I wouldn't go as far as claiming Roubini's most recent statement about Bitcoin is enough to conclude that the man has indeed changed his stance on Bitcoin. I don't think he is now embracing Bitcoin. But it is pretty normal it seems for many Bitcoin critics to drop a positive comment or two about the technology or some statements which suggest they are not really 100% anti-Bitcoin. Jamie Dimon, for example, would praise the technology behind Bitcoin. Peter Schiff, on the other hand, said he might buy Bitcoin if he knew how things turned out for it years later. Somehow, these are clues that these people are not really hating Bitcoin to the bones.

While I agree that most users are not ideological decentralization advocates and that if they are coming from first world countries they are more or less decently served by the modern financial system, I highly disagree that these same people dislike price volatility. As a matter of fact, it's probably price volatility itself that brought them into the crypto market. Had Bitcoin's price value remained more or less stable, would these people have ever thought of buying Bitcoin? I don't think so. It was the wild swings that attracted many Bitcoin owners. Many of them could not even explain what Bitcoin really is at the time they entered. They're just attracted by the fact that there could be money in Bitcoin. That's prior to them trying to understand the technology more.

As to the prediction, BTC's volatility is enough that it wouldn't become substantially used as a unit-of-account. BTC may become a significant form of payment but the way BTC fluctuates against fiat, it is hard to just stick to the 1BTC is 1BTC mentality.

My brother lost his phone once. He's got more than a handful of exchanges and wallets and sites that have 2FAs in that phone. He didn't have backups of some of those. But he was able to recover every single one of them. The requirement varied from one site to another but I can remember a site asked for a police report, some asked for a notarized affidavit of loss, perhaps all asked that he undergo KYC, and so on. But before he even attempted to recover them, he already reached out to the support and requested that his account be frozen due to the incident.

There was so much inconvenience but he eventually got them all back after complying with all the demands. So I guess you could also recover your accounts.

While this is true, this only shows the one side of things, which means this doesn't necessarily bring us into a conclusion that indeed HODL is the best thing to do in the crypto market. In every 1 coin or token you mentioned to have reached quite a success, the entire crypto market could give you perhaps a hundred which have simply died without reaching a single milestone. Of course, your keyword is DYOR but then it still doesn't give any guarantee. How many coins in the top 100 in 2015, for example, are still at the top 100 right now? 

If a country is trying to pass a law which would make a crypto license difficult to obtain, it doesn't mean those who got theirs earlier and therefore a lot easier are off the hook. The regulations have been tightened. It would be natural for the regulators to look back and review those that are already operating after complying very simple requirements only. Especially in the case of Estonia where companies having crypto license are numbering to the hundreds, it would indeed be prudent to conduct a review of the existing licenses.

First off, what the video talks about is simply a single aspect of the art market. So it is rather unfair to call the entire art market a scam. The video is particularly referring to a very small yet very influential portion of the market. Influential not necessarily because the artworks auctioned are highly venerated works of genius artists but because they are very expensive. Expensive, again, not necessarily because of the artworks themselves but because of the people and the companies involved. It is therefore an art market sans the art. That's probably what happens when crazy, rich, vain elites are the main players. They badly need to appear sophisticated.

I don't think the corrupt side of the modern art market has already reached the NFT market. I don't think we can discuss about the same art donation ploy, tax evasion, money laundering, and the likes within the NFT market. What is already reaching the NFT market very early on is the ludicrous price tags. But that's normal when crazy rich elites join the game. They always tend to show off. They have that unquenchable thirst.

If money is overflowing, its value is going to decrease. The purchasing power of money will suddenly weaken to the point that goods and services will become unaffordable. People will always find a way to preserve their money's worth.

One of the alternative ways to avoid the impact of inflation is to buy Bitcoin. As opposed to the infinite amount of money that could be printed, Bitcoin has a fixed supply. This means it is somehow protected against indiscriminate minting and consequently devaluation.

In other words, the gain that Bitcoin will have when governments are printing more and more money is that a certain percentage of this will probably go into Bitcoin. So more money means more money to buy Bitcoin. That's a rising demand on a limited commodity.

I have never lived in a totalitarian/authoritarian state although the current leader that we have is being labeled such. But in terms of Chinese politics, I guess it is mortal sin to criticize the government or the CCP, especially publicly. Doing so cannot be equated with merely buying Bitcoin despite a ban in place. I don't think somebody would perish in the thick of the night simply because he/she tried to sneak a P2P Bitcoin purchase.

Moreover, China has been against Bitcoin since 2013. It has already banned it numerous times. Are you not curious why despite all those pronouncements and decisions and orders, Bitcoin is still present in China? Would you somehow consider that by banning Bitcoin many times, China is in effect admitting that it cannot actually ban Bitcoin?

It was a very general statement which could mean nothing at all. There is no reason to celebrate. By saying crypto has value is simply saying crypto is not totally worthless. It was like saying the technology could be useful. What followed are the more interesting statements. For example, Putin was clearer in saying, “But I don’t believe it can be used in the oil trade.”

There was also a hint that Putin has yet to really wrap his head around crypto. He said, “Cryptocurrency is not supported by anything as of yet.” I mean, does it have to? What does he exactly mean by that?

Moreover, Putin is also giving weight on crypto's heavy reliance on massive energy consumption.

There are more than a handful blockchains in the crypto world, one more controlled than the other.


