They can still amass far more Bitcoin than the average person, so unless they come incredibly late to the party (worth noting that we're still in the early stages) or skip it at all, nothing will change.

Having wealth gives you access to more wealth, and that's true regardless of whether it's in fiat or crypto. It might be capitalism (which Bitcoin enables, ironically) that you have a problem with.

If the coins you're going to receive is more than 0.1 BTC (minimum amount for CoinJoin IIRC) and they can send to Bech32 addresses (starts with bc1, legacy addresses may be able to send to SegWit, depending on the wallet used), the simplest way would be to use Wasabi.

Otherwise, probably Electrum then into a mixer (or even Wasabi if more than 0.1 BTC)? If you don't need to erase the trail at all, I'd say just Electrum would be the way to go.

I wouldn't say they're afraid, but a lot of people simply want to preserve the way they do things. It's like how some old people are hostile against new developments because "this old tech works just fine", and they'll keep finding reasons not to adapt.

That being said, I don't think that has anything to do with the public's aversion to Bitcoin. Bitcoin is simple enough, but in a world that's focused on UX, it still lags behind. It's far easier for people to dismiss it based on its reputation than actually doing their due diligence, especially when there are risks (that they would rather not take anyway) involved.

As for even educated people reacting differently, it's really just a matter of different people having different perspectives. Hostility is a personal choice.

It could be expanded with 512GB microSDs.

I don't think it's practical at all, but more choices is always better, I suppose. I'm sure there will be a few people out there who will want to use this functionality lol. We could certainly use even just a handful more full nodes.

A fuckton of money. Who knows how much BSV he's sitting on. The only way it can achieve any semblance of success is if people buy his story. He might need it once this is finalized.

I don't think he's tricking any of the speakers. Ver, for one, supported his claims in the past but went full 180. McAfee also claims to know the true Satoshi, and teased his reveal for a while, but ultimately didn't say anything. CSW was probably only invited because he's popular, and there's no way he would attend if his claims were in question.

Lol people complain regularly about exchanges, legit or not. Even the most reputable "too big to scam you" ones like Coinbase get reports of account closures and such, and what this should tell you is that you can't and shouldn't fully trust any of them. If you want to save yourself the headache of encountering problems yourself, all you have to do is avoid using them to store more money than you're willing to lose.

It's true that the average person might not bother, but the option is still there should anyone truly need it. If a dictatorship is breathing down your neck, legality would hardly matter to you, and they can't do shit about it.


Not everyone has the privilege of living in a country with a non-authoritarian government, unfortunately. For people like that, they have no choice but to take care of themselves, and that could entail breaking the rules a bit. Should they need Bitcoin, it's there, and not even the law can stop it.

Here's an attorney's take on this on Twitter:


Problem is, the disclaimer must be sent to the donor, which is...the blockchain in this case?

I hope the IRS clears this up.

Aren't you being a little pessimistic yourself as well? I understand that getting people to stop using Windows is an uphill battle, but I'd think more people would be open to a dual boot set up than having two different devices for different purposes. (Edit: Maybe we should be promoting the use of Raspberry Pis instead lol)

Either way, while I completely agree that people shouldn't be using Windows for crypto (or anything else you could do with Linux really), I wouldn't go as far as saying it's insecure. It's certainly much less secure, but I don't expect a person who knows what they're doing to have any issues with it. Awareness is so much more important for security because no OS will protect you from everything. The info that LoyceV provided would probably help more users than simply saying "Don't use Windows!", for one.


The funny thing is, if everyone started using Linux instead and it got all the attention from bad actors that Windows does, users would probably just as vulnerable even with Linux's fundamentally stronger security. People do a lot of stupid shit for free stuff and/or whatever else they want, and no OS can really address that lol.


I've found that things have gotten a lot better on this end in recent years. Even then, most people only really have basic stuff anyway, and people with the more technical hardware tend to be more technical themselves.

Yeah, seems more like an expectation based on Bitcoin's pop culture reputation than recent reality.


Have they ever openly opposed Bitcoin in the past? I usually see mixed opinions from them, but that's more because they publish a lot of opinion pieces from different authors. I don't think I've heard Forbes's official stance before. Either way, I think it's great that they're open to it now.


Bitcoin is uncensorable and incredibly easy to move around, so oppressive governments cannot block holders from doing what they want with their money.

I honestly don't think this will happen, especially not when yet another lawsuit is filed against Bitfinex, alleging that it manipulated the price of Bitcoin and basically the entire crypto market:


Market manipulation seems to have been a long-standing issue for SEC's approval, and I don't think they'll ever be satisfied until issues like this are ironed out.

