Okay first of all bitcoin don't depends on title or controlled by politicians so you saying or they call trump crypto president, that do not mean that one person can control bitcoin, it's all about how demands , supply and also confidence on the way the global market or events goes.

And again this safe heaven label this don't mean that the price of bitcoin won't drop even when it comes to gold the price still fall sometimes, the thing is that even if it drops can the assets recover from it and holds value as the years pass by because instead of you focusing it if bitcoin is on red or green in a year it's just okay to ask because with this alone it has proven that no matter how the market seems it can still survive and in the terms of a long run bitcoin still holds its value or bitcoin is makes sense as an asset and solid reason to stand strong.

So what if Trump was wrongly called the "first crypto president"? Does that mean he can "save BTC from closing the year in the red"? What makes you think he has that power?

If you come to assess Bitcoin's safe haven label when it's at the bottom, it surely failed. If you do it some other time, it easily passes the test with flying colors. To be fair, perhaps we should take a few steps back and take a look at Bitcoin's overall performance, not just short time frames.

Of course. The longer you stay in the casino, the more you're hooked on it, and the harder it would be to leave. I think it would be best to set a definite length of time when gambling rather than keep it open.

The risk isn't that you'd be having so much fun you'd completely forget about the time; it's that you'd continue gambling despite not enjoying it anymore. There are many gamblers who aren't excited anymore, already bored, but continue on betting, can't seem to detach themselves from it even if it's supposed to be over.

You might be right about that but our intention is what determines how the end will look like, if your intention is to have fun with it trust me you can gamble as much as you like even though you would want to spend the whole of your day and you won't regret it that's if your mind is fixed to have fun but it's advised to set a limit while gambling just as we also have limit in other things we do which gambling is even more dangerous than most of the things we set limit while doing it so it is good for us to also apply that same method in gambling, by so doing it shows that we are gambling responsibly.

Of course. The longer you stay in the casino, the more you're hooked on it, and the harder it would be to leave. I think it would be best to set a definite length of time when gambling rather than keep it open.

So what if Trump was wrongly called the "first crypto president"? Does that mean he can "save BTC from closing the year in the red"? What makes you think he has that power?

If you come to assess Bitcoin's safe haven label when it's at the bottom, it surely failed. If you do it some other time, it easily passes the test with flying colors. To be fair, perhaps we should take a few steps back and take a look at Bitcoin's overall performance, not just short time frames.

So what if Trump was wrongly called the "first crypto president"? Does that mean he can "save BTC from closing the year in the red"? What makes you think he has that power?

If you come to assess Bitcoin's safe haven label when it's at the bottom, it surely failed. If you do it some other time, it easily passes the test with flying colors. To be fair, perhaps we should take a few steps back and take a look at Bitcoin's overall performance, not just short time frames.

Of course. The longer you stay in the casino, the more you're hooked on it, and the harder it would be to leave. I think it would be best to set a definite length of time when gambling rather than keep it open.

The risk isn't that you'd be having so much fun you'd completely forget about the time; it's that you'd continue gambling despite not enjoying it anymore. There are many gamblers who aren't excited anymore, already bored, but continue on betting, can't seem to detach themselves from it even if it's supposed to be over.

Bitcoin fork isn't just a possibility, it's a necessity. Bitcoin has to upgrade. Otherwise, it would get stuck and grow obsolete. Surely, Bitcoin at its current state isn't its best version at all times, forever, especially taking into consideration technological developments. For example, when quantum computers finally become a thing in the future, Bitcoin has to adjust. There's most likely a fork.

However, you have to take note that there isn't just one type of fork. There's soft fork--backward compatible upgrades, doesn't require a blockchain split. There's hard fork--non-backward compatible, results into two separate networks. There's even a kind of fork which simply involves just copying Bitcoin's code like Litecoin, although some don't consider it as such.

Their studies are worth reading, although I'm sure it's extremely difficult to establish a direct causation line between exposure to Nintendo game systems as a little kid and becoming, or at least having the potential of becoming, a gambler later in life. It might be a contributing factor, but along with hundreds of others.

Maybe the exchange didn't always have that website or they were founded under a different name. Their website also claims that they have been operating as a cryptocurrency exchange since 2014. More precisely, their about us page says that the company was founded in late 2013. Could it be that they first started as a physical shop in Vietnam (maybe with bitcoin ATMs) and only later expanded and started offering online exchanges?!

I don't know why you have to withdraw CEX from another exchange. You have to hold it on a non-custodial wallet at the end of the day. First of all, you have to choose an exchange that doesn't require high fees, as other members already suggested the names. For me, I have been doing a strategy; I am accumulating Bitcoin as well. I have been receiving payment from the signature campaign to a non-custodial wallet. Since I want to break the transaction, so per month I am moving my money into KuCoin and then from KuCoin to Binance through the BEP20 chain, and it does cost a small amount only.

So finally I withdraw Bitcoin from Binance to my hardware wallet. Likely after 3/4 months I withdraw from Binance. So I don't need to spend a lot of fees to break the connection. So you may purchase from Binance or from another exchange and move to another lower-fee exchange through another chain. Then finally withdraw it to the hardware wallet or a non-custodial wallet through the Bitcoin blockchain. It seems MEXC or OKX charge fewer fees now; you may use them to buy Bitcoin or may use them as mediators to reduce the exchanging and withdrawal fees.

I'm not sure about being risk-free. I don't think there's such a transaction with a third-party that's risk-free.

Anyway, if you want to add another layer of security to your transaction, you might want to consider using BitcoinVN via OrangeFren or Trocador. The former has up to 0.016BTC of BitcoinVN's funds as a guarantee against the service scamming you while the latter insures BitcoinVN transactions 100%. Of course, please do your research. Terms apply.

If people chose Bitcoin as the go-to currency when moving value across borders, then it's a good thing. It's a testament to its usefulness and practicality. However, as true for the rest of neutral tools, it could be used by both good and bad actors.

To emphasize, to make it a headline, or to highlight only its use by a few bad apples is obvious nitpicking just to discredit it. That's an old bitter way to try give Bitcoin a bad name. We're in 2026 already. If it didn't work more than a decade ago, it won't now.

Also, Bitcoin is transparent. Moreover, its transaction history is public and immutable. In which case, Bitcoin is even helpful to the authorities in finding clues as to the identities of the criminals.

Years from now, Bitcoin would hit $1,000,000 and corrects all the way to $300,000, and you would still panic about its impending death.

They're probably ok with the terms. What wasn't ok was that they weren't paid. But, well, the implied risks must be deemed part and parcel of the terms.