Well said, let's not also forget about their increasingly monopolistic behaviors. Business is business i understand that, Binance is here to make money, make investors money (to the best of their abilities and create an ecosystem for all in crypto; exposing crypto to a wider audience. But, the foundations of what crypto and blockchain represent, is everything Binance is diverging away from.

Red-flags for the meaning of crypto, a positive step-forward for bigger money and larger awareness. Shortsightedness for the short-term, damaging for the future of crypto entirely. Binance is probably the biggest threat to the entire crypto-sphere, with all ideologies/foundations this industry was founded on; but, this all would of happened eventually, it's in our nature to seek order by delegating power to other people to make the decisions for themselves.

Competition has/will follow suite and mimic the behaviors/actions that Binance is doing, to stay competitive.

A lot of discussions, but a significant reason for the minimum threshold is KYC verification, they cost anywhere from 2-20usd (yes i've seen 20usd KYC verification, especially if you go with a very small shitty service) per verification, depending on the source and how much automation is included.

Along with that, there are also costs for conducting TXs and a wide variety of overhead costs that rarely get disclosed. Also, the thought of 1000-10k people donating <$1 is a total nightmare for distribution and again, many of the costs associated with hosting the ICO itself.

These costs sometimes are just allocated directly from the pre-investments, sometimes they come directly out of the invested amounts. A lot of what you guys stated also plays factors as well.

One of the many things that's rarely spoken about (if ever) is ICO's disclosing allocation costs for running operations and how much working capital they have from the beginning. I'm not talking about the typical pie-chart, i'm talking real in-depth financials with forecasts, predictions and current running costs. Most competent ICO teams do have this information, and only disclose it to investors investing major sums of money into the project, but, again, rarely is public knowledge. This is a standard practice for real-world businesses and startups, but virtually unheard of in crypto. It's really up to the investor and crypto community to push for more transparency into these types of things and demand more from ICO/STO/IEO or w/e teams.

XRP shill continues to promotes blog about scamcoin's movements to appear legitimate. That's the real headline of this thread.

Their years of shady, malicious activities and thievery will not go unnoticed in the future. Most already know (on BTT) XRP is the king of scamcoins and given enough time, scams will expose themselves as scams.

This is a good remark. Because everything that crypto currently (or has) stood far, is changing. The dynamics of decentralization, privacy and freedom are getting morphed. To add to the OP, this could be analyzed from a perspective of the study of human behavior.. we are drawn to central authorities for order.

There's no doubt crypto is becoming more centralized, both within certain networks and every business surrounding/making up the current/future climates. Investors and enthusiasts are not interested in the inherent philosophy blockchain and Bitcoin where founded on, that's going to be lost, especially if the "proposed bans" on privacy-cryptos actually takes hold in the future. While i respect what some crypto-funded business have done for crypto as a whole (namely Binance), their increasing monopolistic behavior, to maintain relevancy, is somewhat damaging to the inherent representation in the space they're operating within.

The future will be determined not by the average guy, but the guys who hold authority and power, and to use it to promote the environment in-which, again, is steadily being lost to an extent.

We're seeing a dynamic shift in how blockchains are going to be adopted and only a small portion of existing crypto's will have any sort of real-adoption, institutions associated with them. Several companies that many of you are familiar with (IBM.. etc) are competing with most start-up ICOs, but on a global scale. There has been a large uptick in the news coming out from these larger corporations, experimenting and potentially creating their own cryptos. It's only going to snowball, due to the power of blockchain as a whole.  

Thus, ICO's or "publicly funded" offerings will die off to an extent in the coming years. There's no great desire for the average crypto investor to risk investing in an unknown crypto, that has little authority/backing by some reputable brand, institution, individual or exchanges themselves. What we are seeing is very well pre-funded projects, with smaller public-offerings (if they choose that route at all).

Coupled with the somewhat dying public ICO scene, there will be something far more punishing occurring in a few months or near the end of this year, and that's regulatory frameworks set forth by the SEC. STO's will be a common occurrence, but the term "accredited investor" will also start taking hold, thus nullifying the meaning of crypto and ICO entirely. Accredited investors (institutional investors) will be driving most of these STO's or IEOs in the future and almost every crypto framework we know of, will be abiding by this design.

Yes several. More Recently (end of 2018-now) I've been more publicly active, since ICO teams are not as receptive to anonymous team members. I've been around, seen many successes and many failures in crypto. There's a lot of clients/cryptos/ico's that i've advised in the past which will not be made public, specifically during 2015-2017.

