Dang...missed this one.

@MrMojoRising26 If someone drops his reservation or doesn't pay, please let me know. I'd like to buy one (x1) coin for my collection.

Thanks

Then why did El Salvador adopt Bitcoin as legal tender? If it did it, any other country can do it. It's just that most governments are skeptical of using Bitcoin as a currency. They prefer people to adopt it as a store of value just to "prevent" BTC from gaining dominance over Fiat. So far, their efforts are working as Fiat is still King. I wouldn't expect things to change anytime soon.

If there's going to be another country that will adopt Bitcoin as legal tender, that would be a developing (third-world) country. Developed countries such as France, UK, Germany, the US, and Japan won't even bother trying to make Bitcoin legal tender. It's just not worth it. After all, they have thriving economies. Let us be grateful that at least we have an escape route from the centralized financial system. Things would've been much worse if Bitcoin didn't exist. Kudos to Satoshi to wherever he/she is.

Assuming institutional investors' demand continues to outpace supply, market prices will continue to rise for the foreseeable future. Things are going to get better for "hodlers", now that "Wall Street" is in play. At least, in terms of long-term profits. Back then, the market only relied on retail investors to succeed. Now more capital will flow, thanks to regulators' efforts to "institutionalize" Bitcoin.

I say we still have a chance of making it "big" in crypto. Bitcoin hasn't even surpassed Gold's market cap yet. Altcoins, while risky, gives us an even greater opportunity for profit during their "ups and downs". They're more volatile than Bitcoin. If you play your cards right, you can become wealthy in the long run. Who knows what the future holds for crypto?

Who's to say another contentious fork will appear if Bitcoin gets congested again? A few years ago, the Ordinals hype caused network fees to rise towards "uncomfortable" levels. Many expressed their disagreement with it, raising the possibility of Bitcoin getting "forked" again. Bitcoin Knox could've turned into a new chain, if successful. The lead developer (Luke Dashjr) proposed censoring Ordinals inscriptions on-chain via the node software. Glad it didn't work out, otherwise, the community would've been going against Bitcoin's censorship-resistant ideals.

While the odds of a new fork happening now are slim, anything is possible in the future. Money talks, so everything will depend on how interested investors and the community are to make a fork happen. One would hope, exchanges honor customers' funds on forked chains for "free money". Although, I don't think they're legally obligated to do so. Just my two sats.

Ethereum's creator, Vitalik Buterin revealed his identity. Yet, the cryptocurrency still has value. But I get your point. If Satoshi revealed his identity, Bitcoin would never be "safe". Governments will be on his tail to either force him to shut down the network (which it's impossible right now), or disrupt it in any way. Or even worse, make the chain "regulatory-compliant". By remaining anonymous, Bitcoin can stay decentralized and censorship-resistant forever.

I understand people are curious to know who created Bitcoin. But aren't they satisfied by Bitcoin's performance? As long as it does the job it's supposed to, nothing else matters. We might never know who Satoshi is or ever was. Just buy, hold, and forget about the rest.

Or better yet, make USDT transfers free. At least, within Tether's own centralized blockchain network. That would make it "competitive" against the rest of the pack. If Tether and Circle decide to remove their stablecoin offerings from other chains, you can bet top-ranked blockchain platforms such as Ethereum and Solana will lose a large portion of TVL on "De-Fi" smart contracts. And TRON would lose big time, since stablecoins are the only reason it's alive. If they're gone, TRX will turn into a "worthless" "meme" coin. Just like Dogecoin.

I hope Tether and Circle rethink their strategy before they decide to make a chain of their own. I understand they want power/control over everything, but I think they'll "win" more by remaining "blockchain-agnostic". We'll see what happens in the long run.

Well, Satoshi is a cypherpunk with libertarian ideals. Wouldn't he be angry because governments took advantage of it? Market prices going to the moon alone, would not satisfy him completely. While governments and institutions have acquired large amounts of Bitcoin, the core Blockchain remains decentralized. At least, for now. Let's hope such entities never manage to accumulate most (if not all) of the circulating supply. Otherwise, things would become worse.

