The fact that government puts more effort into regulating crypto ecosystem means that they believe that a lot of money will be in this sphere in the close future. This isn't the same as it being objectively being true - the government could be wrong just like anyone else can be wrong.

There's still a chance that crypto will turn out to be a bubble similar to tulip bulbs. 10 years is not that long to proclaim that it's here to stay.

One of the almost never talked parts of risk management is taking profits. Every bull market sooner or later comes to an end and plunges into bear market. It means that the longer you are holding, the more unrealized gain you accumulate, but also the higher the risk of losing those unrealized gains. Depending on your entry price, the bear market can even push you into a loss. This means that somewhere there's an optimal sell price, below which it's safe to hold, and above which it's too risky to hold.

It's true that Bitcoin is a useful tool for criminals, you can see the high share of ransomware attacks demanding Bitcoin as the payment method, which is far superior in this case to any fiat methods. But there's not much a government can do now, banning Bitcoin won't solve anything, Bitcoin is impossible to ban and the criminals would still use it and trade it for fiat on black market. And because of Bitcoin's public nature some criminals will get caught because their transactions got traced on blockchain.

Well it's a bit more complex than that. A grocery store won't be doing any background checks and asking for proof of income, so in that situation fiat is fungible - a criminal can walk in with a stolen credit card and pay with it. But generally when doing large value transactions your bank will ask about the source of your money if they have a reason to - like if you are getting $3,000 paychecks every month, and suddenly deposit millions in cash.

No one becomes rich by being a moral person, upholding virtues and caring for others. You become rich by always prioritizing yourself. And this also applies to us, the small fry investors. We also need to sell our BTC at some point to take the profit, and not be a forever Bitcoin holder that truly believes in Bitcoin revolution. Massive Bitcoin adoption is a nice narrative that is being fed to people to make them buy more coins,  it's not a future that is guaranteed to come.

There's nothing stopping banks from splitting USD or any fiat currency into tinier fractions that are as small as needed. They don't do it today because no one needs that, but if that would change it would be made with a simple software update.


Bitcoin, be it on-chain or Lightning always has transaction fees. Meanwhile some banks have zero fee transactions between their clients and clients of their partner banks.



How about they build AI economy first and then we worry whether Bitcoin is suitable for it or not? Because right now it's a problem that doesn't exist, just empty talk of influencers.

Well, fiat money is considered to be fungible, yet it has the same concept of taint. Entities like banks or some companies can freeze and reject transactions if they deemed as high risk by their algorithms, for example coming from a blacklisted country. Or when a person with no financial history suddenly deposits a huge sum in cash.

This is the reality of digitalization. It allows much easier control on the monetary flows than physical money, and governments don't want something digital yet anonymous like Monero to be widespread, so they will never allow it to be accepted by legally operating businesses.

First, Core devs so far rejected all the proposed changes that would lead to even small centralization. Does this mean that this will continue in the future? We can't predict what Core devs will be in 100 years from now, but in the observable near future it's safe to assume that they will keep maintaining decentralization.

Next, extreme centralization will simply quickly kill Bitcoin. Many banks around the world already offer instant zero fee transactions without bank maintenance charges and offer cashback on top of it. How can even a highly centralized Bitcoin compete against that? And if Bitcoin will try to keep being the libertarian money, it will suffer the fate of Liberty Reserve.

It's the same story as with NFT, ICO and other hype - there's a lot of early adopters who have many millions worth of coins, so they are able to spend them on vanity because they still hold a lot more. Just like in real world people buy fine art or collectibles for millions of dollars. So I'm not really surprised when something like that happens.

The bull run started a long time ago when the price started going up and up, quickly recovering from the bear market. We even established a new ATH before the halvening happen. It was though that the bull run will start after the halvening, but this time it started before it.


Anyone who knows about the history of Bitcoin knows that nothing interesting happens on the day of halvening, it's a well-known and expected event, of course its effects start and last before and after the event itself. Since we're currently still in a minor correction phase, it's still a good time to buy for this ongoing bull market.

