I think we can argue endlessly about which wallet is the best (whether it's mobile, desktop or HW), but everyone should actually ask themselves how secure is the device on which they will use a wallet. Of course, smartphones today have become something that almost everyone has, but very few users pay attention to their security, whether it's about having some kind of antivirus program or taking into account whether their phone regularly receives security/critical updates.

Given that many smartphone users download a lot of applications (mostly unnecessary ones), there is a high probability that they will also download one with malicious intentions, and then, unfortunately, it's game over. I would just emphasize that attention should also be paid to privacy when choosing a mobile wallet, which would mean that it would be very good if the wallet already had built-in support for Tor.

Most AI detectors show that the OP generated the content with the help of AI - so I would advise everyone who sees a beginner with such "quality" posts to check the content before replying - because it makes no sense to have a discussion with bots, right?

https://sapling.ai/ai-content-detector/301cc8d23eb5353a676f896eae67c756

Apologies to the OP on the AI generated post accusation, the tool I used (and another one I found randomly online) showed a result that was not correct.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I would not agree that we should draw an equal sign between a business man like Saylor and some "comedian" who mostly talks nonsense on US business television. As an investor, I would be much more interested in what a serious business man who has already bought around 200 000 BTC is doing, than what people like Jim and people like him are speaking.


I think that the halving is a secondary issue for now, because everyone is focused on the ETF - yesterday I watched several interesting programs on various US business TV and most of the comments are very positive. Of course, the outcome can always be negative, but either everyone lives in a very big delusion or they have insider information on which to base their statements.

A massive sale is always possible in case of some extremely negative events such as hacking of one of the top CEXs, or some new pandemic, and possibly some war conflict involving countries with nuclear weapons. When everything goes down, Bitcoin is no exception - remember the declaration of a pandemic and a 50% drop in less than 24 hours.

It is not likely, but it is certainly possible. It should definitely be some kind of "black swan" event that would crash the global market and cause disruptions all over the world.

If it is more or less business as usual, then it will very likely happen like every time before, because all those who have invested a lot of money in Bitcoin will in any case use the halving as a trigger for a new bull run. Some believe that the price of BTC will go up after the halving because miners "produce" half as much BTC as before, but even though it may have made some sense before, today's 900 BTC per day is not something that has too much impact on the market considering the amount of BTC that circulates through the markets anyway.

I won't say that it would be different if you had a different strategy, but if you had offered all your "services" in one topic, and not in more than 10 (or even more), you might have passed under someone's radar. Now the only question is whether you were caught by someone outside the forum, or if you were reported by a competitor.

90 days is not such a terrible punishment, because last time some members got a permanent ban because they were selling a popular anti-malware software, and the real owners obviously didn't like that.

Do you think that people who invest in Bitcoin are some kind of rebels against fiat? Most of these people have never paid anything with Bitcoin, all their transactions go in the direction of FIAT -> CEX (cryptocurrency) -> FIAT = PROFIT.

I have to disappoint you that there have never been and never will be any cults when it comes to Bitcoin, unless you want to create one and attract a few weirdos to it

Why would that be a reason which caused the price to drop? Most agree that the reason was in the Matrixport report, which says that the ETF will probably not be accepted this month, which consequently caused liquidation about "$500 million worth of positions across derivatives exchanges."

I would also single out the news that Saylor announced that he was selling part of his company's shares, which some may have interpreted as negative news.


The fact that the price is x3 times higher than the time you mention is for me personally just a recovery after the scandals with Do Kwon and Bankman, and I wouldn't call it a bull market at all. Realistically, the price of BTC in this period should be around $35k, and everything else is pumped up due to speculation about spot ETFs - and as soon as bad news appears about it, everything starts to collapse.

Realistically, the real bull run has so far always happened after the halving and it will probably be the same now - except that now we have an ETF in the game, although, as always, the decision will be uncertain until the very end.

There are also those who think that this feature is actually positive, because insurance is still insurance, no matter how stupid and risky it seems in this case. On this forum, we can write "not your keys, not your coins" to the point of unconsciousness, but the average investor in Bitcoin has not gone beyond what every bank offers him in his thinking.

