The reason is that they insure themselves against the volatility of BTC and altcoins, so when their price starts to drop, they transfer everything to stablecoins instead of fiat - which then enables them to have their funds at their disposal and can transfer them very easily and quickly between different CEXs.

This certainly makes sense because that way you can have fast transactions and bypass the bank in the entire process of deposits and withdrawals, while the risk of stablecoins is already mentioned and is not something that worries most people. The vast majority of people still trust banks, and private companies that issue stablecoins are in a way digital money banks that actually use fiat to make their product valid and trusted, which means that if you believe in fiat, you also accept stablecoins as a completely normal thing.

For those who are looking for some reason why the price is currently $26k and not $30k, there will always be some story that may seem convincing at first, but actually there is very little logic in all this if you look at some facts. As @stompix has already written, BlackRock has more harm than good from the fact that the price goes down rather than up, and this is where the question arises whether BR really buys BTC before they have been approved for the spot ETF - because some claim that they have to do it in order to demonstrated ability to obtain approval for such an ETF at all.

For those for whom this is not the first encounter with the upcoming halving, everything that has been happening in recent months is nothing new. All that has changed are the numbers, the game is more or less the same, although we have some new players who have yet to show their skills.

Fortunately for all those who have been aware that Bitcoin has existed for at least 5+ years, we can say that all these new players are very late to board this train, and it definitely gives us a sense of satisfaction to be able to say that we turned out to be much smarter in all of this from them.

NO and NO - I think I was clear about what I think about altcoins, as well as the so-called stablecoins. I also wrote you very clearly that I am not here just for profit.


What comes from sig campaigns is more or less irrelevant in my financial picture, because I invested in BTC back when it was only worth a little more than $200, and these investments enable me today to pay for various goods and services in BTC. As you can see, not everything is as it seems, you can actively spend BTC and at the same time use it as an investment.

I remember that, but it didn't surprise me at all when I read that the Chinese still use that CEX with the help of official support that helps them bypass the rules. If I'm not mistaken, someone then mentioned about 200 000 users from China who continue to trade in this way. When it comes to profit (and it always is), then such companies very often turn a blind eye, and not only pretend not to see, but also help potential clients to get fake documents.

---

Do you know what's worse than giving your KYC to a CEX? To do it two or three times with different documents which are then used for who knows what, and apparently they are sold to those from "forbidden countries".

I think that we have already managed to overcome the problem of price volatility with BTC long ago when it comes to payments with something called payment processors - and they are the simplest way for the buyer to pay the amount of goods or services at the given price at a given moment, and for the seller to receive the requested amount in fiat.

It is not very realistic to expect that the price of BTC in relation to fiat will stabilize to the extent that payments would go directly according to the model BTC address - > BTC address, as well as that price stabilization would have such a positive impact on merchants, because they even offer a lot that can be bought/paid with BTC, but there is too little interest from customers.

The problem is that the vast majority of those involved in BTC do it only for profit, whether it's an average Joe or companies worth billions or even trillions of dollars.

As @Pmalek says, if everything is as you claim, then your case is a mystery (for now), but there must be an answer because nothing happens by chance. Given that you say that you have memorized the password (which is not very smart), is it a password that is easy to guess, or is it so simple that it would be easy to brute force it? Let's say that despite everything you've already written, someone still managed to get hold of your wallet, and then guessed/brute-forced your password.


I already wrote my theory (although it sounds a bit cinematic), but I think that @pooya87 is probably much closer to a possible answer as to why the hacker did not clear the entire amount. Go back a few posts and read his answer again, but of course the question still arises as to how the hacker managed to penetrate your system in the first place.

I didn't even think that you had any other goal like most of those who are on this forum and outside it. In other words, you and others like you invest in everything that can bring you profit, regardless of how much these things are in their essence completely opposite to what Bitcoin represents.


I am more for the idea behind something than exclusively for the profit that can be realized only because something has the potential to be profitable. What I want to say is that we are not all here exclusively for profit, no matter how unreal it may seem to you and to all those who read.

Yes, I have something in my signature that I promote, but in the last 3-4 years I spent maybe 1-2% of everything that came from that source.

It seems that you have a lot of faith in a cryptocurrency that is practically heavily centralized and based on POS, and something that can cease to exist at any moment if some angry bureaucrat in the US gets off on the wrong foot. The private companies behind such "products" are after all only private companies whose goal is only profit, and they do not have nearly enough resources and competence that for any reason you trust them more than some currency backed by a powerful government with its strong economy.


I don't see a reason for that since I found out that there is something much better than both of the above, but everyone chooses their own way of storing value - someone will say Bitcoin, someone $, someone else will invest everything they have in a herd of goats or sheep.

The fact is that these are mostly old members, so you need to dig very deep, considering that members with such badges are mostly inactive for a very long time. Sometimes an old topic appears on the surface in which members with such badges can be found.