In the future, it's expected Bitcoin would've already scaled to the masses. And I'm not talking about centralized, off-chain scaling solutions like the Lightning Network. But rather, the main Blockchain itself. With upgrades such as Taproot (now in effect), MAST (coming soon), etc, Bitcoin will become faster and cheaper to use in the long run. Of course, altcoins will always be much cheaper. But they often sacrifice decentralization in favor of convenience. When you see chains such as Solana and IOTA experiencing network disruptions, you'll notice how unreliable they are. Nothing comes close to Bitcoin in terms of security, reliability, and decentralization. The future holds many surprises, so we should expect the unexpected.

True. Bitcoin has done well without Satoshi for quite a while. All thanks to its decentralized and censorship-resistant design. But what if Satoshi is none other than the government itself (particularly, the US government)? Then such discovery would raise eyebrows. It might cause panic, resulting in a massive decline in market prices. At least, that's what I think will happen.

At this point, we should presume Satoshi is already dead. Otherwise, he would've already sold his BTC or moved it somewhere else. If the rumors are true, then Satoshi would be none other than Hal Finney himself. Him and Nick Szabo, of course. But this would be a wild guess. There are far more important things to focus on. When will the media and everyone else stop trying to figure out who Satoshi is or ever was?

Future generations will be the ones that will truly embrace Bitcoin as the next "Digital Gold". Just wait until the "dinosaurs" become history (the "old class" Elite, the establishment, etc) and Gold will eventually lose its luster as a store of value. The world is quickly shifting into the digital realm. So intangible items would become more valuable than tangible ones. At least that's how I see it.

Bitcoin is finite/scarce, extremely-secure, censorship-resistant, decentralized, and portable. It has all of the aspects/properties of Gold (even better). I'm sure it will overcome Gold's market cap in the future. Just you wait and see. If we don't witness such an event, our kids or grandkids will. Hopefully, Bitcoin survives way beyond the last coin mined.

If network fees rise to the moon, transacting on Bitcoin will become so expensive that only the wealthy will be able to use it. Assuming developers don't divide satoshis into smaller units (fractional satoshis). I think that's the OP's biggest concern. Based on my calculations, Bitcoin would need to be worth $100m for 1 satoshi to be equal $1. By the time that happens, developers would've already solved the "high fee" issue (I hope). So there should be nothing to worry about.

Believe me, the perception of Bitcoin being only for the rich will always be there. Especially when noobs think they need to buy 1 whole Bitcoin to be able to participate in it. They only look at how much 1 BTC is worth, and immediately react by saying it's too "expensive" or "unaffordable". It's why altcoins are much more attractive. At least we know Bitcoin will survive for a long time. As long it stays decentralized, nothing else matters.

You think? Because it seems that the "de-dollarization" process is accelerating at a fast pace. Especially now that Trump's controversial tariffs and potential resignation of FED chairman Jerome Powell shook markets. Investors are losing confidence in the USD. It won't be long before USD-backed stablecoins such as USDT and USDC lose their luster. Perhaps, they will be replaced by EURO-backed stablecoins?

I'd be surprised if things happen the way you foretold. It would cement the US' stance as the world's leading superpower. Anyways, USDT and USDC are better off living on multiple chains instead of their own. Don't you think?

Basically, any cryptocurrency is centralized these days. It's hard to find a project that actually commits itself towards decentralization and censorship-resistance (except Bitcoin). Old coins are the ones that are usually decentralized like Bitcoin. But they're widely unpopular.

Among the zillions of centralized coins available, I'd say XRP is the worst of them. It has ties with banks, while driven by the interests of a corporation (Ripple, Inc.). This corporation holds a large amount of the XRP in circulation, allowing them to manipulate prices as they wish. The risk of holding XRP is simply too high to bear. But most people don't understand this because they're often blinded by greed. At least we know, Bitcoin will outlive most coins. Whenever XRP will survive or not, it's yet to be seen. Who knows what lies ahead in the future?

What do you mean by "no freeze on individual addresses"? AFAIK, stablecoin issuers such as Tether and Circle can freeze addresses on multiple blockchains via the smart contract's embedded "blacklist" feature. In other words, Tether and Circle can freeze a specific address across multiple blockchains if they want to. The only reason they're planning to make their own Blockchain networks is because they want full control over everything. A blockchain of their own would allow them to easily freeze, censor, or even confiscate funds at will. By doing such a move, they will officially become "digital banks". Perhaps, regulators in the US will allow this. But not in the EU or even BRICS. And with Tether having issues to launch its own EURO-backed stablecoin, you can imagine how EU regulators will respond.

