Those are valid questions, or so they appear to me. By simply raising those questions, you must already be provoking reasonable doubt among a lot of people. At the end of the day, the question is yours to answer, will you, then, get into Bitcoin or not? If you say you will, then welcome and be aware that there are existing risks in the world of Bitcoin, as there are in fiat. If you say you don't, then you are completely free to do so, which you simply cannot do with fiat.

Yes, there must be a hole, or even holes, somewhere, but if the bad guy can find it, the good guy also can. In terms of security, it is always a race between the good guy and the bad guy.


I simply don't subscribe to this.


"then this world would be a gasser."- Louis Armstrong to you.


Whatever hackers use doesn't matter. The point is that stealing applies to both of them.


You can if you really want to.


To a certain extent, it is a myth that Bitcoin cannot be seized or confiscated or recovered.

First and foremost, they've made quite a chart right there. I don't think I have encountered a chart like that before. Does it even have a name yet? Well, they somehow called it "the changing narratives chart." That's indeed cool. And even cooler is the fact that they came up with it "through an analysis of BitcoinTalk posts." This forum's still a relevant gauge in terms of views and sentiments. As opposed to Bitcoin Twitter, for example, there's obviously a lot more open-mindedness here.

Anyway, I cannot seem to find a totally new narrative other than the ones already mentioned. You made mention of inflation hedge as a new tide. Can it be that it is actually within the e-gold narrative? I mean, a lot of investors are getting into gold or diversifying into it primarily because they want to avoid various risks associated with other investments, or because sitting on a lot of cash, which is by nature depreciating, is unsound.

What I probably want to add separately is the narrative that Bitcoin is a plain investment opportunity, one which makes more money to investors than any other. I don't think it could be placed under uncorrelated financial asset basically because Bitcoin's correlation to traditional market has gone higher very recently. Obviously, as indicated by the chart below, we've gone past negative to low correlation.^[1] While the entry of institutional investors are highly lauded, I'm still very much convinced that they are here primarily for the money, that their computation and prediction of Bitcoin's future price is the main, if not only, reason why they are here. And they could easily let go of their Bitcoin as easily as they got it.



[1] https://www.etftrends.com/tactical-allocation-channel/bitcoins-correlation-to-markets-hits-a-record-in-2020/

Yeah, of course, being practical counts. I admire you for that.

Putting your money in a single basket is more discouraged by investors than encouraged. Also, I don't think "HODL AT ALL COSTS" is admirable. It is not that amazing. It is myopic. If you hodled Bitcoin through the worst of times, that's of course one thing you should be proud of, but if you are all in and you are into hodling no matter what happens, I don't think you are acting wisely.

An exact fight date and a site in a signed contract would finally seal this match. I hope this happens sooner than later.

Anyway, voted for Fury as well for both matches. Furthermore, I agree, no more trilogy on this one. My vote for the rematch will definitely factor in the result of the first match, but for now my bet goes to Fury. I haven't seen the man dismantled inside the ring. As for Joshua, it has already been revealed.

I just wish a large lively crowd would be allowed entry. A Fury fight is a lot more entertaining and fun when there's a live audience.

I am usually a lone bettor. But I've had my fair share of betting competitions before. Right now, I'm completely satisfied with a small bet placed every once in a while. No pressure betting, in other words.

If I'm not mistaken, the last time I joined a betting competition was when Sportsbet offered a price to the top 10 users who had the longest consecutive wins. That was weekly. I landed on the top 10 for the first few days but then I always fell as the week wraps up. There was pressure and I ended up betting more than I normally do at that time.

There are a lot of them actually.

Here's from CyberBTC:



Here's one from Magnatus:



Here's from MyCryptoMarket:



A few from ExchangeX:



Basically, these are all negative reviews. That, we cannot deny. However, I now understand that if you drop a feedback, you should specify whether it is positive or a complaint. If you just drop a negative review by way of a comment, which is unclassified as a complaint, it wouldn't appear as a red. It's just a neutral one.


Thanks for pointing this out. Yeah, the more popular ones are usually at the bottom and have 0 positive reviews.


They're all there; Bitfinex, Bitstamp, OkCoin, Gemini, CoinBase, Binance, and so on, although not popular.

