You could probably use it as a "Like". It looks like theymos wants the bar lowered for posts that should get a merit:

If people are wondering how to make sure they never get exploited by this, there's a simple fix: Use the NoScript add-on when you're using Firefox, or ScriptSafe when using Chrome. They disable nearly all scripts by default so it's going to be a pain to set up at first, but once you get used to it, you'll be free from any script-based browser attack, and even annoying ads to boot.

Anyway, can these type of malware actually harm you in different ways , or are they just confined to using your CPU for mining? I know they're stealing resources, but is there any possibility they could also plant spyware of sorts?

That's because the system is currently not working as theymos intended. This is from another thread:


What I gather from that is that anything of value should get a merit. That's also why you may award more than 1 per post. It seems like the scarcity problem is being worked on, so let's just give it time.

People seem to talk about Bitcointalk's censorship all the time (mostly when I stumble upon r/btc lol), but I personally don't see it. I see plenty of posts that are anti-Bitcoin and it doesn't seem like any mods or admins take action against them. I only ever see spam getting trash canned. Granted, the posters usually get flamed, but that's the internet for you.


You forgot to mention that he's against Bitcoin now and is actively telling people that Bitcoin Cash is the true Bitcoin. I'm guessing his forum is mostly the same. I honestly though you were being sarcastic, but I guess you're entitled to your own opinion.

It's a case to case basis as trust isn't moderated.


This is what you shouldn't do. What you may want to try is contacting the person who gave you red trust, apologize properly, and tell them you're not going to be involved with whatever you were involved in anymore. It's going to be their prerogative even then, but I'd say that's your best shot.

Not true. Bitcoin's market dominance is down to 33.7% as of writing, according to Coinmarketcap.

As for a country's financial stability, I don't think Bitcoin has any significant impacts yet. It did help Japan because the new crypto wealth spurred spending, but that's the only country I'm aware of. Other countries could also be experiencing the same thing, but on a smaller, less observable scale, considering Japan's outright support for crypto.

One thing to consider about Japan's case though, is that with their support comes taxation, and it could be a model other countries will look to emulate.

Well I think we can say for sure that demand is really the only factor that drives Bitcoin's prices. Other factors simply affect demand.

As the article has said, the media attention Bitcoin got for reaching the $10,000 mark really got people interested. I don't know where they got the data for them to be able to conclude that a lot of wallets were made in the period, but it does seem to be true, with the massive network congestion and some exchanges even closing registrations because they can't handle the new users. Demand was crazy then, but it seemed like everyone was over it by Christmas.

I don't see why the article says the key to the next breakout may lie in Google search, because all that really lies within it is a quantified metric of interest in the form of searches.

Yes. It may seem backwards because one of Bitcoin's biggest selling points is its decentralization and some people see it as an anti-government tool, but really, in the times we live in, no regulations means a free rein for scammers, and we've already seen criminals take advantage of it.

While most of the users now don't really need any protection, majority of the mainstream does. Look at Japan and how open their government is to Bitcoin. Their citizens feel that it's safe because they're able to enjoy their liberty with protection. No country is really emulating them thus far, but that's just one example of regulations actually empowering the Bitcoin and crypto market in general.

They could, but for majority of altcoins, what's the point? If everything is fast and cheap, how do they stand up to Bitcoin given the community support it has? I see a lot of them becoming redundant, whether they adopt the Lightning Network or not.


We can't really eliminate this possibility. Even countries are creating their own crypto lol. They'll do whatever is good for their bottom line.


I feel like this is inevitable, especially for countries with no regulations yet.


Yes. Whether these coins can survive depends on the degree of success of the Lightning Network though. If there's little reason to use anything else, I don't see them surviving.

Lol what? So people are basically setting up fake businesses to open bank accounts? This is kind of shady, and with more and more people doing it, I feel like it will be addressed in the future. I mean, even if they do put up an online business of sorts, it would be nothing but a front to take advantage of the artbitrage. Then again, if this continues, the Hong Kong market will be flooded with Bitcoin and the prices would theoretically normalize.


That's true. It's incredible how resourceful these guys are. I feel like this more of a way for them to earn easy money by exploiting arbitrage rather than sidestep regulations though, given the fact that traders outside China have also been doing the same.

Are details of these hacks ever publicly disclosed? I might be bordering on conspiracy theory here, but I feel like hacks like these are always inside jobs. Whether management is involved or not, though, I don't know, and I'd rather not accuse them of hacking themselves.

Stories like this are bad for crypto overall. It's hard not to rely on exchanges, so everyone handling crypto must deal with them at some point. That means everyone is at risk. You can mitigate it by not storing your coins at exchanges, yes, but the better solution is for exchanges themselves to tighten their security.

