How is this an excellent method, if few people even live to 100 years. And it's not true that in 100 years your fiat investment will be worthless, take Nobel prize fund as an example - adjusted for inflation, it still pays as much money as 120 years ago, and all this time it was entirely self-sufficient.

Bitcoin hasn't even existed for 100 years, no one knows if it will exist for that long, saying that it's safer than precious metals and other mainstream investments is just delusional.

Millions of people lost their jobs, do you think a crippled economy could sustain millions of new small businesses, at times where businesses are forced to close down?

Yes, it's cool to teach kids online or deliver food, but the competition is already pretty big, so this isn't a solution to pandemic. Not everyone will be able to use pandemic to their advantage, some people will have to get the short end of the stick, which is why it's important that economy as a whole should recover as soon as possible.

People already could spend money quickly and conveniently, central bank coins bring nothing new to the table. The biggest revolution of the recent years was Google Pay, it freed people from the need of carrying their payment cards, risk losing them or forgetting them at home, managing multiple cards, etc. If consumers can already pay instantly with their smartphones, why should they switch to a new method that offers the same, but is not widely adopted?

Central bank coins need to become big enough to be viewed as serious competitors of Bitcoin, until it actually happens it's to early to worry about them.

Even if text analysis, which might fundamentally not be very reliable, said that CWS is Satoshi, I still wouldn't believe it, because the evidence against it is just overwhelming - no keys, acting against Bitcoin's interests all the time, saying things that Satoshi would never say, like that Bitcoin is bad because it's used by criminals, his lack of actual technical knowledge. If some cultists still believe that CWS is Satoshi, this text analysis evidence is not going to change it.

You can never have a system 100% free of scammers, because scamming is made possible by gaining someone's confidence, and you can't do anything about someone's decisions. Bitcoin draws scammers because it can't be frozen, seized, intercepted, charged back, and it even offers some privacy, but even without those things scammers would still operate, just like they scam people through PayPal or banks or cash. There's no point in trading off Bitcoin's decentralization and freedom just to have less scams, because we already have non-free centralized systems, and Bitcoin is only valuable because it's not like them.

When you'll try to broadcast a transaction that tries to spend the already spent outputs, it won't even propagate through the network, because nodes will reject it, as it's invalid. If you'll try to send it directly to the miner, no sane miner would include it in their block, because the whole block will be invalid and rejected by the rest of the network.

The only way to undo a confirmation is to mine a new chain with more total PoW than the current chain, starting from some block before the first confirmation occurred. To reliably do this, you'd need to control more than 50% of network's hashrate.

Bitcoin is the fastest blockchain, because 1 Bitcoin confirmation has security of hundreds or even thousands of altcoin confirmations. Newbies think that 1 confirmation is enough to be safe, but it's far from truth - in altcoins it doesn't take much resources to undo a few confirmations. Ethereum Classic had seen whole days of transactions undone by attackers multiple times. With Bitcoin this never happened. It's only a matter of time before attacking altcoins will become more and more popular, due to the progress of hardware and attractiveness of doing so caused by price growth.

I think the highs are not as important in Bitcoin as lows. It can grow very quickly, even in just minutes, but what is important is what comes after that. Can it maintain the new level, or is it just a short-lived fluctuation? Recently Bitcoin fell to $13k after reaching $13.7k but then recovered back, and I think it's much more important than reaching $14k. If new price levels keep being defended, it means that upwards momentum is strong, and new highs will be reached, with or without sharp spikes.

In this light, the most important question is - will decentralized exchanges be resilient enough to survive the attack from governments, in attempt to make crypto users only use centralized exchanges? Because that would mean that they will have control over large part of crypto ecosystem. As I understand, decentralized exchanges rely on p2p banking transfers, and those things can be monitored any analyzed, potentially leading to blocking of crypto-related transactions.


A criminal is simply someone who commits a crime. If governments will declare unregulated use of Bitcoin a crime, then many of us will be criminals. Right now it's not a crime in most jurisdictions, so we are not criminals. Being a criminal does not equate to being immoral, for example people who stand up to tyranny are often prosecuted as criminals by their governments.

It's both. Satoshi successfully released and launched the Bitcoin protocol, and it is a peer-to-peer electronic cash, it's just not a widely used one, but it doesn't make it any less decentralized or electronic. Of course there will be always work to do, just like with any other complex software, so in some sense Bitcoin will never be finished, but that's a good thing, because it means that Bitcoin is progressing and adapting.

