"This kind of trend can suggest that demand for the asset is low currently." - it could also mean supply is low too? If there's not as many new people in the space or not many have returned yet to move their funds then there might be fewer coins circulating than would normally.

What if a lot of the traders who believed the "bitcoin will go to $300k" have just been lurking and holding their coins. Or what if ftx scared people off so much there's people using dexes or peer to peer methods so fewer addresses are being used?

Have you thought of including Google's marketing budget too, how else will people use the software if we don't spend $3.2B on advertising in the US?

This is one of the many pitfalls of comparing open source software to that of propriety systems or companies. What happened to all the illegal trades using bitcoin to hide their transactions, will they lose that interest? What about miners with billions in hardware? While the technology remains valuable, there'll still be tons of cash entering the space, and, when there isn't, you're going to have quite a good reputation to move on from as an active core dev imo. The largest mmos can produce new content and provide their services on an annual budget of around $40 million too afaik (excluding marketing and hosting costs).

I guess it depends on what you mean. Systems that rely on votes and are fully decentralised (like pos systems like makerdao) seem like they'd be extremely difficult for governments to control and ultimately hard to centralise and maybe impossible to control.

Other aspects of defi like usdc and usdt are probably controllable as their collateral is centralised. Afaik they make up large portions of dai's collateral but it's likely collateralised so much a central entity would need good timing to actually be able to collapse it and they'd likely take the entire stablecoin industry out with it if it was possible.

Take profits regularly with copy traders that do well on shorter time frames. They can often do badly on longer time frames (especially considering one with a 4000% return has to lose the majority of their investment before they're considered loss making to those exchanges). If you can take a profit often enough, you might do well trading with them as long as you diversify too.

Isolated and cross are also not too different in how they work. A smaller amount on cross margin is similar to isolated, if you can segregate accounts well then it's easy enough to consider cross isolated as long as you're focussed on what you're doing when you set it up.

I kinda used to feel that way but now I think we need a theory of a way to break hashing before HD wallets are even potentially insecure.

The signature algorithms may be broken by a powerful quantum computer, we have a theory for that (but not the physics) we now need a theory for how hashing can be broken before I'm going to start worrying (but then we still have the physics/quantum problem above).

That's VERY old news now. One of the biggest stories to come out of that was also the number of speakers who had quit it (many were speculating they were separating their reputation from Bitcoin after it had fallen).

It was a very impressive story at the time and still remains one for the community as 30 000 people is a huge number to be watching or even interested in crypto (especially as the price collapsed - most of the audience still showed iirc there was no news of an unexpected number of them not attending).

It gets China in a good position militarily too, and might've decreased their chances of having an unstable boarder with Russia that doesn't favour them.

There were reports a lot of the "trained" Russian troops that have been mobalised to Ukraine have come from it's previous biggest militarised area (the border between it and China). It might serve as a reason for China to keep watching Russia become weak until a point they can either start taking land or resources at an even greater extent than they have been already.

I'd say a "reorg attack" is a type of 51% attack (perhaps a big subset of attacks that could occur once someone controls more than 50% of hashing power).

There's a chance not all 51% attacks are reorg ones though as some may try to change other things (such as enforcing a malicious consensus on the protocol - for example to credit themselves a certain amount of btc). It might also be argued it becomes a denial of service attack once the reorg is broadcast while the hashing power majority remains with the attacker.

They HAVE to incentivise use of CBDCs, that's the only way they'll be adopted. No ones expecting an African currency (or most world currencies) to do what bitcoin has done in the last 15 years.

CBDCs will be incredibly risky unless they belong to a big enough or a closed off enough economy imo (look at doge - the same could happen to a smaller currency to make someone a lot of money to the detriment of everyone else trying to transact in it).

Why do you want to store it on a USB? There's quite a big risk to the drive if you do that and you likely don't gain much (if it's because you're using a shared PC, someone you're sharing with could accidentally download malware too not realising you're attempting to use it to store funds).

You can buy crypto from many crypto exchanges and withdraw them to your wallet (places like coinbase and binance - look up where's popular in your country).

If you really must use a USB stick, you can put a standalone/binary executable of electrum (from electrum.org) on one but make sure you write down your mnemonic before sending any funds to it (preferably multiple times) and keep both as secure as possible. Also, if you're new, the technology isn't too forgiving and transactions are irreversible so test it for a few transactions with small amounts if you can until you feel a bit more comfortable.

