Well if nothing else, this lowers the risk of sweeping regulations that could set back adoption. I see this as a positive.


As much as I agree, this really isn't about their approval. Everyone is free to use Bitcoin as they wish, which was the idea, but the way governments around the world classify it is going to affect you one way or another. What they seem to be getting at is that the uncertainty regarding this particular topic hurts the confidence and support of consumers and financial authorities. I agree with that assessment. I'm going to treat Bitcoin as a currency no matter what, but I feel like this is a necessary step for the market to be considered mature. I understand peer-to-peer traders won't care for the most part, but I imagine businesses would want less flip-flopping regarding regulations.

Taxation, regardless of Bitcoins being involved or not, is pretty much an honor system anyway. You can get away with under-declarations if you're confident the systems in place won't detect any wrong-doings. In this particular case, exchanges are going to be (or already are, in some countries) integrated into that system by monitoring them. That means if you use an exchange, and not declare your Bitcoin income, you could very well be charged for tax-related offenses.

If you only engage in peer-to-peer trading, you're right, they won't know you use it for the most part.

If you just want to secure your Bitcoins, you don't need to go through in-depth usage of Tor or even obfs4. They're privacy tools to further secure your internet experience, yes, but the safest way to keep your coins is still offline. Get a hardware wallet or set up an air-gapped wallet and you wouldn't need much else (other than common sense maybe lol) to protect the coins inside.

Also, Tor and obfs4 don't help much with phishing, scammers, and viruses. They're mostly used to avoid surveillance and/or restrictions.

That's good. I mean, if they're going to interfere with with the cryptocurrency scene anyway, they might as well help clean it up.

It also doesn't really matter whether or not Clayton believes that Bitcoin is a mania for as long as he doesn't let his personal opinions cloud his judgement on how things should be handled. Things seem to be going well so far, with them acknowledging that there are legitimate businesses in the scene. They seem to be going after the right people too, for the most part. Props to them.

Great tutorial! I'll link newbies that have problems setting up wallets here from now on.

The only thing I would like to add is a tldr; on Segwit:

Pros:

• Lower fees
• You're helping the network scale

Cons:

• Some wallets/services don't support payments for it yet

I agree, which is why I said it's generally not reliable. I'm just saying the concept exists. I've never heard of anyone running into trouble because of it, but, if you somehow end up with it, and chain analysis services trace it back to you (considering exchanges and mixers could be forced to give up info), you could get questioned or something. For example, let's say there was a hack, and someone sold you some coins peer-to-peer. You sent those to some exchange or an address that is linked to your identity, but it turns out those coins were part of the hack. From there, you would potentially be a person of interest and could even be considered a suspect -- not automatically guilty. It must also be noted that I was merely citing a remote possibility.

This only really mentions Bitcoin in passing though. It seemed to me like it was FUDing GBTC rather than BTC. It just uses BTC to drive its point home. Heck, all the charts it cited are of the traditional stock market..

Either way, why would you invest in GBTC when you can invest in BTC directly anyway? It's highly likely the author doesn't know much about crypto at all. It's usually safe to ignore FUD about Bitcoin, but it's especially safe to ignore this one.

There is such a concept known as "tainted coins". You can read the inputs on this link for more information, but basically, since Bitcoins can be traced, it's possible to know which ones have been stolen. It's not very reliable though, unless you've actually followed the traces of a hack from its origin. You probably could get in trouble for buying stolen coins, but only because authorities might think you're the thief or are related to the heist.

As for whether or not you should buy in that situation, remember: if something is too good to be true, it probably is.

I would love to watch a live stream. If we were to assume that this would follow the usual format of BTC vs BCH online debates, I estimate around 5% of it to be about technology, and 95% mudslinging. But really, other than entertainment, this is pointless. Both sides have their minds made up, and pretty much every point of the debate has already been said and rehashed elsewhere.


I'm pretty sure corrective action would be fine to most people. As controversial as this topic has been, I would like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and believe that they hate Roger Ver's actions rather than the actual person.

Lmfao I wouldn't have thought of that if you didn't bring it up. To be fair though, it's probably the most convenient way to receive tips. It's much better than displaying your bank account number, or setting up a tip jar of sorts, at least. This actually looks like a legitimate use-case lol.

The sale was legitimate. The buyer was claiming it was illegitimate.

The main problem is that OP sold accepted Paypal payment for his Bitcoins. Anyone who buys anything through paypal can try to get a reversal by claiming that they, as the account owner, did not initiate the transaction. That means they get their money back and your coins, and since Bitcoin transactions are irreversible, there's nothing you can do about it. It's standard practice to never accept Paypal payments for cryptos.

