It's a very interesting concept, but it sounds like a long shot to me. Sure, the blockchain has plenty of interesting properties, but I don't believe this is where the problem lies:


I mean, the authorities are going to be the ones giving out the incentives, so it's not like the blockchain can take them out of the picture. It would be awesome if it worked, though, because it seems to be a basic incentive system which can be applied to a wide variety of stuff.

I tried visiting these, and it's strange how similar they are. They don't seem to have ads, so I checked if they were minejacking, but it doesn't look like they are either. Inputing an address doesn't do anything, so they may be logging those, but I have no idea what they could use them for. Maybe they're just preparing something shadier for the future? Either way, it's probably best to not visit them, unless you know you have adequate protection.

Well 1 penny = 1 cent, so maybe dime/quarter is to cent is a more fitting way to describe what you're looking for? I do get where you're coming from though. As Bitcoin became pretty much unsuitable as a base unit, people started using mBTC, which currently cost around $10 each. It's also likely to become unsuitable itself in the future at which point uBTC is likely to be used next, but it's only 2 decimal places away from sats; do we really need something else between those?

I also get the merit of shifting to satoshi-centric units from BTC-centric units, but since hectoshis already exist as uBTC (which is much more well known) it could just add to the confusion.

I don't have an account logged in, but I'm sure that's not a factor. You could try logging it out, but you'd be wasting your time. It's likely just a weird setting. Chrome has a feature that sets everything back to default, so you could try to use that.

Also, I'm quite sure Google links your account with your browsing history, so it might be a better idea to not have an account logged in on your browser.

Well, as far as I can remember, in a nutshell, he initially praised Bitcoin for its potential for money transfers, and how that could be useful for the developing world. He didn't reverse this position at all during the AMA. He simply went overboard and said that crypto is being used to buy fentanyl, etc. which makes it directly responsible for some deaths. He also knocked it for its "focus on anonymity", which, I would say, is an indication that he knows little about the technology.

Either way, his statements fit together; you can embrace one aspect and dislike another. It's not like his opinions matter anyway.

I don't normally use Chrome, but I tested mine and the feature worked fine. This is my version:

Version 64.0.3282.186 (Official Build) (64-bit)

This might be a stupid question, but could you possibly be using Incognito?

I'd say this could even be the first motive. Banks are essentially mediators and middlemen, and they charge for their services. Crypto doesn't need such entities, and could accomplish the same work, for the most part. There are still a lot of kinks to iron out, yes, but at the very basic level, people could operate without banks for the first time thanks to crypto.

JPMorgan also released a statement about this, and has acknowledged crypto as a risk to its business. Here is the article from fortune.

I don't think the first four are necessary. More terms equals more confusion, so it's best to stick to as few denominations as possible. Saying 1k sats is much simpler and less confusing than saying 1 kilosat, for example.

I could get behind megatoshi, but isn't cBTC (centi-BTC) already in (ableit rare and informal) use?

As someone has said, investing in multiple coins can't truly be considered diversifying. Crypto is very new and experimental, and all of them could simply collapse without warning. Diversifying is useless if it's all high risk lol. You can invest in as many as you want, for as long as you acknowledge that none of them are truly safe. They mostly all move in unison, too, so keep that in mind.

I'm not opposing him blindly. I didn't say he was wrong and left it at that. I pointed out that his logic may be flawed by giving an example. I'm not blaming him either. I also said that he only really rehashed (very strongly) a known fact.

As for my basis in saying that he doesn't know much about crypto, he also had this to say:


Just because crypto comes from cryptography doesn't mean the main feature for them is anonymity. Bitcoin itself is only pseudonymous, and to my knowledge, no effort has been done to improve that.

I love Bill Gates and his efforts to make the world a better place, but it's very likely he doesn't know too much about crypto; he doesn't need to either.

The way I see it, Bitcoin is already successful; it was successful in showing the world that a decentralized peer-to-peer electronic cash system can exist, and it could work. It spawned a cryptocurrency market and started a race for an alternative payment system, which it's currently leading.

That being said, we can't say that Bitcoin has completely succeeded as a currency yet. It is very much still an experiment in this regard, with the scalability problem front and center in the list of issues. It's constantly evolving, though,as proven by Segwit and the upcoming Lightning Network. I personally believe it will succeed, but only time will tell.

If this goes on, I imagine Coinbase would come out with an exportable accounting sheet containing all relevant information of your trades, if they haven't yet. Difficulty in filing wouldn't really be an issue in this case, as I'm sure they log most if not all the relevant data anyway.

I don't think it's Coinbase's fault. The US wanted a way to tax crypto, so they would have found one one way or another.

"Blast" is a strong term. The way I see it, everyone knows that Bitcoin is being used/have been used for drug trade, and he simply called that out. I disagree with him saying that Bitcoin is directly responsible for the deaths though. I mean, how many people could have used Windows to transfer Bitcoins for drugs? Does that mean Windows, and by extension, Microsoft, is also responsible? By the same logic, fiat is directly responsible for killing people too, just in a less efficient manner, in his own words.

It doesn't look like he knows much about crypto, and was just sounding off his opinions.

Isn't this feature already on by default, even without a plugin? Topics you haven't read are in boldface, topics you've read aren't. New posts in a topic you've already read turns it bold again. Am I missing something?

Seems like a shitty thing to do. Devs should be worrying about the quality of their project, not the price. If this move has nothing at all to do with utility, which seems to be the case given the facts you've shared, the devs might be positioning themselves for a pump and dump. That's just my two satoshis though.

I personally haven't, but I tried to look into them, and it turns out they have a scam accusation:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1979054.0

It doesn't look like it was properly resolved, so it could just be poor customer service, but I'd still be careful just in case.

Welcome to the community! You're much better off just reading topics and following conversations. You're free to ask any question you may have, too, by posting on the relevant boards, and replying to relevant topics. Trusting someone as your mentor just opens you up to scams and/or manipulation. You're new so you probably don't realize this, but there are lots and lots of scammers in the crypto space, so you're better off finding knowledge by yourself.

This is unlikely to yield any conclusive results because forums typically revolve a single subject matter, so most of its users will have the same interests. If you take a poll of who pays with crypto here on Bitcointalk, for example, you'll likely get a much higher percentage than if you're polling random people in the street.

There are no extensive studies like this that I am aware of, sadly. Your best bet are Bitcoin payment processors, but I highly doubt they'll share sales data; I bet they won't even provide you a ballpark figure.

Early is relative though. You never know when the parabola has reached its apex until it starts falling. Not saying Bitcoin is a scam, but some people still consider the market young, and that the most recent adopters are still early. People who do fall for scams likely see things the same way. But yeah, maybe it takes a high profile case like theirs to put people on their guard. Scams evolve, people adapt, and the cycle begins again lol.

That might be true for other people, but for Warren Buffet specifically, I'd say he's more concerned about the fact that Bitcoin isn't backed by anything, unlike traditional investments. I mean, stocks aren't exactly tangible as well, and he obviously doesn't have a problem with those.

As for OP, again, stocks don't exist in the material world, and they're very valuable. Being tangible isn't a requirement to having value because value is a man made concept. Should man collectively consider literal shit to be valuable, it will be valuable.