Here's an even better advice - don't trade crypto at all. The altcoin market is full of scams and heavily manipulated coins, and unlike penny stocks, there's no fundamentals here at all, so you can't make any educated decisions. Investing in altcoins these days is more like HYIPs - everyone knows it's a scam, people just hope to profit by entering early and exiting before it all crashes.
Just hodl Bitcoin, don't be greedy trying to get rich quick, Bitcoin already has higher returns than traditional assets.
|
|
|
Why are you fixated on blockchain/crypto? It's not some sort of new frontier with countless opportunities, in fact there's very little activity going on, and to make the sort of income that you want you need to be a highly skilled professional - a designer, a programmer, community manager, etc. If you could make $100/day by just flipping currency or trading, everyone would be doing that.
There were times when you could get paid $50-300 per bounty on this forum, and payments were made in hard currency like BTC or ETH, but those days are long gone and they will not come back. There's no easy money in crypto.
|
|
|
Electrions are coming soon and Trump really doesn't want to have them during a deep recession and unemployment crisis. There probably will be some attempts to cover up the coronavirus death toll in the US to make it look like things are under control.
My country recently stopped our quarantine, and a week after that new cases and deaths are at all time high, and it's quite worrying. The same might happen with the US.
|
|
|
1. Learning Bitcoin
Ok, learning is always important. 2. Buying Bitcoin
You don't need to constantly buy Bitcoin to be a Bitcoiner, just owning Bitcoin is enough, no matter how much. There's no need to compare yourself to others, and it's important to be responsible with your finances and not take unnecessary risks. 3. Hodling Bitcoin
Holding Bitcoin is not an activity. 4. Democratizing Bitcoin
What does this even mean? 0/10 shitpost
|
|
|
Maybe it would move the price by a few dollars if there are bots that are monitoring these whale alerts or traders who do so, but generally most people understand that it isn't reliable, just because coins are moved doesn't mean they will be dumped, and because it can be potentially used to manipulate the market on a small scale, traders are even less inclined to pay attention to them.
|
|
|
How can people be so dumb with such a simple rule: "keep your keys offline!"
Because people never encounter anything like that with other software, generally using a computer or a smartphone is very forgiving, and mistakes can be undone. Even if someone gets their accounts hacked, they manage to restore access and carry on as usual. Crypto is like a hardcore mode in videogames - one mistake and it's over. We need to make newbies more aware of the dangers of managing your own keys, wallets should make warning in big scary letters to not tell anyone your seed and private key, articles that promote crypto should always warn about the security side of it and so on. I personally always tell people that owning crypto is not so easy, that you need to learn protect yourself from malware, phishing, fake wallets before you can start investing in it.
|
|
|
If Bitcoin is old tech, hard to scale, and runs on a bloated network, why don't we turn our focus to another cryptocurrency which solves these challenges? Is Bitcoin just enjoying the benefits of the first? How long would this be?
Because there is not a single coins that actually solves this problem. There are coins that claim to have zero fees, thousands of transactions per second, lightweight blockchains and so on, but it all comes at the price of decentralization - you can't run your own node or it's extremely prohibitive, so you can't verify the blockchain on your own and have to trust others. This is more like a bank than cryptocurrency, and if you're going to use something centralized, it's better to pick an actual bank that might be held accountable, over a coin that can scam you any minute.
|
|
|
Good luck achieving consensus to increase the BTC supply. Likely impossible. It's the single most inviolable principle BTC holders have. The more years that go by, the more entrenched and difficult to change the protocol becomes.
Bitcoin's supply rule doesn't affect it's functionality in any way, so unlike other parameters, it can be easily changed theoretically. I wouldn't be so sure that the users wouldn't want it, public opinions do change over long periods of time. Like gold, BTC's network effect is built upon its monetary properties. It wasn't designed to be a global reserve currency. If we start destroying its monetary integrity to make it one, it will likely lose its network effect.
Satoshi wanted it to become a global currency, he named it "a peer-to-peer electronic cash", not "digital gold". He believed that deflation is not a problem from a monetary point of view. You could say that Satoshi was wrong here, but you can't say that it wasn't designed to be a currency.
|
|
|
Without valid signatures it's just another load of CWS' bullshit.
I have a feeling that the more forgeries and lying to the court he commits, the higher the chances of him getting punished. I imagine the judges would be quite annoyed if they would understand that CWS just uses this case to promote his asset.
|
|
|
We are all in the miners’ pockets; they just want to make the community believe in the opposite.
We run full nodes, if they try to change the rules, their blocks become invalid and they are no longer mining Bitcoin, instead they are mining a shitcoin with zero users. You could say that "but then there's no new blocks in Bitcoin", but guess what, us users can wait for a long time, most people are hodling anyway and do transactions maybe a few times per month or less. But miners are losing a ton of money for every second that they spend their electricity on mining this hypotethical shitcoin. Which is why they could never strongarm the Bitcoin community, and will never be able to.
|
|
|
I never told anyone about how many coins I have, but still I regret telling my relatives that I was involved with Bitcoin, because now they assume that I'm some sort of millionaire. And words travel far, they swear they didn't tell anyone, but I don't trust them.
People here often encourage others to spread the word about Bitcoin, get their friends on board, basically be an evangelist, but they don't think about how it will make you look in the eyes of others - when the price rises, every earlier hodler is viewed as a richman. So, not only be careful about telling how much crypto you have, also be careful about talking about crypto in general.
|
|
|
But you can get a good gauge at the current sentiments of crypto traders on this issue/accusations against Coinbase. I don't know if there are services that track Coinbase or any other exchanges wallet.
