I just want to add that you can create your own de facto hardware wallet with a USB Flash Drive with these simple steps:

1. Install a persistent version of Linux on your flash drive. (Something like this)
2. Get Electrum on it, either from another flash drive while it's booted (if you never want it to touch the internet) or simply from electrum.org.
3. Turn off networking permanently; it's only a cold wallet if it's completely offline.
4. Create your wallet offline with Electrum.
5. Learn how to use your new cold wallet.

Edit:
6. As o_e_l_e_o points out, encrypting it would cover more bases.

It's a lot more inconvenient to spend from, but that has its advantages. You also don't need to worry about it being compromised in transit, having manufacturer-specific vulnerabilities, etc. Do note that I'm not saying that this is necessarily better than commercial hardware wallets; it's just another option you can look at.

I don't know if the drop is significant enough to be indicative of market jitters. The way I see it, speculators have been hoarding coins ahead of the halving (considering how hyped it is this time around), then just dropped their coins once they feel they've reached the ceiling. Basically the same thing happened last halving, where prices started going down near the halving date, and the downtrend continued for like 3 months after.

I would like to be surprised though. The halving is still a couple months away, so there's definitely still a lot of action to be had.

You're going to need a more concrete example, both with the problem you want worked on with the amount of progress to be expected.

Bitcoin's most pressing problems at the moment, for example, are scalability and adoption. It's almost completely incompatible (either ideologically or technologically) with the scaling solutions other projects have taken (and vice versa), so I don't see how coordination could help on that end. It would be great if everyone could get together to promote crypto usage, but at the end of the day, everybody's already doing this, just each on their own time.

I suppose it would be nice to have some sort of united crypto front, but I honestly don't see how that's possible (properly, at least), or how it would even help.

If the design is amateurish, that's one thing but...


Plagiarizing is never okay and deserves to be punished. Saying it's justified because of lack of resources is akin to saying that robbery is justified if the robbers are poor. If they can steal content, they can steal users' funds, so saying that it's a scam is completely justified. If teams don't have the funds to even start a project properly, then maybe they shouldn't start one at all. If they couldn't even be bothered to invest in their own project, why should others? Not saying that insufficient funding = scam project, but how much the team is invested in their project reflects on their commitment to it, which could also explain why scam projects are typically underfunded.

Anyway, I don't think anyone will accuse projects of being a scam just because the website is poorly designed for as long as there aren't obvious red flags like plagiarism, lies, etc. Either way, scam accusations aren't a one-way street; you're free to prove accusations against you wrong.

If you've never done KYC with this exchange ever, it's likely they only require it for withdrawals. That means hiding under a VPN won't help. Either way, the only way to move forward is to subject yourself to the KYC, and hope they give you a brief window to transfer your funds.

I'm pretty sure it's illegal under any jurisdiction for them to keep your money permanently, but they can probably do so indefinitely, "pending investigation." That means you might need to get in touch with a lawyer if they decide to act a little less than pleasant.

Anyway, would you mind telling us the name of the exchange and possibly how much is involved? If they have Bitcointalk presence, the community could probably pressure them into giving you your money back, or to at least look at your case. Not requiring KYC upon registration and asking for it later during withdrawals where they can decide to lock your funds is dishonest behavior.

So about that negative impact:


If they're being discriminated by high interest rates and loan approvals, I don't see how Bitcoin can help them. Bitcoin can only cover custody of money and transfers, neither of which can royally screw you over unless banks somehow completely lose your money. If they want to go to a Bitcoin creditor, they'll likely face the same problems except on a different currency -- unless it's been proven that Bitcoin creditors are inherently less racist than bank creditors.

Solar farms require a hefty investment and a big surface area. The source of energy would be cheaper, yeah, but it might still end up costing more because of the infrastructure costs. It's very viable for small miners, but a bit more complicated for full-blown mining farms especially when there are more cost-efficient options like hydro-electric plants.

There's actually a study on that which claims that 74% of the energy used is from clean and renewable sources (you're going to need to enter your email, but a throwaway should suffice):

https://coinsharesgroup.com/research/bitcoin-mining-network-june-2019

Either way, renewable energy is increasingly getting cheaper and it's only a matter of time until it's the only viable option. With miners being motivated by profits, they're actually incentivized to make their operations greener.

Yeah, it seems like it's only a matter of time until their banks are forced to accept it. The Israeli version of SEC is interested in exploring the possibility of a digital market in Israel:


That, plus an actual court actually ruled that blanket bans shouldn't be imposed last year:


It's funny seeing the government telling banks to actually do their jobs lol.

To add to ETFBitcoin's hack details, Nord was indeed hacked in 2018, but what might be worth considering more is that it took them more than a year to disclose it:


They say they chose not to publicize it just in case other servers were also exploitable. People were understandably upset, but Nord's explanation is also (somewhat) acceptable to me. It's up to you which side you want to camp in.

Either way, I've been using Nord for more than 3 years now and I'm generally happy with its reliability. I would honestly recommend it, but again, take that breach and their reaction into consideration. Breaches can happen to anyone, but how providers react to could be indicative of how they handle business.

So what crime is he committing, and how do you prove it? Again, the burden of proof is always on the accuser. You don't ask the accused to provide proof that he is innocent to make a suit stick, you produce evidence and the court decides if it has merit. Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

I'm not commenting on the state of our justice system, but the fact of the matter is, no one has been able to do anything about his lies for a reason. But hey, if it's so obvious to you and you are somehow able to make a compelling case, I'm sure the community would be up for a crowdfund.


