If fiat was an option and not a stipulated legal tender, then a lot of people currently depending on it would not and rather find alternate means to transact.
For Bitcoin to go mainstream, 100% of the people do not have to use it, it just needs to be easily accessible anywhere and available as a means of payment by merchants globally. There would still be preferences by people who prefer fiat, altcoins or some other means of transacting.

Security and to an extent, user experience is not a problem with Bitcoin. As one of the most secure networks it only relies on the holder to use it the proper way and the user experience depends on the wallet you use to store you coins.
Scalability is a work in progress and is one major barrier to adoption, along with volatility.

Transactions within exchanges usually just involve changing of balance sheets and not actual transfer of bitcoins on chain, this is the reason it is presumably faster than from one wallet to another.

• Mempool space, i.e, how clogged the network is at the time,
• Feerate, this is the amount paid for the confirmation of the transaction. It's counted in sat/vbyte.
• Number of inputs and outputs, which influence the fee paid and indirectly affects the tx speed.

That's wrong. When you consider that over 90% of projects turn out to be shams or scams the chance of them becoming fraudulent and misusing your information is very high.

As I recommended earlier, avoid applying for multiple airdrops as you risk your funds and privacy.

My exact reservations. I don't expect that a random scam attempt would be given such attention as this was and for such a scam to be actually effective, it would have to target actual users of Trezor. I could of course be wrong.

As you pointed out, it could be a previous breach or a more recent one.

This is an easy one for the platform to wiggle around based off the terms and conditions you signed up for when registering on their website.

It is important to note that it is possible that it was truly a network lag (7 seconds is not such a ridiculous time), and you can I expect the site to compensate any resulting situation from network lags.

You can choose to avoid the platform on the basis of their lags and also their unsatisfactory support team.

Did you read the quote from theymos?
Having a positive feedback from a DT member would not matter if the negative feedbacks are higher.
Also, if a DT member gives a positive trust to a known scammer, they would not be on DT for long.

What do you mean punishes the supporters?

Your friend's wallet wasn't hacked, they gave up access to a 2nd party by linking their wallet or giving out their private keys.
A hack would be a breach or a compromise on the system, this is a silly mistake.

This is the reason why I caution that newbies should not invest until they have gotten enough fundamental information about the assets and how to secure themselves, without this, they would get quickly lose their funds.

Who determines what freedom is, who is an enemy of freedom and who should be allowed to act certain ways?
There's no global police nation with the moral rights to hand out sanctions and restrictions to erring countries.

Bitcoin offers freedom, freedom to the West and every other part of the work, freedom to make your own choices and use as you wish, freedom to spend and transact without restrictions.

These messages are very popular on telegram, Twitter, Reddit and any other platform, where crypto related discussions are had.

The important point to avoid falling for such scams is ignoring unsolicited messages, regardless of the content.
If your telegram account, email or any other form of contact is not available publicly (for people to reach you), then avoid any message you get from unknown contacts, particularly if it requires some form of action from you.

Don't get greedy, and in it looks to good to be true, it probably isn't true.

Expect to be patient and await a response.
Also, you have been told the most probable reason for your ban, and that action violates the forum rules and deserves a ban.
• If you did share the malware, then do not bother appealing the ban,
• If you didn't and your account was backed prior to that, gather evidence of this and submit to the address.

• I don't see any '2020' in the address.
• Deleted PMs carry the same generic message and does not sugges if it resulted in a ban.

Quoting your image for visibility.

---

To address the question if there is any correlation between the price and mining difficulty, to an extent, such a correlation exists or used to exist in the early days.

When Bitcoin was still relatively unknown, mining difficulty was very low as there were nog very may miners, but with popularity of Bitcoin increasing and subsequent increase in price, it attracted more miners and raised the competition and mining difficulty level.

Today however, I do not think there is any significant link between both factors.

You can still be scammed through project's official channels, as the actual project could be a scam in the end.

