I wouldn't show by bank account history because it's linked directly to my name and I don't want people investigating where I shop, how much and when I spend, etc. But I'm okay with Bitcoin transactions being public because, while people can see the movement of funds, they don't know whose funds are moving and it would be quite hard to investigate every transaction to see where it went.
We live in a world of little privacy, considering how the big companies that own social media platforms operate, the abundance of cameras, as well as various surveillance scandals. It's not great, but it becomes normal and acceptable for most people, to a point where privacy isn't that important.

In general, there are positive sides to negative events, and often negative events are in a mix with positive ones because reality is complex. But as for this situation, I agree with those saying that the Binance lawsuit thing just didn't affect the market much, and it's the positive sentiment regarding bitcoin ETFs that's driving the prices up. It seems that most industry experts believe that the approval is just around the corner. Of course, they know the SEC and the US decision-making climate more than I do, so perhaps they are correct. I'm still not sure about it, but maybe I'm just too pessimistic.

I think that a post by theymos about mixers is very well-written and explains why they are going to be banned on the forum. The argumentation is very rational, based on the pattern of mixers being declared illegal when they get big.
Moreover, Bitcointalk is a forum, so it's for discussions, and even with the ban, it will be allowed to discuss mixers in general, as long as they don't provide links and direct people toward particular mixers.
I personally have never used mixers, so it won't affect me in any way. While I support the values of privacy and decentralization, they aren't absolute and primary values to me, so I wouldn't stand by mixers when they're becoming illegal.

It's inspiring that even though the op missed some opportunities and lost money, the overall impact of Bitcoin on op's life is positive. Bitcoin itself is just a currency, but it's true that when diving a bit into how it's different from fiat and what kind of ideas it implements, you can learn a lot and rethink how freedom looks like and what kind of freedom is possible.
I'm not sure whether Bitcoin is the greatest invention after the Internet because it's hard to pick one thing like that for me, but Bitocin is a practical application of libertarian economic ideas, and I'm glad that we have it around.

I agree with the op's reasoning. When some BTC becomes unavailable because of locking oneself out of the wallet, it's the person who is locked out who suffers from it. Bitcoin become more scarce, so it can have a positive impact on the price if the demand remains the same, but the supply goes down this way.
Some might argue that lower circulating supply is bad for Bitcoin as well because the supply is already quite low, and a decrease makes it even less practical for global adoption. But I don't think it's a valid concern because Bitcoin is highly divisible into sats and because adoption is very far from a rate where it could become a problem.

12. Song Yadong
11. Khalil Rountree
10. Su Mudaerji
9. Nasrat Haqparast
8. Junyong Park
7. Kevin Jousset
6. Sung Hyun Park
5. Steve Garcia
4. Luana Santos
3. Daniel Marcos
2. Tatsuro Taira
1. Talita Alencar

NOT go the Full Distance 7

Game 1:  25, 28'
Game 2:  25, 33'

When I read the post, I was wondering how representative it is. Is it just the op's personal experience and understanding of the situation based on observations, or does it reflect the South Korean market overall? To that end, I found an interesting article that describes the Korean crypto market. It's clear that it's likely to be one of the biggest markets globally, and the article does mention a particular interest of South Koreans in altcoins.
I do agree with the sentiment that it's better to buy BTC than altcoins. It's just less risky and can pay off significantly in the long run, especially considering the investment amount that the op is mentioning because it can buy a whole Bitcoin and then some.

Did you write the lyrics? And who sang, who played the melody? I guess more info would be nice to understand how much input is yours.
I like the overall feel of it, actually. Some of the lyrics feel a bit stretched to match the song rhythm, and sometimes it was pretty hard for me to understand the sense of some phrases because of pretty advanced vocabulary that you don't expect from a Christmas song.
But again, the overall feel is nice. It's light, casual, and it does feel like Christmas. Nice job, op.

OP, Javier Milei is a man, so I think "his" makes more sense than "her" if you are referring to this person. Or were you referring to something else, like the country of Argentina in general?
The article mentions that Milei said different things about cryptos and Bitcoin in different interviews, and, considering that the article is very new, there's probably not enough information yet to know which policies he will actually try to implement. Bitcoin is one solution, but maybe he'll opt for a different one, such as dollarization.

I love that there are so many pictures available, and the bar itself looks decent. It's nice that they're promoting Bitcoin specifically and not a centralized crypto-related business. I like the UV light secret message thing as well, although it's more like merch, and people don't come to a bar with the primary goal of buying merch. What's more important is the drinks, the atmosphere, the music, the workers and all that stuff that makes people visit or avoid visiting the place. Oh, and can people pay in Bitcoin there?
I hope it all works out for this bar.

November 2025 is nearly 2 years away, so the prediction mentioned by the op seems pretty safe to me, even though I'm not sure how big of a multiplier we can expect for the next ATH point.
Also, while Bitcoin is finally over $40k, saying in June 2023 that it was ready for $40k seems to count as a mistake to me, considering that it took another 5 months for that to actually happen.
We don't know how the current run will end, but I hope the fees will normalize soon because they are already unpleasant and seem to be, once again, on the rise right now.

