As much as this is true, feel safer != safer. I get that a lot of people would prefer to use centralized services for peace of mind/convenience, but that's exactly what these kinds of posts advocate against. These third parties are taking over the responsibility of taking care of your coins for you, yes, but in the event that you lose your coins, you'll find that most of them would say that it's not their responsibility. If they're not going to do anything in case of losses, and they're the least secure of all safekeeping options, what's the point?

Not everyone wants to be their own bank, but not many of them know that it's easy. People can do whatever they want at the end of the day, but I feel that it's important for them to know the implications of their actions.

Lol this is never going to happen (for this reason anyway) because Satoshi has already publicly acknowledged the issue:


And there's also the confirmed reason behind .org.

Wait, really? Doesn't it only keep your private keys in special storage? If so, that means they're still going to be exposed online when signing transactions unlike traditional hardware wallets.

I guess it really is a hardware wallet though, strictly speaking; just not a cold one. It's still better than nothing though, I suppose.

I feel like it's a matter of when rather than if at this point. It's not soon though, and with all the attention and analyses going into it, it might even be prevented.


Alternative to what? It has to be noted that we haven't seen how Bitcoin reacts to an economic crisis on a macro level yet.

Lmao. Could that be the reason why he changed his mind?


Do the fintech companies Buffett's company invested in have anything to do with crypto at all? That deal happened last year and he denounced Bitcoin again recently. There hasn't been any indication that he's changed his mind about crypto. Not that it matters to us of course.

Um, what? Blockchains have number 1 and number 2 by default. If not, then they're not really blockchains, or at least not the ones that we have now.

What are cash units, even? Are you saying that the blockchain is bigger than Bitcoin, but that they need to be used in a monetary way and are otherwise useless?

There certainly is a relationship between size and volatility, but it's not like larger markets couldn't be volatile or small markets stable. Binance could be fielding much larger transactions (could be an effect of using USDT instead of actual USD, idk, might be a reach), which could cause more volatility relative to some counterparts. And it's not like Coinbase is tiny either.

Or at least that's what I was trying to say when I said Binance had more trading volume. I'm really just guessing as to why because there doesn't seem to be an obvious reason lol.

They could use both, and in some cases, ditch one for another. I don't think LN's goal is to replace Visa per se, but to be a better, or at least a workable alternative. That drives adoption.

If what you are saying is absolutely true, then Bitcoin is basically locked to enthusiasts and all we're doing is playing in a sandbox.

I don't think blacklisting coins is as straightforward as that. Blockchain analytics probably actually help in this area by verifying the source and the fact that you had nothing to do with them. That's just how I think it would work though, as I think the prospect of tainted coins not being accepted anywhere (or being seized just because) is quite ridiculous. It could be argued though, that even the slight possibility of that happening could put a premium on fresh coins, so I get where you're coming from.

People really should keep their coins off centralized services though, as this prevents any future complications.

Some people don't seem to get the context behind this (this has nothing to do with privacy or whatever), so here's a quick overview:

https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-delete-coinbase-neutrino-crypto

As for my own views, I think consumers exercising their right to boycott is a good thing for the market. If movements like this get enough traction, other companies may think twice about pulling off sleazy business decisions. Fire away with those hashtags!

I personally disagree with their acquisition, but I don't use Coinbase and had no plans at all to use them in the future anyway, so it doesn't concern me too much.

This is good, and it certainly legitimizes crypto more than any ad or TV show that people seem to be very excited about. It also signifies that there is good demand for such services for large auditing firms to step in and get involved. If nothing else, this helps crypto users avoid potential headaches lol.

Yeah, I wasn't even talking about any of that. What I want is for the data to be publicly view-able a la Bitcoin. This way, everyone knows where their taxes are going, and they could even keep copies to make sure it's not altered on a later date.

Well if we're being honest, stuff like this don't necessarily mean it's not a trend anymore, just that some crypto companies are already big enough to pay for high value sponsorships. This coin in particular hasn't even been around for a whole year; who's to say it's still going to exist next year?

I personally dislike that crypto is being marketed for investment, but different strokes for different folks. Some exposure is nice I suppose.

Yeah, you must have misunderstood me. I meant to say that I couldn't see any connection between the fact that they control Tether and the more volatile than usual market. I was mostly taking a dig at people who point to Tether anytime it could be remotely related lol.

It's pretty cool how open they are to the idea, but it's kind of disappointing that they didn't describe the system to be transparent. I get that it could be cheaper and easier to maintain, but shouldn't it also be open to the public? The original blockchain was certainly designed to be that way.

As things currently stand, governments are going to be using tools that stand for freedom to be able to steal more efficiently lmao.

Wait what? It is possible lmao. It's actually projected to happen around year 2140. You might want to do more reading on the subject.


I agree that it's incredibly unlikely, but $19k is far from the moon people are expecting lol. I do get your point though, that even at Bitcoin's peak, people never actually felt shortage of any kind.

Well to be fair, the topic at hand is really all about assumptions. We only really know of one variable, which is supply, and we have to provide the rest. We know that the demand won't remain completely constant, but it's easier to assume that it will especially if it's just for some random thought exercise.

The report was said to be fake though lol. Also, KYC info can't be worth that much, or according to this at least:

https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/heres-how-much-your-personal-information-is-selling-for-on-the-dark-web/

But yeah, personal data should be shared sparingly. Unfortunately, choices for reputable exchanges are quite slim.

I'm very tempted to say that it has something to do with Binance controlling Tether, but I can't think of any connection lmao. It wasn't always this way, so the most logical answer would be that more people are trading on Binance. This reflects on their trading volume:

Coinbase:
1   Bitcoin Bitcoin   BTC/USD   $36,325,442   

Binance:
1   Bitcoin Bitcoin   BTC/USDT   $133,053,911   

Source: coinmarketcap.com

As for why that is, everyone else seems to provide a good enough explanation, but everything is really just conjecture.

How many episodes is it going to last? I mean, covering the stuff that consumers should know shouldn't take too long. If they end up with a hefty episode count, they might turn into some shill show.

Don't get me wrong, awareness is welcome for sure, but if the show gives off the impression that it's selling out, then they might actually have the opposite effect. I hope it's done tastefully.