I would not agree that there is too much logic to compare the Internet and Bitcoin, because regardless of what some people think, they are two completely different things.

Let's take for example the case that you want to explain the Internet and its use to someone - you need a computer, a browser and an Internet connection. A person opens a browser, enters the term he is interested in into the search engine and gets the results from which he chooses what suits him best - it doesn't take more than 5 minutes for someone to master that process.

Try to explain to that same person what Bitcoin is in the most basic terms, with the addition of how to safely install a wallet, how to buy Bitcoin and how to make a transaction - many will certainly not understand everything at first, and some will not be able to understand at all.

In the almost 13 years of Bitcoin's existence, we are talking about the fact that it is currently owned by 1-2% of the total world population, while some estimates say that around 5% of people in total are in possession of some cryptocurrency. What I want to say is that it will be much harder for people to accept (understand) Bitcoin than the Internet, which, unlike Bitcoin, is not an alternative but something that has become a generally accepted technology practically necessary in everyday life.

You can report a private message only to admins, as the link in the private message says "report to admin" - although it is possible that these messages are actually handled by global moderators. It is interesting to me how that member actually chose who to send the message to, did he count on that members not to report him, or do all those who received it have something else in common?

Why does his opinion matter to anyone, especially on this forum? The comparisons that he and his partner Buffett make about Bitcoin in the last ten years are nothing but the statement of two slightly senile old men who know that time has overtaken them and that they will not be in this world for much longer.

I think the old fart would give half his fortune to even have the chance to get the disease he compares Bitcoin to...

I think that @hodlonaut and his two lawyers (if I'm not mistaken) have done a far more intelligent job than Kraken or Coinbase are willing to do - or rather they are not capable of doing it in the way that most of us here would expect. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if instead of a defense there was some kind of settlement, because each of those CEX exists only for profit and they have never supported Bitcoin in any case - not even in the case of @hodlonaut when he publicly called them out for support because we already knew that they were next in line.

Without any doubt, without going too much into technical details, choose a SegWit address - let's say that you will be able to save on fees for all future outgoing transactions. If you ever need a legacy address for some reason, you will simply create a new wallet within Electrum and name it Legacy wallet.

Read more in this thread -> Legacy vs segwit

Satoshi was intelligent enough to realize that revealing his identity would not only be dangerous for his security, but also have serious implications for how Bitcoin would be perceived by the public. I cannot say whether he had a plan to disappear at some point, but what we know is that some of his associates at that time began to be very critical of Satoshi making too many decisions independently, which may have been the trigger for his withdrawal from the public.

We cannot know what Bitcoin would be like today if Satoshi was still around, but his identity is less important, unless he was directly or indirectly connected to some institutions that are not popular with the public. The fact that Bitcoin has the highest trust and that it did not disappear as some predicted it may best speak in favor of the fact that Satoshi did a good job - and that is the most important thing.

I think that this board already has several threads dealing with the same question, so I wonder if we need another one?

We can speculate and guess as much as we want, but the only truth is that the only true bottom is the moment when the BTC price would touch 0, which of course will not happen. All that is happening is the result of human stupidity, starting with the fact that millions believed Mr. Mars, and then Kwon, and finally Bankman and various fairy tale sellers who promoted them with all the bells and whistles.

The only hope that everyone can have is in the halving, which means that realistically before the second half of 2024, I personally do not hope that there can be any major positive changes. What I am more sure of is that some new world-class scammer will appear in that period and will catch millions in his net - but if someone has the mentality of a sheep, nothing can save him, that's a fact.

Kudos to you for having the courage to admit that you are one of the victims of something that smelled like a nasty scam from the beginning, and not because it was technically poorly designed, but because behind it all was a person who I personally would not let run a chicken coop. No matter how much this life lesson costs you, I hope you learn not to trust spoiled rich people no matter what fairy tales they tell.


Such things are always written in very fine print and no one reads them, and because of this, all those who make such scams can mostly get away with the help of an army of lawyers. I don't wonder at all if something like that will happen again, it's just a question of who is next - and I would say that these are the ones who are the loudest in terms of bragging that they are the best, but in fact they are one step away from everything collapses like a house of cards.

Central banks will do their job as always, and inflation and recession will do their job, the price is paid by all of us who support politics and its actions in one way or another. What is important to know is that the consequences of the pandemic are still coming to fruition, and that the consequences of the war will only come to fruition in the years to come.

Although some perceive it as a war between Russia and Ukraine, it is much more than that, considering who is behind Ukraine and who is behind Russia - so it is actually a limited version of a world war in which everyone participates but in a limited area. How long it will last depends on whether at some point Russia will admit defeat and retreat to the positions before the aggression, or whether Ukraine will achieve a military victory with Western military and financial aid.

