BTC

ShittingOutPosts

BTC is highly divisible. Just like $1 is made up of 100 cents, 1 coin is made up of 100,000,000 satoshis.

greatday2020

Bitcoin-backed loans can work well if you want liquidity without selling your BTC, but the biggest risks are interest rates, LTV changes, and possible liquidation if Bitcoin drops. I’d compare the lender’s terms carefully and make sure the risks are clearly explained. CryptoPawn is another option worth comparing with lenders like Ledn, Arch, or Salt.

JustSidAround

Not touching spot right now but still trade the volatility on libertex with a spot BTC CFD, no overnight swap so holding through the chop doesnt bleed me on fees

AFBB_

It doesn't matter how many BTC there is, what matters is whether there is demand for it.

Cultural_External288

Yet another gift given freely to men by the BTC.

sylsau

**Bitcoin beat Wall Street at money. So Wall Street changed the game.** Now it wants the **keys**. BlackRock has reportedly processed **$5B+ in direct BTC → IBIT conversions**. Read that again: **These weren’t new investors buying Bitcoin.** These were **existing Bitcoin holders moving from direct ownership into Wall Street custody**. Same price exposure. Less sovereignty. No seed phrase. No multisig. No inheritance headache. No operational risk. And that convenience is winning. Bitcoin removed the trusted intermediary. Wall Street’s response? **Reintroduce the intermediary as a premium service.** The next Bitcoin war may not be about price. It may be about custody. **If Bitcoin becomes the world’s dominant monetary asset — but most of it sits behind a handful of regulated custodians — who really won?**

Business_Office_7978

You and ever other shit coin holder! I suggest u find some shitcoin subreddit and share it with them. Here we only care about BTC.

ArugulaPotential366

I also got to think about the future because when I'm at the age of retirement and BTC is all the way down, it's not something I'd want to sell so I see why diversification is also important

stormos

That story cannot be true as stated. In 2009 and early 2010, mining was solo: awarded 50 BTC for every valid block. You either found no block and earned 0 BTC, or found one and earned 50 BTC—not “about half a bitcoin.”

RammerRod

But BTC is meaningful to El Salvador. BTW, what's your net worth?

tenor_tymir

What do you mean by "How do I secure my BTC?"? They're protected by 24 words that are impossible to crack. The Cold Card fiasco was an isolated incident that highlighted the importance of independent security audits, bug bounty programs, and open source. Cold Card neglected these areas, and users suffered the consequences. A 24-word (or even 12-word) password is impossible to crack. Your BTC are safe. If you want to be extra cautious, you could use an additional passphrase, but I won't either. My 24 words provide sufficient protection.

coupl4nd

What's the difference with them doing it and the fact that 350,000 BTC are sold EVERY DAY... Oh no! Think about it the other way, 350k BTC are bought every day! Woo!

infernal_celery

Yes, but it’s not realistic to expect your fiat-based merchant to switch to a disintermediated Bitcoin payment system right now. A few reasons: (1) they can’t spend BTC, so they need fiat to pay their suppliers (etc) (2) business banking is already hard to procure, so adding direct BTC payments and making themselves “high AML risk” will likely cost them time and money (3) most merchants run on margins calculated in fiat, so price volatility of BTC against fiat is hard to solve for (4) there just aren’t that many bitcoiners in a lot of countries who actually want to spend BTC. So until adoption grows I’d say intermediaries are a fact of commerce. The good news is that these intermediaries are cheaper than most card processors.

read_more_comments

Don't forget fbtc. Fidelity does their own custody. Ibit uses Coinbase. Fidelity also allows you to buy and sell actual BTC, and you can transfer in and out of fidelity, so you aren't locked in.

Romanizer

They will do it again. The goal is 1 million BTC after all. Looks like that will be hit this or next year.

Fortune1111

Run away from memecoins and put your money on BTC, ETH, SOL, XRP, BNB and HYPE. Always remember to DCA. Please this is not a financial advise do your due diligence. DYOR

Crucco

These articles always conveniently omit some numbers. Either they say only how many BTCs were sold and how many were bought. Pure clickbait. Strategy in 2026 bought approximately 179,498 BTC at a price of $77,950 per coin, and sold 6,948 BTC at a price of $62,250.

Lefties_TheWorst7331

BTC

MakCapital

Last cycle, SOL did a 30x from bottom while paying up to 10% compounding APY along the way. Nothing came close while everyone complained about SOL or "no 🐂 for alts". There was. It happened on Solana. BTC, HYPE, SOL, HOOD, ETH. This bear is so easy even the noobs have hope. Winners couldn't be more clear.

Electric_Capybara

>Absolutely nooo onee in 2010 bought BTC with the intent that it would appreciate in value to what it is today Yeah. Everyone I know who who bought Bitcoin back then sold it a few years later and made a profit of a few hundred bucks.

