25 years is a really big sentence. While I agree that prison time is needed to discourage others from committing similar crimes, I think financial punishment (huge fines, confiscation of assets) and financial reimbursement of victims is way more important in such crimes. After all, it's a non-violent crime, and forcing SBF to give his wealth away would be both useful and a good punishment, in my opinion. If there's a lot of real damage to the victims (mental health), it can be accounted for, and it can contribute to some prison time. But the news I've seen focus on prison time and don't mention financial consequences.

IMO, the most important part has already happened. Namely, quoting the court document the op shared,
That's a great judgement, and I'm really happy that the COPA managed to prove it in court (as they were the ones who had to prove Craig was fake, so if they simply hadn't had enough evidence, Craig would've won the case).
The rest, it seems, it about getting Craig to cover the cost of the trial, which amounts to £6 million. The judge recommends freezing Craigs assets to make sure the transfer will happen, and Craig is perhaps trying to evade.

It's not surprising that people overwhelmingly support the first option in the poll. If you look at the chart of Bitcoin price, it's clearly growing over time. So Bitcoin is a fairly reliable investment into the future.
I'm happy that the op was able to accumulate some BTC as well as gain some profit, considering how Bitcoin grew over the last few months. But, like others, I feel like trading is riskier than holding.
I'm sorry for a friend with gambling addiction, that's an unfortunate condition that really makes it hard (as any addiction) to properly manage funds and invest.

I think this all depends on a jurisdiction and on enforcement of laws. In my country, there's no tax-free gift loophole, but there are tax-free (very small) sums and closest relatives can also be tax-exempt. That being said, taxation isn't taken seriously in my country, so unless you're a public official or something, nobody cares whether you pay your gift taxes or not. I don't know Satoshi's jurisdiction, but I don't think Satoshi wanted to avoid taxation or whatever, or that it would best be done via such a distribution.

In my country, some places accept Bitcoin, but it's not common. What's way more common is donations in Bitcoin, and I did a few of those. In one case, I got a hoodie in exchange for my donation, so I technically bought something directly with Bitcoin. Perhaps I also used it for something like online hosting subscription, but I'm not sure.
If more people in your country start feeling like you, op, the demand will create the supply. Bitcoin is inconvenient for some purchases but can work well for significant online purchases. Good luck!

I realize that sometimes people don't have a choice, and they are in circumstances that force them to take jobs that they don't enjoy because they need money. In my life, I've been trying to do things that contribute to my personal growth and development of skills that I find important, and things that I enjoy or at least don't mind doing. I've chosen to earn less but do something I enjoy more many times in my life, and I think this is the way of getting to a life that you like and moving toward your dream. As for the right community, it probably depends on an area in which one wants to develop. But I'd suggest attending public events related to that area, such as conferences, exhibitions, public talks, etc.

Similar things happened in my country. Overall, the USD is just getting more and more valuable if measured against local fiat. However, sometimes there are temporary spikes which go way too high, and they are promptly followed by corrections. So, for example, from January to the end of February 2015, the USD went from being worth 15.6 UAH to 27.7 UAH. Then it dropped to 20.2 UAH by May of the same year, which is a drop similar to the one described by the op. Over the years, it went higher and lower occasionally, fluctuating between spikes and corrections. Maybe that's what's going on.

I come from a culture where taking loans is generally frowned upon and considered unsafe, so it's hard for me to understand how people in some other countries often live with a lot of debt and that's just a normal part of life for them.
The problem isn't just with owing for too long. There are also very unfair loaning practices where you can take a small loan without reading the fine print, committing yourself to a terrible interest rate that just gets bigger and bigger.
I believe it's best not to borrow money unless it's an emergency with no other options. But maybe the op's advice can be useful for people who take loans and live in a different society where it's the norm.

My first thought is melting, but apparently its melting point is just too high for it to be easy to do. That would require special equipment, and can of course also be dangerous to the one doing it because of dealing with molten metal. Since the info is on the plate, grinding is another option, but that also requires special equipment. It looks like it's not something easy to do because steel is made to last. I agree with Zaguru12 that the best option is to transfer the coins and thus get a new seed phrase. And then the old one can go to metal recycling or whatever without any concerns. But I've seen the op's response on why it can still be a bad idea. Well, then one needs to buy an industrial torch or a grinder, then.

To me, it's neither good nor bad. Bitcoin is decentralized and available to anyone who can afford it and wants to buy it. As a part of a free market, big players can also invest if they feel like it. But, thankfully, at this point Bitcoin is so huge that I don't think there's a single company that can accumulate such a truly significant amount that would allow them to monopolize the market and can significant control over it.
Big funds investing in Bitcoin can both boost its price and reputation. And there's still plenty of BTC left to buy and store in non-custodial wallets. Yes, when the price goes up, it means people can afford smaller amounts of BTC than before. But that's just natural.

