I think that to get such popular people to work on the movie, you'd need way more than $12 million unless they feel generous because of caring about the topic (which I don't think is going to happen). That movie Steve Jobs you're referring to cost $30 million, so I guess that's a more realistic budget. Moreover, it's really hard to make a biopic about a person whose identity remains a secret and about whom we have very limited information.
Apart from that, people like this don't work on a story they aren't interested in, and while Steve Jobs is extremely popular and recognized for his achievements, whereas Satoshi is definitely not that popular.

It's not that big of a deal, especially since they didn't even talk about Bitcoin seriously but just got in briefly mentioned in a text message. To be honest, they're a little late with Bitcoin. Mr. Robot has cryptos as one of the central topics of the show; The Big Bang Theory did an episode dedicated to Bitcoin. Big Mouth mentions Bitcoin, and so does Atypical. I mean, it's better late than never, but a brief mention like this is probably something that only Bitcoin users will actually notice and appreciate; it's not much publicity-wise.

How is Chelsea vs West Brom score even possible? The score is 2:5, and there's nobody on the pool who even chose West Brom as a winner of this match at all! How's Chelsea so unfit against a relatively weak team? I mean, I remember someone saying earlier that closer to the end of the seasons the teams which haven't been doing great start to play way stronger, but that's still very unexpected... I hope other games will be more predictable because what's next: Sheffield United winning against Leeds United today?

On the one hand, it's good that retirement funds are buying Bitcoin because it means there's a shift in perception of Bitcoin. As far as I know, retirement funds aren't allowed to invest in anything they feel might be profitable; these investments must be considered low-risk because a lot is at stake here. So if they're starting to invest in Bitcoin, it means they are considering Bitcoin a pretty safe long-term investment. On the other hand, Bitcoin really isn't a safe investment because it's still very volatile, and playing around with something as important as retirement funds sounds very dangerous to me. Then again, if it's just 5%, I think it's a reasonable risk to take.

Wow, this is a very comprehensive table here, thank you for doing this! At first, I didn't notice that there's an option to sort the data here and wanted to suggest it, but it's great that it's already possible to do this. This is a great project to analyze the negative rhetoric around Bitcoin and how the arguments and points change over time.
I think it would also be cool to have some sort of way to work with notable skeptics who talked about Bitcoin on multiple occasions (like Jamie Dimon). Perhaps a separate page for those guys who talked about Bitcoin negatively on multiple occasions or something like this.

Even in 2018 the fee was unacceptable for small transactions like buying a cup of coffee, and now it's even more so. I'm sad that over the years we didn't come up with any new viable ways to make microtransactions realistic. The fee problem is likely to only get worse, and while it would be good if Bitcoin gets more accepted as a way of payment for pricey things (like Tesla allowing to buy cars with Bitcoin), but it would also be great if cryptos became a viable payment solution for day-to-day purchases as well. Otherwise cryptos will function as money only in a very limited way.

I don't like JPMorgan as a greedy privileged institution, and I don't trust their "analysis" and predictions. In 2017, their CEO called Bitcoin 'a fraud' and said that those trading cryptos are stupid. Then in 2019, they made their own centralized "cryptocurrency". Following the bullish trend, they said less than 3 months ago that Bitcoin can reach $650k. Now they're backing off a little and talking about $130k as the op suggests. Their predictions are very different and tend to change pretty fast, and given how just a few months ago the CEO again said Bitcoin wasn't "his cup of tea", I don't trust them at all.

I think there will be a huge correction in the future when the hype settles down a little. Bitcoin makes three steps ahead, but then one or two steps back. I'm fine with such dynamics, and I would honestly be okay to see Bitcoin move down to $20k or something like that. What's important is that Bitcoin remains used and functional, and that it eventually crawls back up no matter how low it falls. Moreover, I believe that the discussions focus too much on the price and too little on important things like Bitcoin adoption, scalability, regulations.

One year is not enough, it's not so simple. If you bought BTC in March 2014 ($600), you'd lose a lot of money in March 2015 ($230) by selling. If you bought in March 2018 ($9k) and sold in March 2019 ($4k), you'd also lose money on this. So while most years it would probably work, there are some when it wouldn't, so it doesn't qualify as good general advice. Even given the short story of Bitcon's existence, you still need to take at least a 3-year span to make sure that it's historically accurate that it would have made a person's investment profitable.

I think that locktime is needed only if a person feels strongly about hodling BTC for a certain period of time but knows that wouldn't be able to resist the temptation to sell. I don't think that this is for me because I'm pretty fine with making decisions and keeping promises I make to myself. So if I decide to hodl, I know that I will. At the same time, not locking the coins allows acting swiftly in case something unpredictable happens (a sudden financial need due to new circumstances, Bitcoin moving down to zero because a truly superior coin gets created, people turning to something new and cryptos becoming pagers). So I think it's better to control oneself and to be able to move the coins when needed.

Op, I've heard of this issue of sponsorship which is not declared properly and fake reactions from the streamers before, and while it might be an immoral strategy, it's just that. It can stop when it stops working, I mean when people are not attracted to a casino this way anymore because they perceive it as a misleading practice and avoid the casino. And, to be honest, I don't know how abundant this practice currently is and how many people actually fall for this. If enough people are not interested in this and are not happy with this marketing strategy, it will go away.

