It's not a solution to anything. Microearnings have always been a waste of time. Only the poorest and most desperate people do them, and still it's not worth for them. They would have been better off spending that time on developing skills that could help them earn better money - these days you can learn almost anything on the Internet.

And even thinking about macroeconomic effects of microearnings is just funny.

I'm hodling for way longer than 2-3 years, and I will most likely liquidate more than half of my BTC portfolio in this cycle, because I'm at the point when taking those profits and investing them in reliable traditional assets would net me a significant cash flow, and I would rather have a predictable stable income than to gamble it all on having more unrealized gains.

I also think that Bitcoin is significantly more risky than most Bitcoiners think. There's nothing that could prevent a massive bear market that would turn into a long-term negative trend. And I don't want to risk anymore, I want reliable gains.

Wrong, blockchain is a useless vaporware, so if you try to combine it with a proven working tech like AI or gaming, you still end up with useless product in the end, because it can't compete with normal solutions. Blockchain games are strictly worse than regular games, you need  to go through all the incoveniences of sending transactions, managing wallets, waiting for confirmations and for what? To play some garbage cashgrab game that no one would ever buy if it wasn't for a chance for making money for poor people?

I'm using Electrum and there's a simple solution - click "freeze funds" on the address that received dust (it has no balance other than the dust).The whole point of dusting is sending it to empty addresses with known identity, hoping that the owner will make new transactions with that address and link it to other addresses. It makes no sense to send dust to addresses with balance because they will be used at some point.

Sometimes I check Bitcoin news sites like Coindesk and they tend to explain the recent price movements as the result of some economic metrics of the US. Like higher interest rates could negative impact the price because investors move money from Bitcoin to bonds. And I think it defeinitely happens, but the question is whether the scale is large enough to matter in long term, or is it just something that only day traders pay attention to. Because these price movements that are part of the larger halvening cycle are just dwarfing all the reactions to economic news and other real world events.

If you are in a situation when someone has access to your devices and can threaten you, they will not stop unless they get something, and if they for some reason have a good idea about how many coins you have, they won't stop until they get them all.

Obscurity rarely gives security, it's just an obstacle. The best defense is to never get into these kinds of situations.

Marketcap is a weak metric without sufficient market depth. Today it's $1T, in a few months it's $2T, then $0.5T. With stocks it makes sense to talk about marketcap because they don't often lose 80% of their value, and when they do, you know it means something really-really bad.

Also, $1,3T isn't very impressive, it's less than the marketcap of some of the biggest companies, and lower than marketcap of gold and some other commodities. This could mean that there's a lot more room to grow, but it's not a strong argument for it.

Every time Bitcoin goes up, big brain analysts say that it means people believe it's digital gold. So if Bitcoin crashes, does that mean people stop believing it's digital gold or what?

What I learned in my almost 8 years in Bitcoin is that so-called analysts just throw lazy explanations for the current trend, because no one cares about actual research. Market participants just want an easy narrative to stir them to buy or sell.

Bitcoin ecosystem today is not different from the ecosystem half a year ago when the price was 3 times lower. This means the price growth is a result of the halvening bull-bear cycle and not people waking up to digital gold.

The real question is how much security we need? Bitcoin was less secure 10 years ago when hashrate was a fraction of what it is now, yet it didn't get attacked. It could be true that transaction fee rewards are sufficient to secure the network.

Also, there's another variable that almost everyone overlooks. Number of confirmations. If the network is more likely to get 51% attacked, then those who who accept transaction can just require higher number of confirmations. Today we used to treat 1 confirmations or 3 confirmations as secure, in the future it might be 10 or 20. No one is going to pay for coffee with on-chain BTC anyway.

It might briefly touch $1M in 20-25 years, but it won't last long at that level, basically it would be another peak of a bubble that will be followed by a massive correction. Or another possible scenario is that Bitcoin will reach $1M in 50 years or longer, when due to inflation $1M will have the same purchasing power as $300k today. And you shouldn't exclude the possibility that it will never reach $1M because the price will become stagnant before that.

