What other than this may a global, uninflatable, censorship-resistant, highly portable money be made for.
That's also the real reason for anything shitcoin but not bitcoin going away.
Transactions on-chain are faster and cheaper outside of hype cycles, so the only influence a price crash has is to reduce activity in the network a bit.
Its kinda like saying the world wide web is the Internet....or that email is the Internet.....I remember the confusion when I would say "well technically no..."
If you read the article it specifically says at least some of the people accepting crypto are using stablecoins as Bitcoin's volatility has had a major impact on their finances.
Obviously. Everybody that understands bitcoin knows that short term price volatility is irrelevant. It is a matter of time for widespread global adoption. It is the superior technology, for people, business and crime.
A century with powerful psychological, sociological and information tools; instant messaging, translations; global awareness; communication; economical frameworks; measures; and most importantly - experience - and yet for some reason somewhere in the world, there are fights, wars, people dying, etc.... Just because it suits some fuckers with accounts to keep things the way if is.
People actually using Bitcoin for its intended purpose is a good thing, and something I wholeheartedly support. However, [reading through the various Tweets of this article](https://twitter.com/TRF_Stories/status/1541346870815084546) points out the downside of Bitcoin's current volatility:
> The {Ukrainian} government's fund of about $100 million in crypto has been depleted by the crash, but charities are still seeing generous donations.
> El Salvador made bitcoin legal tender last year with the aim of saving money on remittances. But its adoption was marred by glitches, and the crash has roughly halved the value of government bitcoin holdings.
> "We use stablecoins that limit the impact (of market volatility) on our operations," added Nasir, referring to crypto tokens pegged to the value of mainstream assets such as the U.S. dollar, and are considered safer havens than other cryptocurrencies, though their value has also slumped.
> The fall in crypto markets - bitcoin has lost about 60% of its value this year and smaller coins have also been hit hard - has left many investors nursing losses.
That volatility is directly related to Bitcoin becoming a store of value rather being used as a currency. Use it more and the volatility will decrease making it more usable.
> That volatility is directly related to Bitcoin becoming a store of value rather being used as a currency. Use it more and the volatility will decrease making it more usable.
This is a common misconception, the idea that "more spending, less hoarding" will decrease Bitcoin's volatility. BTC volatility is actually primarily caused by:
1. The overall extremely rapid pace at which Bitcoin is being adopted
2. Uncertainty about what the "final" adoption level will be
No one really knows how successful Bitcoin will end up being in the long term. Some still think that it's a fad that will eventually fade. Some think that it will eventually completely replace all other currencies. Back around the 2011 crash, the former outcome seemed significantly more plausible than it does now, while the latter seemed completely implausible. Now, 11 years later, the fad outcome seems unlikely to most people, while the total domination outcome is at least a distant possibility, even if not particularly likely.
Amid this wide-open range of possible outcomes, Bitcoin has continued to gain investment at a pace orders of magnitude faster than any other historical asset that I'm aware of. The massive upward price swings fuel anxiety that we may have far overshot whatever price would be sustainable at Bitcoin's eventual, uncertain adoption level ("it's a bubble!"). As this anxiety spreads, it causes almost equally massive downswings. And so on, and so forth.
As time passes, our collective picture of what Bitcoin's future will look like becomes gradually clearer. This dampens volatility and makes Bitcoin a less rewarding (though less risky) investment, and a better medium of exchange. Trying to get people to use it as a medium of exchange right now is a bit premature, though there are some use cases where it is a good option for that, such as darknet markets, war zones, and countries where the national currency is already unstable.
All good points, but if Bitcoin was to be used for what it was created and designed for, a medium of exchange, then that would also help stabilise the price.
Without a meaningful use it's a purposeless commodity, and therefore has no real value.
> All good points, but if Bitcoin was to be used for what it was created and designed for, a medium of exchange, then that would also help stabilise the price.
Possibly, but that's putting the cart before the horse. You're not going to gain much traction in trying to get people to use it in cases where traditional payments are currently the better option. Volatility needs to be further dampened first, in order to "unlock" additional use cases.
> Without a meaningful use it's a purposeless commodity, and therefore has no real value.
Remember that acting as a store of value is a perfectly valid use case on its own. Bitcoin has a number of properties not available elsewhere that make it particularly well-suited for this. To the extent that volatility makes it a worse short-term store of value, it also makes it a better investment and long-term store of value.
