To expand on that, the thought process or the automated processes people are using to try, and crack things are usually similar, and therefore becomes wasted effort. If 5000 people united, and worked together it would take much less time, than having 5000 individuals attempt something. Obviously, even if you had 5000 people or devices working together it would still be deemed impossible, but I do think it's important to make that point. Only cutting edge solutions usually break something, and even then that's pretty much unheard of these days, especially when it comes to encryption.

The Turning machine was a good example of a lot of people working together can achieve what was thought to be a impossible task by many, so I wouldn't rule out these solutions to sometimes break things unexpectedly.

Kind of, higher prices does attract new people to Bitcoin, and therefore adoption increases, but really what the end goal is; stability. We need Bitcoin to no longer be considered as an investment from a bystander point of view, and rather a currency that can be used without the volatility that Bitcoin has been subjected to in recent years.

The issue is, and well it's not really a issue, but by design. We aren't quite ready for that mainstream adoption due to the stability issues caused by the current climate, as well as how Bitcoin is designed. For an example, we have block rewards which inject somewhat large amounts into the network, and therefore volatility is introduced. However, when block rewards are no longer a thing or are reduced every four years, you generally could expect less volatility. Therefore Bitcoin becomes more stable the longer it's around.

So, mainstream adoption will be much more interested five years down the line, than they're now.

It would only drive up Bitcoin prices temporarily, and that's assuming you get enough users in the first place to buy Bitcoin at that amount, which is unlikely in the long term hence the temporary part.

Also, I doubt Nvidia is dying as you say. They're the most well known brand, and are still the most popular hardware for not only gaming, but the corporate world. They aren't the one's we should be worried about, I'd much rather be concerned about smaller businesses.

Also, Nvidia while having decent hardware have always been rather expensive. So, I'm not sure why anyone would have the brand loyalty that you're displaying here. They've a manufacturer, but charges you what they deem worth it, to mass produce these things. They certainly aren't looking to do you any favours, especially when typically similar hardware, albeit less supported can be found for cheaper.

Showing the world our power, and determination doesn't really benefit anything really. Plus, even if you got a million users to do it, it would be short lived news, that wouldn't change anything much, and would be forgotten about within a week.

The profit part might be true, depending on how long these buyers hold, and at what point they get out. Bitcoin could be susceptible to another decline, and your buying power isn't likely to change that, since you will find it hard to get people to follow this movement.

I get brand loyalty to some extent, but it's not like Nvidia have looked after each, and every one of us. Plus, those that game on their systems are paying for it, just how you pay for your electricity, and other utilities.

What do you mean by this? We can't really compare since it was created after the 2008/2009 crash, and therefore there wasn't much movement in Bitcoin, at least that could be reliably correlated with the crash, since it was a new currency, and there was a whole lot of factors to consider.

As for this recession, I honestly thought Covid would make it dive quite severely, but it held quite strong for a while. However, that doesn't mean Bitcoin is recession proof, since we're now feeling the effects of a recession. Usually, the initial declaration of a recession is usually when things start taking a hit, even though the signs have been there for a while, and then a few months after when all the rates have been adjusted, and therefore people are feeling the pinch that's when you see the true effects, but again it can't be accurately correlated, there's a lot of speculation, and assumption to be made.

Ultimately, Bitcoin is, and probably will be effected by this recession for a while. I'd be pretty confident to say the next six months will either see a downward trend overall or bouncing back, and forth a few k.

It's highly likely we just keep rebounding within a 5k range this side of Christmas, which I'm personally okay with. Until we get to see how the world is coping with the recession in a few months time, I can't see the situation getting any better. Buying power is naturally down, as well as demand due to the unprecedented times.

So, until we start to see the other end of the recession tunnel, I can't see us making much progression in a upward trend, much more likely in my opinion to see a downward trend in a six month window. I'm not basing that on anything that's happened in the past, but only from the consideration that we're now in one of the biggest recessions most people would've seen, if not all of us, and we don't know exactly the repercussions of that until at least a few months in. For example, here in the UK interest rates are expected to go up a couple percent more, which is going to have a massive effect on people who recently bought a house, because not only did they over pay for their houses due to the boom, but the government was offering 5% loan to value loans, which basically means a lot of people took out more than they can afford to pay back, and that's without considering the job losses that we will see at the end of the year.

