What exactly is your goal though? Do you want to hold coins or trade them actively? Do you want to get into ICOs? You'd probably be better off if you ask straightforward questions regarding things you want information on. You're unlikely to find a good guide for general crypto investments.

In the meantime here are some Bitcoin charts I guess:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=288450.0

And some good security practices:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1652275.0

Wait, so you're saying the price is going to skyrocket because it won't be profitable for miners otherwise? Unless we assume that miners will be able to freely and easily manipulate prices, I don't think this is a good reason to give. Miners that stopped profiting will simply stop mining, and will resume when it's profitable again. Samsung and the others are putting money into it because they know there will be demand for it, not necessarily because they feel that Bitcoin will rise -- it just so happens that they're correlated.

I do think we're due for a rise, but not because of that reason. I could be wrong though of course.

On-chain transactions are still going to be necessary, so it's not like miners won't be getting fees anymore. If we were to assume that Bitcoin will reach mainstream adoption with the Lightning Network, while there would be less on-chain transactions, there shouldn't be any shortage.

As far as monetizing the Lightning Network fees go though, I've heard it would be difficult because everyone can run their own. It would be a race to the bottom, basically, though I haven't really gone in-depth as to how it would work in practice.

Either way, considering the fact that miners will still be receiving rewards for the next century or so, it may be too soon to worry about this problem lol. It may be wiser to see how things are going to turn out with the Lightning Network first.

There's really not much else that can be done with current technology, and that goes for every single security system, not just crypto. Everything can be brute forced, it just boils down to how unlikely that can happen. Nothing is 100% secure, but you try to get as close to that as possible. I personally like the statistics behind Bitcoin's security.

You can lower the risk of losing everything even further by spreading your coins across different wallets, but people should already be doing that anyway.

What exactly went wrong though? Whenever I use my card for flights, the payment typically confirms within a few seconds. I only ever use the actual carrier's site to book though, so could it be a problem with kiwi.com? Legacy finance may not be the problem here.

I've also never used Bitcoins to book flights before so I'll be checking out cheapair.com. Thanks!

Good on you OP. I have a couple of questions, if you have the time to spare.

How is Bitcoin adoption in Venezuela? Crypto users on the internet seem to be under the impression that it's what everyone uses despite having a very prolific underground market for USD and other foreign currencies. Do people actually use Bitcoin for goods, or is it used more as a storage of wealth?

Also, do Venezuelans actually use the Petro? What is the common people's opinion of it?

I'm sorry, but I don't see any divide at all. What we have right now is better than a barter system in most respects. It's seems to be working seamlessly because they're only trading small amounts, but what happens with large purchases? I would guess it's not as efficient. I'm guessing storage of wealth won't be a simple task either. They reverted to this because their economy collapsed, and I'm fairly sure they would choose to have their economy back given the option. We know that such a system worked because that was how things were done in the past, but there's a reason why that stayed there.

I would never wish for any country to go through what Venezuela is going through, but I hope everyone else learns from their mistakes.

I seriously doubt that it will. That rift has always been there, so it's not like the animosity is anything new. It just so happens that Bitcoin.com gave those who opposed it an opening to actually file a lawsuit. It's also internal and has nothing to do with Bitcoin itself, so outside people who want to enter the market can do so without even knowing what the lawsuit is about, much less use that as a reason not to get involved.

There's no way to stop them. You can help to stop them from spreading though. One way to do that is by reporting them to authorities and hope they do something about it. Here are a few examples:

• https://www.ftc.gov/contact
• https://www.ic3.gov/default.aspx
• https://www.econsumer.gov/

For phishing/malware sites specifically, you could go straight to Google using these:

• (phishing) https://safebrowsing.google.com/safebrowsing/report_phish/?hl=en
• (malware) https://safebrowsing.google.com/safebrowsing/report_badware/?hl=en

Another way is to spread awareness, and as Welsh has said, this is a pretty good place for that.

I don't really follow any, but McAfee comes to mind. He came out as a paid shill though, and advised other shills to do the same to avoid problems with the SEC. The italicized part sets off a dangerous red flag and pretty much means you really shouldn't trust anyone. You could still listen to what they're saying and such, but take everything with a grain of salt.

Yeah I had to do a double take on that. Pretty ridiculous, but hey, it seems to work.

But yeah, I hope he talks. It would be interesting if the stolen equipment ends up on a farm somewhere. If they acquired such a large stash, it's likely they sold in bulk. I acknowledge that that doesn't rule out resellers and distributors and such, but this case would be way more interesting if there were a conspiracy involved.

