This might happen but we're far from it. I'm not taking away this possibility, though. As an asset, Bitcoin somehow mimics gold. Bitcoin has been touted as the digital gold by many people, including those who have long been playing in the world of finance. Just like gold, Bitcoin is an asset that has high stock to flow ratio. Gold can be considered scarce, but Bitcoin is way scarcer. As a matter of fact, it will stop producing new supply at some point.

Therefore, considering that Bitcoin is better than gold in more ways than one, it would be logical to expect that its market cap will one day catch up. But that might take decades.

Gambling what you cannot afford to lose may not be addiction. Addiction is characterized with dependence. So if I gamble today my entire month's salary and if I lose, I'd just borrow from my brother or parents, it isn't necessarily addiction. The following month or two, I won't be gambling anymore so that I can pay what I borrowed. This isn't addiction. Addiction is when you cannot control yourself from gambling. So even if you're drained of money, you borrow or you sell properties or you even resort to crimes just to support your vice.

Most only care about the price.

Even users here who are sufficiently exposed to experts' advice and recommendation as regards security are satisfied in keeping their funds in centralized exchanges.

Those who are outside this forum, and who only got Bitcoin because they heard it makes them rich, are certainly in much worse situations. If those who joined discussions about security could not even move their funds out of exchanges, how much more those who haven't even heard that there's such a thing as non-custodial wallets?

While I agree that savings is a must, I don't think savings is only designed for the rainy days. Savings could actually be the necessary start for investment. To many people, investment is a luxury they cannot afford. But they can actually regularly save little by little until it gets significant enough to be invested on a small business or whatever.

Also, saving has become a short-term thing because we have a kind of money that is not worth keeping across time. The current monetary system makes long-term saving pointless. However, it could be possible with a different currency. Bitcoin, for example, might make saving even inter-generational.

I'm with you on the minimalist lifestyle.

Still not a good place to store funds, but that it is open-source is indeed a good thing. The UI looks smooth. And they're indeed offering higher swap rates, at least higher than eXch's. Considering, however, that it has yet to establish trust and reliability, transactions should be in minimal amounts. Also, decentralized is once again used in a misleading sense here.


If they are on time, we can download its mobile app in 3 months.


The wallet actually supports more. It claims to support over 50, but I could only count 47. You can also manage your list and remove that another shitcoin if it's too much of an eyesore.

Although exchanges have different trade and withdrawal limits, and you might find one whose low limit allows you to do the conversion, I'm afraid it remains pointless. In the first place, it's below the withdrawal limit. And even if you're allowed to withdraw such amount, what you will get in another exchange would be less than $2. And then it would get even smaller once you do the conversion, and even smaller once you withdraw it once more into your own wallet, or convert it into your fiat.

I don't think the betting platform is to be blamed. If the platform paid the winner through its workers but the workers stole the money away, it's probably not the platform that is to be prosecuted but those who stole the money. The platform, provided it's licensed, operated in good faith and was honest in dealing with its players.

I'm responding as if the case is this simple. There might be certain details of the case in reality that I don't know. In the end, the court might still require the platform to pay the gambler the winning amount while the court hears the case. But it would get it back once the money is seized from the criminals.

I'm not sure if there's a significant regulatory step regarding crypto insurance in centralized exchanges as a result of what happened to FTX. I guess there is none.

Although a certain kind of insurance, one that is individually initiated by centralized exchanges themselves, has already been a thing prior to the collapse of FTX, it might somehow help if this is institutionalized and made as a matter of regulatory requirement. Centralized exchanges shouldn't be allowed to operate without it.

But the sad reality is that with or without insurance, many crypto users still use centralized exchanges. It seems they're not really mindful about protection funds whatsoever.

These are indeed personal and, therefore, confidential information. I also don't tell people how much Bitcoin I own. As a matter of fact, as much as possible, I don't even tell people that I am into Bitcoin.

However, there are circles or communities in which you may seem comfortable sharing certain information. This forum, for example, is more or less composed of like-minded individuals, that's why one could be somehow comfortably open about sharing that he/she has Bitcoin and it is kept in a cold storage whose seed phrase is buried somewhere.

It appears like you have it the other way around. The purpose of money is to have a happy life. A happy life is made up of beautiful moments with your loved ones, themselves the very reason why money has relevance. I don't understand why you have to sacrifice creating sweet memories for the sake of that uncertain skyrocketing market. It should be the opposite.

My friend, you aren't talking about logic. You are talking about a misplaced desire to make more money.

