Third, and most importantly, the government cannot shut down Bitcoin. Neither can JPMorgan. Neither can all of these extremely powerful banks all over the world. Neither can the combined powers of both the governments and the banks. Having said this, Jamie Dimon should either shut up because they're all helpless and powerless in the face of Bitcoin or hop on the bandwagon, be cool, make money, be more powerful, and be free.

You could probably do better next time in organizing your thoughts and sentences.

Anyway-- and this is just an observation-- most people only hate that prices are rising fast. They get angry at the fact. They rant about how their money has lost so much value in so quick a time. They normally direct their anger at the government. Sometimes, they also direct the same at the capitalists. But seldom do I hear angry remarks particularly directed at fiat money itself.

News about hyperinflation are highlighting more the government's failure to maintain a good economy. I haven't heard of similar news questioning the fundamental structure of the fiat system which paved the way for these problems. The fiat system necessitates these problems. For as long as money is tied to the government, abuses and problems continue to exist.

That's the consistent message not just throughout the year 2023 but throughout the entire existence of centralized exchanges. Not only are exchanges hacked, they also went bankrupt, and they may also disappear into thin air all of a sudden. And then there's also the locking and freezing and suspension of accounts and features. And then there's also the wrong way of using centralized exchanges. They're trading platforms. They're not wallets for us to leave our funds.

I'm afraid you got too many wrongs in this single post.  

1. A strong punch "is not needed at all" to knock out a guy? So, what's needed, a tickle? LOL!

2. Boxing isn't a slap contest. Knockout punches always come unexpected. Otherwise, the boxer would have dodged it, braced himself, or put up a solid cover.

3. You talked of strong punches and, of all heavyweights, you used Deontay Wilder as an example of one who doesn't have that? Come on! Winning 42 of his 43 wins by way of knockout and Wilder doesn't have a strong punch? So, what has he got, magical powers?

4. Weight is the basis of a boxer's power? Wilder is knocking his opponents out not because of his weight but because of his punching power.

5. Wilder not a real heavyweight? Come on! In his entire professional boxing career, he's only fighting in that weight class. Even when he was an amateur boxer, he was already fighting in that division.

6. And so on. LOL!

You don't want to invest in other coins and you think that Bitcoin is superior. I wonder why you have to mention that shitcoins such as Shiba Inu and others have skyrocketed. Don't mind them. But are they really skyrocketing? It seems they're not.

Anyway, DCA according to your capacity. You're 19 years old. Do you have a job? If you don't and you're dependent on your allowance, do it on wider time frames, say, monthly or every 2 months. If you already have a job and you can do it weekly or bi-monthly, you may choose that option. Just put in your mind that you're set for the long term.

I would want to read a legitimate survey on this. It seems this is a hard claim. Is this backed by scientific findings? Since you researched this topic, what would be the reasons for this?

The only way I can make sense of this is that, say, a popular brand has hundreds of millions of consumers globally and it speaks out against LGBTQ+ members. Many of its consumers are members of that group. They will certainly cut their consumption of that specific brand. Compare that to a small and unknown brand that only has, say, a thousand consumers. When it speaks out against that group, a portion of its consumers might go away, but since it has millions of potential consumers, such activism might be a reason why others who otherwise aren't considering its brand or haven't heard of it yet will begin to use it.

This, of course, could differ depending on the specific case, but if we do the math, it might be true.

There was a question raised recently as to what happens to the Bitcoin market if Binance crumbles. The billions in fine imposed on the exchange, CZ's admission of guilt, his resignation as a CEO, his temporary freedom thanks to millions in bail bond, the sudden withdrawal, and so on are probably the closest to Binance's collapse. Contrary to common view, however, it didn't cause a serious dip in the price of Bitcoin. As a matter of fact, shortly thereafter Bitcoin even reached an annual ATH. This is telling. Binance collapsing might not actually send shock waves to the market. It's not as influential as it may seem.

Ngannou has a heavy hand, so it's not really unimaginable for him to send Fury down. Did he win, though? Nope. Wilder sent Fury down as well. Did he win? Nope. Sometimes strong punch isn't enough.

And Usyk doesn't even have that gift. So we can discount it as a real threat. And it's a fallacy to argue that since Ngannou, an MMA fighter who crossed into boxing, knocked Fury down, a 2-time boxing champion can more easily do that. That's wrong. Usyk was a knockout artist only when he started boxing. That's a long time ago. Yes, he knocked out Dubois, but prior to that, when was the last time he won via knockout? 5 years ago?

I guess Fury didn't really take Ngannou too seriously. He was an MMA fighter and the history of those who crossed borders was more funny than entertaining. But he won that fight nevertheless. So he's not really facing Usyk with a lot of psychological or emotional baggage. If at all, he'd be more prepared now that his previous fight showed him danger because of being too lax.

Well, we don't know the real persons behind majority of the usernames here. There may be some of us here who are famous in real life. So it's hard to tell, but as far as those who are personally known are concerned, at least there's Charlie Lee, the creator of Litecoin. He's still a bit active. There might be more, but the rest of those who have got big names especially in crypto like Andreas Antonopoulos, Adam Back, Vitalik Buterin, and others are mostly inactive.

