You get 2 merits from me, cause my name appears twice on the list  

Nice compilation; It contains answers to about 90% of the questions asked here on a regular basis. It's a shame many do not use the search option or do not know how to do so efficiently.
Here is one useful guide to searching effectively, for those interested in reading - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5276341.msg55209958#msg55209958

Investing in any asset is risky. Investing involves exchanging fiat or other assets for another you expect to appreciate in value over time, but no guarantee that this is going to happen; That's risk.

Majority of cryptocurrencies which are created are bad investments; the market has been filled with so much scam and rehashed projects, finding out a right investment is quite difficult; much easier to stick to bitcoin. Luna has shown that even perceived established coins can fail due to lack of a definite project and actual decentralization.

---

I've seen a couple of threads over theoas days with this exact theme; advising on how to invest. It's good you do a quick search before making a thread.
Good attempt however!

1) Liverpool
2)  Under
3)  Under
4)  Over  
5)  Yes
6)  1st

7)   Yes
8.)  Yes

9)  No
10)  No

11)  No
12)  Yes

13)  No
14)  No

15)  19'

The Nigerian government are most likely just blowing smoke. A purely digital economy is not feasible at this present point in time, so phasing out physical notes is not either. This is probably an attempt to draw more attention to the eNaira which has not taken off ever since it was launched.

Yes they can; El Salvador is a popular example. They recently adopted Bitcoin as a legal tender and still use their previous fiat currency; USD, with both co existing side by side;



Here's the link which contains the full list of Nations and their currency; there are some others there which uses two currencies side by side (not including a cryptocurrency) like Lesotho, Panama and Sahrawi republic which uses four different currencies.

---

Edit; (off topic discussion)
I can see from the screenshot above that the commonly used ISO code for Bitcoin is BTC or XBT.
I am aware that bitcoin is normally represented by three letters as BTC, but have never come across where it's represented as XBT.

On research, I discovered that XBT is result of ISO standards; that a currency not linked to any country, should be started with an 'X', hence XBT for Bitcoin and XAU for gold.
It seems a bit confusing as there's already a cryptocurrency using that acronym. And XBT is not used in practice as it's said to be on the list.

You basically want to create a Bitcoin trust fund.
A trust fund could serve any asset and the company holds the said asset on behalf of investors, which would be an individual or cooperation; Grayscale is an example of a Bitcoin trust.

Yes, that's what it basically means.
Yes, there's a better way and that would be the investors actually buying directly and storing in their non-custodian wallet. Some institutional investors could have legal issues buying directly and this is where trust funds serve.

Welcome to the bitcointalk family.

Better late than never, or too quick on your first post. It best to read and learn, before replying or posting.
There are already lots of links already posted on this thread to cause an information overload, so I would not add more.

The forum is not that difficult to understand; avoid plagiarism, spreading malwares and spam. Bitcoin itself is a bit more complex, but if you take it one step at a time, you should get a hang of it.

Highly unlikely that he/she liquidated at all.
All the addresses linked to Satoshi Nakamoto, from the genesis block to others which received coinbase transactions during the very early days of Bitcoin; have not yet sent any transaction out. If these were truly owned by Satoshi as speculated, then that would mean they have not sold or liquidated their Bitcoin holdings.

The only reason I can think of, is he/she fears impacting the value of Bitcoin too much. If addresses linked to the creator of Bitcoin were discovered to sell, that would sway trader's sentiments a lot and affect the price.

If they did so now, I'm of the opinion that a lot of users would still switch back to viewing the price in bitcoins rather than a fraction of it, as that has become the standard not just for Bitcoin, but for any cryptocurrency listed there.

Also, sats appear quite often in Bitcoin for peoplyto have become more familiar with it; for one it's the default standard for measuring feerate on transactions, so looking at the sats/byte or vbyte would give one an idea of how much cents of dollars they pay in relation to sats.

It's unrealistic someone would buy at that price now, but such a trade would only affect the price on binance, not the global market as there are many other exchanges.
And this would only affect the binance last trading price, up till the next trade is completed.

The price you see on cointrackers is determined by a curation of last sales on different exchange platforms.

