The trustee hasn't laid any definite dates on when he liquidated those huge amount of coins, and no, it's not believable that he only moved these coins and not sold it because the trail is there, and why would he be moving it if the address needs to be monitored since it's needed to pay off their creditors? His stories are not panning out, and whether he admits it or not, the market has obviously crashed due to those coins being sold.

Not a pessimist but ir would definitely gain more attention if people could buy something more useful in their daily lives rather than seeing another magnate/organization buying a historical piece of art using bitcoins. People would only get interested in a certain event intimately if they could somehow relate into the current events, in this case a purchase of a good. Sadly, only a handful of merchants--most of which are confined in the cyberspace--exists that accept bitcoins gladly as a form of payment. Nonetheless, this also shows bitcoin's prowess to buy something extremely valuable in history which is a good thing.

It's quite surprising that instead of complying, Binance just chose to move borders which would be a lot of hassle to do so for a business that big. Japan is already a crypto-friendly nation yet Binance chose to walk away and seek refuge to a foreign country. Anyways, details about their services, primarily the currency they'll deal with and servicing country is still unknown at this point in time as their management haven't released a single statement about the changes the company might undertake upon moving. Usually if it moves to a new country, a lot of features would be revamped, alongside the ToS and other legal things that the exchange is catering/dealing with. So as of now, it's safe to say that it would somehow favor the Westerners in the move to Malta.

The anonymity feature isn't going to kill bitcoin. What's going to kill bitcoin is the unfair regulations it will be receiving and the continuous oppression of the uninformed media about the said cryptocurrency. The feature of anonymity alone isn't really harmful for bitcoin's growth, but the color the media painted bitcoin giving the public a distaste to this feature that was once praised by people. Little do these brainwashed people know that fiat is also anonymous, especially when the deal is made behind closed doors as there would be no trail whatsoever to follow in the event of fraud and illegal trades.

Bitcoin is being used as a real currency by some people right now and it fulfills its duty flawlessly with a few couple hiccups here and there (confirmation times and fluctuating fees, most of the time). However as a national currency, it wouldn't be effective and practical since you need a lot more than just being able to use it in exchange for goods and having value. Having said that, bitcoin may be good as a medium of exchange, but it isn't an all-rounder IMO.

Before cex.io became a full-blown cryptocurrency exchange, they'd been around as a cloud mining service wherein you can buy and sell your hashing power to other users. It lasted for several years and never had a problem with them, even when they transitioned into an exchange. As for binance, I've used them a lot of times and they seem to be a decent exchange for cryptocurrencies. Arguably one of the best exchanges around and the support team doesn't take weeks to reply in your concerns (if ever you have one, lol). The recent rumors about the said exchange don't seem to change the users' opinion on how good this exchange is.

It could play the part of a reserve currency mixed with other important assets, only if volatility isn't as wild as it always is. We can point our fingers to the open cryptocurrency market for such volatility, but that's how far we can go; we can't control volatility itself since that power is beyond us--or doesn't even exist. Another thing is whether countries are willing to accept it as a part of their reserves or not. If there'd be a few countries to choose bitcoin as one of their reserves, it would be pointless to hold it since they only have limited options to use that reserve for in case they'd be needing it.

What does gender anything to do with owning cryptocurrency? If there's a large percentage of people owning crypto in a certain country, that already speaks volumes: people are trying to cope with this innovation regardless of gender, and are trying to make something work out of their fucked up country lol. Since you opened up the gender talks, men always tend to take huge risks compared to women, and that fact is greatly described by the stats you posted. Another interesting fact would be the age of the population involved in cryptocurrencies since they'd be the ones continuing this whole thing in the future.

A nice idea, though quite unsure whether this would fuel the price for a push given that Wall Street's involvement with crypto is already there, we just don't know how "involved" these institutional investors are or whether they'd be interested to get involved deeper. Linking the money of Wall Street to crypto means that the government would surely make some regulations to benefit their end; definite taxation rules regarding crypto would just linger around the corner, and the crypto market would 'mature' since it would be highly regulated in case Wall Street dived into it fully.


I think this would be a different scheme, or could just be another exchange or another broker which would just make things for these institutional investors easier to put their money on the crypto market.

You can't generalize bitcoin's legality as it differs from country to country just like what you've said. Some considers it legal tender, others don't acknowledge it and the rest are just neutral about the said cryptocurrency. Use case as of this current time is limited to being a speculative asset and a form of payment, though the latter isn't evidently being practiced as there are only a few merchants and services who accept it as a payment.

Bitcoin is being used in illicit activities as early as 2012 if I'm not mistaken, usually by drug dealers on the now-defunct Silk Road and other types of services and contrabands in the said black market. It's also one of the reasons why some governments can't simply just accept it, simoly because they see that money laundering and illegal deals can use bitcoin as their medium which is already hard to trace.

They wouldn't be changing their stance against cryptocurrencies anytime sooner, as it seems that the Indonesian government are somewhat keen on preventing money laundering and illegal trades happening in their soil with bitcoin as the medium. But the way I see it, the number of bitcoin users in Indonesia is growing day by day, as attested by their local board in here and circulating news from the web. Also, we need to understand that there are differences between each statements of the government. In this case, they simply just don't recognize the crypto as a form of legal payment, but that doesn't mean they would ban it or it is illegal to use it, so there's still a possibility that the Indonesian government would reconsider their stance.

