You need a person who understands what Bitcoin is, and from everything he has publicly said on the subject, it is more than obvious that he does not understand what he is talking about. In addition, it is mostly ignored that this man does business with state agencies, and that he receives billions of dollars in support from the government for his business. Such a man is up to his neck in a centralized system, and one should not expect him to be against that system.

In the meantime, some users have decided to show what they think about the new boss...

I'm not in favor of the rules that say "you can't do what you want with your money", but I think that in this case the banks are somehow trying to protect their clients from very irresponsible behavior when it comes to risky investments. How many times have we read that someone invested their entire savings in some cryptocurrency because they were influenced by some influencer? After the investment is not successful, everyone is to blame except the one who made the key decision.

People often act very impulsively and without thinking, especially when they are in the safety of their homes and using mobile banking. Maybe this measure looks a bit ugly, but as @stompix already wrote, there is a way to spend much more than that limit, which is quite high (at least from my perspective).

Let's not lie to each other, most of the members are here only for profit and are always looking for a way to monetize everything, so I'm not at all surprised that someone had the idea that even merit sources should be paid for their work. Although money has always been the best motivator, some things really shouldn't be motivated that way because it's simply the wrong way.

As for titles and badges, I don't see it as something bad, especially if it is about some achievements that are really worth it and if they would be awarded on special occasions.

Sport is something that is universal anywhere in the world and we know that for a long time various companies that are connected to cryptocurrencies have been using it to advertise their services. Of course, this helps to raise people's awareness that there is an alternative, although it should be known that Bitcoin is not the only cryptocurrency that is advertised and that there are a lot of bad projects that are promoted through sports.

The entertainment industry is a broad term because we can talk about online entertainment in the form of sports betting or casinos, but also the film industry and increasingly popular streaming services that still do not accept cryptocurrencies. However, all of them are only part of a much larger puzzle in which there are many participants.

---

Of course they don't want to, because they bought Bitcoin for a completely different reason, and even if they want to pay something with the same, they face the initial problem of how to do it. As simple as it may seem to you and me, I know from personal experience that the average person does not want to think much when they need to pay something - a bank card with contactless payment or cash are much simpler solution than Bitcoin.

Of course, most people would never invest in Bitcoin if there wasn't such high volatility that can result in significant profits, I think that's clear to everyone. Here, of course, we clash with the conceptual idea that Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency as it was originally intended, but with time it became less and less attractive. People have always looked for reasons why Bitcoin as a currency is not good, and the main reasons were that the price is volatile, and that the confirmation of payment is not instant.

Part of the problem was solved by payment processors, and today with LN, payment with Bitcoin can be instant and very cheap - the only question is whether the average investor in Bitcoin will decide to use the same as a payment currency, or will remain only an investor looking for profit.

I think that even those who want to pay something with Bitcoin have certain reservations because they want to protect their privacy and not draw attention to themselves. Owning Bitcoin often means being a target not only of online hackers, but also of thieves who increasingly realize that it is much easier and more profitable to steal Bitcoin than to steal other things.

And I think we will all agree that they are not even illiterate fools who cannot calculate that globally, less than 5% of people are involved in some activity related to cryptocurrencies. When we add to that the fact that the majority invest in Bitcoin+altcoins exclusively for profit, then we can conclude that all these companies have completely different goals than accepting Bitcoin as a currency, and from the post written by @serjent05 we see in which direction the majority are thinking.

They want metaverse, NTFs, centralized blockchains and everything that can somehow be profitable, even in the short term.

I sincerely doubt that he read all the posts in that thread, and that there is some kind of connection between @Gallar and @BRINIRHA, whether they are alt accounts or just friends is a question that maybe someone will know (find the answer).


As things stand, it seems that the exchange of merits did take place, which makes the whole thing even more interesting

Happy weekend pump

To me, it is somewhat illogical for companies to decide on such moves due to a bear market, because it is enough to look at supply and demand and the price of Bitcoin. What I want to say is that more than 1 year can pass until some new FOMO is created, and it is no secret that a lot of people invest in cryptocurrencies with the intention of short-term profit.

It is known that these large companies evaluate their business several times a year, and if they conclude that something does not bring them income, they simply throw it out of their business. Many companies did this precisely with Bitcoin because they did not have good enough business results, especially during the bear market. If they already wanted to earn something (and they are certainly not Bitcoin fans), a little better timing would definitely make more sense.

There is a very simple answer to that question, and the fact is that Chelsea was in very bad shape when they played the first game in Zagreb, while Dinamo was in great shape and had a lot of luck in that game. This is nothing new when it comes to Dinamo ZG, every season the same story is repeated, they literally start furiously in all competitions and then a sharp drop in form follows.

The culprit for the bad preparation of the team is the coach, and Dinamo simply has bad coaches, with the fact that the current one is one of the most incompetent ever, and if you remember how he destroyed the Croatian national football team until Dalic took over and led us all the way to the finals of the world championship.

