The situation today is not different to when Satoshi dies. As far as I know, Satoshi already left the Bitcoin's blockchain.

When Bitcoin stands alone, either it will thrive and be used to compete to digital fiat, recieve acceptance from the public, or would be regulated heavily by the government.

A global ban is highly unlikely. True censorship is near impossible, unless all countries decided to run under dictatorship with global ban to internet access.

They can't entirely shut down Bitcoin's network. It's a decentralized system of nodes (miners) and shutting a mining farm won't shut down the whole system. It's located all around the world, and to shut it down completely, you need to shut down all nodes that has the copy of the blockchain.

The problem with this mindset is that, if let's say a governing body has set a standard calculation for how much goods a BTC can buy, and according to you, we'll eliminate the need of fiat so volatility won't matter. Keep in mind that bitcoin is deflationary in nature, only limited of its supply can ever be mined. That means, the fewer the supply left, the higher the value of 1BTC will be, the more it can buy. Sounds good right? Well, not really. Having a currency with too high value would just cause people tend to not spend a lot of the currency, or just hoard. Then, economy slows down, no one wants to use their money since it's too valuable.

Depends on the magnitude of damage. If its too much, then instead of investing, people might need cash to survive, in which case people would start selling their coins, increasing supply and decreasing market price. However, if only small political tensions arise, then people may want to look into cryptocurrencies as an alternative storage of funds, if they're willing to take the risks of losing part of their money.

This is one of the major problems the crypto-market has. Because no regulation is imposed, no governing bodies are overlooking companies if they comply with the standards, we cannot prevent scams from appearing here and there. As long as there are people who falls for these scams, there will still be some groups who take advantage of people's ignorance to steal money. Regulation is often disagreed by people here, but for me, it would benefit us as long as the prices aren't affected, maintaining it decentralized.

This has not only affected the airport operations, but also the perception of crypto to people. The innocent ones would think crypto as a medium to carry virus to workstations, which is wrong and could decrease the trust of the public to crypto-space in general.

Their virus definitions should be always up-to-date to counteract and prevent malwares such as this. Their antivirus providers, also must be reliable because they may be the problem. This mining malwares impose great risk to public places, such as airports, since system slowdown may affect communications and other operations, which are critical to public safety.

This is one of the reasons why Bitcoin need a centralized agency to provide identification to bitcoin addresses. However, I think it's too late. The good thing is that the exchanges themselves implement KYC. The offenders must have thought that while having a bitcoin address can be anonymous, the exchanges sure would store your KYC information on their databases.

The centralized agency idea won't affect the prices since it does not aim to control price movement, instead its main focus would be for security purposes. To regulate exchanges, have identification of companies that utilizes bitcoin, and various ICOs and crypto-blockchain related services.

It's a bad way to increase the market, seeing people being hurt, but it works. Bitcoin wallet could be used to fund their protests, away from tracking of the Chinese government with their banks, making the organizers more anonymous with their purchases. To add up, I think people in Hong Kong, in general, would look into bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as an alternative place to store their funds even before the Chinese government start to implement their rules on Hong Kong's territory. However, the risk are there: (1) They could have a hard time cashing it out again, or (2) the risk of losing more money due to volatility is high.

I think it's inevitable, and this generation would surely use cryptocurrencies and other services. And I don't think it would make them more screwed either, they might make mistakes but we also know that they can adapt fastly to these new technologies, knowing the ins and outs in crypto. Also, as time passes by, more and more millenials would know about crypto and would invest on it since it has future use-cases that fiat does not have, further boosting its market.

Other central banks could also be holding several cryptocurrencies in them. From there, we could see that even the they could see the potential cryptomarket has to offer, and its possibility to compete with fiat in the future. For me, it's a good one since while these news spread out to the generwl public, they inform those who does not know about crypto, or at least introduce to them the word, and let their curiosity drive them to research and hopefully invest to cryptocurrencies, which would be good for all.

Although part of it might engage in remittances, their partners suggest that it would be used, as a stablecoin, as payment to different services that can be connected to the Facebook platform. In addition, we cannot consider Libra as dead, as of now. There are still posssibilities that it would indeed launch. I personally think that when Libra goes live, and innocent ones have been convinced of its convenience, it would become a success. The problem with Facebook is data privacy concerns.

