Bitcoin obviously has some negative points as well. One of them, in certain situations, is irreversibility.

The only "remedy" would be properly analyzing the txs and backtracing the employees so that whoever did it has to serve the right punishment. Otherwise, what'd happen is a mirrored situation of the Mt Gox funds: they're just gone. We'd probably just have a few hundreds of articles talking shit about Bitcoin and that's it.

Anything comes with a cost, including decentralization. That goes from stuff like losing your seed to anything else a third party cannot solve. However, these costs and negative points of decentralization will never exceed those of centralization. I'd rather live with the risk of losing my money through my own mistakes than live with the feeling of slavery and control.

If he had no bad intentions, even if he's been under fire for selling all his coins, he wouldn't have cared the same way Charlie Lee didn't when he sold his. Why would he care that if that's simply something he wanted to do and felt wasn't wrong, right?

This man's reputation shouldn't recover imo. If nobody gave a damn and everyone accepted the idea that he exit scammed, he wouldn't have returned his bucks. This seems like he realized there's no way he could escape through an exit scam with $14M (or the risk is too high) so he gave up and tried to recover from his mistakes.

Press CTRL + F and find the key words you need. By looking up "supply", here's some Q&A I found:

The virus is only a pretext for them to rush even more the digital fiat and to push it through successfully. However, there are some quite significant issues they have to think about:


1. Privacy

I think this is the most important issue I'd have with the cashless society. It's not about hiding anything, but would you like your government to be able to ask you why you gave $10 to a little boy's account, who happens to be your son's best friend? Would you like your government to know literally every single thing you have bought and to be able to interrogate you about the source of all that money? Would you like your state to know exactly what your habits, preferences, vices etc you have? I would not.

2. Some people would not be able to accomodate with it

Think of old people who live right now in rural areas. There are a lot of them in my country. In fact, in Moldova, 95% of the rural population do not have toilets. Think of Africans whose life is just an unfortunate mess. How are these people supposed to accomodate with a friggin' digital currency?

3. The digital currency will not be Bitcoin, nor will it be any close to what Bitcoin is

This is just logical. The governments want to control, not to give more freedom than ever before. By adopting a pseudonymous cryptocurrency they'd have no control over, they'd start losing ground against us. They need a currency they can seize, freeze and modify its supply at any given time.

Besides the control part, we have to think about it: even if the government EVER wants to push Bitcoin as a national currency, would the current Bitcoin network be able to sustain txs from a large country such as the USA? I don't think so, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. On the other hand, we have enough intelligent devs to think of a way to make Bitcoin fit the right requirements for mass adoption.

4. They cannot create a public ledger, which means everything would be hidden

In other words, just imagine: if today we have money printers that are under supposed constant control and supervision, a digital currency under a government's control means the state could at any point inflate the currency within the click of a mouse. A matter of milliseconds until the supply multiplies. How do we know where each digital buck goes? At least the money they print today is physical and requires real materials (and yeah, I know a hundred dollar bill probably takes a few cents to be produced) rather than a click and some coding.

---

There are more reasons, but these are just the first that come up in my mind. Bitcoin as a national currency is irrealistic. It'll most likely never be one. They'll come up with their own. Otherwise, banks working on digital currencies wouldn't have been a thing - they would've just adopted BTC right from the start.

If you sum up all the more recent events and disasters (pandemic, trillions of dollars printed, hundreds of billions in monthly stimulus checks, the growing percentage of the unemployed etc), to me at least it looks like it's not going to take long before people check their account balance & safes and start realizing they don't really have much money left to live off.

For people like you who probably already have a diversified investment portfolio (or even simply gold or BTC), you could take it as free money to party - your already invested money is gonna be worth more and more once the crappy part of the worldwide economical status begins anyway. But most of them are probably going to spend it on iPhones and "luxury", extremely overpriced Gucci rags while they don't even have a thousand bucks saved up and invested.

It started as soon as YFI exploded and inexperienced ones started rushing it like flies. Hype is never a good thing, especially when you have an exaggerated one like ICOs had back then. The fact that so many millions of dollars are still being pumped in overly hyped stuff when you have an entire history of similarly running successful scams is just absurd though..

