If I were to add a few more lines to your letter, I would say, "most of all, learn lessons and move forward. Know that there are thousands and thousands of coins. You don't have to put your eggs in one basket only. And, most of all, know that there is a reason for the number one coin out there to be the number one. It has been on that same spot since the beginning and it will most likely stay there for the rest of our lives. There are only 21 million of that coin and of the 7 billion people in the world only a few own some. It's not too late."

I'd also love to watch this fight. This has to happen sooner rather than later. This should happen while both are still in their prime and are undefeated. The moment either one of them gets a stain in his record, this fight wouldn't anymore be as anticipated and exciting.

As regards the odds, I think Crawford will be the favorite but the difference won't be that big. As regards who will possibly win, I think Crawford will.

Both men fought Porter and while Spence only won via split decision, Crawford won via TKO. In their match with Brook also, Spence knocked him out in the 11th while Crawford in the 4th. This is, of course, not a solid basis but I think, on the overall, Crawford has a much higher boxing IQ than Spence.

And who is @Cryptocraziac to be a reliable source? Those are 8 suicides that are claimed to be directly caused by the crash of LUNA. Confirming that the deaths, if they indeed happened, are truly caused by the plunging price of LUNA is not an easy thing to do. And if these 8 suicides are really true and are even slightly linked to the huge price fall of cryptocurrencies, this news should have already reached the papers and not just passed on like a gossip on Twitter. This looks like fake news!

Do you think it is a little bit irresponsible from no less than the governor of the Bank of Tanzania to start a statement by saying cryptocurrencies are not safe and proceeds with an admission that they are still in the process of researching? There was an admission that the research is not yet done, so why prematurely conclude that cryptocurrency is not safe? It is obvious what will come next. They are conducting a research with a biased mind.

I'm also surprised that in line with the research there will be "interviews with randomly selected individuals who may assist to gather information to be used to guide decision-making." How on earth would you be able to come up with an informed study on cryptocurrency when instead of inviting experts on the matter you will be interviewing randomly selected individuals?

This is purely marketing. That's all. This is nothing but an effort to win hearts and money. And the latter is always more important than the former, although sometimes it is a bit necessary to capture the former to gain the latter. This is true to both CZ and NAS Daily. Of course, they have to make a script that is somehow touching and encouraging. That's typical NAS Daily. On the part of CZ, it doesn't matter for as long as it is promoting his name and business.

From a certain standpoint there's nothing wrong with this. But from someone who has read a little more about CZ, Binance, NAS Daily, and Nuseir Yassin, this might come nauseating.

I guess we have generally passed through this phase already in cryptocurrency's history. More than constant defamation from countries, we are seeing a serious or even sincere approach in learning, understanding, and regulating it. I consider this a mature approach.

Gone are the days when governments would simply brush the idea of Bitcoin off as a criminal's currency used below the surface web. Right now, we cannot deny that there is in fact an effort to find compromises, to look for ways to adopt crypto without necessarily abandoning the traditional system.

Well, in the first place, there are two kinds of people here, those who are emotional and those who remain rational. If one is emotional in the face of uncertainty, there is nothing worth discussing. Fear and panic will consume him/her.

On the other hand, the rational investor will decide based on how he/she looks at the market and its possibilities. If he/she thinks there will be more dips to follow, selling might be an option to a portion of his/her portfolio, which will be bought back at a bottom price indicated in his/her analysis. Or he/she would prefer to HODL and wait for the storm to pass. Or perhaps he/she will simply wait for a point where buying more is best.

If I'm not mistaken, one of the earliest use-case of Bitcoin was as a gambling bet. Satoshidice was already in operation in 2012. So it is not surprising that over the years, the growth of crypto gambling is already recognizable.

And it has proven to be very profitable as well. Proof of this is the huge sponsorships of crypto gambling platforms in international sports teams and leagues.

Perhaps one of the main reasons why a lot of gamblers are choosing crypto over fiat is the certain amount of anonymity in it. You are not obliged to submit personal and financial information if you want to play in a crypto gambling site.

I think we can all many altcoins fair-weather gems. They are gems while the market is running smoothly. They may not appear absolute shitcoins because they have the community, the volume, the visibility, and so on. But once the entire market will plunge into the worst of times and these fair-weather gems will fall hard just like the rest, many of them won't be able to recover anymore. The worst of bear markets is a shitcoin killer. It would put to death so many altcoins.

But their death is not due to lack of good volume or liquidity. Those are simply effects. The main cause of these shitcoins' death is the lack of the most basic reason to exist. Most of them don't have a working product, sustainable tokenomics, or even the smallest development.

I don't know if these issues are worth commenting on. For as long as the issues are resolved relatively quickly and fairly and in favor of those people who exerted effort in promoting certain brands, they could easily be shelved and forgotten.

