The writer raised some great concerns. I don't think the assumption that Bitcoin will outright replace fiat is correct though. There are, and always will be advantages in using fiat over Bitcoin, even once most of Bitcoin's issues have been addressed. I also want to note that Satoshi never mentioned wanting to replace fiat with Bitcoin; he simply wanted a peer-to-peer electronic cash system that foregoes the need for middlemen to process payments.

At best, I'd say Bitcoin will exist alongside fiat as an alternative, just like there will always be altcoins that serve as alternatives to Bitcoin. Mass adoption shouldn't have to mean erase all competitors.

Oh man, looks like the race to patent Blockchain-related technology is starting. It's only a matter of time until patent hoarders start trying to make money off of them. Blockchain scalability is a crucial issue which means it's an easy target, and that could end up hurting innovation in the long run.


They filed it with the SIPO and they seem to have a clear roadmap, so it's likely a legitimate attempt into tackling the scalability issue.

Why would he need a million? He doesn't need a mining farm to profit.

That being said, Bitcoin mining is highly specialized, and you likely need to invest a hefty amount of money for equipment with no promise of profit. You need to read. A lot.

Because of the current US sanctions against Venezuela. As I understand it, no US institution can lend any money to Venezuela, and buying their crypto could be construed as such. It's up to the courts to decide, of course, but they're warning people anyway to avoid potential legal consequences. US citizens could still do as they please and "invest", but at their own risk.

It's interesting how both cases mentioned happened in Russia. It's much more likely to be a coincidence, of course, but could there be Russia-based criminals using chain analysis to trace Bitcoins to their owners? It's a very long shot, but I'd say it's somewhat possible. Both were targeted attacks, so the criminals somehow knew that they were holding a sizable stash, either by them blabbing (which is much more likely) or through other means.

Either way, this just highlights the value of protecting your identity, both online and offline.

All that proves is that lots of people who talk about Bitcoin don't use it themselves. It's not unheard of for people to babble about subjects they have no knowledge of, after all.

But then again, it could be construed that they are talking about Bitcoin under the context where it's already being used to replace fiat in daily transactions, in which case, they aren't wrong. Most people who actually know a thing or two about Bitcoin should know that the current biggest barrier towards mass adoption is scalability (or lack thereof).

Well I'd say Google and Facebook are still scarier, but only because they operate on a much larger scale. If we go by per capita though, I do agree that Bitmain can do much more damage.

It makes me wonder though, how are they getting away with these? I know Chinese regulators are pretty lax when it comes to copyright stuff, but do they also turn a blind eye to shady selling practices?

Ridiculous. If anyone has been wondering how shady actors are spamming the Bitcoin network despite the large amounts of money involved, this may help shed a light on the answer. Hi Jihan Wu!

It also kind of shows why companies that add blockchain related terms to their name get a surge in stock prices. Everyone wants to ride the wave.

People only look at those qualities because of one thing: they can translate to high growth. Crypto, sadly, is still dominated by speculators looking to grow their money rather than actually believing in their potential in real-world use. Growth has always been the bottom line, and it doesn't look like that trend will change anytime soon.

It's possible, but I'm not seeing any promising ones right now. Litecoin had its moment thanks to the hype around Litepay, but it looks like it has calmed down. I'd say the bearish trend extends to the crypto market as a whole.

As far as experts go, educated speculation (likely with some hidden agenda sprinkled on top) is still speculation, so it's best not to let their opinions sway your actions, especially if it involves money. No one would have been able to predict that Bitcoin would go on the run that it did last year, showcasing that it defies logic. I personally doubt it, but I didn't see last year's coming either, so it's still possible.

There's always a first. I expect we'll be seeing a lot more of these if this one ends up being successful.

It's not outside the realm of possibility that they may be lying about the raised funds to increase the hype, but with all the sanctions and given how pitiful their currency is, some less-than-informed citizens might be using it to shelter their wealth. It's a bad idea for sure, but I would assume they made it so that it's much more accessible than gold, USD, or even Bitcoin, so some people may be viewing it as a ray of hope.

