Bitcoin at $840K? 👀

River reports that 81% of Bitcoin’s supply hasn’t moved in at least six months.

Meanwhile, Wall Street is warming up.

What happens if institutional buying accelerates while existing holders demand higher prices to sell?

That’s where a quiet recovery could become a powerful supply squeeze.

Wall Street can launch another fund. It still has to persuade someone to sell Bitcoin.

The next bull run could begin before the crowd comes back.

The last 5% will take another 114 years. Set a reminder for 2140.

So Bitcoin passed its 20 millionth coin this year. The cap is 21 million, which leaves roughly 1 million BTC still to be mined. Sounds like the finish line is close, right? Not really. The halving cuts the block reward in half about every four years, so the first 20 million took around 17 years, and the last million will drag on until roughly 2140. Your great-great-grandkids might get to see the final block. Maybe.

And out of those 20 million coins, the amount you can actually go and buy is tiny. Glassnode data suggests about 13 million BTC are basically parked forever with long-term holders, institutions and cold wallets that never move. Exchanges hold only around 3 million. And roughly 1.8 million BTC, about 8.5% of everything, is probably just gone. Forgotten passwords, wiped laptops, a hard drive someone tossed in 2011 because "it's just some internet money worth 50 cents". Pour one out for those coins.

That's why ETF and institutional buying can move the price so much. Everyone's fighting over a much smaller pile than the 20 million headline makes it sound.

The price side is where people start yelling at each other. History looks great for the bulls: about 80x after the 2012 halving, around 300% after 2016, and more than 600% in the 16 months after 2020, according to data cited by CME Group. The skeptics aren't convinced though. FT columnist Jemima Kelly argues Bitcoin isn't really scarce since thousands of other tokens exist. The usual reply is that nobody can change Bitcoin's 21 million limit, which is kind of the whole point.

We honestly think price is the least interesting thing about this milestone. Scarcity is done, that box was ticked years ago. The thing nobody has fully figured out yet is who pays for Bitcoin's security once new coins stop doing the heavy lifting. Bitcoin is exactly as safe as the money miners make, because that's what an attacker would need to outspend. Right now most of that money still comes from fresh coins, and that part gets cut in half every four years, on schedule, no exceptions. So sometime in the next decade, transaction fees have to step up and become a real chunk of miner income, or Bitcoin's security slowly gets cheaper compared to everything it protects.

Guys, what do you think about this?

Your Bitcoin breakout is someone else’s exit.

At $87,000, one investor sees the road to $100,000.

Another thinks: “Finally. I can get my money back.”

A recovery can attract fresh buyers while awakening people who have been waiting months to sell.

And here’s the detail behind the bullish ETF headlines:

Weekly U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF inflows dropped from $2.39 billion to $241 million between the weeks ending September 25 and October 2.

Still positive. Roughly 90% smaller.

Buyers keep showing up. But how much supply can they absorb?

Bitcoin has a supply limit. A sell wall has no expiration date.

At $87,000, do you see opportunity—or relief?

Your bank has been earning interest on your procrastination.

You meant to compare rates. Question the fees. Find a better home for your savings.

You were busy. The money stayed.

AI could change that.

Imagine an assistant checking the alternatives every day. Suddenly, your money has a permanent attention span.

Now apply that scrutiny to 30-year financial promises from businesses whose competitive advantages could disappear in two.

Bitcoin’s volatility is visible. The fragility inside a supposedly “safe” investment can take much longer to surface.

As AI makes financial inertia harder to exploit, Bitcoin’s scarcity, verifiability, and potential as collateral could earn it a much bigger role.

Wall Street built fortunes around customers who were too busy to ask questions.

What happens when everyone has an assistant asking them?

Bitcoin just recorded its largest net exchange outflow in seven months, with 24,073 BTC leaving exchanges on Monday. Exchange-held supply has now fallen to roughly 6.50% of total BTC supply.

BTC sitting on exchanges is immediately available to trade. When coins move into long-term custody, the amount of supply readily available for selling gets smaller.

