But why should developers refuse to innovate upon the mother architecture of bitcoin? Is it that the is non to be done again?
"... for bitcoin's sake". Is it to preserve the original ideology that they do it, or what exactly? You sound like a developer, which I think you are. Technologies may evolve pass current norms in a short span of years, you know that. If that happens when devs refuse to continually adapt, will bitcoin still be bitcoin? Do you think your chosen strategy to "PURPOSEFULLY put a hold on innovating bitcoin for bitcoins sake" is really a good one. Or, is there something I am missing

"The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for nonreversible
services."

The above quote is perhaps the most believable proof that he was perhaps also worried about the inability of the poor masses to fully adopt the technology because of transaction costs which would bar them from most minimum possible p2p transfers. This indicates that he actually wanted a decentralised global financial tool for the least possible kind of transactions which is really possible for the "underprivileged", giving them complete charge over their own finances.

I share in this thought too. I feel a whitepaper is an unavoidable necessity to any ICO. It should even be the most respectable proof of an ICO's credibility, and must be  extensive and detailed enough. To me, a whitepaper is also a proof of seriousness of an ICO, and I am always cautious about any project that does not have one. Sadly, there are  just a lot of them out here. Even those who have extensive and convincing enough presentations turn out to be criminal endeavours at the end of the day. It's that bad.

Some coins do not have strong security, but I am sure of bitcoin security feature to be a difficult-to-be-surmounted top notch one because when you evaluate hack attempts to success rate for both bitcoin and the banks, you will see bitcoin indisputably wins

MY thoughts exactly! Besides, telegram has an official website, yet nothing as this can be found there. You gave links as sources of this information, but failed to provide a source authoritative enough as can be from telegram itself. Thus, I don't believe your stories.

People may well say anything. It's a free world. But wisdom will filter the pile of gibberish nonsense and will retain few sensible opinions that can be found, if it wishes. I have heard such nonsense comparison talk before, and could restrict myself to laughter alone.
In what ways can one confidently say ethereum is better than bitcoin, the same ethereum that became the basis for the proliferation of useless coins, making a mess of crypto?
It is better to save your time by avoiding engaging in such stupid talk.

We HODL till market turns super green. We HODL till coins make serious profit. The is no rush in this field of investment. No panicking, no fidgeting. Only a hopeful speculating that someday, prayerfully soon enough, at least a handful of coins in my portfolio will reach the moon. That's the believe Bro, that's the spirit!

Backing crypto with the most precious metal on earth simply means trust and credibility in the future of crypto. And in the midst of the opposition, this development is all good. Lucky enough, some oil dependent economies are already backing crypto with their oil money. In short, more of these is needed to bring some form of mass conviction and support to blockchain if it is to really thrive in a massive way.

Five years is pretty a long time to make a change especially in the digital field.

I believe there will a general progress (success) of cryptocurrency which would translate to higher value and price for a few serious projects.

I also think the will be less projects because many today already are scam, and it is unlikely that the trend will continue because people will have a deeper understanding  and insight about how things work, and shall endeavour to base their judgements accordingly guided by past experiences. In future, only serious genuine projects may stand the chance of success.

The aspect of a merger of different projects in future or 5 years from now is a probability. But in my opinion, the chances of an occurrence may be 15% or less. This is because a merger of cryptocurrency projects is unlikely to change positively the outcome.

The proliferation of "husk coins" with little or no value at all, but only intended to reap unjustifiably hard earned investors' funds through scam ICOs and similar crypto exchange sites may necessitate government regulations not directed on crypto coins but in most exchanges, as it is being practiced now. Only that the practice may grow strong.

People shall come to accept crypto, one way or the other. And this is projected to grow with time.

The society wouldn't just all at once accept the cryptocurrency era. This will be a gradual process.

Not in the nearest future Bro. "Nearest" implies a period of time between 20 - 30 years from now. Bitcoin will just tarry for a while as king till the likelihood of a fierce challenge for dominance confronts it from an "exceptionally" brilliant piece of cryptocurrency innovation which I am yet to see so far.

For as long as it takes. For as long as it takes for the market to become favourable, and good price of the coin  at least 1USD. This, I know will take time to materialise especially when you project the future price of the coin you are holding from its current price. For me, I am looking at holding for at least a period of 5 years, minimum. But if it favours earlier than the projected holding period, then its all good.

I have responded to a similar tread (if not this) in the past where I shared my own opinion about coins with the potential to "blow".

Thus, I made reference to the above post wherein the list looks cool. However, EOS is an independent and strong project with high growth potentials. Bitcoin cash may also make the list. There was an article I went through here in bitcointalk about bitcoin classic intended by its creators to give bitcoin a stiff opposition sometime soon, with insinuations even about its support from high profile business investors and the government too. Interested crypto investors here can also keep this in mind as they watch out.

Not too long ago, after the heavy disappointing flop of ICOs, exchange coins became the new attractive crypto investment spot, and the few first ones such as binance, Kucoin, huobi, etc sold out massively, with investors making huge fortunes. The proliferation of scam exchanges is gradually taking the shine off exchange coins.

However, it may interest you to know (or as many now know) that countries are slowly adopting cryptos, with a known few launching their own national versions. If you consider the trend, in this cryptoverse, the "firsts" have always and greatly succeeded, speaking in general terms.

Just consider retrospectively!