BTT should serve as one initial reference point for researching into my past, along with linkedin and etc. Some of the older veterans of crypto will recognize CoinsSource, in which CTE Advisor ultimately was formed out of, during operation and afterwards in 2015.

Exchange hosted ICO's is not a new concept, been around since 2015. Syscoin was actually one of the first ICO's hosted by an exchange, Moolah, which turned out to be a fisaco in itself. So the concept of IEO is not new, has been done many times, (just like how you'd invest into any shitcoin on BNB's launchpad). During those times though, the size of the markets, marketing projects itself and the ability to catch enough people's attention with a reputable name was significantly smaller and of course, every other implication that came out of 2017-2018 didn't exist.

Since the markets are so much larger now, monopolistic-centralized exchanges hold immense power (more than ever) and weight over the crypto markets as a whole. People flock to these shitcoins (btw nothing unique about them, in contrast to the 100 shitcoins that did the same thing) because they are immediately backed by these particular large exchanges, giving them weight, security and merit. Exchanges, especially the bigger ones, are still the most fundamental depiction of how successful a coin is post-ICO.

IEO's in general is an avenue for the average crypto user, who know's very little about the entire climate, to invest somewhat securely without being scammed. That's probably the biggest benefit coming from this all. The repercussions will be exchanges are hosting what's going to be considered "security tokens" in the future, on their platforms. It wouldn't be surprising to me to start seeing the term "accredited investor" going around these exchanges soon, a 180-degree turn on the entire representation/philosophy of what it actually means to be a cryptocurrency and to conduct an ICO.

There are many implications and positives one could analyze from IEOs, the days of the small guy conducting a self-hosted ICO, to create the a top-100 blockchain or shittoken, is coming to an abrupt halt.

Ah more baseless accusations, attacks and even subtle threat now? Did some research into me personally i see.

Tbh, i know i'm treading dangerous waters ever time i provide feedback to this crypto with facts and analysis; it's on my mind everytime i post a comment about Universa about my safety, a gut-feeling if you will. It was clear the moment i got instantly banned for calling Smartgold a scam (which it is btw), but a non-universa Russian admin. I've been in crypto long enough, i've seen and heard of many things, I'm well aware of all the Russians behind this project and the corrupt intentions done to cover up various of situations now. A lot of money is at stake and reputations, which i may be damaging atm by uncovering the facts.

So since you're identifying me personally by my first real name on these forums, btw i use my nickname T.k. almost everywhere on the net, i will take my leave for good, out of my safety and knowing that I'm dealing with some unsavory characters.

You win, good luck.

It's pretty useless talking to you ampirebus, as depicted by the amount of questions, comments and etc that have been unanswered through many pages. Not to mention, waiting for that apology for calling me a liar when you've been disproved on every occasion you've attacked me. And attacks from the Universa team to community member is happening more frequently, there's a pushback from the scam team to every hard-question asked.


You asked for my feedback .I'll say this one last time, UTN is a giftcard shitcoin. I explained how you conduct a TX, anyone can try it for themselves, and I implore you to even use the blockchain for the first time as-well. It's clear you have little understanding of how this blockchain functions from a user-standpoint. Lets not also forget, there's three different locations to do various of functions for UTN. Three different locations, beta, access and the chat.




All my messages (as of a couple weeks ago) are directed to the community only. I've personally lost all faith in the dev team, in you, admins and AB above all else. Again, it's fruitless to engage with you guys. The objective is to get them talking and they have. There's been an increase in critical discussions (blended in with all the fake puppets you control).

You don't have to look far to find several catastrophic failures with this project, from the mainnet, to the swap, to their "business negotiations," to the blockchain itself, paying for fake exchange vol/community members, marketing and more recently, the reactions from the team to the community members.


If you're looking into this project, just know, we've been on this same carousel for over a year now and it's been absolutely fruitless. They even support scam projects like Smartgold and Fast (or w/e). I got banned in telegram for talking about them, by some random Russian, that's how bad it is boys. Lets not also forget, 28million funded into this project and we have a little over 5k-10kusd volume per day from their only legitimate exchange, cobinhood. That actually is what the avg volume of Universa has been for over a year now.

There's a lot more, but ampirebus and all his puppet accounts will be here soon to try to do some damage control.

