That's kind of the thing I was asking though. At what point would you consider the market and ecosystem mature? What requirements would have to be met? Wouldn't we need mainstream adoption or something close to it before things get to that point? Bitcoin is never going to be stable while it's as small as it currently is after all.

That's why I mentioned consumer interest; you don't really need adoption, you instead need to portray Bitcoin in a new light to drive adoption. I have no idea how to do this effectively though, of course, but I'm guessing improving scalability and ease of use through advances in technology is a very big step towards it.


Bitcoin Futures regulations would have nothing to do with them acting as a conventional cryptocurrency exchange though, unless they also plan to integrate that. I'm genuinely curious, what other aspects are there?

It's a little too complicated in my opinion. This is a forum at the end of the day, and in my opinion should be kept as lightweight as possible.

Also, what is it exactly that your system is trying to achieve? Trust was introduced to make trading safer, and merit was introduced to reduce the spam problem. What problem does this proposal solve?

This is wrong lol. This is the correct format:


It will end up like this: Moiyah
The easiest way to get a person's profile link is by clicking their name in a thread. The same is true even for your own profile link as clicking PROFILE doesn't give you the proper link.

Also, just so you know, this doesn't work like tagging in social media where the people you mentioned get notified.

This is also how you get a word/phrase to redirect to a link. Just edit the url and the word(s) between the url tags.

I wonder when they would consider regulations to be ironed out though. US regulations seem to be pretty stable, with taxation even starting to be implemented strictly. It doesn't look like there are any impending regulations either.

The only thing that really needs to mature at this point is consumer interest itself. Most people still seem to see it as a way to make quick bucks when it could be a legit investment and a legit currency rolled into one.

Pretty incredible. Developments like this really drive a wedge on the belief that all governments hate Bitcoin. I've always welcomed countries treating Bitcoin like every other asset because that's the fairest thing to do in my opinion, but I wouldn't be opposed to friendlier-than normal taxation.

I know it's very unlikely, but I do hope other countries follow their footsteps in this.

I don't think Bitcoin adoption is really comparable to the rise of automotives. I mean, it's money. Instant payments are already possible now even without its use. Decentralization is its key feature, and even then, I don't think it can change the world to the extent cars did; unless it really does end up toppling governments and taking over finance, of course. But yeah, that's just me nitpicking, which may also be due to my own lack of foresight.

I completely agree otherwise. If nothing else, it at least gives the common people more power and freedom, which is almost never a bad thing.

Is this for real? Lmfao I had no idea ransomware actually directed you to real people. I just assumed you were screwed whether you pay the ransom or not. But man, the payments must be running really short for the hacker to actually go with the conversation lmfao. All this for 0.025 BTC? Have some damn pride, man! You're holding his site for ransom!

This would be even more hilarious if ransomware weren't a plague. If I had no idea what Bitcoin was and had to learn how to use it to decrypt my files, I'd probably hate it forever lol. Did he actually pay in the end?

I would argue that that's only the case because gold doesn't really have one specific purpose. Cryptos, on the other hand, are created primarily to address the need for a trustless payment system, so I would say its raw capability to fulfill its primary purpose (which would be the underlying technology) should drive its valuation more than anything. Adoption and everything else should follow in theory, if we were in a utility driven market.

But yeah, instead we're in a market of investment and speculation, so it is what it is.

There are usually multi-signature solutions available for the more popular cryptos, so I don't think they would route them through an exchange. That would kind of defeat the purpose of running a multi-signature wallet in the first place.

Is it really opposition when they're basically voicing their doubts that Bitcoin could prove to be a viable alternative over fiat? That's basically all the article said. I don't see pushing for ICO regulation as opposition either, considering how bad things have gotten in that area.

But yeah it does seem like Bitcoin is getting legitimacy by the day. Most of the doubts seem to stem from the current Bitcoin incarnation, but things are rapidly moving along that end so let's hope we hit a breakthrough sooner rather than later.

It would be interesting to see what comes out of this. On one hand, Bitcoin isn't trademarked so it's free to be used by anyone, and on the other, selling Bitcoin Cash as Bitcoin is fraudulent. This will likely hinge on how misleading the court finds it to be, because it could also be argued that the customer must do their own due diligence in knowing that BCH is different from BTC.

