Yes. That's why I've pointed out this would be a subject of constant debate within the community. Either allow Ordinals on-chain and OFAC-sanctioned transactions or all the other way around. As much as I hate high fees, there's nothing we can do other than wait until the hype is over. Rejecting Ordinals just because they increase network congestion, is not a good idea.

Ultimately, the community will decide what's best for Bitcoin in the long run. I only hope BTC stays decentralized and censorship-resistant to prove itself a viable alternative against Fiat. Otherwise, it would be the end of an era for financial freedom and privacy. The future is unpredictable, so lets hope for the best. 

Received. Thank you!

Jamie Dimon is just another hater. He is a banker, so it's normal to see him spreading negative comments of Bitcoin. Warren Buffet is another hater that belongs to the old generation. These "dinosaurs" will eventually become history, as the new generation embraces digital payments for their own benefit.

Like or not, crypto is the future of money. Bankers, the elite, and governments are afraid of Bitcoin because it provides people the ability to become their own bank (true financial freedom, and sovereignity). Since it's decentralized, no one can control/manipulate it to his/her own will. That's the main reason why Bitcoin has its enemies.

Ultimately, BTC will continue to grow until it beats Fiat currencies for good. Some countries went as far as adopting it as legal tender, so either you join the revolution or get left behind in the dust. What will be closing down is not Bitcoin, but the US Dollar once inflation spirals out of control. A devalued USD would be completely worthless. Bad for Jamie, but good for Bitcoin overall. Just my opinion

We can blame governments for this. They've spread false propaganda, making the public believe privacy is a very bad thing. When you hide your financial activity, it could bring suspicion. That's why most people don't care about privacy, often claiming they "have nothing to hide". A pity, because this will lead crypto towards more centralization in the long run.

Governments will not only be able to see your entire financial history, but also be able to determine which transactions go through and which get frozen due to suspicious acitvity (via centralized exchanges). If we had privacy, this would've been almost impossible to achieve. It seems to me that crypto/Blockchain tech is heading into a dark future. You can see what I mean with the recent crackdown of centralized mixers. Who knows if privacy ends up being abolished by mainstream governments in the long run?

This was already discussed before. A small number of developers (most notably Luke Dashjr) want to censor Ordinals inscriptions on the Bitcoin blockchain. It's a contentious subject among community members, especially when it goes against Bitcoin's principles. While the filter is beneficial for users (lower fees, and reduced confirmation time), it's certainly harmful for miners. Especially when they'll be losing the ability to earn some extra money.

How Bitcoin would go forward from now on, is a mystery. It would best to have Ordinals on Bitcoin, while keeping on-chain fees as low as possible. The only solution to this would be to increase the block size (which means greater transaction capacity). Or developers can introduce the filter, and provide a way for Ordinals inscriptions to move to a sidechain or even the LN itself. Lets hope everything goes back to normal by 2024. Just my thoughts

Haven't you heard about UAHFs (User Activated Hard Forks)? Users & node operators can unanimously agree to censor Ordinals inscriptions even if miners don't like it. After all, they don't posess full control over the BTC blockchain. Once there's a supermajority of network nodes running software with the filter, Ordinals will be gone for good. I know this goes against Bitcoin's censorship-resistant principles, but it's for the best if we want low fees again.

OFAC-sanctioned transactions, on the other hand, are another story. Miners shouldn't censor these transactions just because the US government wants to. Isn't the whole idea to make Bitcoin an independent monetary system from banks and governments alike (no middlemen)? We've entered uncharted territory, so either BTC remains a censorship-resistant cryptocurrency or all the other way around. The future is widely unpredictable, so we can only hope for the best.

I can't imagine how governments will be able to pull this off (controlling the mining pools), especially when miners can decide to move to another pool that doesn't promote censorship. With a new mining protocol underway (Stratum V2), it's expected mining to become less-centralized in the future. I've read somewhere there was a decentralized mining pool called "P2Pool" (not to be confused with Monero's P2Pool.to mining pool). Whenever it will take off in popularity or remain a niche, it's yet to be seen.

Regarding putting devs behind bars, I'd say governments are going to have a hard time doing this especially if the developer is anonymous. Just like Bitcoin's Satoshi Nakamoto. New protocols and/or privacy techniques need to be developed in an anonymous way to avoid government prosecution. If the developer reveals his identity (like Vitalik Buterin and others), he would be nothing more than stupid. I know the excuse is that investors will think a project is a scam without publicly-known developers, but this is the way to go if we want to preserve decentralization/privacy/censorship-resistance. With centralized mixers on the brink of extinction, Bitcoiners will have to use decentralized alternatives for true financial privacy. Hopefully, non-custodial mixers and privacy-oriented cryptocurrencies will survive for generations. As long as we defend our right to privacy, there should be nothing to worry about.