Just a follow up to IDCM and Coinbene being fake/scam exchanges. Now you can actually see the true behaviors of 80% of exchanges out there. It's quite revealing and should be informative to some of you. There are many exchanges like this throughout crypto and almost every crypto is probably bloated by fake volume, especially Bitcoin and most top 30 cryptos. It's really an interesting topic, very little coverage in news and amongst crypto enthusiasts. But, this will be a bigger topic in the future when someone actually wants to take the time and effort to really dig deep, and really find out what a true metric of "volume" represents. It's a pretty in-depth and interesting subject. (btw, look for sinusoidal markets "stable markets" this is one of many indicators a market is "faked")


As for Universa, AB did pay for this. Fake volume doesn't just occur, neither is it offered for free. It was wrapped into the sum he paid for the listing on this exchange, unknowingly or knowingly, that's the real question. I believe he does know, given the circumstance and past efforts to also "pump up" the volume on Coinbene (HitBTC prob too), and that was half a mil for 2 months, a service that's not offered lightly or free. Logically, yes he did know for IDCM, because he knew for Coinbene and probably when it was listed on HitBTC aswell. I haven't taken the time, nor do i have records about the HitBTC listing volumes/txs, but it looks pretty fake from CMC, especially that 1 day in may 2018 when the volume went to 0(bot or payment failure), then after the fake volume promo ended on HitBTC (vol went basically back to 0), then a desisting occurred all-together 1-2 months after due to no demand at all for Universa's trash.  

I've seen the contracts/agreements of other cryptos and exchanges i've had ties with in the past, who've been offered similar services, by third parties, to "give them volume on your exchange." Similarly, most new ICOs are offered such services, but usually under NDAs or unwillingly pay for them in the initial exchange payments. To the extent this goes, i'm not too sure. But, if you're actually buying fake volume, then you'll do your best to hide that secret, because it will destabilize any market. Anything can be bought for a price, never settle for any bullshit telling you otherwise. The heart of crypto is very corrupted, especially since Ethereum's smart contracts have gone viral post-2017.

If you're asking the question whether to buy BNB, then the answer is it's too late; unless you're ready to short BNB on a daily/hourly notice.

Everything they are trying to achieve is great, but their monopoly on crypto will not go unchecked, their coin pump will not go unchecked, neither is Binance's endeavors and behavior even healthy for crypto-environment as a whole. Centralization and monopolistic behaviors are the biggest threat to cryptocurrency, Binance is exhibiting both. They are trying to own the "bandages and bullets."


All it takes is 1 misstep by the team, 1 major manipulative event by a whale, 1 vulnerability and BNB is going to look like a major catastrophe for all investors and speculators.

Two words that have no reason to be associated with eachother, crypto and XRP/Ripple.

XRP shills are back at it again, trying to promote and pump the King of ALL shitcoins and some would even claim King of all scamcoins.

I'm still seeking talented individuals for the following roles, and addition, I'm looking for a new bounty manager to recommend to some of my clients. Due to the crypto markets, a lot of former bounty-managers have left crypto, thus continually leaving a void.

1) Social Media Manger (someone to tweet and etc)
2) Bounty-Manager

If you have any other services that are not listed, i will still entertain them. Just message me.

you bumped a 5-year old thread.

This idea eventually morphed into CoinsSource.com (which went out of business in 2015). There's a summary about Coins Source at: https://cteadvisor.com/about/

Shills talk a lot, but know nothing. IDCM is a fake/scam/shit exchange, it's obvious if you ever looked at any coins, including Universa. 90% of all volumes are faked, it's very very obvious.

And i recommend any of you to look at any market, any order book, any volume transaction. If you understand the basics of what information is presented to you on exchanges, then you will come to understand IDCM is a scammy exchange.

Btw, this isn't the first time AB paid for fake volume, when Universa got listed to another fake/scam/shit exchange Coinbene, they paid (or got) for fake volume there aswell. That was also very obvious by the significant increase in Vol overnight, then when it expired, Universa went to a natural state of around 10k usd volume. Volume doesn't suddenly drop from half a million, to 10k in 1-2 nights, it's virtually impossible. In addition, that volume lasted from September 1st to November 1st, exactly 2 months on the dot. Amazing. Therefore, that's a 98% drop in total volume over 1-2 nights, after exactly 2 months of listing! Not even scamcoins undergo this extreme transformation... fake volume. IDCM will exhibit similar behaviors, but it's obvious by just looking at the order books.






