To none of them as we should.

The support should be with the majority even if the majority isn't going for a proposal which was the case with BIP148. Bitcoin can not and will not survive if the minority succeeds to enforce its opinion on the rest of the network. After all that is the main reason why we consider bcash a shitcoin!

You (Wind_FURY) seem to be making a different point than indah rezqi, and maybe you are making a kind of argument about semantics in regards to 1) how to define what is "more than you can afford to lose" and 2) what kinds of measures can be taken (sacrifices made) in order to be more aggressive/assertive in regards to "buying the dip" and also saving on expenses.

My own definition of "more than you can accord to lose" would involve entering into some kind of an arrangement in which you have failed/refused to sufficiently cover your expenses or ending up having to sell some bitcoin at a later date because you over-did it... or maybe there is some other asset that you had not wanted to have to sell, but you are forced into such selling because you had bought to much bitcoin and had not sufficiently prepared.

By definition if you plan to move in with your parents or you choose to ONLY eat Ramen soup for the next year, then you are choosing in advance to take such measures; however, on the other hand if you end up getting forced to move in with your parents because you "over did it" or you have to sacrifice your diet because you "over did it" then those are not planned in advance.

Sure, there are several things that people might be "willing to allow" as their "back up plan" in case shit hits the fan.. and their investment moves against them, but by definition, personally, I would not consider those to be acceptable (even though others are going to be willing to make such sacrifices).. So, sure, there may well be some definitional quibbling going on here, and also sometimes life choices regarding how prudent (and preparing for the future) that anyone might be willing to be could end up with quite differing consequences, and some people might not end up homeless because of how much they chose to gamble, but they may well end up having a way less comfortable life later on in life because they over did their levels of aggressiveness and/or lack of preparedness at earlier times in life.

We can also rationalize where we got in life, such as if we are having to struggle with dead end jobs in our 50s, 60s and even into our 70s, while maybe some others start out in similar places and with similar resources, but pretty much have a life of relaxation in their 50s, 60s and 70s...

So there are ways to describe your situation in ways in which you had been wiling to live with the consequences (and even say "no regrets"), yet there are also ways to sufficiently prepare so that you are not taking those kinds of excessive risks.. which brings us back to definitional quibblings in regards to what seems to be excessive risks, and at one point in time, we do not necessarily know the consequences of our excessive risks.. which kind of gets me back to points that I made in my other post (and you responded to it)... hahahahaha.  All points (and all threads) are related.  Go figure.  

I want to get more educated in trading and I learned a lot of it with youtube here on forum etc. But I want to get on another level and I'm in search for literature. Maybe there is another topic about it so please send the link for it too. All suggestions are welcomed.

Long-term projections for bitcoin investing are very reasonable, but always set an amount you can afford to lose. Bitcoin is the best alternative to consider no matter what budget we have, but one shouldn't 100% go for it without considering about the risks. Bitcoin's long-term performance as an investment asset is to be expected to be good and work as we expect, but since the government is its main enemy we really have to recognize that they have the ability to prohibit us from investing or trading in the future.

Those are just some of the risks I think, but still bitcoin is the best investment choice compared to many other assets out there.

I have my doubts regarding if you are really even attempting to grapple with the issue that is presented Wind_FURY.. in terms of the extent to which any one person might end up standing up and become a target of controversy and therefore sometimes situations devolved into real battles with real world consequences in terms of livelihood, employability, de-platforming and/or various ways that someone might consider himself/herself to be doing normal work that is actually within the realm of controversy and consequences, and there are all kinds of areas in life in which anyone can end up becoming a threat to the status quo or a threat to a side that has resources sufficient enough to cause difficulties for the one who spoke up or who got involved in certain kinds of work that are "deemed to be threats" to the status quo or even threats to some other project or world view.

