All these DeFi "investors" are just beta-testers for highly experimental software developed by small groups of enthusiasts. It's insanely risky to store your money there - the hacks and bugs are already a big problem, and the market crash that will come after the hype will wear off. Just like with ICO, some traders will become bagholders, sitting on a pile of worthless tokens and hoping that they will moon again. Don't be that person, exit this market before it falls and secure your profts or cut your losses while you can.

You can post anything on this forum as long as it's in appropriate section. If the topic is related to Bitcoin, post it on one of the Bitcoin boards, if it's related to altcoins, post it in Altcoin Discussions, everything else goes to offtopic.

Blockchain solves the problem of trusted third parties in transfer of digital assets, I don't see how it's beneficial to esports at all, if there never were any big problems caused by centralization or abuse of trust in this field. This is one of those cases where people try to apply blockchain where it's not needed, just because they think that blockchain is cool.

Selling an encrypted wallet with supposedly high amount of coins is a very old scam, from time to time it gets posted on this forum too. The journalists just proved their illiteracy, with this kind of work they might as well start advertising Bitcoin doubling scams with a nice headline "kind strangers offer Bitcoiners to double their coins for free!".

Speculators are attracted to bullish market, and high risk investors are putting their money in high risk DeFi funds. There's no actual adoption by institutions or average people, so this growth of DeFi is completely unsustainable, which means a major crash will come sooner or later and lots of DeFi projects will be trading at 5% of their peak value with no chance of ever reaching it again.

It happened 2 times, but luckily even in today's prices it was small amounts. First time, I put 0.005 BTC that I claimed from a faucet in early days to some exchange to trade alts and later it pulled an exit scam - this was in 2014. Then in 2016 when I became interested in crypto again I invested 0.01 BTC in a scam ICO. So, what you can learn from it is that a lot of services in crypto ecosystem can be scams, even if at the first glance they look totally legit. Always think twice before depositing your coins, you might never see them again.

What do you mean by that? If the original Bitcoin client had some digital ID features? Or if Satoshi returned today and started a digital ID project? If it's the first, I would be less interested in Bitcoin, I don't like KYC and all the other tracking technologies, and having some sort of forced ID in Bitcoin would make things even worse than they are now in terms of privacy. Though if it was opt-in, it probably wouldn't be as bad.

If Satoshi returned today, I wouldn't care that much, aside from the risk of him dumping his coins.

With that logic, anyone who contributed to development of cryptography and computers also helped developing Bitcoin, because Bitcoin wouldn't be possible without them. And then you can continuing t on and on. It's really not productive to make statements like that of yours, in science everyone is basing their research on some previous work, it's absolutely normal and those people don't need some special credit for that. Satoshi's contribution is the greatest, so it's okay if people only know about his development.

Theoretically, if Bitcoin was used, it could have been more transparent if they were required to report all the addresses and amounts used, but it would come with a risk of hacking or false hacking. Governments are pretty bad with cyber security, their servers get hacked quite often, now imagine if they used Bitcoin and their not only data, but their funds were also stolen. Another problem is that corrupt government officials could steal the coins and then claim it was a hack. In either scenario, there's zero chance of retrieving coins.

$100 fee is really high, it's way bigger than Ethereum's network fee, so what's the reason for that? Must be because of some specific DeFi mechanisms, right? But regardless, some people would still be using DeFi right now, if they put thousands of dollars, and expect quick returns, $100 isn't a big fee for them. Also, there's no adoption of DeFi in real world anyway, right now it's just a toy for crypto enthusiast to make high risk investments. No one in real life is putting their money into DeFi instead of traditional funds.

It would be nice if you backed your statements with some links to research, because the idea that Bitcoin will get adopted by unbanked people isn't new, it's probably nearly as old as Bitcoin itself, and yet in all these years we haven't seen anything even close to that. Venezuela often got referred to as being big on Bitcoin, yet its Localbitcoins volume was always small, which means that there isn't much adoption. And with other countries there's even less volume.