You open an account, get a bank card and PIN, and any damage caused by hacking/theft of the card will be compensated by the bank - just as savings deposits in banks (at least in most of the EU) are insured up to EUR 100 000.


Maybe it is like that in the US, but here we are talking about a company that is in the EU and where things are a little different. When we look back at everything that has happened around Ledger up to today, not a single company has appeared that would seriously compete with Ledger in any sense, whether it is about prices, marketing or something else.

Maybe some will not agree, but if someone who has close to 200 000 BTC says that he will sell the shares of his company, some may have interpreted it in their own way. Saylor usually has no influence on the BTC price when he buys, but people obviously react very negatively when someone like him sells even shares in his own company.


Source

It's strange how you didn't think of that ten days ago when you were giving advice to a friend, because it would help him a lot to save on fees every time he makes the new transaction. Maybe in the future, everyone who has a complaint about fees should forget about complaints (especially public ones) and simply start using LN? When the matter is already so simple, why at least twenty topics on the subject of high fees?

It's a bit strange when you leave someone positive feedback, and then you don't know who it is - but if I'm not mistaken, it's about the member whom you know by name @ETFbitcoin.

I have to agree with this, and I think I've already written it several times in similar topics - I think it's wrong to compare Bitcoin with the internet, even if it's an argument for some when it comes to putting in context the time it took for the internet to become something accessible to most people, with the same thing when it comes to Bitcoin.

I sincerely doubt that people will ever accept Bitcoin (especially as a currency) given that most governments in the world will never put Bitcoin ahead of their national currencies. If we exclude some countries with totalitarian-communist regimes, most of the free world has accepted the internet as something positive.

---

It should not be forgotten that Gavin was one of those who in some way "protested" because of the way Satoshi made decisions and actually "demanded" to take over the matter. In those early days, Satoshi was not a favorite person and regardless of the reasons, he left because he no longer felt comfortable.

Besides, glorifying Gavin shouldn't be a one way street, this is the same guy who believed that CW Faketoshi was the real Satoshi. For someone who is supposedly very well versed in Bitcoin matters, it's really strange that he would fall for such a cheap trick.

It doesn't seem to me that anything can harm them, and the reason is very simple - most of their users are completely unaware of everything that happened during the past years, some others don't really care, and only a small percentage have realized that something is really wrong.

---

I won't say that I didn't trust them, so I even bought two of their HW and we always advised others to invest in HW for security. Back then, there weren't too many choices except option L and option T, and I was personally (like many others) attracted by the device's design, which resembled an ordinary USB stick. Unfortunately, the security we once believed in has turned into a risk.

We can't blame anyone, nor does it make sense at all - everyone has the right to think whatever they want, so if 75% of the people who voted think that we are in a bull market, I have nothing against that. It would be strange if we all thought the same, and it's always good to have different opinions, which means that in the end we won't all be wrong.

As for the six-digit numbers, the question is whether the approval of the ETF can result in more than a 100% price increase, because the approval is one thing and it will certainly "sell" well as news, but the question is whether investors will show interest in trading in that way with BTC. The US is of course a very specific market and everyone is counting on the fact that a huge amount of Bitcoin will be withdrawn from the market to ensure that the funds can trade, but you should also keep in mind that spot BTC ETFs have existed for some time in many countries (Canada), but they have not attracted a lot of interest.

Of course there is an alternative, but how many people even know what Lightning Network is and how to use it, even on this forum? In addition, in order to use LN you have to open a channel, and to do that you have to pay an on-chain fee, which is again a problem when the fees increase significantly. What will happen if someone comes up with a way to make LN transactions disadvantageous in any way - the new LN?


Interesting thinking, I don't know what on-chain transactions should be for and why we use them all the time? If by some chance you invented Bitcoin, you would probably have invented LN first, and only then Bitcoin, so today we wouldn't have problems with fees because everyone would use LN - really genius

You just decided to write everything that obviously came to your mind first without even asking yourself if there was any truth in it. It is true that you can pay for many hotels with Bitcoin, but you can also buy a plane ticket, a car or food in a restaurant. Thanks to payment processors, you can pay with Bitcoin almost anything you can think of - but the idea of Bulgaria as the country with the most Bitcoins has long been dispelled.

