Many of us know about Bitcoin. But due to a lack of funds, we regret about Bitcoin investment. Many people, particularly those from low-income families, regret when we can't invest in Bitcoin. Though we can't solve this problem, we can struggle to achieve our goal. For our daily needs, we must need money to survive. Sometimes we spend money on unnecessary things. So we can avoid spending unnecessary money because we can survive without it. And we can start investing in Bitcoin with that money. We have to find a solid income source, even if it is small. So we can go ahead with our bitcoin investment. If we struggle now, we may build a bright future. Even students could save some money from their daily spending and invest in Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is rising upwards in terms of price continuously. Many are predicting that it will reach $100k before halving. In case that happens, do you plan to exit at that price level because of possible correction at that levels ? What is your exit strategy  with bitcoin once it reaches $100k?

Hey Tyke,

As promised I am making my first donation today at any time. I will update this post once I send the funds. I am already seeing your efforts taking shape so far and putting my trust that we will have great copies handed out soon.

I will be making TWO donations initially. I am willing to send one of them Today while the other one I will send by first week of January.


UPDATE
The first donation: $ 65  [ TRX ID: BTC 0.00147162 ]
The Second donation: $65 (Could be more, I will decide in Jan).

Will update the trx soon. UPDATED FIRST TRX

All the best mate!
Cheers.

For eight years, Craig Wright has claimed to be the elusive Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto. On Monday, in the swelling heat of a UK courtroom, a trial began that will finally settle the question.

Wright, flanked by his legal team, appeared relaxed during opening arguments, leaning back in his chair with one leg crossed over the other. That calm belied both the stakes of the trial, which has major ramifications for the future of Bitcoin and the forceful rhetoric of the plaintiff’s lawyer Jonathan Hough, who called Wright's claim to Satoshi-hood a “brazen lie.”

The lawsuit Wright faces was brought by the Crypto Open Patent Alliance, a nonprofit consortium of crypto and tech companies. COPA claims that Wright’s recent history of filing intellectual property lawsuits—predicated on his claim of being Bicoin’s inventor—has had a “chilling effect” on Bitcoin, driving developers away. To prevent him from impeding the development of Bitcoin any further, it is asking the court for a declaration to the effect that Wright is not Nakamoto.

Nearly three years after filing the lawsuit, COPA today had its first chance to outline its case against Wright at trial. Since Wright first claimed to be Nakamoto in 2016, said Hough, he has “terrorized” Bitcoin developers. “COPA has brought this claim to bring a stop to this conduct,” said Hough.

In contrast to some recent crypto lawsuits, like the fraud trial of Sam Bankman-Fried, founder of bankrupt crypto exchange FTX, which became something of a piece of public theater, the COPA v. Wright case has attracted little attention. A small band of photographers gathered outside the courthouse Monday; inside, a few reporters and crypto watchers jostled for the limited available seating. But the case has the potential to be highly consequential.

A trio of related lawsuits previously brought by Wright, in which he is seeking to assert intellectual property rights over Bitcoin, will be bound by the ruling. If COPA is successful, Wright will have difficulty taking these claims any further. If Wright wins, and is successful in his own cases thereafter, he would be free to act as Bitcoin’s gatekeeper, deciding who is allowed to work on the codebase and under what terms the system can be used.

The stakes are “very high,” says a representative of the Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund, a nonprofit that is funding the defense of Bitcoin developers in a separate lawsuit filed by Wright, who asked to remain nameless for fear of legal retaliation from Wright.

The respective opening arguments offered an early indication of both COPA’s strategy for dismantling Wright's claims—in short, to discredit through forensic analysis the raft of documentary evidence Wright has put forth—and Wright’s intended approach to countering the accusations of forgery.

The bulk of Hough’s opening address focused on the ways in which Wright had allegedly forged or manipulated documentary evidence that, if credible, would indicate that he is Nakamoto. Among various allegations, Hough accused Wright of running back his computer clock to make documents appear as if they were created before Bitcoin existed, of deleting files and altering others on a hard drive whose contents he entered into evidence, and of attempting to fabricate new evidence after experts in forensic document analysis identified issues with existing materials.

The burden of evidence will be on COPA, as the plaintiff, to demonstrate that Wright is not who he claims to be. To that end, Grabiner pointed to the absence of any other credible candidate in the search for Nakamoto. “An interesting feature of this case is the non-appearance of a competing Satoshi Nakamoto claim,” said Grabiner. “It’s sort of Hamlet without the prince.” Although COPA intends to pick apart Wright’s documentary evidence, it has “been unable to point to any evidence that Wright is not Satoshi,” he claimed.

Wright will take the stand on Tuesday; his testimony is expected to last up to six days. His ability to account for the findings of the forensic reports and explain away the lack of incontrovertible evidence in his favor will say much about whether he is truly the long-lost creator of Bitcoin. Or rather, as Hough would have it, that “Wright’s claim to be Satoshi is a lie.”