The forum has a search option, and someone who has been on the forum for a long time should use such options if they are interested in something. Besides, Meta is not a board that has any restrictions in the sense that you should not regularly check what is happening on the forum.

Welcome to the lucky winners club, and since your reward is a little late, it looks like you got a little bonus

Who else got BTC?

I wouldn't be so sure about that, because even though the SEC has rejected any such request in the past, companies like BlackRock or Fidelity are a whole other story and can't be ignored so easily. When you say that they can sell at the end of the next cycle, then I guess you mean investors who will actually get the opportunity to buy shares in a fund that will buy BTC for them and keep it safe. I think that some will sell sooner, some later - just as today people trade bitcoin on a daily basis, some are satisfied with 5% profit, others are not satisfied with even 50%.

Most of what you call "cryptospace" isn't necessarily scam in the literal sense of the word, but it's not far from it either. All these meaningless tokens and altcoins on which individuals get rich along with CEXs, and most ordinary people just lose their money are for you something that should still exist? I think some things need to be regulated, because every large-scale crypto scam like FTX or Terra/Luna is reflected directly on Bitcoin.


For me, this is not a sign that China is changing its attitude towards Bitcoin, but only that one bank is trying to profit by offering one service that actually has no direct connection with investing in cryptocurrencies, because after all it is a futures ETF. On the other hand, BlackRock is trying something completely different, and there is a very big difference if you want to compare the US and China in terms of cryptocurrencies.


Why do you mix blockchain as a technology and cryptocurrencies that use it? What does it matter that China may want to be a leader in blockchain technologies? Does this have any impact on Bitcoin or any of the top altcoins, will CEX across China open up and will crypto mining become legal again?

Although the news is really from 2020, I have to admit that this is the first time I've heard of this expression, and it really sounds amazing that someone could think of something like that. It's really a shame that so many people still have confidence in someone who has such crazy ideas, even though I would even call them dangerous.

It's unbelievable to me that we have to construct sentences like this because some people try to combine things that just can't go with each other by any logic. I'm just wondering what kind of new nonsense will appear tomorrow or the day after, because there are more and more people we can't trust, even though they keep trying to convince us that there's nothing controversial about it.

---

As for the removal, I think it might be too harsh, because in that case someone might say that we should remove Ledger, which in my opinion is a much bigger problem, and is also one of the recommendations. I agree with some that a warning might be more appropriate.

Everyone has the right to think about what they want, so why not set yourself a goal if it motivates you to be eager to acquire new knowledge and to share the same knowledge with others. I'm not in a 5k merit club yet, but I'm not far from it either, although some will say it's much easier to get to that goal when you get 1000 merits. Of course, it should not be forgotten that many were members of the forum years before there was a merit system, so they would probably have much more merit than they have today.


If your goal is just to participate in the best sig campaigns, then you will certainly be burdened with progress and reaching a better rank, but the truth is that you will achieve it much harder if you do it under pressure thinking that you have to get xx or xxx merits every month.


I personally didn't set such goals because of the things I've already written, and I just don't worry too much about numbers. Any merit for your post may mean that someone appreciates what you wrote, although it should not be forgotten that some posts that are worthy of merit simply go unnoticed or are on boards where there is no merit source.

I don't agree with the U.S. closing the door, just trying to put an end to some things that should have been regulated a long time ago, unless you think that all that scam associated with altcoins/DeFi should continue even though people lose hundreds of millions of dollars every year? On the other hand, I ask you again, how can futures BTC ETF in HK be a sign that China is opening up to cryptocurrencies?


So what difference does it make that their president mentioned blockchain a few years ago? It's something that doesn't have to have anything to do with any cryptocurrency, least of all decentralized like Bitcoin. China will only accept what it can fully control, and if you believe in any other outcome you are hardly mistaken.

That's right, I really don't see the point in the fact that every time MS makes a new purchase we have a few new threads. In addition, it should be pointed out that @fillippone well noted that MS could find itself in an awkward situation if the SEC approves an ETF which we talk about a lot these days.

I don't think that previous events were crucial for price correction, because if we start from the end of 2017 then it is easy to conclude that the bubble simply had to burst after many investors completely misunderstood what futures contracts are and how they will affect the price of BTC - and the same thing happened at the peak of 2021.

As for Bakkt, that story has been pumped for months as something big, when in fact the pandemic was already knocking on the door even though mere mortals didn't know it. In addition, the 50% drop occurred only in March when a pandemic was declared, but then a lot of bad things happened and Bitcoin was no exception.

The story around BlackRock and Fidelity (Grayscale) can have positive effects, especially if the SEC accepts their request and this acceptance is closely correlated with halving. If we take into account the time limit within which the SEC has to make a final decision (240 days) then this brings us to January 2024, just a little more than 2 months before halving.

Given that BR&F are big players and companies with over $10 trillion under management, and that it is a spot ETF, I believe that a positive decision would have a significant impact on the price of BTC. The real question is whether the average investor understands what this is really about or thinks it's just a repeat of another old story with a failed BTC ETFs.

