How recently? 2010? Because Satoshi has been missing from the scene since then lmao. Why do people bother creating fake stories like this?

I also dispute what you're saying. Governments don't have to follow Satoshi's definition, and they most definitely can apply regulations. Lots of them already have, for better or for worse. They can call it whatever they want for as long as they pass laws that put it under their jurisdiction. It's an inevitability we simply have to face. It's not always a bad thing either.

That's kind of the thing. If you take the state out of the equation, you can't come running to it for protection. Even if what you're doing isn't illegal, you're opening yourself up to scams and you're likely not going to be able to do anything about it. If you acknowledge that risk, along with the countless Craigslist horror stories, and feel that it is worth taking for a tax-free transaction, then go ahead by all means. I personally wouldn't recommend it, but different strokes for different folks, I guess. Good luck to you either way.

Why so paranoid? It should be just as safe on a piece of paper as an airgapped iPhone. In fact, I would argue that the iPhone is more likely to get stolen. I feel that people overestimate Bitcoin's popularity in these scenarios. Thieves break into houses in search of money and jewelry. They're usually pressed for time too, so I doubt they would pay any mind to some random notebook on some random drawer. It's basically hiding in plain sight.

Well, I guess things are different if you have someone in close proximity who knows about your coins. Targeted attacks tend to be more effective than random ones. In this case, when they see an iPhone lying around, they will assume that it's being used to store some coins, and they might check every piece of paper in the house for seeds. Hardware wallets can be stolen, but at least they won't be able to access your coins. That's the best option, I'm guessing.

I don't see why you need to pay taxes to simply give away Bitcoin. Transfer your coins out of the exchange, and into a desktop/hardware wallet, and you can transfer to the recipient from there. It should be none of the exchange's business at that point. For all they know, you could have transferred your Bitcoins to a third party in exchange of goods or services. The recipient could simply use a mixing service such as Chipmixer to throw off the scent, if that's even necessary.

Thet being said, the recipient will have to pay taxes once he cashes out on an exchange, but you yourself would have been taxed too, so it doesn't matter.

Bitcoin isn't tied to any fiat, so there should be no direct effects whatsoever. Crashing economies tend to create ripples though, and it wouldn't be too far-fetched to say that even a decentralized currency like Bitcoin could be affected.

It would be easy to say that Bitcoin's price will rise as citizens use it as a storage of wealth, but that assumption ignores the fact that Bitcoin is not the only storage of wealth they could use, and that certain people could not want to incur any additional risk, with their economy failing and everything. Of course, there has been a recent similar case, and while Venezuelans are using Bitcoin to avoid hyper-inflation, Bitcoin's price increase also seem to be confined to their country alone, with their exchanges charging far more than global markets. We need more data to arrive to a more conclusive answer.

Well it's pretty obvious that banks are starting to consider the fact that Bitcoin could be the future of finance. They have resisted, and even bashed it as a collective, but are now facing the reality that they can either adapt, or be left behind. You just know things are starting to get really serious for them to have made this 180. Either way, I welcome it, and if nothing else, I do believe that it's an indication that the future for Bitcoin is bright.

Pros? Off the top of my head, Bitcoin becoming the global currency would make anyone who's holding even a meager amount of coins rich. One Bitcoin could easily be worth millions of dollars with the entire global population sharing only 21 million. There's also the fact that everyone will be able to access a convenient, secure, and decentralized currency that they don't need to entrust with banks.

I honestly don't think there's a significant con, but we're obviously very far from that with a lot of roadblocks ahead. Bitcoin can't handle that many transactions, for one. Transaction fees could also be bigger than fiat exchange fees. There's also the fact that none of that even matters if we can't get adoption. But yeah, we'll see. It seems to me like we're slowly inching our way there.

Why not? Bitcoin has been incredibly popular nowadays, and everyone who's even a tiny bit open minded wants in on the action. The more people who buy in, the higher the price gets. As people have been saying, you can chalk that up to supply and demand.

It's pretty funny, really. The higher the price goes, the more people want to ride the wave. The more people want to ride the wave, the higher the price goes. If you look at it that way, it's not hard to see why and how Bitcoin has been incredibly bullish. We're getting some real momentum, and it doesn't look like it's stopping anytime soon.

The cryptocurrency market is speculative. Pretty much everyone who dabbles in it is aware that it could boom or crash without warning. People like advocating HODLing, but I'm sure they still acknowledge that there is risk involved.

That being said, there have been plenty of price drops in the past, and I've usually never had to wait more than a month for the price to bounce back. If you're that worried, maybe you shouldn't be involved in cryptocurrencies. Time to sell, bud. If you even have any.

I have to imagine that quite a significant number is aware of them that the country in question is driven to craft regulations for it. Why bother if none of your citizens use it, or are even aware that it exists?