Be aware of scams too and don't make investments that you haven't fully researched or don't need to (most newbies lose money, often to scams).

Don't want to be advertising poor services but doing a test with a few of those seems to suggest your "risk" halves per hop you make out of chipmixer, what a tremendous subscription for an exchange to buy (my point isn't their system is inherently stupid, it's that ANY system trying to exclusively block mixers is - they'll never be able to find perfect).

IIrc if you're using a wallet with coin control that is privacy focussed by default and one that is efficient (electrum used to do this, not sure if it still does), sending coins to addresses that are already funded stops the wallet from splitting the inputs to the individual addresses (as it knows there's no privacy gain) and makes it spend them together in a lot of cases so all inputs would be spent to the same change address.

I could never decide how noted that site was or how much money they had. It'd seem that they should've stopped making bearish articles about it a few years ago and plundered $500k into it then (netting the same investment value as they have now though maybe they were growing other investments instead to grow their capital for investing in bitcoin when they thought it was safer).

I doubt bitcoin's main competitor remains litecoin but for similar things it might be (if we separate the Turing almost complete, privacy coins and value storage coins as individual things but then a coin might rise up that can do all of them).

You can reuse addresses but it hurts your privacy.

Reusing addresses can make fees cheaper though too and it might be a useful decision to make (or one you've already made in your wallet) as to whether you want cheaper transactions or better privacy (the default will probably be better privacy).

Not sure if it's the case in that country by interest only mortgages in the UK are often collateralised a home the person owns outright (or part of it) and interest only is given more scrutiny, the interest is normally a business rated loan too afaik (so it could be double or quadruple interest rates - I know people who move house from ones they've lived in to dodge having interest only mortgages). Assuming a "normal" mortgage is 5x leverage, an interest only one is likely limited to 20x in the most extreme cases.

I think a lot of countries have more or an issue of people getting too close to others' investment capital to create an unfair market. I assume there's perks for well to do bankers to take (furnishings) mortgages from their banks for example.

Trading bots get good with small liquditiy. If too many people are looking at the same thing they'll become like those signals chats or any indicator/support you thought was good until it wasn't.

If there's a chatgpt bot that's trading, the better bot will be trading based on what it expects the chatgpt trading bot to do (if there's enough liquidity following the bigger bot, the predictor one will make huge gains against it). You're not going to be offered anything for free without expecting to be the service or the product.

10 minutes is the download time of a small game imo. A 20GB game (for example from the early 2010s) could take from half and hour to an hour and still seem like a reasonable/good download time imo. If cryptos the same I don't think too many people would care (axie didn't mint your slp when you earned them, they were just staked until you hit the claim button - and that was on an native chain).

I wonder if the forks get claimed at the same time too or if you checked any of them (similar to what neurotic said, an ethereum private key can look similar to a bitcoin one).


I think they scan in advance to see how big your wallet gets (somehow) or at least decide to load a certain number of addresses (via a tree) and decide if the tree is too big to process or not (whatever it is, it's kept those servers very fast).

What you're saying about dexes does make sense and I'm not too sure how it's handled (like I don't know if weth is an individual token or if it's included in eths cap but if we assume it is then market cap checks out - ie the coins still exist but they're wrapped as a token so they're still somewhere).

---

If you have 1 million tokens each worth $1 and an extra 1 million are unlocked the market cap doesn't have to fall, but it probably will. If no ones watching it well then it'll be able to keep its $1 price until those extra million move, if they don't move and are just unlocked and held for a while (and get sold strategically for example) then you can expect the coin to maintain its market cap or double it (but then there's things like if a coin isn't allowed to go over a certain amount before more coins are sold they might start dropping for that - for being less competitive than coins in other places).

[hr[

Compound might be a good example of how market cap either dies or stagnates (I've not paid interest in the past from comp making up the difference - a lot of defi tokens are similar).

Nft covers a lot of areas, I think gaming nfts have a large use case (such as buying into a game like defi kingdoms does with its characters). Steam has a similar marketplace for badges from games too.

I've received a few nfts from doing liquidity providing too so funds can easily be moved between accounts and that's another use for this (as you can just transfer the token instead of closing the pool, sending the funds and opening a new one).