You misunderstand me. I acknowledge that governments present a threat to Bitcoin's survival. What I was saying is that there is nothing to suggest that countries are lining up to ban it, as you imply. Outright bans have been isolated cases of desolate, corrupt, or authoritarian governments. The top global economies are open to it, even China which allows peer-to-peer and over-the-counter trading. If you're saying a worldwide ban is inevitable without anything to back it up, you're only spreading FUD. I don't even know how you think Bitcoin is remotely comparable with illegal drugs regulation-wise.

I would like to reiterate what I previously said: while wholly possible, there are no developments that signal Bitcoin's survival is in question.

1. It's really a matter of opinion, but the fact of the matter is, Bitcoin was created to be a decentralized peer-to-peer electronic cash system. The white paper did not attack the current financial system in any way, except maybe by saying that middlemen can be slow and charge fees. It did not mention national currencies at all.
2. No arguments there.
3. Bitcoin doesn't really need governments' advocacy, as shown by its growth from basically nothing. If you're talking about regulations, countries which haven't banned Bitcoin far outnumber countries that did; sure that could change in the future, but I don't think I've seen any developments to signal that Bitcoin's survival might be in question.

Woops, missed that, sorry. I cut out nested quotes because they're hard to read.


I'm confused, so let me clear things up a bit with the quotes above:

• You don't want a crypto-only financial system because it won't work as per your example in the OP
• You believe that crypto was created to replace dollars
• You don't think crypto coexisting with fiat will work well in the future

The first point contradicts the second and third points unless the ultimate point you're driving is that: only one of Bitcoin or fiat can stay, and Bitcoin staying won't work. Are you basically saying, like your title asked, that Bitcoin is just not that good of a currency?

Just because Bitcoin can be used as a currency doesn't mean it has to be used as a national currency. Fiat and Bitcoin have vastly different properties, so you can't really expect Bitcoin to replace dollars without a complete overhaul of the existing financial system. I don't think any state will support this.


If you're rooting for a crypto-only financial system, I would assume you have a solution for the dilemma OP described? As for widespread adoption, people can freely use Bitcoin for one purpose, while fiat for another, like what people do now -- is that incompatible with the great future you've envisioned?

It's true that people are incentivized more to keep their Bitcoin over actually spending them, and we're seeing the effects as early as now, even while supply is still rising. There's no way it will work as a replacement to fiat with the way our economy is set up, where growth is driven by debt and spending -- the question is, why would we need Bitcoin to replace fiat in the first place?

Bitcoin was never meant to replace dollars, kill banks, or save economies. It's there so you could have money you could do whatever you want with, whether that's spending, hodling, or anything in between, while fiat can go ahead and do its thing. While Bitcoin absolutely should be viable for daily spending (people who want to go down this route wouldn't care about deflation anyway), it doesn't necessarily have to be used that way.

Bitcoin is already embedded in pop culture at this point, so I'm not sure how many new people an advertisement campaign could actually reach. Not a lot has changed from when it peaked back in 2017 either, so people who weren't interested in it then would unlikely be interested now. It would be great if these companies advertising could share data regarding their traffic though, just so we have a general idea; I would love to be proven wrong.

On a sidenote, I thought the title was referring to recent price movements lmao, this was a nice surprise.

I don't think there are any concrete advantages in using an old phone. If your phone isn't getting security updates anymore, you could be vulnerable to both old and new exploits. This particular vulnerability can be patched, for instance.


It's not necessarily a kernel issue, as nothing is inherently wrong with them; it's an exploit. If you put things that way, PC isn't any more secure, with threats like malvertising requiring zero interaction from end users to infect. Knowing what to do and what not to do will protect you against most threats you're likely to face, regardless of the platform you're using.

This is the "prediction" he was referring to:


It revolves around Bitcoin's stock-to-flow ratio, and how it will have almost caught up with gold's after the 2020 halving (and how it will eclipse everything else at the subsequent one). It's not as much a prediction as just plugging in a variable in an equation which assumes all other factors will remain the same.

There haven't been any indications of this thus far, not that there is any concrete reason for anyone hating wall street to automatically love Bitcoin. Elizabeth Warren has voiced concerns about crypto being easy to steal in the past:


She hasn't talked about the subject a lot either, so it's not necessarily a point of focus for her. Andrew Yang, on the other hand, is big on blockchain and Bitcoin.