You guys may call yourselves BTC maxi but the real BTC maxi will surely not accept you in their fold.

Maximalists are those who take the extreme side of things. Bitcoin maximalists, therefore, are obviously those who only accept Bitcoin. They do not tolerate altcoins. It's Bitcoin or nothing. Theirs are close minds. They don't compromise.

And I guess we could consider those who are calling themselves Bitcoin maxis and yet use USDT, make the most of NFT opportunities, and so on as hypocrites.

We live in an unfair world! That is a given.

And, no, Bitcoin is not for everyone. Bitcoin is not for those who don't even have the money to buy food. Bitcoin is not for those who don't even know what a smart phone is. Bitcoin is not for those people living off the grid. Bitcoin is not for those whose hands of education haven't reached and who remain illiterate. Generally, Bitcoin is not for a significant portion of the world's population.

This has been like this. This has been humanity ever since.

It’s not bad to get inspiration from these individuals but you shouldn’t forget the fact that we are in different circumstances now. During those years when these people made investments in Bitcoin, the price was very cheap. Not only could they buy many Bitcoin with a relatively smaller amount, the price of Bitcoin could also easily multiply even a thousand fold. X1,000 is easy to achieve way back then. Today, your Bitcoin investment could not even double.

So let us be careful to get investment inspiration from those billionaires who got into Bitcoin when the price was still in cents. Your $10 could already buy you more than 10BTC in the old days. Now, your $40,000 cannot even give you 1BTC. Your $100 invested in Bitcoin back in those years could make you a millionaire today. Now, even your $100,000 might not make you one even in a decade.

You’re basically saying one thing and then proceeded to ask another. What is the relevance of your question to what you’re claiming? Or are you simply looking for a way to promote your site here?

Anyway, I also am not a fan of centralized exchanges but there must be a reason why despite them not the preferred platforms for trades, theirs is the highest volume. Decentralized exchanges are the recommended platforms and yet they have always been dwarfed in terms of statistics by centralized exchanges.

Transactions on centralized exchanges may not be real but they’re done to make things more convenient, and they somehow represent the real thing, although I really am not a fan.

Your heart is to your emotion as your brain is to your reason. Following this, I don’t agree that you should follow your heart always. Especially in the practical world of Bitcoin, your emotions will only bring you down. I say, it is always good to follow your head.

Be rational rather than emotional. Feelings will often betray you. People who have weak hands, who buy high and sell low, who resort to panic selling when they see bloody red charts, who easily get carried away by quick price surges, who fear of missing out, and so on are emotional people.

Finally, I dare say your fate is what you make of your life. There are obstacles in life. Tear them down; get past them with resolve and courage.

That’s a nice house. You’ve done quite a good job!

Incidentally, just yesterday I read and responded to a thread in the Economics section about a certain survey in which it was found out that there are some people who were able to pay downpayment to their own house because of Bitcoin. Yours is a testimony that it is indeed true.

And it is nice to hear that you’ve been a hodler for a long time, patiently waiting for your gains. There are countless others who are thinking that investing in Bitcoin would make them rich overnight. They’re oftentimes the same people who are too emotional that they easily fall victim both to FOMO and FUD. A patient hodler doesn’t fall to panic selling.

There is really nothing so special with this. Peter McCormack saying exaggerated things in favor of Bitcoin and against fiat, gold, and other cryptocurrencies is like the other Peter, Peter Schiff, saying exaggerated things in favor of gold and against fiat, Bitcoin, and other cryptocurrencies.

We cannot expect unbiased opinions from both men. Objectivity is not something they could stick to in terms of these topics.

I have nothing against the pro-Bitcoin Peter but since he's a Bitcoin heavyweight, things he will be saying about Bitcoin is expected to be like that.

For me, we have not yet won the war. There might be battles we've already won, though.

In terms of what's needed to be changed, what's needed to be improved, starting a new approach, and so on, one doesn't have to wait for a new year, a birthday, and otherwise. In other words, one doesn't have to look at the calendar.

