@LFC: you and me both, buddy. I've got Hotspurs down to win 2-1 since United always seem to find a way to score. And I've got my poor Liverfool team to win 3-0. Hope the wounded animal takes it all out on the new kids in town (sorry Huddersfield).

@toke: Mourinho will definitely do the same as they did with Liverpool but then they will also be hurting from last week's shock loss. So they MIGHT go for a goal first, and that will allow Spurs to hit more easily. But if the half ends at 0-0 with no shots on target from Spurs, Mourinho will of course sit back and sleep in the bus.

I've got Newcastle for a slim win!

At first, I thought this seemed a bit out of sync with last week's announcement from Kazakhstan's Astana International Financial Center (AIFC) that it was going to launch a national crypto with a Maltese company, under purvey of instructions by the head of state to be " a leading expert center in the development of new financial technologies".

And then, I understood that I read the news from Bitcoin.com, which is probably one of the experts linked to AIFC, probably Roger Ver behind the scenes. They're a group that's looking to create a whole new trough of national and regional cryptos... because, why not?

Good on the central bank

Agree with this, with some caveats. I think ICOs oversell themselves, claiming to be this solution to that problem (usually created by themselves) or claiming to be the blockchain disruptor of massive proportions. There are hardly any realists it seems, behind these new ICOS. That aside, I do see a good reason in a simple tokenised model of fundraising. Some businesses have a lot of problems raising capital needed for expansion, or for growth. Business loans require collateral. P2P lending itself is an industry crippled with a reputation that would take years to shrug off.

So I don't necessarily see a company that launches an ICO (or ITO?) for the simple sake of raising funds as a bad thing. Especially when those tokens are almost purely for dividend-sharing and exist outside exchanges, then they're not inflating the market and using it purely as a funding tool.

Didn't click the link to read so am just going to take the results at face value, on the assumption that these were actual CNBC readers from all over the world responding.

I'm actually both surprised and pleased with the results of this poll. Surprised that there aren't more people gung ho about Bitcoin (since I'm sure most of the respondents will probably know of and own Bitcoin). Pleased that with more than half of the respondents either bearish or in support of Dimon's view, I can expect mass adoption to be delayed a little longer.

Gives me more time to hoard more of them coins!

I'd be extremely cautious into playing into the "pattern" as established by only two forks in the space of less than four months. Yes, buying demand raised Bitcoin prices and then sell-offs immediately after the fork caused some downward pressure, before a strong recovery. But not all forks will be created equal I think. They won't all have the same economic incentive to miners, they may not all get support from exchanges, and there may simply be no interest from the community.

Even if the fork has all the above (as in Segwit2x), you don't want to get caught out by the strategy of "buy before fork, sell right before fork, buy back after". The safest is to simply just hold, sell the fork coins. Your Bitcoins are the most likely to go up in value.

I'll throw another Youtube-like blockchain-based decentralized online video sharing competitor into the mix: Viuly.io. As far as I know, they're exactly like Youtube - but unlike most other blockchain competitors, they're not ostracising advertisers.

But, users will choose whether or not they want the ads. If they do, they can get rewards for it. Basically, the decentralisation they have focuses on eliminating points of control. Advertising revenue goes direct to viewers and creators, also with paid subscriptions. Users also get compensated for storing content (distributed content). All through tokens.


Platform's already live, in alpha, but looks like they're pretty serious. Tokens will all be distributed free through an airdrop campaign that starts next month.

I actually wasn't thinking of it in terms of a slump. If anything, the latest fork should have pushed it back down below $5,000. That it didn't goes to show how I keep underestimating Bitcoin's resilience past a recent ATH.

This perplexes me, although hardly surprises me as well: "information and codebase presented by the Bitcoin Gold team is not in a functional state". If Bittrex, of all people, can come up and say that, it really begs the question of how capable these programmers and developers really are. ASIC-resistant, anti-cartel ideology aside, I think people really need to think long and hard before forking out for a perceived immediate solution to whatever problem they believe Bitcoin has.