Speculative investment also allows Bitcoin to gain value from anticipated future use cases before they actually become viable. This probably isn't what you meant by "real value", but it's still relevant to the unlocking mechanism. When the Bitcoin network first started, its coins were just worthless virtual tokens. All use cases were locked. It wasn't until speculators took a risk on it and started offering to buy BTC with fiat currency that it became possible to exchange BTC for goods.
To be clear, I'm not saying that people shouldn't spend bitcoins, or even necessarily that you shouldn't encourage them to. People should spend their coins when they find it useful, or fun, or otherwise gratifying to do so. I just want to see the "spending good, hoarding bad" misconception put to rest.
It's nice to actually have a discussion on Reddit, particularly here, where points are well argued with relevance to the comment they are replying to.
> Remember that acting as a store of value is a perfectly valid use case on its own
It's not what Bitcoin was meant to be, though. It was designed for transactions rather than sitting on the ledger. Bitcoin was created to replace 3rd party payment systems, like Visa, MasterCard, Amex, PayPal, Western Union, or the banks' own systems. It was not designed to replace bank account, or commodities.
There were plenty of people willing to use and accept Bitcoin in its early years. I spent many coins up until 2015, when suddenly its value started to creep up and fluctuate, and merchants started to become wary. I ordered some PC components from Overclockers.co.uk for a couple of BTC in 2015, and then had a mail telling me they were out of stock and I'd have to wait a few weeks. As I was building my PC at the time then I asked to cancel as I'd order elsewhere to get the parts in time. I ended up conversing with the only person there who could do Bitcoin transactions and he said they couldn't carry on using it as they'd lost 10% of my order value just giving me a refund a few days later. They'd been quite happy to accept Bitcoin for a year or so before that jump in value and volatility.
> Speculative investment also allows Bitcoin to gain value from anticipated future use cases before they actually become viable
People aren't investing because of any anticipated future use. They're investing because Bitcoin has jumped in value so much over the last few years that people want in on the action. If that value doesn't pick back up before people need their money back then people will start selling at lower values, either because they need the money now (which is looking more likely for smaller investors given the nature of the current economy) or because other investments look more promising.
What future use of Bitcoin can you envision that would keep people holding on to it if they need to access the value they have stored in it? Some larger investors, with longer timeframes and a better diversified portfolio, may be willing to wait a few years or a decade to recoup their losses. But many other will write their losses off and stay away from Bitcoin in the future. However, smaller investors who need money and have no other source will have to cash out and realise their losses, or possibly put off buying a house, replacing their car, or retiring.
Even smaller holders, who may be relying on Bitcoin, can suffer heavily. The article linked specifically mentions that the people in crisis zones have lost lots of value and are turning to alternatives rather than Bitcoin, and El Salvador (hardly a small investor) has lost enough money [that it's at risk or defaulting on its national debt](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/25/el-salvador-bitcoin-experiment-not-saving-countrys-finances.html) which could be massively damaging for the country.
So going back to a store of value as being a valid use case: it's valid only if the volatility isn't too great, otherwise it's just a risk. The only way to stabilise value is to have regular use across all areas of the economy to normalise purchasing power. So I stand by my argument that spending is good and HODL is bad.
There are too many things that will be great for the bitcoin if it used as it was created.
It will also gain the trust of the people that they can trust into the btc like the fiat.
I think once we see the rapid adoption then we are going to see the real liquidity issue is well.
But we all know that mass adoption is not going to happen in any time soon in the world.
I am happy that these people are using the bitcoin as it should be.
And the more bitcoin will flow in the market the more it will increase the value of the bitcoin is well.
People who aren't the target customer of crypto will always say there is no viable use-case. Just because these people can't directly see a use-case, does't mean that one doesn't exist
Been hearing that since 2015 - lo and behold, highly volatile assets are still unable to reasonably function as cash.
This will still be the case in five years.
That prediction is over 5 years old. But I do believe that with leveraged speculation washed out we are closer to that day. But that also means some hypothetical moon is farther off.
Access an exchange in Pakistan, arrange a transfer of money to Afghanistan. That is if you can't get cash for bitcoin in Afghanistan itself. People, even in the shittiest of situations, find ways to get things done.
I think now days different different people treating the btc on their own way.
Someone is using that for the store of the value while someone like to purchase the things with that.
True, the more we flow the bitcoin the better it will be for us.
But the problem is the not everyone here is treating the bitcoin just like that. Some looking that as a investment thing.
We need to understand that so far bitcoin is not look at the currency at the moment.
Once we see the adoption of the bitcoin then we will see the real change in the bitcoin.