So what does that mean? AB paid/got fake vol for Universa once before on Coinbene, but this ultimately means nothing really. It does show how miserable the demand was for Universa in Q3-Q4.

It does help Universa's appearance to the novices who know little about crypto (which is about 80% of all people who trade/invest in crypto), but most of the real volumes have dropped off significantly and continue to do so; Cobinhood is a reflection of that. If Universa gets pumped again, then there will be an additional marketing aspect to it by appearing in Gain/losers on CMC, by reaching the 50k minimum threshold (ofc faked).

Thus, Universa is in a worse condition then it was prior to IDCM listing.

This should raise more red-flags though, about the manipulative efforts AB is going through to show progress, to show Universa has "real value." If he's willing to do this on the markets, then what other major efforts has he taken to fill Universa with hot air? Thus, leading into the very critical nature of all my posts.


As i've stated multiple times, Universa team is made up of amateurs, run by Alexander Borodich, who's a good businessman and talker, but, knows little about cryptocurrency as a whole. I don't necessarily blame him, because it takes many years to truly understand cryptocurrency and how to maintain a coin. He has failed time and time again, and bringing in real talent, real people in crypto from his local/russian environment to help him build this increasingly shitcoin.





edit: If you want to understand how exchanges behave, and to give even more weight to my claims, i suggest reading this excellent article by CMC, the bits about exchanges is about 75% down the page: https://blog.coinmarketcap.com/2018/11/27/according-to-coinmarketcap-2018-edition/

DO has come a long way, while i don't agree with how the team behaved in the past, the most important thing is that they are still highly active and that their high involvement has not stifled.

DeepOnion is one of the truest representations of what it means to be a cryptocurrency, outside of their moderation efforts (which i've come to an understanding personally).

Moving forward with all their development plans, while sustaining one of the largest communities in crypto is a major accomplishment, and i want to commend the team for their diligent work. It will pay off in the end. Stay vigilant and keep progressing DO community and team.



P.S. they have the leverage to get listed to a high-profile exchange, especially once v.2.0 launches, and I suspect an exchange like Bittrex is inevitable.

Short answer, no.

It's perceived (from what i've known and read) that we are about anywhere from 20-100 years away from a usable, everyday, quantum computer. The essence of it, no one knows when this will occur, or if it can even be achieved in our lifetimes. This subject is pretty in-depth overall, and I'll briefly go over what exactly a quantum computer is and how crypto will ultimately benefit and (fail) due to this enormous milestone for humanity.

To begin with, a bit represents a 1 or a 0, the most fundamental way to interpret the very fabric of reality into machine (or digital language). Essentially, a 1 means on, and a 0 means off. Computers behave by interpreting data in this fashion, reading bits, or a string of 8 bits (a byte), in order to process information. 0 essentially means no information, or a gap, a 1 means some sort of information is present. Thus, stringing these values, will ultimately denote a character, or any piece of information desired.

A Qbit is a quantum entangled pair of particles. Entanglement is inherent in quantum mechanics, a phenomenon whereby 2 particles, no matter the distance, will react instantaneously inversely to the particle entangled with (spin, polarization..etc). A Bit is binary it can only occupy one state, a 1 or a 0, with a Qbit, it can occupy both a 1 and a 0, called superposition. As you can imagine, this has drastic implications on the amount of information that can be processed.

The problem is, the current quantum computers are very unreliable, unstable and require a temperature near absolute 0 to even function (superconductor). Coinciding with that, you need enough Qbits to compute anything reasonable (100-150 is the latest), therefore the power of a quantum computer right now, is virtually useless. To create a near-absolute 0 environment requires an enormous amount of energy, to remove energy from the system, it's impractical for all intensive purposes. The colder the temp, the less resistance, and you need virtually no resistance (superconductor) to handle a Qubit operation. (i encourage you to read further, I'm not expert on material sciences)


Leading into cryptography -

The implications of the amount of information that can be processed due to the Qbit will directly affect all forms of encryption as we know it. Bitcoin utilizes SHA-256 encryption, and to crack a Bitcoin key: "it takes on the order of 2^128 basic operations to get the Bitcoin private key associated with a Bitcoin public key." - Wiki. I should note, there can be 2^256 different variations of private keys, and it would take roughly 0.5-0.6 billion years to compute all the variations with a modern supercomputer. That's very roughly 1/28 or 2% the age of the observable universe. Not practical or feasible to even think about or attempt. But, a quantum computer theoretically crack SHA-256, obtain private keys, rendering Bitcoin's blockchain useless. I should note, that transacting Bitcoin and announcing your public key happens in seconds, so what is perceived if you have 1 address, it's still somewhat impractical to cracking your public key, to obtain the private-key, even with a quantum computer.

