That is not true at all.
For starters trading is very different from investing long term. What you do also depends a lot on the market. For example a shitcoin that is dumping should be avoided like the plague. There is no reason for them to get pumped again.

You are also working in reverse in "pump participation strategy". When you see the shitcoin pumping you should buy in and sell it before it starts dumping. If you buy after the dump begins hoping for another pump, you are heading for disaster.

Addiction from trading or more like treating depression from losing a lot of money? I would choose the latter as a more valid reason to be confined or rehabilitated hehe. They just needed to put a new name to it for distinction and it's probably the same how they came up with the term "gambling addiction".

--Snip--

If and when node operators want to bear that cost, it'll happen.  Not when you screech and whine about it.  It's not your place to tell others what burden they "should" accept in order to run a node. 
People will decide that for themselves, because freedom.



I don't hate the idea of low fees.  I hate the idea of artificially manipulating market forces to achieve your desired outcome.  I hate you thinking you get to arbitrarily decide what fees others "should" pay. 
People will decide that for themselves, because freedom.



If you want to implement something which is incompatible with what the majority of users want, it's your best option.  Screeching and crying about it doesn't make me wrong.



ALL devs.  Not just Core ones. 

You are the one who wants to maintain the absurd position that Core devs hold all the power.  It's the people who run the code who have the power.  If Core do something those users don't like, they won't run it.  Although I'm starting to think maybe you do run Bitcoin Core, even though you claim to disagree with it.  Is that where all your anger stems from?  Are you some sort of masochist who runs code they overtly despise?



I hate your twisted, moronic, demented fantasy of what consensus "should" be.  Every time you repeat your "tRuE cOnSeNsUs" catchphrase (like the braindead parrot you are), I read it as "bullshit nonsense franky1 totalitarian pipe-dream".  You don't understand consensus and wish to utterly pervert its meaning.  Feel free to have your own ridiculous definitions of words, but don't expect the rest of us to abide by them.

"Adam Back, Co-Founder and CEO of Blockstream
""Drivechains...are pretty cool...and arguably could have been more important or useful than let’s say Taproot.""
""props to @Truthcoin and team for implementing and validating drivechain design.”"

"Olaoluwa Osuntokun, CTO of Lightning Labs
""In the past year, the drivechain specs seem to have come a long way."""

"Sergio Demian Lerner, Chief of Innovation at IOV Labs and Designer of the RSK Rootstock Bitcoin sidechain
""[...] migrate Rootstock to a drivechain when it is softforked into Bitcoin [...] the destiny is to become fully decentralized.""
""[...] sidechains are the natural extension of the Bitcoin finance stack [...]. A sidechain is a blockchain that is highly incentive-aligned with the Bitcoin community."""

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m4PpNIdBKuLC6FzLOoIfvHXcnrSh6dnOqPrqKg-zJEw/edit#gid=0

In the end it only becomes a matter of how strong we are in holding back, because regardless of anything and however the market conditions are, it is indeed a strong hand that will survive. It might be a little different if we let go when the conditions are favorable for us, but basically things like that aren't always going to be easy because we also always have conditions where the market isn't going well and panic hits so being mentally strong and trying to keep holding on is something really good.

Honestly, I am very impartial on which one's making sense and who's right. On one hand, Ordinals and their supporters have a point. At this point in time there's no use appealing to what Satoshi would've wanted for bitcoin. The project is bigger than him now and is already self-serving, so I don't think any of his opinions matter at this point. On the other, I can see this causing problems in the long run, they won't be the last project that's going to run in the bitcoin blockchain, thus this may cause issues down the line in the matters of transaction processes.

Purists do not have a say in this. They are clowns at most.

Yesterday someone decide to create an NFT[1] which has size 3915537 bytes with 0 tx fee[2]. I can't believe pool Luxor (which mine that transaction) would rather mint an NFT rather than earning more Bitcoin from tx fee. They even made tweet about it[3], where the response isn't positive.

[1] https://ordinals.com/inscription/0301e0480b374b32851a9462db29dc19fe830a7f7d7a88b81612b9d42099c0aei0
[2] https://mempool.space/tx/0301e0480b374b32851a9462db29dc19fe830a7f7d7a88b81612b9d42099c0ae
[3] https://twitter.com/LuxorTechTeam/status/1620921129287430144

Deflation is always worse than inflation. Deflation means sustained decrease in prices of goods and services, can have several negative consequences on economy such as , decreased spending, reduced investment in new projects and hiring. This ultimately results in increase in unemployment which is not only bad for economy but also impacts vote bank of ruling party.