There's no need to be greedy and to focus on what didn't happen. Bitcoin is still here, it's still rising and, more importantly, it still offers to have money and make transactions without the help of a bank and without using a national currency. It also still allows to avoid the inflation which is necessary for fiat to function properly, and allows to have money which cannot be traced back to your real identity if you're being careful. So it remains a great invention of humanity and possibly a good investment opportunity for those willing to take the risk.

I think Ethereum deserves being a #2 crypto because it's a very flexible platform that clearly allows various sorts of projects to be built on it. But its top dominance was in 2017 (31% in June) which was largely driven by ICOs. Other offerings and crypto projects appear from time to time and get some attention, but they aren't getting that much hype, so Ethereum is also not getting that much more dominant. Its dominance rises and falls a bit over the years, but stays between 7% and 20% which I think will continue to be the case in the future.

I think that there are some Defi projects right now which still catch attention of investors, and given the rise of Bitcoin in price, some other coins are getting their cuts of the pie, so to speak. However, I don't believe we're going to see anything like the blooming market of 2017 once again. The reason I believe that the time of Altcoins is over is Bitcoin's share of the total crypto market capitalization. During the prosperous 2017, the share dropped significantly. Right now, the share is still very solid, and it doesn't look like this is going to change. Some altcoins might get overhyped and reach new ATHs, some might even get to the top and get taken seriously. But these will all be exceptions.

I gotta say that it's doing really well. For a currency created long after the altcoin craze of 2017 , it is remarkable that it got noticed and is currently #6, also experiencing the best times so far in terms of the price. I haven't looked into this crypto before, but now that I did, I think it's one of those coins that might gain a lot when it comes to the price, but but a platform that is going to replace Ethereum. I think it can grow 2x-5x in terms of the price, but not higher than 10x because that would mean beating Ethereum by marketcap. I do like it that it's an open-sourced project, and it IS created by a former CTO of Ethereum, so I think it has the chance of becoming #3 (right after Bitcoin and Ethereum). Overall, the team looks solid, the project gets a lot of publicity and the dieas behind it are interesting. So it's the one to follow if not the one to invest in.

Sometimes I've seen people investing in USDT. Lol, I could never understand how someone can invest in a coin which clearly isn't going to rise is price because that's the whole point of its existence.
USDT is dangerous and useless. It's useless because if you want the value to remain more or less the same over time or slightly devalue, why bother using cryptos at all? Just keep everything in USD. It's dangerous because it's actually more risky than just keeping money in USD. The problem is that while at some point USDT team claimed that every coin of theirs was backed by 1 USD thus ensuring the stability, then they admitted that it's not quite like that and that the backup is actually in various assets. The bottomline is that there's a good chance that USDT is way less backed up than to truly ensure $1 per coin, and so in case of some info getting leaked or just some general crypto FUD with people selling the coins rapidly, it would be almost impossible for the team to keep the price stable, and the coin will devalue very fast.

I think that a little over 10% of people in the US who haven't heard of Bitcoin is actually a very good sign. It's all down to the way an event is framed, and Bloomberg is clearly not pro-Bitcoin (just try googling 'bloomberg opinion bitcoin' and see what you get), so they're stressing the minority here. It could be written '90% of people in the US have at least heard of Bitcoin', and while the info is the same, the attitude is very different.
As for 61% of people not understanding how cryptos work, I agree with that's been mentioned by bitmover about people using stuff without understanding it.
And of course the article doesn't mention a bullish thing from the poll results by the same company, namely that 7% of people used their stimulus checks to invest in Bitcoin. Overall, I think the situation is not as bad as the article tries to suggest by phrasing stuff this way and cherry-picking the findings.

This could be an interesting game and attract more participants if it were branded differently. You're asking people to steal the coins, but many probably feel bad about the word 'stealing' and doing anything related to it. Also, it's not great that you're a newbie, so there isn't a good reason to trust you that this thing is legit, especially after and capitalized I controversy. But you could make it a challenge with a 0.002 reward, write some conditions and the description of it as a challenge, not as a post asking people to steal the coins. If there were any way to confirm that the private key thing is legit and solvable (by referring to a trusted forum member to confirm this, for instance), it could make the whole thing pretty popular here on Bitcointalk.

Have you made your picks for Round 30 of the EPL matches? How are you feeling about these games? I chose Arsenal vs Liverpool for a draw, but surely there will be some other match ending with an unexpected draw as well, whereas with Arsenal and Liverpool I'm not so sure that I've made the right choice. I think Southampton vs Burnley can easily end with a draw, but with Southampton's loss to Brighton and Burnley's win in a match with Everton, I decided to go with Burnley winning this one.

With the season getting closer to an end, my goal is to just stay in top-10, even though it won't be easy.

With the EPL back this week, I'm trying my luck betting on their matches.


https://sportsbet.io/sharebetslip/4f7027e1-4665-4b40-b03c-c0a9a33e7cd8
https://sportsbet.io/sharebetslip/04286e0f-0799-4ed3-9b53-9f428b58c745
https://sportsbet.io/sharebetslip/0092ed67-f9be-44b5-9887-0c532b830c03
https://sportsbet.io/sharebetslip/9ed6a096-2077-436f-bcbc-8d03b2234b77
https://sportsbet.io/sharebetslip/2e156705-f717-4879-b924-1b9d76dd6ece