Just as I thought. But I asked the question nevertheless just to confirm, and because I noticed that there were negative reviews on certain exchangers and yet they've always got 0 under their negative reviews. I even read a few which cried of scam and the like but still it's always 0 over a certain number of positive reviews, some even reaching hundreds. As a matter of fact, I cannot see even a single exchanger which has a negative review. All of them got 0.

I also noticed that there are obviously fake reviews. Apparently, many of those one-liner reviews are fake. But I wonder, does BestChange screen or moderate reviews of their listed exchangers? I doubt they do.

However, the default ranking shown on the site does not tell us anything about the quality of the exchange, right? The rank is according to rates. Those which offer the best ones are on the top.

Anyway, what do the numbers under reviews signify? For example, 0/113. 113 is the number of reviews, right? I suppose the 0 refers to negative reviews? Am I right?

I think it's not really a regular policy among signature campaigns in the services section. Perhaps you're just a little generalizing because Stake, your current campaign, does not count posts under Beginners & Help.

I took a quick search on the policies of the current, some of them oldest but still running, signature campaigns and they're not really excluding posts made on Beginners & Help.

• BestChange: B&H posts accepted
• Playbetr: B&H posts accepted
• FreeBitco.in: B&H posts accepted
• Betcoin.ag: B&H posts accepted
• MyCryptoMixer.com: B&H posts accepted
• Bitvest: B&H posts accepted
• ChipMixer: B&H posts accepted
• Bustadice: B&H posts not accepted
• 777Coin: B&H posts accepted
• Roobet.com: B&H posts accepted
• SmartCredit.io: B&H posts accepted

That's 10:1.

The recently-closed YOLOdice also accepted B&H posts.

I'd say this strategy must be effective. But I never played very serious poker so I've never been technical in playing. However, I almost always risk even the worst of my hole cards at least up to the flop. Sometimes, what seems to be the worst hole cards end up making the best hand. But, again, this must be a poor approach as far as serious poker games are concerned.

But I guess strictly sticking to this strategy is really boring and creates a predictable pattern. So a shift of strategy every now and then is both fun and effective.

Elon is just acting like a normal person, making tweets. There's probably nothing special about this tweet. But if we treat Elon as a sort of a guru, prophet, demi-god, and so on, which he is obviously not, then we will give too much meaning in everything that he does. He might fart one day, announce it on Twitter, and people would begin to interpret it as some sort of a symbol or sign or a hint of something about to happen.


And how would we know that this particular tweet has affected the price of Bitcoin? If the price falls, is it due to Elon's tweet? If it rises, does it mean the tweet has something to do with it? More often than not, it's just a matter of subjective interpretation.

But could such malware enter Ledger Live, for example, and tamper a particular transaction you are about to confirm? I used to experience pasting an address but the one that would appear is different from the one I copied. I almost confirmed it before I noticed it looked different. That was a long time ago and it wasn't a Ledger transaction.

Anyway, is it possible that the address that appears on Ledger Live as well as on the hardware itself are exactly the same address but one which did not come from you?

Thanks for the response, by the way. Apologies, OP, for hijacking your thread. I'm out.

I don't think they'd be gone soon. So far, their numbers are still increasing.

I quite agree that Bitcoin/crypto ATMs are cool. Surely, they're there for certain reasons beyond their practical purpose. A Bitcoin/crypto ATM could, for example, probably act as a proof or testament that Bitcoin/crypto is indeed legit, that it's actually in the open and not some mysterious and clandestine form of cult money, or that it's not just some Ponzi, deep web or criminal money, investment scam, and so on they've heard or read somewhere.

They also serve as a sort of a marketing for Bitcoin/crypto. And I guess they're effective to a certain extent. They probably make people encounter Bitcoin for the first time and, better, get curious about it.

There was what was called Psyche 16, an asteroid believed to contain "enough gold to make everyone on Earth a billionaire." Three things, though:

1. It has already been discovered in the mid 1800's. No mining ever took place since then.
2. Very costly future explorations are planned mainly for scientific research rather than mining or financial exploration.
3. If, after several decades, gold mining will commence far away from earth, the production cost would be very high, which gives us an idea that the venturing company wouldn't be pricing their proceeds very cheap. They'd be extra careful not to cause the gold market to plunge into worthlessness or else...

