Taking a profit after such high returns is never really a bad move, especially on a such volatile market.

"HODL" initially meant avoiding daytrading and being a long-term investor, but somehow it started meaning "never ever sell your BTC", which isn't that great - there's actually no guarantees that Bitcoin will reach $1 million or whatever other price people hope for, and HODLing means denying opportunities to sell high and buy back low, which isn't actually that hard to do, considering that Bitcoin tends to crash very hard after the peak of the bubble.

If you used to log in on laptop and everything was ok, but the moment you used your phone you got hacked it's clear that the problem is in your phone. Maybe it's OS, maybe the browser is vulnerable, maybe their wifi isn't as secure as you think. Scan your phone with some antivirus. Manually check each app if there are reports about malicious activity, starting with your apps with the lowest downloads. Maybe other sites that you have visited made an XSRF attack against Blockchain.com.

Blockchain.com or any other website is the worst option for using Bitcoin, especially if they don't do 2FA for every transaction. Hardware wallet is the best option for people who don't understand cybersecurity, but even they aren't fully foolproof.

Listing prices in BTC doesn't change the fact that BTC's value changes rapidly. USD isn't more stable than Bitcoin because it's used for goods and services, it's more stable because it's not speculative, since its fundamentals are much more predictable.


I don't agree that this is just an experiment. LN is already "unoficially" on the mainnet, there are no major obstacles that could make it a failure. Wide adoption of LN in Bitcoin community is a question of time.

It only applies if you're short-term trading. Think about the recent example, Bitcoin reached $40,000 almost without stops, so if you bought at that time, didn't panic sell when it corrected to $30,000 and kept hodling, you'd already have 50% profit.


You can't diversify in crypto, all alts follow Bitcoin. And telling people to diversify in general is pointless, those who come to crypto either don't have enough money for less risky investments, or they already know what to do.


No one talks about infinity and everyone realizes a crash will come, it's just a question of when.

Are you saying that the companies will defend the price level that they bought at by buying even more coins if the price touches it? Or that other investors will refuse to sell that level out of sheer respect for the wisdom of those investments? I think both are unlikely.

The companies like Microstrategy and Tesla might sell a portion of their coins when the price will reach high prices, they aren't average joe hodlers who will never ever sell because of a meme. If the price goes up 4 times relative to your investment, you can ensure going even by selling 1/4 of your stash - a pretty good move in a bull run. They are going to sell a portion of their coins close to the top, and hodl the rest for long term.

Bitcoin will never change into a centralized system controlled by governments or anyone else, forget about it. You are wasting time by making such proposals, there's already countless centralized projects without mining, and they aren't overtaking Bitcoin anytime soon.

And Bitcoin is not wasting energy, there's no other way to have a system with these properties. All this energy ensures that Bitcoin is secure.

This isn't big news, it's always been known that you can't truly destroy Bitcoin, because it exists on hard drives of hundreds of thousands of people across the world. But governments can absolutely harm Bitcoin - look at today's adoption, which is actually quite low, then divide it by 100 and remove all the institutional investors and other big players, and you will get what will happen if Bitcoin was outlawed.

This looks like an attempt to make some sort of deterministic wallet, except it's even more stupid than just a brain wallet, because public information is used. If private keys of the previous address was used instead, the security would be equal to the security of the passphrase, which is still bad, but not completely horrible like this.

Lightning Network is Bitcoin. For Bitcoin to challenge Visa, a lot of other factors need to be resolved too, not just the scalability. Price volatility is a problem, as unstable money is impractical for business. Bitcoin is not fully recognized by governments and their stance could change at any time. Most importantly, majority of people does not see benefits in using Bitcoin as money - banks work quite well and smooth for most people, on average their user experience is far better than Bitcoin's. Bitcoin's main goal is to let people control their money, but this is not what most people are interested in.

#Proof Of Authentication
Bitcointalk Name: hatshepsut93
Bitcointalk Profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=821995
Current amount of Posts (Including this one): 6573
Amount of merits for the last 120 days: 66
BTC Address: 1AqVZPF1FVmkbHPKZdA3J3SwfB8beRq2t4

Right, I doubt many countries would legally recognize NFT, and there's no software mechanism for enforcing ownership too. It's pretty much the same as selling Moon land or some distant stars - a pointless record in a database that has no real life consequences. The fact that so many people are jumping this bandwagon just shows how speculative and irrational the crypto sphere is, and how there's a lot of "dumb money" - probably some early ETH investors who now sit on millions worth of ether and don't know what to do with it.

You're talking as if Bitcoin is some big thing already and the population will be missing it if it disappeared. In reality, most of us is using banks or cash for all our payments, simple because it's hard to find a place that accepts Bitcoin.

I don't know much about Nigeria, but I think it's safe to assume that these benefits are far smaller than the harm. Lots of people have lost access to liquidity, this is never a good thing. P2P trading can be very dangerous, there can be scammers, thiefs, robberies, even murder. Centralized exchanges are far from perfect, but they allow people to buy and sell crypto with less risks. Bonus points if it's a non-KYC exchange, that still exist in smaller countries.

He's already stupidly rich, why would he need to manipulate a crypto market to make even more money? And the risk is there, the SEC already investigated him once over his twitter activity, I'm sure all his crypto-related transactions are closely monitored. He isn't some unknown guy who can move millions in crypto without the regulators knowing about it.

You shouldn't invest in crypto, crypto is a scam, a big pump and dump scheme in the long run. You should invest in Bitcoin, providing you understand the risks and know how to use it safely. Bitcoin is projected to go up because it's supply is limited, yet demand is growing as more and more people discovering it and wanting to own it. Other coins don't have such properties.

This isn't going to work. People around the world want to deal in US dollars, not Venezuela pesos or Zimbabwe dollars. Similarly, people in crypto space want to trade in top coins like BTC, ETH, USDT - not some shitcoins from the bottom of the list. Why would artists sell their work for a coins that can crash by 90% in 5 minutes or that can be hacked because a dev made some mistakes, or 51% attacked because there's so little hashrate?

Sometimes really old coins from 2010-2012 get moved and some people start to panic thinking that Satoshi is about to dump his coins. Also, these early hodlers could have moved coins to other addresses in the recent years, for example to update to SegWit. So, for the purposes of blockchain analysis, you should also look for unspent coins directly connected to these ancient coins.

Assuming BTC rise would create a lot of millionaires, why should it increase the price of consumer goods? Will these millionaires rush to hoard bread and eggs? I can only see increased demand for luxury goods, so the general population will not be affected.

You don't have to look at prices if you're using some notification service that will tell if you the price changed by a lot in short period of time. With that you can safely assume that if no notifications came, the price didn't change much.

If you find that Bitcoin price is negatively affecting your productivity, then yeah, you should take some steps to better control yourself, but if not, there's nothing wrong with occasionally checking it a few times per day.

But who could have heard about Bitcoin in 2009 and 2010? No news sites have reported about it, even on social media no one mentioned it, it was known only to cryptography nerds. If you weren't on of them at that time, you would have very little chances to get to know about Bitcoin.

And it totally makes sense that Bitcoin started from zero, because it was a project developed for free by one person without any press-releases and marketing. Had Bitcoin been developed by a software company, its initial value could have been much higher.