Time in that respect is unnecessary. That particular sense of time is merely a human construct. It is all in the mind. It doesn't have anything to do with a person's success or failure. What matters is his/her resolve, determination, focus, and so on.

If you want to get into Bitcoin, do your research right away, study, and decide. Anytime! Don't wait for a year to do that.

When I first got into crypto I was also very eager to trade. I don’t know, perhaps it comes with the excitement. That passive hodling is definitely not as interesting and attractive as that very active trading, at least to an overexcited newbie. Of course, I incurred losses rather than made gains. The lessons I learned made me a hodler.

So don’t you worry too much. Yours is not an isolated case. Many of us here probably travelled exactly the same road. If you’re really committed to stop trading altogether, try hodling while also stacking small amounts of Sats every once in a while. It’s actually fun and most probably more profitable, too.

The problem is that you are playing in a gambling site that charges terribly high fees. The best solution is to find an alternative gambling site. There are so many out there. You can definitely find an equally good one or even a much better one. The high feels alone is enough reason for you to change site.

If in case there’s really something in that site that you cannot find in others and which made you stick to that one, try exploring other cheap altcoins. For sure, if they have NEM, there must be a lot more other options. Dogecoin is also cheap.

Also, if you could minimize moving funds, that would help. You could also choose to use wallets which allow you to personalize your fees rather than Binance. Binance’s fee alone is already high.

If I were to judge gambling based on what OP has mentioned, I would right away conclude that gambling is bad. Despite its pros and cons, if people are losing their life savings because of it, it must be bad. It would definitely outweigh the fact that others are making money out of it. I’d rather not have gambling and people making money, if the other side of it are people losing life savings which would mean everything to their families.

I am a gambler myself and enjoy it a lot, but if I were to choose whether there is gambling or not, black and white, I’d rather not have it. I have seen how it makes people smile and laugh and have fun but I have also seen how it could make some people crazy and destroy families.

It’s also worth pointing out, and the article has made it clear, that while others have made money out of their investments, others have also lost theirs. Other investments went to the moon while others went up in smoke. And that has always been the case with crypto investments. Sometimes the focus is only directed at those who made massive gains. Those who made massive losses are oftentimes canceled out especially by crypto fanatics.

It’s important that people will see the whole picture. Others have made downpayment for their homes while others have lost their rents. There are always two sides of a coin.

The article also compared crypto gains to winning lottery tickets. I guess it always falls on how much due diligence, caution, and risk-taking one is doing.

I think this is not for us to prepare really. We can discuss sufficiently about this so that the future generation may know our ideas, and refer to them perhaps, but since the last Satoshi to be mined will still be around the year 2140, this problem is not ours to solve so to speak.

Anyway, if we do the math, there is really no point inflating the supply if the result will be the decrease in value. It would become a zero-sum game in which the increase of one side would mean the decrease of the other. We’d rather resort to the use of Satoshi. After all, Bitcoin is divisible.

And also, one of the selling point of Bitcoin is its scarcity, its hard-coded fix supply. That’s in direct contrast to fiat. Tinkering this feature would mean its fall. Well, it can’t really be changed without resorting to the creation of an altcoin.

I think a regular commodity's price is always aligned not with production cost but with demand, so that the production cost may remain constant while the price rises and falls. Moreover, even if the production cost goes through the roof, without demand, the price would still be falling. The same is basically true with Bitcoin.


Is there such a thing as right price for Bitcoin? I mean, outside the realm of demand? I think there's none. The market determines the price. Of course, there are certain factors that affect the demand such as Bitcoin's scarcity, government regulations, competition within the crypto market, crumbling fiat, and so on. But everything will boil down to demand or how much people would be willing to pay for it.


Well, there are certain technical tools for it. There's Williams %R, Bollinger Bands, RSI, and numerous others, which I am not really a fan of. Fundamentally, though, if only a handful of wealthy investors like the Hunt brothers are buying in massive amounts, hoarding, while the rest are selling, taking advantage of the exponentially rising prices, the price is probably a bubble.


