Bitcoin is wealth. Human beings are insatiable. So it is but logical and natural for human beings to not stop accumulating that which they desire. I have yet to hear a person who says I'm done earning money and from this day on I won't be looking for money anymore. On the contrary, even people in their old age want to make more money, not necessarily by working but they want to grow their wealth. This is probably the same explanation with people not having enough Bitcoin. But for as humans, echoing Nietzsche, it's probably the desire rather than the desired that truly drives us.

This man is funny and entertaining. It's hard to take him seriously. That his predictions are the exact opposite of what's to come makes his presence and statements light and bearable. And for this skeptic to finally say something positive about Bitcoin just before the price plunged made him a lot easier to handle.

But I don't think he's playing with the market. I don't think he's carefully weighing his words because he's got positions and he's trying to manipulate its volatility. I guess it isn't intentional. All is most likely coincidental. He also mentioned those pro-Bitcoin words seemingly in passing. He's probably just an unlucky man who got most of his predictions wrong. He's a jinx.

Also, if we take his words as the opposite of what's to happen, rather than a spot ETF rejection, there would be an approval. Right before he mentioned that Bitcoin can't be killed, he actually predicted that there won't be an ETF.

Indeed. I'm currently looking at 56 sat/vByte for high priority transactions. It's such a breather to see this number after all these days of exorbitant fees. Although unconfirmed transactions remain high with almost 300,000 still pending confirmation, this would hopefully subside as well.

Despite this, however, saving on fees is always a good thing. Every Satoshi counts. And it's sometimes odd to hear complaints about high fees from somebody who himself/herself is not even exhausting simple and available means to lower it like using SegWit address.

I think it's oversimplifying or perhaps even misinterpreting the legal case. The case filed wasn't against "people who have been refusing to buy its products"; it's against a group that was supposed to spread "false and defamatory statements" in public against the fast-food chain.

So, McDonald's isn't forcing anybody to buy its products. It's perfectly all right not to eat at McDonald's, but it certainly isn't all right for anybody to publicly spread false rumors and baseless insinuations against McDonald's, and any business establishment for that matter.

Despite the noise and the FOMO and the hype, I think it's 50:50. It could be a yes or a no. Although I want the SEC's decision to be positive and see how the market reacts, that it would once again reject the applications is a probability. The SEC might reject the applications for now pending further preparations and polishing of policies and safeguards which pave the way for an eventual approval. A spot Bitcoin ETF in the US is still a matter of when, of course, but the SEC might simply say it's still premature for now. There's much more cleaning to be done.

It's not as if Binance P2P is the only P2P platform available for Filipino citizens. It's as if you're running out of options simply because Binance is kicked out-- and rightly so-- for operating illegally in the country.

Yes, Binance is the most popular and probably the most used in the country, but it is utterly irresponsible for offering services to its citizens without a license. It has been operating for years, making much money from the people, but never did it secure a registration nor perhaps paid the right taxes.

How about exploring better options such as the ones mentioned by JeromeTash?

People normally won't take the blame. I guess this is a natural tendency. We often look for something or someone else to point our fingers. We even deny of wrongdoing or of mistakes even if it is obvious.

Perhaps gambling is to blame partly, because it is the thing that triggers somebody. Gambling is the thing that exposes somebody's weaknesses like lack of self-discipline or greed. But whatever gambling provokes is already within a person. And since everybody is thinking and is free, I think the main responsibility falls on the individual.

Yeah, merit is the main thing to rise through the ranks. And you will observe how a lot of users are aggressively hunting for it in many ways. Organic merits are hard to earn, so many are creating threads after threads, many of which are even duplicates, triplicates, or even a hundredth repetition. Many, even newbies, are giving tutorials, tips, advice. Some make compilations and lists. Some translate popular topics. Some apply their posts for merit. Some are even begging through PMs.

So, if you are planning to DCA but consider weekly signature payments to be the source, it will probably take time for you to be able to start. By the time you start, Bitcoin might have already climbed to $100,000. The fastest way to start your DCA is to directly buy those Sats.

Blame Satoshi. Satoshi made Bitcoin so well people won't let go a Sat. Instead of spending, people are hodling and are stacking up as many Sats as possible.

And blame fiat. Why spend Bitcoin when I have some fiat which is fast losing its value? Fiat is for spending as Bitcoin is for hodling.

And perhaps blame Bitcoin as well for being slow and expensive. Why should I be spending a currency that grows in value over time and which is also inconvenient to use as payment?

Sam wasn't a businessman. He was an immature nerd who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and who cannot handle serious responsibility. Of course, he doesn't look like your typical executive and may seem to have shunned material possessions and physical looks, but his fetish was grander. He was more attracted to mansions and luxury villas and power.

CZ, on the other hand, is a real entrepreneur, somebody who thinks of nothing but money day and night. Money is god. Binance will have to grow big and will always have to be in perfect health because it's the main source of money. CZ is more than willing to bend the rules at times, play by the rules at times, lick ass at times to make money.

And then there are those who believe that Iran is economically strong. They think that Iran ditching the US dollar will have a huge impact on the USD's power and influence. They assume that Iran trading using its own currency is significantly detrimental to the USD and the US economy. These are delusional views.