So, yeah in terms of a six month period. I can't see Bitcoin getting beyond that 20k, and if it does it would likely only be brief.

Obviously, the more the better. I just know a lot of people personally won't get into Bitcoin now, because they feel out priced, simply because they can't justify or afford to buy one Bitcoin. Even though I've explained it a million times, and torn my hair out in the process, they just can't seem to get over that mental block.

Yeah, despite Bitcoin being complex, I think stocks are even harder to understand, and I can see the appeal that Bitcoin has from that perspective as well as the core principles of Bitcoin. Bitcoin's almost like a catch them all.

Personally, I'm not as comfortable investing in stocks than I'm with Bitcoin. Stocks are highly dependant on how the company performs usually, whereas there's a lot of factors in that, which are wildly unpredictable, especially when it comes to the reputation of the company, and the people running it. Although, I guess to a certain degree the same could be argued for Bitcoin, though Bitcoin being decentralised there's at least a bit of mitigation to prevent that.

Anyway, by all means make one whole Bitcoin your target, but don't make it prevent you from getting into Bitcoin if you can't afford it. Most people can't afford that amount for an investment, especially something you might not be completely sold with (that usually takes a year or two).

I mean officially he is a heavyweight boxer, and just beat a top three heavyweight boxer, twice. So, the claim that he isn't a heavyweight boxer is inaccurate. While I agree the height advantage, and weight advantage will play a part in Fury's fight with Usyk, I only say that because unlike Joshua, Fury uses his weight to his advantage. You saw it with Wilder, and you could see it taking his toll. However, he's done this throughout his career.

With that tactical advantage, he'll likely be able to slow down Usyk, that he'll become hittable, and therefore I see Fury getting the better of him. Ultimately though, they're very close in terms of technical ability, but again I still think Fury is the better of the two. I think Fury's technical ability is a bit underrated, and that's mainly due to the fact of what I said before, where a larger man usually does look a little more clumsy than a smaller man, even if they're doing very similar movements.

I'm still of the impression that Bitcoin beats our fiat system in almost every possible way, except for transaction times, and fees. However, with the former there are ways to improve it or at the very least mitigate it. However, whether it's advisable to do that remains another thing.

I genuinely believe most people will find a use for Bitcoin, however I know not everyone likes the idea of being their own bank, and I'm quite shocked it hasn't happened yet, but I can see banks making their way into Bitcoin storage, which will appeal to a certain type of person. While the very core users of Bitcoin will likely be hostile towards that, I might say it might even be necessary for mass scale adoption, since Bitcoin is a complex subject, and we can probably only simplify it so much, and therefore as long as there's complexity people aren't going to trust themselves to look after multiple thousands worth of Bitcoin, thus opting for a third party that will supposedly be more qualified in handling security issues.

So, with that in mind, as long as we continue moving forward, and we aren't too hostile to things which might go against the very core of Bitcoin principles, we should still see some major adoption. Obviously, people like us will opt to handle our own funds, but I'm just giving an example there where decentralisation might actually be harmed in the future, something along the lines of what OGNasty said.

I haven't heard any news from the reliable journalists around Liverpool, so I imagine it's just tabloid rumours which are usually rife around this time. However, I'll bite. Liverpool don't need a sub, they need someone to come in, and be of first team quality or alternatively someone who's reliable. Gini was a super reliable player for us, and it's unfortunate we let him go, as he was the perfect solution to what we're going through right now, and that's a lack of players. Thiago is brilliant, but very injury prone. Henderson is brilliant on his day, but has also struggled with the pace of the game in the recent years, and does pick up some injuries himself. Consider Gini who was almost never injured. Seriously, I can't remember the last time he was injured for Liverpool.

