By debt/ investment euphoria, I guess you mean the availability of cheap credit due to actions like Quantitative Easing. Why do you think that the governments want to change this? All I've noticed is major economies printing more and more. Maybe i misunderstand. An explanation would be great.

Bitcoin becoming the global reserve currency in purely official terms is something that organizations like IMF will fight tooth and nail. The best bet is with private corporations deciding that enough is enough and they need an alternate to the fiat. During his interaction with Cathie Wood and Jack Dorsey on "The B Word", Musk said that its ridiculous that the cash reserves of Tesla pay out interest (due to negative interest rates). He also endorsed some pretty far-reaching ideas about how government is just a corporation with a monopoly on violence. If you extrapolate those ideas and enough corporations reach the conclusion that they need to do something about it, coupled with the realization by masses that they need bitcoin, bitcoin will become the de-facto alternate to fiat. A global reserve currency for citizens/ netizens.

What is control over the system? In your subsequent replies, you talked about a 51% attack. Let us assume that that is not even the scenario of comparison. Because nobody would attack their own investment, right? (This of course does not discount the external actors).

Lets talk about "control" for now. In a PoW system, there is NOTHING for the miner to control. The miner cannot give himself greater fee or change the economics to benefit himself in subtle ways. Compare this with PoS coins. Most PoS coins have fees paid out to validators/ delegators as a percentage of the transaction fee as well as coinbase tokens. What stops centralized entities from colluding to make it favorable to themselves, like what happened with that 4-Billion dollar ICO?

There actually is something to controlled in PoS, all in the name of governance parameters. It also ensures unlimited, constant income for the topmost people at the expense of its users. In case of PoW, there is no such thing to be controlled.

No matter what "decentralization modelling", the PoS coins come up with, it is simple common sense that those with the most power will inevitably collude. The only solution we have for that has been bitcoin, not only because of Satoshi's PoW brilliance (there are hundreds, if not thousands other PoW coins), but also due to the network effect, time in the wild, robustness and proven ethos of its community as well as developers.

+1

Yeah, what is this about? @ranochigo

Stablecoins are mainly for traders who have their portfolios managed based on the USD equivalent value, rather than their native currencies. It really just helps you to sell high and buy back low, while making it easier to track the gains.

Secondly, the explosion of coins on multiple chains means that their trading pairs are available only with these centralized stablecoins (which are accessible cross-chain due to the central nature). I am not sure if this has been a good thing though. Earlier, most trading pairs on major exchanges were pegged only to BTC or ETH. This meant that most newbies came in through BTC (acquired in a privacy centric manner), and the shitcoin jugglery was done chiefly to increase your BTC holdings.

Now with different chains and the USD pegged stablecoins, all roads now seem to be leading to Rome, at least when it comes to the Alt-coins on other chains like Polkadot, Solana etc.

Good to know that someone else is also seeing this pattern of CCP shills and propagandists on the forum. The communists always have this agenda of "image management" rather than letting a free society and a free press come to the conclusion about the performance and shortcomings of a government.

I often see this same behavior on Twitter. The Chinese handlers try really hard to give off the honesty vibe in their interactions, (like this one that is posting about devaluation without any reference to Bitcoin, which this forum is about). Yet, anybody who is remotely aware of the actions of the CCP including jailing its businessmen, reporters, scientists, doctors for so much as trying to provide genuine criticism, will understand the evil behind this homogenous behemoth that wishes to lord over and bully more and more of the world.

As far as currency devaluation is concerned, it is something that has been done by countries to boost their trade balance in the past. This does not mean that it is somehow a way to enhanced prosperity and growth in a country's economy. The fundamentals of a free market matter. China has cheap labor, cheap capital, cheap land which made it a prime destination for capitalist corporations, leading to unprecedented growth. Apart from the availability of a pliant, billion plus population, what has contributed to the long term growth is the Chinese having zero qualms about stealing IP and copy-pasting,enabled by individual interests in the West.

So as @mu_enrico said, Go away CCP shill, we do not get fooled by the likes of you in the bitcoin world.

