal as far as Kraken's track record is concerned. 2 days isn't a long wait. With these centralized platforms, you need to have a little more patience. Some issues were resolved only after weeks. Sending multiple tickets in a matter of 2 days might only make them annoyed and intentionally delay their response further.

Anyway, Kraken's support is responsive on Reddit. You might want to raise your concern there as well.

This was already the news last month, right? The decision to block centralized exchanges was already issued in February. It might not have been implemented right away. Nigerian users here were saying all things are good despite the decision. But now it seems the implementation has finally taken place.

I'm afraid the use of VPN will be a short respite as centralized exchanges might stop serving Nigerian citizens to avoid legal troubles. If Nigeria is added to these exchanges' list of banned countries, VPN use will become pointless. The time might be right to stay away from exchanges blacklisted by the government.

None that's convincing enough, that's worth all the risk and the compulsory KYC and whatnot. I think the main reasons why many people use centralized exchanges despite having no intention to trade is that (1) they still lack knowledge and (2) they just go with what's convenient.

Many don't really understand Bitcoin. What they know is that the fiat value of Bitcoin is rising and that they can make money out of it, and that it can be bought from this site called Binance.

Those who know Bitcoin and other stuff like non-custodial and open-source wallets still stick to centralized exchanges because they wouldn't want to go through additional hassles.

All of these aren't worth the risk.

It's a simple website indeed, but I don't know the purpose or relevance of it. Anybody can quickly compute it for himself/herself if he/she wants to know the numbers. I guess a website solely for such purpose is a bit superfluous.

Anyway, there might not come a time in the next century or two when every single person in the world owns Bitcoin, unless perhaps if Bitcoin becomes the legal tender in every country all over the world.

But the point is that there's always a Satoshi for everybody who's interested.

I guess there are other technologies for this. We don't have to do everything on Bitcoin. Bitcoin's blockchain isn't the only blockchain in town. There are thousand others.

In terms of payment, yes, Bitcoin can take this role as it is a payment system with a native currency. But in terms of data storage and crowdfunding, I'm afraid Bitcoin wasn't made for this. Data storage doesn't actually need a decentralized blockchain. As to crowdfunding, this is where Ethereum, for example, is better at.

I guess there are two points to consider here. First, the gambler's fallacy. It is indeed true that flips or rolls are independent of each other. Therefore, the previous results can't be a basis for future results. That's true. The second point is not related to the first. If you flip a coin 1,000 times and there's a 50:50 chance that heads or tails will come out, it can't be possible that all 1,000 flips would be heads. Logic is also the basis of this. This doesn't challenge the gambler's fallacy, though.

I have never bought a Mac myself. The things that I need to do on a Mac I can do on my laptop with a different brand. Mac is way more expensive than, say, Acer or Asus or HP. A low-quality Mac in terms of specs is even more expensive than a high-quality Acer, for example. So, it's not a necessity for me to prefer Mac. If I buy one, that would be luxurious of me already.

If you particularly need the unique specs of Mac, then it is a necessity. Luxury is beyond what's necessary. Luxury connotes excess.

Jake Paul has made the sport of boxing a big joke. Unfortunately, where the money is, the promoters and sponsors are also there. They can always make things happen.

But I'm wondering why the fans are still watching such ridiculous matches. They're probably just fans of the Youtuber and not really solid fans of the sport of boxing.

I wouldn't bet on exhibition matches especially like this one. Mike Tyson, a 60-year old boxer who has long been retired, doesn't stand a chance against a 27-year old hyperactive kid.

This is indeed a good way to somehow analyze the possibilities in the market. I hope you will come up with the bigger picture that is more or less accurate.

It is elating to know from the previous post that around half of all Bitcoin is being held by Bitcoin supporters in non-custodial storage. It is certainly troubling if this much Bitcoin is being kept by centralized custodians. That signals a big risk in the market.

My hunch is that when you finally put all the pieces together, you'd find out that there are actually more coins than the actual supply. And it's because of these centralized services which produce hollow numbers, paper Bitcoin, or IOUs.

This is nothing but pure harassment already. SEC is digging into the past just to harass and make money from companies. It's good, however, that ShapeShift will settle this with a relatively small fine.

