If we assume that your figures are correct, it is still hard for me to imagine that they would go with such a high consumption only to show in the future that the consumption is even more than x3 less. In global energy consumption, Bitcoin mining is almost unnoticeable even with 180 TWh per year, not to mention only 55 TWh - and I don't understand how those who talk all the time about Bitcoin as something that is destroying our planet are not already destroyed with the facts that are saying the exact opposite?

In addition, with increasingly efficient mining devices and the fact that by the end of the decade, 99% of all Bitcoins will be mined - doesn't that mean that the number of crypto miners will decrease, and with it, energy consumption?

I would not agree that the primary mission is profit, but the preservation of the US $ as the dominant world currency, which is at least one of the constants in all American policies. A country that considers itself the largest democracy, the largest military power and the strongest economy will do everything to keep it that way. I personally think that there will be a much greater chance that firearms will become more difficult to obtain (like, for example, in the EU), than that Bitcoin will ever achieve the status that many dream of in that country.

Moreover, if things ever go seriously downhill, I wouldn't be surprised that it would be precisely because of some very negative decision in the US that will have global consequences.

That's right, all projects now go with the same story - "buy now cheap, profit in 2-3 years", although a good part of these projects will fail by then. Although I can't be sure exactly what the OP means when he mentions investing in cryptocurrencies, but I guess it's not just Bitcoin - we all know that altcoins are especially risky in the long term, especially these new projects that appear like mushrooms after the rain.

---

Do not fool yourself that you can successfully detect when the crypto market will reach the bottom, because it may have already touched it without us being aware of it at the moment. If you don't want to go completely with DCA, maybe it would be best to find a compromise and save part of the money for a possible new bottom, and use part of it to buy every month regardless of the price?

Regardless of which strategy you decide, do not lose sight of the security of what you invest in, which means ensuring safe storage in the form of a cold wallet, or perhaps a hardware wallet.

Futures BTC ETFs have already been approved in the US, but this is something completely different from what companies like Grayscale or VanEck are looking for, which is a spot ETF. The SEC still firmly defends its position and does not approve any request for such an ETF, and this is understandable if we consider that the policy is going in the direction of CBDC and stablecoins, and any approval of such a way of investing in Bitcoin would only give even more legitimacy to BTC, which some obviously want to avoid, or at least to prevent as long as possible.

Given that the scam is not moderated on the forum (which is the source of the problem), I don't see how it would be useful for guests to see the trust score of an individual user, which most people don't even know exists. Flags are still more effective here, although for non-English speaking users such warnings have little or no impact.

The safety of each individual on the forum is a matter of personal responsibility - in other words, if you don't know how to protect yourself, it's only a matter of time if you fall for a public or private scam - because what we see publicly has a much darker side in the background.

I have not read anywhere in the article that anything other than CBDC and stablecoins is explicitly mentioned, so I do not think that Bitcoin could benefit from this. It seems to me that the point of the whole story is that someone agreed that CBDC or digital $ could have a positive impact on the US economy. In other words, let's use what we can have under our control, and try to distract people from what we can't fully control.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I would like you to explain how POW in the context of Bitcoin is destroying the planet we live on? The amount of energy consumed by Bitcoin is less than 200 TWh, which is only 0.1% of the total energy produced annually. If we consider that even 50 000 TWh are lost every year, tell me where you see the problem in all this?


The idea of switching to POS would destroy everything that Bitcoin actually is, but that is obviously also the idea of those who advocate such a change. Take a good look at the picture and tell me you still think POW is a problem for planet Earth?

Nothing strange in the largest communist country in the world that wants to control every individual to the extent that it has already surpassed those from whom they once learned. The system called "one person, one file" has been in force for at least 6 years and is one of the largest mass surveillance projects in the world. The problem is, of course, that such data can leak out at any time - but such a bulky system can never be 100% perfect.

I think that most of the hacks that happened on CEX are actually inside jobs, whether it's the largest number of stolen BTC (Mt.Gox), or QuadrigaCX where the CEO literally gambled away more than $150 million of user funds and then supposedly died, along with dozens of smaller exit scams that included CEX.

Not only are funds on CEX exposed to the risk of internal and external hacking, but they are always at risk of being blocked by the government under any pretext. Some ideas of crypto banks and companies that dealt and still deal with crypto lending are definitely the wrong way in the fight against decentralization.

Ledger or Trezor are not cold wallets, no matter how hard someone tries to give them that feature - because each of these devices must be connected to the Internet in order to install new firmware or coins app on it. Therefore, every crypto wallet that connects to the Internet is not in the category of cold wallets and you should not be deceived about that.

About storing cryptocurrencies on crypto exchanges, thousands of pages of discussion have been spent on this forum alone, and it seems that even more will be spent and some will not understand that it is not only unsafe but also completely wrong if we know that the only correct thing is "not your keys, not your coins".