Automatic-Target-492

Imagine not being all in on BTC and thinking you have unusually strong conviction

Hefty_Pressure_

DCA BTC and buy small bags of SOL in bear market (like 50 in total) so that you have at least smth to sell during bull mkt

lexicon_riot

Those things don't properly describe the cause of Bitcoin's value.  Bitcoin is valuable because it's money, those things make it good money. People using and adopting bitcoin as money is what fundamentally makes it valuable. For savings, payments, settlement, remittances, etc. The bigger the BTC economy gets, the more valuable it is.

Bongressman

Money didn't flow from BTC to ETH to SOL last cycle. It stayed with BTC and alts didn't do shit. So...

guiltypleasurexoxo

At first I focused way too much on price targets, now I think understanding why you're holding matters more, whether it's BTC or something like gamdom.

NMoney007

Worth remembering that El Salvador doesn't have its own currency — they've used the US dollar since 2001. No money printing, no monetary policy, no say in Fed decisions. The BTC buy is a way to own one reserve asset nobody else controls. Risky? Maybe Irrational? No. Also worth noting is how this investment has turned out so far \~7,760 BTC at an estimated average cost in the $45–56K range, currently worth about $600M — roughly $170M in unrealized profit.

Ill-Blacksmith3260

Do you know how the banking system works? Do you know how BTC works? If so then you know the answer.

jwheel888

Wrong. BTC will just become a holding while other faster networks take over. Currency as you know it is over. No more cash under your mattress

linuxmeaningfully

Buy BTC, not that fake shit. ETFs have fees

bestjaegerpilot

right now there's fear the stock market will overheat/collapse. Some peeps view BTC as a safe haven. The problem is that when that happens, liquidity tends to collapse so BTW with it. We'll see i guess

AutoModerator

Post is by: Bcom_Mod and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/bitcoin_com/comments/1w5sfev/the_imf_explicitly_ordered_el_salvador_to_stop/ [El Salvador's Bitcoin reserve just ticked up to 7,762 BTC](https://news.bitcoin.com/crypto-news/el-salvador-bitcoin-reserve-7762-btc/), and the interesting part isn't the number. It's that they're not supposed to be buying at all. Under a $1.4 billion financing agreement, the IMF explicitly asked El Salvador's public sector to halt Bitcoin accumulation. Bitcoin's legal-tender status was actually rolled back as part of that same deal. And yet the reserve keeps growing, one coin a day, roughly 1,600 added between January and April alone. Bukele's four-word summary of the strategy: "buying the dip, every day." His response to the IMF pressure: the country "will not sell." There's a genuine wrinkle here that cuts against the hero narrative. The IMF has said El Salvador confirmed it stopped public-sector buying, which raises a real question about where these coins are coming from. Some analysts think the daily "purchases" may partly be movements between state-owned wallets rather than fresh market buys, a bookkeeping shuffle that lets Bukele keep posting the "still stacking" flex without technically violating the deal in a way the IMF will fight over. If that's what's happening, the defiance is more theater than substance. But take it at face value, that they're actually still buying, and you have a sitting president using public funds to accumulate a volatile asset in direct tension with the terms of the bailout keeping his government financed. That's the fork, and it's a real one. **The bull case:** this is exactly the conviction Bitcoiners always said a nation-state would eventually show. Bukele is treating Bitcoin as a multi-decade sovereign reserve, dollar-cost averaging through every dip, ignoring short-term price and IMF hand-wringing alike, and betting that in ten years El Salvador looks visionary for buying while everyone else flinched. If BTC is what maximalists believe it is, a country mechanically stacking it regardless of price is doing the rational thing, and the IMF is the shortsighted party trying to stop them. **The bear case:** a small, debt-dependent country gambling with public money on an asset that dropped from $126K to the $60Ks this year, while the lender funding its budget explicitly told it to stop, is reckless governance dressed up as vision. The "will not sell" line sounds strong until a fiscal crisis forces the question. A sovereign reserve you can't touch without spooking the market and defying the IMF is not obviously an asset. It might be a trap with a flag on it. I lean toward it being a genuinely smart long-term bet executed with sketchy transparency, and the transparency problem is what should bother even the fans. If the daily buys are real, the strategy is defensible and probably looks great in a decade. But the murkiness about whether the purchases are actual market buys or wallet shuffles, and the willingness to obscure that to keep the narrative going, is the part that undercuts it. You can admire the conviction and still want to know whether the country is buying Bitcoin or just moving it between drawers and calling it a purchase. Bukele has earned the skepticism by making it hard to check. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

defiCosmos

Join the Military. You don't have to worry about any of that shit. You could put your whole paycheck into BTC every 2 weeks becuase food and lodging is free. Get out after 4 years and file for disability. Free Healthcare and guaranteed check every month. All you need to do after that is find more ways to buy bitcoin. Your rent and monthly expenses are covered by your disability payment and loge a lot less stressful .

defiCosmos

Join the Military. You don't have to worry about any of that shit. You could put your whole paycheck into BTC every 2 weeks becuase food and lodging is free. Get out after 4 years and file for disability. Free Healthcare and guaranteed check every month. All you need to after that is find more ways to buy bitcoin.

