Official tweet: https://twitter.com/Dashpay/status/1345093269919854592

So, for years Dash team was saying that they are better than Monero and other privacycoins, now they are saying that "their privacy is not better than in Bitcoin" 

How do you feel about that? Do you want to invest in a project that puts compliance with regulators above their own declared principles? Or do you think that this is just a tactical lie to return the lost liquidity and its all okay?

Noobs need to learn that DeFi and smart contracts are just computer programs. And computer programs always get hacked, so if you put your hard-earned money into an untested computer program from unknown developers, it's very likely you will lose your money. People naively think that decentralization means that all problems magically go away, but it can't be further from the truth.

There could have been no other outcome, cryptocurrency space is a giant competition and there can be only one winner. People want to have a currency that is accepted everywhere, instead of having 100 wallets with different coins at the same time. Bitcoin established itself as a secure and reliable coin, but alts have nothing to show - they only have cheap transactions because no one uses them, features like smart contracts are irrelevant to regular users, and there's a lot of downsides to alts like even bigger volatility and poor security - we have seen a lot of hacking, bugs and even 51% attacks.

Fiat, by its nature, is centralized, even stablecoins are centralized, despite what they might claim. You should decide who you trust more - the companies behind stablecoins or your bank or your exchange, and store coins there. If your bank is so slow, check alternative banks. There's no 100% bulletproof method here, there will always be risks. You can even diversify and store maybe 10-20% on exchange to make fast trades, another 10-20% in stablecoin, i case your bank account will get frozen, and the rest in your bank.

Bitcoin transaction fees are not tied to the amount being transferred, $1 or $1 trillion is the same to Bitcoin network. It's all about data - each input and output adds more data to the transaction, and address types of your coins are important too. As you are paying for data, fees are measured in satoshis per byte. Sliding all the way to the left sets the fee to 1 satoshi per byte. Now look at the last chart here. When the size of all pending transactions with >1 sat/byte fee is less than 1 MB, the miners would start putting 1 sat/byte transactions in their blocks, so your 1 sat/byte transaction will have some chance to get confirmed, though miners would probably try to confirm older transactions first. There's no guarantee that it will take 7 days, it all depends on the current state of mempool.

If you want to pay the lowest fee and get your transaction confirmed ASAP, refer to the chart that I showed you, and choose the bracket that is around 1 MB.

No effect of course, Bitcoin is not a privacycoin, duh. The interesting part will start when or if Bitcoin will adopt privacy enhancements in its protocol. It will largely depend if they will be opt-in or not. If it's opt-in, then it will be a lot like Coinjoin - some exchanges will ban it to comply with KYC/AML laws. But if Bitcoin will become a full privacycoin, it will be a matter of time before big governments will start banning it. That would mean goodbye to high prices, giant hashpower, big network of nodes, potential for mass adoption, etc.

No one should chase innovation for the sake of innovation. Nearly all inventions are doomed to fail, so most of the time when someone tells that X is the next big thing, it's not. Let Ethereum and other shitcoins play with DeFi and smart contracts, if in 5 years it will be massively adopted, then it will make sense to start working on porting it to Bitcoin. Why should Bitcoin devs waste their time on working on a feature that could very likely be useless?

For majority of its history, Bitcoin price was going up. You can find correlation with anything you want - moon phases, hurricanes, elections, etc. If you're trying to prove a connection, you need to explain the mechanism of why certain event influences the price. In this case, it doesn't make much sense for Bitcoin to have such major movements because US president changes - US presidents don't really care about Bitcoin.

If you don't know who owns those addresses, why even bother speculating? The possibilities are endless and it would be stupid to base any decisions on them. And even if you knew to whom those addresses belong, it still wouldn't mean something conclusive. Even if these whales move coins to exchange, there's no guarantee that they will sell immediately, or that they won't buyback quickly. It only makes sense to look at fresh transaction data if there's some big trend instead of individual events.

SEC exists to monitor and regulate securities, it's literally in their name. They don't care if a project is centralized or decentralized, they care if its a security or not. Sec commissioner Hester Peirce warned people who make DeFis that they might get in trouble with SEC if their platforms will be used for trading securities.

If a project is really decentralized, SEC or any other regulator won't be able to shut it down - Bitcoin still works in countries that banned it is a proof to it. But they can do a lot of harm, they can close all centralized exchanges, prevent companies from using it, etc. Basically make it a thing of the deepweb and nothing more.

