There is a lot of truth in that, especially if we consider that a very large percentage of people who invest in cryptocurrencies do not know any other concept of storing cryptocurrencies other than keeping them where they bought them. In addition, many are discouraged from withdrawing coins to non-custodial wallets and returning them to CEXs due to service fees, and when it comes to Bitcoin, occasional extremely high fees even when transactions are made from non-custodial wallets.

However, if the data is to be believed, more and more people are deciding to use non-custodial wallets, and the last data I saw somewhere says that all centralized exchanges store around 1.8 million BTC.

There used to be many more topics where you could donate to good causes, but it seems to me that members lost confidence in such projects after one member misused part of the collected funds. However, this is not a reason to stop doing good deeds, because if you do something good to others, it will come back to you at some point in your life.

As I promised, a small donation from me as well

If I'm not mistaken, MARA pool is one of those who first decided to censor transactions - but I don't understand why they only accept transactions that pay even 3-4 times more than those currently required for confirmation in the next block? As far as I can see, in the last 7 days they found "only" 36 blocks, while for example Via found as many as 124 blocks. Their business logic makes no sense to me, but I'm obviously missing something.

This is an example of positive criticism, because one of the things that everyone should learn is to use the quote option correctly, that is, to edit the post in such a way as to remove the part that is unnecessary, and at the same time to make it very clear to whom exactly the answer refers.

A topic that can be of help -> [TIPS] to avoid pyramid quotes (for Newbies)

The conclusion is that it is easy to do something that can force the ordinals to find an alternative solution, but that those who should implement such measures (miners) will certainly not give up something that (occasionally) brings them extra income. I am fundamentally against such things happening on the blockchain, but I also understand those who hesitate to take any step that can be interpreted as censorship.

However, we still have the problem of how to explain it to someone who is an average Bitcoin user without too much technical knowledge, and who also uses Bitcoin perhaps on a daily basis for microtransactions. If today he can send his transaction for $1, and tomorrow he has to pay 20 or 50 times more, it looks quite confusing.

To me, it's just an exaggeration and an attempt to present yourself with some relevant factors in the fight against terrorism. On the other hand, all those sanctions imposed on Russia, Iran, and North Korea have a very limited effect - because the war in Ukraine proved that Russia uses weapons that have the most modern components from the West. I doubt that someone bought these components with Bitcoin, which means that the US authorities should focus on who they sell their technology to and how it ends up in the wrong hands.

Bitcoin is only the tip of the iceberg, and even if it didn't exist at all, does anyone think that something would be different? It is more than obvious that when they have no other arguments, they blame Bitcoin for everything, and no one will come forward to say that they are wrong.

Something seems to me that this guy from the video will sell his goggles for a high price one day - it's not exactly a "Buy Bitcoin" sign, but maybe the goggles will become famous

Why risk your name and your bank account when someone else can do it, and in case the business is successful, the one who takes the risk will probably receive instructions to buy some cryptocurrency and thus pay the OP. To me, this seems like looking for digital mules - you know the ones who transport drugs in their bodies, so if they succeed the earnings are great, and if they don't they end up in prison - of course without consequences for the one who recruited them.

One for the history

It somehow seems to me that such a sign with the "signature" of the US president (regardless of who he is) would be worth much more than 16 BTC and in any case more than $1 million. I'm just starting from the fact that the US president is perhaps the most recognizable political figure for many, whether it's the US, the EU or the UK, and that a lot of people would be willing to pay a lot of money for such "art".


This is very likely possible, because regardless of the fact that $1 million seems like a lot of money to us, for some others it can be a real trifle. However, everything depends on what will happen with Bitcoin in the following years, because the value of such items will largely depend on how popular Bitcoin is at some point. Anyone who ever wants to sell it should choose the right moment, because the previous owner obviously judged very well when to offer his "work" to the market.

It's true, whether someone likes it or not for whatever reasons - everyone has the right to use all possible ways to survive in today's world. However, I think that some of the US politicians exaggerate and use such topics for daily political purposes, as we recently read that Russia is avoiding sanctions by using stablecoins (which are much easier to control), but also that North Korea is hacking the whole world despite this the west is far superior in everything.

I will not say that there are no very bad people in the world, but some countries and their politicians build their political careers by keeping their people in constant fear that someone will attack them. We should not forget that a lot of people in countries that are under sanctions are not guilty of anything and do not support their regime, and if Bitcoin can help them not to be hungry and without medicine, then it has certainly fulfilled part of its purpose.