No-Calligrapher255

Bitcoin does not print. New coins only appear when a block is found — about every ten minutes. That payment is the block reward. Treat that reward as water leaving a spout. In 2009 the spout was wide open: 50 bitcoin every block. That was a flood. Anyone standing under it got soaked. The white paper wrote one rule into the pipe: every 210,000 blocks (about four years) the reward is cut in half. That is the valve turning. It only turns one way. It never opens wider. How the flood became drips Read the image from top to bottom like a falling water level. • 2009 — 50 BTC. Flood. 100% of the original flow. No market price yet. • 2012 — 25 BTC. First close. 50% of the last reward. • 2016 — 12.5 BTC. Second close. Again 50% of the last one. Now only 25% • 2020 — 6.25 BTC. Third close.12.5% of genesis. • 2024 — 3.125 BTC. Now. A trickle. 50% of 2020, 6.25% of 2009. One-sixteenth the original water. • 2028 — 1.5625 BTC. Next close. Half of today’s trickle. A single falling drop. Every row after genesis says 50% under “% prior” because that is the only move the valve makes: cut the last flow in half. That is why a faucet is the right picture. A government can open a printing press. This spout cannot. Four turns already happened. The fifth is on the calendar. After enough turns the water does not stop in a day — it just becomes so thin it is a drip, then a drop, then almost nothing, until the 21 million cap is reached.

Lehcen

Been in BTC since 2017. im very satisfied with my stash. right now im focused on diversifying so I maxed out my FHSA TFSA RRSP and put money in my kids college fund all thanks to BTC gains. i'm all XEQT now. and will keep accumulating just that. when bull market ill sell half BTC and buy more XEQT. why? honestly im 45 and tired of the volatility, I just want something like 10% return and im happy plus the giant from BTC eventually.

Cryptizard

Yes there is. Theft of opportunity. If BTC hit maximum saturation (used by everyone) then each new person born is in the worst financial position of any person ever born before. In perpetuity.

Cryptizard

That is exactly backward. New money creation causes inflation, which benefits future generations and people who owe other people money. That is the entire reason we try to have small positive inflation. It hurts people who are sitting on big piles of cash, which is basically no one. I already explained to you why BTC hurts future generations. You just didn't engage with it. Consider that you buy 1 BTC today. Someone born 10 years from now never has that opportunity, and in the future when BTC (in your ideal scenario) is worth millions of dollars, they are stuck without that opportunity. You are rich for doing nothing, they are poor with no option to have ever gained anything.

Cryptizard

No, it's not. Because the demand for currency increases with more people, and the value of something is purely based on supply and demand. There is no intrinsic value ot anything. That is one of the things people don't think about with BTC. If we did ever adopt it massively, we would be robbing every future generation who doesn't have the opportunity to get in early enough on the investment. Each generation is permanently disadvantaged compared to the one before them.