Now, there are a lot of cryptos that have mitigation against quantum computing already created. IOTA, NEO and Qtum, there are various of others. Each one of these blockchains handles quantum resistance differently from what i understand, IOTA with DLT, Neo with ECC and Qtum with QRL. Not going to go into the specifics.

Essentially, with our current understanding it's very feasible to create quantum resistant blockchains, and all cryptos already have some sort of resistance already built into them. As we move forward in the decades, cryptos will fork off into newer algos or will already have mechanisms in place to defend against these types of attacks. Bitcoin has essentially done this, first mined with CPU, GPU and now ASICs. The various of forks were to prevent a 51% attack, first from the threat of GPUs and then ASICs, ASICs representing the epitome of power for computing hashes p/s, today. The second is brute-forcing (as expressed above) is obtaining private keys from the public key. As you stated, quantum computing can be used not only as an attacking mechanism, but also be used to encrypt information itself. Thus, somewhat nullifying this entire discussion.

The problem is that everything is mostly theory (not quantum mechanics) in terms of prevention against quantum computing.  I don't and very few actually know the mathematics behind all this stuff. And because of that, this answer is going to remain somewhat incomplete, unless someone else wants to weigh in on this topic that's more well-versed in computer science and quantum mechanics.

I will ultimately say, the biggest issue will reside with a quantum computing machine from an unknown party. Governments are no doubt working on these things, and the biggest issue for cryptos is not if, but when a quantum attack will occur. The prevention against these machines will quickly follow. But, it will have a significant impact on the entire market, you will see (no matter what occurs) an enormous sell-off, because of the fear, uncertainty (negative sentiment) and threat they pose. I believe, once a quantum computer is stable enough to operate, the first target is cryptography and all forms of encryption held over the internet. I really do not believe public companies like Intel and etc. will be the first to build a practical, stable quantum computer; simply because there is too much at stake for a government not to be investing in this technology for cybersecurity purposes. You can see glimpses of what computing power is doing to nations, just look at how the U.S. is reacting and telling it's allies not to use China/Huawei's 5g network capabilities/infrastructure. What would a quantum computer mean for governments across the world? Power, whatever it means to have a nuclear capabilities, by multiply that by some large arbitrary large number for how much significance a quantum computer has. The world is not disconnecting from the net anytime soon, in fact we are in the beginning. The IOT is real, somewhere in the future (if humanity hasn't annihilated itself), i image our consciousness will be uploaded to achieve near*-immortality.  


If this topic interests you or anyone, i highly recommended just researching these field. There is so much information out there, and what was presented in the post above is really basic. Begin with the basics of Quantum Mechanics, then research further into the specifics of quantum-entanglement and superposition; Lastly, cryptography and encryption in general.

The problem is deeper than just being scams, because scams are often double entendres. Scams come in all shapes and sizes, most think of scam as providing nothing in return for your investment, IE devs running away. But, this is not necessarily true in all cases. Most coins that we see today, belong on kickstarter or some other crowdfunding-based website (or require no funding at all in some cases), not having to do with cryptocurrency in any shape or form. Project that we see are start-ups looking to gain some sort of investment, without truly fully understanding what crypto is, and how this space functions.

MVP's often are developed to serve only 1 function for a crypto. Why does this crypto need to exist if it's only function is for this platform alone (often as a payment processor to purchase X good) and for trading/investing in? Essentially, this is where the perception of security tokens arise from. Because, if the token/crypto has no real function outside of a specific small niche job, then there truly was never no purpose for it to begin with. What i'm trying to say is that again, projects only enter ICOs to secure funding for their project, and to conduct an ICO you need a cryptocurrency. Well, guess what, it's quite easy to incorporate or utilize an ERC-20 or any other token, into ANY business or project, fulfilling the definition of ICO.

Thus, what most view ICOs as is investment vehicles into businesses, hoping to return a profit on a non-equity based security. This is the problem that crypto ultimately faces today, because investments into ICOs is so (or was) prevalent, and the majority do not understand the difference or what they've even invested in, regulations are going to police the entire industry (to whatever extent they can), in order to project the oblivious and clueless investor.