Hello RainbowKun. I noticed your posts after it was highlighted in one of the merit threads. Just looking at your content gradually. It is good to have another person on the forum who understand the foundational importance and idea of Bitcoin. During the bull run, people get all sorts of ideas and it becomes easy to say things like "Ethereum will flip Bitcoin". There are people who have enticed thousands, if not millions of noobs on Telegrams and Discords that delegated foundation/ corporate coins are somehow better than Bitcoin.

There is so much misinformation that it needs more and more people like you. In the OP, The idea about Bitcoin being a new part of civilization isn't really novel though. People have believed in this since the beginning. Infact, most people who were here in the beginning never saw it as just money but as a new way of life.

You should take a look at this post by @nullius: Bitcoin: The Social Phenomena. Ideas like these have long been expressed and believed. This is no way to take anything away from your effort. I truly appreciate your journey and realization of the fact that without Bitcoin, we have nothing. It is the one truly decentralized coin which supports all of crypto. It should be a symbiotic relationship between Bitcoin and rest of the crypto rather than people like faketoshi, Roger Ver or centralized PoS coins trying to somehow prove themselves better. It is great that you are aiming to help out the community with information and even a project. Let me know if there is something I can help with.

Whether you call it communist or socialist, this whole philosophy is shit. State ownership of the means of production has always, always led to people dying in famines. Millions of people died in China too. They are just very good in whitewashing and hiding the problems within their country. The progress of China isn't due to communist policies but by adoption of the free market.

When it comes to basic human freedoms and the importance of individual dignity, China is as much of a shithole as any of these other impoverished countries. There has been a trend of the "lying flat" protests within China. I guess just throwing hands up in the air and refusing to live out lives in a hierarchy, working for overlords is one form of protest that even the Chinese can do. So anybody taking the example of China as a "success of communism" is mistaken. Communism doesn't suck-ceeds. It only sucks. Lifeblood of the people and the freedom of their hearts. This is why it is commendable that the Cubans have been able to protest. God only knows what there authoritarian rulers would have done to them if their was no embargo stopping them from having the means for quick and brutal suppression.

Of course, China has that, enabled by the past decades' preference for economics over ideology. So you won't ever see protests there. Or if you do, then they'll go the Hong Kong or the poor Jack Ma way.

I agree. Not the poor actually, the injustice is on the middle classes who end up as wage slaves in this economy of constant fiat printing. The politicians and the economists say that it is for our own good. Coz if they don't print more money, us wage slaves won't spend enough, demand will drop and this leads to stagnation. They conveniently skip over the fact that a) Nobody is ever held responsible for the bank defaults and business bankruptcies and b) All this printed money is basically used to prop up the chosen ones.

Well, I am not against interventions per se, but if the richest have access to shortcuts, why can't the playing field be a bit more level for the average middle class person.

LOL. Can't disagree about the purchasing power. Yet, to maintain this, it is important that bitcoin stands. That is why these generalizations about "decentralized currencies" is wrong. Coz then all those corporate/ foundation coins that are really just businesses, start laying claim to being money themselves. That is the danger and we all should be vocally opposing it at every point. Those projects/ investments are enabled by bitcoin. There will be nothing if we don't have the decentralized bitcoin.

A reverted transaction should ideally be appearing back into your wallet. This seems to be a case of you using the platform wallet of some sort where you don't, have the private key. So this would appear in your platform wallet after some time.

Its a bridge and I believe these things are generally custodial in nature on Ethereum. There shouldn't be a problem and contacting the support with this failed transaction would probably solve your problem.

It has become trendy for us Bitcoiners to claim that "we don't care about what Elon says". Yet, its an unmistakable fact that whatever that man says is clearly making a difference. Musk loves influencing stuff. So he wore a Bitcoin tee on the day of the conference and made all the right noises. He even went on to ask Jack whether he'll accept bitcoin as payment for twitter ads. (To which, Jack's reaction was pretty much lukewarm. No complaints, just an observation)

He was willing to engage but Cathie and Jack probably didn't want to confront him or engage him intellectually like we were all hoping for. It was just a testing waters thing with Musk. Now with the super heavy booster launch schedule coming up, Musk may not have all that time again. Yet, he has played his part in showing to the world that the governments or corporations won't be allowed a walkover on individual freedoms and privacy. This is probably the biggest bullish indicator.

Personally, I am happy that he said the things he said, barring the Dogecoins stuff. That is where Jack and Cathie should have informed him of the facts, which they sadly didn't.