To OP, you can try to fight for your case by showing as much proof as you can to Paypal, but you're screwed for the most part.

You can't. You can make it competitive by making it cheaper, faster, etc. but at the end of the day, people will choose what they want to use based on their needs. Bitcoin will always have two key advantages though: decentralization and cross-border acceptance. Only time will tell if those are enough to keep it relevant against state-backed digital currencies which will undoubtedly be heavily favored by regulators. Bitcoin should at least be able to carve out a niche based on those qualities though, so I don't think it will be dismissed as an asset and nothing else either.

In theory, either should be just as secure as the other as both are designed to never expose your private keys online.

Things get a little more complicated in practice. Just as other users have said, it's far too easy to mess up the creation of an offline wallet if you're not tech-savvy or careful enough. On the other side of the fence, if you go for a hardware wallet, you're essentially trusting a third party to create a secure product for you; the same isn't true for offline wallets because you can go for open source projects you can personally verify every step of the way. Another factor you would have to consider is that hardware wallets are a target for malicious entities because they basically announce that they're keeping a significant amount of money.

I'd personally say air-gapped wallets set up correctly are safer than hardware wallets, but I don't think any person has lost any coins over either so far, so you should be safe no matter which way you go.

There really isn't much left to talk about. Pretty much everyone has said their piece, and people have generally already formed their opinions as to what a Tether collapse would mean for the crypto landscape. An audit is still being pushed while they keep printing, but it doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. All we can really do at this point is wait and see while hoping for the best.

I'm not surprised either. Bitcoin anonymity was a big issue a while back despite being only pseudonymous, so it's not at all surprising that they'd have a bigger fit over fully anonymous cryptocurrencies. It's only a matter of time until the rest of the world follows in my opinion. It sucks, but hey, if you truly wanted to use a fully anonymous crypto, it would be a bad idea to route it through an exchange anyway. Those who are using them purely for anonymous utility shouldn't be hurt too badly.

I hate to rain on this parade but I don't think this piece breaks the mold at all. IBD has very conservative political stances, and glancing at their articles make it seem like they have an agenda versus climate change and global warming belief in general. They're free to question whatever they want to question, of course, but to say they're right leaning is more accurate than saying they're challenging the status quo in my opinion.

As for the article itself, let's not forget that the Paris Agreement was signed just a measly two years ago. Despite where you stand on the issue, I think it's way too early to dismiss the advantages that it can bring, considering:


...there are still 82 years left in this century. I'd also like to note that the end goal for the agreement is to keep global temperatures from rising to the intended target, not necessarily cut down more emissions than other countries. It's not a race, it's about meeting a quota.

What I'm truly interested in is whether or not this can affect Bitcoin mining regulations globally. I know its consumption is nothing in the grand scheme of things, but it's an easy target for regulators.

Did you read the article? Lol. There was no Bitcoin transaction involved. Heck, Bitcoin was barely involved at all. Robbers basically posed as Bitcoin sellers, met with clients, then stole the money they brought with them to buy the coins with. This isn't digital currency theft, it's just your typical centuries-old run-of-the-mill robbery.

As far as this case goes, if you don't trade cryptos face to face, you have nothing at all to worry about.

Maybe that's because the IRS actually seems to have the resources to detect and crack down on crypto tax evaders? The Coinbase move was a show of power, and they even have a partnership with Chainalaysis. They don't look like they would ease up at all.

If France doesn't have the same resources, then it makes sense for them to take such an action to collect more in taxes. I wonder if any more countries that likewise lack the IRS' capability will follow suit.

I personally believe that considering the heights Bitcoin has reached, $9k is nothing. It's also worth noting that Bitcoin has been able to hold around the $11k level in the past (two separate times if I remember correctly), so it should be relatively safe to say that it could easily reach that value again, if not even higher.

That being said, we're all speculating, and if you're happy enough with your gains, go sell. That's the beauty of Bitcoin; you do whatever the hell you want with it. My personal advice would be to sell some just to feel your gains, and keep some so you could keep chasing whatever pavements you have your eyes on lol. Best of both worlds.

Wait, do the robbers actually own Bitcoins they were claiming to sell? I mean, if I were a buyer in that set up, I would make sure I ask for a signed message from an address that actually had the coins I'd be trying to buy. This just seems like a massive mess that could have easily been avoided.

Then again, maybe the robbers do have "show coins", in which case there's really not much you can do other than avoiding face to face transactions altogether.