On the other hand we also have Keita who has missed more games than he has played because he's so injury prone. We just need someone like Milner with a bit more miles in his legs, and can be a difference maker. I don't know who that is, and I doubt we sign anyone that fits the bill this side of Christmas.

I forgot this is the headlining fight. I'm still not used to Tai being the main event just seems unreal how quick he's progressed, and some of the fighters he has actually beat. Almost like a fairy tale. I'd be super impressed, just like I was with the Lewis knock out if he manages to beat Gane though.

Just Gane's different. He's fast, doesn't mind just point scoring, and doesn't take a whole lot of risks. Tai was technically losing up until that elbow against Lewis if my memory serves me well. Gane isn't just going to stand there though, so it'll take a whole different part of the game for Tai to close the space, and that's something we haven't really seen from him. We know what we're getting with him, he's going to load up on his shots, and try to knock Gane out, and I hate to say it, he probably gets caught out with the superior speed, and agility of Gane, and gets knocked out himself. The more, and more I think of it that's the only outcome or a decision to Gane, but Tai hasn't even been five rounds yet, so can he really manage his energy when he pretty much swings to knock you out every other punch?

Well, United had problems before Ronaldo arrived, so again I don't think that's all it's to it. However, I do believe he added to the problems, and maybe there's a correlation to their performances since he's effectively been dropped from the first team. I do remember having a discussion on how Ronaldo is too big of a personality for the team not to feel it. However, it somewhat worked before, and it worked at Real Madrid with equally big personalities. So, I'm not sure how much of a correlation there's.

Don't get me wrong, they aren't looking absolutely brilliant, but they look like a team that likes to play again, and have some determination about them. Something has changed, and I'm not sure if it's just the Ronaldo problem as mentioned, combined with the new manager. That just seems to obvious though, since you could argue they've had good managers in the past, which have all failed, and that was without Ronaldo. Obviously, last season was particularly bad in terms of position in the table, and performances.

I think I predicted a draw, so more dropped points for me.

Right, in terms of transaction times. I actually think at the moment looking at things, we'll probably see altcoins be used for lower values. This might actually be integrated in a user friendly way in the future, I don't know. However, by reducing the transaction times, and therefore the confirmations you're effectively making it a little less secure. Although, Bitcoin could potentially be used like that now. As an example, many users here feel comfortable enough to allow for 0 confirmations, and only see it broadcast on the network. I wouldn't recommend it for the security implications that could potentially impose, but most people are already doing this with cards using fiat, so maybe people don't care all too much about the additional checks to prevent double spending etc.

I'm not sure that makes Bitcoin insecure though, since Bitcoin by default would still be secure, it would be the user choosing not to use the additional checks, which means Bitcoin is secure, but the users are slightly less secure by taking risks, however small they may be in reality.

Expensive; yeah there's an issue of that. However, segwit, and Lightening offer somewhat solutions to the expense problem, and in the future we'll likely see additional steps taken to reduce the transaction fees. However, due to the nature of Bitcoin, fees will always be a part of the network, and I'd rather higher security, a decentralised system to a degree, and paying a fee than giving up those benefits. I mean, a lot of people are already getting fees associated with their cards, they just don't realise it. Especially, if you own a credit card.

Also, one could argue that Bitcoin isn't completely decentralised, and they would be right to an extent. Mining as an example takes a certain amount of hardware these days, which of course directly translates to expenses, something which prices out the poorer users among us. Plus, there's also a certain technical element to it, that not everyone will be willing to wrap their head around. Thus, mining attracts a certain demographic. 

People get way too obsessed with owning whole amounts. I'd just say if you truly believe in Bitcoin, and you think it might be a good investment regardless of whether you'll use it to just take money out later, invest whatever you can afford, without putting yourself in a position where if it fails, you'll be stuck.

Far too many people are going either all out, and investing every little bit they have or the opposite collecting dust for years, and hoping they'll somehow become a millionaire. Hey, maybe in another ten years I'll be eating my words for that last sentence, but I'd say you should be investing at least enough that the medium term would benefit you.

