You're right that the price might explode again and be followed by years of stagnation at a very low price level. However, I don't think it's really a problem. That's just how Bitcoin is, and it still manages to move forward. It takes 5 steps ahead and then makes 3 steps back, but after some time it makes another round of 5 steps ahead, so the overall tendency of Bitcoin's price growing remains very visible over the years. If Bitcoin doesn't fall below $10k this time, it will be a big accomplishment. If it stays above $20k, that will be very impressive. In any case, the price isn't the most important thing.

I'm not sure that the outflow of BTC can be interpreted so easily as someone buying lots of BTC. It simply means that people took a lot of bitcoins from exchanges, right? So they had some BTC and decided to stop trading and instead transfer their coins to their own wallets for hodling, and this scenario would also show Bitcoin outflow, correct? And we cannot know whether it's a big institutional investor or just a bunch of small ones either because it's just the total amount of Bitcoins which people decided to withdraw from exchanges if I understand correctly. Moreover, it could even be a big exchange withdrawing some money of their users to a cold wallet. I think there isn't enough information to jump to the conclusion that you're suggesting.

It's possible to create another altcoin without significant knowledge or huge effort, and nothing is stopping anybody from doing it (which is why there are thousands of them). However, most tokens are just useless and worthless, so there's no need to make another one unless you can actually make a good one rather than a typical token. The purpose of this endeavor is very important, of course. Apart from scamming others or getting the hype and profiting from this, altcoins can be considered a marketing strategy (I worked briefly for a project that saw their token this way). I'm not sure if it's still the case, but a few years ago you could create a token, launch an ICO, start a bounty campaign and give people your worthless tokens for completing tasks like subscribing to your company's profiles and making posts in their community chats. From experience, I know that these simple things could give you thousands of followers, which sounds like a great marketing deal because you can give people as many tokens as you want to because they aren't worth anything to you. It's a dubious strategy, but I suspect that many companies saw it this way.

I don't think that we'll see a drop in dominance similar to the one that happened in 2017. BTC dominance was 33% at its lowest point, but that was during the altcoin boom when people had high hopes and a lot of excitement about new tokens. I think way more people realized over the years how useless the vast majority of tokens are and that only some deserve some attention, but that Bitcoin is undoubtedly #1. The dominance might fall a little under 50%, but it will probably largely stay between 50% and 60%. The reason I think so is that there was a huge drop of Bitcoin dominance in 2017 prior to Bitcoin reaching its ATH, and we haven't seen anything similar going on this time. BTC dominance stayed above 50% since the end of 2018, so I don't see why this would suddenly change now.

Op, I think a thread about provably fair algorythms would be interesting, so I hope you decide to make it.
As for starting a new gambling website, I'm sure you realize how much competition you'll be facing since as you've mentioned yourself there's around one new website per week here.
You're right that there are many clone websites here, but I've also seen some that looked attractive, but now I wouldn't even remember their names because they drowned in this endless pool of new offers.
But if you decide to go for it anyway, I want to say that reputation is the most important thing for me. That's why it's hard for new websites to become popular: they might look great and have reasonable terms, but people would prefer to use a website that already has a good reputation than risk with a new project. Some things could help with this, of course: a signature campaign managed by a trusted manager, some contests or giveaways with funds secured by escrow agents from the forum and something like that. The amount of altcoins you include doesn't matter because most people use Bitcoin anyway, but adding TRX, DOGE, ETH and LTC is reasonable. Smart contracts are great hypothetically, but in reality they make the experience less enjoyable if someone needs to use Metamask to make a bet or something like this.
Good luck!

It could somewhat contribute to the current price situation, but I agree with those who don't believe that it was the only cause. After all, it's not only just a tweet with unconfirmed information, but the tweet also got less than 10k likes and reposts, so it's hard to call it highly influential. Some people could take it seriously, others could start selling because of seeing that some people were already doing it. And there's also the factor of a natural price correction that comes after a period of the price remaing around the ATH level. The support for $60k is still quite weak, so the price keeps falling down a little once in a while.

Are these tools truly useful? Andreas Antonopoulos believes that it's impossible to make reasonable price predictions using any approaches and data, for instance, and goes as far as to compare it with Astrology. I think that he's largely right because there are indeed many variables that can affect the price, and it's impossible to take everything into account in advance to predict the price.
I believe it's useful to look at the price chart to analyze the past and perhaps to spot certain general tendencies, but these observations are very limited for accurate price predictions. It's also useful to keep track of the news because negative statements by some authorities tend to trigger some panic selling and a temporary decrease in price, but this also doesn't really matter if someone is investing in Bitcoin long-term.

I think it's a little early to declare the bear market. Bitcoin is currently only 10% down over a 7-day-period, and that can be a minor fluctuation. If you look at the chart, similar fluctuations already happened during the current bull run a few times. Here, I've marked them with a red pen:

I'm not saying that it's not the beginning of the bear market, but I believe that some more time has to pass before we'd be able to see the general tendency. For now, from the way the price chart looks, it seems to me that there's still an upward general trend, and what we're seeing now is only natural after such a high price.

It's fine that the coin grew in price. Of course, it resulted from speculations and there's nothing in Dogecoin that could reasonably justify this growth (such as new updates to a long abandoned project), but some people probably caught it early and profited greatly over the last few days. There's always some room for speculations, and I'm sure everyone knows that DOGE is a joke and can easily fall back down anytime. So Musk can write whatever he wants and do whatever he wants. After all, he does like the dog meme AFAIK, so it would be weird if he didn't give a little kick to DOGE once in a while.

