In this worst case scenario you already lost, because you will give up your coins when your life will be threatened. The only protection from these situations is to never get into them in the first place.

Protecting your all Bitcoin savings with a fingerprint or face id is stupid, but using it for a small wallet for daily spendings is totally acceptable. And the biggest threat to mobile wallets is malware, so it's best to focus on never getting it on your device.

I doubt that machine learning would would work better than traditional methods. Like, you might be able to find a darknet service wallet by noticing that a large percentage of incoming and outgoing transactions are passing through mixers. You don't need AI to do this. Also AI might fail at the task on un-mixing, because it's too complicated and too difficult to train the model when there's not a lot of good data.

It's possible that AI will eventually be used in some aspects of Bitcoin, but don't expect some technological singularity from the combination of two - AI is just a tool for working with data. Chances are the application of AI in Bitcoin will be something very boring for most users.

Who cares? Do you care about someone owning a lot of USD or any other currency? Then why should you care about someone owning a lot of BTC? Or better say "controlling", because someone could be holding those coins on behalf of many users, like in case with an exchange or an ETF.

There's no such thing as excessive security, there's only bad security setups. Encrypting something many times won't multiply your total security, but it will multiply your chance of loss, so it's a net negative for security. A good security setup must have redundancy, so if one of the elements fails, it should still be possible to access funds. Storing seed on just one piece of paper in one place is bad, because if something happens to that paper, the coins might be gone. But storing 3 copies in 3 different places is better, because it's unlikely that all will fail in short time.

Governments shutting down mining when it starts to threaten the stability of the energy grid is nothing new, it happened many times before in other countries.


This has nothing to do with communism, there are few if any countries on this planet that would allow a private business to take electric power for themselves at the expense of the population. People hate blackouts and they would easily overthrow a government, even an authoritarian one, if it can't guarantee them the most basic living conditions.

Institutional influence is not a separate type of force. There's only two types - speculation and adoption. If someone buys with a goal of selling later, they are speculating. If someone buys and plans to pay with Bitcoin, they are adopter. Institutions are most likely speculators - they will dump Bitcoin when the price goes high. Tesla already did that. Microstrategy says they are maximalists, but only time will tell if they actually want to use Bitcoin, or if they wait for opportunity to dump it.

If majority of the market is speculators, then it explains why the price is so volatile, and it means a bleak future for Bitcoin - eventually speculators will move on to a new asset and Bitcoin will crash.

When a user opens an account, they enter a user agreement. If the user agreement says that the service can freeze the account and seize funds, then there's no violation of law. If the rules don't mention such cases, then the users should be able to take their money. But most of the time the rules are very detailed and cover all potential cases.

People need to read what they sign.

Has there been any cases of someone getting convicted with Chainanalysis being the only evidence? Because I think Chainanalysis mostly only helps law enforcement to reinforce the case and lead to stronger evidence, like the illegal goods, laundered money etc.


Private entities have right to reject their customers for whatever reason they want, including Chainanalysis saying that the coins are dirty. That's how capitalism works. You can try to change their mind and tell them how its unscientific, but in the end it's their decision, and you have a freedom to be or not to be their customer.

That's not a lot, it's actually surprisingly low. 14B is less than 3% of total supply. And they control it but don't own it, since it belongs to their customers. Even if you add Microstrategy, Coinbase and other giants, it seems that the majority of all coins is held in private wallets, as they should be.

Even if you firmly believe that you can't change their mind, you still should warn them, so that in the future they would be more likely to listen to your advice. If you stay silent now and let them do the mistake, you won't be able to say them "I told you so" later. Also, you never know if they will listen to your arguments or not until you try, and trying to persuade them costs you nothing, so why not do it? I fail to see any downsides.

What value stablecoins settle? Go to any supermarket in the world and you'll see people paying with Visa or Mastecard every single minute. But where are the stablecoin payments?  I never encountered a business, even a small one, that accepts stablecoins.