Exchanges have buy and sell orders set to specific prices which the buyer wants to buy at or the seller wants to sell at.

---

• Mr. Bob puts 1BTC up for sale at the value of $29,700 on binance, that's the price he wants to sell at,
• Mrs. Jane takes up his offer and buys his bitcoins in exchange for $29,700,
• Once the sale is confirmed, that would be the displayed Bitcoin price on binance, until the next trade that is, this is why the value is always changing.

---

Coin trackers like CMC and coingecko check the current trade price on several exchanges to arrive at an average, which would be their displayed bitcoin price.
No one controls this system, it is purely community based (decentralized).

I also don't expect Manchester city to drop points despite the fact that Aston Villa just went ahead few seconds ago. There are still lots of minutes left in the match, both matches actually and both top teams have the quality to win at the end.

About Mo Salah's absence, that could be a technical tweak of the manager. I thought De Bruyne was player of the season.

All eyes were on Manchester City to know if they would slip up, but Liverpool are having a much more difficult evening against wolves after conceding the first goal.
There are still lots of minutes in both games for much more drama.

Chelsea and Tottenham have also gone one goal ahead in their individual matches.

Your reply on your thread to the already deleted hijack is what's wrong about your whole approach;
What next after retaliatory spam? Feedbacks? PMs to mods?

If your first action to perceived wrong, is to immediately retaliate, then you should not complain about the system as you did not give sufficient time for action to be taken or inquire what caused the delay.

I personally cannot think of a particular reason why a user's email address needs to be revealed when they create reports, it doesn't affect or influence the outcome of the reports and does not provide any relevant information for the mods.

It's however safe to assume that once you register on the forum, your details are visible to certain members of the moderating and administration team, so acting accordingly and choosing what address to use use important.

• I was in my late teenage years when I first learned about the crypto and by extension; Bitcoin, from an acquaintance.

• I would say my age played a role in making me more receptive of new knowledge, at that age, I had very little financial knowledge in relation to taxes, inflation, assets and the likes and basically learnt through Bitcoin.

• Not necessarily. I would have loved to start at an earkjiage, cause I would have got into Bitcoin when it was cheaper, but it's not a regret I have. It all happened in due time and I have been able to learn and grow a lot through this forum and the members in it.

Self mod feature is restricted on certain boards like Meta, Scam Accusations, Important Announcements, and Auctions.
And once you create a thread (which allows self mod) without activating the feature, it is not possible to make it self moderated.

Here's a quote from theymos;

Promoting a potential scam website in the guise of helping victims of scam, not entirely original.

I have definitely seen newbies treated with a certain level of prejudice on the forum, being the largest rank group, there is bound to be more bad actors which misrepresents the bunch, and while I do not agree with this, it happens few times and far between to be much of an issue. It could be that such perceived harsh words in one reply, would stick out more in a thread with 10 helpful replies.

Being on the internet requires you to develop a thick skin you would not want to be hurt from "words" of an anonymous individual you could never identify.
Filter everything you read, take in the useful ones, and grow with that, while ignoring the parts not beneficial to you.

As I understand it; volatility represents the standard deviation (SD) from the price in the timeframe you're studying, it basically tells you how much an asset's price changed over a period of time, a percentage of 4% represents less change than one of 29% in the same period.
For example; if you're looking at a 24 hour period, and at different times (n) in the day, the price of Bitcoin was significantly different from the average of all price points, that represents higher deviation, than one which ic much closer.

There are lots of formulas available for calculating volatility, depending on what asset you are looking at.
To implement this in trading decisions, you would have to understand more about SD, dispersion, variance and how they are related.

Your question, if I understand is; scam bursters help the forum but bursting cheaters who would also likely be spammers. Definitely yes.
As for DT members, it's basically one of the main reasons they were added.

You would have to give an actual case of a positive feedback and discuss why it's not correct to you. A random case of a user catching and tagging bounty cheaters is kind of broad.

I'm personally of the opinion that trust feedback should be used in cases where user shows trustworthiness or hints of the opposite, tagging cheaters does not mean trustworthiness. I'll rather add such a user to my trust list as their judgement is most times accurate.

What's the problem here and your solution to it?