All this leads up to what the definition and perception of ICO is currently. There are still coins out there worthy of an investment, because they are building doorways with expandable blockchains, enhancing on technology, fundamentally furthering progress of the crypto-space. But, the majority of investors will never be able to dictate or even find such investments, and by the time they hit the markets, they are perceived as every other shitcoin/scamcoin. The only thing that truly matters for the average person in this space, is how well the coin functions on the markets post-ico, essentially the demand (or perception of).

Hey Classica,

Thank you for your very kind remarks, actually made my morning.


In a short answer, cryptocurrency will never cease to exist.

We have to break up the longevity of crypto (and blockchain) this up into 3 fundamental parts: Applications for technology, the crypto markets themselves, and can a crypto be actually killed by anything?


To start, it's very easy to have negative sentiments, in a negative market.

Contrary to what we've heard, and the explosion of crypto in 2017-early 2018, massive gains. One would immediately come to an initial conclusion, big gains, a lot of people made a lot of money! Not necessarily, i would argue that the majority of people who invested in 2017-2018 lost big, lost very big, and countless stories here on Bitcointalk and elsewhere can somewhat prove this claim. Of course some people made money, but a lot more lost. I would go on to loosely correlate and cite the 80-20% rule here, where 80% of anything is controlled or gained by 20% of individuals, and the remaining 80% of individuals control just 20% of something. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say, those big holders from 2014-2017, those 20% of individuals, most likely made out with 80% of all the wealth in that last bull-run.

Cryptocurrency by its very nature is decentralized. (In the most ideal condition) As long as there are 2 parties supporting a network (via pow, pos or any other algo to support consensus of blockchain), then that network is 100% safe (again discounting any other manipulative outside sources for a moment). So 2 people is all it takes 50-50 split of ownership of a network, then that blockchain would be consider alive, real and functioning. That's all it takes. It's not entirely reasonable to conclude that most cryptocurrencies, specifically the most well known coins, will ever cease to exist, ever. Bitcoin, Ethereum, BCash, EOS... etc, this networks will function as long as there are a handful of people willing to support the network, and by supporting the network, they are also securing it. Thus, if someone is willing to spend energy and time into securing something, then it must have value.

Some may argue that we are in a period of the trough of disillusionment, the cycle of all technology, and that crypto is dying, dead or etc. I would argue this is just the beginning, could anyone honestly stand here and say, in 1-5-10-50-100-1000 years from now blockchain was just a dead end then? Pretty ridiculous sentiment, especially if you understand human nature and technology itself. Again, it's easy to be negative where negativity is the dominate force, but to be optimistic and look beyond the next few days, weeks, months and years of your life, and understand what could happen in that time-frame requires dedication, along with a deep understanding of yourself. Are people in crypto to get rich quick, of course, but there are others that are here out of passion and again, understanding of what this field represents; they understand this is a maturing process, adoption and use don't happen overnight, it can take years and decades. Just like the Internet wasn't adopted overnight (created in 83', it took nearly 2-decades (about 15-20years).

As for regulations, now i'm a bit of proponent against and for regulations, why both? Because, if we take a look at what's being accomplished in the regulation space, we basically are witnessing (at least from the U.S, mainly the SEC - security exchange commission) a lack of understanding, and biased reactions towards crypto. There are those who are for blockchains, because they recognize a boom of capital income for that particular state, making it friendly enough for new startups. If we look across the world, no major government has outright banned the use of any crypto, simply because it'd be completely useless to do so, and that's not only because they have no control of the network, neither can they truly understand which of their citizens are holding or using crypto, it comes down to the simple argument of the advancement of technology. Now we are getting into the true meat here.

Blockchain and the whole of crypto represent a glimpse of a utopia that almost every liberally-minded person is essentially striving for. In essence (from my interpretation), technology (which is applications of mathematics and physics) is the gateway to a better world, a future world, a world made more efficient and interconnected. The stuff you hear late night on BBC's Click. If you come to a deep understanding on how fast new and upcoming tech is being utlized, you will shortly come to an understanding of what the potential for blockchain's incorporation into the real-world represents. And guess what, people did take notice of blockchain, hence the explosion of ICOs, Utlitiy tokens, Security tokens, etc. people are wanting to capture these parts of the future, incorporating their blockchains or coins into niche environments (health, gaming, etc list goes on). In almost every industry, blockchain or a cryptocurrency integration has major advantages, it could streamline processes, reduce costs, add transparency and the list goes on and on. This is why you see so many trying to capture these niches, this space, funding start-ups through ICOs, in hopes of building a successful business, getting rich, and potentially even being at the forefront of technology, revolutionizing industries!

