I agree. One has to start buying the moment they understand Bitcoin. If not for starting to build a Bitcoin portfolio, it's for them to try making Bitcoin transactions. Learning Bitcoin includes learning to receive and send Bitcoin. Creating a wallet, storing backup, getting the public address, and so on are exciting things for somebody who's still in the learning process.

In terms of investing, the advantage of buying in small amounts is that you could have a lower buying price average. And there's also the tendency that once you start buying, you will continue doing it. You couldn't get enough of it. And that's how your portfolio grows. Keeping your money for that perfect time and price could either mean you won't buy anymore because the price has already risen or you have spent your savings on something else.

Sherbet username: Greenfields
Prediction: $37,381.58

If we break this down further, it would be on a case-to-case basis. For example, keeping your money in ETH or USDT-- which are altcoins-- in a cold storage would have been much safer than keeping it in Lebanese pound at a bank in Beirut. At least with, say, USDT it is more or less stable and you have access to it. Whereas, not only was Lebanese pound hitting all-time lows in value, you aren't even allowed to withdraw them. At least this was the situation a year or two ago.

Banks may not have that mint function, but they can also create money out of thin air. They do not have that literal money printer, but they can and are allowed by law to issue credits, thus actually creating money, inflating the monetary supply as a result.


In the same manner that you could also be $5-wrench-attacked, get hacked, lose your backup, or the access to your wallet, and so on. That's why freedom implies responsibility; full freedom, full responsibility.

Yes, your Bitcoin is recorded in the blockchain and no one can take it from there, but your access to it is fully your responsibility. It is nobody else's. You lose it, it's completely lost.  

Kevin O'Leary doesn't have much in his résumé to be called reputable. And so, when he presents something as if it's the biggest thing in the world, it has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Based on its terms of service, yes, US residents are not allowed to use the platform.^[1]

I wonder where they would get the very generous yields they are offering to their users. Even USDT could give you up to 11.50% APY. This M2 exchange could indeed be one of the biggest, one of the biggest reminders not to trust centralized exchanges. It will only be a matter of when.

---

[1] https://www.m2.com/en_AE/terms-of-service/

I don't know if you can do business accepting Bitcoin payments at the same time hodling those payments. That's effectively taking away capital from your business. I think the best thing to do is to make computations regularly and use a portion of your income to buy Bitcoin. If the Bitcoin payments aren't that much, then you can hodl them. But if they're significant enough that your business is forced to operate only with what's left because you don't want to spend those Bitcoin payments, you're actually hurting your business.

Yeah, both Wilder and Joshua are heavy favorites in these matches with odds 1.17 and 1.26, respectively. But I'm more excited about Wilder vs. Parker here. Both are heavy punchers with the ability to end the fight right in the opening round. I bet the fight won't go the distance. Despite the lop-sided odds, I still think Parker can upset Wilder. As to Joshua vs. Wallin, I'm not expecting much. It will probably be not as explosive as the other bout.

Supposing the rejection is caused by the withdrawal amount being lower than the minimum limit set by ViaBTC pool, then you will be able to withdraw the whole thing after your balance reaches 0.001BTC, the minimum withdrawal amount, plus the withdrawal fee, of course.

What you have is 0.00052172BTC. To make it to the minimum withdrawal limit of ViaBTC pool which is 0.001BTC, you need 0.00047828BTC. But you have to deposit more than that because you will also be paying the fees.

So, if I were you, I'd rather keep it there for a while. The fees aren't cheap these days. Even low priority transactions will have to pay 117 sat/vB. And for you to be able to withdraw your Sats, you need a couple of transactions at least. You only have $20 worth of Sats. After all the fees, how much would you be getting? If you're planning to convert it into cash, you might end up with less than $10.

Banks aren't the safest, of course. The advantage, however, is that accountability and responsibility are on them. The money kept in banks are insured up to a certain amount.

In Bitcoin, on the other hand, accountability and responsibility are on the owner. That's what freedom is all about. With full control comes full responsibility. That's what being your own bank means.

Now, it's up to everybody to choose. However, this is just one facet of the story. The list of pros and cons of both banks and Bitcoin is quite long. In totality, however, Bitcoin is a world better than banks.

Nitrobetting user id: 235527
Prediction: $36,783.32

They're clueless. And they have a misplaced sense of ethics or righteousness or whatever that is. Many people who are calling for this kind of crazy boycott are exactly the same people who argue that Palestinians are not Hamas and should, therefore, be spared from this violence. But it's the height of irony when, in response, they're calling a blanket boycott to certain products and companies.