Dinamo ZG would do a lot more if they had a better professional team that knew how to prepare the players not only physically but also psychologically. Ironically, they believe that the competition was successful because they earned as much as EUR 25 million, which was, of course, the goal. As long as Dinamo ZG does not change the management structure, which is still controlled by two fugitives sentenced to prison sentences, there will be no success in terms of better results.

Thanks for the info, but somehow it doesn't seem to me that the average faucet user has the inclination to register on a gambling site just because of the faucet, and even less to do KYC(I guess there is KYC) in case he wants to make a withdrawal.

In addition, the minimum withdrawal amounts + fees are not something that is easily achievable, even if someone gets 500 satoshi from time to time.

Not all AVs are the same as some people think, the differences between some that are free and those that you have to pay for are significant. A good AV not only has an always-updated database of av definitions, but can also recognize most threats using heuristic detection and quarantine such threats. However, if someone is determined enough to do bad things online, sooner or later they will pick up a virus/malware regardless of all possible protection.

As a W user, I can't say anything bad about this OS, which I've been using through various versions for more than 20 years. Security is always a debatable matter considering that every OS has its own vulnerabilities, so it is always recommended to install every available update, but also to be careful with what we do online.

No matter how careful we are and whether we use a good AV/Firewall, a computer for entertainment should not also be a computer on which we will do something serious related to cryptocurrencies. If we have no choice to separate the two, it is definitely recommended to get a hardware wallet and thus protect yourself from possible malicious threats. Of course, as always, it should be warned that the HW backup is not saved on a computer, e-mail or the cloud, because then we take unnecessary risks.

This would be good news if people generally use Bitcoin as a currency and not as an investment - and when we add to that payment via LN, which is still a big unknown for most, I am not too optimistic when it comes to the success of such projects. Some estimates say that SA has between 10% and 13% of investors in cryptocurrencies, which would amount to 6 million people who could be interested in this kind of service. Of course, these are only estimates that should be taken with a grain of salt.

A man has over 230 posts on this forum and you want to welcome him? He is neither new here, nor is he asking this question for the first time, but he is just trying to gain some merit...

A spectacular view, in every sense

Maybe it's not about ordinary people, but about some transactions that are carried out between state agencies or something similar. The common man is mostly looking for a way to profit when it comes to cryptocurrencies, whether it's day trading, or investing for a little longer period - and CBDC is nothing but digital fiat that loses its purchasing power every day.

However, we must be aware that sooner or later CBDC will be imposed on us as something normal, because it is only one step higher in the control of society - and for all those who will not like it, they will say that this prevents forgery and money laundering, robberies , bribery and corruption... In the end, you'll be a villain if you oppose it - but I'm already used to it, aren't we all a little bit villains in the eyes of the majority because we use Bitcoin?

Cryptocurrencies are a general term and 9 out of 10 altcoins/tokens will fail in the long term and I'm not saying this for nothing, because I've personally witnessed such things from 2014 to the present day. Long-term investing makes sense only if what you are investing in makes sense, and so many people are totally mistaken when they believe that the killer Bitcoin will appear, some still believe in Libra or whatever it is called today...


There are many posts on this forum where some members claim to be Satoshi, or claim that they can influence the price with their posts, or that Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme that will collapse when people stop investing in Bitcoin - does that mean you should trust them? People who persistently say that a new big pump is coming in the middle of a bear market say it mainly for themselves, because weak hands are always weak and they are looking for a reason to comfort themselves, although most of them will not see what they are persistently talking about, because by then they will have already sold everything they have.

You are somewhat right, for those who are just looking for a quick profit, these times are really very frustrating.

In general, I would agree that someone in this way only risks privacy, but this is the case with any software that we use as an interface, whether it is Electrum or Ledger Live. The real danger in all of this is fake software that tries to trick the user into entering their seed because there is some kind of critical vulnerability in the HW. For those who don't know how to deal with seed (and there are too many of them), it can often be the moment when they get hacked, and then they blame everyone else but themselves.

It seems inevitable that some banks will get involved in trading and providing storage for cryptocurrencies, but not because they have any sympathy for Bitcoin, but because they want to take their share of the pie. This particular bank has been dealing with such things for years, and I read in the article that they already have their own stablecoin.

As for trading, I don't see anything wrong if they enable it in bank branches or online with some reasonable fees, but as for the custody service, they should warn their clients what it exactly means and explain what will happen in the event that crypto assets get hacked from their bank. I can't say what the rules are about the insurance of savings deposits in the Philippines, but regardless and if they exist, I would advise everyone not to store Bitcoin in banks or centralized crypto exchanges.

---

I don't see how anyone thinks that a crypto-friendly bank will help in the fight against inflation? Investing in Bitcoin or any altcoin (especially in the short term) does not provide any insurance against inflation, and as long as we have this kind of financial system, inflation will be a part of our everyday life.