Technically speaking, is what you wrote technically demanding or is it easy to implement and are there any negative implications for security or anything else when it comes to Bitcoin? If it's "so easy" to remove ordinal nonsense, I wonder if the developers are afraid to take such a step because the miners signal it to them, or if they just don't care that the fees skyrocket every now and then?

I won't claim that there aren't members who don't have a harsher attitude than some others, but maybe their attitude is just the result of watching beginners make the same mistakes for years, even though they could do a lot better if they just read the forum rules and some sticky topics in this board. Constructive criticism should be understood in this way, and not as any form of hostility towards any beginner.

If someone does something wrong, they will be criticized for it (or even punished in some way), but this should not be considered a sign to give up, but quite the opposite. We were all beginners and found ourselves in similar situations, but all older members will tell you that you simply have to develop a thicker skin on the forum and not take everything you read too seriously.

Gambling has existed for thousands of years and will exist as long as there are people - and the authorities always knew that people should be given "bread and games" in order to control them more easily. The only thing is how much of the cake the authorities want, and given that it is a very profitable business, I think they will always be able to agree on the terms.

I think that when it comes to addiction, there is not much difference when it comes to gender - whether it is a man or a woman, addiction will cause the same consequences.


I have no experience with who is better, but I would never say that women are worse than men when it comes to gambling. Maybe women are even better in some segments, such as self-control, than men. Every game has its own rules, and anyone who learns the rules and knows how to apply them has an equal chance in the game.


I don't know how this statement of yours would be experienced by women in some modern societies, but I will say that such things should not be generalized. Women in the modern world have fought for their rights and have become quite strong, even when that means resisting cruel regimes that literally beat them to death in the middle of the street.

Given that the price reached about $72k, do you really think that $8k is such a big drop? Nowadays a 10% price change is quite normal, in fact it was before when 1 BTC = $200, only the numbers have changed to such an extent that people now panic when they see such a change.

As for the "last chance", I've been listening to that same song for 10 years and it's never clear to me why someone keeps repeating it - because anyone who has money can buy BTC whenever they want. The difference is only in the price at which they will buy it, but for those who buy for small amounts, the price is not so crucial when it comes to savings. If you bought $100 worth of BTC at a price of $70k and if you buy the same amount today, how much did you actually save or pay more?

"They" have always been against Bitcoin, or more precisely against the idea that BTC basically represents - which is a decentralized cryptocurrency, and when you mention those words (decentralized cryptocurrency) to any of the politicians/bankers, their pressure immediately rises and they start behaving strangely.

What is happening right now is obviously a coordinated action towards all tools that have the possibility of mixing BTC, although this happened before to a somewhat lesser extent. I don't see anything strange in that, it is more than logical behavior of people who are obsessed with controlling everything and everyone.

Also, in the last few days, two well-known mixers have "disappeared", apparently in an attempt not to become a target. Obviously, a very clear message is being sent - "we will kill your privacy sooner or later".

Considering the large number of members from Nigeria on the forum, I know that your authorities have a kind of warm/cold attitude towards cryptocurrencies, but also that your crypto community is perhaps the strongest in all of Africa. Considering that, it would be realistic to expect that so many young people would change something, of course assuming that they can participate in politics and in that way create some kind of regulatory framework within which everyone would be satisfied.

Cryptocurrencies can function quite normally next to any national currency and are no threat to the financial system, but obviously your policy wants to keep as much control over people as possible, trying to make them dependent on the system. Unfortunately, this only shows the level of democracy and the development of society, but such things should be fought in all legal ways.

GPTZero,ZeroGPT and CopyLeaks do not detect artificial intelligence in first post.
---
The second post gives the following results:

GPTZero -> We are highly confident this text was ai generated 98%
ZeroGPT ->Your Text is Most Likely Human written, may include parts generated by AI/GPT 26.31%
CopyLeaks -> AI content detected

The OP and many others live in the illusion that many governments of the world have not long ago started to "fight" against BTC precisely in the way that they constantly promote the story that BTC is something that is mostly used by criminals of all kinds, and that BTC mining causes great damage to the environment + consumes enormous amounts of energy.

If we want to be honest, half of the world's population is in a subordinate position when it comes to BTC, because in addition to China, there are also some smaller countries that have a complete ban, and of course India, which is trying in every possible way to demotivate its citizens to stay away from cryptocurrencies.

In Turkey, Thailand and Vietnam (maybe elsewhere) owning and trading BTC is allowed, but using it as a payment currency is prohibited, which speaks volumes about what really bothers governments when it comes to cryptocurrencies. It therefore seems to me that much stricter measures will be imposed at the moment when it is estimated that Bitcoin is becoming a greater threat than it is today, and until then we will move in the direction of greater control.