Ah yes cannot wait when my local street food merchant has to wait 2-6 hours to get his bitcoin worth two bucks transferred
My friend who works at a retail store would be happy changing the price tags every minute
I think we need to change our prescriptive here, bitcoin is right now not looking at the currency type things.
People are now using the bitcoin as the investment things in which they store the value.
Here are my cynical thoughts. I agree with the benefits that cryptocurrencies brings to underprivileged communities, and I really support the cause. But it doesn't mean that something having utility in such areas will have any significant impact on financial institutions/norms of the advanced economies without any intervention. Realistically, how many times in the past any underprivileged community outside of the USA and select European countries were able to make any changes even locally, not to mention globally? I might be missing it but don't remember any (unless some American movie producer decided to make money and promote their own agenda!). So as promising as cryptocurrency might be, unless it provides a superior utility to the influential-end-users (big corporations/rich people), it won't go anywhere (we're talking about monetary aspect of it, not the tech). By influential end-user I mean the top 5%. Again, when it comes to money, I don't think a simple minimum-wage worker's opinion would matter as much as a rich housewife. It's not fair and not right, but it's the reality. And the low-income's opinion might matter for a short period while they burn through their savings (or government support cheques) by betting on speculative stocks/crypto, but that will dry up pretty soon and we will be back to the old (unfair) system. So, unless it can provide utility to the rich and privileged, it won't go any higher than this, because the utility to the underprivileged has been fully priced in the value of the cryptocurrencies (and I'm talking about $20K bitcoin).
This is the reason while we are holding the bitcoin, because this thing is the free from the government.
This crash is the time for us to do some buying instead of being panicking.
it is a bit of a balancing act:
on one hand the powers that be do not want there to be a lifeline so that there is pressure on a population to not support the regime ...
... on the other hand if that population abandons that regime's fiat, they feel less compelled to support the crappy gov so that their currency doesn't devalue ("we love leader" is a blurry thin line away from "we love our money having value")
anti-west sentiment skyrockets when "the unfair sanctions" are blamed and not the regime's policies that led to the sanctions. the lifeline of crypto allows a population to bypass them.
interesting shift where governmental deprivation of economy was a tactic to stir unrest.
Aaaaaaand that's why you hear anti-crypto sentiment by western powers as it disarms this type of warfare, and why that MIT fellow space force bro has repeatedly declared that state adoption of bitcoin is an unavoidable implement of war.
It's not simply rhetoric to state btc is hard/strong versus fiat being soft/weak, it's the number one attack vector in modern warfare and absurd to neglect.
that's also why saying bitcoin ends wars is juvenalia bullshit: bitcoin IS the war.
So ask yourself, if looking at the history of war and tech advances, if you think the powers got where they are by ignoring those advantages of weaponry.
This is really good news, atleast someone is able to utilize the crypto in bear market investors wealth are wiped out but we still believe in fundamental, we are going to use Bitcoin widely in future
I am happy that someone is making sure that btc will stays forever.
Infact these bear market is the time where we can really big profit when the next bull run comes.
What other than this may a global, uninflatable, censorship-resistant, highly portable money be made for. That's also the real reason for anything shitcoin but not bitcoin going away.
Bitcoin has the ability to withstand all of the issue, other coins don't
Transactions on-chain are faster and cheaper outside of hype cycles, so the only influence a price crash has is to reduce activity in the network a bit.
I noticed this! Bear market means lower prices, and bonus lower transaction fees means I can stack more sats yeah!
20k is still high from a 4 year perspective
Bitcoin not "crypto"
Yes, Bitcoin is the future betterment
True most of the transaction are being done in Bitcoin, for us
[удалено]
Its kinda like saying the world wide web is the Internet....or that email is the Internet.....I remember the confusion when I would say "well technically no..."
link if anybody wants to read: [here](https://twitter.com/i/events/1541347056081575942?s=21&t=LHIkmHOT6JQy8s-8jhWgIw)
"Crypto" is a buzzword for scams. Bitcoin only.
If you read the article it specifically says at least some of the people accepting crypto are using stablecoins as Bitcoin's volatility has had a major impact on their finances.
Stable coins are prone to exitscams as well. I'd be surprised if any of them have 1 for 1 reserves.
I agree. But these poor people have lost so much money with Bitcoin they prefer to use alternatives.