Let banksters and "Wall Street" enjoy their centralized stablecoins. Traditional cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum is where the freedom's at. Even if their prices remain unstable (volatile) in Fiat terms. If you're not into crypto for the money, this wouldn't matter. Just my two sats.

As it's said in the real world, "all good things come to an end". Airdrops (like faucets) were good while they lasted. Especially those tied to projects with usability in mind. Nowadays, most of the coins/tokens are "junk" as they're unable to provide real use cases to the world. If lucky, you'll qualify for an airdrop paid in the network's native crypto. But the money you'll receive in Fiat would be practically nothing. Especially if the coin/token you get is worthless (low market value). Definitely not worth your time and attention, imo.

You'll earn more by simply mining, staking, or working for crypto. Airdrops are only there to attract newcomers into crypto. Since most people are greedy, they'll continue to waste their time trying to claim airdrops with the hopes of striking it rich in the short-term. We'll see how far will airdrops go.

I think the poster is worried about Satoshi liquidating all of his Bitcoin at once. This would cause a huge market crash, leading to lower prices for Bitcoin (albeit for a short period of time). At this point, we must assume Satoshi is either dead or lost access to his coins. Otherwise, he would've sold the BTC already to live a comfortable life or simply donate it to charity. Whatever Satoshi decides to do with his BTC, shouldn't be of much importance to anyone.

What really matters is governments and institutions acquiring large amounts of the circulating supply. They're still behind, but gradually moving ahead. If they manage to accumulate most (if not all) of the supply, Bitcoin will be doomed. Even if miners and nodes are behind network consensus. Fortunately, there's a way to put such efforts in vain. The community can either fork away or simply approve a network upgrade that would "strip" governments, institutional firms, and other big entities from the network. Although, the last option would go against Bitcoin's original ideals of being "anti-censorship". The decision is theirs to take (community). Hopefully, things will go along smoothly until the very last Bitcoin is mined.

Yes. However, they're only offering crypto services to institutional and wealthy customers (AFAIK). The "average Joe" is going to have to wait. Unless, governments give the "green light" to do so. The US has been pro-Bitcoin ever since Trump took office again, so allowing banks to offer crypto/Bitcoin services to anyone in America should be a no-brainer.

I wouldn't say the same about the EU, though. It's much "tougher" when it comes to regulating Bitcoin and crypto. The current ECB chairman Christine Lagarde is anti-crypto, so we should expect the worse. Again, it's much better if you're your own bank with Bitcoin. But to each, their own.

Payment received. Thanks!

Just revisiting this thread. Any updates on when these poker chips will be available? Can't wait to get some.

You mean the cost of living, right? Yes, it's different on many countries. Some countries have a higher cost of living, while others are much more flexible. Keep in mind that with a high cost of living, comes higher taxes and higher wages. But sometimes, inflation spirals out of control, while wages take a long time to increase. In such scenario, people will only get poorer. The rich will always get richer, because they always find ways to multiply their money. Not to mention, the wealthy always end up paying less taxes than the rest of the people (sometimes even no taxes at all).

Because of the way the system is designed, poverty will continue to be an issue worldwide. Things are even worse now that geopolitical tensions are rising. Trade wars, massive government spending, and external conflicts will further deteriorate the economy. Will Bitcoin be able to "fix the world"? We're yet to see...

The question is: Will regulators allow it? The US is a pro-crypto country, so it wouldn't have a problem with this. But what about other countries such as those within the EU bloc and BRICS? I'm pretty sure they won't allow banks to offer crypto services to their customers. Besides, Bitcoin is NOT legal tender. So banks would be "playing" at their own risk.

Why care about banks, though? Isn't Bitcoin good on its own? With Bitcoin, you can truly be your own bank. I guess the OP doesn't understand what Bitcoin is all about. It's more than just money or "digital gold". It's a movement, a revolution meant to bring back monetary freedom to the people. I hope it fulfills its purpose, before it's too late.