longonbtc

u/unthocks, I know this comment will be quite long, but I’d encourage you to read it in its entirety, as I think you’ll find it both informative and educational. The bitcoinismoney subreddit is strictly for technically illiterate сultists that are very gullible and extremely susceptible to emotion driven psyops with no basis in technical reality. That subreddit is also the most censored cryptocurrency subreddit on all of Reddit. They have to keep the echo chamber really tightly controlled and insulated from outside perspectives. No facts are allowed and no wrong-think is allowed in that subreddit. The mods of that subreddit remove any comments that are posted by anyone that actually understands how Bitcoin works. They also ban anyone that actually understands how Bitcoin works. I'm sure that you have since been banned due to your wrong-think. Just be thankful that you were intelligent enough to see through the scam/misinformation/propaganda. If BIP-110 would have activated it would have proved that a witch hunt of technically illiterate сultists could force through consensus changes that have no basis in technical reality. When mandatory signalling began, only approximately 6% of nodes were running BIP-110. This was after bitcoin youtubers, bitcoin podcasters, and bitcoin influencers on social media spread nonstop propaganda and misinformation for a year saying everything they could in an attempt to get gullible bitcoiners to support BIP-110 and run it. This was three months after Luke forced everyone running the latest release of Knоts to run BIP-110. Still after all of that, only approximately 6% of nodes were running BIP-110. If BIP-110 would have activated, it would have proved that only 6% of nodes being run by people that own a negligible amount of bitcoins could force through consensus changes. It would have proved that a small minority of nodes could change the consensus rules through force. The people that created and spearheaded BIP-110 took pages right out of both Rоger vеr's playbook and Crаig Wrіght's playbook. Fortunately, Bitcoin is resilient to these attacks and they failed spectacularly. It was a stupid BIP and it failed to get consensus. And I'll explain several of the reasons that it was stupid below. BIP-110 would not have stopped spam. In fact, somebody already embedded the entire BIP-110 PDF inside of a BIP-110 compliant transaction. BIP-110 would have caused spammers to put spam in fake-pubkey P2WSH multisigs and other unprunable vectors which would result in permanent UTXO bloat instead of prunable OP_RETURNs, which increases node costs, slows sync times, and centralizes running a node. BIP-110 would have hurt node runners even more if it had activated as the spammers would have simply routed around the BIP-110 new consensus rules and put their spam directly in the UTXO set. The very thing BIP-110 set out to solve, it ironically would have made worse. Every new filter just shifts the attack vector to somewhere more harmful. The BIP solved nothing. It was a virtue signal to the lowest common denominator, gullible bitcoiners that don't understand how Bitcoin works from a technical aspect and that are easily manipulated by emotional narratives. These gullible bitcoiners don't even understand the difference between relay policy and consensus rules. BIP-110 would have broken scripting and scaling. It would have destroyed Eltoo, MAST, covenants, Ark, BitVM, channel factories, statechains, and almost every future L2. It would have disabled upgrade hooks. It would have frozen some existing UTXOs. It would have removed the foundation for Schnorr and Taproot efficiency gains. And to top it all off, it will not even have prevented spam. The clowns behind this BIP have literally stated that they will just keep rolling out more and more soft forks after BIP-110 was activated. They intended for this to be a never ending circus of soft forks breaking more and more stuff while trying to prevent something that can't be stopped. And even worse, spammers would still have been able to use fake pubkeys and things like Stamps or BPUB and we don't even have a good way to stop those. So we would have just maimed our own monetary scripting, all to ineffectively attempt to stop spam. Furthermore, BIP-110 would have introduced consensus-level filtering to block certain transaction patterns. Once you start letting a subset of devs or a small minority of node runners decide which valid, fee-paying transactions get rejected at the protocol level, you open the door to more selective rules later. Regulators, governments, or even future "well-meaning" groups will notice Bitcoin can be pressured into changes. Neutrality and permissionlessness are what makes Bitcoin antifragile. Break that, and you invite centralization creep, and that's a slippery slope to go down. Now as for Knоts, that is an altcoin node implementation now. Since you supported Knоts and you didn't expect this, you must not be very familiar with Knоts and the creator/dictator of Knоts who goes by the pseudonym Luke Dashjr. As for me, I fully expected this outcome. Bitcoin Knоts is a centralized node implementation where Luke is the one & only maintainer and where he is in full control of the entire project. Knоts is a centralized project where nobody merges pull requests on GitHub and Luke just pushes code changes directly to the master branch without any peer review. Since you are not very familiar with Knоts and how it's maintained, then I highly recommend you to watch [this video that goes into great detail about the developmental process of Knоts and how it's maintained.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0-xhy27FWE&t=980s) Knоts is maintained by one single individual that uses the pseudonym Luke Dashjr who is a power hungry authoritarian. He had 216+ BTC stolen from him due to his terrible security practices. He then insisted to the FBI that it was a Bitcoin Core developer that stole his bitcoins and he dоxxed a bunch of anonymous Bitcoin Core developers to the FBI. He has held a grudge against Bitcoin Core devs ever since. He abused his position as a Gentoo package maintainer to sneak blаcklists into Bitcoin Core that comes with Gentoo and to sneak filters that block porn sites into the Gentoo operating system. He is anti-freedom and anti-privacy. He says that privacy is only useful for criminals. He has a history of trying to censor any transactions that he deems to be sinful. He has said that he would sabotage Bitcoin if his bishop told him to. He is an authoritarian that loves the government and believes the government should use the law to force his religion on the population under the threat of imprisonment or death. What do you think he would do if the government told him to sabotage Bitcoin? I should also mention that he's been in direct contact with the FBI over the last few years. You can read more about Luke Dashjr here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1vkindj/luke_dashjr_is_insane/p2tooqn/

opbmedia

Sound money is something that is reliable and not easily reproduced. hence humans used sea shells, stones, metals, gold, etc. Because nothing is stronger than actual physical possession of something that is standardardized and easily tradeable. BTC has some but not all the characteristics of a good medium, in a post-fiat world. People will likely choose something more portable. and does not depend on electricity and internet. Remember power and communications is usually the first to break in crisis.

opbmedia

That increase the price amount, not the value it holds. If 1 BTC was worth $100k which is enough to buy let's say 10k bags of wheat, when currency hyperinflates to 100x, so now 1 BTC is worth $10m, but so is the price of wheat (because of inflation), there fore your 1 BTC is worth $10m and still buys 10k bags of wheat. Or less more than likely because hyperinflation hurts outputs.