The world economy will recover, but it is only a question of when it will fall into some new problems again - because decades of poor management of resources and destruction of the environment will not bring us a peaceful and prosperous future.

What will be traded on that platform, digital ruble? Who will be allowed to have an account there, perhaps only faithful followers of the great leader?

There are a lot of theories about why someone chose the pseudonym "Satoshi Nakamoto", but I have to admit that I can't remember anyone connecting him with Pokemon. Each possibility has some chance of being correct, although in many discussions it has already been concluded that the name Satoshi is very common in Japan, and once in some reports from the Second World War I found a person whose name was exactly that.

Very interesting conspiracy theories can be constructed from some of the meanings of those words.

@royalfestus, read a little better, it's not a ban in the literal sense of the word, but a limitation of deposits to centralized crypto exchanges - this is about fiat transactions. If someone trades through DEX (decentralized crypto exchange), then the bank cannot know that it is a transaction in which cryptocurrency is included, for the reason that it is a transaction between two people without a centralized party.

A small part of people does that, but the majority did not invest in Bitcoin because of what it represents and why it was invented, but they are only interested in profit and do not care too much how it will be achieved. This means that they basically do not understand concepts like blockchain, private and public keys, mempool or fees for sending transactions.

The question arises, how are you going to explain these things to these people if they are not really interested in it? Therefore, they are perfect for what CEX represents, and I don't think much will change there.

Don't be funny, how can a bank ban Bitcoin transactions when Bitcoin is decentralized and enables transactions in a way that avoids banks? The bank only introduced a restriction on individual deposits, and that is an amount that I don't think is too problematic for ordinary users, because I doubt that £3000 pounds per month is an amount that the majority exceeds.

Furthermore, you quote a source that claims that even 47% of banks in the UK have similar restrictions, so why would parliament or anyone else intervene in this case?

Some people really throw themselves at numbers without making any sense, and this woman is no exception. I watched her live once in the broadcast and she didn't make any special impression on me, although we all concluded that they were all just defending their investments and that they were ready to say anything, no matter how unrealistic it was.

But looking at things realistically, all those who speculate with such big numbers are not the ones we should take too seriously, it's all just part of the game. We remember John McAfee and his speculations, so although it is not the same, to me it is more comical than serious in every sense.

Everyone who buys wants a lower price and that is logical, while those who have already bought above the current price do not want the price to fall so low, because that would be very critical considering that the price would fall so low to even 50% of ATH from 2017. Perhaps it should be taken into account that the lower the price falls, the harder it will be to recover, because investor confidence will be greatly shaken.

I just hope that all those who say all the time that BTC is too expensive will still take advantage of the opportunity that is offered now, because if you buy some smaller amounts there is not too much difference between $16k and $13k.

Don't get confused with the term cold wallet and hardware wallet, because they are not the same thing, no matter how much some advocate that view. Although there are HWs that are close to being cold storage, the most popular ones like Ledger or Trezor are not. In order to make a firmware update or to install a coin app, you have to connect such a device to the Internet, and that completely cancels any connection with the cold wallet.

As for that amount, I wouldn't hesitate at all about what I will do, because for $50 you won't be able to buy BTC that will ever mean anything to you - but if you invest that money in HW, it will have a long-term positive effect on the security of your digital property.

I have nothing much more to add to your statements, because it would be rather naive to believe that such things can change something, at least not to such an extent that it would prevent some new genius from doing the same thing that Bankman or Cotten did. Every hole they patch opens a new one through which some manipulation can be carried out again, and the only measure that would be effective is for people to understand that crypto exchanges are not banks and not to use them in that way. If you are not in sole possession of your private keys, you have nothing but empty promises.

The past is not the best indicator that some things will happen in the future, but Bitcoin has followed a certain pattern so far in that the biggest bull runs have happened in the post-halving period, and I see no reason why that pattern will not repeat itself in 2024. Of course, this cannot be a solid basis for investment, but given that we know how most people think and that they are only interested in profit in the short term, they should pay special attention to halving.

Of course, it is best to invest only as much as we are ready to lose and not be burdened by some kind of time limit in which something must happen, but that is much easier said than done.

I don't know why people are so obsessed with the idea of Bitcoin as legal tender, and we saw that in the example of El Salvador it did not result in any mass application in that country. Bitcoin can be a completely legal means of payment without being a legal tender, which is the case in many countries and works quite well.

No democratic government is afraid of Bitcoin to the point of banning it, and those that ban it can mostly be categorized as dictatorial/communist countries where the authorities want to control every little aspect of their citizens.

OP, it's not like El Salvador made that decision recently, it's been more than 1 year.