Taking risks is definitely a part of life. A lot of decisions involve some risks, so not taking any risks means limiting oneself very often. That being said, there's a difference between being ready to take some risks and being reckless, ignoring the dangers. When taking risks, it's important to realize what you're doing, what might happen, how likely it is to happen, and what can you do if something unfortunate happens. This way, you can invest, you can try to build a business if you feel like you can take the risks, and you know what to do if things don't work out.

I think I largely agree with what the op is suggesting. Gold is indeed highly recognizable, it's physical and shiny, so there isn't much need to explain why it's valuable. It also has a historical advantage of being a valuable part of human culture for thousands of years. Bitcoin is intangible, which makes it easier to store and is partially why it can't be faked, but that also means that to a lot of people it's non-existent because they can't hold it in their hands or understand why some people are willing to pay so much fiat ('real money') for it. But while gold isn't normally used as a currency anymore, Bitcoin is both an asset and a currency. You can exchange it for goods and services if you go to places that accept it. That gives it more usability, which is an advantage over gold.

In case of banks, you can make an inheritance letter, so that the bank knows who to contact and who gets your assets. In case of Bitcoin, you'd normally be storing your coins in a non-custodial wallet, so there's nobody to notify to make those arrangements (centralized storage may offer inheritance services, but centralized storage of Bitcoin is generally frowned upon here). I believe that making personal arrangements is a good idea. That can be a scheduled message that you reschedule if you say alive, or simply sharing access with someone you love and trust.

I don't like using the word "man" when referring to humans in general, but I'll comment a bit more on the main ideas. To an average person, Bitcoin is still probably not well-known, considering that less than 5% of humans actually have any experience with Bitcoin. So it's just a name of something associated with hype, high price, probably also with scams and other illegal activities. If people turn to it because of the potential profit, it can be a symbol of hope for a better future, but that is also a risky attitude because Bitcoin is volatile and largely unpredictable. There's no guarantee of success, and that's why people should manage their expectations and be ready for unfortunate events.

Twitter isn't a trustworthy source of information, unless it's a tweet by someone or an entity with a high reputation. This article analyses the rumours and says that it's a misinterpretation of words by one European MP, and that self-custody won't be illegal. Cash payments will indeed be limited to EUR 10,000. However, that doesn't mean that the limit applies to self-custodial wallets. And also, to be honest, I think EUR 10,000 is a fair limit per transaction to impose some sort of KYC.

I believe (and I'm happy to see that a lot of people agree with it in the thread) that business is about skills and traits of character, and that has nothing to do with gender. So it's not a 'man or woman' question, it's a question of professionalism. So it doesn't matter who's at the very top, but I support efforts of bringing gender and racial equality, so I'd be more keen to hire someone underrepresented. What does matter is diversity within the company, including top management. Hiring a bunch of white dudes isn't the best business strategy because they come from similar backgrounds and have similar ideas. More diversity (both gender and racial) leads to more discussions, more innovation and ultimately to more profit. There's evidence for it here. So having a diverse team is both fair and good for business.

It's good that they're already working on a new platform, although to me, it looks like they're jumping the gun. Only a handful of countries are really interested in CBDCs, and even less have actually conducted any kind of testing. For now, it's unclear if they are going to supplement, let alone replace, fiat currencies in the future. Maybe SWIFT is doing it just in case, as they don't want to be left out.
To me, it's not about recognition of cryptocurrencies because CBDCs have little in common with actual cryptos. They are more like a new digital form of fiat, possibly more secure, and certainly more traceable. They're not helpful for adoption of cryptos but not a threat to their adoption either.

Hodling for more than a decade has several requirements. First, a person must take that investment seriously throughout the years, which means storing it safely and knowing where it's stored (to avoid accidentally locking oneself out). Second, a person must be very patient. Over the years, various prices seemed really big. Not selling for several hundred, several thousand, and even for dozens of thousands isn't easy. Finally, a person should either have enough savings elsewhere for emergencies or have a very calm 10+ years, without ever needing to sell.
Overall, I think people should do what feels right to them. It's great to hodl long-term, but there's no need to worry if it doesn't work out, and you need to sell some of it.

Game 1:  23, 22'
Game 2:  23, 27'

14. Erin Blanchfield
13. Vicente Luque
12. Bruno Silva
11. Nursulton Ruziboev
10. Bill Algeo
9. Chidi Njokuani
8. Jamall Emmers
7. Loopy Godinez
6. Herbert Burns
5. Connor Matthews
4. Ibo Aslan
3. Melissa Gatto
2. Caolan Loughran
1. Andre Petroski

NOT go the Full Distance 7