This. If all this financial crisis talk baffles you but you're scared anyway, you may as well start diversifying. All things considered, Bitcoin has a very positive outlook, so you're giving yourself insurance and at the same time positioning yourself for huge profits in the future.

I already do this anyway, but I personally don't think a financial crisis is going to befall us soon. They've been ringing these bells for years, just like Bitcoin FUDers on Bitcoin. I could easily be wrong, of course, but at least I'm protected to some degree.

To be completely fair, it didn't seem like he singled out Samsung lol. It just so happens that the writer of the piece was a Samsung contributor.

And I don't know about this. I feel like a proper PC set up would be safer just because it's more unlikely to get lost or stolen. They can be just as hard to break into with proper precautions.

But yeah, if we're talking about the most secure device for crypto, it has to be hardware wallets and air-gapped wallets. It has to be noted that you can easily set up an air-gapped wallet with a smartphone too lol.

Well it looks like it's mostly good? I mean, there are apparently 1660 items on the list, and only 145 of those are actually being made in the US. We can't just say those 145 items should just be removed either, because we don't know how much of them are actually being made domestically vs. how much is being imported.

Either way, it seems like a net positive for consumers (and maybe businesses which could resale cheaper?) which may explain the unanimous votes, but I guess we won't really know until we see actual figures.

Here's an article on the subject that I've found. It may even be OP's reference:

https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/markets/silver-losing-ground-due-to-weak-currency-rise-in-crypto-currencies-mania-2745521.html

It seemed like the article only mentioned cryptocurrencies because it's a hot topic. It was only mentioned once in the article:


...so basically, it's competing with new investment elements such as, but not necessarily cryptocurrencies. I personally don't believe there's a very strong correlation between the two. It sounds like a knee-jerk reaction over very recent trends to me.

That depends entirely on the worker though. Some people live paycheck to paycheck, and it would make little sense for those people to ask for their wages in crypto. They might as well receive fiat and buy crypto with any leftover money they may have. Still, this is cool. Having more options is usually better than less.

Personally I would rather not receive my wages in crypto simply because it's not as easy to spend yet. I would rather put my savings in crypto rather than a bank though.

Only that they won't be trading actual Bitcoins, so it doesn't really affect Bitcoin adoption directly. Still, it's good for publicity and it's likely really good for prices.

Oh, there's also the possibility that Bitcoin's reputation as an investment would further eclipse its utility, but its utility isn't ready for the mainstream yet anyway, so meh.

There's really nothing inherently bad about it. Everyone was a newbie at some point. If we discriminate against newbies, we might be turning away potentially good members. This is one of theymos' primary considerations regarding his stance against newbie jail.

Anyway, reducing spam this way falls on the shoulders of bounty managers. If no one is paying shitposters to shitpost, they won't have any incentive to continue shitposting. It's really hard to find a solution for this problem without moderating bounties themselves though, which likely won't happen.

People have already said that it's impossible for the most part, but even if we assume that it is, I don't think it will be very attractive. Plenty of coins that can do essentially the same things as Bitcoin but with lower fees have been in the market for a while now, but that obviously isn't enough to get them to switch. Fees are also dirt cheap under normal conditions (which improvements are trying to maintain indefinitely) that paying them is essentially negligible, and that you may as well have a way to help your transactions confirm faster.

Bottom line is that Bitcoin is popular for the sum of its parts, not just individual parts.

Well you could still buy peer-to-peer with no repercussions, so it's not like the market is closed off. If a person's intention is to HODL as soon as possible, they can still go that route.

That being said, until there are definite plans in place, it's probably not a good time to buy if you're in India. This is positive news though, and it certainly looks like there will be light at the end of the tunnel. I mean, it's not visible yet but it's probably there and coming up soon lmao.

Lmao I know this is good for publicity and adoption and everything, but it makes me wonder how many people pushing for this could actually afford a Tesla with their holdings. I'm not just being snarky, I genuinely think this will be a consideration for Elon Musk.