Or maybe Satoshi was intentionally choosing every word carefully to not leave a pattern that would hint something about his personality. Or maybe if there is some pattern, it's just an intentional misdirection.

Lot's of people in the world spend majority of their lives using English as they second language in their work, studies, even entertainment. It could be that English is not Satoshi's native language.

Hackers will continue to target everyone. The spread malware by putting it in software, and any software that you are downloading could contain malware. That's why it's important to only install the software signed by developers that you trust - so no cracked software and no software from unknown people like in this case.

It's not just about gamers, lots of people get malware by trying to install cracked Photoshop or some video editor.

Theft happens with fiat payment systems too, and people become victims of scammers and voluntarily send their money, but still they have some chance of returning their money if they immediately notify the bank, and also banks have algorithms for security checks that stop suspicious transactions and ask for extra verification. So there is a chance that your moiney will be protected - the chance could be low or moderate, maybe even high, it depends on the financial service itself, country regulations, etc.

But with crypto the chance of returning money or stopping an ongoing attempt is zero. So a lot of people would rather stick with fiat, because they are not ready to be their own bank.

Trading and investment is also speculation, because Bitcoin is a speculative asset. The difference is only in time preferences.

And I wasn't talking about market adoption, I was talking about other use case adoption, like payments or store of value. Those other uses are so low that they don't have influence on the price.


Stock market is not a zero sum, because companies manufacture goods and provide services - they create something valuable for society and a lot of people benefit from it. So with stocks you can get dividends, but with Bitcoin you can only get profit if someone buys it.

So this theory tries to tell us that Bitcoin's price is a result of some sophisticated adoption curve, but from my point of view adoption is largely irrelevant for Bitcoin - most of those who own Bitcoin are speculators, some are short-term speculators, some are long-term speculators, but everyone is planning to at some point sell. So instead Bitcoin should be analyzed as a zero-sum investment game. If more money comes in than comes out, the price grows. This growth incentivizes money to stay and wait, basically a positive feedback loop. But this loop can break if too little money will be coming in and those who were waiting will become disappointed and start quitting.

Saying that people were wrong in the past so those who make a similar argument today are also wrong is not an argument. The price is driven by objective factor, so the only good analysis is the one that studies those factors - supply and demand. Any argument that says that the price was growing in the past so it must grow in the future too should be ignored, because nothing can go up and up forever.

The selling of such high amount of coins will definitely be felt by the market for some period of time, maybe a few weeks or so, but it won't stop the bullish market, because it's only 1/750th of the entire supply, it's clearly not enough to objectively crash the market. The US government was selling seized coins in the past too and it never had any serious long-term effect on the price. So now is a good chance to accumulate a bit more coins if you still waiting to do so, because there's definitely going to be new ATHs in this year and maybe the next year too.

Fractional ownership is really not a new thing, there has always been funds that offered to pool investments for those who have too little capital to invest themselves in something like real estate. And tokenization is just a buzzword with no real-world applications, because you can't go to court and say that you own 5% of some property because you own some token. Without government's blessing this "revolution" is impossible.

There's no qualification on this forum, aside from a few special boards. People can read and post regardless of their rank. Let's be honest, people chase merit and rank to get into signature campaigns, not to "learn" or "improve" or "contribute to the forum". It's all about money. And if you want to earn money you gotta but a bit of effort.

If you are using a resilient storage method like a steel plate, it can withstand some damage. So in example with flooding, if the flood didn't collapse the house, you should be able to recover it.

Online backups can be viable and totally secure if you are using a really-really strong password. Not a password that you came up with your brain, but a randomly generated one by specialized software.

Another option is memorizing your seed phrase. It's not reliable at all, but an extra layer of backup wouldn't hurt.

And also you can encrypt your offline backups, even a seed on a piece of paper, and put it in a bank safety box.