There's no need to generalize everyone as being scared to buy at $30k and yet buying at $50k. It's true that not everyone recognizes the opportunity of buying low, and that people are excited and more alert about Bitcoin when the price is high, often making a risky decision of buying at that point. But people make different decisions.
It's true that the price can go lower, but IMO $30k is indeed a good chance to buy and hodl long-term. Eventually, I believe the price will get to the new ATH, so making a 3x profit is quite realistic and not bad.

Even very powerful organizations are highly unlikely to possess enough resources and be willing to sacrifice so much money to attempt hijacking mining (the 51% attack, I mean) to attempt setting their own rules. If they want a POS Bitcoin, they are free to make a clone and make it POS, which will join the line of shitcoins out there. They can try to popularize it, pour funds into making it appealing, convince some other companies to start using their product. They will likely fail eventually, but they're welcome to try. Bitcoin, however, will remain POW.

a) 7 b) 1:40

A) No
B) Over
C) Warriors   
D) Celtics   
E) Warriors     
F) Warriors   
G) Celtics         
H) 217 points

Even if it's indirect acceptance, I think it's still good news. I haven't heard of big companies accepting Bitcoin as payment for a while, so any case of accepting Bitcoin as money is positive, especially when it's a big company. It helps people get reminded that it's not just an asset, but also a medium of exchange. 3000 restaurants is huge, and it's reasonable to start with a 3rd party service. Maybe then, after such options get more widespread, direct acceptance can be discussed.
I'm also curious about the tax implications, though, like others in the thread.

When the prices go down, there isn't much benefit to anyone from it. It gives an opportunity for people to buy low, and it can also be eye-opening, albeit painfully so for those who didn't take the risks of crypto volatility seriously. Other than that, it's not a good thing. I don't care about shitcoins, but the fall of the market also makes top coins take a hit as well. They don't fall as low as shitcoins, but they still get hurt, they don't benefit from it. Also, it makes people more sceptical about Bitcoin, more wary of having anything to do with it. So it's not leading to the survival of the strongest coins as a good thing. It leads to some coins bleeding more, and other bleeding less.

Billions of dollars in revenue sounds like much, but if it's a few billion over a year, it's not significant enough. Initially, the panic and sanctions did lead to ruble explosion, but very strict monetary policies, forcing to basically abandon foreign currencies and limiting any foreign currency withdrawals, along with linking ruble to gold, did the thing to stabilize the ruble. However, that doesn't mean that all is good in Russia and the economy wasn't hit. I watch videos of a Russian youtuber occasionally where he walks in the supermarket, talking about the prices and comparing them to how they used to be, as well as showing big malls and how they used to be. From that, it seems that the food prices grew generally 1.5-2x, which if you ask me is huge. Also, a significant number of people lost jobs, and salaries didn't grow. So Russians can now afford less than they used to, and tons of clothing brands and food chains are no longer operating in Russia. So there's impact, but Russians are also quite used to shitty lives and adjusting to increasingly worsening conditions, and thus that's not enough to cause meaningful change in terms of the war. But some effects are indeed long-term and may become more pronounced later.

I don't understand how using natural gas is eco-friendly, even if the way it will be used is better than other methods. Also, I would not be against this idea under normal circumstances, but not right now. Right now, Europe is paying lots of money to Russia because of heavily relying on its gas. This money sponsors a terrible war. So if there's some gas that can be used for mining, couldn't it be used for heating? Couldn't it help reduce Europe's dependence on Russian gas? If not, then it's fine, but if it could be, I think heating homes, so that people don't freeze to death, is the first priority, and crypto mining can use something other than gas.

It's truly great when there are examples like this, showing that crypto mining can be eco-friendly. Using geothermal power for mining is something, I believe, El Salvador was looking into, and it seems that Kenya is already doing it. And if the power is cheaper than hydroelectric, as Hydrogen suggested in the thread, that's also a good sign. But what are the laws regulating mining and crypto operations in Kenya? Are there taxes, are they reasonable? How hard is it to mine legally, and how dangerous is it to do so without legal registration?
And Darker45 raised an important point about inviting miners when a third of the population lives without electricity.

I think that if cash is still quite useful to criminals, there are often no requirements of providing any ID (especially for small sums) with, and a third of all fiat was used by criminals at some point, it makes no sense and is very unfair to target cryptos with all that AML stuff. Fighting financial crimes is important, and I think that starting with the biggest criminals (those laundering very big sums) must be the priority. This should affect cash, banks (through which billions are laundered till this day despite the KYC), and cryptos (but again, if we're talking at least about millions of dollars worth of them). Then, once we successfully fight that, we can move to smaller criminals. And anything below $1k is IMO not justifying imposing privacy violations on everyone.
And Bitcoin's transparency already makes it easier for authorities than when dealing with cash, for example. That should account for something.

I'm happy to see that some people treat it as both. I wish I could buy things with Bitcoin directly more often, but it's just not an option because of how rarely it's accepted as payment. It's also possibly an obstacle that Bitcoin is in a gray area or treated as an asset or property in many places, which means it's not exactly legally recognized as money, and that can be discouraging for merchants to start accepting it. At the same time, given how well-performing Bitcoin is in terms of gaining value in the long run, it would be unqise to not hodl it and spend all of it.