Cryptizard

It's just not intended to be a currency, so comparing it to a currency doesn't make sense. The value fluctuates wildly. Compare it to other types of investments. The implication here is that if you have a choice between keeping your money in USD or in BTC, you should choose BTC because it has a fixed supply and will therefore hold or increase its value over time. But that's not the real choice. USD is a means of exchange, not an investment. It was never meant to hold value over time. That is why we have all these other things like bonds, stocks, mutual funds, CDs, etc.

moongb34n

How many BTC has been lost and will never be accessible again?

Cryptizard

This comparison doesn't make any sense. You can't use bitcoin as a day-to-day currency. It is simply not suited to that, due to extremely low transaction throughput and high fees. You can consider it an investment if you like. But in that case, the comparison is between BTC and securities, which also have a fixed cap.

Lefties_TheWorst7331

BTC > shitcoins

Armadillodillodillo

That self custody cannot be killed. Well if the tax rate is 0% on BTC ETFs, and Tax on BTC is 30%, apparently I'm picking ETFs. At this point if ETFs fail, it will not die, but it will be done for a long time in terms of fiat price.

Indian_IronMusk

I have this doubt for a long time.. like how companies dilute by issuing more shares when their share prices are high.. (more often nowadays) .. is there a possibility that they will change the algorithm (with consensus of miners, etc) and start mining more BTC.. seeing all things happening in the world nowadays, my mind is not ruling out anything even remotely possible… 😊

MakCapital

Core holdings besides BTC should now be HYPE, SOL, HOOD, ETH. HYPE has been an obvious leading choice. Massive number of wallets and trading platforms not only integrating, but the largest like Phantom soon launching their own markets on HL. With majority rev burn.. come on. Been a no brainer buy. Anyone's guess if ETH as private money or Solana as the best chain for users will grab more attention this bull. UNI performing completely depends on capturing RH + Base activity. Most of this activity will be on RH L2 anyway. They win no matter what protocols dominate their L2. They win even without their L2. This and AMM rev share to token holders is garbage. All to LPs. RH L2 trench activity will eventually rotate back to Solana, but this isn't going to stop RH. SOL/ETH much easier to predict once Solana can actually get a SOL value capture proposal passed. Critical, but they already have the users. Don't fade either yet. X in profile

Bronk33

I have lots of money in bitcoin, but your savings account is fine. BTC is high risk/high reward. We now return you to your local programming. If this has been an actual emergency, you would have been instructed where to tune in your local area for more information.

GrapefruitOwn6261

It’ll go back up again. BTC just had a massive move, so coming back down to test previous levels is completely normal and probably healthy. What we really need to see now is whether those previous levels hold as support.

GettingFasterDude

If 1000 BTC, I'd hold 1/3 in an ETF (FBTC or iBIT), 1/3 in Fidelity Crypto and 1/3 in cold storage (collaborative multisig).

AccomplishedTree9027

Always a good time to buy BTC

mvds74

And because some BTC are lost forever.

ir88ed

I'm buying a motorcycle when I turn 60 and doing a bunch of drugs. BTC is for the kids.

opbmedia

It is an economy when it is widely accepted as THE exchange medium. Tell me how many businesses are accepting BTC without regard to it's fiat price. Explain to me how btc is not used as another value store tied to its fiat value.

suuperfli

this post was regarding bitcoin, not shitcoins i never claimed that just scarcity makes a good money, there are multiple characteristics. here are some of the properties. a good starting point for some education: * **Scarcity** — 21M cap, enforced by consensus rules rather than by a producer's discretion. Gold's supply grows \~1.5%/yr and can respond to price; fiat has no cap at all. * **Durability** — it's information, not matter. No decay, no corrosion. Persists as long as the network does. * **Portability** — final settlement of any amount, anywhere, in minutes. Moving $10M of gold takes armored transport and days; moving $10M of BTC costs the same fee as moving $10. * **Divisibility** — 100M sats per coin, natively. Gold requires assay and minting to subdivide. * **Fungibility** — units are interchangeable at the protocol level * **Verifiability** — anyone can validate supply and authenticity with a full node on cheap hardware. Verifying gold requires trust or specialized equipment; verifying fiat's supply requires trusting the issuer. * **Censorship resistance / self-custody** — the property fiat and bank deposits lack entirely. Keys held means no counterparty can freeze or seize without physical access to you.