I personally am not convinced that we are in a bull market because, as some have already mentioned, it is more than obvious that the majority are betting that the ETF will be approved and that is why the price is rising. If the decision is positive, we can expect that on the wave of this news, the price of BTC will rise even more, but it is difficult to speculate about percentages.

If the decision is negative, a correction is possible (and probable), then all expectations will be focused on the halving, the effects of which will probably be visible only in the second half of 2024.

Maybe some would survive, because the third world war would certainly not be fought only on Earth, but also in space - given that some countries also have what is called Space Forces, and even today there are weapons capable of disabling/destroying satellites. Given that satellites are the greatest spies and see absolutely everything, any country that would like to gain an advantage in war would certainly try to disable enemy satellites.

---

However, I wonder what is in the mind of a man who wonders what would happen to cryptocurrencies in the event of a world war - then it all boils down to saving your life, and not worrying about the price of Bitcoin. In addition, in such a war, the internet as we have today would go down in history, because the key infrastructure would mostly be destroyed, and without the internet, cryptocurrencies, as well as any trading that takes place online today, would no longer actually exist.

Sooner or later everyone who uses Ledger will have to do a firmware upgrade because otherwise the device will not function properly, or some functions will be disabled. Now the only question is whether someone thinks that Ledger is telling the truth when they say that the seed cannot be shared without the user's consent, or it have some kind of backdoor that has actually existed forever and the new firmware is just a trick to make everyone feel safer at least for a while.

Ledger unfortunately fell into the "don't store more on it than you can afford to lose" category.

Maybe this is another in a series of topics about how the fees are too high these days, but considering that a lot of members are literally disappointed that they can't use Bitcoin the way it should be used, maybe we should clarify some things so that everyone would not continue to pretend that we live in a world where we should continue to expect that Bitcoin will become a global means of payment that will be used by just about everyone.

Bitcoin has long since become a money-making machine, and in order for the machine to work well and be profitable, it needs to be given a little extra energy from time to time, even if this means that it will have a negative impact on its main task. While the average user who just wants to send an on-chain transaction has problems and is looking for a solution to the problem in a single free transaction accelerator, let's try to summarize who all benefits from the fact that fees have exploded.

Miners certainly benefit from what I personally call "ordinal madness", and suffice it to say that in recent days the rewards per block amounted to over 10 BTC, and considering that the reward without fees is 6.25 BTC, it is clear how much their profit has increased. Without going into any conspiracy theories, isn't it logical to think that some of them (miners) have their fingers in all of this? Who knows, maybe we'll find out one day.

CEXs (centralized exchanges) also benefit from high fees, not only because they can increase their service fees more than necessary, but because high fees discourage most of their clients from withdrawing Bitcoin to their non-custodial wallets. Let no one be fooled that the people behind such companies have any good intentions towards Bitcoin, they only care about profit and they don't care what they will generate it from, that's why they support hundreds of shitcoins without any problems regardless of what they know that bunch of people will lose their money trading with that garbage.

Creators of altcoins who will use every opportunity to say that their project is better than Bitcoin and that their transactions cost only $0.01 and that you should invest in their project. What they will not tell you is that the security of their transactions is so great that you have to wait for several days to be sure that your transaction will not be messed up in some way.

Economic and financial experts are perhaps the last, but no less important in this story. For them, moments like this are a time in which they rejoice because they think that the idea of Bitcoin as a currency is collapsing before our eyes, and of course they say this all the time. On the other hand, they have nothing against Bitcoin being "used" to generate profit, which again leads us to the fact that the idea of Bitcoin as a currency should be "killed" in every possible way, and on the other hand, trading should be encouraged.

In the end, it's no secret that the whole world has its foundations in centralization, and above all, finances are important because they control people most effectively. Bitcoin as an idea is dangerous in that sense and I have no doubt that "they" will do everything to reduce that idea to mere trading and nothing more than that.

However, you should not be pessimistic because I believe that there are millions of those who own Bitcoin and they will not give up so easily, and if we have ever been at an advantage, it is today, because we understood what Bitcoin is much before them and we have much more of it than them. If they want it, I tell them "the price is $10 million per BTC" and only if you ask me nicely