Interesting quote from Keiser: fiat and bonds are in a bubble. They've never been so high in their hundred years history.
Typical quote from Schiff: using it (fiat notes) to buy Bitcoin is the same as ripping it up and throwing it on the floor.

The most obvious comparison to me is that gold is recognised and accepted everywhere as precious metal. Keypoint precious. It is scarce, physical and has long-term (decades, years, not months) value that is almost certain not to depreciate much, almost certain to appreciate. It is used chiefly as a hedge against volatility.

Bitcoin is digital, not yet scarce. Having been around less than 10 years, one can only speculate about its long-term viability as a commodity, never mind its original purpose as a currency.

They can be put to comparsion, but they are not comparable. Gold has outlived its original purpose as currency. Perhaps Bitcoin will do the same.

Wouldn't make sense to aim to regulate crypto, and then follow up with a ban, especially if you only target Bitcoin. When BBC did a research tour of Bitcoin miners in China in 2016, it claimed that at least 70% of the global mining originated from China, and the miners there were already doing all of it underground - literally and in remote, hidden facilities. Perhaps more of security and trade secret rather than pre-empting a government ban. But I can foresee a potential ban pushing miners farther underground, deeper into the shadows. Sure, you could track them by electricity, but there are just so many ways people could mine from homes or hide the consumption behind larger industries.

But let's say they become successful. The network adjusts. Difficulty comes down. Beyond a temporary blip, blocks keep getting found at the same rate and transactions continue as usual. Network is arguably less secure if we assume miners also will shut down nodes, but the void will keep getting filled.

You agree with the Tweet and yet agree that the price of Bitcoin is too high? Mister Ver thinks Bitcoin should have been $10,000 - more than 10 times the price a year ago. He needs to understand that big blocks is hardly the main issue and that Core is not stifling price. If so, what on earth is stifling... nay, pushing down on the price of Bitcoin Cash? No limits to blocks, no limits to price, so why isn't it performing?

And when did this all become about price anyway? Says a lot about the "other" camps beyond Core. They talk loudly about ideology and make references to whitepapers, but at the end of the day price frustrates them.

Damn it, Billy Bob, you got to it first!

They have to realise they just sound more like MLM companies with Silver, Gold, Platinum etc. memberships. Then again, maybe they know this deep inside and are just plugging this craze for what its worth, milking "free" and instant profits. It's an absolute mockery of crypto and Bitcoin, and gives more fodder to critics with "no intrinsic value" as their main weapon.

These forks are only making Bitcoin stronger, but I fear a little for public perception of this landgrab.

I'm in the camp that is inclined to that theory, although I struggle to see much difference with Bitcoin - or crypto, for that matter. Other than the creation of a very small group of new global elites, mass adoption is now being preceded by the introduction of the current elite - the Sir Bransons and the Wall Streeters who among them can easily acquire (and already do) the majority of coins. Every new person I know who has bought Bitcoins have stopped at that.

"Oh yes I finally bought 10 bitcoins and they're safe in my <insert centralised web wallet name> account."
"It's amazing isn't it? I bought $20,000 last year and they're worth more than $100k now."

And the foundations and organisations are moving quickly around the world now, working with the elite, as elites, regulating and trying to assert control over crypto.

That's a lot like the version I tell them too! I actually just say it's just like a currency, it's digital and it doesn't need you to trust a bank or service to make sure you can send and receive it. Let's face it: this is how most of us first learnt about Bitcoin... the trustless, decentralised P2P nature came in next and that got us hooked.

It's way too early to show people technically complex videos and guides. I recall that experiment in 2014 when MIT students were given Bitcoin. More than half immediately converted it to cash, and only a handful of the rest went on to learn and understand Bitcoin properly. It's not as easily understood by the majority of people.

You know, Bitcoin happened to be launched in English, likely only because it was an English-speaking person or persons behind it, but likely also because the technology behind it (the programming language, for example) was all English-based. I do sometimes wonder if there were other technologies and ideas that hardly saw the light of day simply because they were not in English. I sometimes trawl the Chinese and Russian troves of forums and chat spaces... of course only reading translated text, but there is so much going on out there. Would Bitcoin have had the same success were it introduced in another language?