It is expected, that during deflation the both stocks and crypto markets may perform poorly.
I don't think FED will allow deflation to occur in USA, they will start printing money as soon as they detect some signs of deflation.

You are arguing about replacements and you are right. Other fiat currencies suffer from the same flaws as US dollar. But your arguments are confirming my claim that countries are not willingly using dollar!

Yes because the discussions about replacing US dollar didn't start after Russia was sanctions and Russia is not the only country that is seeking replacement. For example both SCO and BRICS are organizations created to oppose the US hegemony (specially economical hegemony). SCO was found in 2001 and BRICS in 2009.
Some of the countries in these organizations like Brazil are not under sanctions.

P.S. El Salvador wasn't under sanctions when they found a replacement for the dollar called bitcoin, they are under sanctions now though

I read a news yesterday about a Spanish rehab center that is called 'The Balance', a Switzerland-founded wellness center, located in Spain. The Rehab center helps in treating of alcohol, drugs and behavioral health addictions. Recently it is adding trading addiction to its list and I was surprised to see that. You can read more about it:

The rehabilitation center cited estimates that about 1% of cryptocurrency traders will develop an "extreme" addiction to crypto trading.
https://cointelegraph.com/news/spanish-rehab-center-adds-crypto-trading-addiction-to-services-list

I think it would be perfect to bring this trading discussion. Are you addicted to trading? I am thinking that making profit from trading or making losses, there is a chance that some traders are addicted to trading. What are you doing naturally to stay away from trading addiction?

And probably also it's the same with any other risky activity that can potentially give you a big reward. Those are the tricks our mind plays with us. The thing is that our brain has not changed since tens of thousands of years ago, and this behaviour, always taking the risk to potentially get something big, was the right one for our survival for many thousand of years because there were no slot machines, no crypto trading, and we, humans, rarely had this opportunity to get a fortune of a lifetime within one day.

That's correct. But need for dopamine so hard coded into us that quitting smoking was easier then now chasing a new rush.
I think i've found a way to control mine now. It sounds silly but it's just sticking into basics and routine. When basics are in check i can treat myself with gambling.

And by basics i mean i manage my budget, exercise, work, eat healthy, sleep more and do work for my relationships. When those are in check i am less addicted to that rush.

there have also been some changes that soften it to threats aswell allowing new tx formats in without majority consensus of nodes ready to fully validate(as node readyness to fully validate WAS the old way of new format/feature activations which has now been softened to no longer require node majority readyness).

nodes now have the "neither of which are things you have to worry about"
because they have softened the role of nodes.. just so that devs and dev idolisers can blame miners.
yet the softness is the blame of devs.. as is any bug they introduce..  as it is all code changes. because devs write the code. not asics

    It's actually very easy to say that, and many people have said it here, but no one knows when the dip to buy is, there is no specific date, day, or time when, that's the problem, it's hard to distinguish the so-called right time to buy.

Maybe the best thing to do is save as much bitcoin as you can before everyone catches on and regrets not saving.

I don't really suggest selling

bitcoin was made by someone(post latest millennium) who patched lots of idea's together(from prior-to-millennium idea's) along with his own(post-millennium) idea's

but this does not mean "bitcoin" was a 60 year project

Well, now things get interesting!

We finally come back to what should have been the top at around 16500!

As we all know the past 2 years was Tether's very own version of Willy Bot, but on steroids. It was always going to com out in the wash and now the DoJ/SEC on the case it looks like its gonna be [urhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45elFFLgnEY]scrubbing day[/url] pretty soon...



So, will ~16 hold and become the new base for another speculative run up?

I for one welcome regulation in the space. Yeah I know GUBBERNMENT BAD... but don't forget, the regulators are going after the scammy exchanges and ponzi schemes that are screwing retail investors - they don't care about you and your sovereign Bitcoin, you are not a criminal... right?

Keep your corn off exchanges, use them to transact, respect bast practice for privacy and you get all the benefits of Bitcoin with assurances that nefarious actors can't screw you.

I think surge regarding the price of bitcoin is something that is not "just" based on world economy. I mean sure it is impacted, there is no denying that and when the economy is terrible the price goes up because if fiat is terrible then it should be good for bitcoin.

But at the same time, we should not put the price of bitcoin depending just on that, there are many other things that it gets affected by, and it could be one of those that makes it. Like some great news of some big nation making it legal tender could make the price go up suddenly, even when economy hasn't changed, as you can see the world economy is the same, but that good news could make it higher. That type of things matter.