Either way, both scenarios increase public awareness. Legalization is better, obviously, because people can actually apply their newfound awareness, while banning can only really spur curiosity but stunt growth. This is why regulation could be good in the long run, even if the government is able to apply certain rules to it. More people are introduced, and there's no uncertainty looming over them in using it.

It could be considered as such. It's pretty much common knowledge that on purely technological terms, some altcoins are far ahead.

Altcoins have to be far ahead though, otherwise people won't even look at them. You also have to consider the fact that Bitcoin is the oldest cryptocurrency. Every other coin is based off of it, and it's only natural people would want to seek improvements if they want to offshoot someone else's work. But yeah, the community is always looking for ways to implement improvements while making sure Bitcoin remains Bitcoin. I'm sure things will get better as we go.

They're fundamentally different. Stocks are mostly known to be low-risk, low-yield investments. Put some money in, wait a decade or two, and your money could have multiplied by then. The status of your money depends entirely on the company you're choosing to bet on. There are a lot of metrics for you to be able to invest in a smart, calculated way.

Bitcoin is known to be a high-risk, high-yield investment. Its value has risen 900% the past year, and it shows no sign of slowing down. Still, it's incredibly volatile, with 10%-20% drops occuring every now and then. Its value is entirely driven by demand, and is nearly, if not completely impossible to accurately predict.

Both obviously have their merits. What suits you better would depend on your style of investment, but I don't think it would hurt to put money on both. You don't have to choose just one.

No. That would be fundamentally impossible.

As we know, Bitcoin price is driven by demand. That means increasing demand means increasing value. Demand is finite though, because people are finite. At some point demand will plateau, and maybe then Bitcoin's value could start being stable. That or, some other crypto coin leapfrogs it before then.

Why do people have a problem with this? Why would you even want to deface money? It's made out of paper, but that doesn't mean you should write on it. Would you deface Bitcoin if you could?

Money costs money and resources to print and the state shouldn't have to spend simply because you can't stop yourself from being a child. It's not a liberty to vandalize everything you can get your hands on in my opinion. This law has a practical reasoning behind it, and people really shouldn't deface money, whether they're from the US or not.

All you really need to know is that it's an altcoin that's very unlikely to succeed. I mean, your airdrops won't even be worth that much thanks to the 210 million max supply. It's kind of a head scratcher, honestly.

But yeah I don't think this particular fork will be a significant player. It might be wiser to simply stay away. Also, friendly reminder: Don't download shady wallets to get airdrops -- wait until reputable services come up.

That's not necessarily true. Countries like Japan and the US already have existing regulations and those didn't have a significant impact. Granted, regulations have to be fair to avoid stifling growth. China's unfair and arbitrary exchange ban didn't do Bitcoin's value much good, but Bitcoin survived that and got stronger than ever. Japan's regulation accepted Bitcoin as a legal means of payment, and a large majority of Japanese people have heard of and are open to Bitcoin as a result. Fact of the matter is, regulation isn't always bad.

Bitcoin is speculative, and pretty much goes against investment norms. Saying it's a scam is too strong of a statement, but they likely say that because it's only worth what the next guy is willing to pay for it. Stock market guys are used to anaylsis, forecasts and all that, and that can't be applied to Bitcoin so you can just as easily lose as you can gain. Traditional investors wouldn't want to touch it with a ten foot pole.

In the end, stocks are far more stable and is generally safer with slower returns, while Bitcoin is volatile with a reasonable amount of risk and incredibly fast gains.

Fiat is currency, but not all currencies are fiat. Fiat is, by definition, issued by governments as legal tender. No government has the power to issue Bitcoin. Therefore, Bitcoin isn't fiat.

Bitcoin is deflationary, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Bitcoin can be used legitimately. The article itself graciously pointed this out. It's sad that it's being used for terror, but everything can be used for shady shit. Cars have been used to ram people over in terrorism in the past but that doesn't mean cars should be banned.

Banning Bitcoin doesn't mean terrorism will end either. They have used cash in the past and have had little problems. There's also this:


If anything, governments simply have to regulate. Bitcoin is still new and should be given a chance.

Bitcoin is the very first cryptocurrency. By the time altcoins showed up, it has already gained quite some value. If you were a newcomer to the cryptocurrency scene, and you wanted an investment, where would you go? Wouldn't it make sense to go for the oldest, most established, and most valuable one?

As a store of value, no altcoin will be able to topple Bitcoin. It has already been branded as digital gold after all. Its main selling point is its value. As an actual currency you can use for your daily needs though, several altcoins can run Bitcoin off the road. You can try to bank on these altcoins' potential.

If I were in your shoes, I would put my money into Ethereum or Litecoin. Ethereum is well established and has a lot of huge backers, and has features such as smart contracts. Litecoin is pretty much an improved version of Bitcoin, and thus has mostly the same potential. Do take note that Bitcoin is still the absolute best though, and if you're investing in Bitcoin, you don't really need to invest in other cryptos.