That said, English is not the all-consuming criteria for success... the Japanese, Thai, Russians, Chinese, have all shown that. But global reach, for the time being, does rely on propagation through English.

Has Bitcoin contributed to a bridging of people despite of language? Probably. I might say that it has unintentionally created deep divisions within development, but that is not the fault of Bitcoin, simply the consequence of language.

I'm backing Everton to just about pip this one. There's a strong pattern for teams who've just lost their manager to punch a little bit above their weight in the immediate few games. With Chelsea's eye on Champions League to ensure they finish their group first, should mean that they play a lot of second string players like Man Utd, City and Arsenal all did.

None of us are dismissing the value of the league cup but you can't deny it's bottom of priorities for top teams right now.

A win for Everton is my pick, a slim 1-0. Rooney has a goal in him.

There already is an organisation that is dedicated to discussing, considering, monitoring and building frameworks for ethical design in AI. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) published at the end of last year the first draft of this a "common standards" for so called "ethically-aligned design" (EAD): http://standards.ieee.org/develop/indconn/ec/ead_v1.pdf

At the time of receiving feedback, until May this year I believe, I think there was one suggestion to branch out the study to consider blockchain use in some of the solutions within, although it was pointed out that some kill-data mechanism (to prevent AI from overstepping) would be against the immutable design of blockchain.

Just realised there wasn't a thread for the English league cup, or does someone know where to dig it up from? I know people think it's stale to watch second-string teams from EPL play, but I typically enjoy the encounters with former Premier League teams. Like tonight's Norwich, Leeds, Wolves. Fantastic Arsenal comeback just happened with super sub I never heard of getting a brace within 10 minutes of playing, whistle's about to go at 7 minutes injury time but I think Wenger and Co will see through the dying moments to progress.

Edit: my mistake, it's extra time actually haha.

Funny to see Man City manage a stumbling draw so far against Wolves! Big enough names in Aguero, Sterling, Jesus, Toure. Don't you find it always strange how English teams do well in Europe and then clutch at straws against weaker domestic opponents?

Well the datasets users would have to feed in or the parameters for data collection by an AI would still be exposed to initial bias, though of course, if it were all transparent, others would be able to rank objectiveness and propose add ons or adjustments to improve that.

I see verification of identity, as well as compliance, that already use big data, machine learning and deep learning, as potential candidates for blockchain innovation. In the sense that immutability... proof of work or other cryptographic algorithm can help secure data against intrusion and alteration.

To date, my highest fee ever was just above 100,000 satoshi, which would have been just above $6 at ATH (I believe it was $3 at the time). Then again, that was a fee charged by the service I was using at a time when the network was congested, something I didn't have control over. Actual fee ended being about 60% of that, too, so I was skimped a little in the end.

On my own wallet using my own fees, I'm still a cheapo. Never paid more than 30,000 satoshi for transactions easily worth hundreds. The highest value transaction I did was 0.3 BTC ($1000 at the time) and I still paid something like 25k satoshi. As many have pointed out, it's not about the fiat amount, it's about the size of your tx. The more space it takes up in the block, the more you have to pay. Keep 'em lean, and learn to navigate around mempool, I say!

Without context, we can't say if that user overpaid. If I calculate savings based on the next cheapest transfer option (for me that would be a 0.5% fee bank wire), I've probably saved >95% of my costs.

There were (or are?) some valid points from the general economist's point of view. You have to remember that economists study theory and are taught how global finance and economy works. If you're a realist, you find some holes in those theories and structures, but as well you see the merit of some.

To give you an example of what economists thought of Bitcoin in 2014, maybe you can see this short slide: https://www.slideshare.net/i_heresss/techtalk-bitcoin-burn

I particular: Gresham's law and regulation.

Today, more than three years later, some of their arguments are stronger, but some are not, particularly when it comes to regulation.

Disclaimer: I read stuff like this with some amusement, but it's always good to comprehend the critics.