|
Regulation isn't always bad. Both countries are progressive, and this is likely has to do with KYC stuff and shorter leashes on exchanges. Exchanges need to be implementing KYC anyway. It's going to be much harder to launder money then, which seems to be the main concern of vocal countries. It'll also help curb terror funding, like what happened recently with that woman donating to ISIS.
I'm not too worried at this point. This could even be a positive. More people will hear about it, and with scams being penalized, people will feel safer when they enter the market.
|
|
|
|
|
What do you mean intrusion to the system? It has the same risk as any other investment, in that you could easily lose it all, so unless you know what you're doing, invest conservatively. Being a newbie, I would suggest you start out by only investing an amount you can afford to lose.
If you're talking about the technical aspects of Bitcoin security, some methods of storage are safer than the others. I would not recommend any online wallets, and try not to keep coins in online exchanges, unless you engage trading. You can use desktop wallets like Electrum (make sure you use the latest version) where you control the private key, or hardware wallets such as TREZOR which is actually the safest option.
Other than those considerations, it's just a matter of basic internet security. Make sure your OS is clean, don't visit shady sites, use a VPN for an additional layer of protection, etc. Most of the hacks you hear about are on exchanges and online wallets, so you should be safe if you avoid those.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe? Does it even need a future to exist? It'll be fully regulated by the government, so it's likely that they'll be regulating the price as well. I don't know how they're going to work, but I simply imagine them as digital fiat. It wouldn't matter if no one is using them, they're still going to retain their value.
I personally think that's pointless, because as someone else mentioned, transacting with a credit card is likely just as easy. Granted, you won't have to pay annual fees and the like, but I don't feel like it will make a huge difference. They're going to have to offer incentives for using them because it would be cheaper in the long run, not needing special machinery and raw materials to produce.
|
|
|
|
|
That's cool, but what country do you live in? It's pretty pointless to cite your constitution and a law if we don't know what country you're from lol.
Also, this doesn't automatically mean that said lawyer is correct. Lawyers argue all the time, with different interpretations of different laws. It's one of the reasons we have courts; they decide which interpretation is the correct one.
That being said, I do hope Bitcoin is never banned in your country, wherever that is.
|
|
|
|
A Tulip bulb could cost many thousands of dollars, but wouldn't most people have planted it to gain more tulip bulbs with the aim of selling them, ultimately flooding the market and inevitably driving prices down again?
That's just one flaw of the whole tulip 2.0 argument. You can clearly see that the situation is completely different supply-wise, with Bitcoin being limited to a fixed amount, and tulips being possible to be "mass produced" without a real ceiling. The most glaring one though, in my opinion, is a matter of utility. Sure, tulips are pretty, but they're largely decorative, and they wilt. Bitcoin doesn't have a physical form, but it doesn't expire, and it actually aspires to solve real-world problems. They're comparing decorative flowers to a peer-to-peer digital cash system that foregoes trust and lets wealth move around freely without censorship. We're also speculating its value now, yes, but it could easily be worth much much more than it is right now. |
|
|
|
|
Hi DarkStar_, I'm switching to a Segwit address.
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Jan 24 2018, This is jseverson, switching to the address bc1qh95vf43w8y7423j5ccawcxaql6205p6qyqgekp for the Chipmixer campaign
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
Current Address: 1PsEmeSg7nxJPvzgWhiQAxunggJZtX4N8m
Signature : IIQD5z8FV+ob1qQxTUbhld1sVqofWIi/IB5g4QWvzWYTQX2FYkhG+YAzIlCFBsNx5Yht8m/W0obFkfo27QIeshk=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
This is good, because this was done in an effort to improve security. People could say South Korea is anti-crypto all they want, but this move is undoubtedly pro-consumer. They probably don't want exchanges using the "we got hacked" excuse.
South Korea really is in full throttle with their cryptocurrency regulations though. They seem fine now, but I hope they don't go overboard. We don't need another batch of sensationalized FUD.
|
|
|
|
|
Nah. Few of the top cryptos (not counting ICOs I guess) are actually marketed. Bitcoin and Ethereum, among others, are more successful than technologically superior altcoins because people care about value far more than the underlying technology. Even if you market a clearly better alt that scales better, is free to transfer, has smart contracts, is fully anonymous, etc., there will still be those who will choose Bitcoin or Ethereum simply because they're more valuable.