One of the examples is this very topic -> NSA and ECC and this one -> Thoughts on type safety and crypto RNGs

Only when you think about how stupid it is to say something like "Bitcoin is dead", we realize how stupid those who persistently say it really are. Bitcoin is not a living being that someone can take its life, and not even technically kill it in the sense that it will disappear at some point - but that only shows how some people do not understand what real decentralization is.

The only difference between those who publish such news is that some are really stupid to understand, and the others understand very well but are paid to write nonsense.

Why do you think that someone can give you a precise answer to that question? We can speculate as much as we want, but it will not make us any smarter to come up with an answer that could be considered precise in the sense you expect. Scenario A is that something positive will happen that will push the BTC price up, and scenario B is that something negative will happen that will keep the price below $30 000.

Anyway, expecting a big bull run in the year before the halving has so far turned out to be an unrealistic option, but no one is stopping you from hoping, you can even write a letter to Santa Claus to make your wish come true

People should know that most of the so-called stablecoins are not stable or secure in the way they think, and someone has already posted a link to a topic that makes it clear that most stablecoins can be frozen regardless of the wallet they are in. Now the question arises whether someone will take a risk and keep stablecoins, or will take a risk with fiat currencies, which for me are still safer in the sense that they are backed by states and central banks (with some exceptions, of course).

Any way you look at this question is a matter of risk assessment, I would still choose some fiat like Swiss Franc or Euro much more than any centralized stablecoin.

I have nothing against what you are doing, probably many people will like your book, but it would be nice if you did not create a new topic every time you visit the forum, but that you have the whole discussion in one place. It will soon be 1 year since you announced your project, and I see changes in the strategy - no more altcoins for donations

If the forum administration would go in that direction, then they could also remove the Bitcoin discussion, in which realistically at least 70% of the content is completely useless and meaningless - and what about the Altcoins boards that spammers took over a long time ago, or maybe Gambling boards?

What we need are quality solutions that will prevent the creation of alt farms, but we certainly won't achieve that by closing one board at a time, because as long as there is financial motivation for ranking accounts on this forum, there will be those who will in all possible ways try to use it.

---

I noticed that too, and I can say that it is almost a unique phenomenon on the forum - to get merit for a post that was created even several years ago and is in some megathread is sometimes quite surprising. Of course, it would be unfair not to mention another excellent merit source (@DdmrDdmr) that is known for large distributions of merits, and very often for posts that it has already awarded in the past.

Even today, many people would be surprised to find out who the richest people in the world are, and they are certainly not people about whom hundreds or thousands of articles are written every day. These are people (or families) whose wealth was not created in a short period of time (several tens of years), but who acquired that wealth over centuries, and it is not measured in billions, but in trillions of $.

These are people who, unlike some others, do not need and do not want media attention, and the so-called richest people are for them children playing with change.

There are also some sig campaigns that pay up to $200+ (even $250 per week), which means that theoretically it would be possible to earn 1 BTC in a little more than 2 years if the monthly amount was around $1000. Of course, considering that it is not forbidden to have alt accounts and participate with them in different sig campaigns, I think that some earn 1 BTC much faster than others.

The OP is definitely not in that position because he doesn't have a sufficient rank to begin with, and I believe he doesn't have enough knowledge either. But that is no reason for him not to try to go in that direction as well, if he becomes active on the forum, he will surely learn a lot, and he will be given the opportunity to earn something along the way.

Then I was partly right, because it seemed to me that he had a different badge, and I'm pretty sure that one of those old and experienced members had a Bitcoin-Qt core developer badge.

I am not aware that such a contest has ever existed, and the only logical explanation is that the admin made it as a small recognition for some members who deserve it for a certain contribution in the development of Bitcoin.

The link to their list is in Forum ranks/positions/badges under Badges.

I was convinced from some other discussions that the purchase of BTC occurs only when the ETF is approved and when their clients express interest in such an investment. But let's say you are right, is there some amount of BTC for the purpose of proving that they as a company are ready to offer such an ETF?

---

You are right, and I remember it as a somewhat strange coincidence that has already become a rule, which only confirms that Saylor and his company have almost no effect on the price. If someone else like Mr. If Mars or Bezos bought the same amount of BTC and announced it publicly, I'm sure the price would jump by at least 15-20% within a few hours, and at least 25% in the next few days.

I would not agree with that assumption, because even though this may have been the case in the beginning, now these investments are less and less (if we look at the amount of BTC purchased) and have almost no influence on the price of BTC. Likewise, Saylor is not one of those who knows (or wants) to hit the dip, but buys when they have enough cash, regardless of the price.


Exactly, if you want to buy a lot of BTC without affecting the price (which is desirable if you plan further investments), then use the OTC method and a company that will do it for you. An example of how it was done by Microstrategy with the help of Coinbase:



Where did you get that information from? BlackRock is only exposed to BTC as a shareholder of Microstrategy, and why would they buy BTC if their spot BTC ETF has not been approved yet?