AFAIK, Wikipedia only generate income via donations even in the last year or before Wikipedia asked the people to donate funds publicly because they ran out if funds to run the site. Its new to me that they own a media company and making money from it as well but basically they didn't get enough money with bitcoin as they expected so they stopped accepting it for now but who knows in future the things will be changed.
Spend a few minutes into searching around the web a bit about Wikimedia, the parent company of Wikipedia – them solely generating income via donations is simply not a fact. |
|
|
|
Is it really the best way to invest your money?
The "best" way to invest your money is subjective, and will differ depending on personal situation. Because of the way Bitcoin generates value or becomes more expensive, it could potentially lose all its value and became worthless.
It technically could, just like how your business could technically end up being bankrupt and the business stock you invested in going bankrupt. Who assures you that this will not happen?
Nothing. There's no such thing as guarantees with anything. |
|
|
|
Didn't think of the wrench thing, but at that point I don't see it as any different then wearing some other stupid expensive thing. To a certain extent people know you have money if your suit is $7500 your watch is $15000 your shoes are $8000 anyway and so on....
-Dave
There's quite a difference though. Kidnapping you for money that's likely needed to be withdrawn from the bank, vs kidnapping you and hitting you with a wrench until you hand over your wallet's private keys. The latter being far more viable and "safe" for the attacker. |
|
|
|
|
While that's cool and all, the price tho. I wouldn't even pay 1/10 of that even on a designer sneaker that I absolutely want. Also, this is pretty much just a huge "please $5 wrench attack my ass". Absolutely a huge no no.
|
|
|
|
|
1. We already have point-of-sale software for Bitcoin payments whereas the BTC automatically gets converted to fiat the moment it gets received, greatly decreasing the volatility risk.
2. Good luck convincing everyone to use literally any crypto
3. Russia has their own currency
4. Putin
|
|
|
|
Still having doubts about the decentralization issue over Metamask & Infura concerning the recent blocking of wallets among Venezuelan and Iranian users. And, one interesting thing is that there's an issue as well relating to both (Metamask & Infura) and that it needs a court review regarding the transfer of control to JP Morgan. They may have an explanation, but I still doubt until the audit is done. Even though we haven't had such incident yet with Bitcoin(as far as I know, besides the recent Wasabi Wallet thing) — if you really want to be as ungovernable as possible, you should also be running(and connecting to) your own full node for your Bitcoin wallets. |
|
|
|
|
Isn't Bitcoin a bit mainstream now whereas we shouldn't be surprised if it was mentioned in some movie or series? Maybe a few years ago I'll be quite happy and surprised but today? It's nothing new already.
|
|
|
|
This is not exchange, it's the government that is demanding a lot of these things to be fulfilled which does Mean that if the sites wants to function then it has to actually Try and keep up with everything that there is going on, which does mean that for them it's a *necessity* to do so, we cannot fault them for this. It's the inherit need of the government for total control and domination of the markets.
It could be because of government intervention, but yea it doesn't really change the fact that handing over very sensitive information to a central entity is dangerous as heck.
Every single site does require the same information now a days
*snip*
This is obviously not the case. |
|
|
|
Wait till you find out what coinbase does with your data!
Speaking of Coinbase — doesn't Coinbase require the same information? Because for these kinds of "deep" requirements, I'd expect Coinbase to go first simply due to their size and with them "trying to be ahead of the law". |
|
|
|
|
Sounds sketchy — are you sure you're even using an actual reputable broker?
Rule of thumb: with any platform where you're putting your money in, always always go with the existing reputable ones. There's no reason to risk your money in trying out the newer less reputable ones.
|
|
|
|
Arguably, people don't even realise that they actually need something. You know the amount of people I hear slagging off banks, and not trusting them? Then they're ignoring that there are alternatives despite saying "But we're forced too". People tend to just follow the trends, we are very much sheep penned in most of the time. I know its a hard thing to accept, but we've become pacified to the point where we actually believe we need x service, and y service. Sure, some people genuinely like the convenience, but I bet if you asked the majority of people without mentioning Bitcoin if they would like to be in full control of their money, without relying on third parties the majority would be interested.
Bitcoin unfortunately has been dragged through the mud, and therefore there's a negative stigma to it.
I guess? Totally depending on what the certain "thing" is. But at some point if it's the case that the "thing" is totally needed and/or they're forced to use it, then they should use that "thing" even if it damages their egos. If they still don't, then Darwinism should run its course. |
|
|
|
The good thing about them is they don't dump and tweet some negative comments after it as the known billionaire does. It's really good to see such a company keep buying bitcoins, adding to their wallets despite all of these nonstop critics. They know what the future brings so they keep buying it and they already know that the supply will be scarce in the years to come. By the time the people realize that they, in reality, bitcoins are what they need, Microstrategy will take the last laugh.