The more these "initiatives" by governments are coming forth, the more I realize that the governments are not going to do anything that is a positive for bitcoin, either from the regulatory perspective or in expanding the usage. El Salvador and President Nayib have proven to be a rare exception till now. The rest of the times, the noises made by governments are a result of self-serving politicians with a stake in bitcoin, like in this case.

The main players are private institutions who are taking an interest. The B Word was a good initiative although it could have done a bit more to set the record straight between bitcoin and meme-coins. Still, Elon's statement about "Government being the biggest corporation with a monopoly and violence" was a good example of the bitcoin ethos driving people's thoughts these days.

I think more than these isolated regulations, governments will have to slowly adjust around the economy and development stack that is evolving out of bitcoin, much like what happened with the Internet. That is the best path forward and any of these news about regulation by governments or adoption by banks (Futures, ETF et al) is just inconsequential in the bigger scheme of things.

The sudden implementation of the decision could well be a reason for the discomfort being caused to the people. I'd hate to think that it was done to coincide with the Bitcoin Miami conference. The idea worked in the small locality of El Zonte, the famous Bitcoin Beach as it was funded by an anonymous donor to begin with.

Yet, it is pretty obvious that a lot of parts of the country wouldn't be having good access to internet and some people may not even have phones. So while, it was made mandatory that merchants should be able to accept BTC, if offered by the customer, quite a few of the old-school merchants would fear losing potential business. There definitely is a learning curve for bitcoin and I think this was what Chico wallet and the bitcoin airdrop was supposed to kickstart. All depends on how this is executed. The bewilderment with a radical change like this is natural for the public; so the protests may as well just be opposition parties taking the chance to channel that discontent. Well, its a democracy so these things should be welcome.

What would have been great is some actual feedback from Salvadorians themselves. There aren't many from there on the forum though. Are you?

It shouldn't matter as long as we understand the difference. In any case, people won't be in a position to reject CBDCs or do anything about it. The governments will straight up just make everything online and force you to use those wallets. What everyone can do though is to lay more stress in personally being invested into bitcoin, as well as actual commodities, to whatever extend feasible.

The OP is just talking about the fact that bitcoin has already caught the fiat overlords unaware. With institutional interest by some of the biggest private corporations, it is clear that even they don't like paying negative interest rates. For the corporates, bitcoin may be the only bargaining chip against monetary mismanagement. For the people, when the government transitions whole countries to CBDCs, bitcoin will naturally become the currency of the free internet.

It is quite sensible to think that the world cannot suddenly move to Bitcoin where all the international trade starts happening in bitcoin. Bitcoin is really only about having the right to have a decentralized currency of the internet. As people start to work using the internet and more value is created by teams spread geographically, it is only natural that their efforts and their incentives shouldn't be subject to the scrutiny, taxation and deflation caused by central fiats.

This is why, bitcoin is important. Also, I'd like to say to OP that this umbrella term about "decentralized currencies" is a misnomer and is false. There are no "decentralized currencies". The only thing we have is bitcoin. The network effect, lack of leader and infrastructure cannot be replaced or recreated. People who propose their shitcoins as currencies are really just doing damage to themselves. As netizens, everyone should be very clear that the governments and international banks DO NOT want you to have bitcoin. They have been caught unaware by bitcoin. Its only upto the people now to lose their own freedoms.

So, agree that world economies will always need their central fiats but we need bitcoin, not "decentralized currencies".

LOL. Trying to shill something you are part of is common on the forum but yeah, you got the attention by making this stupid comment about Compound. Compound is what people call one of the DeFi bluechips. It has been around for a long time and seen stable development. These battle-tested platforms aren't so easy to be replaced.

About the connection to real world credit, this'll most probably be through bringing institutions and VCs onboard onto legitimate projects, not these unprofessional copies that keep popping up. If someone is really looking for a project that aims to link traditional finance and DeFi, then look into something that has been doing it on a professional scale. BarnBridge is one such project.

Also, OP, From the name that this project has chosen, its quite clear they aren't very bright. I mean "De-credit" sounds like something that will destroy your credit pretty fast.