But again when we think about it, how many people even know what a passphrase is and use that option - whether it's a desktop or a hardware wallet? Even if they know what a passphrase is, do they know that it is not wise to store seed and passphrase together? Therefore, I think that the majority will leave that field empty and that it is not a big problem.

However, users should be informed about the best security practices when using any crypto wallet or backup method, because regardless of how good the tool is, people show that they forget over time like that character who forgot a fairly simple screen pattern and thus locked his crypto wallets.

I will just say that you have very bad judgment in everything you do in life, and considering the development of the events you described, those bad judgments continue even today. If you think that anyone will pay you 12 BTC for a mining pool, then you are obviously living in a big delusion - and even if someone paid you, you would probably find a way to lose it all again.


You see, that's not a crazy move, but the move of a completely frivolous man who doesn't know how to make even the most basic sale - is it that hard to make sure you get paid before you transfer ownership to another person?

You talk about some research and then you don't show any data to support your claim? I think that you just have an overactive imagination and that you pulled those numbers out of a hat, and that your speculation has nothing to do with anything. At the moment the whole world is in, I don't expect the price of Bitcoin to recover to those values even during the next year, let alone by the end of this month.

---

Just like that, a miracle would have to happen for the price to increase over 100% by the end of the month, given that we are in a bear market, with the fact that more and more central banks are sending serious warnings to prepare for a recession in 2023. Even without all of this, Bitcoin would very likely experience a serious correction after the ATH, but the genius from South Korea and various greedy companies like Celsius played their negative role and caused panic among Bitcoin owners.

The fact that someone is asking for a ransom in BTC is the least important in this case - because this is the problem of those who were supposed to protect personal data, and if this is true, they obviously failed.

In addition, although the article claims that it is about the data of Chinese residents, CZ claims that it is about an Asian country, so it is not entirely clear who exactly it is about. Also are the Chinese even allowed to trade on Binance considering CZ claims they are taking measures to protect their customers?

If nothing else, this is good PR for the company, at least judging by the comments I read from delighted users who expressed their satisfaction because they are safe

Seed and passphrase should not be on the same backup anyway, because in my opinion the goal of protection with an additional word is to make seed completely useless in case someone finds it. In my opinion, this field is completely unnecessary and may even lead people in the wrong step.

---

Most plates for backup do not offer the possibility to write the whole word anyway, but the first few letters of the word are enough, which will then be recognized when entering into any good crypto wallet. If you have ever done wallet recovery on a hardware wallet, then you could see that after entering 2-3 letters, the device offers a word - so for 24 words, it took me less than 5 minutes.

There was enough time for POS to prove itself as something better, but I don't see any cryptocurrency using it that is better in any way, especially if we take into account the security provided by POW. People who advocate this transformation are mostly those who believe that Bitcoin consumes too much energy with an emphasis on dirty energy, and actually do not want Bitcoin to become greener, but to gradually destroy it.

I hope that reason will prevail and that this will never happen, because there would be no end to radical changes - I'm sure that after that the max supply change would follow, because there are a lot of people who think that 21 million Bitcoin is not enough for Bitcoin to be successful...

By what miracle do you think that bill would pass? It is a proposal of one person against which the government and the central bank have already publicly expressed their negative opinion - so this is not El Salvador where one man with the majority support of his party in the parliament can pass any law that comes to his mind.

In addition, the example of El Salvador has shown that the unbanked continue to remain unbanked, regardless of which option the state enables them to use. People who live in rural areas, are engaged in agriculture from morning to night and mostly do not have internet, are not interested in Bitcoin.

There is no doubt that the man has a very firm and clear attitude towards what he does (unlike many others), but even though it may seem like the right way to us, he does not invest his money but the money of all his citizens. No matter how much we believe in Bitcoin, we have to admit that he is somehow gambling with money that is not his, and at the same time, he is risking his political career in case anything goes wrong. At the same time, I don't think that only the price is the most important factor, but also the security of the Bitcoin he buys - in case of hacking or some kind of embezzlement, he would quickly turn from hero to tragic.

I think that everything is quite clear for everyone who thinks a little better, as well as that nothing will change because some members of the forum are not satisfied with the way some things are going. The forum is completely private and depends on the decision of one person who obviously has no need to comment on the current situation when it comes to plagiarism. If we are honest, there are much more serious things on the forum that are not moderated, and I would not be surprised if plagiarism becomes one of those things.

The campaign signature rule "5 merits in last 120 days" could be supplemented with the rule "no plagiarism in the last 120 days".

I can't say why the OP behaves that way, but I accepted his challenge in the previous post and let him prove that he can make significant changes in two weeks when it comes to the price of BTC. I'm just interested in what the answer will be in case he doesn't succeed in his plan - maybe the thing is that as many people as possible have to think positively in that direction for something good to happen