The meaning of decentralization is not that "money sent or received from or to an account can be seen or monitored by everyone or anyone." That's the meaning of transparency. Bitcoin has a public ledger so it is accessible to anybody.

Decentralization in Bitcoin simply means it has neither a central authority nor a central server. Its ledger is distributed. 


Very possible. It has happened in the past countless of times and will happen in the future. However, the point of failure is not in the network itself; it is somewhere else. You do not steal Bitcoin from the network, you steal it from wallets.

No, don't leave the table. If your opponents are like that, it means they are predictable. You can easily read their plays if they are always staying safe. They won't raise if they got a bad hand, for example, so you need to stay away once they start raising bigger amounts.

These are also the kind of players you can easily bluff in poker. You put a good raise and they will fold immediately. If you think you have the stronger hand, you can also easily catch them by simply calling every time they raise and then raise or even all-in in your last bet. They'll either be scared or they'll fight their weaker hand.

I cannot access the site. But, just a rule of thumb, as much as possible avoid services provided by young and unpopular sites. Ratexbet.com is just 8 months old, with very low traffic, unknown in casino review sites, pretty much unheard of even in this forum, and so on.

If I were you, I wouldn't be sending funds in a casino which has yet to gain trust from gamblers. I wouldn't also be playing in a site whose fairness is yet to be established.

I don't think OP is in his/her right mind if he/she is promoting his/her own site this way. He/she is basically saying his/her money has not yet arrived even after depositing it three days ago. That would be a suicide promotion. In effect, OP is discouraging rather than encouraging potential clients. He/she won't be making any affiliate earning this way.


Why did you even accept the recommendation when you knew nothing about it?

Anyway, you should contact the casino. Tell them your case. But just so you know, that casino has an account here and it has so many red tags.

The complaints against exx.com are countless and almost as old as the exchange itself. I don't even understand how they still exist until now. Perhaps it is their fake volume and shitcoin listing that made them survive.

But I wonder how you ended up with this scam exchange. Of all the exchanges that could possibly be available to you, why on earth did you even choose exx.com? I will not be surprised if the exit scam accusations against this exchange have finally happened.

I definitely think NFTs are not worth buying, but that's something personal. I'd rather withhold my judgement as to the rest who are actively participating in the NFT market. I am certain they see something which I do not. As I've said, it is a matter of perspective. I'd call myself stupid if I buy one of those expensive pixelated CryptoPunk collectibles, for example. Perhaps that's because I don't have any idea what to do with those. But I avoid judging others when it's possible it could be me who is the clueless one.

The NFT market is rather colorful and interesting with the likes of Jack Dorsey, Snoop Dogg, Paris Hilton, CZ, and other personalities buying and selling NFT pieces by the millions. I honestly don't know how they look at what I see as a fool's market.

This is going to become a cat and mouse game. Let's see how good China is in monitoring their citizens all over the web. It is easy for a totalitarian state to restrict its people's movements in the real world, but it's quite different when it comes to the online universe.

I don't think the Chinese people are that naïve as to do and say everything the CCP tells them to even in their online lives. China's rulers will definitely be not as successful in the online world in terms of control. The Chinese Bitcoin supporters won't stop buying or HODLing Bitcoin simply because the country's central bank declares it illegal.

As far as Bitcoin's infrastructure is concerned, there is really not much problem. I guess the main problem is that the network is prone to congestion, and when that happens the fees will rise to terrible heights.

As regards volatility, public perception, lack of regulation, and so on and so forth; these are not problems in the infrastructure of Bitcoin. These are external problems. These are not Bitcoin's problems at all. However, it is unfortunate that they also contribute significantly to Bitcoin's slow adoption pace.

Thanks, noorman0, for mentioning me. But that was a long time ago. I cannot remember everything. I think I didn't proceed with that transaction.

Anyway, OP, which particular token are you trying to send? I suspect the case is about tokens being locked for a certain period of time. I think I experienced the same. If you have already tried sending the same token using different wallets and increasing your gas fee but the same execution reverted error pops out, it might be what I suspect.

First and foremost, to be clear, this is about centralization of Bitcoin as a native currency and not of Bitcoin as a network itself. Bitcoin as network remains decentralized whether the large bulk of BTC are in the hands of a few or well-distributed across the community.

As to what we can do to the current status, I don't think there's something we can do about it. But there is definitely a way for things not to get worse. I guess it helps that retail Bitcoin investors be properly educated of the potential of Bitcoin itself. If they remain as mere speculators, as pure Bitcoin investors who are only after the money they could gain from its price appreciation, they are more likely to sell upon profit. In which case, they are most likely selling to the whales who are acquiring and acquiring without selling. This is the reason why Bitcoin is focused on them. It is not only the fact that they can afford.

But if small-time owners of Bitcoin learn to HODL in good days and bad, this centralization wouldn't become worse. Furthermore, if Bitcoin consciousness becomes more widespread and new retail Bitcoin owners would begin to stack Sats little by little instead of selling, this situation wouldn't get better.

In the long run, however, a stronger demand will neutralize the impact of whales suddenly selling in bulk.

The tightening initiatives of Binance just recently are not really an issue of ethics. There is nothing ethical or unethical of their policies of late. In the first place, there is actually no intention from Binance's end to give their customers a hard time. I guess, had they been given enough freedom, they would have kept their old policies rather than impose stricter ones. However, Binance has not much choice. They have to operate within the bounds of law. As a matter of fact, on the contrary, it would be more unethical of them if they chose to disregard the law and operate solely on their own terms.