Either way, this is good publicity for both Bitcoin and Tesla. Out with Lambos, in with Teslas. It's free publicity for everyone! And Bitcoin millionaires will then be able to buy Teslas with less hassle, of course.

I do think indices with anti-manipulation safeguards would help attract institutional investors, but I'm pretty sure the lack thereof wouldn't stop them if they wanted to invest anyway. I don't think this will have any immediate significant impact, but it should really help the market.


I agree for the most part, but Bitcoin performing well could easily well attract more new users, a percentage of which could stick around for actual utility.

This isn't new though. It has been this way for at least a year. Searching BTC to USD will give you the current rate, though I have no idea where Google gets its data from.

You're probably confusing it with Bitcoin Cash, which I've heard Google supported in this way recently. I don't know which cryptos Google lists, but LTC is also listed and ETH isn't.

Isn't it this, in a nutshell?


If so, then they basically only lowered the threshold for monitoring. This should only affect a small subset of the community, and even then, it's likely they've already been complying because of the old limit in place. I don't see this directive having much effect to the crypto community, much less reaping benefits for it.

The CLI output he quoted must be in milliseconds then, because I only took the blockTime variable, plugged it into the command, and formatted it the way he wanted. It looks like he only wanted the date so I cut out the time.

Well if you sent fiat to a bank account or something similar from the exchange, that would be a good starting point. It could be argued, of course, that you sent fiat to someone else, but still.

If something like this is of huge concern, the person involved should look into decentralized exchanges or peer-to-peer trading. I'd like to point out that peer-to-peer has always been the intended medium for Bitcoin transactions.

Not sure if you can use this but if you simply want to convert that to a readable date, you can use:


The output would be:

26.08.2015

Transaction fees are only high when the network is congested. You can theoretically transfer a million dollars worth of Bitcoins to anywhere in the world while paying only a couple of dollars. To add to that, solutions are being worked on to prevent congestion. The end goal is for the network to be able to handle worldwide demand.

Deflation isn't necessarily a bad thing. Bitcoin can exist alongside fiat as a decentralized option.

Volatility should theoretically decrease as the market size increases. The bigger it is, the more money it takes to move it after all.

A small contingent of the public already uses it, like members of this forum. There's even a bank which uses it for international transfers over SWIFT, among merchants that accept it as a payment option.

In the end, just because you can't see its utility doesn't mean everyone shares your view. It must also be noted that Bitcoin is still being improved upon so its shortcomings are very likely to be fixed in the future.

I agree that Bitcoin demand must stem from utility rather than its potential for price growth for true adoption. That has always been the end game, which is why everyone is racing towards a solution for scaling and why it's such a hot topic within the community. That being said, if it could be used for both, why shouldn't it?

It's currently widely used as a store of value because it's pretty much perfect for the role as it currently is. It's easy to store, it's easy to transfer, it's easy to secure, it's liquid, it's immune from local economic instability, and it has a ridiculously high return potential. It's hard to blame people for using it as such.

On the other hand, its utility as a payment system is still flawed from its lack of scalability to its volatility and less than ideal user experience. Its utility isn't being ignored just because; its utility is being ignored because there are numerous other options that are (subjectively) better and easier to use. Once this area improves, which it will, I'm sure more people will be using it. People tend to forget that Bitcoin is essentially still in its infancy and still has a lot of room for improvements.

Regulations, if written correctly, can help cryptocurrencies earn legitimacy. There are still a lot of people who are convinced that they're a get rich scheme, so if regulations are somehow able to help protect money/people within the cryptospace, people would be more likely to open their minds and engage.

That being said, KYC and AML do nothing for the users themselves and have no direct effect on how they view crypto. They're mostly in place for businesses and governments to be able to prevent abuse and enforce rules -- which, in turn, may help cryptocurrencies earn legitimacy.

Because it comes with risks. It could be used to launder money, people could lose their life savings over them, they could undermine the country's national currency, etc.

I'm not saying those risks are necessarily enough to warrant a ban or something close to it, just that it does have downsides (though some governments tend to exaggerate these).