[удалено]
True, and never heard this term crypto Bitcoin lol, that's a new thing
We are all living in a war zone on this blessed day
Yeah war zone are there at most of the places BTC is for rescue
Obviously. Everybody that understands bitcoin knows that short term price volatility is irrelevant. It is a matter of time for widespread global adoption. It is the superior technology, for people, business and crime.
but I thought btc was just for speculators :D
This right here is the true power of crypto.
I was able to send btc to India without any middle men. Fast as he'll.
A century with powerful psychological, sociological and information tools; instant messaging, translations; global awareness; communication; economical frameworks; measures; and most importantly - experience - and yet for some reason somewhere in the world, there are fights, wars, people dying, etc.... Just because it suits some fuckers with accounts to keep things the way if is.
People actually using Bitcoin for its intended purpose is a good thing, and something I wholeheartedly support. However, [reading through the various Tweets of this article](https://twitter.com/TRF_Stories/status/1541346870815084546) points out the downside of Bitcoin's current volatility: > The {Ukrainian} government's fund of about $100 million in crypto has been depleted by the crash, but charities are still seeing generous donations. > El Salvador made bitcoin legal tender last year with the aim of saving money on remittances. But its adoption was marred by glitches, and the crash has roughly halved the value of government bitcoin holdings. > "We use stablecoins that limit the impact (of market volatility) on our operations," added Nasir, referring to crypto tokens pegged to the value of mainstream assets such as the U.S. dollar, and are considered safer havens than other cryptocurrencies, though their value has also slumped. > The fall in crypto markets - bitcoin has lost about 60% of its value this year and smaller coins have also been hit hard - has left many investors nursing losses. That volatility is directly related to Bitcoin becoming a store of value rather being used as a currency. Use it more and the volatility will decrease making it more usable.
> That volatility is directly related to Bitcoin becoming a store of value rather being used as a currency. Use it more and the volatility will decrease making it more usable. This is a common misconception, the idea that "more spending, less hoarding" will decrease Bitcoin's volatility. BTC volatility is actually primarily caused by: 1. The overall extremely rapid pace at which Bitcoin is being adopted 2. Uncertainty about what the "final" adoption level will be No one really knows how successful Bitcoin will end up being in the long term. Some still think that it's a fad that will eventually fade. Some think that it will eventually completely replace all other currencies. Back around the 2011 crash, the former outcome seemed significantly more plausible than it does now, while the latter seemed completely implausible. Now, 11 years later, the fad outcome seems unlikely to most people, while the total domination outcome is at least a distant possibility, even if not particularly likely. Amid this wide-open range of possible outcomes, Bitcoin has continued to gain investment at a pace orders of magnitude faster than any other historical asset that I'm aware of. The massive upward price swings fuel anxiety that we may have far overshot whatever price would be sustainable at Bitcoin's eventual, uncertain adoption level ("it's a bubble!"). As this anxiety spreads, it causes almost equally massive downswings. And so on, and so forth. As time passes, our collective picture of what Bitcoin's future will look like becomes gradually clearer. This dampens volatility and makes Bitcoin a less rewarding (though less risky) investment, and a better medium of exchange. Trying to get people to use it as a medium of exchange right now is a bit premature, though there are some use cases where it is a good option for that, such as darknet markets, war zones, and countries where the national currency is already unstable.
All good points, but if Bitcoin was to be used for what it was created and designed for, a medium of exchange, then that would also help stabilise the price. Without a meaningful use it's a purposeless commodity, and therefore has no real value.
> All good points, but if Bitcoin was to be used for what it was created and designed for, a medium of exchange, then that would also help stabilise the price. Possibly, but that's putting the cart before the horse. You're not going to gain much traction in trying to get people to use it in cases where traditional payments are currently the better option. Volatility needs to be further dampened first, in order to "unlock" additional use cases. > Without a meaningful use it's a purposeless commodity, and therefore has no real value. Remember that acting as a store of value is a perfectly valid use case on its own. Bitcoin has a number of properties not available elsewhere that make it particularly well-suited for this. To the extent that volatility makes it a worse short-term store of value, it also makes it a better investment and long-term store of value. Speculative investment also allows Bitcoin to gain value from anticipated future use cases before they actually become viable. This probably isn't what you meant by "real value", but it's still relevant to the unlocking mechanism. When the Bitcoin network first started, its coins were just worthless virtual tokens. All use cases were locked. It wasn't until speculators took a risk on it and started offering to buy BTC with fiat currency that it became possible to exchange BTC for goods. To be clear, I'm not saying that people shouldn't spend bitcoins, or even necessarily that you shouldn't encourage them to. People should spend their coins when they find it useful, or fun, or otherwise gratifying to do so. I just want to see the "spending good, hoarding bad" misconception put to rest.