If you're asking about artificially increasing the price of a commodity, then hoarding is a time-tested strategy. If there's a regular use of it which results to the increase of price, then I guess it's not anymore artificial.


The circumstances surrounding the case of the Hunt brothers are different with Bitcoin's. It was more like the Hunt brothers and certain partners versus the United States government. In no way, could the Hunt brothers succeed. Whatever success was definitely temporary. It couldn't be sustained. Not to mention that the production of silver was continuous.

He/she is, obviously. His/her first three posts all contain links to the site he/she is promoting.

Not a nice way to market a new site.

Anyway, social trends cannot be made a basis for short-term movements of Bitcoin's price. The popularity of Bitcoin is clearly rising but the hourly, daily, weekly, and even monthly price of Bitcoin is still fluctuating.

Social trends cannot be directly equated with strong Bitcoin demand. It is simply suggesting awareness, although I believe this could be a bullish sign of Bitcoin's future provided this awareness will result to their attraction toward Bitcoin.

With crossed fingers, I hope and pray this plan will succeed. I don't entirely share the approach, but this is obviously beneficial to the people in Africa so I fervently hope the goals and objectives of this project will be met.

I saw the project's perspective of the city and it is truly amazing. It is unbelievably beautiful. Whether every detail of the plan will be translated into reality or not, we can only wait and see. After all, this is an ambitious multi-billion project. It is not cheap. And looking at the fate of the coin that would become the city's currency, it is doing poor, with less than $20,000 volume and a negative ROI. I hope its figures will change once the city becomes functional, though.

What I also hope is that Bitcoin would also be accepted in the city. Or perhaps they won't allow it because it would compete and, therefore, be detrimental to Akoin?

Well, non-KYC wallets could either be those custodial ones which are not, or at least not yet, implementing KYC requirement or those non-custodial wallets that cannot impose KYC by their very nature. As regards the former, it's not just a possibility. It is happening one exchange after another. So South Korean users are racing against the clock. They better hurry up and withdraw their funds from Coinone to a registered address from a wallet that allows withdrawal to an unregistered address.

What I fear more, however, is not just the possibility that every exchange will only allow withdrawals to registered addresses but that every crypto-related business, company, and institution that do not require KYC will be deemed illegal and that every Bitcoin deposit should only be coming from registered addresses. That would be messy!

As I have said, things are different today. Bitcoin could make us rich even with just a thousand USD, but that's applicable only in the past. It can't be applied now. How much Bitcoin could you buy with your $1,000 today?

Indeed, people don't have to buy one full Bitcoin. They don't have to buy 0.5BTC or 0.3BTC or even 0.1BTC. But given that they could only afford to buy small fractions of a Bitcoin, would that be enough to make one rich? No.

So, if one's impression is that Bitcoin is a get-rich-quick investment, one is definitely wrong.

I understand the post is to debunk the misconception that Bitcoin is a get-rich-quick scheme. It isn't, especially nowadays.

It's not a matter of whether or not we can buy Bitcoin in small amounts. We can. But will it make us rich? No. You can only buy what you can afford. If you aren't rich, you cannot get rich with Bitcoin because, in the first place, you can only buy a small fraction of a Bitcoin. If you want to get rich with Bitcoin, buy a lot of them, but it takes a lot of money to be able to do that. So get rich first before buying a lot and be rich from it, or more precisely, richer.

I guess this is the logic OP wants to convey.

They continue doing these absurd requirements, they will die. These centralized exchanges must know that regulations are killing them slowly.

What will happen if a user is to pay somebody else from his/her Coinone wallet? It's going to be invalid because the withdrawal address must be an address registered with the user's name, address, phone number, and so on.

What will probably happen in the next days, weeks, and months is that users will withdraw their funds to a registered address and from that address withdraw their funds to external and other non-KYC wallets.

For better or for worse, these tight and unreasonable regulatory policies are killing these exchanges.