That's an amusing and novel idea on how to save a seed phrase, but I don't think that's an effective way.

The problem remains, that memory is not reliable in terms of keeping your seed phrase safe. If you have children memorize a song, how long would they remember that song? How long would they be singing that song? If we forget popular nursery rhymes, how much more a song that isn't popular, that you can't even hear on the radio or search on Spotify or YouTube? Perhaps it would be effective if you manage to make your song a classic, which I honestly doubt.

Just write them down clearly. Keep several copies. Hide them in different inconspicuous locations. And you might also want to consider metal seed phrase storage.

This looks like a content created for the sake of creating a content. Are these even secrets?

Price swings? Everybody who has observed Bitcoin's price movements even only for months must have already been aware that Bitcoin's price could experience extreme fluctuations every now and then. "Keep a constant check," "do your own research, "opt for the long term," "choose the right platform," are not actually secrets. They're already clichés, as a matter of fact. They are as common as buy low sell high, not your keys not your coins, and others.

Had Crusoe Energy's Lochmiller mentioned that they have been using waste methane to power their Bitcoin mining operations, would the WEF have allowed the video to come out? I doubt.

On Crusoe Energy's part, would they have even mentioned Bitcoin mining even if it wasn't a WEF video they are making? I also doubt.

There is actually nothing very special about this. This is neither a metanoia on the part of the WEF nor an effort of Crusoe Energy to somehow spread awareness about Bitcoin mining turning green.

This is far from recognizing the benefit of Bitcoin mining.

You are making sense, of course. Gambling in its strict sense can't be compared to investing in Bitcoin. Broadly speaking, though, investing, trading, and even almost everything life in general are a gamble.

However, let me point out certain things. Investing and trading are not entirely the same. Second, most gambling games in crypto casinos are provably fair, so you're not really trusting a company blindly. You can verify the fairness yourself.

This debate isn't actually new. I guess I have already encountered a handful of topics pertaining to this.

Try it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=53.0

I kind of agree with Eternad. I guess visibility shouldn't immediately be equated with the number of posts per week or the number of participants. There are other factors for a post, and therefore the signature, to be more visible than another.

BestChange, for example, implements a rule that only 2-3 posts made on threads beyond 5 pages are to be counted. This is because mega threads are usually full of spam and posts beyond the 5^th page are more easily missed than those made in the first 2 pages. Also, posts that are already buried deep in mega threads are normally less interesting because they are most probably just repetition of earlier posts, and posters probably didn't even read everything before joining the discussion.

Another factor perhaps is the level of influence of the user wearing it. If theymos, for example, wears a signature, it becomes very visible to everybody even if he only makes a single post per week.

Perhaps a more reliable measurement of visibility is the number of visits made to their websites through signatures, or perhaps the number of users referred by signature links.

Here they are again with their superior complex, trying to come up with an erroneous and absurd policy among themselves and impose the same on everybody else. They have to wake up. This isn't the age of colonialism anymore. Why shouldn't countries make their own independent and thorough study and craft policies based on it? Why are these conceited countries want everything they think of to be implemented globally?

This Nirmala and the entire G20 should realize that they don't have the monopoly of righteousness, wisdom, and capacity to come up with sound policies. Why shouldn't they study El Salvador? Instead of ganging up on a small sovereign country, why can't they start to understand where it is coming from?

There may be several reasons and factors. There's convenience. There's lack of Bitcoin education. There's also the fact that many purchased their Bitcoin from centralized exchanges and rather than move them right after, they just kept it there. There's also trading. But on top of this all, there's the fact that many Bitcoin supporters are not really supporters of the very essence of Bitcoin. They're with Bitcoin because of its fiat price equivalent. Had Bitcoin not been assigned with a USD price value, they wouldn't have cared about it.

But the more surprising thing really is not that majority, which are mostly ignorant Bitcoin laymen, fell victim to centralized platforms; it is that even those who came early, went all in, and were thoroughly convinced of Bitcoin's technology like CZ ended up creating the very problem Bitcoin tries to solve.

Actually, how many transactions per second is the Bitcoin blockchain capable of processing? It's just 7. On the other hand, how many transactions per second is, say, the Solana blockchain capable of carrying out? It's 50,000. But why do people transact on the Bitcoin blockchain and not on the Solana blockchain? It's because the Bitcoin blockchain provides the most security, among others.

My point is that you cannot just single out a certain feature in choosing which crypto to trust. You have to look at the parts as well as the whole. Is Solana, for example, even decentralized? So even if Solana is better than Bitcoin in terms of speed and scalability, it doesn't mean it is better than Bitcoin.

I think there's a considerably long list of direct and indirect benefits that governments can have from Bitcoin. For one, Bitcoin is actually censorship-resistant so governments can enter into all kinds of deals with other governments using Bitcoin and not worry about any sanctions that can hinder them.

