I don't know how accurate these data are, because although 2.2 million BTC does not seem too much compared to almost 19.5 million BTC mined, it still shows that there are still those who do not understand the need for non-custodial wallets. However, I would dare to say that this number is even lower, because we all know that CEX always manipulates numbers in order to show liquidity, so it is a similar story as in the case when speculating about how much BTC is actually irreversible or currently lost.

What is certain is that the number of BTC that are on CEX is decreasing over the years, which is really good news and I hope that it is not only related to the fact that we are still in a bear market.

I do not think that the futures BTC ETF is more risky than the spot ETF, because with the former, the risk is lower in that the fund does not contain actual BTC, that is, the fund does not buy BTC in order to issue shares in the fund based on it, which is the case with the spot ETF. The spot ETF has additional risk because it is exposed to the risk of buying and storing BTC, although the SEC probably has some other reasons for taking such a negative view.

In addition, if we go into conspiracy theories a little, then we could conclude that the SEC wants to approve the first such ETF to someone who is still much closer to the government than to any other company. From this we can draw the conclusion that the most likely candidate to receive approval is BlackRock.

Perhaps because we should not give additional arguments to those who use it to portray Bitcoin as one of the great threats to our environment, no matter how meaningless it is if we take into account the facts from all relevant research. Those who mine BTC of course do it for profit, but I believe that they should always strive to use clean and renewable energy sources, although even these energy sources are not something that does not leave an impact on the environment.

The less oil, methane, coal and similar fuels associated with Bitcoin, the better for all of us in the long run.

I voted NO for the reason that I think there are other ways that could solve that "problem" without going to a complete ban on merits in that thread. I personally like how the rules are set in Serious discussion, which means that you only need to limit which ranks can participate in that thread, and if that rule were set to Senior + rank in WO, I believe that such discussions would not be necessary.

---

For those of us who are not merit sources and are not very popular on the forum, such a source of merits really means a lot, because be sure that every sMerits I received from you and other members of WO ends up as a reward for what I consider a useful and quality posts.

If only it were that simple, but for those who buy Ledger HW for the first time, using Ledger Live is mandatory for the initial setup of the device, and for those who have been using it before if they want to upgrade the firmware or add/upgrade any coin app. In addition, regardless of which software you use with the device, you still connect to the Ledger servers for every incoming/outgoing transaction, which means that you still take certain risks, at least as far as privacy is concerned.

For anyone who can afford it, it would be wise to find an alternative, or to pretend that nothing has happened and will not happen.

Fortunately, the OP has plenty of time to move in that direction, although I doubt he would ever succeed in it, considering that he very often asks this kind of pointless type of question instead of looking for the answer himself.

---

If we talk about some forum contests, it seems to me that the winner keeps the badges permanently, and the others get them temporarily, while for some other badges the status is permanent.

@gmaxwell has a badge called "Bitcoin expert" and there is no doubt that it is something permanent, although I have to admit that @achow101 seems to have had a badge in the past that I can't see now (Bitcoin-Qt core developer). It is possible that (like some other things) badges can be removed on request.

If it is true that Ledger still (after all) has a large number of users, then we can conclude that the majority of their users are actually unaware of everything that happened in the past and what we learned a few months ago. Basically, it doesn't matter to them that their personal data is hacked and publicly available to anyone who abuses it, nor that the company seems to have the ability to access confidential information on the devices it sells and to share it with third parties (including the authorities).

Whether the reason is that someone is unaware of the risks or doesn't understand the risks, the fact is that the amateurism and crazy moves of that company (from a risk perspective) sound an alarm that everyone should take seriously.

There are many of you who live in some of your illusions and wait for something to happen, regardless of whether you even think about what moment you are in and align your expectations with that. Expecting some kind of bull run in the year before the halving literally shows a misunderstanding of the fundamentals of Bitcoin, especially when it comes to the price of the same.


Why would the price of 1 BTC be approximately $69k by the end of this year, will the good fairies or Santa do some magic to make it happen?I think that it is possible that this is not the last dip, and that means that it will certainly not be easy for some of you who are obviously on unknown ground in the expectation of reaping the fruits of your investment.

I've never heard of that "company", and it's no wonder considering that it's apparently a local business from Nigeria, which is apparently the product of some crypto enthusiasts with the idea of doing something, but without enough planning and professionalism to really make it work.

Whether the tokenization was part of the plan from the beginning, or whether they thought of that genius idea in the meantime, is not so important, because the end result is always the same in most cases. When I see any project that presents itself as serious and mentions its tokens as part of the business plan, I don't need anything more than to understand the direction in which the business is going.

Do not use centralized crypto exchanges, stay away from tokens and similar junk, and do not believe the fairy tales presented to you on social networks - their goal is to take your money and nothing more.

It is not something that Argentina would be the first in, because some smaller countries have been using the US dollar as their national currency for decades. El Salvador has been on that list for more than 20 years and still uses $ as its official currency. I am not a supporter of such moves, although I can understand that at some point an individual country may find itself in such an economic situation that it looks for a way out by changing the national currency.

When you look at the European Union in relation to the eurozone, it is easy to see that there are countries that have accepted the common currency without any problems, but also those members who still want to keep their national currencies. I am of the opinion that every country should have its own national currency, but it is also a fact that there are very few countries in the world that understand what it actually means to have a state.

That guy from Argentina seems to me like some kind of anarchist who doesn't need a central bank, but would be happy to transfer the problem to the FED and foreign currency, which is not something that characterizes a good politician.