I mean, they have literally been throwing sizeable amounts of MicroStrategy's balance sheet into BTC so there's literally zero reason to FUD it lol. In contrast to those billionaires you're referring to that are likely to only have sub 1% of their net worth in BTC. |
|
|
|
|
1. Of course. Assuming that you have your emergency and rainy day fund sorted out already, what else would I spend the money on? Unless you want to start a business or something then what else but invest.
2. Try your best to increase your income and lower your unnecessary spending. Those things that are given as good finance advice in general(books, etc), regardless if in an inflationary economy or not.
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is a protective asset.
...mostly only in the eyes of us "hardcore" Bitcoiners. No matter how good it is, it wouldn't perform as we'd want to if markets in general don't look at it the same way. I still think it's highly likely to just drop with the stock markets in general; even though I truly hope BTC breaks off the other way signaling a sort of "new paradigm".
|
|
|
|
I have some security concern with browser extension wallet, but i hope it'll push some people to use non-custodial wallet instead. But looking at GitHub page, looks like it'll take some time before it's available for regular user.
It's technically non-custodial though? Just not as secure as your typical non-custodial wallet like Electrum because this is a browser extension. They should support hardware wallets though, because they do with Ethereum and other EVM chains. |
|
|
|
Your arguments are flawed.
For starters you are comparing donations with revenue.
*snip*
This. Quick note that while Wikipedia is non-profit, it doesn't automatically mean that literally 100% of revenue is going to come from donations. Apparently Wikimedia(Wikipedia's company) does invest and also gets revenue from merch sales. |
|
|
|
|
Something something past performance is not indicative of future results. I'm definitely not saying that it will not happen, but if literally everyone expects the same exact thing to happen, chances are, it will not happen. That's just how markets work.
|
|
|
|
One of the popular thoughts and beliefs on crypto especially Bitcoin. The belief is that Bitcoin should be the main money system in the world for getting goods and services vs just being a store of value. All of these ideas are written in the Bitcoin white paper.
Bitcoin is decentralized in a way that we can even disagree with Satoshi himself. The point of bitcoin is that you should use it for whatever reason you may see fit — may it be for a currency, as a SoV, or whatever. The whitepaper is just the initial draft. One of those limitations is that there is nearly not enough effort on creating and spreading positive awareness on it as some government and individuals alike is hell bent on spreading negativity around and poisoning the minds of prospective users. People need to be aware and understand what bitcoin is really about and be awake to its uses.
There is a lot of effort. It's just that Bitcoin is just a very obscure thing that it will take time for people to realize it's importance. We're literally pitching an alternative financial system, not just some online web service. You could get lots of information about anything on the internet including bitcoin. But the internet can be misleading to newbies cause you could get right and wrong and also misleading information on the internet. It puzzles me that people with an in depth knowledge of bitcoin would purposefully hoard and keep information to themselves. You may think people don't hoard information but in reality, people do. It irksome just thinking about it. If people could share information, newbies won't readily fall prey to scammers.
Many people believe everything they hear and see on social media and accept that as the main truth to anything without having the proper references to the actual facts.
Surprise..? This applies to literally any other topic, not specific to Bitcoin. After all a huge deal of money is stolen from credit and debit cards all over the world, and those people depend on the banks to save them and recover their money, but this is not possible with bitcoin, so since people do not know how to take care of their coins I think that we are bound to see a massive amount of money being stolen if Bitcoin was adopted massively, and then once they lose their money this way those people will criticize Bitcoin for its inability to reverse transactions, even if that is a feature and not a bug.
This has been happening for a while now. It's unfortunate, but people learn by reading, or learn the hard way. Human nature in it's finest. In general I think it will take sometime for more adoption of Bitcoin to happen, if any at all.
You, and literally anyone with a functioning brain thinks this. What do you think is needed to not scare people away from crypto. Also what can be done to encourage people to at least take a moment to learn a bit more on the money system and understand how the inflation is happening. This of course will only need to change some people’s mindset on matters.
Time. People are stupid. They'll only realize the importance of something only when they really need it. |
|
|
|
|
Nothing to see here bros — just another one out of thousands of price "predictions" that's going to end up being freakishly wrong regardless if in the upside or downside.
|
|
|
|
|
This isn't really that much of a surprise, no? Saylor has said time and time again in dozens and dozens of interviews/podcasts that he's bullish af on Bitcoin. So obviously he's going to buy more if he gets the chance. It's a safe assumption that MicroStrategy is just averaging in as to potentially not buying in at near-peak.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