It's going to be a disaster really in a matter of months or years at last. And if that isn't bad enough, the entire world's economy will be affected by it. On the other hand, I guess it's great that at least we're some of the few who've locked in a quite safe position.. safer than fiat anyway, considering all the events.

I'd argue that these two can be compared. Although they're 2 different things, gold can be treated the same way Bitcoin is and vice-versa. You can use gold coins as a currency if they're legal tender.

Gold isn't stable. Bitcoin isn't either. It's just that BTC has much less of a history behind it, so people's view over it changes constantly.

---

Millennial generations will surely almost always prefer new rather than old stuff. Especially when it comes to technology. Like, why use some boring piece of plastic when you could use your games-filled smartphone instead, right?

Let's be honest here. How often do you hear a young one talk about precious metal investments? How often do they pay for Fortnite in-game currency in comparison to that? Gold is beautiful and all, but here in Romania you're more likely to find a Bitcoin ATM than a precious metal (as in bullion and coins) shop and the millennials are mostly display-obsessed kids.

Well, it is basically about as much as you'd earn for an year of work, and that surely is helpful.

---

It's awesome to hear that Bitcoin is being used as an aid in countries where living is turning into a struggle rather than a necessity. However, the categories of people meeting the requirements makes it look like the Belarus's government will turn their weapons against these guys for providing help to those they considered to be enemies. I guess that by dismissing a worker they're looking to put the said person into a bad situation to confront.

Eu, personal, as sugera sa nu te apuci sa platesti pentru listarea unei monede ce probabil, la modul cel mai serios, va avea zero volum si zero viitor. Gandeste-te la faptul ca, odata cu plata listarii, nu te asigura nimeni ca exchange-ul nu se va inchide sau ca moneda ta va fi listata pentru totdeauna.

Tried Twetch out once, out of curiosity. I mean, I tried to try it out.. until I found out you have to pay money to post anything on there, hoping to get it back from others who engage with your stuff. And apparently, that isn't enough:

Source: https://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/blockchain-based-twitter-competitor-twetch-releases-encrypted-chat-app/

How private and encrypted is it if there's an one-time cost? Is it even open source, knowing that you don't get the app without paying for it? The fact that private keys are used to have a private chat is even more worrying..

The fact that Twetch exists makes the entire Wright argument even funnier. He hasn't only copied Bitcoin - the community is going for larger names as well. Wouldn't be surprised if some Fecebook is under development in their community.. This entire SV thing is all about copying.

These comments from this Reddit thread about Twetch are worth a little laugh.

Inteleg si iti sustin ideea, insa in acelasi timp este frustrant sa observi faptul ca, pe zi ce trece, te simti tot mai amenintat din punctul asta de vedere.

Posibil sa nu ma fi exprimat potrivit - ma refeream la tax evasion. Aparent imi sunt mai la indemana termenii din engleza decat cei din limba materna.

Din moment ce apare KYC pentru tranzactii BTC <-> fiat sau pentru achizitionarea de produse cu BTC si tu iti faci treaba p2p, mi se pare logic ca este posibil sa iti sara statul in cap deoarece incerci sa "fugi" de reguli.

Sa presupunem ca vine o lege prin care orice schimb BTC <-> fiat ce depaseste cumulul de 5.000 RON necesita KYC. Ceva ce acum cativa ani parea imposibil pentru metale pretioase, insa au reusit-o si p-asta. Tu, pentru privacy-ul tau, te intalnesti cu un strain pentru a efectua o tranzactie de 15.000 RON p2p, cu banii jos, fara KYC (evident). Nu incalci legea? O sa te mai duci pe urma sa completezi declaratia unica, sa dai cu subsemnatul?

Insa "direct, fara intermediari" intr-o lume in care nu exista tranzactii legale fara KYC nu inseamna practic ilegalitate?

Ar fi singura problema din punctul meu de vedere: sa existe si posibilitati p2p, insa sa trebuiasca sa risti de fiecare data. De aceea si sunt frustrat legat de KYC: te impinge in afara legii.

The sad part is that most of these "beware of x" are seen too late - or people are just silly enough to believe in these things. They're quite obvious. How often do we really hear about close people who've been offered a magic package of knowledge and turned rich out of nowhere? If someone almost falls for this type of thing, they honestly need to learn their lesson one way or another.

