From what I always believe on, the adoption should start from those big ones. Motivating small businesses is truly pointless since from these entrepreneur's perspective, they won't adopt something that even the big players are not doing, which only means that it isn't feasible to use. Though for me, it should start from the multinational companies in partnership with payment gateways, before it would be feasible to even SMEs.

Not unless he signs messages using these private keys, it doesn't mean anything. Blockchain is always transparent and the list could just be a compilation of large sums. There's no concrete proof and clearly, CSW doesn't think of what he says, and has always been seen as a liar even from the start. No wonder why his actions makes no sense most of the time, including this.

While this might be true, the only thing that would make us truly depend solely on Bitcoin and not bother on fiat valuation is true, global adoption with complete separation or abolishment of current fiat standards such as USD. You're argument is agreeable only because until now, we still rely on fiat such as USD to actually know how much a product costs.

But remove USD out of the equation, and you could see an entire economy could run out of Bitcoin monetization, and goods might be priced fix, or there is an economy regulator that would impose tax or price inflation (i.e. an apple costs 1 btc today, but 1.1btc tomorrow because of whatnot). It's the same as USD, less the middlemen, the government that actually knows who you are and what you purchase of.

I heard that the recent pump was because of legal proceeds from his case with Kleiman. Although we're not still sure why, it seems like Faketoshi's gimmick is taking effect.

The legal proceeds only affect BSV since the case only involves Craig Wright, which is the founder of BSV. Such cases like this happens in the market, and it doesn't always follow what Bitcoin's trend is. They still have their owm signals to watch for.

Although I must think this is better in Altcoin discussion (because Akoin could be considered an altcoin), and though it might not have such a great impact on Bitcoin's price (a short pump at best), it would be the trendsetter and a possible generator of paradigm shift that proves those who despise cryptocurrencies that such technology could actually replace or be used as an actual currency and not just a speculative or Ponzi scheme asset.

Given also the fact that Akon is one reputable rapper, such initiative and publicity could affect people's perspective.

Makes sense, actually, since the generated, circulating bitcoins would be higher today because of mining than in earlier times. Add to that the fact that most holders are anticipating in the halving, especially the whales. Though one thing to note is that this 10M unmoved btc might be distributed well, and not only held by a small group of individuals. But still, it would make a great wave when the market starts to get manipulated.

Cryptocurrencies are just considered as 'digital gold' because of its relatively higher price, especially Bitcoin. Aside from that, it isn't really supposed to be considered a luxury asset, but rather still a mode of payment that may be applied on a wide scale of purchases. It's just that Bitcoin couldn't scale, and with it being deflationary (which makes it increase in price over time), makes it a good contender in handling macrotransactions, and that includes luxurious products. If Bitcoin could scale, then it wouldn't be seen only as digital gold since more people could actually use it, whether it is priced low or high.

The low-quality video spills its inability to be a reputable means of argument. First off, cash is actually made out of thin air. The government prints such to regulate the flow of the money in the market, and is intentionally inflationary. They could print it as they wish, and its value is only backed by the government's words, or some say their gold reserves.

People just think it is a Ponzi scheme because they are uneducated of what Bitcoin really is, and what it is capable of. No one controls Bitcoin, unlike Ponzi schemes which has a team offering you something that they clearly know has no value. Bitcoin is not made to be a scheme, it is made to be an alternative means of payment. And the price increase to such level we have now is only because many people trust in it, and therefore hold it.

I don't think it's that much, and there are also other factors to consider in Gold's price. Demand is there, but it might also depend on its reputation of being an accessory, and if people would not consider it that lustrous, then it's sole purpose might only be on electronics, which would also decrease its value.

Although it might be true, and to know that Gold has always been a standard of luxury due to its scarcity and real-life applications, and your argument might be true to some extent.

Pretty much like what a regulatory board would do, but these time, there are trainees specialized for a specific market, and not the general economic business market. If they could pull this off, then we might be at the brink of a paradigm shift, wherein people and the government would trust cryptocurrencies more, which would eventually give way to easier adoption.

Article title is intentionally ambiguous. Non-comprehensive readers would immediately think that Bill Gates actually said that Bitcoin could solve this problem, when in fact, he just wants a tax reform, and is nowhere telling Bitcoin would solve this problem. Article writers tend to involve Bitcoin in every problem and believes it is always the solution for most of the economic problems, even when the line is blurry.

Though for large transfers, it's still an effective medium, and so it is a more viable option for macrotransactions that needs intensive verification before being sent to an address, let's say, an interstate transaction of funds.

We can't rule out Bitcoin easily because it is slow. Not all transactions even on fiat comes in breeze. Large amounts are also verified and could take some time. Though fees in traditional bank transfers, especially when geographical locations are far, could have higher fees than Bitcoin currently has.

This is because most of us here are actual speculators, and a very few select merchants only are accepting Bitcoin as a form of payment, which makes adoption even lower, and thus we're quite stuck on this scenario of just wishing the price would go up.

Adoption for me should start from the way up, making it to the lower levels. That is to say, large and international companies adopting it first before the SMEs. That way, adoption would be easier for smaller businesses since if the large companies use them, it must be something good.

Not much in my opinion. First, there is no real demand fory cryptocurrencies for Iran, and so a war won't make people instantly look at Bitcoin as a safe haven. Second, it 'might' only affect the prices that significant when the war escalates on another level, which nobody wants, but might increase the demand to hold Bitcoin. Third, when the war would prolong, on a global scale, that is to say it is a world war, then all economies of involved countries would slow down, and Bitcoin's trading volumes might be lower.

You are hitting two topics on a single post. I don't know much on that token, but just always monitor the given exchange.

Regarding the doubling of transactions, it is possible that demand is increasing. But the usage of a currency does not really collerate to a higher price. What pumps up the price is the demand or buy orders on an exchange, which is basically hoarding. Though that's not the main purpose of Bitcoin, so higher price might not be the best case scenario, but rather adoption.

They're not 'advertising' it, not in the way I would describe it. Bitcoin has been on TV shows occassionally, often with discussions regarding its legitimacy, being it the biggest bubble, being used in scams, and in illegal activities, which to me, makes its effects more on the negative side rather than an advantage it gets on curiosity. Such publicity only steers away people from even knowing it.

That effectively means that 16.45% of all microbusinesses on that local area are willing to accept cryptocurrencies. That's normal because:

1. Microbusinesses often knows that cryptocurrencies are volatile, and not knowing there are stablecoins.
2. They are still assessing the risk-benefit ratio, and clearly, risks like slow transactions or uncertainty if the transactiom would pass through, aren't worth of the benefits they would get.
3. Adoption would most likely start from those large companies, because once these small businesses see that the big players do it, it must be something good, and adoption would be easier.

China has been always known as an economy-centric country, and with such technology, they had seen its advantages, though they made it centralized to combat decentralized anonymity that might be used in illegal activites. It's just like a digital version of their fiat, only using a specialized blockchain of their own, which as far as I know, is called Xuperchain, announced already by Baidu, they're own version of Google.

He can't manipulate the price with having less than one bitcoin. Also, I do think this tweet is just over-hyped. Still, Musk doesn't show that much interest on cryptocurrency, at least he is not vocal about it. It didn't also affect the price that much either, and it seems like this is only a joke, as of now. He might give some hints, but it's still not as far as supporting cryptocurrency, though there's still some possibility.

As far as I know, WeChat already uses CNY/RMB and is widely used by merchants in marketplaces as a platform to pay for goods. And such news doesn't surprise us much, since they must have been adhering to the law and memorandum of their government, which also opposes cryptocurrency. China clearly doesn't like decentralized systems after all.