There are two terms - ATH and peak of a cycle, and most people use them interchangeably, but it's wrong, because they are not the same. ATH is just the highest price up until the current moment. And peak of a cycle is the highest price of a market cycle, after which came the crash. For some time period after the crash these two terms refer to the same price point, but eventually the price recovers as it enters a new cycle, and then it becomes wrong to refer to the past price peaks as "ATH".

So, it's confusing to say "2013 ATH", "2017 ATH", "2021 ATH". Just say "peak".

Currently 72k is the ATH, but it's most likely not a peak of the bull cycle. You can call it a peak of the local bull trend, but that is only if you are analyzing very short term trends.

I wouldn't even be worried too much if 47% of the hashrate was controlled by one entity, which is not the case here. The whole point of PoW is not that it's impossible to attack it, but that attacking is very expensive and need to be continuously supported. With PoS you pay once for obtaining a large share of supply and then can attack the network for free for the rest of history.

Everything that happens on CEX is stored on a private database, so only people with access to it can see what accounts are doing. That's why law enforcement around the world has to make requests to exchanges, asking them about information about the owners of deposit addresses, and that's why exchanges have KYC.

What have they taken over? ETFs own a tiny percentage of Bitcoin supply, other institutions like banks or hedge funds barely own any coins at all. Memecoins are completely irrelevant to Bitcoin, they are just high risk gambling devices for those who think that Bitcoin is not volatile enough and moves too slowly.

Bitcoin is in good position right now, it's not really threatened by anything right now, it's just hitting its own technical limitations, and there's no tragedy here, because everything has its limits.

The first three are the same things, it's just synonyms. And Bitcoin has none of those properties. Users are not connecting to each other, their nodes do and they do it passively and it all abstracted away from most users, and almost all Bitcoiners don't look to which nodes their node is connected, because it happens automatically.

Bitcoin is a network, but users don't do any networking,g they simply send funds from A to B, and the software handles all the network routing for them.

Basically, if everyone knows that Bitcoin will rise high and then crash fast, there's an incetive to sell shortly before the expected peak, or when the price just started crashing. This expectation makes going up quite hard the higher the price gets, because only short-term traders are buying at that point, and are ready to sell when they get 10-20% gains.

Also the market will eventually realize that the public price peak goals are way over exaggerated. I remember in 2017 when the price was crossing $20k everyone though that it's just the beggining and $100k will happen soon. In 2021 all the big name influencers were predicting $200k, $300k and even higher. The same happens today - people like Saylor again predict six figures, and a lot of investors would likely patiently wait for them and miss the opportunity to take profits at the actual peak.
 

Investing in Bitcoin can't be a career, it's just buying and waiting for opportunity to sell. Trading Bitcoin can be a career - the difference is that trading is taking advantage of as many price movements as you can. But trading is not recommended, it's a very high risk activity, and research shows that most traders are in fact losing money in the long run.

Do you know a lot of stores that accept altcoins but not BTC? Because I don't, if someone accepts crypto payments, it's Bitcoin first and altcoins second. And I'm pretty sure that if the merchants that accept crypto published statistics of transction volumes, Bitcoin would be on the first place.

So really altcoins only take a small share of Bitcoin's adoption. Their main use case is high risk speculative trading, not being used as a money or a store of value.

This is why the halvening cycles should logically just stop - halvening does not affect the selling pressure anymore, it doesn't change the balance of supply and demand like it did in the first halvening eras.

So it could mean that the next cycles, maybe even the recent one too are driven by pure speculation - price goes up because traders expect it go up and invest, then when they see that the price got very high and stopped growing, they rush to take profits while they can and cause a crash - and with the crash the mood changes to bearish for quite some time. But this too can't go on forever, because when the pattern becomes recognized by everyone, traders will trade against this pattern, since it would be more profitable, and thus will ruin the pattern.

Bitcoin is reliant of the Internet and electricity, and during war you might not have access to them. Gold is obviously more reliable in that regard. Also gold would most likely maintain and increase its value, based on past examples, while Bitcoin is most likely to fall, because you can see how Bitcoin tends to react negatively to news that negatively impact global economy.


Bitcoin is most definitely a hedge against hyperinflation, it will outperform a freefalling currency, it's just not a hedge against low to moderate inflation.