The protest seems motivated more by the politics of the Left parties, which used to enjoy greater influence in an earlier period. Though, one cannot discount the possibility that a lot of people maybe genuinely distressed by the change. Nobody likes change, especially something as radical as being the first country in the world to make Bitcoin legal tender. It is obvious that the political opposition will do everything they can to make an issue out of it.

Rather than the hyperinflation argument, the argument for using LN and Bitcoin in El Salvador is about financial inclusion that can enable people to easily save money. The merchants are free to convert received BTC to USD instantly but the smaller details like conversion rates and fees maybe the friction points. It has been hard to get a gauge on what the President is saying because he has been making most posts in Salvadorian/ Spanish on Twitter. Let us wait and see how this pans out.

Take this to the non-technical part of the forum @Wind_FURY where it can be discussed without the prejudices of our technical overlords, LOL. Or to the Ivory Tower. I think that was meant for discussions like these. (Not exactly development but related to the overall politics). And hey, you got @coblee on the thread. He is a non-pleb i suppose. Wonder if he'll chip in beyond mounting the below defense.

The average buying price for Microstrategy's Bitcoins is around 23K. The support at 30K has proven strong but if it goes in the 25K-30K range, then it can go much lower than 20K itself. This will be pretty catastrophic and it is better not to contemplate such a scenario, LOL.

Though we have already seen big moves from Square in both bringing DeFi to Bitcoin and Musk to his senses. If these turn out to be successful then all those "bargain hunters" are going to be disappointed. LN is already proving itself out in the wild with people running nodes and making transactions. The time is ripe for the Big Daddy Bitcoin to bring the children home. At such points, it is generally never a good idea to gamble with Alts. Just my two cents. This could all as well happen in reverse.

None of this is financial advice, of course.

What they will achieve with these rules is that most of the people in bitcoin and crypto in general would be free to use it but will be easy to track for the sake of taxes. This is going to be the reality in the coming years and I doubt that too many people will make the shift to mixers and Dexes. Most who will do so are those who have significant holdings from being early investors or hodlers. Those people, if they exist, will anyways continue to be bulwarks of a potential struggle for privacy in the forthcoming future. Yet, it has been shown that when faced with legalities, most people will choose to take the easier route and comply rather than go rambo-mode. Like what Cobra had to do in removing the whitepaper in order to preserve his anonymity.

The government cannot stop anybody from using bitcoin and keeping it private but, unfortunately, they sure can stop everyone from using the world of crypto for fiat gains without being tracked and taxed.

A lot of people feel that ANY news about Bitcoin should be bullish. The fact is that Bitcoin has gone beyond that stage now where it was a niche technology for a bunch of internet geeks and any mention of institutions would lead to a domino effect. That domino effect has been in motion since 2017 when the CME launched the first Bitcoin futures. Since then we have already come a long way. BoA allowing its customers access to Futures is just a policy change in their own practices which cannot have any effect on the actual Bitcoin market.

Being in this stage also means that the price increases for bitcoin will no longer be as spectacular as before. Retail investor should especially be wary of crypto influencers talking about a 100K or a 200K bitcoin. IMO, This is not a possibility in the near future. The institutional adoption has come to a halt with Elon Musk's antics and we have to pretty much wait for the industry to learn its lessons from what happens to Microstrategy.

Till then, it may well be a lot of sideways action for the foreseeable future and settling to lower lows.

The topic seems to have veered to a discussion about the potential collapse of Euro and the European Union. European Union has been ratified for almost 20 years now and has been around as an idea since the second world war. To an outsider from a developing country, when I read about the aim of peace, prosperity and tackling tough problems together; it sounds pretty noble and humane. The primary aim of the EU was to stop frequent wars within Europe and a kind of political unification.

The process seemed to have given benefits in the 90s but has faced a lot of tests since the financial crisis of 2008. It is interesting that Germany has evolved to play a leadership role while the British have pulled out of it pretty unceremoniously. From an outside perspective, the EU doesn't seem so viable without the UK, but its commendable that the rest of the EU, presumably under German/ French leadership, is soldiering along.

In view of this history, i think EU has larger concerns than deciding what role Bitcoin will play in the future. It maybe the case that they are going for CBDCs more as a logical evolution of banking than fighting against Bitcoin. How they end up viewing Bitcoin is a separate viewpoint evolving in parallel by itself.