Trust about what? I'm not doing what others tell me anyway, I have my head on my shoulders. I can listen to people's opinions, but I have the ability to agree or disagree with it.

How can I not believe it, I have owned bitcoin almost 9 years. Maybe there are many more than me and maybe they are also trying to improve like me. If you look at hisori, then I think it's not just a matter of decentralization. Many of them are attracted because of their value. Many new people are coming in trying to improve economic conditions.

I hold Bitcoin and I currently believe it can achieve better value. The crypto industry has changed as more than just a means of transfer but as a moneymaker.

While there are certain ideologies that make more sense with Bitcoin than others, Bitcoin unites people from all sides of the political spectrum, actually, and I think that even on this forum we can see how diverse opinions can be. Even if someone adheres to libertarianism, for instance, which may go naturally well with Bitcoin, it doesn't mean being anti-government because you might actually be a part of government and support the minimal state conception of it (like Argentina's President). Also, being against the Central bank is different from being against banks in general.
I think a matter of trust depends more on one's usual approach than on ideology. I'm a pretty trusting person, so I sort of have a default trust for other people until they prove me wrong. But that doesn't mean I'd share access to my accounts or disclose certain private information to those people. It's just basic background trust as a lack of distrust, and I have it both for Bitcoin holders and non-holders.

Who says bitcoin is anti-government? It's just our freedom to hold assets without a third party, which means it's not anti-government even though on the contrary there are governments that are anti-bitcoin but I don't care about that so far the government still supports bitcoin even though it is a commodity asset.

At least in my country bitcoin is not banned, it is even taxed in every transaction on the CEX.

Of course trusting Holder bitcoin, this is already some know I hold and has produced a high ROI meaning that there are still many people gaining confidence in bitcoin can change their lives.
So I will stay in the bitcoin circle to keep holding.

I would trust him if I knew the Bitcoin holders around me. If not, I wouldn't believe it, especially if I had never met him. Bitcoin is not anti-government and neither is it anti-bank. But even though the government cannot control Bitcoin, Bitcoin can go hand in hand with Fiat. We use Bitcoin and Fiat at the same time as Bitcoin to complement the shortcomings of Fiat. I am not anti-government or anti-bank and know that people who use Bitcoin are also not anti-government and anti-bank, especially those around me who still use banks.

Can you explain to us how bitcoin is "anti-government"? Because I can't seem to understand what you mean. In no part of bitcoin does it go against government. It doesn't break any government laws, it's just a coins and an asset. It's actually government that's against Bitcoin.
I hold bitcoin and I don't see how I'm against the government. I'm not breaking any laws by holding bitcoin. I would only be breaking any law when the government put a law against holding bitcoin.
Even the decentralised nature of bitcoin isn't against the government because there's no law against it.

I really hope you know what you are saying, when you say anti banks, I will agree with you fully but when you said Anti government, I will agree with you partially because there are some fiscal policies the government make that the banks are using to control the people and that's privacy concern, other than that Bitcoin is anti Bank and complete does the opposite of what Banks are doing and doesn't really have anything to with how governments does their things.


Wait a minute, do you think that if the government own more 70% of the circulating supply, you think they will sell? Hell no, that's exactly what they want and they don't have it. If they have the opportunity to hold that amount, regulation of Bitcoin becomes simple to implement and miners wouldn't have choice than to agree with every of their decisions. Some of the seek road Bitcoin that were seize by US government aren't sold till today, don't you think they have plan for holding those Bitcoins.

I am a BTC holder and I trust myself because I don't trust banks and some governments. Situation is not the same everywhere, like in my place the main state bank of our country made the statement that they are not responsible for the money people store in their banks. I was like then who is responsible. And how you (banks) can say such things. Till then I never stored my funds in banks. Most of them are in BTC or other alts. I know it can be problematic if I won't save my funds in fiat like in time of high fluctuations.

But I hope I will be saved as fluctuations are not permanent. They will end at last. My point here is, even if it promotes anti-government, or banks, it also made them realize that they can't loot or play with people's money anymore. BTC has reminded them there reputations and place. Now they will be playing within there boundaries. Many are even adopting it (governments and banks both). So its a two way road, one way is adopting while other is opposing. I think we should look at the bright side.

It's a rhetorical question, it's that simple, right?  they are a part not the whole, and that hodl percentage, although it is quite high/important in bitcoin, and consequently the trend, is only determined in volume, that is, we trust the community. Therefore, some holders are there for years, others for an indefinite period of time, it is a cycle/users-holders.