If you plan on doing such a thing, the smart thing to do would be to consult a tax lawyer or an accountant. You could go to jail if you mess this up, and unless the answers you get here are from people engaged in the aforementioned professions and are based in your country, you should ignore them.

Either way, things like tax avoidance require exploiting existing loopholes, and that may not be worth the trouble unless you're a whale or close to it. Personally, I'd rather just face the music and pay the right taxes.

Well they aren't really dropping support until April, and the fees are starting to normalize. Is it possible they'd reverse this decision if things are already sorted out by then?

It looks like their founder is also open to the Lightning network:

https://i.redd.it/0db8wu10c2c01.png

Then again, one of Bitcoin's purposes as stated in Satoshi's whitepaper is to eliminate the need of financial institutions acting as third parties to process electronic payments, and Stripe is exactly that. Maybe this is a good thing? Lol.

They could affect the value. I doubt any of the long term members will pay any attention to them, but they might sway new investors. I appreciate Kryptous being transparent with their metrics but wow... Here are my two satoshis:


Isn't it a good sign that it's thriving under this condition? If nothing else, this points to Bitcoin's resiliency despite all the FUD and hate that come its way.


It's no less volatile than other cryptos, and why does the market share matter? That can be attributed to other projects gaining success and that doesn't take away anything from Bitcoin.


This is misleading. It's true that transactions could be expensive or slow, but rarely both, especially now that the network has been fielding less transactions. High fee transactions are fast, low fee transactions are slow.


I love Satoshi, but it would be hard to call a project with a clear head "decentralized." This point obviously has cons, but it also has pros.


Rumor lol.

It completely depends on the entity that initiated the project if they want a ceiling on the supply or not. They should also be able to increase the supply without legal repercussions, (barring technical limitations but those are unlikely) because the coins themselves cannot be regulated by law; just their use. As a side note, increasing the supply will almost certainly affect the price negatively. Cryptocurrencies are mostly priced on available supply vs the demand, and if the supply increases while demand does not, there should be a price drop as demand is met.


ICO regulation depends on the country. Here is a site with a quick summary of regulations in multiple countries:

https://btcmanager.com/current-state-of-ico-regulations-across-the-globe/

If they're unregulated in a certain country, they're free to close the project and start a new one with little, if any, legal liabilities. I imagine regulations can stop the second scenario from happening, but I've never heard of something like that unfolding.

Lol, when I was reading the topic title, I assumed the funds were being stolen by the organizers themselves and thought to myself: just 10%?

But yeah, it's not so crazy how many people fall prey to phishing attempts considering that the internet is pretty new in terms of sensitive transaction utility. I imagine most people simply don't know any better. It doesn't help that these attacks are ridiculously elaborate, and unless you're specifically looking out for them, chances are you're going to get duped.


At least people are starting to get wiser with their investments. Most ICOs are scams, and for as long as they're successful, more and more will inevitably pop up.


Lol, I'd say you only need adequate coding skills. It's pretty trivial to clone websites and perform phishing attacks on the unsuspecting. It's sad, but that's the current state of things.

Well I hate to break it to you, but bitcoin.com is not, in any way, affiliated with Bitcoin. It's run by Roger Ver, who is a Bitcoin Cash shill. Satoshi himself disowned it; granted, the site was nothing like it currently is at the time:


I would argue that bitcoin.com is at least a little bit manipulative lol.

Either way, it's not like the rating is fake news or anything. I'm just pointing out that Weiss isn't as legitimate as some people probably believe.

These ratings are subjective, much like stock ratings. I wouldn't take it seriously.

You may also want to consider the fact that Weiss has already been prosecuted for "production and and distribution of materially false and misleading marketing materials" (false ratings for pump and dump basically lol) before:

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2009/34-60125.pdf

Don't give them the power to influence prices. Ignoring their ratings would be best lol.

Just because they know doesn't mean they use it. It's impressive that a lot of them know about Bitcoin, but that's kind of expected given how much their government talks about it lol. They even plan on launching their own cryptocurrency. People will get curious at some point.

Either way, according to this site:

https://www.cryptocompare.com/coins/btc/analysis/USD

Russian rubles is only 12th in terms of Bitcoin trading volume. We could probably bump that up to 11 because USDT doesn't count, and it accounts for 0.18% of the market. I know it's not a perfect indicator of Bitcoin support, but based from that, I find it highly unlikely that Russians are the biggest Bitcoin "patrons", as you say.

You read a sensationalized headline. They were imposing a 24% tax on exchanges that make a certain amount of money, in accordance with their existing tax laws. There's no reason why exchanges should be exempt from paying taxes, and they should have been paying taxes in the first place. I assume it will be the same for individual traders -- they'll be paying the corresponding tax as per their tax laws depending on their profit.

That's just how it is, and I'll take that over a ban on trading.