Stable coins don't bring anything. And I am not sure what's more trustworthy - banks or some more or less known institutions that issued stable coins.
An idea was to invest for growing the value. Investment means risk. And investments need time and 6 months may not do, especially in crypto, which is prone to big fluctuations.
But if he does so, then I would advise more than Bitcoin only, some amounts can go into something else. Maybe some small amounts into altcoins, maybe some amounts into gold or stocks... diversifying uses to increase the chances for a good outcome.

However, OP should keep in mind that exchanging his money into something else and back means fees to be paid.

So there's no good solution imho.

Where I have my account I also have a pending loan and also it's the bank preferred by my employer.
So unless I change my job and I also get enough money to pay back my debts, the chances to leave that bank are slim.

And I hope that by the day my loan is paid, Bitcoin also gets recognised properly as a coin everywhere.

So OP is mining some random altcoin (Taj) while "he has" way more than 10k Bitcoin in a wallet.
I'm sure he needs help.

Quantum computers are not as stable as the "commercials" show them. They are not really usable yet afaik. And if the manage to crack Bitcoin, (way too) many other things become unsafe. And however, Bitcoin has certain protection and I expect it be quite low in the list of quantum tasks. I expect, for example, a good weather forecast be much more higher in the list.


Bitcoin is pseudo anonymous, one has to be very careful if he cares about his privacy. (On the other hand there are plenty of coins that do offer privacy by default.)


Bitcoin is not just another thing to invest into. I expect more and more will understand that and choose Bitcoin.
Google, on the other hand, is just one successful company. People invest in companies before Bitcoin existence and will continue to do so. It doesn't really affect Bitcoin.


All in all, none of these "problems" are actual problems. Calm down  

I think that even traders may be holding some coins. I see it not a contradiction, instead a "diversification" of the ways to gain some more and maybe lowering the risks too.
I did a bit of trading in the past, I do hold a little too, but I had to spend too.. more than I wanted to. So I can't say I am a true HODLer...

Wasn't Binance allow you buy Bitcoin with credit card? They will not ask for papers under a certain amount (2 BTC/day withdrawals), but they will ask for some personal information anyway.
If that's OK for you, research in that direction.

You are right. Just too many people are not aware of all this. They don't read (enough). They don't understand that if the coins are gone, they're gone and nobody will reimburse them.
And most start shouting (instead of reading) when they get into troubles because they didn't read.

My first ever purchase with Bitcoin was a total mess. Why? Because I've been using back then a custodian web "wallet".
The platform was expecting the payment get sent within a number of minutes, the wallet was optimizing the fees and sent (much) later and I've spent unnecessary amount of time to recover my money.
It ended well, it was not a high amount either since I was testing, but all the other payments I've done from proper wallet and all went out good.

There are more and more examples pointing to the direction that web wallets don't worth be used. We all learn and do the step forward sooner or later. The sooner the better though.

I didn't say that your scenario is impossible. I only said that it's not 100% risk free. There can be some blocks found very quick, there can be low fee transactions included in them (CPFP for example), ... which can spoil the plans of the attacker. However, his chances are still very high indeed.
We are on the same page: private (proper) wallets are not to be trusted for 0-confirmation funding.

As long as MEW is opened as a web page, I don't know why it would be so different from blockchain.com; if at the point something is downloaded and run locally, an exe is also fine by me.
So I am not sure why would people use web based wallets at all. If one doesn't want to install, there's always Electrum-portable at hand.

But as long as people don't mind using even custodian services - from exchanges' wallets to Xapo, Bitpay and so on - meaning wallets that are not in the list of recommended wallets at bitcoin.org, I think that we may be overthinking something.


Newbies should start with bitcoin.org. That's what we should recommend.
Newbies can be misled by "blockchain.com", by "bitcoin.com" and maybe others too. They have to learn to read the information around them. Sadly in all search results the paid ads go in front, although at least nowadays Google shows bitcoin.org for searches for bitcoin or bitcoin wallet. It's a start.

It's written in far too many places that web wallets are to be avoided, no matter if they contain or not keywords like blockchain or bitcoin. One has only to look around instead of going head first.

In theory you can install Telerik Fiddler and see what data it "sends home". But since probably some already did that and didn't complain, it should be fine.
Of course, since it's a website, they can change it whenever they want and "come with surprises".

However, if you have such concerns, why do you use web wallets at all? Buy/start using a hardware wallet, install a proper wallet onto your laptop or smartphone and you are set.

Foarte buna initiativa. O sa ma uit si eu peste postari cand apar si este posibil sa acord si eu merit pe ici-colo.
As adauga la punctul 7, asa, de siguranta, ca se exclud si traducerile automate.

  You can also put it like that, yes. Officially they simply didn't protect them, allowing the spell checker send them to whoever wanted to "help" with them 

From what I've read here, reinstalling Visual Studio 2015 redistributable could fix this. Direct link for VS2015 Redist: https://www.microsoft.com/en-in/download/details.aspx?id=48145

Let aside crypto promotion, which central banks don't want to do, central bank cryptocurrencies are not pointless.
They would offer an alternative - a more trusted one if implemented correctly - to all the known stable coins, existing (USDT, GUSD, ..)  or not (LIBRA).

I also vote for Dogecoin, Litecoin and Waves.
Although correctly said, there are other better suited coins for fast and low fee / 0-fee transactions, some still use Dogecoin just because almost all exchanges list it.
Litecoin (and sometimes Dogecoin) may still be used by some exchanges as the basis for exchange (instead of Bitcoin) for very small value coins, having LTC-WhateverCoin and no BTC-WhateverCoin.
Waves is a very easy and cheap platform for tokens and has a working DEX (and other features too). Although it's drowning under the huge number of useless tokens, it has its utility imho.


OP, maybe at some point you'll adapt the initial post and enhance the list?

Exactly. Under certain amount of money, web wallets are "okay". If they "steal" your money, in a way or another, it's no biggie.
And under certain amounts people are also careless with their wallets, no matter how good the software is. And under certain amounts it's not worth it to buy hardware wallet.
The fake "Electrum 4.0" has proven all this much better than we'd like to admit.

Although selling crypto miners is (expected to be) a good business, I'm not sure what they would do with the IPO money.. expand their production in US to avoid tariffs?! But then the production will also get (much) more expensive.
So I am not sure who will be the ones who would benefit more - the investors or the companies? I guess that's the companies.
So it's not really a gold rush.

You should look more actively, if you are indeed interested.
One very good thread to start with would be https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4528038.0

Yup. That's why I suggested OP to allow 0-conf to certain (custodian) wallets which don't allow users do rbf at all.


The previous number of minutes between blocks doesn't necessarily give a hint for the number of minutes until the next block, so it's not risk free. It may reduce the risk (debatable), but doesn't make it risk free.