Either way, an altcoin being technologically superior doesn't mean it's automatically better. Aside from value, there are other factors into play, such as miner and community support, merchant acceptance, etc. and a combination of those could easily trump superior underlying tech.
|
|
|
|
|
This is true now, but it's not always the case. It just so happens that the entire cryptocurrency market is correcting, after pretty much all of them went through explosive growths at the end of last year.
Bitcoin has been dropping since late December, and during that span of time, Ripple and Ethereum each had massive growths. That's just one instance of Bitcoin dropping and alts thriving.
One factor that could explain it though, is that most altcoin holders are also Bitcoin holders. If people are cashing out their gains, then they're likely selling from all the stash of coins they're holding, so everything, not just Bitcoin and not just alts, is going down.
|
|
|
|
I don't think I want my investments to be at the mercy of some dictator making laws in Korea. Next week it might be a different story from some other country that decides to ban Bitcoin.
They're not "dictators". They are elected representatives and just want to make sure there arn't any scams unfolding. Here are the official South Korean Government Guidelines for Cryptocurrency by the Finance Committee: (hat tip reddit) 1 - There will be no exchange ban. 2 - Exchanges will be diligently regulated. Already an exchange was found to have mixed up customer's accounts with the exchange's business account and the CEO's personal account. 3 - Government will make sure all exchanges pay correct taxes. 4 - Individual taxes will be researched. 5 - Everyone can only invest with real identification. No foreigners and the underage will be allowed to trade/invest. 6 - Deposit or withdrawals of more than Daily $10,000, Weekly $20,000 will automatically reported. If it seems like there is suspicious activity, you might be asked how you earned that money during the deposit, or what trades you did to earn that amount. 7 - These guidelines are not to encourage investing in cryptocurrency but to warn the public in the dangers of speculation. 8 - Government also admitted that there is no difference between blockchain technology and cryptocurrency
The bolded part is just baffling. It makes me question governments' level of understanding of the blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies in general. Should we really trust these guys to craft legislation when their knowledge of the subject is rather questionable? I mean, we don't really have a choice, but it's still frustrating. Other than that, it's standard KYC stuff so it's fair. The period of uncertainty is over, if nothing else, so I hope we can get out of this funk as soon as possible. The problem with news like these is that everything is sensationalized and facts get twisted. |
|
|
|
How do you think the government will handle this? what measures do you think the government will implement to make the trade free from unscrupulous activities?
They already started long ago. Exchanges have implemented the KYC system. This was done due to the pressure of the government. Now, since they already knew who are trading and who makes money they are now into their second move. TAX US.
Well, I read that South Korea is already planning to legalize trading, but is outlawing anonymity in return. They're making sure exchanges are dealing with real people who are actually authorized to trade cryptocurrencies, and they're requiring them to share their customers' data. It's very invasive, but it's probably a better alternative than a complete ban. They do use this to make sure that you're paying the correct taxes, but it also makes it extremely hard for shady actors to use the market for their own gain. It's a double edged sword, and whether people believe it's worth it depends on them alone. To be fair, you should be paying proper taxes on your income anyway, as mandated by law. Crypto gains and trading profits fall under this, so it's not unfair for them to be taxed. What would be unfair is if governments impose higher taxes on cryptocurrency related income, and I don't think I've seen anyone go down that road yet. |
|
|
|
I think once the Korean exchange bans news ends, and the Indian bank accounts for exchanges reopen then bitcoin will be back to 15K +.
There are no Korean exchange bans. There are regulations, but no bans. Back on topic, I think Bitcoin's value is ready to rise again. Whatever was causing the month-long transaction backlog has ended, and fees are starting to settle down. The network clogging debacle also raised awareness of Segwit, so we should be a little better off in the future. I don't expect any explosive growth in value anytime soon though, not until the Lightning Network is ready for mainstream use at least. |
|
|
|
|
It depends on the future transaction volume. The volume has been pretty much as unpredictable as Bitcoin's price as of late, so no one can really tell. We can take steps to help the transaction backlog clear though. Use Segwit enabled wallets for transferring funds, and convince your exchanges to start adopting Segwit. It's not going to ensure that the network won't get clogged again, but it will make a significant improvement.