Also, Bitcoin is a currency ruled by codes set in stone, not by human rulers who are prone to commit abuses, make weak and whimsical and wrong decisions, entertain biases and prejudices which could all cause the downfall of their own economy and fiat currency. Not to mention that other more powerful economies could actually gang up on a country and cause its currency's value to tank.

Governments using Bitcoin could also implement full transparency on their official financial undertakings so as to minimize, if not totally eradicate, corruption and other questionable spending.

This could actually go on. Citizens using Bitcoin could also actually be beneficial to the government.

If you can't easily control your time gambling and you have the option to play in a brick-and-mortar casino or in an online casino, it is probably best for you to choose the former. At least you cannot stay there for long. For one, it has a closing time. Also, your cash will be drained, you need to go home, you can go hungry, and so on. Whereas in an online casino, you could spend all day and night long in front of your computer or smart phone at home, even while you're eating.

As far as fairness is concerned, in a provably fair casino you can confirm it yourself. In a brick-and-mortar casino that has a license, it is regularly audited for fairness. So, I guess both could be equally fair.

Investments vary. There are investments designed for people like you who have low appetite for risk. There are also investments that are highly risky but could be attractive to investors who have high risk tolerance. But you need to take into consideration that the level of investment risk and ROI are almost always directly correlated. Meaning to say, the higher the risk is, the bigger the potential profit.

In cryptocurrency, if you don't want to take risks, you better choose Bitcoin and hodl. Altcoins and trading are much riskier.

Who would know? Your guess is as good as mine. It's possible that the owner has finally just gained access to it. Or he/she finally decided to move the funds to a much safer storage, or perhaps even sell them.

But this isn't new. Every once in a while there's a dormant wallet that suddenly becomes active after a decade or even more. I think it was last year when a wallet containing hundreds of Bitcoin suddenly woke up after 11 years. The last time the wallet was active was when Satoshi was still active.

Dick move, of course, but at least the developments are seemingly in his favor. Little victories are seen. A house arrest is a lot better than being jailed, and only for pre-trial. If a house arrest, even bail, is afforded to the fraud Sam Bankman-Fried, I guess it is the more reasonable that it is also granted to Alexey Pertsev. After all, Alexey Pertsev just wrote a code that is open for everybody to use. Unlike Sam Bankman-Fried, Pertsev is not directly running a fraudulent company himself.

It's funny how the SEC wants to regulate this and that when in fact it hasn't clearly defined terms yet. The chairman cannot even give an unequivocal answer whether Ethereum is a security or not. And that's in front of legislators. And yet the agency has already been doing probes, imposing fines, threatening with lawsuits despite the lack of clarity. They're even in conflict with another regulatory body. I guess before enforcement, official and detailed guidelines and specific rules and definitions should clearly be set first. How do they even define decentralized?

You must have read this elsewhere. But these are indeed legitimate concerns. Although there certainly are advantages and disadvantages of Bitcoin's volatility and decentralization, certain disadvantages are a hindrance for its adoption. In addition to your example, we have also heard of people who accept salaries in Bitcoin. I reckon that these people are not completely dependent on their regular salaries. Or even if they are, their salaries are huge enough that they have enough savings and they need not convert their salaries immediately to fiat. To those who are completely dependent on what they receive weekly, bi-monthly, or monthly, however, it could happen that as soon as they convert their salary to fiat, it has already lost 5%.

I haven't heard of it, but the way you explain it, it doesn't appear gambling to me. If you all you need to do is predict, then you are not gambling at all. If you do not pay or if you don't buy a ticket or some kind of token that is convertible to money, then it isn't gambling. You are not risking anything. It is like a free raffle or contest or a giveaway.

I remember the Bitcoin price prediction game of El duderino_ before. Participants don't have to pay anything. All they have to do is predict. If they win, they will receive Bitcoin. That wasn't gambling. This is the same.

I don't bet randomly on sports. If I were to bet randomly, I'd be gambling on dice, slots, roulette, and other similar casino games. Sports betting, on the other hand, is not luck-based. It is gambling with stats and other information at hand. Bets on sports games are informed bets. So if I were to bet on sports games, I'd be betting on those that I am most familiar of. If I bet on sports games that I don't know of, then I'm like betting randomly, only relying on luck for my wins.

All this I've read today. These are all speculations. There are certainly many more of them trying to explain why the price of Bitcoin is going down. Well, for all we know, Bitcoin's price is always rising and falling.

Notwithstanding all of this, however, I advice that if you have the money, use a portion of it to buy now. People were bearish when Bitcoin's price climbed all the way to $30,000. People then turned bullish, and the price fell to $28,000. Nobody can make accurate predictions. Start averaging now.

With this, Deribit is effectively upping the ante in the competition for a larger market. Also, the spoils of FTX's collapse have possibly yet to be completely gathered by a competing exchange. They must have also learned lessons from Binance when it also offered its own zero-fee trading. There was a surge in volume for Binance because of that. The effect was also noticeable when the zero-fee trading expired. Although Deribit only offers three trading pairs for this, they did mention that this will continue in the foreseeable future.