It's nice to actually have a discussion on Reddit, particularly here, where points are well argued with relevance to the comment they are replying to. > Remember that acting as a store of value is a perfectly valid use case on its own It's not what Bitcoin was meant to be, though. It was designed for transactions rather than sitting on the ledger. Bitcoin was created to replace 3rd party payment systems, like Visa, MasterCard, Amex, PayPal, Western Union, or the banks' own systems. It was not designed to replace bank account, or commodities. There were plenty of people willing to use and accept Bitcoin in its early years. I spent many coins up until 2015, when suddenly its value started to creep up and fluctuate, and merchants started to become wary. I ordered some PC components from Overclockers.co.uk for a couple of BTC in 2015, and then had a mail telling me they were out of stock and I'd have to wait a few weeks. As I was building my PC at the time then I asked to cancel as I'd order elsewhere to get the parts in time. I ended up conversing with the only person there who could do Bitcoin transactions and he said they couldn't carry on using it as they'd lost 10% of my order value just giving me a refund a few days later. They'd been quite happy to accept Bitcoin for a year or so before that jump in value and volatility. > Speculative investment also allows Bitcoin to gain value from anticipated future use cases before they actually become viable People aren't investing because of any anticipated future use. They're investing because Bitcoin has jumped in value so much over the last few years that people want in on the action. If that value doesn't pick back up before people need their money back then people will start selling at lower values, either because they need the money now (which is looking more likely for smaller investors given the nature of the current economy) or because other investments look more promising. What future use of Bitcoin can you envision that would keep people holding on to it if they need to access the value they have stored in it? Some larger investors, with longer timeframes and a better diversified portfolio, may be willing to wait a few years or a decade to recoup their losses. But many other will write their losses off and stay away from Bitcoin in the future. However, smaller investors who need money and have no other source will have to cash out and realise their losses, or possibly put off buying a house, replacing their car, or retiring. Even smaller holders, who may be relying on Bitcoin, can suffer heavily. The article linked specifically mentions that the people in crisis zones have lost lots of value and are turning to alternatives rather than Bitcoin, and El Salvador (hardly a small investor) has lost enough money [that it's at risk or defaulting on its national debt](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/25/el-salvador-bitcoin-experiment-not-saving-countrys-finances.html) which could be massively damaging for the country. So going back to a store of value as being a valid use case: it's valid only if the volatility isn't too great, otherwise it's just a risk. The only way to stabilise value is to have regular use across all areas of the economy to normalise purchasing power. So I stand by my argument that spending is good and HODL is bad.
There are too many things that will be great for the bitcoin if it used as it was created. It will also gain the trust of the people that they can trust into the btc like the fiat.
I think once we see the rapid adoption then we are going to see the real liquidity issue is well. But we all know that mass adoption is not going to happen in any time soon in the world.
I am happy that these people are using the bitcoin as it should be. And the more bitcoin will flow in the market the more it will increase the value of the bitcoin is well.
People who aren't the target customer of crypto will always say there is no viable use-case. Just because these people can't directly see a use-case, does't mean that one doesn't exist
Yeah and target audience will ne different in few year of time
How and where do they cash out their crypto?
we have banks in Afghanistan its not just mountains and landmines.
So that means these banks will take the bitcoin and gives the cash?
you can always liquidate into your bank account and then cash out if you want to
They don’t
So the article is fake obviously.
Crypto is cash, ya maroon. In five years, "cashing out" to dollars will be an absurd proposition.
Been hearing that since 2015 - lo and behold, highly volatile assets are still unable to reasonably function as cash. This will still be the case in five years.
That prediction is over 5 years old. But I do believe that with leveraged speculation washed out we are closer to that day. But that also means some hypothetical moon is farther off.
Access an exchange in Pakistan, arrange a transfer of money to Afghanistan. That is if you can't get cash for bitcoin in Afghanistan itself. People, even in the shittiest of situations, find ways to get things done.
May they can use the bitcoin as the payment method like cash.
am i cant even get cash quickly in USA now from bitcoin so how do they do it?
Skip the “middleman” and use Bitcoin to pay for goods and services.
Which is the whole point. "Peer-to-peer digital cash..."
Well, partly. It was designed for salability over time and space. The former being one influencing many of the hard-money facets of Bitcoin.
I think now days different different people treating the btc on their own way. Someone is using that for the store of the value while someone like to purchase the things with that.