Either way, at the rate we're going, fees are going to be as low as a few cents again. Why stop at a dollar? That was considered expensive just a few months ago. I miss sending out 5 sats/byte transactions lol.
|
|
|
|
|
It might have helped a little bit. One of the major problems of Bitcoin as a currency is its volatility. Huge spikes mean huge corrections. If its growth had been smoothed out, it should follow that there will be fewer and less extreme corrections. Explosive price rallies also tend to worry people because they've been conditioned to think that if something is too good to be true, it probably is.
Still, at some point, a slow and steady rise is also going to be getting bubble comparisons. Bitcoin would still be speculative, and it still wouldn't be backed by anything. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think it would have made much of a difference -- just that everything we've experienced thus far would be stretched across a longer period of time.
|
|
|
|
Looking out for yourself is hardly selfish. He got to where he currently he is by being a businessman, and as a businessman, it is your job to create profits for yourself. He looks at the bottom line and little else, and nothing's wrong with that. There's no point in investing in good companies if you know you're going to lose a chunk of your investment; that's called charity. His statement was around "I don't know what it is and will not care to look into it". This is basically what he said, but the sensationalist bs media twisted his words to other meaning.
He's just an old rich man, won't pay to spend time studying new technologies for him.
So true. He conceded that he doesn't really know much about it, only that it has no backers and no intrinsic value, and that's probably enough to ring some bells in his head. We know it's speculative, we know it's risky, and those may be the very reasons he has for thinking what he does. |
|
|
|
Umm, I don't know if you noticed, but Bitcoin Cash is tanking pretty hard as well. What picture should we point to if someone asks why Bitcoin Cash is crashing? Yea, we totally don't have a problem here... lol... Everyone knows there is a problem. That's why Bitcoin Cash forked in the first place, and that's why the Lightning Network is being worked on. Bitcoin Cash can scale a little better now, sure, but there will be multiple highways in Bitcoin's picture in the future. Also, only Bitcoin Cash shills buy that "true Bitcoin" kool-aid. |
|
|
|
If in a few years Bitcoin becomes the "Norm" worldwide thus eliminating the use of state backed currencies , what would the "price" of a bitcoin be?
"Few" years? You're getting a little ahead of yourself buddy. The network wouldn't even be able to handle a small fraction of the transactions taking place in the world daily. Heck, even if you limit it to just a small fraction of online transactions, it still wouldn't work. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There would be infrastructure, economic, political, etc. issues to tackle. If we were to assume that this will happen though, imagine all the money in the world being represented in just 21 million Bitcoins. We can't really come up with an accurate number, but one Bitcoin could easily be worth as much as quadrillions or even quintillions of USD today. I personally don't think Bitcoin will ever eliminate official currencies, but that's a different discussion. |
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm glad things have been settling down, and I only wish it were simple to keep things this way.
As someone has said, the sharp drop in transaction volume kind of implies that there are parties which were spamming the network with high fee transactions. This costs money, so we can only assume that they have something to gain by doing this, and I can only think of a few parties that will benefit from Bitcoin's demise. Assuming that were true, the problem is they could do the same thing again, considering the fact that this has already happened twice (Segwit2x original cancellation being the first time).
The only way to truly keep this from happening is by implementing scalability solutions, which these malicious actors are exploiting. We could do our part by adopting Segwit and by urging our exchanges to do the same, but that would only make it harder, not impossible, to spam the network.
|
|
|
|
|
Umm...breaking? This happened all the way back in January 2016, a solid two years ago.
Now, in hindsight, would you value his opinions? I mean, he was a Core developer so I'm sure he knows a lot more than us regular sheep, but he was obviously wrong in this case. I don't know whether his views towards Bitcoin have changed, but I would hazard a guess that he's regretting dumping all his coins then.
|
|
|
|
I saw this on another thread and it's just so relevant: https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoinobituaries/Basically, various experts on the subject has incorrectly predicted that Bitcoin is dead or dying a whopping 245 times. It's certainly possible for Bitcoin to lose 90% of its value, the same way its value could easily double, but Peter Boockvar doesn't really add anything new to the table. You'd think they'd be more conservative in declaring Bitcoin's death by now, but whatever. They're free to believe what they want to believe anyway. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
