China is known for one of the leading countries in the digital world. Just the sheer amount of electronics in their marketplace speaks for their dominance. Back to your question, they might use it to fund their protest, collect donations and payments from various sources though BTC to preserve anonimity and not be blocked by central banks before the fund even gets to them. Then they could contact suppliers of what items they need, transact through BTC and have their items delivered.

I quite agree on his statement. If central banks initiated their own cryptocurrencies, I don't see any difference to their current system of currency. They're both under the same, centralized idea and system of one institution. The only thing I see beneficial to this move is the removal of the need to physical paper money, but other vulnerabilities might appear such as digital attacks (phishing, etc.) and malware-infected devices that would be used to transact these digital currencies. Decentralized cryptocurrencies are still much sensible to use and implement.

This is just one of the use cases where Bitcoin could help people redeem their financial freedom. One main advantage is the removal of certain restrictions made by the government. Although we're still far from full adoption, this incremental signs and acts that leads us toward a Bitcoin-oriented economy is a positive factor to Bitcoin and its market potential. And with the help of recent advancements such as with Lightning Network, we could improve more and thus increase its value.

There is a possibility but the chances are low. Being dormant relies on public demand, and we cannot tell but of Bitcoin would still improve over that time, like faster transactions and overall improvements in performance, then it might not happen. By that time, technology would also improve such as having faster and cheaper mining components that would make mining profitable even only with transaction fees.

It's not possible in their current situation. The sole act of going to the bank to deposit funds has some anonimity disputes in itself. Not to mention that China's principles and ideology is complete control, such as AI face recognition existing in their cities. I cannot think of any ways that anonimity could be provided other than central banks not disclosing their clients information.

If you consider the current userbase Facebook has, Libra would surely have a hefty amount of initial users and that is a significant factor to their success. However, I'm not sure if it would have positive impact in Bitcoin. Non-aware people to cryotocurrency would surely just use Libra like it's just another digital currency and don't care much about privacy. On the other hand, those who are into Bitcoin already might not consider to switch to their platform because of such issues.

Bitcoin has always been a mode of payment in deepweb. I heard Bitcoin first with involvement to deepweb, which signifies its widespread use on activities there, however, since deepweb's anonimity, most activites conducted here are illegal. Which impacts Bitcoin's image to public and people have already associated Bitcoin with illegal acts, which is far from Bitcoin's original purpose.

A good read and informational since I had learned C++ is used in Bitcoin network, and I quite agree to his personal stance. Even I myself, if my work would be used to such illegal and negative things, would get disappointed. This is partly one of the reasons why KYC and regulation could improve the network. Illegal activities might lessen but also can't be totally eradicated since anonimity has always been there at the start.

It would pretty much reverse first, then go back to Disney. What I mean is that when they decided to include cryptocurrencies, the first benefactor would be these cryptocurrencies, and when the public accepted and adopted to this new payment method, then it might increase Disney's sales and also their profit. It would be a win win situation for each party

In an individual level, what you're doing is quite a good start. It's quite difficult to introduce bitcoin on this level since the level of trust and persuasion is low. However, I'm seeing a lot more effect on public adoption through large conpanies initiating their move, like for instance, if Bakkt would make it possible for Starbucks to adopt even few cryptocurrencies, then it would make much larger impact on a widescale basis.

If the platform allows it so, and the content creator have their respective addresses, then there's really nothing wrong with that. It's also much better than going through intermediaries to reduce the fees associated with your donation. Just make sure the address is right so you don't just waste funds and throw them in the thin air. You could also request the creator to have his address (and maybe encourage him) if he still does not have, which would be seen by his other viewers for more publicity.

People currently in their platform would much prefer having that cryptocurrency opposed to what we want, which is Bitcoin. It's centralized, quite stable and would be much faster in handling thousands of transactions per second rather than the Bitcoin network. However, since they have a lot of privacy concerns, I would not be attracted to use such kind of cryptocurrency and would still use Bitcoin, which I think many here is the same as me. But for those who just wants fast transactions (and does not care what a thing is, as long as it works) then most probably, they'll use it anyway.

Blockchain has been continuously receiving quite significant amount of attention and adoption nowadays and no questions that it increases the chance of another bull run. However, it won't be exclusive to Bitcoin, but huge chances is that people would have some of their attention to the prime technology that utilized blockchain. Still though, it's comes with no assurance and we're only speculating about the chances of another bullish run.

I don't think it would have any significant effect, and maybe rather worse. Considerinh the amount of mining nodes located in China (Bitcoin) and its population that is also a factor to consider in current market numbers, Chinese people, when they become attracted to China's own cryptocurrency, might consider to switch. Having known that Chinese Government has stated that their cryptocurrency would be backed by their gold reserve, people may shift and demand for Bitcoin and other altcoin might be affected, or also possibly not.

My personal thoughts is that this two go hand-in-hand woth each other. While it may be true that continuous usage of bitcoin helps the ecosystem work, function, progress and improve over time, it is also not wrong that holding bitcoins does not increase its value. For me though, it's the extremes of each dilemma that will make Bitcoin obsolete. In simple words;

a. If all people only kept bitcoin to the point that no one uses it, it starts to devalue itself.

b. If all people starts spending their bitcoin to the point that they just want to spend everything they got, then it would also have the same effect.

Balance is the key to progression, for me at least.

There are endless possibilities since future events are unpredictable. As of now, I really think it's still in its early stages. Full adoption would still happen sooner, if negativity would not escalate along the way. However, since its market volatility, and Bitcoin is not an unstoppable thing, there's still some chance that things would go the other way, if opression by the government and several negative news such as usage to illegal activities, it might affect Bitcoin's image and its future.

Bitcoin halving would have effects such as;
[1] Slower bitcoin generation, thus lower total supply,
[2] If demand does not deprecate, then supply won't keep up, thus prices would rise,
[3] There's an anticipated dump/price dip alongside with halving because of whales manipulating and taking advantage of the expected rise.

The problem with solar is it works with batteries. And creation of batteries is much more harmful to the environment. Every way we have known so far have adverse effects to environment, with some exceptions such as wind power and hydroelectric power, which is good but also affects environment (such as dams for hydroelectric that bring imbalance to the ecosystem). What I think we should focus at is how to recycle the materials used to lessen environment effects.

One reason might be the media in these countries. It's not just about whether it's a developed country or not. Other factors include public portrayal, and government stance on these cryptocurrencies. As far as I know, President Trump is still against cryptocurrencies, which with the respect to him by the public as one who knows what he says, have an impact to public's mindset about cryptocurrencies. In addition, media in this country shows negative news to crypto, such as those being scammed, which adds up to public's uninterest.

I'm not sure whether this is true or not, but I have also read a thread here stating or analysing the correlation between hashrate and Bitcoin's price. Although I think there is something that drives the other, I'm also sure that there are a lot other factors to consider that dictates where the price is going. Recent news, community stance, adoption, current market demand, etc. also affects the price somehow. Maybe it is true when demand isn't going down, but the market is unpredictable, mainly because of the existence of the whales and how fast the price trend changes on a volatile market.