Choices are made along the way, and sometimes a person can find himself/herself in a position/situation in which s/he becomes a target... For sure, there are folks who might never stand up and never become controversial and perhaps even continuously choose mentors who are in "powerful" positions, and if the mentor becomes a subject of controversy, some of these folks will just find new mentors, and surely there are choices in life, and sometimes folks do not necessarily realize that they are making choices that are to "take the easy way" and perhaps never really having as much conflict in their lives, because they avoid conflict.  I would not even suggest necessarily that such choices to always avoid conflict are bad ones because they are somewhat in the discretion of individuals regarding how much conflict are they ready, willing or able to tolerate, and do they actually believe in anything besides just getting along.. and likely there can be principle in those kinds of choices of non-choices too, and even questions regarding the extent to whch some folks who might have purposefully lived a sheltered life might have a bit of difficulties if they are put into another environment or they might have difficulties understanding or relating to other perspectives in which someone might end up being a target because s/he spoke up too much... if you are always agreeing with the boss, maybe the boss likes that, or maybe the boss might end up firing folks who are too agreeable.. Where is the balance?  How much can we tolerate someone who rocks the boat?  And is that "rocking" necessary?

but it definitely didn't "force" anybody to do anything considering that to "force" the network into accepting a proposal they had to be a lot more than 5-10% of the network!

No, this is not how things work. Bitcoin as a system consists of all groups and each have a say in this decentralized currency's future. Nodes, miners, businesses, investors, etc. One group can't really force other groups into something they don't want.

The best example in 2017 where the hard fork step in SegWit2x proposal had a huge support from miners but only had minimal support from everyone else. Consequently it failed.

Well, it's a war and maybe those who don't have the stomach for it shouldn't participate.

Bitcoin's very existence where it gives the option to the average Joe to stop using the corrupt banking system is a threat to the corrupted entities. Everyone should know that they won't just stand around and watch. Sometimes it is just propaganda and FUD, sometimes it is legal battle, and sometimes it is outright banning. On top of that we also have the abusers, trolls, criminals, scammers, etc. who would stop at nothing to do damage.

That doesn't mean we should stay silent either or discourage others from joining in the battles. Sometimes people forget the Bitcoin ethos and need to be reminded of them. They need to be reminded that bitcoin isn't just something you buy to make profit...

I don't see what ordinals offers there beyond what is already provided by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenTimestamps

Keeping documents online forever for free isn't that hard of a task nowadays.

It's the first time I hear about The Motley Fool, but it seems that the amount of $ 5 million is not huge compared to its name. I tried to search for the company's net profits during the past year to estimate whether this amount is a real investment or is it a hedge against inflation by putting 1% to 2% of the profits in High risk investment.


Overall, it is good to hear some positive news after months of negative news.

Positivity is required by each and every investors otherwise we would have been playing stones and pebbles to be honest. Humans are complicated and they always need a spark to do something. Whether it is a millionaire who is getting motivated by the dream of becoming billionaire one day OR whether it is you and me getting motivated with the fact that holding bitcoin consistently might make us millionaire one day, everyone goes through that path for sure.

MotleyFool used to be one of the better investment websites. Back when their columnists and advice was written by early adopters of amazon, home depot and other excellent buys.

Somewhere along the line, it seems that many of their best authors and writers left for greener pastures. And were replaced by millennials who lacked the same degree of business or investment acumen. That was when the quality of their content declined. Their long history of recommended buy in winners, was replaced by significantly reduced win versus loss record.

I say this as someone who has read and followed their website since the financial crisis, back around 2009.

Hopefully this BTC recommendation is a display of motleyfool returning to its roots and winning ways.

"latest hype" again?

actual (i.e. Ethereum based) NFTs already have a bad reputation for being the ultimate cryptocurrency scam, so I don't see how this trend won't just burn itself out pretty quick

When it comes to the intolerance towards Bitcoin, there isn't that much of a difference in my opinion. Those in power in the West or the East don't really like it. The methods they use are different, but the dislike is there.

And it's exactly that feature that the institutions of power don't want and wish to change because it's a thorn in their side. Whether by advocating POS or by other means. We haven't considered a scenario where they turn the general population against Bitcoin advocates on the principles of divide and conquer. Instead of us being the bad guys trying to ban Bitcoin, let's influence the opinions of the educated masses and incentivize them to turn against the asset. When they do, we (the saviors) step in and give the people what they want. Not only did we grant their wishes, but we used them as our foot soldiers and our hands are clean.  
  

Being anonymous doesn't eliminate the risk of being targeted, at best it might reduce it but the protection is fragile.  At worst being anonymous denies you access to a multitude of protections including the trust and respect of friends and the sympathy of the public.  In some countries it may even meaningfully deny you to the protection of due process.

Unless you carefully throw something over the wall and vanish it's essentially impossible to remain strongly anonymous:  Everything you write leaks information about your identity.  With the world population being less than 8 billion people, just 33 bits is technically enough to identify a person.  If you suppose attackers that have the power to seize and search your home at gunpoint then they don't even have to be particularly sure who you are-- they just need to reduce the list of candidates to one small enough they can search without too much trouble, and protecting your anonymity against an attacker that has physical possession of your computers is probably not possible.