Fair wealth distribution isn't going to happen in all of our lifetimes. It might exist in a Utopian society which I think, is just another fantasy of authors and writers and would never happen no matter how many catastrophic events unfold in the future that would force us to unite together. Also, if there would be a fair distribution of wealth, I for one think that all work would be halted and there would be no merchants and consumers as everyone would just be holding into their dear coins as if it's their whole life. Such a scenario is 'comforting' to think about but in a real-world situation, this is undesirable and would never pan out.

Personally, I think these celebrities are just riding the wave of the crypto craze to make themselves somehow relevant yet again on the scene, or to make a buzz on their dying careers. So far I haven't seen a single celebrity who really knows what he/she's talking about, and much of them clearly just memorized things off of a script when explaining the benefits of cryptocurrency and what kind of things can it do to help people in their financial status. I would still listen to a relatively unknown person with lots of experiences at hand and a proven track record rather than a celebrity who just reads things off a script and spew nonsense to make his/her advocacy believable.

One reason I see is because merchants also don't want to receive payment in bitcoins, either, so this is some kind of a stalemate from the consumers and producers since neither doesn't want to make the first move. True that the currency aspect of bitcoin is trailing behind its speculative nature, but if there were more merchants willing to accept this currency--not just confined into online stores but brick and mortar stores included--then there is a possibility that this would be used widely by people who have them and looking for alternatives that are cheap and convenient at the same time.

No, but for sure a lot of traders, especially the bears would use this to their advantage in order to get some form of momentum in trading. These type of news only reappears in a couple of years after the people's attention is shifted toward other things. Child porn existed even without the blockchain and is darn evident in the dark web. People are paying hundreds of dollars (take note, dollars) for these type of videos yet the media hasn't covered any type of reports for that one. Talk about unbiased reporting, lol. This would soon be forgotten until the media would find another recycled news to FUD again.

That would be a long way from where we are right now, seeing that there is no definite trend that exists right now and everyone is just playing the guessing games on the market. These ups and downs seem to be a good indicator that the market is somehow getting matured and are straying away from the hands of whale manipulators and such. The price is still entirely speculative but knowing that the price isn't artificial right now, as opposed to the run in 2013 just feels too good to ignore. A steady climb with some setbacks is good and natural IMO and is a favorable one rather than a fast and steep appreciation in value.

Not surprising at all, seeing that the general public sentiment leans towards the banning of these cryptocurrency ads which often leads to losses from investors that didn't do their research. These companies tend to use these situations into their favor, so this recent move by Snapchat is by no means a no-brainer given that the public may applaud them for doing the right thing alongside Google and Facebook. Surely bitcoin's price might suffer short-term, but the bright side is that this recent move might prevent further blames from the public that cryptocurrencies, especially bitcoins, are just scams masked by 'technological innovations'.

I wouldn't be surprised if the NSA did this since they really love to snoop into the personal affairs and things of people. They're connected with multi-billion dollar companies that could aid them in their schemes and to get private user info to use for whatever purpose it may deem useful to them. If the hijacking of internet traffic to gather bitcoin users' info began in 2013, then there is a possibility that a huge percent of the users' identity are now at risk since it's only a matter of time before another 'leak' into these databases would occur. If they really intent to use the data to hunt down money launderers, then I hope that data would put into good use as those information could be used against the users' once it's been leaked on the internet.

In the case of a server, yes, it can be remotely placed from wherever your operations are headquartered, but in the case of bitcoin miners, you really need to think hard for it since this would be your money-making machine, and if you are being overwhelmed by the amount of work needed to get your operations going without a hitch, then maybe bitcoin mining isn't just for you to take your profits on.


You've pretty much contradicted yourself in the first paragraph lol. Cloud mining is a great business model if there'd be loads of users wanting to overpay for a service that doesn't guarantee them money in return. This is great for the mining operators however for its peers and users, it isn't economical and they're just giving money away. That's why we've distanced ourselves from cloud mining since we only pay these operators so they can expand their operations but the reward for us is nil.


Because the machines and staffs are non-existent; most of these cloud mining services are ponzi schemes riding the hysteria of bitcoin to generate them money. Imagine being locked-up in a contract with 'hashing power' which you cannot sell if you want to and will give you pennies in return, for a year, less the mining costs and maintenance fees. You're being robbed at in the light of day yet you are willing to give your money to your robbers.


None.

Addresses would be your friend in finding account farmers taking advantage of several campaigns they are enrolled to. Aside from that, the posting history, alongside posting patterns can be used against them, too. And with the recent introduction of the merit system, some users are using this as well in order to get their accounts ranked up, so you can use that as well. Alt accounts are allowed in this forum, though it is highly discouraged, too, seeing that these accounts can be used to perpetrate scams and abuse the system as well.

As for campaigns, it is the duty of their respective campaign managers to check out for alternate accounts enrolled on the said campaign. You can report them or red tag them, but as long as you don't have proof, or the person isn't doing anything harmful, you can't do that.