If a person has no basic discipline to resist panic selling, maybe they shouldn't get involved with Bitcoin at all.

The downsides of locking yourself out of funds are too big. You risk missing out on selling Bitcoin with a good profit if bull market comes. You risk being left without funds when you most need them. Imagine having a health emergency or other critical emergency and not being able to solve it because you locked yourself out of your coins.

How is something that doesn't exist today is going to replace the backbone of global economy in just 3 years? If you listen to bitcoiners, Bitcoin should have replaced fiat many years ago. Yet we all still go to supermarkets and pay with fiat for groceries.

Regular people have no incentive to switch to crypto banks and crypto in general. They don't care about fiat's inflation that much. And they don't care about privacy. And control over own funds. And let's not forget that even if crypto banks started getting traction, governments and traditional banks would either resist this trend or hijack it.

We can't. The centralized exchanges have a pretty good picture because they see how much fiat money was deposited and withdrawn. They are not sharing this information.


We have no idea how many coins "whales" have. There are surveys about ownership of coins, but we can't know how accurate they are, even if their methodology is good.


No, only the richest people on Earth have access to such sums. So the only way to do it without being tracked by authorities is to be the authority - only dictators and their inner circle can do it.

Easy, Bitcoin community is very impatient and wants to become rich overnight. So people think every new year must be a bullish year. Despite the fact that historically the cycles are tied to halvenings and large bull run start after them and explode around 1 year after the halvening.

People need to learn to manage their expectations. Assets that go only up and fast and always don't exist. Assets that consistently go up do it slowly. Assets that go up fast also go down fast. Or eventually stop going up fast. It's already a miracle that after 14 years Bitcoin still shows tremendous growth.

You are assuming that the criminals have access to the full database of centralized exchanges. This is unlikely, especially if we talk about big reputable exchanges like Coinbase or Binance. There's extremely low chance that they sell customers data to criminals. If a data leak would happen, it will be public knowledge and you would be able to react. This is why it's advisable to move funds after withdrawing them from exchange, use a mixer or other privacy tool. This way nobody will know if you still own the coins or not and you will further reduce the probability of getting attacked.

Most of the time people become attacked when they brag about crypto to people around them or in social networks.


Privacy has nothing to do with coin inheritance. If you bought coins on centralized exchange, withdrew them to your encrypted wallet and didn't leave the password or seed for your family to find, the coins will be lost. What matters is whether you created a plan for passing down your coins or not.

If there's no proof that JP Morgan or Dimon privately buying Bitcoin, we should assume that this isn't an attempt of manipulating the price, but just a personal belief of Dimon or a position of company that fears being disrupted by Bitcoin. But either way I fail to see why should we care which motivation drives him to make such statement. Are our actions going to be different depending on which explanation is correct? I don't think so.

Bitcoin is a speculative asset that tends to go up. But you need to hold it for a few years on average to see a profit. And a country in a crisis might not be able to afford that. Imagine using your last budget money to go all in on BTC only to see it slide further in a bear market, while your people are without their salaries for 6 months, there's no money for healthcare, military, police and so on. How long will you be able to hold on until you are forced to sell at a loss?

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/01/chatgpt-ai-economy-automation-jobs/672767/


I'm personally skeptical on the ability of machine learning/neural networks to fully replace humans. I think it's more likely that it will boost productivity by performing the more simple and routine tasks, but there will still be the need for human touch. People will lose jobs because now a professional will be able to do the work of 2 professionals, but AI won't do the work of all professionals.

"Metaverse" is Zuckerberg's VR. It's not correct to call other virtual realities "metaverse".


Or maybe it will fail to get wide adoption, because it will remain clunky and there's no much to do in it. Take the current state of gaming - despite VR being highly immersive, people still mostly play games on monitors and TVs, and it's not just because VR headsets are too expensive. Regular games are just more fun.

You don't really need to know about anyone's experiences, because all the price history is written down on exchanges or services like coinmarketcap. The chart is all you need to know.

As you can see, in the past bull markets have started shortly after the halvenings. The next halvening is in 2024. So this whole year is not likely to be bullish, which is not a bad thing, it means that it could be an opportunity to accumulate more.