I think everybody who is using a mixer is a product so to speak. The mixer needs as much funds from different sources as possible. The more users, the more they mix, the better for privacy. So, every unique user is actually contributing to the most fundamental operation of the mixer. In which case, they're all products. But, in a way, those who are bringing in clean coins are probably serving more those who are only bringing in coins coming from criminal transactions. After all, mixers have two kinds of users, those who are simply after privacy and those who badly need to erase some criminal tracks.

In your images, you might want to do away with the height next time as it might compress the image in an odd way that words and numbers end up difficult to read. You can just edit the width and the image would decrease in size but still proportional.

Anyway, I assume everything's good now, but looking at the image, if "Avbl" means available, it is obvious that it's the only amount you can use. I'm not a user of Mexc exchange but they could do with using the full word instead rather than use an awkward abbreviation; it might just confuse their users.

Wilder is saying it's a 50:50 fight and yet seems to provide reasons why Usyk could be at an advantage here. He couldn't seem to just set it straight, that the man who humiliated him not once, not twice, but thrice would probably defeat Usyk and that's a huge blow to his wish to become an undisputed champion himself.

How could Usyk staying low to the ground be an advantage for him? If Tyson was able to put his weight on a 6'7" opponent, would it be a lot easier for him to do that to a 6'3" fighter?

OP updated.


Maganda pangdisplay brod pero mas masarap basahin. Namangha tayong lahat sa Bitcoin pero itong mga librong ito nagbibigay liwanag kung bakit, una sa lahat, may Bitcoin. At yun ay dahil may mga problema. Ang Bitcoin ay isang solusyon sa mga problemang, bagama't hindi karaniwang pinapansin o napapansin ng lahat, ay tunay at malala.

Maligayang Pasko sa lahat! Salamat sa pagsali! Sana mapuno natin 'to bago magPasko.

Reserved.

1. The international best-selling book "The Bitcoin Standard: The Decentralized Alternative to Central Banking" by Saifedean Ammous.

2. “Bitcoin: An Introduction to the Peer-to-Peer, Open Source, Censorship-Resistant, Immutable, Permissionless, Decentralized, Global, Digital Monetary Network of the 21st Century” by our very own law dean and former solicitor general, Florin Hilbay.



These two great books here would convince you more of why we need Bitcoin. Beyond its rising price, there are much deeper reasons why everybody should be involved in this new technology. If you aren't particularly fond of books or of reading itself, a family, relative, friend, colleague, acquaintance, stranger, your economics teacher might be. You may share it.





*This raffle is only for the nice, not for the naughty.
**The books in the pics are my copies.

I'm afraid removing Taproot doesn't address the issue. This problem has been here way before Taproot became a thing. Secondly, do we necessarily have "to do something against Taproot" when in fact it's not as if Taproot was an upgrade whose objective is to pave the way for Bitcoin NFTs? Taproot was meant for security, privacy, scalability, and other good things. It was not meant for the Ordinals. Bitcoin NFTs seem to have come out merely as a sort of an unintended consequence of what's otherwise a great upgrade.

The example is probably not the best one. The user has paid too much in fees. It could have been lowered down through means which are all available right now.

However, the point generally remains: that Bitcoin transactions are expensive and slow. There's the SegWit, there's personalized fees, there's consolidation of UTXOs, there's even Lightning. The fees remain high nonetheless, on-chain transaction fees to be specific. 

More than a decade has passed and this remains an issue. The rise of Ordinals has even aggravated the problem. Perhaps there's a point in centralized services. Perhaps there's a point in IOUs. Perhaps Hal was right.

I wonder how this kind of problem becomes prevalent in a developed country but not in a developing country like mine. We have abundant of crimes here but I haven't heard of a group of youngsters doing some "flash mob" robbery. The last time I heard of people openly robbing a store here was after a super typhoon when the people are drained of supplies and help was scarce.

I cannot imagine how this kind of crime grows to become a real economic threat, at least locally, when it appears easy to address. If the next store is relatively far away from the neighborhood and people are forced to buy there, I assume the neighborhood doesn't have a hundred stores for people to keep their eyes on.

Irony is what we have in abundance here. If it doesn't shake us up that a Bitcoin forum allows shitcoins and even scam crypto projects not just to be discussed but even promoted, then why should it surprise us that it also avoids possible legal entanglements?

I'm not even sure if this forum is "a place of decentralized ideologies". I guess the huge majority of users here have accounts in various centralized Bitcoin-related platforms. How many users here have completely avoided submitting KYC, for example? How many users here have completely avoided custodial services?

However, to ban these mixers doesn't necessarily mean not supporting them and whatever it is they're made for. It's just that having them promoted here could mean having this platform shut down or even for the administrators or perhaps moderators to face a lawsuit. Will it be worth it?

This is exactly the kind of mentality that encourages the powerful elites to continue to subdue the ordinary people. This is slave mentality. To just embrace what is imposed on you however unfair it may it be makes you an animal without dignity. You are making yourself a docile creature incapable of reason, and resistance should there be a need.

Why not complain when the money that we have now is a joke? Why is this fiat currency not a fall in the evolution of money when it is backed by nothing but the mere hollow words of the rulers? Is this not a fall from the gold standard of money?

Are you sure you're a Bitcoin supporter while embracing and be grateful of the kind of money that you have right now?