Iran is more of the people of Iran than the rulers of Iran. So whether Iran's rulers are rich because the country is blessed with oil and it can finance armed groups including terrorists in other countries, it doesn't matter. More than half of Iranian citizens are living below the poverty line.

I'm not a fan of both the US and the USD, but let's call a spade a spade.

Apparently, the delisting of Monero, ZCash, and Dash can't be due to the factors mentioned by OKX such as "performance" or "feedback from users." Those who are aware of the bigger issue fully understand the reason behind the decision.

Of course, OKX is a centralized platform that takes order from its regulators. It simply can't displease them. So even if this decision is actually unilateral and OKX is only ordered to implement it, they cannot mention it as the reason for delisting such coins.

Major centralized exchanges will soon receive the same order and implement it, albeit grudgingly. Binance can't be stubborn for long. It will bow down sooner rather than later.

The discussions now are mostly focused on spot Bitcoin ETF in particular, and one that is based in the US as other countries, even neighboring Canada, have already approved spot Bitcoin ETFs years ago.

As the judgement day is near, the market has already positively reacted. It seems the verdict is expected to be positive. Bitcoin has already touched $45,000. Depending on the SEC's decision, it could even hit $50,000 within the month.

However, I don't believe a "very bid dump" will happen with a rejection. The big bulk of investor's money are probably waiting for the green light. If the signal won't come, the money won't flow into the market. That's probably the biggest effect.

I mostly place single bets. Parlays are good but risky. And because I don't do extensive research on my bets as I'm betting small amounts and only for fun, the risk is higher. Also, I'm only betting on one or two odds every now and then.

I mostly do parlays during NBA playoffs. As far as my experience is concerned, the disappointment is high especially if the only game that causes the entire parlay bet to crumble is a big upset. I once had a five-leg parlay that didn't win only because a team that has the highest probability of winning was defeated.

Go ahead, spread this baseless information around so that everybody can buy at a cheaper price. You will be helping a lot of people as well as BlackRock and other huge financial institutions that are already positioning themselves for the upcoming bull run and wider adoption.

I doubt if you have much, but sell what you have if this is what you believe in. However, if you still want them back, be ready with a bigger amount because you will be buying them back at a higher cost.

There is indeed a possibility that a spot Bitcoin ETF won't be approved soon. But that doesn't mean the price would go down. The US spot Bitcoin ETF is a story of rejection after rejection after rejection. But, hey, look at the price of Bitcoin. It's approaching $50,000.

5 years from, I think nothing much will change. Perhaps the only big thing is that it is already embraced by banks, wealth managers, investment companies, and other traditional finance players.

As far as everyday life is concerned, I think Bitcoin will become more acceptable in stores, shops, restaurants, hotels, and so on, whether through an online transaction or not. But I think Bitcoin will remain to be the least option as payment. Cash, cards, and other payment modes will probably remain as the top options.

It seems to me that Bitcoin is more inclined to grow as an asset class than as a currency, although I'm also seeing Bitcoin as the top choice in the coming decades as far as transferring huge value across borders is concerned.

Help Ethiopia and Africa get rid of poverty? Probably, in a way. But only indirectly. Bitcoin doesn't feed the poor. Bitcoin doesn't transform the lives of those who are in abject condition. Bitcoin isn't an economic program or a poverty-alleviating initiative.

There are those African-based groups, however, like Bitcoin Ekasi that are strongly supporting Bitcoin, helping its adoption, while also conducting side activities that directly help the poor. But this isn't about Bitcoin. They're just doing charitable works alongside Bitcoin promotion.

It all depends on the odds. In close match-ups, however, I'm afraid it's hard to do this because the odds are also close. If you place a bet on one team and another on draw, you might only be profitable if you win the draw. It's not a win-win bet. Whereas, if you do this in a match-up that has a clear favorite and underdog, you can place a win-win bet if you side with the underdog like Bournemouth in your example and draw.

If you're betting on Fulham, for example, against the Arsenal, you can also place a bet on draw and you're assured that whether the game ends with Fulham as the winner or it ends with a draw, you will still win.

I find your argument wrong. If banks will one day perish because of Bitcoin, it's not actually because Bitcoin is profitable. It's not about profit. People don't keep money in the banks because of profit. People having savings accounts in banks are not investing their money. If there are people who do this, they do it wrong. How much do banks give to account owners? That's even less than 0.3% per year. Some are even as low as 0.1%.

Banks are for safekeeping. If saving in Bitcoin is more profitable, then Bitcoin is the better choice in that aspect. But I'm sure even Bitcoin supporters keep money in the banks. And it's not because of profitability but simply because it's safer to keep money there.

If you resist the official call coming from no less than the government and insist on keeping your money in the exchange, then it's a reason to worry. If your government orders its citizens to stop using a centralized service provider, you better follow. Otherwise, you're not only violating an order, you are also putting yourself and your money at an unnecessary risk.

What if Binance locked your account as well as your funds? Who will you turn to? Binance? They will tell you you're not even allowed to use the service. To the government? They will tell you you're using an illegal platform.