ExpressCopy8786

There is a very limited amount of dickbut coin and fartjug token... And while we're at it there is orders of magnitude less ass hair than there is BTC. That still doesn't make em valuable. Scarcity does not make an otherwise intrinsically worthless thing valuable.  BTC is a brand and a narrative. And it's driven by greed only. As soon as the brand loses appeal or the greed dies down because the mechanism faulters it is done. There is no book value. There is no floor. The floor is exactly the value of my ass hair. None.

drunnells

I hear what you are saying. If you take it even further - it's really 1s and 0s that need to be outlawed. Or maybe speaking, writing or thinking about creating a series of 1s and 0s in an unauthorized pattern. That would stop anyone from putting 1s and 0s into an order that results in something bad happening.. like a BTC transaction that moves BTC from one wallet to another without the right person's approval, or decoding 1s and 0s into images of bad things, or putting them in an order that results in a 3d representation of a gun that could be potentially 3d printed.

Awkward_Potential_

So your ISP is creating your own money?  Fine. I'll either find another ISP that accepts BTC (hmmm, Starlink holds it already), or I'll buy up some of your new money with my Bitcoin. 

scrub-muffin

The supply if fixed, the pie doesn't inflate or deflate. Your % is always your % no matter what it is priced in. Rich people give 0 shits about inflation because they own a tangible %, poor people don't. They own that % based in stocks, property, etc. The asset class of BTC is so small poor people can own a meaningful percent. Real Estate is the largest asset class so you are very diluted just buying a condo. The appeal of BTC is the smaller market cap, that may or may not last one way or the other. If power and internet go away, the least of your problems is BTC.

Due_Performer5094

If people move onto a BTC standard long term that removes the concentration long term from those close to the money supply. Instead the money goes to those who produce good services and products. The way an economy should be. Less about who you know and what interest rate you can borrow at and more about quality of product.

Dapper_Addition_3837

XRP or BTC. Anything else is a waste of time.

Awkward_Potential_

Whether Elon owns 0 BTC or 10 million BTC, my BTC represents the same % of the total supply. 

opbmedia

Seeing bitcoin can be bought and sold by fiat, nothing steps concentration of wealth in btc if holders of fiat just rotate into btc. It's just another asset class at this point (see BTC ETFs)

Sam13337

Once a crisis like the financial crisis or another pandemic hits, a lot unrelated people and businesses are going to suffer very badly if the government cannot print money. I dont see how any of them would be in a better place with BTC. Mind explaining?

ChiliCorndogs

I thought I'd be playing the buy and sell game a lot more than I am. I've been in BTC since it was at 15k, and found the best strategy for me is to DCA and then pull only what I have invested when it hits a new high, leaving profits to stack. People will definitely argue that if I fully believed in BTC I'd leave my invested money in there so I can accumulate more, but this strategy has the least risk in my eyes. In the event that it all comes crashing down I will be holding a bag, but the bag will be mostly gravy and I will essentially have only wasted my time.

foxyevolution

It depends what mining units you invest in. If the writing is on the wall for one, rotate to another. Sold so many BTC units for XMR and ZEC. Hightly profitable.

macetheface

Absolutely nooo onee in 2010 bought BTC with the intent that it would appreciate in value to what it is today. Only ones that would have held till today either forgot about/ lost their wallet and just found it. Or went to prison with no access to it. I was laid off around then after the 09 recession, didn't want to work in an office job anymore and specifically researched investments, alternative things I could do or buy instead. Searched for months and months. Bitcoin not once came up.

communomancer

Lmao what the fuck is dummy wallet going to accomplish. If they’re targeting you they’re not gonna settle for a 0.000023 BTC wallet. And all multi sig does is give someone else control over your finances and whether to let them turn your knees into cream cheese rather than get to decide that for yourself. Fucking tough guys in this sub man lmao

NivTheGever

Because most people are emotional traderes, at least that is what I see... Unless they are bots. So many people change their minds every dip or rally, maybe it's because they are new or maybe it's because they don't try to look what BTC has done all those years

Public-Pass5158

US already has 300K confiscated BTC. I doubt they need more soon. If anything they can "confiscate' more lol.

RetiredAvocado

I kinda get what you're trying to say but can't really go along. I ride, and bought and sold motorcycles. It's a process, and there are steps, inspection, taking posession, title. That BTC absolutely had value. It wouldn't be stolen if it didn't.

BulgogiDude

Son of a BTC

read_more_comments

I'm ok with that and I hold both ibit and fbtc. If you want crumbs from forks just buy BTC.

Stock-Performer4939

Inflation is the easiest way. Just explain the current inflation rate for $$/currency (In the US is 3.4% right now) Then explain that unless the high yield savings is more than 3.4% including all the fees, then she's actually losing money long term. The only way to escape that is by owning assets that increase in price (Im not getting into value/price) at a rate faster than inflation. Example: The average U.S. house appreciation rate over the past decade ranges from **4% to 7% per year**, depending on the specific index and time frame used. Conversely, bitcoin has appreciated roughly 61% per year over the same 10 year period. Hard to argue with those numbers, and its logical. Own cash for 10 years, own a house for 10 years, or own BTC for 10 years, which one has done better the last 10 years.