Some people would say that Bitcoin can only succeed if it's adopted by a lot of people, but I don't agree with that, as long as there's at least some users, then Bitcoin is not useless.

Electrical energy is a type energy (duh), there's nothing wrong to refer to it as just energy, especially since there's so many ways how electric energy can be produced - burning fossil fuels, hydroelectric dams, solar power, etc.


You are trying to make Bitcoin look good in this comparison, but it's actually just like your title - they are not comparable. Something like Visa is deeply incorporated in the global economy and billions of people are relying on it, while Bitcoin has maybe 5-30 millions of users, most of whom don't even use it on a daily basis.

He dumped all the tested seeds into a bucket and then added only enough acid to cover them all. That's clearly not enough acid to dissolve them all or even deal enough damage. Still, you can see that the free-hand etching was wiped on most plates, which means that the reaction was going. With enough iterations and correct setups, it looks like most of these seeds can be wiped by acid. The seeds with holes are the biggest challenge, because you'd have to fully dissolve them with this method.


One thing you should be careful about is to make new holes in exactly same way as you did the old ones - because if there's noticeable difference, like the size of the holes, they can be used to reveal the seed.


Absolutely, I wouldn't recommend handling acids to anyone who didn't do this before.

It's important to understand why the private key was stolen. First, it was stored in unencrypted format, and second, it was handled on an online machine, and third, it was stored in the cloud. All these things are huge security risks, and there are other situations where people may and did lose their coins in the past for the same reason, like for example storing private keys in email drafts.

PayPal or exchanges should never be viewed as wallets in the first place, they should only be viewed as places to buy and sell crypto. A hypothetical good custodial service would guarantee that your coins will be safe even if they get hacked, and it should respect your privacy and not snitch on you to any government that asks. PayPal and exchanges don't do any of that. And with how big PayPal's fees are, I wouldn't recommend to use it even for beginners.

Dissolve it in strong acid. Since steel isn't particularly chemically resistant, any strong acid in sufficient quantity should work. Be sure to handle the acid with care, and do the dissolving part in open space, cause there likely will be dangerous fumes. Compared to other methods, like melting or pressing, this method should be the most accessible, since acids are sold in specialized places, though depending on your country's laws it could be hard to obtain them.

How can you call it slow and steady if we went from $10k to now $13.7k in a matter of days? And before that the price was largely stagnant for months and even mimicked small movements of the stock market. Also, there's no evidence that regular people turned to Bitcoin en masse, and that the price boost is caused by that.

What's happening now is just the usual Bitcoin speculation. In 2019 we also reached $13k, without any pandemics or other possible explanations.   


Covid doesn't change anything here. There's never a right or wrong answer to "spend or hodl", because no one can predict the future movements of Bitcoin.

If Bitcoin's dominance was actually shaken by such big amount, meaning some altcoin(s) proportionally grew by the same amount,, you would have already been able to read about it on some crypto media, as it would have been a major event. But since this chart comes from only one source and no one has reported anything similar, you can be sure that it's just a glitch in their system.

What an absolute dumpsterfire of an article, banding together unrelated concepts just to create an image of some "blockchain industry". No wonder the provided statistics are completely misguiding and useless. And when the chart says "hack target - blockchain" or "hack target - wallet" - what does it even mean? Does phishing count as wallet hacking or not? And why the number of incidents is so low pre-2018? I don't believe that there was only a few hacks back then.

When the price will stabilize or even fall a little bit, there will be less trading activity, which is the primary contributor towards congestion/high fees. And no one can predict Bitcoin's price, maybe we are now going to witness more and more growth until a new ATH and the top of the bubble forms, or maybe we'll again experience some stagnation/stability.

What you should learn from this is that you should use the time when fees are low to consolidate your funds, move to SegWit addresses, withdraw funds from centralized services, so you'll have lower fees in times like these.

I don't think there's a big need for humility on this forum, it's not like we have people fighting with each other across all boards, unable to accept each other arguments. In fact most of the high-merited people easily admit mistakes or lack of knowledge and take it as an opportunity to learn, which is how they became so knowledgeable.

And newbies are more often suffering from the opposite problem - too much humility. They are scared to express their own opinions and instead choose "safe" things to say here, like agreeing with other posters all the time and repeating popular opinions. This means that they aren't contributing anything to this forum.