So he's predicting the rise of the industry which he has recently shifted to? That's not too much of a surprise lol. His statements do make sense and I mostly agree with him, but let's not forget that there is bias in play.


There has been growing anticipation for this for a while now, and it's more likely that it's a response to that anticipation, rather than a solid indication.

That probably was true for a while, but as time went on the term was used for other purposes (mostly by crypto marketing teams, I'd bet), which gave it additional meaning.

This is also from the wiki page:


None of those should be necessary if airdrops, in this sense, were strictly referring to just forked coins. You only need your private key for Bitcoin Cash, for example.

This site also describes it in a different way:


The newbies are probably just referring to the colloquial meaning of the term, rather than the traditional one.

They're not much different from Bitcoin in that their value is dictated by what the people want to buy them for. If, say, your BFC coins are worth $10 each, you didn't really receive $100 for free; you're going to have to find someone who wants to take them out of your hands first. That means you can fork as much as you want, but if no one recognizes your fork as a legit project, then it's worthless. It does kind of sound like creating money out of thin air, in a sense, but it's still all just a product of speculation.

As for its effect on the economy, it affects the crypto market's market cap, at the very least. Their value is added to the overall market cap, even if no one technically spent (or received) any money on them. It's one of the reasons why market cap isn't a good metric of how much money is flowing within the crypto space.

No one is denying that there is greed. There's a lot of it, even, and I assume most people who are getting into Bitcoins are in it for profit, rather than for the technology.

Still, Bitcoin dropping to $1,000 doesn't mean it'll be stable and popular, which is what OP claims. It was at $1,000 some time ago, and I would argue that it's just as volatile, and somewhat more popular at $11,000 today. If it would be magically stable at $1,000, then shouldn't it have stayed there? The fee argument doesn't hold water either, because you can literally move thousands of dollars paying only a couple of cents in fees at the moment. The price dropping to $1,000 does mean you will only pay a fraction of a cent, but it's an inconsequential advantage.

So you want Bitcoin to be confined to $1000 per coin? You do realize this means that all coins that could possibly be in circulation would only be collectively worth $210 billion, right? A single entity could simply buy all of them out, at which point it has failed as a currency.

The fees are fine. Higher price only really means satoshis are worth more, and it doesn't have substantial effects when they're each only worth a fraction of a cent.

Bitcoin does need to take several more steps to be considered a currency by the mainstream, but confining its price to a certain value will hurt it rather than help it.

What it fails to mention is that not everyone has access to banking services thanks to all the red tape that surrounds them. Even those that do have access to their services have to go through a bunch of red tape. Bitcoin addresses these problems by putting you in control of your own money. I do understand that not many people have any problems with the banking system though, so it's true that adoption on this end could take a while.

Either way, the article does make good points, but it seems a little one-sided. Then again, I guess it's supposed to highlight problems (and potential problems), which it does do.

It's more about a general guide on how to use the forum though, likely packaged in with Simple Machines. Newbies wouldn't really have to ask if they read the stickies, which they should. This sticky in particular, should be able to answer most of the general questions they may have along with some Bitcoin info.

I agree that the HELP link could be more useful, but there's already so much readily available info and they're visible enough to people who actually read.

It for sure has more to do than just the Chinese New Year. We also have to consider the fact that Bitcoin went on a furious, unsustainable bull run a few weeks prior, so I'm sure a large majority of the drop was caused by simple correction. Bitcoin did stabilize at $10k for a bit though, so the drops after that likely has more to do with the January trend rather than the December fall out. For now, all we can really conclude is that there is some correlation between Chinese New Year preparations and Bitcoin drops.

You'll save a few bytes by spending the 3 BTC. I don't know if you would prefer that, as you may have other criteria, but that's what I would do. I'd also rather not let wallet explorers know that my 2 BTC and 1 BTC addresses are under the same wallet.