VettaQ

ket regime - when BTC sweeps and reverses, the alts usually do too. Effective n is closer to the number of distinct sweep episodes across the market than to 165 trades. Quick sanity check: group instances by week and look at expectancy per week. If two or three weeks carry the entire profit, it's regime, not edge. Two things would worry me more than the small n. First, point-in-time definitions. "Sweep first, then react" is only observable with hindsight. When price tags the old low you can't yet know whether it's sweeping and reversing or just breaking down. If the entry waits for confirmation of the reaction, part of the edge is repainting; if it doesn't, the 85% should include the breakdown cases. I'd re-encode the rules so each bar's decision uses only data available at that bar's close, then re-run before believing anything. Second, the samples aren't independent. BTC, ETH, SOL and ZEC on the same days are four looks at one market regime - when BTC sweeps and reverses, the alts usually do too. Effective n is closer to the number of distinct sweep episodes across the market than to 165 trades. Quick sanity check: group instances by week and look at expectancy per week. If two or three weeks carry the entire profit, it's regime, not edge. On your actual question: at n around 30 per coin the win rate is noise, easily +/- 10 points. Expectancy is the better number but even less stable because it's driven by the biggest winners. Test the fixed rule on coins you never touched and report per-month expectancy - that's the number I'd want before trading it.On your actual question: at n around 30 per coin the win rate is noise, easily +/- 10 points. Expectancy is the better number but even less stable because it's driven by the biggest winners. Test the fixed rule on coins you never touched and report per-month expectancy - that's the number I'd want before trading it.

mysomica

I'm sure there's plenty of people would have the motivation to rob 0.1 or less BTC if they knew you had it.

bieker

You missed my point, I never implied that such a law exists. Im trying to point out that all these analogies about houses and locks don't apply to BTC because BTC keys and addresses are not analog to physical keys locks and houses.

stheodore1974

For me it’s Bitcoin or no coin, but I say that after years of trying otherwise. I used to make fun of BTC maximalists, until I became one myself

R3KD_

Moved to 100% BTC and now I barely ever check the price; most alts will die, eventually people will realise this I was even 50/50 BTC/ETH but realised ETH is just as at risk in that regard

RetiredAvocado

I'd pay you nothing, until you sent BTC to an address I control. That's not how that works. Just because the lock on the shed is broken it doesn't mean the motorcycle in the shed is worthless.

spencerocean

Only mine BTC. Join a pool. Only if your electricity is cheap (or tapped) 😂

JellyfishStill2690

Stop licking his bum. He only cares about himself and how much more money he can make from BTC by hoarding it.

igohardish

I think El Salvador proved that Bitcoin isn’t ready to be used as money in transactions. I’m using it as a store of value long term, US debt and bond yields are going crazy rn and no one is doing anything about it. I view it as a bet that the US dollar will collapse significantly in my lifetime. I still invest in traditional stocks and have savings but I keep around 15-20% of my net worth in BTC in case the system starts to fail

TJack303

BTC is the only thing worth mining, shitcoins aren't it. And you can't compete with industrial scale mining operations for bitcoin.

sylsau

Bitcoin may finally be breaking up with the Nasdaq. Its 90-day correlation with tech has fallen to roughly **33%**. Its correlation with gold has climbed above **50%**. At the same time, U.S. federal debt has crossed **$40 TRILLION**. That combination matters. For years, Bitcoin was called “digital gold”… but traded like leveraged tech. **Now the market may be starting to treat BTC differently:** **→ less like a growth stock → more like a scarce monetary asset → more sensitive to debt, deficits, yields, and currency credibility** The big question isn’t whether Bitcoin is digital gold today. It’s whether the next real market panic proves the shift is permanent.

LiquiditySlushy

Until the bears show up I remain bullish. Many bulls took profit before the Fed speech and it appeared to be bearish but a lot of it was just the profit taking. The whales with 100 + BTC have been accumulating while smaller whales have been selling. There is an illusion that things are worse than they really are. So many shorts have been liquidated Im not sure if there is enough ammo left from the bears if Friday and the rate hike decision go against BTC.