My guess is that most of the activity on stablecoin network is speculative trading, especially by bots. If someone shut down stablecoins tomorrow, the world wouldn't notice. If someone shut down Visa tomorrow, that would be Armageddon.

Bull and  bear markets are not relative to your entry price, they are macro trends. Bear markets have periods of price growth, bull markets have periods of price fall. The price never moves in one direction only, there are corrections. We are still in bear market, and we can only proclaim the bear market over when the price will demonstrate big growth for a long period of time. Going from $16k to $30k is not that, it was merely a correction of the oversold levels.

The government, especially as tyrannical as the Chinese one, will find a way how to bring Biticoin activity to the minimum if millions of people will start using it in a way they don't like. They will tighten the financial monitoring of bank accounts and make banks investigate the source of incoming large transactions of their clients. So selling Bitcoin online would become quite hard. And they can go after physical bitcoin to cash exchangers by raiding them with police. It won't stop 100% of Bitcoin use, by likely over 90% of people would reconsider using Bitcoin.

You're saying that if 99% of population converted to Bitcoin believers, the price would explode, but that's a very big if. These days most people who are not too young or too old are aware of Bitcoin. They know that it's some digital currency that goes up and down. And they are not interested. They are satisfied with fiat currency.

So while there's a lot of potential for Bitcoin, that potential is not realistic. Adoption is stagnating, Bitcoin is not getting used increasingly more as a currency. The on-chain activity of less than 1 million transactions per day is laughably small compared to transaction volumes of fiat currency.

Inflation of fiat currency affects stablecoins as much as it affects money saved in a bank. My bank offers 2% per year for USD deposits, and with USDT you get nothing. Stablecoins are all centralized, so I'd rather store fiat currency in a bank than in a stablecoin - banks are regulated by the government, they can't as easily take money and run as crypto companies.

The best strategy is to diversify your fiat holdings. Use USD and EUR and maybe a few other strong currencies, have both cash and a bank account. Maybe some small amount of USDT as a backup. Have accounts in a few different banks.

1. The top is lower than the target price typically voiced by people. Last time it was $100k, in 2017 people thought that $20k is only the beginning

2. The top is very short-lived, it only lasts for a few hours or a day.

3. The market moves in large steps, be it up or down. It's not going to move gradually, so you need to be ready to react fast.

4. Every sudden price can be the final act of the bull run after which will come the big crash and bear market. But it's impossible to tell a correction from a crash until weeks or months after. In the last market the price crashed from $60k to $30k, which seemed like the end of the bull run, but then it rose back to above $60k, but it didn't last long and the final crash came.

Bitcoin is a peer to peer network. Typically its channel of communication is the Internet, but it's not limited to it. There's a satellite that broadcasts blocks, and it's possible to send transactions via mesh networks, so combining these two methods together you can use Bitcoin without the Internet, just with some equipment. Here's an article about it

IMO even doubling the last bull market peak, also known as the ATH, is too ambitious. Over 93% of coins are already mined, it's about time for the market to stop caring about halvenings. I think it will peak at slightly above $100K for a small period, and there will be a lot of profit taking during this psychological barrier. And in the next bull run the price might even fall below $70K, because we already have a precedent of the price falling below the previous peak, when it crashed to $16K and $20K (2017 ATH) failed to act as support.

Well, the smallest unit is 1 / 100 000 000, although Lightning Network allows even smaller fractions. But still, $50k USD for 1 satoshi would mean that 1 BTC is worth some astronomic amount of value, probably larger than the whole global wealth. And there's 21 million bitcoins. So it's highly unlikely that Bitcoin subunits will ever be too large for representing value. That's even without Lightning Network.

Crypto websites need to create content daily, so they always take the recent price movements, even tiny ones, and tie them to some unrelated events. I sincerely doubt that any Bitcoin traders look and Nvidia chart, think "this is good for Bitcoin" and buy more BTC. Even macrieconomic news might not always move Bitcoin. And also any Bitcoin movements can be quickly reversed. So trading based on these "fundamentals" is not much better than TA.