You can be almost certain that some day there will be a large bull run. But it's likely not going to happen soon. Not in this year, maybe not even in the next one. If you look at past history, bear markets last for a long time, around 2 years. And we're not even one full year away from the ATH.

But this is good, because bear market is the time for buying Bitcoin. Just don't forget to sell when the bull market will come, otherwise you will have to wait again for a bull run.

No it's not. Full stop. Religion is a belief in supernatural forces. There's nothing like that in Bitcoin community. No one believes that Satoshi is a god. In fact most people don't think about Satoshi at all. He is a part of Bitcoin's history rather than the present. It's mostly the newbies who are fascinated with his mystery rather than the experienced bitcoiners, because experienced bitcoiners know that Bitcoin is an idea and a community project, rather than Satoshi's property.

If I was a bit less moral person, I would just start a blockchain company with a goal of selling out to some suckers. It's crazy that blockchain still attracts billions of dollars in investments even as it's clear that no one seriously uses it. People have such a strong fear of missing out on the next big thing, that they would rather lose their on junk investments.

When people talk about 51% hashpower, they often only think about the hardware, but power is hardware + energy. Energy that has to be supplied to continue the attack. If the attacker stops, the honest miners could continue to mine on the original chain and eventually overtake attacker's chain. This can undo the damage from the double spending. And as denial of service the 51% is so expensive that no one can afford it for long.

At 8 billion people and 21 million BTC that's 0.002625 per person or 262500 satoshis. That's more satoshis per person than USD per person currently. And in Lightning Network it's possible to have units smaller than Satoshis. And also it's possible to upgrade the protocol to divide Bitcoin into smaller units than satoshi.

I don't want to know it.


He doesn't owe us anything.


He doesn't need any rewards for "writing essays", he would tell people if this was the case.


Feel free to contact him directly and offer his your "Honour of Doctorate".

Why there is no reason to hold the deflating currency if you are profiting from it? It's a typical Tragedy of the commons scenario. Everyone act in their self-interest and as the result everyone losses. Very few people would switch to an alternative currency for altruistic and patriotic motives.

He never said anything about how many coins he has and what he may or may not do with them. And he stopped all activity many years ago. So no one will answer that question, we can only make guesses. One explanation is that Satoshi is dead and his keys are lost forever. Another explanation is that Satoshi doesn't want to attract attention and doesn't need billions of dollars. Or maybe he is actually selling relatively small amounts of coins under the radar.

I don't think that microtasks are alleviating poverty, they likely make it worse. All these microjobs are very low skill tasks with zero career growth and they consume a ton of time. So the people who do them have no opportunity to grow and break out of poverty. Someone relies on miicrotasks for their income will stay poor for the rest of their lives.

Bitcoin is meant to outlive Satoshi, Van der Laan, and everyone who writes code for it today. Bitcoin is a community, old people leave, new people come. So this is actually very good for Bitcoin, it will demonstrate that its development has no critical centralization, unlike Ethereum, where Vitalik is the owner of the code and can do whatever he wants.

Well, depending on how you look on it, it might not always be on the blockchain. Lightning network transactions are Bitcoin transactions that don't get immediately broadcasted to the network and added to a new block. This allows the parties that have a Lightning channel to save on fees by making many transactions between themselves and then only making one transaction on the blockchain. So Bitcoin in Lightning Network doesn't exist on blockchain until the channel is closed.

Then there are things like Bitcoin custodians. They could be running at fractional reserves and lending more Bitcoin than they have, effectively creating virtual Bitcoin. This does not exist yet, but might become more widespread in the future.

Just because Bitcoin doesn't have this problem, doesn't mean that it's perfect or even more suitable than banks. Users can lose their seeds and as the result lose their entire savings forever with zero chance of recovery. Users can fall victim of malware that will steal all their money, but with banks it's less likely and less dramatic, because of the procedures like described in your story.

And if some banks have bad user experience, doesn't mean all of them do. I have been sending sums in range of $20,000 through online banking and my transactions were processed in less than 20 minutes with minimal obstacles.

I bet that people would still think that any calamity is good for Bitcoin, because Bitcoin is against fiat and governments. So if something hurts them, then it's good for Bitcoin. The previous narrative before the "hedge against inflation" was "global currency that will replace fiat and banks", and that narrative is still present in Bitcoin circles.

Without adoption there won't be any effects on global economy. And legalization won't necessarily increase adoption significantly. Because crypto would still be volatile, have scalability problems, altcoins are full of bugs, and so on.

And you should never forget that crypto is just a form of money. Money alone can not create prosperity. It can't turn a broken economy into a booming one.

What advantages? The dominant use case of crypto is speculation and investment scams. Name any crypto project, aside from Bitcoin, that is actually used in real world by real people. Because crypto people are always talking about the future and never about the present, and it gets old fast. The blockchain hype started 5 years ago, how many promises were delivered since then? Zero. All the projects from those times that promised to revolutionize everything are now dead.

First, you need to know from which address you will receive the coins. In many cases it's impossible, because your counterparty will refuse to tell you. Second, there's no objective taint. It's about to whom you will send your coins. Some services might not care about history of your coins at all. Others might hire chainanalysis companies or perform their own analysis. Some services don't want to receive coins linked to gambling. And so on. There's lots of possibilities.

"centralized" - "decentralized" is not a good way to describe a wallet. Technically running your wallet is centralized, because only you have access to it. Your confusion came from the fact that you thought about exchanges as wallets, a place were people store Bitcoin. When you are analyzing them, think about these functions separately. Exchanges can be centralized or decentralized. Centralized exchanges can be used as custodial wallets, though they really shouldn't be.

Dead tokens never make a comeback. Scammers keep creating more of new tokens to get interest of the potential investors, because it's impossible to keep hyping up an old token when people can look at its history and see that it's a failure.

Let this be a lesson that the only safe coin is Bitcoin - it's not going to disappear, it's not going to get replaced by a new coin, and if it will crash to the ground, the whole crypto market will follow, so there's no point in taking extra risks with other coins.

Can these speculative bubbles go on forever? Or will they become smaller and smaller as market participants try to dump Bitcoin and take profits before it crashes? I think the recent bull market already showed that the market participants know that Bitcoin is not going to the moon with a plan to stay there, so it's more like a gambling game where people try to guess how high it will go before it crashes.

Well, the whole point of privacy is that such data is hard or impossible to obtain. Adresses that hold a lot of coins could belong to organizations and not a single owner. Individual whales could have dozens of addresses with moderate amounts of coins, instead of putting all eggs in one basket. There are attempts to count the Bitcoin whales, but I seriously question their accuracy.

So, this is a question that no one can give a good answer.