It's highly unlikely that all countries will pass such a controversial ruling, that they outright ban Bitcoin for a long period of time. There's just no grounds to submit these sort of rulings. It's likely that more dictatorship, and centralised governments impose these rules, but the people of these governments are probably more likely to ignore these rulings since they're already bypassing several other restrictions put in place by the government.

The thing is, accepting Bitcoin currently only makes sense for big companies that can provide the support that a smaller operation can't. Since Bitcoin is complex, when we do get closer to mainstream adoption, we'll need to significantly simplify the process, otherwise adoption will likely be either very slow, or never happen at all. To be clear, when I say adoption, I mean mass adoption, where we're edging closer to it being one of the officially recognised currencies, and mass used per country, worldwide.

Maybe, I'm just missing your point, however; What's your problems with the current security of Bitcoin? I mean, it isn't inherently insecure, otherwise it wouldn't be worth anything. So, what specifically do you not like about it, or what security aspects do you want to improve?

Bitcoin is also almost infinitely scalable. Probably more so than our current mass preferred fiat system. So, there's that. Plus, it's already decentralised more than our fiat system, which already makes it the better option in almost all metrics. Cash isn't as secure as Bitcoin, and I'd argue that electronic money, i.e those that are stored on banking systems also aren't as secure.

So, I'm struggling to really see current problems, but would like to hear them.

What exactly are you referring too here. Bitcoin is more scalable in certain areas, but without knowing exactly what limitations you're talking about, I can't really accurately discuss the scalability issues. Are you talking about the storage issue that we might run into etc?

I agree somewhat, except for the close fight comment. This will either be a knockout for Tai or Gane will run away with the decision, and potentially get the finish himself. I can't see this being a out, and out war for the full five rounds. Tai hasn't really demonstrated his fitness all that much, so there's questions to be asked there, while we know Gane has a somewhat decent gas tank, except for against Ngannou.

The odds are awful on the Gane line though, so probably isn't worth taking the risk of putting him on your accumulator.

Fair play to Manchester United, they're doing what's required of them, and dare I say it; they look like a team with a bit of passion now. Maybe, it was a manager problem all along, but I'm still unconvinced that's the only problem. Maybe, the newly appointed manager has sort of covered up the cracks temporarily, but I have a feeling they're ready to throw the players, and manager under the bus whenever the team hits a bad run of form.

Although, right now they're looking like a decent team. Leicester hasn't looked great for the last two years now, but there's definitely something about United this season. Eriksen seems to be a good purchase for them too, he's looking good out there.

Probably means more dropped points for me in the group.

Yeah, and it always happens. At least, if you use something that's more universally accepted, you have more redundancies, but even then you aren't guaranteed that the standard will be the same in a couple of years. You should be checking somewhat frequently that this standard is still accepted, factor in redundancies, and generally be on top of things when you're operating as your own bank, otherwise you could come to regret it.

As an example, but still being a little different a website recently which was very well known, and been operating for something close to 10 years I imagine, recently went offline, and therefore a lot of people missed a service which they might've been checking on the daily for the past decade. So, even what seems reliable today, isn't guaranteed in the future. At least, Bitcoin Core generated, you know there'll be some sort of plan put in place if it ever needs to change for whatever reason. Any brain wallet generator isn't likely going to offer the same sort of contingency plans.

Regardless of if it was merged or not, I think it would be nice to have a standalone version with the full source being openly available. Some users might not want the additional functionality that BPIP brings, and the potential bloat of it.

Ah yeah, I mean anyone that did watch that match will know that Newcastle was wasting time every moment they could. There was like 5 players that went down with cramp in the last few minutes. Plus many other antics during the match. It was quite satisfying to see a team time wasting get punished by conceding with one of the last kicks of the game. I took great pleasure in that.

Although, I can't blame them. Time wasting usually works, and isn't a bad tactic at all especially when you're a weaker team, and literally every point counts. Some of those players in Newcastle know the struggle of a relegation battle, and I don't blame them at all. I thought they did very well last week, and remember that's their first loss of the season, drawing with City too. Although, they were up for a long time in that game, and if they time wasted a little bit more, might've been able to pull off the win.