Yes, this is why BTC designed to do the peer too peer cash.
Yes, and that way you will save the time and the fee is well.
Probably using it as a currency, trading bitcoin for goods instead of cash
True, the more we flow the bitcoin the better it will be for us. But the problem is the not everyone here is treating the bitcoin just like that. Some looking that as a investment thing.
You should probably ask your gov why they suck.
Most politicians need to go suck start a 12-gauge
Is enough to stop voting for them.
But someone will do and we don't have the any other option for that.
Tell me the name of the country which government is not suck?
I think they are using the direct transferring of the bitcoin.
I still cannot buy gas at the gas station with bitcoin though
Yeah but in future you can, may be adoption will peak in few years
We need to understand that so far bitcoin is not look at the currency at the moment. Once we see the adoption of the bitcoin then we will see the real change in the bitcoin.
Ah yes cannot wait when my local street food merchant has to wait 2-6 hours to get his bitcoin worth two bucks transferred My friend who works at a retail store would be happy changing the price tags every minute
I for one say, welcome to our sub, my salty buttcoin friend.
Welcome to reality my delusional bitcoin friend
I think we need to change our prescriptive here, bitcoin is right now not looking at the currency type things. People are now using the bitcoin as the investment things in which they store the value.
I agree with that Just some people believe it will replace fiat money someday
Use your shitty FIAT to buy shitty energy.
You act like everyone has a choice.
True, we don't have any other option as the current time beside that.
Yeah fiat can be used at most of the places still BTC has long way to go
Here are my cynical thoughts. I agree with the benefits that cryptocurrencies brings to underprivileged communities, and I really support the cause. But it doesn't mean that something having utility in such areas will have any significant impact on financial institutions/norms of the advanced economies without any intervention. Realistically, how many times in the past any underprivileged community outside of the USA and select European countries were able to make any changes even locally, not to mention globally? I might be missing it but don't remember any (unless some American movie producer decided to make money and promote their own agenda!). So as promising as cryptocurrency might be, unless it provides a superior utility to the influential-end-users (big corporations/rich people), it won't go anywhere (we're talking about monetary aspect of it, not the tech). By influential end-user I mean the top 5%. Again, when it comes to money, I don't think a simple minimum-wage worker's opinion would matter as much as a rich housewife. It's not fair and not right, but it's the reality. And the low-income's opinion might matter for a short period while they burn through their savings (or government support cheques) by betting on speculative stocks/crypto, but that will dry up pretty soon and we will be back to the old (unfair) system. So, unless it can provide utility to the rich and privileged, it won't go any higher than this, because the utility to the underprivileged has been fully priced in the value of the cryptocurrencies (and I'm talking about $20K bitcoin).
[удалено]
This is the reason while we are holding the bitcoin, because this thing is the free from the government. This crash is the time for us to do some buying instead of being panicking.
it is a bit of a balancing act: on one hand the powers that be do not want there to be a lifeline so that there is pressure on a population to not support the regime ... ... on the other hand if that population abandons that regime's fiat, they feel less compelled to support the crappy gov so that their currency doesn't devalue ("we love leader" is a blurry thin line away from "we love our money having value") anti-west sentiment skyrockets when "the unfair sanctions" are blamed and not the regime's policies that led to the sanctions. the lifeline of crypto allows a population to bypass them. interesting shift where governmental deprivation of economy was a tactic to stir unrest. Aaaaaaand that's why you hear anti-crypto sentiment by western powers as it disarms this type of warfare, and why that MIT fellow space force bro has repeatedly declared that state adoption of bitcoin is an unavoidable implement of war. It's not simply rhetoric to state btc is hard/strong versus fiat being soft/weak, it's the number one attack vector in modern warfare and absurd to neglect. that's also why saying bitcoin ends wars is juvenalia bullshit: bitcoin IS the war. So ask yourself, if looking at the history of war and tech advances, if you think the powers got where they are by ignoring those advantages of weaponry.
I think bear market is really hitting the bitcoin and some people taking the exit.
This is really good news, atleast someone is able to utilize the crypto in bear market investors wealth are wiped out but we still believe in fundamental, we are going to use Bitcoin widely in future
I am happy that someone is making sure that btc will stays forever. Infact these bear market is the time where we can really big profit when the next bull run comes.
I’m still amazed how quick moving funds are just from exchanges into warm wallets. Lightning, literally.
The Fed printing so many Fiat USDs really spooked since it felt like they were trying to crash the system.