I don't know if others have also felt this, but during bear markets I feel like I'm smarter. There's a certain feeling of superiority when you look around you and you can see other people's fear and panic but you remain cool and unperturbed.

Just a few days ago, I watched the interview of my country's incoming central bank governor. He belittled Bitcoin. He finds Bitcoin absurd, based on the greater fool theory. My feeling of superiority was somehow boosted and I was smiling inside while watching the cretin.

Well, I just hope this Bitcoin hubris of mine will prove me right in the end. If not, everybody's free to laugh at me.

In all fairness, it's not as if this regressive step of turning back to the use of coal is something they want to do. Many of them have long been on the road to reduce, if not totally eradicate, the use of coal. But it seems they're left with no choice, at least for now.

To me, however, this is the right thing to do, the lesser evil, because the other option is to tolerate Putin's madness and desire to wreak violence and death on an independent nation and a peaceful people.

I believe this regression is merely an emergency step.

There are a number of ways. If you want to do it for free, you could promote it on various platforms and social media sites and put your Twitter link. There's a lot of them. I'm sure there are many groups focused on NFT projects. You could also make it a little more exciting with freebies and discounts.

And since you're already here, why not open a thread in the Alternate Cryptocurrencies section and present your project? There might be some who want to take a look at it.

Is there an ulterior motive? Not only yes but the ulterior motive here is definitely the main motive. Everything else is secondary. China has been acting as the damage controller for Russia. China has significantly cushioned the impact of the various sanctions imposed on Russia. In a way, China is one of the reasons why Russia is still able to continue with its invasion even if it already suffered a lot of failures. China's help sustains it.

What is the problem here? I'm quite sure El Salvador didn't buy Bitcoin expecting that it doubles its USD value overnight. Nayib Bukele must have been aware right from the get-go that Bitcoin isn't like some shitcoins that could artificially by pumped and dumped in order to make gains.  Nayib Bukele must have known better.

But why do you guys look at some falling paper value? Although I'm not sure this is how a country handles its finances, if I were a president and there's some fiat money idly lying around gradually devalued and it's in the middle of a bear market, I'd also be proudly proposing they be used to buy Bitcoin instead.

This is good. But I'm quite interested to know how Bitcoin came into the subject. It seems it came out of nowhere. It might help if it is included in the subject in such a way that students know where it is coming from. The technology of Bitcoin might have more impact on them; they'll probably appreciate it more if it is put into a context.

With the way it is inserted in the subject, I simply can't connect the dots. Perhaps the sub-topic Bitcoin fits well under the topic Money or How Money Works or Our Monetary System or any related topic within your Economics class.

Bitcoin needs a sort of an introduction or a set-up. After all, it is a technology that came out as a reaction. So, what was it reacting to? Why did Satoshi came out of it? The answer to these questions should be the topic prior to Bitcoin. I'm simply saying the subject should have a proper flow. It appears to me everything is out of structure.

As with many others here, I'm just a casual social gambler. But it's actually hard to classify a gambler because these classifications are not mutually exclusive.

Although I would like to categorize myself as a casual social gambler, there are actually times when I gamble for the sake of money. There are also times when I tend to be compulsive in gambling. But since these are not really the kinds of gambler that I am most of the time, I think I belong to casual social gamblers.

Of course, there's always a silver lining. One of the most common positive comments that I hear during bear markets is that people would once again focus on the technology. When the price is always in green, people would only look at Bitcoin in terms of its fiat value. The influx of new Bitcoin supporters may be huge but they are usually only after the price growth. They don't really mind the features that made Bitcoin what it is. So a bear market such as this happening every now and then is also greatly appreciated.

Bear season is a party time for all Bitcoin critics and opponents. Their loud mouths are all over the internet. It amused me how headlines after headlines of the likes of Bloomberg, CNN Business, The Wall Street Journal, and others are like becoming Bitcoin price tracking services. They seem to be too joyous to relay the news that Bitcoin's price has fallen.

What's funny is that if we look at the pattern, it is obvious that they're fooling no one but themselves. They had this same party when the price fell to $200 and then they did this again when the price fell from $2,000. And just recently they did it again when the price fell from $20,000.

If you explore some parts in the forum, you'd find out that Bitcoin is almost always attached to its fiat price. In this context, it is not construed as a means of exchange but as a speculative asset. Most people I believe bought Bitcoin not because they can use it for buying goods and paying for services but because they believe they can sell it later on for a much higher price.

Anyway, Bitcoin is crypto but crypto is not Bitcoin. And with how the crypto space is now full of all kinds of projects which are anything but decentralized, a lot of solid Bitcoin supporters would say Bitcoin, not crypto.