But I can't see the logic in issuing a cease-and-desist order against a company that has already left and ceased operating years ago. It seems moot to me. Why should you order a company to stop offering its services when it has already done it years prior? It seems pointless.


It was ShapeShift itself that offered the settlement and SEC accepted it. It wasn't the other way around. And I guess it was a wise decision. For peace of mind and to do away with costly and lengthy trials, $275,000 is already a bargain. It's not about guilt.

There's luck, of course, but it isn't purely just that. When I entered crypto several years ago, there were many of us. In a way, we were lucky because Bitcoin was cheaper. Top altcoins were also cheap. We also made money during the height of the ICO craze.

But then here comes financial management. Many failed in this aspect. Some friends who made a lot of money in those early days are now mere employees.

And then there's also the factor of emotions especially after the bull run in 2017. I know of some individuals who panicked and sold much, if not all, of their Bitcoin in 2018. Some even left Bitcoin for good. It isn't just emotions, of course. Risk tolerance, wrong appreciation of Bitcoin, miscalculation of events, wrong predictions and sentiments, and so on and so forth were also at play. Some could have analyzed but were mistaken.

Generally, I consider myself lucky because there's Bitcoin and a loved one introduced me to it. But it certainly is not luck that I still have Bitcoin until now, that I didn't squander my profit on worthless things, that I hodled strong through the years, that I continued stacking Sats, that I didn't flinch regardless of how bloody the market was, and so on. It's definitely a combination of luck, conviction, understanding, responsibility, perseverance, and so forth.

Bank reversals are more common, now more than ever, with online banking, credit and debit cards, online shopping, phishing scams through email and SMS and whatnot, other scams, double entry, and so on. It's going to be on a case-to-case basis. Some will be reversed, some not. Some easily reversed, some require you to submit documents and screenshots and other proofs. Banks have dispute officers and analysts for these requests. They're strict, of course, but it doesn't mean they're making the right decisions all the time.

I play heads or tails. It never happened in the history of the game that the outcome will always be heads. There are only two possible outcomes, and it's impossible that tails will never come out in the entire duration of the game. That's why whenever the result has been heads for the past 8 or 10 consecutive tosses, it is expected that the bettors would be heavily betting on the tails. The basis may be fallacious or logical, but if they take into consideration that never has it happened that tails never comes out, then I guess that isn't a fallacy.

I also bet on cockfighting and the same is true. It is either the favorite or the underdog. But never has it happened that in the entire derby only the favorite wins. That's impossible.

They aren't. Those are additional expenses businesses probably find worthless. Also, it isn't common for people here to do their regular grocery shopping online.

Anyway, this one I can remember. A kilo of rice in 2021 was around $0.81. Today it is $1.07. There was an increase of around 25%. So, if we do your method, this means the inflation-adjusted ATH of Bitcoin, at least as far as rice is concerned, should be $91,148.

It's always going to be a race, at least as far as Bitcoin is concerned. With fiat, it isn't a race as prices are always increasing while the value of money is always decreasing. I'm rooting for Bitcoin in this race. $91,148 will be easily reached within the year.

I'm not sure what percentage of those who do the DCA method keep their Bitcoin in non-custodial wallets and what percentage keep theirs on centralized exchanges. I'm not even sure if those who are advising others to DCA are doing it themselves. What I know is that accumulating Bitcoin little by little on centralized exchanges has additional risks.

It is possible that some of those who DCA in their non-custodial wallets don't care about the fees for now as they're hodling it. They intend to keep it long-term. They're probably more focused in growing their Bitcoin portfolio. Later on, the fees might surprise them.

Bitcoin's decentralization has nothing to do with control over its price. Bitcoin is decentralized not because nobody is dictating its price but because nobody is in sole control of Bitcoin itself. No single person or group decides on behalf of the network and its operation. It doesn't have a central server, a president, a CEO, or a headquarter. Bitcoin doesn't have a single point of failure.

If we talk of the price, on the contrary, then we can discuss of centralization to a certain extent. There are significant amounts of Bitcoin that are in the hands of certain individuals and institutions, and their decision is enough to influence the price of Bitcoin.