However, the most important point is that despite the idea of space or asteroid mining becoming a sort of a craze and has even caused a certain race in the field, it is probably mostly just talks, not even cost-benefit or profit-oriented financial talks but ones which involve fundamental mathematical formula on how it is even made possible.

Anyway, just saying asteroid mining is still a remote possibility that won't devalue earth's gold, at least not in the next century.

---

[1] https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/9378480/giant-golden-asteroid-psyche-61-billionaire-nasa-2022/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining
[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-12-21/space-mining-on-asteroids-is-never-going-to-happen

I'm a bit troubled by this. I wonder how the actual stealing took place. Hopefully, it doesn't have anything to do with the hardware itself. But I really am very curious how everything transpired.

On a side note, I understand that a hardware wallet if fully air-gapped is secured, but I'm now wondering, does plugging your hardware wallet to your online PC or laptop necessarily pose a risk of whatever degree to your funds? That is, even if you are only operating on your Ledger Live, for example, for the entire duration?


How was this information obtained? I mean that the boxes are not sealed anymore.

As far as being a long-term store of value is concerned, gold is still dependable. Within such context, I think "Just buy gold, you'll be safe" is still true. If you have an immense amount of wealth and you want to keep it in such a way that its value is well-preserved for your great great grandchildren, I guess gold is the perfect choice. Of course, only if certain conditions are met like it is well-secured, proven to be genuine, and so on.

Anyway, this news reminded me of the gold scandal less than a year ago. $36 million in copper proves too small to the $2 billion loan availed by one of the largest gold jewelry manufacturers in China. Kingold Jewelry Inc. used 83 tons of fake gold as collateral.^[1]

On the basis of Bitcoin being easily verifiable, easily stored, easily transferred, resistant to counterfeiting, and so on, Bitcoin is far better than precious metals. But as a long-term SOV covering generations after generations, I think gold is reliable.

[1] https://news.bitcoin.com/gold-industry-83-tons-fake-gold-bars-secure-2-billion-loans-china/

There obviously is although probably not as strong as the competition between certain fiat currencies. And it reverberates in the strong demand for businesses to accept Bitcoin payment, in the continuous development toward reducing fees and confirmation time, even in the repulsion of certain governments' declaration that Bitcoin is illegal, and so on on.

But I agree that there's a very limited number of people who are using Bitcoin as a currency. However, it is not because it is not designed to be so but because of certain hindrances, which are not all unpleasant since one of the primary reasons why Bitcoin is not spent is that its price is fast appreciating. Nevertheless, Satoshi designed it to be a cash system, so I guess it was meant to be used as digital money.

First and foremost, the change is not necessarily systemic. It's just form which is changing. The central bankers are still there holding the most powerful positions in terms of money generation and issuance. There might not anymore be printing of money out of thin air, but it is only because printing is already replaced with minting.

And, yes, crypto exchanges won't have other choice but to accept them because they want to offer fiat pairs one way or another.


They won't stop CBDC from reaching the market. CBDC is the default money, the one used by the state and the population. How could they even stop that?


Nothing much. Again, there is nothing essential in the shift from the old form of fiat to digital fiat.


CBDC is the legal tender. You may not prefer to have your savings in the form of CBDC but everybody has the reason to have a certain amount of it.

I think Bitcoin is not actually involved in the currency war that you are talking about.

There are two currency wars right now. There is that fiat currency war in which the Renminbi is trying to take the global spot of the USD, the Pound Sterling trying to rise and rise against the Euro, and so on and so forth. There is also that currency war in which cryptocurrencies which is, of course, represented by Bitcoin taking up fiat currency as one.

The former, Bitcoin cares not. As regards the latter, everybody knows fiat is a huge underdog.

I didn't finish watching the video. The title seems to be a clickbait. It wasn't delivered as a legitimate news either. The broadcaster himself hadn't have much to say, much less sufficient information, to support the weight or the impact of the title. He only had something to say like the channel is demonetized, accepting donation in Bitcoin, and so on.

Furthermore, I don't think this news is reflective of what is truly happening. This is pure exaggeration. I don't even think China is feeling a bit threatened by Bitcoin. If she were, she could have declared once and for all that doing anything related to Bitcoin in the country should perish in 24 hours. China is unimaginably powerful, especially within her land. I haven't heard of Bitcoin miners scampering away looking for another place outside China to continue their business.