He was not detected to be a shitcoin investor; he himself made it public.

Anyway, if I were his superior who has the authority to mete out whatever appropriate penalty is due to him, I might not give a harsh punishment. Investing in cryptocurrency doesn't really hurt anybody. While it is against the law, it is not really putting anybody to harm. Perhaps an admonition will do along with the demand that he take down the social media post and avoid doing the same in the future. That's enough I guess. After all, he's already suffering enough for investing in the wrong coin.

I don't agree that investing in crypto is an opportunity both reliable and trusted. Although I don't discount the potential return an investor could earn from crypto investments, this huge market is actually full of despicable projects that only drained a lot of people of their life savings.

Anyway, investment basically helps the economy because investment is capital. The larger the capital is, the more a company can do. A company with a million dollar in capital can only contribute a little as compared to a company that has a billion in capital. This further means jobs and tax revenue.

I think I'd prefer the latter. Given the fact that whatever amount you deposit to your casino wallet, however high a casino offers for its welcome bonus, or however high its cashback percentage is, the point is that all these amounts will still 99.9% end up in the hands of the casino. In the long run, you're gonna lose. But the fact that your personal information is already in the hands of the casino or in the third party that handles its KYC, it means it stays there forever, sold, shared, could be leaked, and so on.

We could go as far as to generalize that actually the top cryptocurrency scams to be avoided by beginners are altcoins themselves and all the altcoin hypes such as ICO, airdrop, DeFi, NFT, and others, could we?

Of course, this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but given the history of these and since we are talking about beginners, isn't it just right that they should also avoid getting into altcoins and the rest that are mentioned?

I don't know if we, humans, could ever completely do away with carelessness. I guess it's in our DNA already. It's always a human tendency to get careless, complacent, too sure, too confident at times. We're always reminded to double-check, verify, and so on. As a matter of fact, these reminders often come with incidents where failure to do so had a huge cost. But we still fail every now and then.

This made me reminded of a funny incident here which involved no less than theymos himself where a user erroneously sent $1,000 to the copper membership payment address. When theymos made the refund, he also committed the same error of sending it to a wrong person. LOL! All these incidents are like the story in the OP where the funds are sent to an address of a previous transaction.

You've done an amazing job! At least we have a general idea of how signature campaign salaries would fare in different countries.

However, if we really want to do this in real life, the truth is that, as in almost all countries in the world, cost of living also highly depends on particular regions or cities or provinces in the country. The disparity between cost of living within a country could be huge, such that you're like comparing countries also. In my country, for example, a $400-monthly wage is barely decent if you're in the capital city while it is more than sufficient if you're in the countryside. 

I'm not really interested at the idea of opening events exclusively for them. If you mean like we'll have men boxing, women boxing, gay boxing, lesbian boxing, and so on. So we would also have NBA, WNBA, GNBA, LNBA? This is ridiculous! I'm not saying I won't be betting on them once they're already established, though. But I'm not excited of that possibility.

Anyway, it is really unfair, if not outright absurd, if male athletes identifying themselves as female would be accepted in the female category. That's really stupid!

This made me remember the Netflix series Downtown Abbey. There was a part there when Lady Crawley made fun of the rising electrical innovations in the US. Which also made me remember this particular ad against electricity in the 1900s.


https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/8qcy9y/antielectricity_cartoon_from_1900/

This same skepticism also happened to airplanes, cars, and other inventions.

It is very possible that decades from now people would only look back, perhaps in disbelief, how Bitcoin was heavily criticized for what it is. This will also be applicable to its price. People would one day look back at the huge opportunity right now. It would eventually be unimaginable to think that Bitcoin used to be as cheap as a penny.

To a certain extent, a CBDC is even the worse form of fiat. I'd rather have hard cash than a CBDC. At least with my cold cash, it's harder to get seized, easily spent, offers a little anonymity, could be spent anywhere and however I want. Hell, I could even roll those bills and snort cocaine without the government knowing I was the one who used it. With a CBDC, all of these convenient features are totally erased.

The result of this would be interesting. If this legal proceeding ends up in favor of the law firm that filed the lawsuit, this might snowball into a bigger problem which involves a lot, if not all, crypto exchanges around the world.

This might become a precedent for future cases against crypto exchanges not just for listing stablecoins which claim to have enough reserve but also for listing thousands of other coins that are even more questionable than TerraUSD.
 
But whatever happened to caveat emptor? Surely, Coinbase is not offering outright scams to its customers with the assurance that they are all legit. I don't think they lack disclaimers and warnings of risks. Definitely, the standard of admission for coins is not so high. If it were so, Coinbase wouldn't have admitted almost all of them. But responsibility isn't exclusive to Coinbase.