Of course, all investments have risks. With that being said, there is really no guarantee that investments would result into a positive ROI. However, you cannot lump all investments together as one as if they are all the same. They differ in terms of potentials. They differ in terms of the level of risk. They differ in terms of track record even. And if we take all these into consideration in terms of crypto investment, it would come out very obvious that Bitcoin is generally a much better option than altcoins.

I'm not saying we should not be assigning fiat value to Bitcoin. All I'm saying is that Bitcoin cannot be overvalued on that basis. After all, what or who can avoid being valued in terms of fiat? Nothing and no one. Even a human person has a price estimate in terms of fiat. But the point is, unlike altcoin projects which are too proud to assign prices to their tokens without subjecting them to the market's assessment, Bitcoin's price is solely determined by the market.

Although there might come a time when 1BTC = 1BTC prevails more than 1BTC = $___.

There you go, that's the direct result of having a currency that appreciates. Of course, a currency is meant to be spent. That's the intention. That should be easy with fiat. The fiat designers make it certain that people will spend their money. So it has to lose its value over time. That's not the case with Bitcoin. So the spending of Bitcoin is limited to what is necessary. The rest, people prefer to just HODL.

I guess donating to Wikipedia with Bitcoin has become less urgent nowadays, especially if compared to donating to the Freedom Convoy in Canada recently or to the freedom cause of Ukraine and other humanitarian efforts there. But I wonder, why does Wikipedia have to remove its Bitcoin donation option? Why don't they just leave an address? Does it cost them to do that? I'm sure, though, that by the time Wikipedia's existence is seriously threatened by the lack of funding support, Bitcoin donations would flow. Or so I hope.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Satoshi did not assign any fiat value to Bitcoin. That in itself means Bitcoin cannot be overpriced.

How about altcoins? They have the gall to say our token is worth $0.50 or $2 or whatever apiece right from the get-go. After a few or several weeks, months, or years the price plummets to near 0. That's the real value of their tokens because that's the value dictated by the market.

In Bitcoin's case, the people or the market are the ones that solely determines the price value of Bitcoin. So whether it appears overpriced or not, it is not a big deal. What can we do if that's the actual price the people are willing to pay to have it?

If fiat serves as a storage of value to you, then that's a real utility. But other than that, you can buy almost everything with Bitcoin, from a cup of coffee to pizza, apparels, groceries, meals, and even a piece of land, apartment, house, cars, and so on. You can pay bills with it, even your taxes. You cannot do it everywhere, of course. But you must also understand that adoption takes time. You know, fiat is hard to go up against.

In addition to that, remittance is another area where Bitcoin has valuable utility. And try moving millions across borders with your gold, it isn't as easy as doing it with your Bitcoin, and for a very small fee.

All these things you can do with Bitcoin, in the real world. But if you want to demand for an actual and physical utility of Bitcoin just like your fiat's function as a toilet paper, then you're asking a worm to fly. That's why Bitcoin is called a digital currency, my friend.

These individuals are not to be compared with ordinary Russian Binance users. These sanctioned individuals are relatives of either Russian oligarchs or high-ranking Russian government officials. Binance is apparently under legal pressure to sanction them, but they are not as regards ordinary Russian citizens.

Anyway, why would ordinary Russians lose their funds in Binance for nothing? Nobody is confiscating them. But they should know better. First, Binance is not a storage to safekeep their funds. Second, the circumstances of the time make their Binance and other centralized exchanges' accounts more uncertain and less secured than ever. They must be aware that all of them could be targeted by unfair sanctions anytime so they should pull out their funds as soon as possible.

You must have been with gambling for quite a while and yet sometimes you still lose control of yourself and your urges. There's no one to be blamed, of course, but yourself. However, it's not just you who have gone through such experience. I myself have lost patience and made huge bets without any kind of analysis all because I had a losing streak. I have this urge to blindly and desperately gamble with bigger amounts whenever my bets are losing one after another. But the only difference here is that you are gambling with a money intended to pay a debt. That's a big no no for me.

The Bitcoin market is generally unpredictable. So whenever a prediction based on a technical analysis turned out right, there must be a certain amount of luck involved. Of course, this is not how many traders look at it. There's a respected trader in my country who believes that everything could be seen on the charts. Personally, though, I think the chart would help you make sense of the current price but does not really tell you much about the future price, although, of course, it somehow guides you. At the very least, charting would give basis to your orders, that your calls are not simply blind guesses.

Not really that ironic. Whether you accept Bitcoin or ban Bitcoin, it means people would want to know about Bitcoin. To anybody who hasn't heard of Bitcoin yet or to one who has heard but hasn't really known it, a ban or an acceptance as a legal tender would somehow pique his/her curiosity about Bitcoin. That would lead him/her to search for it online. This is why a criticism, a tirade, a ban, even a condemnation of Bitcoin is still a promotion of Bitcoin so to speak.

But trying to know and understand Bitcoin is not adoption, although there is a probability that learning about Bitcoin leads to embracing it.