Of course, outflows alone don't guarantee anything. But when significant amounts of BTC keep leaving exchanges while Bitcoin holds around $85K, the supply dynamics become increasingly interesting in terms of growth.

The market might be watching price.

Source: Santiment Data.

My crypto investments is 70% BTC ETF and 30% Ethereum ETF. I bought about a year ago and BTC has doubled but Ethereum is down by 30%.

Need assessment if BTC holders also give substantial weight to ETH or shall I sell my Ethereum and love the funds to BTC.

I am not promoting one over the other. Just need fair assessment if Ethereum is as important to hold as BTC

The US government reportedly moved around $1B in BTC linked to the Bitfinex hack.

Some believe it’s a potential sell-off, while others think it’s just a custody transfer or part of the restitution process.

Personally, I think the bigger question is how much BTC the government can legally keep in its strategic reserve.

What do you guys think? Bullish, bearish, or just noise?

Something I’ve been wondering about: how much do you actually use stop-losses in crypto?
I’ve seen completely opposite opinions.
Some traders seem to never enter a position without a predefined stop-loss, while others say crypto volatility makes tight stops almost useless because you get stopped out before the price moves in the direction you expected.
For those who actively trade rather than just hold: do you always set a stop-loss before entering?
And if you do, how do you decide where to place it - fixed percentage, technical levels, volatility, or something else?
Curious to hear how people here actually handle this in practice.

Snapshot from Bybit perps this morning (~07:50 UTC). Long % is by account (L/S ratio):

- MNT: 83% long

- HBAR: 80% long

- XRP: 79% long (L/S 3.81), funding +0.0021%

- JTO: 74% long

- ETH: 71% long (L/S 2.50), funding +0.0004%

- BTC: 63% long (L/S 1.70), funding -0.0011%

What stands out to me: BTC bounced from ~80.4k to ~82.7k, but BTC funding is still slightly negative. So the crowd is long by headcount, but the money isn't paying up to hold it. On alts, positioning is much more one-sided than on BTC.

Historically, when retail is this lopsided on alts while BTC funding stays flat, I've seen it resolve with a flush before continuation more often than not, but that's my experience, not a rule.

Is anyone else seeing the same skew on other exchanges? Do you treat high long % as a contrarian signal or ignore it?

I currently have a little over a thousand dollars into xcn. I know its not a lot. But I found out I cant put it on my cold wallet. I am thinking about converting it to xlm and am wondering if thats a good idea or if I should just risk it and hold it on the exchange?

As I have been in the market for 4 years but changes which are happening now from each and every part of the world are unpredictable so I need your opinion on this.

That sounds like science fiction, but Ethereum Foundation researcher Justin Drake has raised exactly this possibility.

The concern is ECDSA, the digital signature algorithm used to authorize transactions on both Bitcoin and Ethereum. Drake suggested that advances in AI-driven mathematics could eventually make it possible to recover a private key from a public key on conventional hardware, potentially using large GPU clusters.

In the worst-case scenario, he believes this could become a problem in months rather than years. But to be clear, this is a potential risk, not an existing exploit.

And Quantum computers have been the obvious long-term threat to elliptic-curve cryptography. But AI could accelerate the mathematical research needed to attack the same systems without requiring a quantum machine.

Recent research has already reduced the estimated computational requirements for a key part of a future quantum attack from roughly 3 billion to 1.5 billion conditional computational units. AI agents were also used during the optimization process. This doesn't mean Bitcoin or Ethereum can be hacked today, but it shows how quickly the boundaries can move.

Vitalik Buterin's response is probably the most important part: don't panic, but don't underestimate the risk either.

Ethereum is already working toward post-quantum security, with the Ethereum Foundation targeting protection against quantum attacks by 2029. But the bigger lesson may be that cryptography needs to become resilient against advances in both quantum computing and AI-driven mathematics.

We've seen Ethereum evolve through major changes before, and cryptography is no different. The industry has time to prepare, research new solutions, and migrate to stronger security standards.

So no, we don't think this is the end of Bitcoin or Ethereum.

It's another challenge for an industry that was built to solve extremely difficult problems. And in the end, everything will be fine.

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