Many of those unbanked people are so poor that they don't even have a phone or a computer, so using Bitcoin is not an option for them. And some are just so used to cash that they don't want to try digital methods.

Just like with ICO, with the eventual burst of this bubble will come a realization that DeFi isn't that useful, that it's not being used in the real world, that it's not a revolution and that the big bad traditional finance is still strong. The 2013 was the year of crypto hype, when participants thought that crypto will soon change the world, then it repeated in 2017 with blockchain technology and ICO, now it's happening with DeFi. So, maybe in 2023 there will be a new hype that will repeat this pattern for the fourth time.

16-75 billion is peanuts on a macroeconomic level. Even big industries like tobacco or alcohol won't have effect on US economy, US is a highly developed economy with diverse industries, it's not some small and poor country that lives predominantly off one type of industry, like tourism or agriculture.

Something similar happens on the altcoin board - users create topics like "top 3 coins to invest", the first two are one of the big coins, and the last one is some unknown shitcoin that is being shilled for. And on Bitcoin boards shills promote blogs and news sites all the time. I generally avoid the threads created by brand new users that contain links in OP - it's some spam or shilling 99% of the time.

CBDC is something between a stablecoin like Tether and a centralized payment system. We have some cryptocurrencies that aren't really cryptocurrencies - XRP and Tether, for example, so this system is even a less a cryptocurrency. Also, the whole point of cryptocurrency is decentralization, if it's centralized, it loses all its properties that make it valuable.

The reason why governments do this and seem to be positive towards crypto is because they want to compete with crypto on its own turf and maybe even divert potential users from it towards their system.

Using your own wallet doesn't make you immune to hacks, just as your account got hacked, your computer can be hacked too, there's malware in the wild that targets crypto users by stealing and decrypting their wallet files, or stealing private keys from memory, or using keyloggers to steal seeds, and so on. You need to be quite good at cybersecurity to not lose your coins in the long run, one misstep and potentially all your coins will be gone, no matter if it's 0.001 BTC or 40 BTC.

Also Nvidia just released new cards and AMD will launch their new generation soon too - this should affect the prices of existing cards both in stores and on second hand markets. And in general, mining isn't what it used to be, you can no longer just buy GPUs or ASIC and make enough profit in a few months to cover the costs and then keep making more money for more months - now it's all about maximizing efficiency, so small scale miners are in a bad spot.

And exchanges have responsibility to filter scams and useless projects, because it harms the reputation of crypto as a whole, and their own exchange too. But they too get blinded by greed and choose to take short-term profit in the form of fees over the long-term benefits. Ideally, we would have 2 types of exchanges - shitcoin exchanges like YOBIT, which list everything, and some good exchanges that list only a very small amount of coins, like maybe top 5 or top 10 altcoins, minus scams like bcash and bsv.

Is dumping a few millions of $$ worth of BTC enough to crash the price by 20%? No.

Does Bitcoin market care about some service getting hacked or exit scamming enough to drop by 20%? No.

This is just a coincidence, and Bitcoin market was declining for some time already. This is just normal waves of bullish/bearish sentiment, there's nothing fundamental going on here.

Bitcoin's whitepaper is called "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System". I think it's pretty clear what Satoshi wanted Bitcoin to be. But Satoshi's word is not gospel, in a decentralized system users define what Bitcoin is, not the creator. This also means that digital gold vs digital cash debate is pointless, because it can be both and different people will use it differently. And arguing with Bcash supporters is especially pointless, they have their own shitcoin, they should focus on it instead of bringing up a 5 year old argument.

This is pretty big, if a decentralized system relies on another centralized system, its own decentralization isn't that valuable. In this scenario this price input feed can be taken down or taken over by malicious party to disrupt the stablecoin. And as practice shows, if attack is possible and practical, it will be executed sooner or later - altcoins getting 51% attacked is a good example. I don't see any point in these hybrid centralized/decentralized systems, they have the biggest flaws of both without the main benefits.