To the OP, it will be good if you can add a poll and see what the feeling of this community as well and see if there are "bias" as well.
It's not good at all, you're selecting from subscribers of a twitter account, so these users are more likely to share the same views as the author of the poll, in this case opposing Coinbase. If you made a random selection of Coinbase users, it might have shown a different picture. Lots of users just use Coinbase as their wallet and don't participate in the Bitcoin community, and if they are a big part of Coinbase users, then they could be operating even if some customers will leave.
|
|
|
2) Bitcoin is totally controlled by major miners. Despite the delusion that the community can influence the path of development, in practice miners can do whatever they want at their sole discretion. For that reason, it is miners who decide what is needed and what is not, but not us.
In addition, I would like to say that the issuance model is one of the core ideas of Bitcoin and changing it would stop Bitcoin beeing itself. It has already transformed into a hedging asset and if another coin gains popularity as a medium of exchange, it has nothing to do with Bitcoin: it will still occupy the same niche and no competition will emerge.
Do you know the history about the SegWit2x and other Bitcoin fork attempts? They were backed by majority of miners, SegWit2x was signaled by 90+% of hashpower, and it still failed because community rejected it. Your point 2) even contradicts your point 1), because if it was only for miners, we'd have bigger blocks. Things change, Bitcoin community wanted Bitcoin to be a currency that will replace fiat, now it's a hedge (a poor one on practice), maybe in the future people will again want it to become a currency. It's still only 10 years old, maybe Bitcoin of the future will, for better or worse, be totally different from what it is now.
|
|
|
1. You call it "business", but it actually sounds more like charity, so which is it?
2. Your token has no utility, it's a share in your hypothetical company, but it's unclear how would it generate profit for investors? And what are the guarantees that it will be distributed?
3. Your token will be an unregulated security, which will attract the attention of the SEC.
4. No one is going to give 1mil to some anonymous guy's ICO these days.
5. There's no hunger problem in America, no one starves to death, the existing solutions work just fine.
|
|
|
A recent Tweet by Samson Mow (@Excellion) suggested that Coinbase isn’t a safe place to store Bitcoin. Specifically, Mow suggested that the company would be the first to comply with a 1933-style confiscation demand by the federal government. I think Coinbase is no longer a good place to hold bitcoin.
Coinbase or any other exchange was never a good place to store coins. All these hacks, all these account freezes, KYC crap, SegWit2x and other shitcoin bullshit, humongous fees that far exceed the network fees - just some of the reasons why it's dumb to store coins there. People who do so are just noobs who don't know that wallets exist, or don't bother to learn more. There's one Twitter poll by crypto analyst/trader John Roger about this issue:
Twitter polls have little to do with reality because of the huge bias that they have - it's better to look at Coinbase wallets and see if they grow thinner or no.
|
|
|
TL;DR.
I am just responding based on the subject of this thread. I guess that pretty much sums up everything there is in the OP.
Anyway, there will be 21,000,000 in BTC in totality. Right now, there are around 18,400,831 BTC in circulation. In every Bitcoin, there are 1,000 milliBitcoins (mBTC). If that is not enough, there are also 1,000,000 microBitcoins (μBTC) per Bitcoin. And if scarcity is still a problem with those figures, there are 100,000,000 Satoshis in every single Bitcoin.
Try to multiply 18,400,831 (current circulating BTC supply) with 100,000,000 (Satoshis per BTC). That is what we have right now. I don't know how much that is; my calculator here cannot even tell. Now, tell me, are we having scarce supply?
Why not just read the Conclusion part? OP is not talking about a potential shortage of units, he's talking about the deflationary nature of Bitcoin, and what would happen if it was adopted as the dominant global currency. Answering to OP, limited supply is a config choice and not a necessary part of the protocol, so Bitcoin could theoretically change it if it was needed. Especially if a competing coin with unlimited supply would start gaining ground because of this feature. But it's all just a theory, we're indeed lightyears away from discussing the influence of Bitcoin on global economy.
|
|
|
I've read about this on another newspaper this morning and I think that it could be a great advertising if used properly: although Bill Gates came out in the past with anti-Bitcoin speech, now Microsoft trusts it enough to use its blockchain. (And yes, I know, they've said it in the past too, cryptocurrency is not blockchain and they do like the blockchain tech).
Bill Gates isn't involved with Microsoft much these days, he's just a major shareholder now. And even if he criticized Bitcoin in the past, he isn't a raging nocoiner/buttcoiner who devotes too much time to fightning Bitcoin. Maybe he doesn't even know that Microsoft released this product, or simple doesn't care. As for the tool itself, if the concerns of privacy advocates are real, then it's really not something we should cheer for, just because it uses Bitcoin.
|
|
|
Russia makes a non-statement about Bitcoin yet again. At this point it's not even worth reporting it, since no actual changes are being made. And on top of that, Russia isn't economically important to crypto, it doesn't have much crypto businesses and people don't own much crypto compared to westerners. Even if Russia will ban Bitcoin, it's no big deal.
|
|
|
1. They are costly if you are paid Bitcoin as a bounty hunter or for a gig you cannot afford it. False. They are not costly. Those devices are being sold for less than 50usd, and you can get promotions like 50% off everytime (like 30usd) If you can't get at least 30 usd as a bounty hunter you are certainly doing something wrong and should change your profession. This is the only point that is somewhat defendable, so if we imagine a very broke bounty hunter who doesn't hold more than $50 in crypto at any given time, then investing in hardware wallet would really be too costly for them, especially if they have a smartphone. For beginners mobile wallets are better than desktop wallets, since mobile security is a little bit better than security of Windows. And advanced users can make their own cold storage with any old computer.
|
|
|
|