I agree. It's scary, and I'd say it's a really good thing that there doesn't seem to be much news about governments abusing cryptocurrency regulatory ambiguity. For this case specifically, they do seem to be trying to develop a framework:

https://vietnamnews.vn/economy/420644/vn-needs-cryptocurrency-laws.html#yJkWth4dtkQxKyvr.97

...but that's the latest update and that was 7 months ago, so the Vietnamese crypto community still needs to take extra care of their activities.

I personally think that's just because the earliest (and consequently, most influential) enthusiasts were predominantly libertarian. He did release the original white paper in a cryptography mailing list which is why the first members of the community were cypherpunks and, I'm guessing, were somewhat inclined towards libertarianism. I do find your observation to be true though.


Well I think Bitcoin will at least continue to build on its existing niches as money of the internet and as a tool for cross-border payments. It's been proven that it can be used in lieu of a credit card or Paypal, after all, and it's apparently very useful for global remittances. I'm not sure if it will ever be suited for point of sale transactions (and neither do I think that it needs to be, considering the rise of e-commerce), but the maturity of the Lightning Network may make that possible. It's also been playing a minor role as a reserve currency for domestic unrest, something it can do much better in the future once the market gets large and stable enough. I'd probably be happy enough with just that.

Barring the rise of an out of left field, revolutionary breakthrough in technology that can render it obsolete in every major way, I believe Bitcoin is the future of cryptocurrencies.

Looks like this is a perfect opportunity for a popular satoshi quote:


Date is off by about two years, but it's still relevant. Large transaction volumes are already being handled at the moment so it's far and away the likelier scenario, but I'd say his statement is still going to hold true for the next decade.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I feel like stories like this also improve optimism that the community and adoption is growing. It may also encourage outsiders to dip their toes for whatever reason they may have. Some users don't particularly have high opinions on speculators, but I'd say speculators are one step closer to being actual Bitcoin users than those who don't own any at all (most of them do trade and experience the technology first-hand), and are thus still good for the community and adoption.

I see where you're coming from too. Talking about nothing but the price could encourage some bad practices and even worse mentality. We can't really stop that from happening though, so we might as well embrace it and look at the bright side.

Lol the only element missing for him to be committing actual money laundering is illegal activities from the 2nd person's end. A case could be made that the person simply don't want anything to be traced back to him, anonymity yada yada, but a 10% commission? Ridiculously fishy.

OP, if you don't mind, how much money is involved here? I'm guessing the first transaction is fairly low because it ended up being a test?

Yeah, SMS authentication has been exposed as a weak form of 2FA for a while now. Besides the method you've said, they can also be intercepted a number of ways:

https://www.howtogeek.com/310418/why-you-shouldnt-use-sms-for-two-factor-authentication/

As the article noted, however, some form of protection is still protection. This telco phishing attack, for one, likely won't work if you don't overshare on social media and/or if you don't give your details away to shit ICOs, barring a data leak from a trusted service. That's just one of the many reasons you should try your best to protect your identity.

I've actually observed that the Bitcoin as an alternative to fiat future theory is pretty popular. I think the same way, and when I talk about it there always seem to be people who agree with me.

The only ones who truly believe Bitcoin will replace everything are the hardcore libertarians who believe that fiat is a scam and that global banking will fail. I don't find anything wrong with their belief, of course, but the predominantly libertarian Bitcoin community of the past has since been diluted by the entry of speculators, enthusiasts, etc., so they're probably in the minority nowadays.

The belief probably seems more popular than it actually is in this forum because post-padders that do nothing but talk up Bitcoin like to parade it a lot on one-line posts. They may actually truly believe it, but most of the time it just sounds like hivemind talk echoing from the past. That's just from my observation though.

I don't know if you're already looked through the internet or if you really want to do this by yourself, but data about this already exist:

https://www.investopedia.com/news/are-bitcoin-price-and-equity-markets-returns-correlated/

There are a lot more, and the consensus seems to be that there is some correlation. As for your original question, I would think that the entry of institutional investors would only serve to increase correlation. It really hasn't happened en masse yet, so you could probably still use Bitcoin as a hedge against the stock market right now, but probably not for much longer. It's pretty sad if you think about it.

Is this really the case? This particular study was released by the Economic Policy Institute, an American non-profit organization based on Washington, DC. It is also covered by American news media, as shown by these examples:

http://fortune.com/2018/08/16/ceo-salary-pay-workers-gap/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/08/16/embargo-hold-am-tomorrow-morning-ceo-pay-jumps-million-annually-fears-mount-over-wealthy-pocketing-gains/
https://www.businessinsider.com/ceo-pay-2017-vs-average-us-worker-2018-8

I feel like news media outlets everywhere simply cover everything they can get their hands on, and observations like yours may simply be a case of confirmation bias. I mean, I've heard of propagandas against other countries, but I always thought they were restricted to authoritarian countries that have full control of the media like China or North Korea. I've never heard of (mostly reputable) US news media outlets intentionally attacking Europe and vice versa. I'm not saying it's not happening, just that I've never really observed it.

Lmao what the hell is going on with Venezuela? Petro isn't even accessible to most of their citizens, with minimum purchase prices set at 50 euros for crypto transactions and 1000 euros for bank transfers. They can't even be bought with Bolivars ffs lol. Now they're basically printing that?

I'm not opposing any plans for a crypto central bank, but all this will be is a failed precedent. It may even shine a bad light on crypto. I do hope something works though. Their people don't deserve this.