First, it doesn't help their case. Second, if they're truly serious, they might end up not using their computers and their smart phones.

Passion is probably the key. Sometimes we're only pushing forward for the wrong reasons. Progress can't be sustained that way. What you do eventually turns into drudgery. You'd grow uninterested and tired. You'd be lackadaisical and produce inferior ideas and contributions, and you'd probably quit in the end. This is true both inside and outside this forum. Here, one can't be motivated solely by signature campaigns. In real life, one can't just be motivated by money alone.

If you aren't after the kind of yield-earning staking, which is risky and doesn't even guarantee you of a profit, and you also don't like time locks, then consider putting your back up in a sealed container and then in a solid case and bury it. If not, cement it. Or bury it under a tile. I doubt if you would still dig it every time you feel a little panic when the price goes down or whenever you're bored and want to play poker or place a bet on a sports match.

So how does it actually help you, then? You're informed that the price has reached a certain point, you proceed to TradingView to confirm it, and yes it's correct, and then? You get back to whatever you're doing?

I don't know with others here but I've long stopped alerting myself of the prices. I used to when I tried trading. I stopped years ago with a little disappointment, and so now I already find price alerts of little use. I've now been hodling and I don't care much if I'm not informed of the price for weeks.

It will have to be diversified as much as possible. Investment in cryptocurrency is, of course, the main thing. Real estate is another. Where I am, a thickly-populated country, the price of real estate properties is rising no end. Having your own business is also a goal. Not only is it an additional source of income, it is also a way to put into productive use the money which otherwise could just be sleeping in the bank.

Also, it will certainly help a lot if you produce your own food. The goal is not to become entirely independent from the markets but with the continuously rising prices of goods it will help if you don’t have to buy everything that you need. This helps you navigate through financially hard times.

The case of Swan might not be about educated people acting as if they're not educated at all. Or perhaps it is, considering that while these people like Cory and Yan are Bitcoin supporters, they're also providing centralized custodial services. But my point is that the line which connects Bitcoin services to the fiat world isn't completely severed yet. It will probably stay like this for the next decades. In which case, do they have an option?

Cory is now even considering a lawsuit against FinCEN. That sounds quixotic to me. You link with banks but then you don't want them to implement what's required by the government? It doesn't seem right. To me, it's either you abide or you disconnect from them.

For which particular purpose is this question raised? I mean, what's the relevance of this question?

Anyway, I haven't heard of such kind of data, but your guess might be right. It might be that low. Probably even lower. Before, that percentage could be higher because gambling was among the first use-cases of Bitcoin. During those times when Bitcoin wasn't really a popular investment option, it was already used by gamblers. Now that Bitcoin has been labeled as a new asset class, the number of non-gambler owners must be the huge majority.

€34,556.42

Username: SavoirVivre

Thanks!

LOL! I'm not sure if this applies in this case. But, for sure, that saying isn't absolute. The one thing that's very vital in the business of crypto exchange is security, funds security to be exact. They're custodians, after all. Users are entrusting them their money. I don't know about you but, for me, whether your platform is rumored to be involved in wash trading, whether your platform is notorious in listing shitcoins, whether it has higher fees than its competitors, and so on don't matter much for as long as my money is secure.

If the talk in the crypto town is that Poloniex doesn't have good security, and there's proof because hackers were able to get into their system and steal funds, how is that better than not being talked about?

Prediction 1: $37,005.35
bech32 address: bc1qqwvdg6lmxkd586a456gdqw6at4rcj72jlq6jvd

I guess a major point in this particular situation is that raw information are oftentimes not black and white. Those who use them without thoroughly understanding them, their context, nuances, perspectives, and so on are the ones who particularly mislead others.

Thus, digesting and properly appreciating information are a responsibility, or even necessary capabilities, especially to personalities who have the influence either to shape a certain perception of the public or to create policies and regulations that will be implemented by the government and affect everybody else.

In which case, both Angus Berwick and Ian Talley of the Wall Street Journal, the journal itself, Senator Elizabeth Warren and the other more than a hundred lawmakers who signed the letter sent to no less than the White House and the Department of Treasury destroying the image of cryptocurrency, are all a big failure.

It's either they are incapable of digesting such data or they're biased or they're simply irresponsible. Either way, they should have just avoided acting on them.

They don't seem to know what a Bitcoin wallet is, or a Bitcoin address, or the difference between a centralized and decentralized platform, and so on.