Half the calls shared in crypto groups never seem to come with any proof that the person actually took the trade.

Been using Towns for group chats and it got me thinking about how useful it'd be to have a bot showing actual trades alongside the calls people post.

Would you trust that more or does seeing someone's wallet not really change much?

We put together a short video breaking down Solana's Alpenglow upgrade — 150ms finality, the consensus overhaul, and what it means for the ecosystem. Do you think it's finally time for Solana to drop the “mainnet-beta” label? https://youtu.be/2x08IoAG9ds

Who uses Tangem?
I’m eyeing the ring.

I’m not going to have thousands in my accounts
But, I do like the Visa card there coming out with.

Has anyone had any problems?

Can you tell me about content creation platforms that utilise build in system of cryptos that rewards content creators for their activity?

And I mean those who actually have some users and run for a while now without backlash or other issues.

Not experimental or just arrived, but a little proven to run for a while and people are satisfied in using it and has a good general stance on the market.

• Currently: Swapping crypto for crypto isn’t taxed until you cash out.
• New idea: Swapping into a stablecoin like USDC or EURC would count as cashing out.
• Tax: 31.4% on your profit.

Source: https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/crypto/articles/france-just-voted-tax-every-193024723.html

We've been talking about crypto going mainstream for years but I have no idea how many people use it to buy stuff.

Anyone here paying for everyday things with crypto or is it mostly just holding and trading?

In 2018, a Bitcoin Core bug could have allowed a miner to create coins outside Bitcoin’s issuance rules.

The rule was clear. Affected software could fail to enforce it.

That’s the part missing from most conversations about “21 million.”

Bitcoin’s scarcity depends on independently operated nodes correctly rejecting blocks that break its rules—even when someone constructs an input developers never anticipated.

Now, a researcher’s Bitcoin model has matched Core across 100,000 test executions covering selected transaction behaviors.

Encouraging progress. But the hardest question remains:

How do you prove that your mathematical model describes the Bitcoin people actually run?

You can prove a model correct and still model the wrong thing.

My latest article explains the research, what those tests establish, and three questions every Bitcoin holder should ask about claims of “mathematically proven” security.

Bitcoin’s 21 million limit doesn’t enforce itself.

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

Chasing random token callouts never worked out well since the liquidity usually vanishes within an hour. Decided to stop watching random tickers and just pick a couple of consistent wallets to follow.

The routine got old fast. constantly jumping between social feeds, chat groups, and block explorers just to spot when they make a move turns into a massive time sink.

Was looking at how different tracking setups handle wallet notifications, like setting up custom filters in Alphio or similar tools to cut down the noise. It forces a pretty specific question about what data actually matters.

If you guys follow specific trading wallets, do you focus more on tracking their initial buy entries, or are you mostly watching for their profit taking exits?

Bank of America missed or delayed reporting more than $5 BILLION in suspicious activity.

Its anti-money-laundering penalty? $1.2 billion.

Tell me again why Bitcoin is the problem.

But the most revealing number isn’t either of those.

It’s 750.

That’s how many additional personnel the bank estimated it would need to handle investigations after changing its monitoring thresholds.

The bank had customer identities. Transaction records. Monitoring software.

Yet collecting information didn’t guarantee anyone would act on it.

To be clear: suspicious activity isn’t proven money laundering. And banking failures don’t erase Bitcoin’s risks.

But they demolish one comfortable assumption:

“Regulated” doesn’t automatically mean “effectively supervised.”

Before demanding more visibility into everyone’s money, shouldn’t institutions demonstrate that they can act on what they already know?

Your identity can be verified. Your transactions can be monitored. Your account can be controlled.

None of that guarantees accountability.

Been following WAL for a while now, and I’m starting to wonder if we’ve finally found a bottom.
It’s been pretty painful watching it drop from $0.067, but the 4H chart is starting to look a little better. MACD just turned positive, RSI is recovering, and we’re seeing some green candles again.
I’m looking at $0.042–0.047 as the next area to watch. If we manage to get through that, maybe $0.055 isn’t completely unrealistic.
Volume is still pretty disappointing though, which makes me a bit cautious.
I’m holding for now. Just curious if anyone else is watching WAL and what you guys think. Is this actually turning around or are we getting another fake bounce?

Bitcoin and other established cryptocurrencies are rather their own financial systems on the blockchains, seperate from TradFi, with their products and cases more than they are investments for gains. Argue me on this.

I’m talking about anything related to crypto in any sense - trading, blockchain itself, scams, the community, the way projects are run, or anything else.

What’s the one thing you wish could be changed or fixed in the crypto world?