The Russian ruble fell, that's true, and the plan of forcing other currencies to use ruble for international trade didn't really succeed. However, Russia isn't desperate enough to try adopting cryptos for foreign trade either, it seems. The thing is, adoption would be required not just by Russia but also by its trading partners, and considering that Russia's mainly focused on doing business in Asia these days, it's not a fertile ground for Bitcoin adoption (India is known to be wary of Bitcoin, and China is directly against it). The sanctions maybe have weakened Russia, but unfortunately they didn't lead to anything resembling an economic collapse, and Russia adapted fairly well to them, as shown by the fact that they can still continue to produce weapons and continue waging their imperialist war against Ukraine.

I believe that the situations with jobs and rent are very different depending on a place. Some countries have a legit housing crisis, for example, but my country isn't one of them. It's really simple to find a place to rent, the rent prices are quite reasonable, and tons of people don't have to worry about rent because we're a post-Soviet country, so a bunch of people got their flats from the government a long time ago, and now either they live there or their children inherited it.
Also, while my country is in a state of war, there's no need of protection of shops by the military. Theft happens from time to time, but it's quite uncommon and supermarkets thrive, unless we're talking about areas very close to the frontlines. And again, we do have martial law, technically, because we're at war, but there's no street violence beyond the typical rare occasions, and while poverty is on the rise, it's currently estimated at 25%, which is close to the world average.
As for universal basic income, I support this idea in theory, but think that only very wealthy countries can implement them in practice because if low-income countries try it out, it's very likely going to lead to hyperinflation and an even bigger crisis.

Liquidity is very important. I agree with the op that a currency with high supply and low liquidity is a really bad option, but there's more to it. When choosing an exchange, it's also very important to see the liquidity of coins there because sometimes an exchange can have low liquidity, and a person may get stuck there with the money (because an exchange may not allow withdrawing a deposit without doing anything with it, flagging it as a suspicious activity).
Sticking to Bitcoin is always a good idea.

Bitcoin is a type of currency, and children should learn to manage money. Of course, it would be extremely unwise to give a child access to big amounts of money, and in an event of loss of that money, I think the blame should be on the parent.
But making a fresh Electrum wallet for a child, teaching a child (a young teenager, I'd say) to store a passphrase, to send money and generate a Bitcoin address is a good idea. There shouldn't be any significant money there in case a child makes a mistake and the money's gone, but I don't see harm in, say, $10 being there, under the kid's control. As for centralized exchanges, I believe they're 18+ to not dive into the differences of legislation in different countries.

The case with a house is different from the case with Bitcoin because a house is a place where you can actually reside. So if I lived in that house and someone offered me to sell it, I probably would not because a house holds sentimental value, and buying a different one, relocating and all that can prove difficult. If it's a house that's there solely as an investment, I'd be totally fine selling.
With Bitcoin, it's very unlikely that someone approaches you and asks to buy your BTC, at a price higher than the market average. If someone does that, I'd suspect a scam. If we're talking about selling on an exchange at an average price (but higher than the invested amount), then there's no practical way of knowing who's getting that money and for which purposes. I don't have anything against BlackRock, and I'd just follow my personal strategy that I always follow with Bitcoin: sell when you need to or can benefit directly from it (by buying something cool), hold in other situations. To me, it's more about the circumstances than the price.

Some people have no ideas and not just survive but live pretty lavish lifestyles because of huge inherited wealth and someone else in the family continuing to accumulate money for them. Then there's also passive income, which can also be inherited in a way. Someone might have started a very successful company and given shares to relatives. The relatives don't need any new ideas, they can simply enjoy what they're getting this way.
Then there's an option of a wealthy's person bright idea to be hiring smart people who will figure out how to generate new ideas and accumulate more wealth for them.

The USA is the world's number 1 economy, and the USD has a very modest inflation rate. The USD is also the world's number 1 global reserve currency, with others significantly far behind. There are problems in the US, for sure. There's a huge foreign debt, there's significant poverty and insignificant social support when it comes to healthcare and quality education.
My point is, the USA doesn't need saving, as it's already doing the best in various categories. All the talks of potential defaults, stagnation, smaller influence or the USD losing its dominance as a reserve currency are vastly overrated if you compare assumptions to facts.

Well, it doesn't have to reach $100 million (or $1 per satoshi) for satoshi to be considered valuable, although that depends on what the op means by valuable. If it's in a sense that even owning, say, 50 satoshi is a lot of money, then no, not very realistic. But if it's in a sense that it would be more convenient to refer to amounts in satoshis (say, 1 thousand satoshis), then I'd say that when Bitcoin is at $10 million (or 10 cents per satoshi), I think it would be a good time to switch. But I'm not sure if we'll ever see Bitcoin get there, so in the foreseeable future satoshis will remain insignificant.