It's nice to see that companies are looking into the potential of cryptocurrencies and invests on developments of their tokens. It may have an impact to the current market if the public percieved crypto as a good alternative to payment, however, we are quite unsure how significant its effect would be. But it does help introduce crypto to the innocent ones who does not know anything about it.

Several replies here are right, a private company initiating engagements with cryptocurrencies won't go well. We know that the current administration does not want negotiations using crypto.

We cannot really do anything as of now. We can't suggest replacing USD with BTC since bitcoin is too volatile. The government controls it for it to be stable. But money supply inflation is inevitable for fiat. Bitcoin's platform need to be more robust, exchanges must be more regulated to prevent scams, in order for people to gain trust using bitcoin as investment or even sometimes payment. Knowledge regarding bitcoin is not enough if people does not trust it.

This is the problem with the current system. There must be sacrifices. If you want privacy, then money laundering cannot be solved. If you want insurance when something happens to your wallet, then you must sacrifice your KYC information. As of now, some exchanges and platform crypto-related require KYC. The question is if they provide insurance if something happened. If we provide identification for each addresses, we need to have a regulatory board so that these platforms conform to the standards in terms of privacy, security and insurance policies.

Besides volatility, lack of knowledge and government restricitions is what's stopping bitcoin from going mainstream. In addition, lack of security on some exchanges also discourage potential investors to use the platform. Also, not all people still has access to digital devices needed to transact and trade in the crypto-space. The closest to being cashless in society, which would potentially attract people, is Germany and USA. The rest still uses paper to trade and transact.

I don't agree on that idea, not yet. I understand that you want to cancel out all those zeroes for those miniscule amounts of money. But if you made satoshi's as labels for product prices based on their values, you'll have a hard time constantly updating its label every price pump or dip. And you won't even use satoshi, you'll need to use mbtc at least. Satoshis are too small to even represent a dollar. Imagine having label to a coke for 0.12 mbtc, then 4 hours later you would update to 0.10mbtc.

A more viable option is to label them still with local fiat, for example, USD, and then have them the option to pay that exact amount as btc. In that way, you don't have to update labels but can still use btc to transact.

You may be correct that people would invest their money somewhere else, but there are other alternative investors would consider first before buying into Bitcoin. So it may have impact, but not a lot. Bitcoin/Cryptocurrencies need more publicity and popularity, and more stability to be considered as a good alternative. Investors won't risk their money again after a loss on stock market, knowing that crypto-market is too volatile and losing again more money is not that good of an option.

There are no safe havens. Bitcoin is volatile, it may keep your funds but it won't store it as is. It would lose, or gain, some money and that's not guaranteed. The only way it becomes a safe haven is because you cannot be tracked if you don't provide KYC. It's price is unpredictable, wars are only a factor but the magnitude they can affect the crypto-market really depends on the people and their knowledge of cryptocurrencies. There are still much more factors to consider to conclude the bitcoin's price movement.

It would either be of the two effects that might happen of this crypto-ban would be passed: (1) People would be scared of the government, selling all their coins and putting it somewhere else away from crypto, or (2) people would still transact cryptocurrencies, but in a hidden way, like how black market works, but digitally. If no internet ban would happen, then transaction of crypto is quite impossible to censor since there are VPNs people of India can use to still connect to their exchanges.

Interesting observation. Personally, I don't believe that bitcoin would lose its relevance especially in our time. Bitcoin and gold both have limited total supply too. It could be just a coincidence or it's just the trend of new currencies. However, we still could not say the future movement of bitcoin, we cannot predict based on this observation. But one thing's for sure, bitcoin would not be gone soon and would still continue to be known to the general public.

It's not a surprise that hype is long gone. But slowly, bitcoin will rise again as we approach the age where younger people with early access to technology are going cashless, and there's where bitcoin might come into play.

Altcoins, on the other hand, is for me not that good of an investment for long-term holding. It's used more often in exchanges to bitcoin and to other major altcoins such as ETH, XRP, etc. BTC would still lead the race and has a higher chance that would be used as an asset/investment or sometimes payment rather than these altcoins.

So, bitcoin won't be gone anytime soon. It's too early to say, and quite impossible if you look at the way people in this generation live.