Do you think someone asking a question like the OP would even know what a node is?

---

Doesn't the mixer in your signature and mine solve that problem considering what kind of mixing process it uses?


In addition, I probably made hundreds of transactions with mixed coins that went directly to various CEXs and never one of them was blocked or challenged in any way.

If we are to be honest, most people have accepted that the privacy that once existed is a thing of the past, and if we look in which countries it is most expressed, then one might be surprised that these are the countries that present themselves as the largest democracies in the world. Their citizens are monitored down to the smallest detail and they obviously don't mind it, because most of them don't protest against it.

Let's take the example of the UK, where the authorities are testing a facial recognition system with the help of AI on the streets, and the system is so "precise" that it results in hundreds of wrong decisions that result in the harassment of ordinary citizens walking the streets. If I hadn't seen it, I wouldn't have believed it, but imagine that they single you out from the crowd and start checking you like a criminal or terrorist, and you can't do anything about it.

Privacy is important to me, but I don't kid myself that I can achieve it to the extent that I would like, because in addition to cameras that are everywhere, we are spied on by our smartphones, computers, smart TVs and every device that is connected to the internet.

Therefore, I would conclude that privacy is a matter of personal choice, and this means that those who want more privacy must be ready to make some concessions in life if they want to succeed in this.

So some wanted to be smarter than scammers, and others just hoped that the scheme would last as long as possible and that they would manage to make a profit before everything collapsed. Unfortunately, the winner in that game has already been decided in advance, and maybe this was a strong enough lesson for many, and they will never think of repeating something similar.


Now that whole story sounds even more incredible to me, because I thought it was a much smaller amount, but $500 is just a little less than the minimum wage in my country, so I don't understand how people can be so naive to sell something that literally means life to them to gamble. I don't know if there is any chance that someone will catch this scammer and that at least part of the money will be returned to the victims?

You obviously have no idea who that man is, and if you did know, then you wouldn't even think of mentioning his name on the forum. He belongs to the category of people with the biggest possible confusion factor, and unfortunately it looks like that. If all his speculations of the past 5-6 years were collected, a book could be written called "The Failure Expert".

Do you still think I'm exaggerating?

I see that there was some discussion about movies on the previous pages, and I can personally say that in recent years I have not been very impressed with movies, but that it is quite the opposite when it comes to series. The reason, of course, is the great competition between streaming services (Netflix, HBO Max, Amazon Prime, Disney+, (Sky)Showtime), and more and more actors that we are used to seeing in movies appear in series.

I know there are those here who like westerns and I can definitely recommend to watch 1883 which continues to 1923, and then to Yellowstone.

The series are excellently filmed in every way, and each one has excellent actors such as Kevin Costner, Kelly Reilly, Harrison Ford, Helen Mirren, Sam Elliott and many others.

It just fascinates me that such things are constantly repeated as if no one learns anything from their mistakes, and people usually become very cautious when someone scams them, especially if it involves a significant sum of money. Could it be that a lot of people invest relatively small amounts individually, so even though the total amount is huge, for the individual it is still not something that will prevent him from repeating the same thing in the future?

However, don't think that such things happen only in your country, there are such things all over the world, only a lot of it does not get media attention or remains within the framework of a certain country. Recently, an "expert" for crypto investments in my country disappeared with 70 million EUR, and now he is hiding in some hole and no one can or wants to find him.

I'm not at all surprised anymore that this happens, and personally I'm not surprised that beginners do it, but also members who have been on the forum for years and have some kind of legendary status, so that makes all of this actually tragicomic. Again, not only people are to blame, but also the so-called "crypto media" who place such stories in the public, because they know that most of them are easily caught on clickbait headlines.

---

In this topic, some reasons are mentioned that led to disruptions in the markets, including the price of BTC, so although some mention that it was Mr. Mars, some brought up an old topic like Evergrande, it seems to me that no one mentioned another Chinese company Country Garden, which is in trouble and as things stand, will go in the same direction as Evergrande.

In addition, it should be added that some economic indicators in China are so bad (record youth unemployment) that the authorities have decided to censor them, and some other sources claim that China has not been in a worse position for decades. It would be good if we could say that we don't care what happens in China, but unfortunately problems in that country mean problems for the whole world.

It's not exactly a guarantee that someone won't disappear with borrowed money, especially if it's a larger amount for which someone might have to spend a year in a sig campaign. Not that something like this happens often, but I remembered one example that shows what some are ready to do for only $100.

I agree that the situations I described are absurd, but I would not agree that it is absurd to talk about it publicly, because it is precisely such examples that show us that we cannot rely on such systems when it comes to things that require a person to manage them and to make decisions based on human perception and feelings.

In the specific case of trading with cryptocurrencies, the biggest damage can be that the AI messes up badly and creates a financial loss for us, but if you follow what is happening in the military industry when it comes to AI, the implications are far more dangerous and can have catastrophic consequences for humanity.

In fact, everything revolves around money, and this kind of move only proves that. Apart from that, there is also the matter of some kind of prestige and the further career of each coach, because if you do something good in Dinamo, it is definitely a good reference for your further career. Bjelica did a good job in Dinamo and then after Osijek he went abroad, and he certainly wouldn't have done that if he was the coach of a smaller club from HNL.



There is no doubt that there are connections between Miskovic and the fugitive brothers, but I can tell you that most of the people who were loyal to the brothers were expelled from the club, although the question arises whether there is some kind of financial weight from the past that still gives the brothers the opportunity to influence some decisions.