This is a wrong way to look at it, even now Bitcoin isn't just an investment, some people use it for their purchases, even if it's only occasionally. And there's no conflict here, the fact that the majority of users view it as investment in no way hinders the other people's ability to spend it as a currency. People should really stop worrying if Bitcoin is a currency or an investment or a store of value, it has many uses, and it's decentralized, so there's no way to force someone to use it only in particular way.

No one can tell you when there's a good moment to buy or sell Bitcoin, if they could, they would have already been millionaires and didn't waste their time sitting on this forum. From past experience, there's a lot of excamples of Bitcoin's future price being both over-estimated and underestimated. When Bitcoin costed a few dollars, or even hundreds of dollars, few could imagine 5 figure prices, but then when we were getting close to the ATH, people thought that we'll stop at $100k or $300k. Same happens now - only a tiny amounts of people will correctly predict the outcome of this rally, and probably just randomly, rather than because they are actually good at it. So, don't worry about it.

It actually wasn't significant at all, Coinbase made a very manipulative blog post that hid the absolute numbers and only showed relative increase, but if you calculate the absolute numbers, there was like a few thousand people who probably used their stimulus money on Bitcoin, which obviously won't matter for the price. It's great to theorize how some things can influence Bitcoin, but let's not forget to bring the actual evidence, because otherwise a theory is just a theory.

PayPal decided to offer buying/selling Bitcoin, because they can make money off transactions fees, Amazon has no reasons to adopt Bitcoin - it's a very unpopular payment method, and even among people who own Bitcoin, so many prefer to HODL it rather than spend. We're seeing adoption of Bitcoin as an investment, store of value, but not much adoption for consumer transactions.

Limited supply alone does not create value, it only amplifies the existing value. And saying that volatility is just a tradeoff isn't really a response, it's just avoiding discussing the problem. I think most investors that are looking for stores of value are looking for some safety and stability, they first want to preserve what they have, making profit is secondary. Bitcoin fails here, because from time to time it tends to drop by a lot, so investing at an unlucky moment would mean enduring loss for a long time.

If someone thinks that Bitcoin is dead because it experienced like a 50% market dtop, you probably won't change their mind by pointing out that the price is much higher now. They will say "ItS A bUbblE" and will say that Bitcoin is dead again, when the price will drop to $30k from $100k, or something like that. I wouldn't waste my time arguing and trying to convince nocoiners, it's their choice and right to be ignorant.

This is cool and scary at the same time. More adoption is nice, but if PayPal will become the #1 Bitcoin exchange, it means even more centralization in the exchange ecosystem, and if it shortly after launch has as much volume as one of the bigger exchanges, it could easily take the top spots in the future. Soon a lot of people who only interacted with Bitcoin through PayPal will come to this forum, and our job will be to educate them about the dangers of centralization, custodial wallets and KYC.

The government didn't give out thousands of dollars to the people so they could invest in in speculative assets, they gave money so that people could cover their basic necessities while they are unemployed during the covid pandemic. You can't really say that those who didn't buy Bitcoin made the wrong move, they had no other choice, and remember that Bitcoin could have just as easily fallen down instead of going up - bearish markets happen too.

And people, especially beginners, are still messing with brainwallets, thinking that they have perfect memory and can remember long phrases for years without even practicing repeating them. Writing down some of your most critical passwords on paper and storing them in safe place is actually not such a horrible idea like some would say, because the risk of storing passwords only in memory is usually bigger than the risk of someone stealing your passwords physically.

The HODL meme started as an argument for long-term investment, the original HODL post described how hard it can be to trade on such a volatile market, so it's better to be patient and wait for a profit, even if you think you invested in a bad time. But some people might be taking it a bit too far, they want to never sell their coins, but it's fine - why should we judge them? If the mere fact of owning Bitcoin brings some happiness or a sense of financial security, that's good too.

If this question is really bothering you, why didn't you use the search function? Quantum computer threads are created a few times each month, this topic is beaten to the death, nothing new is added each time it is discussed, because there's no breakthrough in quantum computers. Cryptographers around the world are already working on quantum-resistant standards, so when they are released, Bitcoin will adopt them too at some point. /thread

I believe China FUD became irrelevant a long time ago, we've already saw some attempts to restrict mining and trading in the past few years, and it didn't lead to any bear markets. China might still have a lot of mining, but they aren't a big player in crypto world, they don't have a lot of adoption. If the US or EU made a move against Bitcoin, that would be much more serious, because it would be both new and a lot of adoption, even if it's only adoption as an investment, is coming from these regions.

This isn't necessarily true, I doubt that institutional investors are viewing Bitcoin as a protection against inflation, they could just be riding the bullish market with a goal of cashing out at the top. They all realize that Bitcoin is a volatile speculative asset, and something that does well against inflation should also be safe.

If this feature would happen to be implemented, more people would lose money to scammers than people have their lost coins returned. PayPal does have chargebacks, and it's a massive problem for merchants, because scammers abuse it. And Bitcoin's pseudonymous nature already attracts scammers, so with this feature we'd have even less adoption, because sellers will have another reason to refuse to accept it.

The price is itself is irrelevant to the state of mempool. We had congestions at low price levels and clear mempool at higher prices. So, the connection isn't direct, sometimes a lot of price action results in more transactions, and sometimes it does not. If many investors move coins to exchange, and/or many investors move coins out of exchanges, that results in more transactions, but if people keep trading on exchanges without moving coins, there won't be a congestion.

This makes sense, because it would be so easy to just send coins to a new address and then claim that you was hacked. You would need to mix the coins to avoid any potential insurance fraud investigation, but still it's much easier to execute than real-world insurance fraud with things like cars or real estate.

Marketcap is one of the most useless metrics for Bitcoin, the fact that Bitcoin's supply multiplied by the market price does not affect us in any meaningful way. You can't tell people who aren't into Bitcoin that it's the 20th biggest asset and expect from them anything than a big yawn. Bitcoin's adoption, usability in the real world, new features, network security and resilience - that's what important. The price isn't a direct and objective reflection of those things, we have seen $4,000 and $16,000 this year, without any big fundamental changes - just pure speculation.

Mining rewards are a part of the protocol, they come from the Proof of Work algorithm. As far as I'm aware, no one has created a "Proof of Full Node" algorithm, so until someone proposes it, it's pointless to discuss potential node rewards. And keep in mind that this algorithm should be as decentralized and secure as the rest of the protocol, because any point of centralization would negatively affect Bitcoin as a whole. And this is not even touching problems with distinguishing between virtual nodes and real nodes.

I don't regret any of my past sales, the fact that Bitcoin is higher right now, so the rest of my coins are more valuable is more than enough to chase away this sort of thoughts. My only "dubious" spending was investing 0.011 BTC in an ICO scam - this was the first and the last ICO I invested in. And my biggest spending was cashing out 1 BTC at $650 to buy a new BTC, but I still don't regret it, because this PC was a big upgrade for me that made me happier and still serves me well.

Does anyone even say that Bitcoin is a replacement for stocks? I never heard such thing. But how can you argue that Bitcoin is not an investment, if people invest in it?


Bitcoin is a currency/commodity, of course it's not backed by real world business, just like gold and oil aren't backed by them too. Bitcoin is a risky investment, but so are stocks, especially those with smaller capitalization or if a trader decides to use leverage and other instruments. I can even be sure that more people lose money with stocks than with crypto, since stocks are more popular.