It must have contributed to it. The City of Lugano in Switzerland has hit the headlines recently for accepting Bitcoin as a legal currency. In Canada, on the other hand, Bitcoin came into the fore during the truckers' protest because the banks suddenly froze bank accounts connected to the protesters. Bitcoin became an alternative for donations. In both stories, Bitcoin must have made a lot curious and led them to search for it on Google.

An in depth research is not even a guarantee. Billions were lost during the height of the ICO craze. I'm sure investors, especially angel and institutional investors, made thorough research before releasing a good amount of money. But many of them failed to make ROI.

I can still remember the most common advice in hunting for a good project to invest in was to carefully check the background of the development team. Many did not fail to do this. I myself was diligent enough to do this. An excellent development team is probably one of the reasons why some ICOs in the past would reach their hard cap so easily. But where are the projects now? Most of them are probably dead.

In addition, the particular kind of trader you are might also be a factor. Your choice might differ if you are solely focused on day trading or if you are more interested in futures and margin trading. Your risk tolerance might also matter.

Also, I guess track record beyond security will also be considered. There are a lot of exchanges out there that are known for wash trading and fake volumes. There are also those that have a lot of unresolved complaints on account freezing and blocking.

Yes, definitely, it is a heavily prostituted keyword which is exploited obviously for the sake of keeping up with what's in and cool nowadays.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid it seems people are more easily convinced with the decentralized banner because it involves more than a little technical knowledge to actually scrutinize whether or not a platform or a project is truly decentralized.

Is there an easy way to tell whether a platform like UniSwap is truly decentralized or not? Or do ordinary people have to wait for instances like this to finally determine that such a platform is indeed centralized? Do they have to stumble upon key terms such as block, freeze, ban, and whatnot in the news to finally realize that something's wrong with a particular platform claiming to be decentralized?

There are probably various factors involved, but what is certain is that merit to activity ratio is not the main barometer. It has to be the posts.

For instance, a signature campaign is launched promoting a casino. Somebody applies with low activity but abundant merit, albeit earned mostly in sections, boards, and threads like reputation, scam accusation, meta, wall observer, local, off-topic, and so on.

I haven't been a manager myself, but if I were in the shoes of the manager, I won't be picking him/her. I would be picking somebody else who's got high activity but very low merit but who is so active and constructive in gambling discussions. After all, it is where I want my brand to be most visible.

In my observation, merit is not that easily earned in gambling discussions.

The truth of the matter is that Bitcoin doesn't make anybody cry. You can actually never go wrong with Bitcoin. It is a decentralized, immutable, censor-proof, transparent digital currency. It will always be better than fiat. So it is not Bitcoin per se that made somebody cry; it is the speculation of its price which, ironic as it may seem, is not really a part of its features. Now, since people are looking at Bitcoin's speculative price more than its features, it is inevitable that tears will fall. But there's always a solution that. Develop diamond hands.

Yes, and although the conflict is basically happening in a single country, the ripple effect in this age of globalization is far-reaching. As a matter of fact, even before the issue of suspending gas supplies to some neighboring European countries, the price of gas products in a small nation far away in South East Asia has already increased. The last time I bought a 250-gram butane canister, the price was already $2. That's an increase of around 25%. That's not even a direct effect of this conflict.

I don't think we should react to this as if this is some kind of a big deal. Of course, this is actually nothing when it comes to the actual hash power that it would contribute to the network or even to its profitability. This is definitely more symbolic than technical. I doubt this is even a serious official endeavor of the city. It would be funny if the city is indeed seriously pursuing to mine Bitcoin by starting with a few obsolete donations. It's more of the message or the statement. This is more of the newsmaker's fault to banner it like this.

Please anybody correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that free here doesn't mean you won't have to pay anything. Free here means Strike doesn't charge you anything for their services, so you're not paying the platform at all. However, network fees are beyond Strike's services. And so the network will still charge you for your transactions. Unlike other platforms, however, whatever fees you are paying aren't padded for profit or revenue. As regards BTC to fiat conversion and vice versa, it's still determined by the market.

I think I never typed an address manually letter/number by letter/number. If that's the case, I think I would be convinced to use a helper. But since that is not the case as I only copy and paste an address or use a QR a code, I don't think I need a helper. Copy pasting is a very small task. All I need to do besides that is to verify that the address is the right one. And it only needs comparing the address' handful of characters in the beginning, middle, and end.

Well, hunger could spark a war, yes, but the urge to go organic farming definitely won't cause hunger, unless inorganic farming would be criminalized, which is impossible to happen. So this is just OP's too much imagination of what's been preached by certain leaders.

We all love the environment. We all love healthy food. We are all supporting the best ways and practices of growing food. But all these are not as important as food itself.

This is actually not bothersome at all. Perhaps we will begin to worry when spams and chips and sausages and hotdogs and fast food chains are declared illegal.

This certainly must have harrowing effects on both Poland and Bulgaria. However, I don't believe both countries were not bracing themselves for this possibility. In the first place, that they remain adamant not to pay in rubles means they could survive without Russian gas. On the other hand, Russia is only expediting the process of European countries' weaning themselves from Russian gas supply. In so doing, not only is Russia isolating itself more and more, it also losses leverage. This counter sanction has its return damage.