This is basically still an untested theory. In the last 16 years there wasn't any major global financial crisis. There were some shocks, like the first months of Covid-19, and it's clear that Bitcoin reacts negatively towards anything that is negative for the economy, but we still couldn't test Bitcoin's reaction to prolonged (2-3 years) shrinkage of global economy or at least the US economy.

And let's imagine that US dollar crashes and after the initial shock Americans start buying Bitcoin to preserve their wealth, thus tanking US dollar even further. If at that point the government would want to save the US dollar, banning Bitcoin would be a logical thing to do, and that would be another major test for Bitcoin. Because for the last 16 years it enjoyed the benefits of being connected to the fiat system and having billions of dollars in liquidity.

6-20M to reverse how many blocks exactly? The way PoW deterrence works is that the cost is disproportionately higher than the result of such attack. Spending such high percentage of total market cap would be viewed as a loss for Ethereum, because it means that after a couple dozens of such attacks Ethereum's value will collapse, will Bitcoin will just suffer from a temporary set back. And the practical damage of 51% attack can be mitigated by requiring more confirmations.

 Forum Rank: Legendary
 Bech32 address: bc1qnxv3cuggtea642c7jneflsqa256tkjw6hyfk0h

The problem with Math.random is that if you have enough samples, you can predict the next outcome of the function or even recover the seed and know the whole sequence. On practice it means that if the server respond to your request with the result of this function, you can try to exploit it. But if someone ran it on their computer for their own use, you most likely won't be able to do anything. It doesn't have some sort of bug that it generates values only in a narrow range, or makes a statis output like all zeroes or some other values.

That's right, but we don't have infinite time. Even our Universe will not last infinitely. But on practice, you will not find any keys with balance in you lifetime, even in ten or hundred lifetimes, even if you use a supercomputer.

 Forum Rank: Legendary
 Bech32 address: bc1qnxv3cuggtea642c7jneflsqa256tkjw6hyfk0h

Username: hatshepsut93
Post count: 9406
BTC address (SegWit): bc1qnxv3cuggtea642c7jneflsqa256tkjw6hyfk0h

I don't pay attention to them because I don't trust any person with big influence to give a truly honest advice. They have more reasons to manipulate the market instead of trying to make everyone rich. In Bitcoin they could be telling that the price will reach some high target while they themselves are actively selling. Or they could be skeptical yet quietly buying without triggering a bull run.

Statistical research shows that most retail traders lose their money when they trade, this research was done in markets like stocks and comoodities. I would safely assume that it's even worse in crypto because there's no regulations and lots and lots of scams. But this also means that "investing" in crypto is not safe either. Some people think that if they put they money in a coin that seems like it has good potential and wait a few years, they will be in profit. But what most likely happens is that the coin will be abandoned in a few years and its value will be close to zero. So stick with Bitcoin and don't be greedy.

Both fiat currencies and cryptocurrencies are very liquid, so it's not so important how you get paid. You can convert between them quite easily. I already have Bitcoin and I need fiat to pay my bills and buy things, so if I were paid in Bitcoin,I would just convert it to fiat.

Getting paid in Bitcoin makes sense for someone who does DCA, but they wouldn't want they whole salary paid in BTC - only the amount they allocate each month.

Whether you'll get $1M or not depends not only on Bitcoin's performance but on the size of your investment. People can make $1M even with real estate investments if they already have millions to invest.

But I think in general Bitcoin is no longer a millionaire maker. It will rise in price by a factor of 2-3 times when measured from peak to peak, and maybe 5-7 times if measured from bottom to peak. That's not enough to make someone with a small capital a millionaire - you'd need to already have six figures that you can afford to risk putting in Bitcoin.

Fiat is used more often because fiat is used for everything thousands of times more often than Bitcoin. And Bitcoin is not attractive for laundering because it's hard to establish a convincing story of how you got supposedly clean coins.

But you know what Bitcoin is good for? Paying ransoms. A very considerable share of ransomware payments is done in Bitcoin, because it solves the problem of fiat payments - they can't get frozen and have no KYC, so it's a very safe and convenient method for criminals.

Nodes are by default refusing to propagate invalid transactions to other nodes and might even disconnect from a node that makes too many invalid transactions. So it's not like even the whole network rejects an invalid transaction - it doesn't get the chance to spread through the network at all.

Mining works similarly. When miners find a block, they send it to the nodes, and then the nodes spread it further. If a block is invalid for some reason - it has an invalid transaction or miners tried to cheat with pow - the nodes would refuse to accept and propagate it. So miners have a huge incentive to make sure that everything is correct, otherwise they'll just waste a lot of money.

First Musk announced that Tesla will accept Bitcoin and then a few months later he reversed the decision citing climate concerns. What does this mean - either he made a hasty decision without proper research, which means he's a bad businessman, or he intentionally manipulated the market. I think both are equally likely and either way it means that none of his words or actions should be important to Bitcoin investors - he already proved himself to be unreliable and anti-Bitcoin.

No I don't think that all inactive coins are lost, from time to time an address that wasn't used 10+ years suddenl activates. This doesn't even mean that someone is not selling coins for 10+ years - a user can have many addresses and they might have done a lot of sales in the past too.

If by scarcity you mean shortage then no, it won't cause such problems because there's enough units of account on the network.

What do you mean by "active wallets"? Coins that are moved frequently? Or coins that the owner has access too?

The best time is during the bear market, the second best time is early in the bull run. Buying when bull run is in full swing is risky, because after the crash comes, you might be in red for a few years if you failed to sell.

Many people would tell to buy always at any price - the DCA approach, but I think if you're at least a little familiar with trading, buying and selling during the major trends would be much more optimal.

If this is a report from 10 years ago, we can already judge that Bitcoin didn't become financial revolution. Instead it became a semi-mainstream investment that is still high risk/high return

People choose to stay unbanked for a varierty of reasons, and some of these reasons overlap with Bitcoin - for example unwillingness to use digital technologies, lack of Internet connectivity. And those few who would like to use it as a payment method are finding it to be challenging due to volatility and high fees.

The problem with dips is that at some point a dip will not be a dip but a full-fledged market crash that will be the start of the bear market. And no one case predict whether it's a dip or a crash until it fully developed. It's important to not be afraid of dips, because you need to have strong hands to get to the point when you can sell at a good price, but also it's important to be fearful of the bear market, because if you are permanently optimistic, you will miss out on a chance to sell before the bear market.

Bitcoin is money, one of the functions of money is being a store of value - it means maintaining a stable value, or slowly increasing its value, or at the very least only slowly losing the value, like in case with fiat's inflation.

Suriving in any case is great and important, but losing 90% of value would be almost the same as losing 100% of value, especially those that only use Bitcoin as a store of value and not for payments. And there are many possible events that could wipe out most of Bitcoin's value, like a global ban on Bitcoin related operations for banks and other financial services. That would kill liquidity and kill the price.

There's one big difference between "third party" and "third parties". One entity can be brought down and it itself has full control over the system. But thousands of small entities scattered across the whole globe can't be taken down, and even if someone started taking them down, new ones would emerge to replace them. Another key detail is that they are small - if Bitcoin required expensive server equipment to run, there would be much less nodes, because nodes don't make money, only miners do.