Since when do you need to have a license to accept cryptocurrency payments? This would only apply to centralized Fiat currencies. Dogecoin is (and will always be) a decentralized cryptocurrency. Even if many people are investing into it blindly because of Elon Musk. I'm sure no one will take "X" seriously if a "meme" coin becomes the cornerstone of digital payments. Using an alternative like XRP would do the trick. It even matches with the name of the social network.

I can't imagine banks disappearing by 2024, especially when they're a "force to reckon with". It will be a huge battle between X Corp and the regulators. What "X" could do is replace PayPal as the world's leading payments processor. Anything else would be only a dream. Maybe Elon Musk will create his own coin (X Coin) for the "X" platform?

Everyone gets excited when BTC market prices increase. There's no denying that. The only problem is that fees soar like crazy due to high network congestion. Many Bitcoiners are already feeling the pain of paying over $15 per transaction, especially when other coins are faster and cheaper to use. Even ETH is cheaper than BTC right now. Unless the hype comes to an end, don't expect things to get better soon.

If you only rely in BTC as a store of value, high fees shouldn't be much of an issue. Bitcoin is now sitting within the $43k mark, with ample room for growth in the future. If spot ETFs are approved in the US, expect market prices to rise all the way to the moon. Even without the spot ETFs, the upcoming halving will have a positive effect over Bitcoin's market price. I'd wait until the dust settles to buy more BTC at a discount. But if you've bought early and are still holding BTC, I'd suggest you don't sell until the big pump. Who knows what surprises we'll find by 2024?

Even though Justin Sun doesn't control the TRON blockchain directly, there are some big exchanges owned by him with a large stake on the network. Poloniex is one of them and it's among the top super representatives (validators) on the TRON blockchain. So we could say Justin Sun still has some influence over the project. If he dies or gets arrested, you can bet TRX will crash real hard. The same might happen with Ethereum.

You can see why Satoshi never disclosed his identity in the first place. It was to prevent Bitcoin from becoming centralized. Or at least, prevent people from following one person. TRX has its days numbered, especially when the competition is getting fierce. Without innovation, what more could you expect from this coin?

If the government has a backdoor on either a non-custodial wallet or a cryptocurrency's node software (with the help of developers), then yes, it will be impossible to have financial privacy against said entity. But code is readily available online (open source), so it will be easy enough to detect the backdoor. Decentralization must be preserved to render governments' efforts to destroy or minimize crypto useless. Centralized mixers will be shut down for good. But not decentralized or non-custodial ones. Tornado.Cash mixer is still running despite the sanctions, as well as, its forks.

With Bitcoin getting smart contract features via the use of sidechains, it's possible to build a decentralized/non-custodial mixer that would live on the Blockchain forever (immutable). I wonder what new tactics will governments come up with to prevent people from obfuscating their BTC transactions in the long run?

Well that's a relief. If it's only enforcing KYC through centralized exchanges, then you can switch to a P2P or DEX exchange for true privacy. We should stick with open source wallets and decentralized exchanges to avoid failling into the hands of the government. Regulations are getting strict, especially when Bitcoin's popularity is increasing at a fast pace.

I've been doing a little research and found out a private alternative to the Lightning Network called "Ark". There isn't a working product (as far as I know), but the project is very promising. You might be able to "anonymize" your BTC with this off-chain scaling solution in a trustless manner. There are also trusless cross-chain atomic swaps that will eliminate the need for CEXs in the future. With development happening behind the scenes, it seems to me that not all hope is lost.

What if the criminal uses a non-custodial mixer? Would the government prosecute developers instead (considering that they can't shut down the mixer itself)? Considering that most developers reveal their identities to the public, hunting them down would be a "piece of cake". The non-custodial mixer would remain in operation, though. Especially because of its decentralized and censorship-resistant design.

You can see how the US government was unable to shut down Tornado.Cash, despite sanctioning it. Developers even made a fork out of the non-custodial mixer. Be aware though, using a non-custodial mixer to "obfuscate" your BTC transactions would catch the attention of the government (if you're careless). Even if you're not doing anything illegal. I guess privacy on Bitcoin will be a never-ending battle. Unless people stand up and defend their right to privacy, governments will win. Who knows what the future holds for Bitcoin? 