 - First crypto coins: Bitcoin, Ethereum: Success.
 - First crypto exchange coins: Binance, Kucoin, Huobi: Success.
 - And now, first national cryptocurrencies to be ever adopted... What do we think will be the status in the remarks session? Nothing different. Only a dimensional change of form in which the investment opportunity presents itself. And in a few years time, even months, smart investors may reap heavily another round of crypto investment fortunes.

PetroDollar is one of these national e-currencies that readily comes to mind. And I strongly urge investors to take a keen interest and research their investment interests here.

Bitcoin is the king of cryptocurrency, ethereum is the king of confusion. That's the way it is. Ethereum made a mess of cryptocurrency.

"Every government around the world is trying to find a way to stop and destroy Bitcoin".

No!
A few powerful governments are! I was of this opinion too until I began to understand.
And, slowly, there is an awaken to the actual facts are there are, for truth can never be hidden. And, it shall come to pass that bitcoin will be seen and accepted for what it is, and more and more nations shall come to appreciated and utilise it as freedom from evil.
It is only selfishness and greed plus power, to dominate others, that is the bane on the basis of which a few powerful nations stand to oppose blockchain.  These bad practises, and their originators, will of course not last for ever. They will all fall, just like Rome.

It is just lame to always present the bust bubble excuse by  these "negative debaters". They are too too afraid to identify opportunities! Or, should I say, the deliberately refuse to see these opportunities. Virtually all of them bring this point up every time there is a debate believing that it is the surest of all trump cards to finally checkmate their opponents. But it is the lamest of all excuses a mind can muster so far as bitcoin, and economics of investment is concerned. How can you repeatedly, and confidently, assert that an investment that started in its smallest beginnings with a price per article/unit of about $0.003 to its current price of about $6400 is a bust bubble, failed, forgone and concluded as a no go area of further investments just because it crashed from its best high of about $20,000?

An innovation that is widely acknowledged as novel, relatively unknown, surely underutilised, despite its widely perceived potential? Who would have believed that the mega mainframe computers of the 80s will be super miniature today compared to their stupendous nature in the not-so-distant past? Are these people trying to justify in figurative terms that because a toddler fell and probably broke its leg, it is not going to heal, then walk, then grow up to become an adult human? Do these people even try to relate similar happenings of the past in the same technology space to the potentially new order of which blockchain is advocating? What is difficult there for their eyes to "open" and see? Maybe an uncertain indefinable fear, or the shameful pain of failing to recognise a good opportunity to invest when the soil was still virgin. Not logic! For logic would not be too jumpy to arrive at those conclusions of theirs! Surely, they will not learn from the experiences of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Thomas Jefferson, etc, and even Bill Gates that nothing worthwhile comes easy, but will surely come and stand the test of time. What is too difficult there to put Satoshi Nakamoto in the shoes of these past great men and draw a simple logical consistent conclusion, as having invented blockchain which is the technological epoch of our time?
Or, are they trying to suggest through their actions that there isn't more to invent or innovate, that technological innovation stopped with the era of computers? They fail to see that it is like a gearing mechanism where one gearing component gears into the other and forms the basis and movement of subsequent parts, with an ever continuity!

These people are funny though, let them continue in their blindness! They will always miss out on great opportunities to easily cash out on their smartness effortlessly only to wine and wine in the end like cry-cry babies. Shame!!


If 99% of all cryptocurrencies are labeled as worth zero, it is because fraudsters have smartly cashed out on the gullibility of the mass, of which the masses themselves share in the cause, or, most of this coins are still on an infantry phase where there are expected to nurse and grow. It has nothing whatever to do with the success or deep of bitcoin.

Yea, very very tough but eventually, when the chips go down, the whole world will know that which truly holds its interest at heart, and that which serves only a few. For now, by way of economic confusion, and etc, it is just the tip of the iceberg we are seeing. Truth is; bitcoin is one of the few inventions that will experience the stiffest forms of opposition, and if forms of prosecution of past eras where allowed, Satoshi could be hunted and perhaps murdered like Galileo Galilei.

Perhaps the best response:
"Draper was more brazen in his responses and implored the crowd to use fiat if they were looking to facilitate their own criminal activity as many Bitcoin criminals get caught."

The governments are already trying to kill cryptocurrency. The question is: will the succeed? The answer is: it is highly unlikely.

No, it is not! It is rather a blessing which could liberate them from the shackles of dollar imprisonment and over dependence.
National currencies will definitely continue, although may take a different dimension in future towards a digital norm. Those whose future and continues existence is threatened by the bottomless pit trap set by the $USD and whose self reliability and self strength threatens to fail them could take refuge in the e-currency form of their national currency - as some wise economies are now doing, or bitcoin. But the foreseeble greatest challenge to the now growing varieties of nations' national e-currencies  is that of hacks which if not dealt decisively with could easily wreck into pieces economies of nations. With election meddling propaganda making rounds in news and media these days, true or untrue, it is easily perceptible that in future, 'e-currency hack' will be an area of specific interest and research to economic empires who will seek ways to outdo each other. This could even be legitimised, a classical example of calling a dog bad name just to hang it, a cousin phenomenon to "ethical hacking".
It's a warning!!!

Isn't it obvious already?
Why would I support something that had the potential to phase me out of business?

It won't be a bad idea to "test the waters" since it is money that you can afford to lose. However, do your research well, as I wish you good luck.