For majority of its existence Bitcoin was at all time high. This logic of "never buying at ATH" prevented millions of people from buying at $1 or $100 or $1,000. The only time where you shouldn't buy is the top of a bubble, which is not the same as ATH. No one can say that right now we're experiencing the peak of a bubble - it could be true, but it could also be just the beginning of a long bull run. This isn't the greatest time to buy Bitcoin, but it's also not a horrible time.

As I understand, the SEC didn't go after ICOs because they are inherently illegal, they went after them because they were unregistered securities. There were ICOs that fully complied with regulations. It's still not enough for ICO hype 2.0, because scams were only half of the problem - the other half is extremely low success of ICO projects in terms of actual results. At least penny stocks and startups have a chance to become an established company and a leader in its own innovative field - ICOs just create platforms that no one uses.

Hodling is great, but don't let it stop you from taking profits. I hodled during the 2017 bull run barely selling any coins, and after the crash it took me 3 years to see Bitcoin touch the $20k again. Yes, I was rewarded with the now higher price of $29k, but if I originally sold in 2017, moved some money into other investments and rebought Bitcoin when it crashed to below $4,000 I'd have even more money now. It's cool to see your crypto value go up, but you only really have that value if you sell.

And yet Bitcoin's current bullrun is driven by institutional investors who interact with centralized platforms and might not even do a single onchain transaction ever. Perhaps Bitcoin will just get integrated in the current centralized system and people will be sending each other Bitcoin via PayPal or use "Bitcoin debit cards".

In the early days Internet was decentralized, free and full of opportunities, now we have majority of the Internet users mostly just visiting the websites of giant companies. Bitcoin might be following the same road - you could do p2p transactions, use Lightning Network, be your own bank - but most people won't.

Online wallets can be hacked just like self-hosted wallets. There's malware that hijacks sessions, logs your passwords, there's sim swapping, email hacks, etc. Since you access Coinbase on an online machine, the risk of such hack is much higher than with cold storage, which is designed to minimize the chance of hacks.

Then there are counterparty risks. Any centralized exchange could pull an exit scam, get hacked, get seized by authorities, etc.


There can be many reasons, generally financial institutions are allowed to freeze assets if they deem your account suspicious - there's no strict rules here.

Yes, I checked it, all the addresses are linked to this forum - stacked addresses, addresses in profiles, mentioned addresses. Also, seems like all the accounts are high-rank accounts, so they might have not been selected randomly.

I wonder who is behind this - my guess would be some chainanalysis company, they are well known for going beyond simply looking at blockchain, they do things like runnings electrum servers and full nodes to collect IP addresses and other data.

Stimulus was created for broke people. The government doesn't want to check everyone if they really need money or not, it's easier for them to just give money to everyone - and even if they give it to people are doing well financially, they hope that they money will return back to the economy.

Just like with the last time, the number of people who will use their stimulus money to buy Bitcoin will be negligible - most people will use it to deal with their immediate necessities. Also, retail investors are still not jumping the Bitcoin train. No reason to expect that stimulus checks will change anything on this market.

Anyone can launch a cryptocurrency, it costs absolutely nothing to do, unlike with companies you don't need any registration or own any infrastructure/capital/etc. Combine it with the fact that there's always greater fool who will buy a coin, no matter how stupid it is, and its easy to see how we ended up with thousands of coins.

I like your comparison with Euro - people want to own 1 currency that is accepted everywhere, instead of owning 100 currencies for different use cases. The more popular money replaces the less popular money. Altcoins have no chance of achieving mass adoption.

The most common way of getting hacked is downloading some crap from the Internet. It could be cracked software or just unverified software, it could come from downloaded movies or music. There's a wide variety of malware that can steal wallets, replace addresses, log your keystrokes, steal cookies and passwords, redirect you to phishing sites and so on. As crypto prises rise, malware authorts and hackers turn their attention to crypto more and more.

To prevent it, even strong antivirus is not enough, you need to keep your coins in cold storage so your private keys are never exposed to potentially infected environment.

Cryptonews in a nutshell - completely misleading titles and articles that only create hype and make investors FOMO. Add here the fact that so many people just read titles, and it's not hard to see how easily investors can become irrational and emotional.


Right, there's a huge difference between both parties using Bitcoin and directly transacting it, and one party using some centralized proxy - the latter can't be considered mass adoption