I think it's very early to think about space, to be honest. Firstly, there's no conclusive evidence that there are any intelligent species out there to discover it. Secondly, in case of a disaster, many things and beings will perish forever, and Bitcoin probably wouldn't be the top priority. Thirdly, I don't think Bitcoin is well-established on Earth. Bitcoin is used by around 2% of the population, which is not just a minority, but is a really tiny part of humanity. Moreover, only 60% of the population has Internet access, so the rest wouldn't be able to use Bitcoin even if they wanted to. I think we should still focus on making Bitcoin more accessible and more popular on Earth, given this data.

It's great that your friend was open-minded about the payment in BTC, and that you managed to use Bitcoin as money for goods in this situation. I do have a follow-up question: what do you mean there were no fees because it was the same wallet? You literally didn't pay any transaction fee? Was it some sort of off-chain solution or something? Or do you mean there was no additional fee, apart from what you had to pay for this transaction? I'm just a little confused about the way it's formulated in the post and what it actually means.
I can see that you replied about it being a custodial and not decentralized wallet, but can you provide more details on how this works and what company offers this?

I disagree with the statement that 'currency' is inappropriate for cryptos. You're saying that a currency is "a system of money in general use in a particular country", but what about the word 'currency' signifies that it's necessarily used in a particular country? If fiat is associated with countries, it doesn't mean that everything that falls into the category of 'currency' should also be this way. Moreover, this isn't even the case for all fiat because under your definition EUR isn't a currency either because it's in general use in multiple countries rather than one and isn't issued by the authority of one particular country.
Moving back to cryptos and currencies, for instance, Investopedia defines currency as
And in this case, Bitcoin falls perfectly into the realm of currencies.

vennali, perhaps there could be some system arranged so that we could make the process of counting easier for you? For instance, we could send screenshots encompassing the outcomes of the bets we've made and the win amounts in private messages or load them somewhere else. Or make some lists of the bets we've made by, say, quoting all the posts with screenshots into one post (so, for instance, I would take my posts with screenshots and make a new unified post that includes info from all of those, thus putting all of my bets in one place)?

Op, look, you must understand that if you're posting this in 2021 and simply claiming that there was this model that predicted the ATHs of Bitcoin starting with the one in 2013, there's no reason for anyone to believe you. It sounds like a typical scam because there's no proof that this data wasn't simply added into this model since it's publicly available. And even if the model came to correct results about the past, it doesn't mean it is useful for the future and that's the only thing that matters.
What you can do to prove that the model works is post predictions for BTC price in a few months, half a year and a year from now, for instance, and in case they all become true with a very high degree of accuracy, there would probably appear people who are interested in the model. And what you've posted so far sounds too inaccurate to even be accepted as a proper verifiable prediction.

It's great that the purpose of the report is to disprove the point about Bitcoin being a tool for illegal activities. I'm glad that the result of this research is that this point is overstated, especially since the guy who did it wasn't initially pro-Bitcoin.
However, I believe that it would also make sense to compare Bitcoin usage to fiat usage when it comes to illegal activities because somehow people don't say that we should strictly regulate the usage of USD because it's used for illegal activities, so some sort of comparison could be useful.

It was mentioned above that Bitcoin is not the sort of crypto you can stake and get profits from this way. And while there can be some websites offering you something for keeping your bitcoins there (as was pointed out by NeuroticFish), I honestly don't think it's worth it. You can risk losing your coins by hodling them on some website for some 5% per year, but does it make sense? Bitcoin cost $7k a year ago, and now it's worth $60k. With such an immense growth, I think these 5 or something percent are useless. After all, the whole deposit thing was made for fiat, and it makes some sense with fiat because it's very stable and slightly decreasing in value. As for Bitcoin, it can grow unimaginably in value, so I think it's more reasonable to just hodl the coins in your personal wallet and wait for the price to grow.

Yes, you are right about that. 21 million coins is not the real amount of coins which can truly be used as many coins were lost and probably won't ever be a part of the ecosystem anymore. However, there's nothing that can be done with it, we'll just have to live with whichever is still accessible. And it's not necessarily a big problem because we can just switch from thinking in Bitcoins to talking about mBTC or Satoshis more as the price grows. However, the fees will become very challenging as more people own smaller bits of BTC and the price gets higher.

Game 1:  10'  2-1 Arsenal
Game 2:  10'  0-1 Leicester City

13)  Robert Whittaker
12)  Jeremy Stephens
11)  Andrei Arlovski
10)  Abdul Razak Alhassan   
9)  Luis Peña
8 )  Bill Algeo
7)  Tracy Cortez
6)  Juan Espino
5)  Lupita Godinez
4)  Bartosz Fabiński
3)  Austin Hubbard
2)  Josiane Nunes
1)  Tony Gravely

85 total strikes

I don't think that the problems mentioned by the op are the biggest ones. It's possible to use Bitcoin in secure ways, and as for privacy concerns, I think that if a person is consistently careful, it's impossible to track the owner down to one's real identity (otherwise there wouldn't have been so many scammers whose identities aren't known).
As for #2, I think that Bitcoin is fungible enough, and via things like auctions from the authorities dirty coins can become clean again.
I believe that the biggest problem with Bitcoin is its scalability. With more people starting using Bitcoin and more transactions in the network, the fees are rising and so does the confirmation time. We need viable solutions soon or Bitcoin will be appropriate only for big purchases.