As in all facets of life, it is inevitable that different issues with different gravity arise in signature campaigns. For example, just recently we have these:




And probably there were also issues regarding signature payments sent in gambling site accounts which require certain fees upon withdrawal. Other than this, there were probably issues in terms of how participants are chosen, how campaign rules are suddenly changed, how payment funds are not escrowed, and so on and so forth. There are simply tons of them.

In other words, these coins' temporary independence from Bitcoin should not be taken as a big deal. On the contrary, it should be taken with utmost caution.

If those isolated movements made you richer in terms of Bitcoin, it is better to grab the opportunity to make conversions to Bitcoin, because sooner rather than later they would eventually align themselves with Bitcoin.

The crypto market history has taught us that sticking with Bitcoin is actually more profitable than sticking with altcoins.

I hope I'm right, but I'm reading this absolutely differently. You seem to have taken this more seriously than it should have been. I think there is nothing too serious about this. This is, to me, obviously pure sarcasm. Bitrefill is clearly making fun of bankers and the system more than being truly concerned about them. I mean, come on, you can't be serious! Look at the words and the phrases; they're all satirical. They're telling you to read between the lines.

Safety and security is probably one of the reasons why some governments are having a hard time accepting cryptocurrencies. It is a wild wild west out there and there are not enough security and safety measures to guarantee and ensure that the consuming public and their money are fully protected.

Whether we like it or not, saving in a bank gives peace of mind to a lot of people. Whatever happens, their funds are insured and accountability is more or less guaranteed. There is a system in place of which the people have become comfortable.

On the other hand, in DeFi in the year 2021 alone, at least $10 billion is already stolen from users. How many of them have actually recovered their funds? How many of the thieves and robbers have been brought to justice? How many developers have been made accountable?

There is no risk in this. While the overall crypto market sentiment is somehow dictated by Bitcoin's movements, there will be cases of selected altcoins that would somehow move in a different direction. This must be due to the specific altcoin's activities. There might be a new significant project update, a product release or development, a new partnership sealed, a big investor, and other reasons. And this is definitely not the first time that it happened. But generalizing that the specific altcoin has generally outperformed Bitcoin is definitely wrong.

Doubts, of course, should be resolved. In doing so, knowledge is probably gained. But you don't resolve each and every doubt. Sooner or later, you will have wisdom; you will know the pattern. You will immediately know a scam when you see one. And so you can make generalizations. That's what knowledge gives us. Having said this, you don't have to scrutinize and investigate each and every altcoin, each and every airdrop, each and every NFT project, each and every DeFi platform, and so on. Somehow, you can make a generalization.

It may be a great story that has a good and happy ending, but it does not justify the title. That Bitcoin can save your life wherever you are is an overstatement. Bitcoin cannot save your life wherever you are. That's simply an exaggeration.

I think it is well accepted even by the Bitcoin community itself that Bitcoin is not widely accepted as a currency and that you can hardly live a life with Bitcoin as your preferred money.

With the rapid depreciation of Bitcoin, surely the seller must have acquired paper loss since the property was sold days ago. While the purchase was done in Bitcoin, it was surely valued according to Bitcoin's price in fiat. With that, there must have been a good amount value lost, at least in paper.

Bitcoin has already lost more than 20% of its price value in the last 7 days alone. There might be more to come. I hope the seller is already familiar with how Bitcoin's price moves or will develop diamond hands out of this baptism with fire.

If an asset is volatile, it is not a safe haven. If an asset fluctuates more or less like the rest of the mainstream assets, it must not be a safe haven. If an asset is risky, it is not a safe haven. And since Bitcoin is all of the above, I doubt it could be considered a safe haven. However, this is true if we are to look at the charts with shorter time frames. If we are to take several steps back, zoom out, and focus instead on long-term movements of Bitcoin's price, we may be seeing a picture with a different suggestion.

While Coinbase hasn't yet issued an official statement on this, it is not unlikely that this will happen. Binance has already implemented this "following the EU's fifth package of restrictive measures against Russia."^[1] So if this restriction is indeed in line with the latest package of sanctions, it's probably just a matter of time before Coinbase will finally implement it.

This is obviously a direct effect of centralization. This is not a show of strength of united institutions. After all, these are not unilateral initiatives. Instead, these are steps in compliance with legal pressure. Lest we forget, both Binance and Coinbase did not heed Ukraine's earlier call to ban Russian accounts. These latest developments are clearly born out of government demands.

---

[1] https://www.binance.com/en/support/announcement/4887e569afdf4b1e89e024371d3a49b9


I think the amount is not $10 but €10,000. This measure is apparently targeting rich Russian users and not ordinary Russians.

OP's baby sister may have committed a mistake, but it was never her fault that she was a victim of a scam. The fault was on the scammer's end. And if this is not resolved favorably, also Binance's. Always, it is the fault of the scammer rather than the victim. Sometimes, I feel infuriated that a victim is blamed more than the scammer. Everybody commits a mistake every now and then. Even theymos himself who has been an early bird in this technology has mistakenly sent a thousand dollars to the wrong address.