You and your brother should talk about such things privately, not in the presence of children, because realistically such discussions are not something that should burden children. It's not just a matter of filling your child's head with things he's too young for, but also about your child being exposed to safety risks because he can talk about these things to someone who has malicious intentions.


I would agree that his father is right, and that he should make a decision on how to raise his son - because the inconvenience he feels at school is a direct result of getting information that should not have come to him at all. If it has already come to the point that he feels frustrated because someone is saying something about something in a way that he does not like, then it is time to teach him a lesson about how everyone is entitled to their opinion, and accordingly such an opinion should be ignored.

The world is full of people who think Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme and an internet scam, and as far as I'm concerned they can think that for the rest of their lives. It just goes to show that they're not intelligent enough to process all publicly available information .

You're grasping at straws that really don't make sense to grasp on since your main thesis is that China is becoming more crypto friendly than the US. And the fact is that what is happening in HK has nothing to do with Bitcoin or the Chinese position towards it.


I don't know why you think you need to teach me about the difference between spot and futures ETF, and I tell you in my previous post that futures BTC ETF has been around for years in the US, and your Uncle Gary has nothing against it. You and many think that the SEC is fighting Bitcoin, when in fact all this fight is directed against shitcoins, and then what are you even talking about when comparing China and the US in the context of cryptocurrencies?

Somehow it seems to me that you are the closest to the truth, because this story, like some others presented before, is not very convincing - and all together it really looks like some kind of bad attempt to create a reputation. Besides, why would someone just send $2500 to someone unknown without thinking about using escrow?

If you look at the date then you will see that the article was published on February 15, 2023, which means that it is already old news. This does not mean that Ledger will not use every opportunity to divert attention from its products and its incomprehensibly bad business practices.

In the past, their team published an article about vulnerability in Trezor HW, so this is not some isolated case but their way of trying to be good guys, and at the same time cast doubt on the competition.

Ownership can be proved in a very simple way, and that is by signing a message with one or more public BTC addresses. After that, he has to find out the process of paying capital gains tax, and then he can sell his BTC without any problems.

If I found 10 BTC and wanted to sell them all I would have to do is submit a tax return and explain when and in what way I acquired that BTC, and for all crypto assets acquired before 2016 I do not pay any tax (local law). I don't think this kind of thing is a problem, at least not in countries where BTC is not declared illegal or if it is not acquired illegally.

I don't see any point in your post given that futures BTC ETF has been around in the US for some time, and HK is a special administrative region of China, and therefore what happens in HK cannot be an indicator that China has changed its attitude towards Bitcoin in any way.

In addition, the bank in question was not so long ago at the center of financial scandals and is considered one of the most corrupt banks in the world, but everyone seems to have forgotten that.

I wouldn't look forward to anything that has anything to do with China when it comes to Bitcoin, and I don't get anyone who thinks that communism and anything to do with decentralization and human freedom can succeed in one such country.

For me, every service in which someone gives its BTC for this or that reason is essentially wrong. Most of those who are active on the forum know what happened to companies that offered tempting interest on BTC deposits, and yet they were companies that operated at least somewhat in accordance with the law - while on the other hand, a pawn shop can literally disappear overnight and you can easily lose everything.

Of course, there is also the issue of KYC and the protection of this data, but also the problem of personal safety if it were physical branches - which leads me to conclude only one conclusion, and that is that this is a very bad idea no matter how someone presents it.

@Wapfika, internet speed is definitely not a problem, but the thing is in the browser and maybe some other things that are related to the same. As for the link you can log in without a captcha, simply do not share it, and if that happens, no one will not be able to log in to your account because it will still need your name and password. The only problem is that such a link can allow someone to brute-force your password, since there is no captcha that would slow down the process.

I dug a little and it seems that there are many people with a similar problem - a possible solution ->

The optimist always hopes for the best outcome no matter how bad the situation looks, while the pessimist always thinks the worst will happen. I always try to think positively, but at the same time make decisions according to what is happening in the world.


It's already a European war, because you can hardly find a country in Europe that doesn't support Ukraine financially and militarily. Like it or not, the EU is at war with Russia, although some pretend that this is not happening.


He himself can't do anything, and I don't know why people even mention him so much since he's just implementing measures of current U.S. policy, which is actually a continuation of what Trump didn't get to do in his term. After Gensler will be "Gensler" again, let no one deceive themselves that the problem is only in one man.


They probably will, but they are a two-edged sword and will only be good for those who want to profit from Bitcoin no matter what happens after. All these big investors are with Bitcoin only for profit, and when they start selling en masse we will find ourselves again at four-digit figures. It may seem like a good opportunity for some, but a drop from $x00 000 to just $x000 would be a very bad sign for all future investors.

It is possible that the problem is in the IP address you use, i.e. that someone from that IP address was doing something malicious and now Google is looking for multiple verifications in the form of solving reCaptcha. If you use home Wi-Fi try to restart the modem and get a new IP address, and if you use mobile internet simply disconnect from mobile data and try again.

There is also an alternative in the form of a special link that you can get on the login page, and with it you can avoid reCaptcha completely every time you log in.