There were those who thought that the hype around spot Bitcoin ETF will not be translated into a huge demand upon approval. They were wrong. And then there were those who thought that the hype of the approval and its accompanying high volume will not stay around for long. They were wrong again. It seems the hype is somehow sustained. It's been a month already and it's been running strong. I think this itself is a huge boost, will encourage those who haven't jumped in yet, those who are observing from the sidelines, to finally join.

However, I still hope that many of those who are spot ETF investors would one day get hold of real Bitcoin and keep them under their own full control.

I don't have to entirely quit gambling just for my friend, but the gambling sessions will have to end. The group should just think of another hobby that's equally fun and entertaining but not financially damaging. It's about time they would have to replace their old ways of bonding.

But the rest of the group may continue with their own moderate gambling hobbies, either individually or with some other group of friends. It's a bit unfair to deprive the rest of their hobbies just because a friend is irresponsible.

Why hope when it's already there? Bitcoin is already a cashless system ever since its creation. It's an electronic payment system with its own native currency. Everything happens in the digital universe. No more bills, no more coins; if that's what you mean by cash. It shouldn't be confused because Bitcoin, after all, is an electronic cash system.

However, I don't think Bitcoin will become the primary medium of exchange replacing fiat in whatever form it takes. I hope it happens one day, but I doubt it.

Yeah, you're probably over-relating it with Bitcoin.

I think I have recommended this forum a handful of times, although I know not whether they followed my advice or not. But it's no big deal. To somebody with reason who is determined enough to understand Bitcoin, he/she can certainly find lots of resources online.

When it comes to investment and as far as Bitcoin is concerned, I guess going solo is the best way. But if you are hunting for a potentially profitable altcoin, since it's like looking for a needle in a haystack, you better belong to a large and solid crypto community.

This is the danger when you chase bonuses and whatever that's free. Since you're more or less already into Bitcoin, you should know the red flags, at least the very basic ones. One of them is free Bitcoin giveaways. Dismiss it right away. There's no such thing as free Bitcoin. Another is asking for Bitcoin. That's also a solid red flag. Anything that asks for money is a scam. Anyone that asks for Bitcoin is a scammer. Don't even give them a second of your time. Don't even exert effort and spend time researching or verifying whether it's true or not. You don't have to prove that an obvious scam may be otherwise. Surely, there are other things that are worth your time.

You could have put this in a way that won't make you appear mentally ill.

Anyway, a rule-based order is way better than what we have now. Bitcoin is strictly based on rules. As a matter of fact, such approach is a kind of solution to the problematic status quo. What we currently have is actually a system that is dependent upon rulers. There may be rules, but these are always under the control of rulers. They can change, bend, abuse these rules at their whims.

A new one, like Bitcoin, must be immutable. Rules without rulers.

I'm not that excited about this match. And Haney's choice of opponent is a bit odd. Of all that he can fight, why would a champion choose a worn-out fighter? But if they're just trying to make a match that sells, this might be it. Both of them are fond of tooting their own horns, but Ryan is so good at blabbering I'm sure he'll attract a lot of fans to watch what could otherwise be a lop-sided fight. The boring Haney could very well use Ryan's big mouth.

But I'm cheering for Ryan this time around, although I can't imagine how he could penetrate Haney's solid defense.

How can the government not regulate dollar bills when it's fully under their control? They can stop its release. They can print truckloads more of it. They can color it pink. They can change the person printed on it to Justine Bieber kissing Snoop Dog. They can convert them from paper to polymer. They can reduce its size to like that of a card or increase it to A4. They can declare it not a legal tender anymore. They can convert it to digital. They can do whatever with it.

And Bitcoin? The most they can do is call it a criminal money, pedophile or drug lord's currency.


Can they?

Isn't this superfluous? Why should I need some kind of token when I can have money itself, and I can also stay wherever I want for day, weeks months, years? Why do I have to have a token, that not everybody accepts, to be able to rent a house or a room when I can do the same with money, that's acceptable by anybody anywhere?

Besides, aside from being superfluous, this is also courting unnecessary risks. The token's price could be very volatile. Somebody could dump a lot of it in the market and the value of what I own could nosedive anytime. Hell, it could even go worthless.

And your funding goal is "$100 million to $500 million"? I think you better start small and go up from there.

Sometimes, I'm torn between wishing everything would turn so much worse so that everybody up there will realize how badly they run the government and managed the economy, and for the people to be finally fed up and forcefully demand accountability and better services from them, and praying that things would improve soon so that everybody would live a good life.

Ordinary people are just being fooled all the time. Shrinkflation, stagflation, inflation, or whatever new terminologies those up there come up with, these are nothing but symptoms of their incompetence, greed, selfishness, apathy.