There is the additional risk of identity theft. Those who apply for airdrops do that at a high frequency, meaning they reveal personal information about themselves on various platforms and that could be sold or hacked and find its way to the dark web, this in turn could be used to make purchases in the person's name and result in huge debt.

Airdrops in my opinion are not worth the stress it takes to apply for them, and when you factor in the risk involved, I would advice to avoid.

You personalized the topic, so answering for myself, the only service I render in which I am paid in Bitcoin are remote freelance gigs, like my current signature campaign on the forum or on other platforms.

And I accept them cause it's the best option for transactions across border and to maintain your anonymity. I can remain as an online forum personality and earn through my campaign without having to reveal my identity.

I understood OP's question and aptly responded to it.

I refered to layer 2 solutions like LN cause they could help reduce the load on chain.

Consider a situation where Mr. Bob opens a channel on LN and performs hundred of transactions through it before closing the channel, the on chan connection would be at the point where he opened the channel and when he closed it, so miners would only confirm two large transactions rather than hundreds of smaller ones, and the two large ones will come with a larger fee, increasing the fee paid for per block for the miner that confirms it, possibly making mining more profitable with just tx fees.

This question has been asked several times and answered as well.

When the entire bitcoins have been mined, rewards from miners would be gotten entirely from transaction fees. This would not happen instantly, but slowly over the course of the years with each halving, this means that the system would have enough time to adjust to working entirely on tx fees.

A solution could be through growth in 2nd layer transactions like Lightening network, reducing the bulk of transactions performed on chain and when it is done, it would require a higher fee to compensate the miners.

P.S, all these are speculations, it remains to be seen how the network would operate at that time.

I don't know what post you are referring to, but if it was done unintentionally, simply edit the post and include the reference link in it.

Acquaint yourself more to the forum rules to avoid violating any of them.

You cannot address the issue of volatility in a decentralized market.
If anyone is scared of investing, the solution is to not invest and find an alternative option which is regulated and "safer".

That's a bad idea. Bitcoin being decentralized is what makes it attractive to investors who seek financial freedom. It is not centralized and holders have full custody of their assets without the intervention of a third party.

A pro tip (although, I'm not an expert), do not feel comfortable simply because an asset or investment is regulated.
Legal tenders around the world are regulated, but we still see bullshit fiscal policies being implemented and fiat going deeper into inflation.

Wallets are not a function of the Bitcoin infrastructure and there are many user friendly wallets like Electrum and Bitcoin core. Also hardware wallet like Trezor.
The Bitcoin market is the most transparent market as all transactions are public information.

Every speculative asset would have some sort of volatility. I do not expect Bitcoin would ever become completely stable at a particular price, but I do expect reduced volatility as the market gains more adoption.

It's perfectly alright to ask a question here, that's the exact purpose of this forum, not need to be apologetic about it.

You are right, insurance cannot cover a decentralized asset like Bitcoin. Insurance comes with regulations and you need to have some sort of control inorder to regulate something.

This means that for you to insure your bitcoins in any form, you have to access it on a centralized platform and hand over custody. This is not an ideal option as it involves not being in control of your Bitcoin private keys and hence can be restricted from accessing them at any time.

It also presents a privacy risk in registering on such platform and exposing your Bitcoin holdings.

There is no saga of bitcoin's price, it's just the regular market movements, which is expected in a volatile asset like BTC.

This does not make any sense. Bitcoins are not taken out of anywhere, they can only be moved from exchanges to personal wallets which boosts the price in the long run.

Bitcoin is not going down, it's experiencing sideways movements. And there are no major shareholders, this is not a public liability company, we only have holders.

That's good advice. An important rule of investing is not putting in more than you can afford to lose.
Your grandfather putting all of his wealth into Bitcoin is a very bad decision and one that could have negative consequences.

Much better to buy slowly and spread over multiple purchases, DCA.