For now, it's impossible and likely to stay this way. It's also a good point that some coins which are presumed to be stolen might be unmoved for other reasons, a person has the right to not move one's coins. If you didn't touch the money in your bank account savings for 5 years, would you find it fair if the bank redistributed all your money to some random people? If not, then you shouldn't want the retrieval of "lost" coins either. Also, if one day it does become possible to crack the keys (say, due to huge progress in quantum computing), the moment it becomes possible Bitcoin itself becomes obsolete because the money isn't protected any more. So there won't be a point of retrieving something worthless.

Good points about security of Bitcoin and decentralization were already made in the thread. I want to add that I think they (the computer scientists whose claims we're discussing) are confusing security and safety. At first there's a claim that blockchain is not secure, and then the example is given about losing a password, concluding that it's not a safe system. Secure means unhackable, and that is the case with blockchain. Whether it is safe from personal perspective and the ability to access the coins in an unfortunate event of losing the keys is another matter. Or, to put it differently, blockchain is secure and ensures the safety of one's coins, but not easy accessibility of coins by a person who lost something essential to access them.
And on the last point, about deciding not to trust the banking system, it's not like there was no good reason for this decision. Banks go bankrupt, often engage in illegal activities, can freeze one's funds and can steal the money without getting back to their customers. And the strongest among them get bailed out for mistakes they're at least partially responsible for at the expense of the most vulnerable people (I'm talking about the 2008 economic crisis).

This is very unfortunate. It does seem that bad events affect people with fewer resources more heavily than others, but it's another thing when someone is actually profiting from a situation that causes lots of suffering to others. I'm a social democrat, and I think that there should either be high taxes or, rather, other forms of contributing to society and giving those in most unfortunate circumstances a lift with one's fortune. Some people are so rich that neither they nor their children or close relatives will use up the wealth in their lifetimes. So, in fact, if they gave a very significant part of it away to something that matters (for example, a private high-quality university in a developing country with financial aid for bright students, building hospitals or organizing training for doctors where they are heavily needed, donating to highly reputable charities), and they could make the world a better place, which actually is likely to also give them joy because of giving meaning to their lives. It's really sad that many people don't see it this way, and don't feel inclined to bring about meaningful change instead of stacking up the wealth they'll never use. I think that the world, with strong coordinated efforts, could at least ensure people don't die from hunger. I hope at some point, we'll get there.

I think I would not call getting oil from a country that wages a genocidal war (so, basically, sponsoring the war by paying for Russial oil) 'fortunate. Does not it make you uncomfortable, knowing the source and what's going on?
I never had to buy oil in my life, so I don't know our prices and don't intend to get involved. As for gas, I hope my country and others will switch more to electricity (we have tons of gas stoves and some gas heating), and source it from something more eco-friendly and not related to dictatorships.

I think it's possible for Belarus to get the support and become pro-European. But only over time and without Lukashenko. He is a dictator, largely Putin's pawn (although retains a fraction of independence), hijacked the elections despite allegations of major fraud taking place to present him as a winner. EU won't help this guy, especially not after the extensive involvement of Belarus in the war in form of giving Russia a territory from which they can fire missiles on Ukraine, deploy troops and stuff like that.
To those saying that democracy is a Western thing that should not be pushed on other countries like Belarus:
1. I think it's up to the majority of people in Belarus to decide which form of government they prefer. Lukashenko was in power as a legimitate (=supported by the majority) leader, but the last elections demonstrated that maybe it's not the case anymore.
2. We're talking about EU giving 3 billion dollars of financial support to Belarus. If Belarus wants to keep being authoritarian, then they can be, but the EU has no reason to give them support in that case.

Op is right, I think, that exit isn't discussed enough. Many hold long-term without a particular plan on what to do with most wealth they accumulated. This isn't good because what's the point of having wealth when you're not using it for anything (and not letting anyone else make use of it)? There are also those who are holding until there comes a time when you don't need to sell for fiat anymore and can exchange BTC directly for goods and services. It's partially already possible, but overall still on a very limited level. But what if we don't get there in 10 years? How about 20 years? Does it make sense to hodl for that long if you already have enough in cryptos to bring meaningful change to your life? So having limitations, targets, and perhaps a habit of selling some BTC regularly and using the money on something is a good idea.

13) Jairzinho Rozenstruik
12) Dan Ige
11) Michael Trizano
10) Karine Silva
9) Alonzo Menifield
Karolina Kowalkiewicz
7) Joe Solecki
6) Ode Osbourne
5) Niklas Stolze
4) Tony Gravely
3) Jeff Molina
2) Andreas Michailidis
1) Erin Blanchfield

Transacting with a friend is better than not using Bitcoin as payment at all, I suppose, but it's also sad that it's not possible to pay directly in shops. Where I'm from, it's also not commonly possible to pay with cryptos. I think most people at this point don't even prioritize the role of Bitcoin as a payment, and focus instead on it as a form of investment. As for me, I must admit, I usually sell some BTC for fiat to spend it. Other than that, I spend it on some donations to my country because of the war. At the current level of adoption, one's options to spend Bitcoin depend on one's location and perseverance heavily.

A) Yes
B) Under
C) Warriors   
D) Celtics   
E) Warriors     
F) Warriors 
G) Warriors     
H) 211 points