It's extremely-undervalued. Especially with a deflationary mechanism and a limited supply of 84m coins. I guess people haven't noticed LTC's benefits yet. It could be a result of poor marketing/promotion from the developer team. Whereas Bitcoin often struggles to reach the masses because of high fees and slow confirmation times, Litecoin has plenty of space available for day-to-day payments. This is possible because of LTC's block time of only 2.5 minutes (compared to BTC's 10 min block time).

With the LN, and even Mimblewimble for privacy-oriented transactions, Litecoin proves itself to be a good digital cash system for the world. As long as there are exchanges trading this coin, LTC holders should have nothing to worry about. Who knows if Litecoin outlives many of the altcoins we know and love today? Just my opinion

Talk about manipulation. And yet, we've thought central banks were the only ones doing this. You can't expect anything good from a coin that's pegged to the value of a centralized currency (Fiat). That's why Bitcoin was created independently from the existing monetary system. Would you imagine the USD crashing real hard in the future? It would certainly drive Tether's market price to $0. Or Tether itself could lose its peg for unknown reasons.

If USDT dies, expect the "bloodbath" to last for quite some time. This would be good for buyers, but bad for holders. The crypto market often behaves in many strange and bizarre ways, so I'd proceed with caution just to be safe.

It's going to get worse by the next block reward halving. These high fees prevent people with low income from using the BTC blockchain for daily payments. Even if they want to use the LN for faster and cheaper transactions, they'd still need to pay the high on-chain fee to open or close a channel. The only viable solution would be to use an altcoin with low network congestion.

BTC Core devs better increase on-chain TX capacity before it's too late. Otherwise, Bitcoin would become a settlement layer for the wealthy (mainly whales and big exchanges). Hopefully, fees will decline after the hype. As long as Bitcoin stays decentralized, nothing else matters.

You think Elon Musk would take seriously a coin that was designed as a "joke"? He's only shilling it to fool investors for his own benefit. It's easy enough to manipulate an inexpensive coin like DOGE than a behemoth like Bitcoin. The guy didn't even keep his promise of integrating Dogecoin into "X". So you can see there's no future for Dogecoin with Elon Musk around.

Only the community can guide the project towards a better future. The day developers reduce DOGE's supply and add innovative features, will be the day that Dogecoin will be used seriously for payments like similar chains (Bitcoin, Litecoin, etc). Otherwise, expect the "meme" coin to go back to $0 soon. Just my two sats.

You'd still need to pay a high on-chain fee to open/close a channel on the Lightning Network. For large transfers, this shouldn't be much of an issue. Only for small payments. If you're getting into the LN, it's best to open a channel with a decent amount of money. Something within the $50 - $100 range would suffice. Anything less than that wouldn't be worth it. If only developers increased on-chain capacity, things would've been better by now. Now we're forced to use the LN or an altcoin because of the Ordinals craze. Things are going to get worse in the short-medium term, due to the hype surrounding the approval of spot ETFs and the halving of April 2024.

At least, fees won't stay high forever. That's because there's something called the "free market". BTC users have the power to decide which fees to pay per transaction. While most miners are greedy, there's a small few that would accept low fee TXs no matter what. Hopefully, the community will guide Bitcoin in the right direction. As long as decentralization wins, nothing else matters.

The coins you've mentioned are good. But I'd put most of my money into ETH, since it's the biggest blockchain network in the world after Bitcoin. Blackrock and Fidelity sent an application to the SEC for a hopeful approval of a spot ETF for ETH. If approved, market prices will rise like crazy. You will have more gains with both BTC and ETH combined, than any other cryptocurrency on the market.

The hype is only starting, so I'd suggest you get in now before it's too late. Just don't invest more than what you can't afford to lose, and there should be nothing to worry about. Who knows if altcoins will make many of us rich post-halving?

So this means non-custodial wallets will now be KYC-compliant via the use of the AOPP protocol? It doesn't make any sense. Especially if the wallet is open source. What's stopping someone from making a fork without the protocol? This will only work on closed-source wallets.

There's no way governments will be able to enforce regulations on truly-decentralized blockchain networks. It's technically impossible. The only thing they can do is regulate centralized exchanges, services, and wallet providers (custodial). They can also pressure developers to write code that's regulatory-compliant. But the community ultimately decides which changes to approve or reject on a Blockchain network. Lets hope decentralization wins in the long run. :/