The OP's article's source isn't the popular UK Daily Post itself, but a local Californian Daily Post:


I found the source article (Palo Alto Daily Post) though I have no idea why they don't simply link their sources. Here it is:

https://padailypost.com/2018/08/15/federal-courts-now-accepting-cryptocurrency-for-bail/

I also realize that the first bitcoin.com link I've posted earlier in the thread wasn't exactly convincing, so I tried to look for a few more reputable (or well known, at least) sources:

https://gizmodo.com/judge-orders-alleged-ea-games-hacker-to-pay-750-000-ba-1828413591
https://www.cnet.com/news/judge-sets-bail-at-750k-in-cryptocurrency-for-alleged-ea-hacker/
https://www.kotaku.com.au/2018/08/judge-orders-alleged-ea-games-hacker-to-pay-1-million-bail-in-cryptocurrency/ (1 million AUD for the skeptics lol)

I'm glad that everyone is on guard against fake news especially with baffling pieces like this, but it really looks like this happened. Shout outs to the criminals in here lol.

I guess I get the spirit of what you're saying. It's a free market though. Competition leads to innovation and almost always result to positive results for end users. Cryptocurrency technology is very much still in its infancy and it hasn't really had that breakthrough that could penetrate the mainstream. The more teams working on more projects (legit ones of course), the larger the chance of success.

That being said, comparisons are inevitable because of their similarities and each having its own niche. I don't think it's inherently bad either. It's up to the individual's due diligence if he wants to pick something over another.

It seems to be true:

https://news.bitcoin.com/judge-hacker-pay-bail-cryptocurrency/

It's nice that crypto is getting recognition for this, but what some people don't seem to know is that bail shouldn't necessarily be cash:


...so this incident doesn't really have any positive implications for crypto being used and accepted as currency.

It's pretty interesting how the judge requested for crypto specifically though. Maybe she just assumed he had some stashed because he's a hacker? Lol.

Considering the board we're on, I'm going to go ahead and skip the condescension. The answer to this question is tied to one simple economic aspect: market value.

If you bought Bitcoin for $1000, from something/someone, they get your $1000 in fiat, and you get an asset that is worth $1000 in the market. You're not holding $1000, but something that can be sold in the market for $1000. If Bitcoin's market value drops to $0, you still have exactly what it is you paid for, except it's worth less in the market. Your $1000 didn't evaporate into thin air and is staying with the original seller.

It's the same principle if your Bitcoin appreciates. Let's say Bitcoin prices rise to $1200 the next day. You didn't magically gain $200 from nowhere, the asset you're holding (again, your Bitcoin) can simply be sold for $200 more because its market value increased.

What you may be asking is how exactly market value changes. The answer would be different for different assets (for the car example from other posters, you have to consider wear, tear, etc.), but for Bitcoin specifically, the answer mostly lies in the concept of supply and demand. Here is an easy read on the topic.

Make sure you don't lose money on these seminars themselves. There were a lot of them during Bitcoin's bull run and several were cash grabs.

Also, I have to ask, what exactly do you mean by investment? A lot of people just hold theirs long-term and occasionally sell high, then buy low to increase their holdings. The only way you can lose money is if you sell at a loss, and you could always not do that and just wait.

I kind of understand the general apathy towards their own data. They simply don't know any better regarding the potential risks, and it's hard to blame them considering how new all of this internet boom is -- it hasn't even lasted one generation. The concept of protecting your online privacy hasn't even reached the mainstream until a few years ago. Things are starting to change, with websites being open about their privacy policies, etc. so people are bound to wise up as we go along. But yeah, the "nothing to hide nothing to fear" mentality is just stupid.

That being said, I guess it just boils down to trust for those who are informed. I have nothing against sharing your data for as long as you know the potential risks. I just find it funny that people seem to feel like they don't have a choice with KYC, like exchanges are absolutely necessary.

It's real. Ever heard of McAfee? He doesn't exactly charge people for his advice, but he is paid by the projects he promotes. He's the only high profile one crazy enough to admit to it, but I'm sure there are plenty of them in the wild. I wouldn't rule it out even from paid subscriptions.

That being said, this article's author attacks dishonest services while promoting his own and promising to be different. I'm not saying that they aren't legitimate, but make sure you take everything with a grain (or a tablespoon) of salt. Crypto trading is ruthless and you can never really trust anyone completely.

I'd be very skeptical too, but it's real:

https://www.scmp.com/tech/article/2157818/canaan-launches-worlds-first-bitcoin-mining-tv-set

It's certainly absurd, but:


...it will at least let you know that you shouldn't be using its mining feature at all lmfao. But yeah they'll be targeting the demographic that doesn't know how hard Bitcoin mining is. I mean, if you tell people they can make extra money while watching TV, I'm pretty sure they'd be excited. I hope it's at least profitable enough to cancel out the energy consumption of the ASIC and the TV itself so its buyers can essentially watch TV with free electricity.

I don't necessarily support KYC, but I thought I'd point out that KYC/AML is required of any business that carry money laundering risk. It doesn't matter if they deal with fiat or Bitcoin which means it doesn't discriminate against crypto.

It's also targeted towards businesses themselves, not individual people -- meaning anyone can skip it by simply not dealing with businesses that implement them. Let's not forget that Bitcoin was originally meant to be peer-to-peer anyway. KYC/AML will destroy nothing but the convenience of using of an exchange, and even then, there will be some people that won't mind.

Crypto's very foundation lies on decentralization. A centralized body that would make decisions for everyone else is completely against that. Nothing of the sort will ever be formed within the crypto space and I'm sure any attempt would be widely ostracized.

The SEC and other similar government bodies do some of those things, but they're very much outside of the crypto space.