Ashistrash121

That's how we should determine the value of 1 BTC from now on

AutoModerator

Post is by: Mr_Hodlerr and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: https://botsfolio.com/learn/order-block-after-sweep **What I tested** The pattern where price runs a prior swing low, grabs the stops sitting under it, and then instead of continuing down it reverses and pushes back up off the last down-candle before the move (the reaction zone). Entry on the return to that zone, stop below the sweep, fixed target. I wanted to know if the "sweep first, then react" sequence actually beats taking either signal on its own. **Results** Win rates landed around 85% across the four coins, on these counts: * BTC 1H: n = 54 * SOL 1H: n = 49 * ETH 1H: n = 33 * ZEC 1H: n = 29 Expectancy came out to +0.72R to +1.46R per instance after fees. For comparison, on the same data the two pieces alone were weaker: the reaction zone by itself \~83%, the sweep by itself \~76%. The sequence is what lifted it. **What I'm concerned about** * The samples are small (29 to 54 per coin). * It's one timeframe. Where's the methodology broken? Would an out-of-sample split or walk-forward change your read? Does the small n make the high win rate meaningless, or is the expectancy the number that matters more? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

hoppeeness

Clarity act helps the utility coins more than BTC. BTC will be hurt in the long run. Once you can more easily tokenize RWAs BTCs use case weakens while the ETHs, SOLs, ChainLinks, XRPs, HBARs, Cantons, AVAX, XLMs, etc. get more protection and standing legally.

hoppeeness

I don’t think so. I think it will be a much more spread out allocation. Clarity act helps the utility coins more than BTC. BTC will be hurt in the long run. Once you can more easily tokenize RWAs BTCs use case weakens while the ETHs, SOLs, ChainLinks, XRPs, HBARs, Cantons, AVAX, XLMs, etc. get more protection and standing legally.

PeteyPab305

Bro you wasting opportunity cost selling one asset to buy another, and generating tax consequences in either directions and losing money. Pick a plan and stick with it. Don't chase "Trends" to try to catch a moonshot, that's how you lose everything. Just pick either BTC or TradFi, and if traditional markets buy QQQ and you will own SPCX through that anyway. Make monthly or bi-monthly contributions and allow the compounding over time, do the work. This isn't the way my friend. Your operating on vibes and emotion, rather than research, metrics, and long term conviction. Just trying to help, because it seems like you might be chasing the dragon a bit too hard.

KevinNegocios

That’s a fair point only if you look at it strictly through a legacy TradFi lens, but it completely misses the architectural breakthrough of Bitcoin. We use centralized custodians for gold because storing and shipping heavy physical gold bars across the globe is a logistical, expensive nightmare. Stocks literally require a centralized legal registry (like the DTCC) just to exist. In the fiat system, custodians are a necessary evil. Bitcoin was engineered specifically to eliminate that exact counterparty risk. Sending a billion dollars in BTC takes 10 minutes and requires zero armored trucks, vaults, or bank approvals. It's digital bearer property. When you hold "paper Bitcoin" on an exchange, you don't actually own the asset; you just own a digital IOU from a centralized entity. We all know exactly how that movie ends (FTX, Celsius, Mt. Gox, BlockFi... need I go on?). Applying the same flawed, centralized ownership criteria of the fiat system to the very asset built to replace it is wild. It’s like measuring the adoption of email by counting how many people print them out to mail them via FedEx. Sure, it makes the adoption numbers look bigger for the headline, but it totally defeats the purpose of the technology.

BlackDog990

Grand larceny, wire fraud, computer fraud, money laundering....you name it. Most comments here don't seem to have a fundamental understanding of how laws work and think little technical nuances would save you. In most jurisdictions, those nit picks wouldn't matter. BTC is property in most places and depriving the original owner access to their property is going to carry criminal consequences, end of story.

moviemaker2

If we take "not your keys, not your coins" at face value and a determining principle, then this is not theft. The people who had BTC drained are not "deprived of their property," because those coins aren't theirs the moment those coins are guarded by different keys. If it really does cease to be mine if I no longer control the keys of the wallet it's in, then it is not in illegal possession by someone else. Contrary to anything else - my bike or lawnmower is still 'mine' even if they're stolen: I'm the rightful owner of them even if they're not in my possession. The natural converse of "Not your keys, not your coins," is "Your keys, your coins" thus for the person who drained the wallets, these are their keys and therefore are their coins. (this is more a critique of the NYKNYC mantra than legal commentary)

2goodstudydaydayup

**You either have a wallet already, or you can buy BTC through a C2C/P2P platform. So this post makes me suspicious. If you have no ID and no wallet, what’s the actual reason you need to buy crypto this way? Is there something about the source of the money that you don’t want to explain?**

bieker

Most governments have been pretty up front about the fact that they don’t consider BTC to be “money”

Tall-Ad1293

My daily routine: Wake up, watch a 3-minute Saylor video, suddenly lose all interest in buying food, and put my entire paycheck into BTC.

harymo-20

I think BTC may Go back 60k-

Ollis-Yonda

I invest almost 25% of my monthly income into BTC instead of putting it in a savings account or a pension fund. I guess you could say I have moderately high conviction