Here's a real world example of dust attack - in late 2019 someone sent 937 satoshis each to multiple addresses. I didn't check the rest, but one of them is mine - the address from my profile on this forum, which is also the address that I stacked in the thread in Meta. I think the purpose of this dust transaction is clear - someone hoped to link the address that I stacked with other addresses that I might own.

I also noticed that some address that received 937 satoshis in that same transaction has sent these satoshis to the Bitcoin eater address. I'm not going to bother, I practice coin control in all my transactions anyway.

This should happen to other centralized coins too - investors have to wake up and realize that centralized coins cant be shut down by governments and the people behind them could just scam everyone at any point. People dream about altcoin season, but what we need is altcoin apocalypse - there's too many useless and scammy coins on the market, and they only hurt the reputation of crypto. Investors are going to realize that lots of coins have failed to get any users since their inception and they have no future.

Ripple is more centralized than Ethereum, because Vitalik couldn't make literally any decision he wants - there are other important developers, and if Vitalik tried something crazy, community would likely reject or at least cause a major split. But still Vitalik has a great amount of control over his project, so yeah, it's centralized. Now, Ripple is a step further, its CEO could take any decision he likes with little to none resistance, and the network itself is already centralized, unlike Ethereum that can't freeze your account if Vitalik orders so, unless a hardfork is made.

Satoshi is also a risk, because he owns 1 million coins and that could crash the market, but Satoshi does not have any control over the protocol and if he returned tomorrow, its not like he would be handed over a complete control over Bitcoin development.

Any idea that starts with "let's ask early Bitcoin adopters to..." can be thrown out of the window immediately - time has proven that early Bitcoin adopters are not interested in that stuff. They want to keep low profile and not be bothered with anything. Or they want to keep hodling and continue setting higher and higher goals for themselves - 100k, 300k, 1 million...

Also, owning a bank is a huge burden, even if there are a lot of Bitcoin billionaires, who of them would want to spend their time managing a bank?

There's a lot of things that I could have regretted in relation to Bitcoin - not looking into it deeper in 2012 and 2014 when I had a chance, selling too much coins in 2016 - but what's the point of such regrets - I don't have a time machine, so I'd rather look into the future and the present and be happy with the coins that I have, especially since Bitcoin price is at the new ATH and has a potential to go higher and higher.

What's the point of comparing the sum of all Bitcoins with the sum of all shares of a company, especially the payment companies? It's quite misleading and noobs might think that Bitcoin is "bigger" than Visa. A more accurate comparison would be to compare the amount of money Visa holds vs Bitcoin's marketcap, and the amount of money being transfered every day, and the number of transactions per day. Bitcoin would lose in all 3 cases, especially the last two.

I have already sold small amounts, because I believe in continuous selling, as I started accumulating my coins in 2016. It's already a huge profit for me, and it's a profit I definitely don't want to miss out on. But selling all coins today is risky, there's no guarantee that the next bottom will be lower than the current price - we're still so early in the bull run.

It's never a bad thing to exit with a profit, but if your goal is to re-enter this market, selling now might be not very optimal.

The most secure method is to commit your seed to your own memory, this way it can only be stored if you are forced to reveal it under some threat. But this method is also dangerous, because human memory is so unreliable.

You could hide you seed inside the pages of a book - unless you're on some watchlist, border officials aren't going to look too much into your stuff. Theoretically, anyone who will carefully search your stuff will find this seed, but on practice this should be good enough.

This is a very short-term trading, and its hard regardless of the trend - be it bull market, bear market or sideways market. Theoretically this method is the most profitable, because you are making money on every single price change if you trade perfectly, but no one trades perfectly, and most people don't trade even close to perfectly.

Trying to sell high and buy low is just too greedy, most investors entered at $10k and below, so they have already made at least 150% profit. This is already a good place to start selling at least some amounts, so you can look at it from the "buy low sell high" perspective instead.

To get a colored trust score, you need to get a positive feedback from a highly trusted user. But don't try to game this system, it's quite common for scammers to try to build positive trust before executing their scam, and if you'll beg or try to buy a trust score, you will get negative trust.