Instead, I think sane people just shouldn't participate:  There is very little incentive to do so. Forget state attackers: you'll be aggressively attacked by the mentally ill, by crapcoin scammers and their bagholders who view you as an impediment to their dreams of riches and no one will stop them, you'll be exploited by "journalists" that would think nothing of ruining your life with some falsehoods just to gain a few pieces of click-stream silver.  The community as a whole will do little to protect you, mostly just pat itself on the back saying honey badger don't care and developers were a liability anyways.

As I've learned first hand the vulnerability created by participating isn't eliminated completely by stopping.  You can't change your mind later and go "gee, I don't really want to spend the few years I have left fending off scammers"-- once you've given someone a hook to go after you you're just stuck with it.  Especially in the modern world, saturated by fractal bureaucracy-- the best way to stay safe is to be invisible to those who would do you harm: Institutions won't protect you and don't permit you to protect yourself against attacks with adequate force.  The public is too mired in the drama of the week, whatever nonsense fake crisis the applicable media is shoving down their throat, to stand up and protect their own.  And being masked isn't invisible, it may well increase your visibility.

People like to imagine specific attacks that will draw an overwhelming defense, visions of Bitcoiners protesting the state house or whatever.  But attackers aren't limited to behaving 'honestly', they're not limited to attacking in ways they are sure to lose-- no, they'll attack in ways that won't draw a response if any exist and clearly such avenues do exist.

Ultimately, if it was too risky to participate relative to the rewards under your well known identity then you should reach almost the same conclusion assuming anonymity.

Bitcoin's prior lead developer has ended his involvement, specifically saying that he regretted ever participating because he's been awarded a pile of abuse including multiple lawsuits as a result.  That should be a thermonuclear wake up call, but few seem to hear it over inane debate about jpegs.

I can't comment on Africa but the news from China doesn't really look bad. It shows a solid growth in both adoption (number of users) and the number of transactions processed. The value processed was reported to surpass 100 billion yuan ($13.94 billion) recently, they claim that it is out of initial stage and is being used more.


I never understoond this statement about CBDCs! People use fiat that is printed by the government and the banking system that is centralized and corrupt. They trust both of them. CBDC is not really a different thing, it is centralized and both issued and controlled by the government and the banksters just like fiat is.

If people were to stop trusting the system, they would  dump fiat first and move to bitcoin not continue using fiat and not trust CBDC!

It's kinda unsafe. Think of this: you're a miner who wants to trick some client who runs a non-Segwit node. You can take any UTXO you don't own and spend it to their address with an invalid signature. They can't verify the signature, so including it in a block is considered valid to them. Of course, it's soon going to be reorged, because no miner will build on top of a non-Segwit chain.

When I said you and me I didn't really mean you (o_e_l_e_o) personally, but I get your point. Bitcoin isn't vulnerable to attacks in that way. I see potential problems in pressuring the community of volunteers in doing or implementing something they don't want to. Arrests, prosecution, and that sort of thing. Other experts can take their place and resume the work in that case.

I haven't heard recent talks about large-scale mining bans. But I have no doubt that certain proposals lie in drawers in dark offices waiting for the perfect opportunity to be drawn out. Don't forget that the Arctic Ice is melting and banning bitcoin or Bitcoin is the way to do that.

Does that encourage old clients to switch to new version, since they might hear on blocks that are likely to reorg?

What could be the excuse of a non-Segwit node to stay in non-Segwit?

In each trading strategy there are certain segments that correspond to their own: the bottom of the price and the highest point of the token value. Ideally, you need to simultaneously judge by several time periods. It depends on the periods themselves what is the bottom and what is the top point for you. I am looking at the market chart in the period of a year and five years. I think these are great ranges to set the bottom and top.

If you are planning to sell eventually, then adding an amount whenever there is a pump in the market price would be a good idea but if you plan on holding it for a long period of time, wait for the pull back then and if not, just let is stay in that amount. Because instead of profit, it will just be lost trying to increase your asset halfway once a correction occurs; happens a lot and without certainty of its occurence. It is indeed good to desire a bigger profit but if it will just add risk and if it is not supporting chances of bigger profit, then it won't be worthy doing so; the bigger your asset, the bigger your partial loss could be once there's a dump with the market prices.