I personally think it's borderline fraudulent and that such tactics must stop.

I honestly never considered that these guys could be storing passwords in plaintext form. If this were the case, even if the exchange had the integrity to not mess with your data, they're a hack away from all of your accounts being compromised. Definitely use unique passwords on everything.

Another thing to consider is that the overwhelming majority of these are scams, so it's usually not worth it to give them sensitive data when they ask for it. Don't risk thousands for a few pennies.

It should be utility and technology. That's what they claim to exist for after all, to provide the world with a decentralized option that could give centralized solutions a run for their money.

What it currently is though, is the potential to grow in value. People only care about technology and utility because it's a factor for price growth. Few people actually want to use crypto the way it should be used. It's kind of sad, but I want to believe things are only this way because the more traditional options are still, as of this moment, more convenient.

After reading the white paper, I'm fairly sure Bitcoin is decentralized by design, rather than by necessity. It's not decentralized because Satoshi needed it to be, it was decentralized because Satoshi wanted it to be. It didn't aim to solve the digital cash problem, it aimed to solve the problem with the trust-based payment model and its over reliance on third party payment processors.

Digital cash itself should be fairly easy for a centralized authority to set up (look at Petro), but there doesn't seem to be any need for it at the moment with credit cards, Paypal, etc. being a thing.

Perception of quality is subjective. What some may find interesting, some may find stale. The same goes with education, considering the different levels of knowledge and different interests people here possess. Merit awarding is also very subjective, as there are no guarantees you'll be merited even if you consistently post quality stuff.

That being said, helping others is good, but few people here actually need help. You certainly shouldn't be helping if you're expecting something in return. Just participate in the best way you can and the merit should come to you sooner or later.

The only thing you can do at this point is look for the verification email blockchain.info sent you when you first registered. If their 2011 protocols were anything like they are now, they should have sent you one along with your wallet ID. Having them reset the password should be possible once you prove ownership of the account with your email, but if it involves a significant amount of money, you might get scrutinized a bit more.

I don't think anyone will be able to help you if you don't find that email because there would be no way to figure out which account was yours, so you better start digging.

Well first, corruption and scams could be considered somewhat similar, but they exist on two completely different planes. This issue has nothing at all to do with regulations or their efficacy against scams in my opinion -- corruption aims to outright circumvent regulations through abuse of power after all.

Second, do media sources ever claim that regulation eliminates anything? We have laws against corruption and against fraud, but does anyone really ever believe, for one second, that they eliminate them? I would have to go with no, but, they help. This particular case would be a non-issue if there were no regulations against money laundering (or corruption) in place, for one.

Third, I feel like the first article you shared is too one-sided:


If there's an open investigation, I don't think that counts as turning a blind eye.

I don't think this is FUD at all. They're doomsday scenarios, and as all doomsday scenarios are, they're somewhat rooted in reality. They're also all very unlikely. The article itself says they're nothing but ways "Bitcoin could be brought down, co-opted, or made irrelevant." It's all hypothetical. His closing statement makes perfect sense too:


The author probably isn't a fan, but I don't see this as an attempt to smear, but rather to let readers take on a different perspective. None of what he says is new to us who are actually knowledgeable about the subject, but if I were new to the crypto world, I'd probably be quite amused.

Erm, no. Telegram launched an ICO for a communications platform on a blockchain that they plan on developing. It's internal, yes, but that means it's essentially useless outside of the system. It's also a token, not a cryptocurrency. The same would go for whatever tokens Google and Amazon decides to create. They're not comparable with Bitcoin in this respect, so it would be impossible for them to dethrone it.

The future would belong to ones which attain global adoption, and tokens that have very specialized uses are unlikely to achieve that.

Localbitcoins.com is a good starting point, but they're starting to verify the identity of users with large trading volumes or so I hear. You can try their competitors if that's a concern. You can't buy with a credit card on those platforms though. Still, peer-to-peer is your best bet.

Why would you want to use a credit card if you want to be completely anonymous anyway? You know your identity is right on the card right? Lol.