Yeah, it's sad to see that people literally put all their trust into some people just because they're celebrities or rich. Money doesn't make you a good human.

Holding BTC as a reserve currency in an already risky environment (which is a standing up business) is risky as hell. In the end, we pay our everyday stuff and receive our salaries in USD value - not in BTC. Having your income go crazy from not even a month-by-month but a daily basis is probably as risky for a business owner as holding a shitcoin is.

The fact that the owner of the restaurant you have linked turned their money into BTC doesn't mean anything else but the fact that he is a Bitcoin believer and investor. While I understand it'd be better if we were purists and had no payment processors, that is just from our view. Let's not look past the consequences Bitcoin could suffer from if businesses adopting it the "purist" way started struggling.

However, we should underline one thing, which is the potential volume of transactions that are actually going to be done through Bitcoin. I doubt there would be a significant volume in comparison to cash/card txs they'll receive.

It doesn't look like a bad intention to me. They're accepting Bitcoin. A business will obviously have mostly one main goal, and that is earning a profit. This is just one more choice for our French BTC fellas.

Se umbla la limite nu doar la crypto ci si la metale pretioase, din pacate. Iar acest lucru este ironic, avand in vedere recesiunea care ne bate la usa. Daca am inteles bine, in momentul de fata (nu stiu sigur daca si in Romania, insa in alte tari din EU) daca achizitionezi metale pretioase in valoare cumulata de 10k EUR, ti se cere KYC si, cireasa de pe tort, esti anuntat si la autoritati pentru a se asigura ca respecti legea AML.

In urma cu doar un an de zile aveai dreptul sa dai cate comenzi voiai, cu conditia de a nu depasi 10k (sau 15k?) EUR per comanda. Din cate stiu, urmeaza sa se scada in urmatorii ani limita de la cumulul de 10k EUR la unul de 1k. Cu alte cuvinte, o sa ai dreptul la aproape 19 grame pure de aur inainte sa-ti sara pe cap autoritatile. Prin asta vreau sa spun ca urmeaza acest lucru si la crypto cu siguranta, daca nu mai dur de atat (cum ai spus si tu).

For online orders, most merchants will have to do this in order to avoid losses. They're converting BTC into fiat instantly in order not to be affected by price volatility, and converting BTC -> fiat to only refund the order back into BTC minutes/hours later could turn, with a sufficient amount of orders, into a considerable change of income and profit.

Yeah, the issue isn't that there are services out there giving you a choice. It is that the list of these choices you get shortens with every new such updates. We should have a choice no matter if we're willing to be anonymous or not.

Assuming that more anonymity/privacy pushes for more (cyber)crimes is wrong in the first place, I believe. A lot of people prefer to keep their cash out of banks for safety and privacy purposes, so that your bank doesn't ask you why you spent your bucks on certain stuff or where that money comes from.

I'm happy to see Bitcoin being accepted by more and more countries, companies and individuals worldwide. But adoption shouldn't mean leaving a person who desires to be anonymous with no options because it leaves them with 2 options: either having to do a criminal activity (tax evasion) in order to make use of their BTC or having to leave their privacy behind and follow the KYC rules.

I have only temporarily lost my Bitcoins for years. I lost access to my Blockchain wallet without any way of recovery - I had no seed, no backup phrase, nothing. Blockchain's support obviously answered my e-mails by telling me they don't hold my keys, so there was nothing they could do. Turns out I had the initial backup on one of my very old e-mails, and that's how I recovered it. The thing I learned is... not your keys, not your BTC. Expect this unfortunate thing to happen at any point without precaution.

Satoshi may have created something that gives us financial freedom and manual privacy control, but that does not mean he's is a good guy. Digital ID is coming either we like/want it or not, and for me that's disturbing be it an NFC-embedded card or a microchip. The fact that everything is moving to digital is a big risk overall, and it's not only privacy related although that's my biggest concern.

If you agree to being paid 0.2 BTC a month, you'd have to agree with this huge risk right from the start.

There's another option: being paid the equivalent of a certain sum in BTC. But as soon as you get paid, the risk of having your salary go up or down is going to be present at all times. If a company has the possibility to pay in crypto though and an employee accepts it, why not? It's like being paid in Tesla shares, except it's decentralized and you can pay stuff with it.