Until you prove that he's actually claiming to be someone else, it's your word against his. And again, the justice system presumes innocence (CSW has human rights too, apparently!), so good luck.


This might actually stick, but you might need to prove that he's not who he says first.

Just to be clear, I do think he's lying and I would support action against him. I just want to remind people that these go through courts, which require evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict crimes. Saying "but he can't sign the keys!" sadly doesn't cut it (because he could just say he lost them, which would be reasonable, and there would be no way to disprove it), and the fact that Satoshi Nakamoto is a fake identity whose owner is completely anonymous makes it all the more complicated.

There's always a presumption of innocence as far as the justice system goes. He doesn't have to prove that he's innocent (by signing keys, etc.), someone else has to prove him guilty with actual conclusive evidence -- something that can't be done until the real Satoshi steps up and proves his identity, thereby invalidating CSW's claim.

Anyone can claim to be Satoshi and the justice system can't do jack shit because the burden of proof is with the prosecution, not the defendant.

Well they've also had a successful limited test run with mobile blockchain voting, which is something I suppose:


I know the sample size is incredibly small, but the fact that it actually worked could also mean that it can scale. I completely agree that deploying it in a large scale immediately is a horrible idea, but a few breakthroughs here and there could make them plausible in the future.

The maximum supply doesn't really matter as much as the rate of entry or exit of existing supply. Bitcoin could have a cap of 210 million coins and it shouldn't affect Bitcoin's value in theory, considering how halving restricts the supply in circulation (it doesn't affect supply at all prior to year 2140); it's still going to be more and more deflationary, which translates to higher prices if there is demand for it. Supply doesn't have to adjust to demand either, that just means existing supply will be worth more.


The formula is typically:

Low Supply + High Demand = High Value

Theoretically, burning coins can artificially create a situation wherein there is more demand (even if it's low to begin with) than supply. That's an example of market manipulation though, so I wouldn't trust developers that do this.

UX definitely needs to be improved to appeal to regular folk, but having the option to use it is a lot better than not having it at all. It sucks that adoption is slow and even uninteresting to some people, but it's always nice to know that some infrastructure exists, ready for anyone who may want to dip their toes in; can't start using it if it's not accepted anywhere after all. Heck, the fact that it's still being accepted at all despite the factors you've mentioned is a victory to me lol.


Well to be fair, most of these services offer discreet billing, so their customers often aren't bothered. But yeah, that's not enough as it doesn't protect against leaks (remember Ashley Madison?), so Bitcoin is absolutely perfect for this. Most independent workers seem to accept crypto as far as I can see, so there's that at least.

Something of the sort did happen in 2014, with the Silk Road coins:


I'm not aware of any similar phenomenon being observed since though. At this point especially, people already know that a lot of investors are stocking up on Bitcoin, so the auction drawing attention won't be turning any heads. This is unlikely to move the needle significantly in either direction.

I also don't think the coins will be dumped immediately. People who have the resources for something like this aren't usually looking for a quick buck, especially with the paperwork involved. Either way, I'm skeptical that 4k coins being dumped is large enough to trigger a sell-off.

It has been cleared up above that they're not printing money in this case, but it's inaccurate to say they're not printing money:


As for the virus' impact, at least on China's economy:


One more thing to note is that people are scrambling to find a vaccine, and that one is even ready for testing. It's easy to get lost in all the negativity, but with people starting to be aware (how to protect against it, what it really does, etc.), fewer people are going to be infected, and the outbreak is going to slow down. It's hard to believe that it's going to go on completely unchecked, and that's basically the only way it can have long-lasting impact to the economy.

Can we get a source on this? As far as I know, these have only ever happened to poorly generated private keys. If you're using a proper wallet to generate your keys, you should be practically immune to any brute force attack, at least with current technology.

Here's a discussion on what it would take to break the SHA256 encryption.

(If you're talking about the Large Bitcoin Collider project, it's a sham.)

I'm not so sure China's slump has anything to do with this. Bitcoin hit 9k before the markets got decimated (and was even steadily growing before that), and the increase in wallets and transaction volume could be explained by high prices and low fees (people could be consolidating, moving money around, etc.).

It's certainly an interesting case though, since it looks like the traditional markets are about to take a beating. If it hits everywhere, we might be able to see how much trust Bitcoin has actually gained as a safe haven.


Price bubble might be too strong considering the growth isn't really explosive by Bitcoin's standards. I do think halving is a big factor though, being only around 3 months away.

I don't necessarily have a problem with this, but my gripe is that KYC isn't for transparency at all; it's for accountability. It's a requirement set by regulators, so it's not like providers are requiring it just for the sake of having your data. Also, as far as reciprocality goes, isn't it reciprocal that regulators are also asking company heads for their personal data? For as long as a business is legitimately registered, you will have access to all the information you need for a lawsuit (which means they can be held accountable) -- that tells me that provider transparency or reciprocality isn't the problem with KYC, unless your solution to private data being mishandled is doxxing them.

If the problem is that providers are able to get away scot-free from mishandling data, then way I see it, there are two simple solutions: 1) abolish KYC entirely -- meaning providers won't have an excuse to ask for our personal information anymore or 2) stronger data privacy laws -- impose penalties that will actually make providers think twice and thrice about being reckless or doing anything shady with customer data. We know KYC won't be abolished, but we can actually urge lawmakers to pay more attention to data protection.

I see where you're coming from though. I personally stay away from KYC unless absolutely necessary.