Well if there's no way for them to gain, there's no way for them to really give you anything. What they're planning is a pipe dream, in short, and anyone involved is just going to get burned. It seemed like you were stopping just short of saying there's no way this could be real, so I said it for you lol.

What does the price per unit have to do with anything? Bitcoin is infinitely more divisible than gold, so you can always set a new base unit if all you need to achieve is $800 per unit. Having a set value ignores the economics of it.

But yeah Bitcoin doesn't seem to be on the radar of the super rich at this point. I don't think it has anything to do with how much "better" the other choices are. They simply don't need to take unnecessary risks anymore, and Bitcoin is a risk.

Let's not forget that there's also r/btc which always has large doses of Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin propaganda. It's very easy to stumble into it by mistake and it's going to be confusing for newbies why a supposed Bitcoin subreddit's top posts are tearing Bitcoin a new one. It also opens them up for anchoring bias.

Anyway, I thought they already corrected the BCH = Bitcoin instances in the site because of the lawsuit? If someone made a paper wallet here and sent BTC to it because it was claimed to be a Bitcoin wallet, they may get another problem in their hands.

Wait, so you're saying some entity is going to use or threaten violence to make people use a certain crypto? I hate to break it to you, but there are much more effective ways to use violence. It's not worth using if they're stopping at just that, when they can theoretically gain absolute or near-absolute control of pretty much every facet of life. The blowback simply wouldn't be worth the rewards.

In my opinion, the next driver would be utility. When crypto has established itself as a true alternative to fiat, the best and most widely accepted crypto is also the one most likely to be the most valuable. I don't know if Bitcoin is the best now but I do know that it aims to be, and it's currently the most widely accepted. Needless to say, I'm rooting for it.

I'm not sure if this will be considered significant. It's kind of like a clickbait video where you get all excited because of how cool it could be, but then it turns out it was massively exaggerated. It's symbolic for their company, sure, but not the cryptocurrency scene as a whole. The launch achieved nothing, was impractical, and wasn't even a proof of concept for anything -- it's just a plain publicity stunt.

stompix made a really great job dissecting it too lol. I might have been more amused if I hadn't read his post first.

Not really. Picking an uncommonly used DNS is really just security by obscurity. You're not actually doing anything to be more secure against attacks, you're just reducing the chances of being attacked. Kind of like how people MacOS is "safer" than Windows just by virtue of it being much less likely to get targeted.


It's not more protected. Google's isn't necessarily better either. Google's is just perceived to be better because most people trust that Google does their job in securing their DNS better than their respective ISPs. I don't know if that's true, of course, but if we go by the assumption that Google is better at security than your ISP, it would come down to a choice of "more likely to be attacked but more likely to fight them off", or "less likely to be attacked but less likely to fight them off". It's essentially hiding versus arming yourself. There's no clear winner that will always be better so you just have to decide for yourself.

Scams like this aren't new at all. They also seem to be more common nowadays, with more and more people falling for them.

If a giveaway asks for a fee, it's a scam. There are no exceptions to this rule, no matter how many accounts say they received whatever it is that is being given away.

I think this is kind of the thing that OP is saying. People store their money in banks, so they don't have to secure it themselves. There are a lot of credit card fraud protection systems in place and people can easily contest the misuse of their cards and be granted reversals.

Whenever people lose Bitcoins, we usually say they have to protect it better and that there's no way to recover them. With the banking system, there are usually legal remedies that can be availed to recover losses. I concede that most Bitcoin losses are due to carelessness and stupidity, but if it's that simple and it keeps on happening, doesn't that just reinforce the idea that people are not ready? If we insist that it has nothing to do with readiness, could it have something to do with capability?

But yeah, the point is right now, people don't need the "how to" because banks clean up their mess for them. I can understand why people may be hesitant to forego that. Some people like safety nets.

They used to be, but Bitcoin Cash changed a few things. They're still pretty similar though. Its scaling approach is also significantly different, and that's what's going to make or break both coins in the near future. I can't deny that most people in crypto are in this for profits, but some genuinely believe in the technology. You have to realize that this will determine price in the end too, because one way or another, one of them is likely to become obsolete.


Lmfao that's such a simplistic but true way of looking at it, and is especially true of Bitcoin Cash's creators. The topic, however, is about the reasons why Bitcoin Cash's scaling solution is a bad idea.