Cryptocurrencies are for all, from Bitcoin to altcoins. Altcoins themselves in full names are alternate or alternative cryptocurrencies.

There are many differences between Bitcoin and altcoins which are abundant in numbers as hundreds of thousands, in names from Bitcoin forks to Ethereum forks, and from noisy nicknames like Bitcoin killers or Ethereum killers.

Their difference is from project purposes like most altcoins were created to scam, and they succeeded to scam people while don't create anything new, innovative or helpful for people.

Difference is also like Bitcoin has still survived well, and not only this it also grown up stronger with time despite of a half of thousand of "Bitcoin is dead".
While altcoins don't need such attacks, they self-die, automatically die with time as scammers from the start did not intend to stay too long time with scam projects.

https://bitcoindeaths.com/

I think the weight of the superficial/new investor group should go down over time. As bigger as the stake of these Bitcoiners become, the more they will listen to Bitcoin "influencers". And that's where they should learn. Thus yes, the influencers / leaders of opinion are strong factor. But a bit of that process is also "automatic", I think.

The problem for me is more the group that knows about Bitcoin but actively uses it for volatility driven profit. These traders know that Bitcoin has potential to be a global money, but they see currently more profit in riding the waves and leveraged trading. So they also tend to try to influence newer Bitcoiners, making them believe that Bitcoin is mostly a short term game.

The "task" for "the community" would thus be to try to drive newer Bitcoiners away from the "short-termers" and direct them to the "long-termers".

Of course. And many answers here prove it ... That's a bit the goal of this thread, to try to find ways to break out of that vicious cycle.

Apart from DCA & long term focusing ("eternally increasing" 200-week SMA, for example): One thing I think is simple enough to emphasize even to short-term and "profit-driven" investors is that the "contrarian" approach (buy when there is blood in the streets) has had the highest ROI in the bitcoin space. It has worked all the time. If you bought BTC at <50% of its previous ATH, 3-4 years later you always got massive returns.

This kind of "bottom fishing" is a kind of short term investment that would lead to more stability (if it was more massive) and thus help the "safe haven" narrative.

Yep. I still wonder which is the best strategy, try to refute them or ignore them? Trolls should normally not be fed, but the problem is when they are fed by the wrong people (well-intended Bitcoiners who don't have good arguments and/or lack the knowledge to refute the troll, or directly other trolls or spammers) then the troll could convince some newbie readers that his fake arguments as superior.

Maybe it's not bad to start new threads to counter the troll threads. We may need a 2.0 version of "Rebuttals to Bitcoin Myths". Perhaps even self-moderated if the trolls are too persistent.

That's exactly an example for the chicken and egg problem Satofan44 mentioned ... and if the community was following this reasoning, it would never happen (and probably eventually get into massive problems i.e. into a long term bear market).

See answer to Darker45. The more people know that the short term oriented narratives are weaker (most people lose with Bitcoin short term trades, while contrarian and long term traders have always won until now), the more these influences will lose audience. And they may even switch to a long term oriented narrative themselves if it brings them more profit (regarding advertising income, subscribers etc.).

The name of that thing is a charity. If you run a charity, you run a charity and people can donate to you. But there is no company that doesn't aim at making more profit.

Even those companies that say "10% of the proceedings goes to charities", are saying "give us so much money that we would be able to afford using some of that for donations. The entire idea of a business is to profit, and if you do not aim at that, then we are going to end up seeing those companies end up failing and doing a bad job and then bankrupting.

Worlds apart?
Bitcoin is the essence of capitalism!

You have capital, you can buy coins, you have nada, you can't buy a thing.
There is no wealth redistribution; there is no percentage fee, there is no kill the rich stuff.
You transfer 1 million just as you transfer 10 cents, everyone pays the same, not according to their wealth or something!

There is no Bernie or AOC telling you you should send coins to the ones that don't have any, you can destroy your coins, you can send them to whoever you want, it's the essence of a free market with no commie control.

Give me one feature of Bitcoin that isn't the reflaction of capitalism!
Can you mine it without capital? Can you own it without capital?


Well, a 6-pack or two bottles of whiskey might make it happen!

Perhaps a chicken and egg problem we find ourselves in again? As Bitcoin is not widely perceived as a safe haven, more people are reacting to it in that specific ways further emphasizing that it is not. On the other hand, were it already seen this way more people would react to it that way. The community can definitely help with that, every bit of education helps. However, pay attention to individual idiots on this forum and you can see how terrible the situation already is. There have been countless threads of pure misinformation and they keep coming, how Bitcoin is not being used widely or LN either, and then that naturally makes the discussion reduce to Bitcoin's utility only being as an investment vehicle making it speculative. When this happens from forum members who are "supposed to be Bitcoiners", thanks theymos, then you can imagine the state in the real world. A double edged sword of letting any idiot say whatever they want no matter how wrong it is is that they are able to spread their infection onto other people.

Most people in the world are stupid, that includes the majority of people that you know (regardless of whether it includes you or not) so this would be accurate.

But the thing with Teofimo Lopez is that he hasn't KO'ed opponents yet when he move up to the 140-lb division, his power for me is questionable but you are right, between the two Lopez has the edge of ring IQ. Personally, i'm leaning more to Rolly Romero in this fight if the odds is juicy enough then i would go for him. Romero needs just be patient and time his counter and hopefully he could hurt Teo early in the rounds because that would prevent him to be aggressive and filed points.

Oyarzabal does not make great impacts on his team like what Messi does with Argentina. Oyarzabal is only a player in Spanish system and he can be replaced while Messi is a core player in Argentina squad and it's like all players in Argentina look at Messi for his magic. Many matches, many times during World Cup 2026, Messi saved Argentina and brought the team to wins. He only needs one more excellent match to help Argentina winning a third World Cup title, and a second one in his international career.

Oyarzabal has zero chance to win Ballon d'Or against Messi this year, he is not at Messi level and his performances in World Cup 2026 are not better than Messi's.

Accepted. Wear signature code and avatar please.

No open spots.