It doesn't matter at what stage CBDC is, it's not going to get adopted, because it's an inferior product to banks and electronic payment systems. CBDC when it's released will be plagued with problems like high fees, bugs, outages, poor customer service, data leaks and so on. Why would people want to switch to it? Add here the distrust that most people around the world feel towards their government.

And CBDC is not a direct competitor of Bitcoin. It's a direct competitor of privately-owned fiat payment networks.

How to pay for something is usually the smallest of the problems. Even for Russian and Iran there are their own payment networks, Chinese payment networks, payment networks of other countries that are friendly to them.

And the idea of a gold-backed currency to counter US dollar is not new. It's probably older than Bitcoin. It didn't have a lot of success - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_gold_dinar

Sounds like the author just constructed a pair of keys that collide, rather than taking a random public key and finding a collision through some algorithm, which would have been pretty bad. Basically this is just FUD to scare noobs.

I think Bitcoin can't achieve wide adoption through advertising. Awareness is not a problem, most of the people in the world know about Bitcoin, Bitcoin bull runs is something that was extensively covered in mainstream media. But people don't want to use Bitcoin instead of their bank cards, because they are quite satisfied with the service they get, while seeing downsides to using Bitcoin as a currency due to problems like volatility, key management, lack of adoption by merchants, occasional high fees and so on.

Well, fiat is also digital, and it has been digital for longer than Bitcoin existed. Being digital has never been unique to Bitcoin.

Given choice, people will use a solution that best suits their needs. And we're seeing that after 14 years, fiat is still thousands of times more popular than Bitcoin. So why should some supposed progress in the field of AI or transhumanism in general increase Bitcoin adoption? Just because Bitcoin is "new"?

This is a highly selfish and irresponsible act. Having stupid name will create a lot of problems for any person, biggest of all being bullying, but also people not taking them seriously, not trusting their identity and so on. And it would achieve absolutely nothing for Bitcoin. US dollar or Mastercard or PayPal didn't become adopted because people named their children in their name. They became popular because they offered good utility.


Even Satoshi or Hal will get a kid bullied, unless they are Japanese or American. Children are merciless.

Blockchain is not the only way to have decentralization. Blockchains are not always decentralized, in fact it's likely that there's more of the centralized ones than the decentralized.


you just want direct democracy for court cases, this is obviously a very bad idea. First, you can't ensure that the voters will statistically represent the population if it's a free for all and not a random selection. This opens a lot of room for corruption and injustice. Second, regular people are poor judges. They don't know the law, they don't spend their time trying to understand the concept of justice, their judgements would be based on emotions, political views and other irrational things.

Verdict - it's a bad idea. Case closed.

I began my Bitcoin journey in 2016 when Bitcoin entered a bullish phase, seeing my money increase by 50% in a few weeks made me very enthusiastic about Bitcoin, I immediately started believing that it's the future of money, it will replace banks and fiat currency and so on.

Then with years I started thinking about Bitcoin and its state more carefully, I realized that it is rarely used as a currency, so I started thinking about it more as a digital gold, a safe haven, a hedge against inflation. Then the covid times came and subsequent turmoil in global economy, and Bitcoin in my eyes failed the test.

I still hold a lot of Bitcoin because I think the bull/bear cycles will continue and it's possible to make a good profit from them, but I'm not emotionally attached to Bitcoin to HODL it no matter what.

Your arguments are not directed at PoS, they are directed at Ethereum, and they are not good enough to convince an Ethereum fan who has some understanding of crypto protocols.

If you want to attack PoS, you could point out that it has the unsolved and maybe unsolvable "nothing at stake problem", which means that it's cheaper to attack PoS blockchains than PoW blockchains. Plus there's a lot of other problems, like encouraging people to store their money in pools, which means trust.

And if you want to attack Eth, you can point out that its ecosystem is useless, it doesn't have any solutions for real life, it's all about creating and swapping worthless tokens that have no utility. Originally ETH was promising that people would be selling goods and services through smart contracts, and this promise never materialized, because a) it has too many downsides and b) people are fine with how things are.

The point of this story is to not sacrifice your cash flow for short-term profit. But Bitcoin doesn't have any cash flow. The only way to profit from Bitcoin is to sell it. Selling Bitcoin is not an equivalent of killing a goose that lays golden eggs. You can use the profits to buy Bitcoin later at a lower price.


Greed is what also makes people miss out on selling at a profit when the price is high, and then regret it when the price crashes.