Having positive trust does not mean that everyone will trust you, people might still ask for escrow if they will be dealing with, especially with big amounts. I personally think that a high number of valid positive trust feedbacks is more important than raw trust score.

I think on practice there's not much difference between a DIY cold storage setup and a hardware wallet - both protect you from the common malware, and situations where thieves get physical access to your storage are quite rare. Most times in situations with physical access a $5 wrench attack happens, rather than some high-tech hacking with abusing hardware bugs and such. If you trust hardware wallet manufacturers and distrust computer component vendors, that's fine, and vice versa.

KYC is just a policy on exchanges due to government regulations. Some exchanges won't allow you to use them at all until you provide your documents, others will allow you to trade, but you'll only be able to withdraw a small amount of money per day. I don't know about any exchange that requires KYC to trade some specific coins, while allowing others to be traded by unverified accounts.

If KYC is a problem to you, try decentralized exchanges like Bisq.

You can be pretty much 100% sure that Bitcoin will crash hard at some point, but no one knows when. This means that it would be stupid to do something like taking loans to invest in Bitcoin, because in worst case you'll have only a fraction of your money for repaying the debt.

Also, what this means for altcoins, is that they are in a much worse spot than Bitcoin - Bitcoin already greatly surpassed its ATH, while many alts are not even close to touching theirs - if Bitcoin crashes, there's no way alts will ever break their ATH.

China can't be trusted with any statistics, and there has been a lot of rumors and theories that China lies about its covid rates. Also, covid is their fault, if they banned their stupid wet markets, millions of people around the world wouldn't have to die. They were perfectly aware about this danger, since it's not the first outbreak that originates from these markets, so China should absolutely not be praised.

But US response was horrible, they failed to implement proper quarantine and a lot of people just refused to follow the basic guidelines like wearing a mask, because they believe in conspiracy theories.

Covid-19 and its negative effect on the economy made the US print a lot of dollars, which in turn made institutional investors look for alternative investments that are not correlated with the US dollar and mainstream economy. In 2017 institutional investors were eyeing stocks, as there was no reason for them to look into Bitcoin too much. Also, before 2017 Bitcoin was a little-known investment with a reputation of being a bubble, and its legal status was much less clear than it is now.

Exchanges have already delisted Monero, at this point banning it would mostly be a formality, because it's not used much outside of darknet markets.

Bitcoin is still quite popular on the darknet, but governments don't mind, because it actually gives them a chance to track the criminals, some of whom are stupid enough to not properly mix their transactions.

Of course banning Monero won't help them solve crimes at all, but it would prevent criminals from easily converting their dirty money to fiat legally.

Forget about paying for your coffee on chain, Bitcoin can't work like that, there's simply not enough capacity on the network for that. And even when fees were low, you'd still have to wait 10 minutes for confirmation - how would Bitcoin compete with banks that offer instant payments or with payment apps that offer the same? Lightning network is the only way to make Bitcoin usable for small transactions, and you can already adopt it on mainnet if you want.

If you have made a decent profit on your trades, there no point in regretting that you could have gotten more, because it's impossible to make perfect trades.  If you're selling at a profit, you're gaining real value and losing some imaginary value.


Private institutions like bank won't print money to bank Bitcoin, because that would be a fraud that when uncovered would put them into deep-deep trouble. Governments won't print money to buy Bitcoin, because it would just decrease the value of their fiat, that would be suicidal for them.

You can try to use blockchain for whatever you want, it's a free world, but originally, blockchain was just a part of Bitcoin protocol created by Satoshi. And Satoshi never called it "blockchain technology" or talked how he can use blockchain in other fields. To him, it was nothing more than an implementation detail of Bitcoin. So, blockchain quite literally was meant for Bitcoin only.
Only later other people came and claimed that they can make something other than cryptocurrency with it, but they are actually yet to prove that. There a ton of hypothethical blockchain uses and very little finished and successful products.

If there are indeed such cycles, and if they are tied to halvenings, then it's easy to conclude that their magnitude will be decreasing, because each halvening is less important than the previous one. And increased volumes and the decrease of the novelty factor will play some role too. I don't see any reasons why these cycles should be maintained at their full strength, though I wouldn't say that it's outside of the realm of possibility that they would.