That all sounds fantastic, and yes governments and people in government (the non-retarded ones) understand this to an extent. You can't simple kill a piece of technology, because guess what, those business that are creating new cryptos and ICOs are going to be moving elsewhere, and up-and-coming industry where millions...billions are being poured into, suddenly vanishes from your country. Not only that, it's more effective for opening a new stream of revenue through taxation, then it is to outright legalize something, if enough people are willing to use it, then there is nothing a government can do to stop it, and this couldn't be more truer for a crypto (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States) Now many lawmakers and some individuals do not have the capacity to peer into the future, and nature an up and coming field, and this is where you get negative sentiments from, where you get individuals criticizing crypto and calling it useless and etc.

Why would crypto be called useless, or that it has no value? It's quite simple, because while all crypto's utilize blockchain, the currency, commodity or whatever definition you want to attach to Bitcoin and other alts, remains speculative, simple because it's not adopted (widely used for practical purposes). Now i understand whoever is reading this far, that there are countless arguments, situations, scenarios where this is absolutely false, especially with other cryptos. I also know that we are currently in this adoption phase, where businesses are trying to figure out what exactly they can do with blockchain and crypto, how it's applicable to their (or other businesses), and how they can draw a profit from. But, at the end of the day, some individuals take an alternative path and view crypto from a purely transaction standpoint, being a store-of-value, or a means to transact a transaction quickly, cheaply and anonymously. Hence all the discussions about the dark web, illegal, laundering and etc. Being negative about anything is quite easy, humans are quite good at pointing out faults, it's easy to label Bitcoin as speculative, or worthless and etc, but ask yourself deeply, why are they saying that? Do they truly understand the capabilities that Bitcoin represents and influences?

Einstein once said something like this "i stand on the shoulders of James Clark Maxwell." who is the father of electromagnetism, which is the very essence of what ALL technology is built off of today, it applications in EVERY place and is used everywhere (imo the most important discovery in the 19th century outside of theory of evolution). Maxwell never got the recognition during his time, simply because no one could comprehend a non-physical reality, one governed by a new force, a new theory of fields. Bitcoin's reputation as a crypto, will continue to influence many. That's why we are seeing advancements of Blockchain and crypto, Bitcoin laid the foundation and future devs will build on those core ideas. While it's not the shinning gem on the block, or has great functionalities like Ethereum, it still represents this idea, this sole vision of what can be done with what Bitcoin was built on for the future. Thus what Bitcoin has done, and what Satoshi created was not a means-to-an-end, but a new beginning.

Regulation will never kill crypto, nor would any lawmaker or government sensible enough would want to ban crypto. Will they try to regulate it, tax it, of course they will. Will people abide by these rules, of course. So to an extent, regulations will win in the end, but will only legitimize crypto/blockchain further for the masses. But, you can't regulate the world, and somewhere on this earth, there will be a place that will be idyllic for crypto's and ICOs to be created from, free from big-brothers hands, creating any crypto you can dream of, without any authority telling you otherwise. We are already seeing the flower beginning to bloom on these topics, and we can get much deeper into this conversation (for another day). Cryptocurrency and blockchain will be around till the end of time, or evolve accordingly to survive. Only a futuristic quantum computer or a completely revolutionary vision/redesign of blockchain completely may put the current understand of blockchain on its heels. But, there's essentially nothing you can really do (unless a total blackout occurs) to kill any crypto or blockchain. Even some ICOs that are being shutdown, guess what, those crypto's are not going anywhere, for example: Paragon and Credits, just because they can kill the business, doesn't mean they killed the crypto. Are those cryptos crippled, yeah they are, mostly because they served one niche purpose and those weren't fully realized. Will these crypto's become speculative investments, profit mechanisms, or see someone willing to build from their ideas or continue operations, you can count on it. But, those cryptos are still alive in to their very core.

Value is only derived from someone else wanting something (outside of essentials that life needs to survive), and as long as there's one person in this world that sees value in crypto, then crypto itself will never cease to exist.