Seriously? Slumps are price decreases, rallies are price increases. They're quite literal in this context.

On to the topic at hand, I do agree that past precedents don't necessarily apply to Bitcoin. It continues to break expectations and sharp drops are usually met with all time highs with lots of people waiting for an opportunity to buy the dip. I also wouldn't compare it to the dotcom bubble. That only lasted for four years, and the amount of money poured in was more than 10x our current market cap. Bitcoin is proving to be far more sustainable.

Bitcoin is the first of its kind so its growth can't really be conclusively compared with anything else's.

The cryptocurrency market is largely speculative. That means it would be near impossible, if not outright possible to form fundamental analysis.

What you have to consider is that cryptocurrency prices are driven pretty much solely by demand, and that's pretty much impossible to accurately quantify. You can guess that certain events can cause prices to increase or drop, but there's no way to know how much. This lack of certainty is what's causing fear among hardcore investors. It could double or crash to zero pretty much any given moment.

I don't think it's as much FOMO as it is being an early investor. The earliest investors ship has long sailed, obviously, but Bitcoin isn't even a decade old. It was valued at around $1000 just a year ago. There's still much growth to be had, and investors realize this. Bitcoin is still in its infancy both as a technology and as an investment, so there's no reason to believe it couldn't evolve and reach even greater heights.

Also, I think it's fair that wealth managers are asking investors to play it safe with Bitcoin. Like I said, it's still in its infancy, and anything can happen. I'm surprised they even allow it at all. Despite the warnings, this adds to the legitimacy of Bitcoin as an investment.

Bitcoin itself cannot be hacked, barring a massive, monumental breakthrough in quantum computing. There may be people working on this now, but they obviously haven't succeeded, or they'd be swimming in Bitcoins just from the dormant wallets. I say dormant wallets because it would be better for them not to disclose the hack, as it would cause the price to plummet.

Users can be hacked, however. If you're not using an exchange, you're likely the weakest link in your Bitcoin's security. Most hacks rely on user error; whether that be being careless enough to catch a virus, or stupid enough to fall for a phishing attempt.

All in all, Bitcoin is perfectly secure, but users can only be as secure as their precautions. There are no magic, hollywood-type of hacks in Bitcoin thefts, only user carelessness.

I do think this will be addressed in the future. It's not talked about much yet, but if this blows up and the social justice warriors get a hold of it, Bitcoin will have another reputation problem in its hands. This would give governments around the world another excuse to tighten mining regulations, or ban Bitcoin altogether. I don't think its impact is significant in the grand scheme of things yet, but at the rate the consumption is going, it will only take a few years.

I should also note that this is yet another area where Bitcoin falls behind other alts. Some openly use energy efficiency and green initiatives as selling points. They're not a threat now, but they could very well be in the future.

Oh wow. I never thought I would see Bitcoin investment tips from Forbes. All I ever see these from are from blogs or minor journalism websites. It's a contributor article, yes, but still. This is a sign that we're truly breaking into the mainstream. Bitcoin keeps making the news about breaking all time highs, so it's only natural that people will be curious. This will bring in a new wave of investors.

About the article itself, it's well-written, and I definitely would have loved to read it if I were a newbie. This could serve as a reference for newbies asking about Bitcoin. There's only one part I don't agree too much with:


I would hardly call investing into other altcoins diversifying. They tend to organically move in unison. Take China's exchange ban news for example: every single one dived.

You don't have many options. You could ask law enforcement to help you, but unless you know exactly who stole your coins and how they stole them, it's unlikely they can do anything. You can also pay for block chain analysis services, but all they can really do is track your coins if the hacker knows what they're doing.

That being said, the best thing you can do is to not get hacked. One of the best ways to accomplish this is to stay away from web wallets, as they're incredibly vulnerable to phishing. Next, don't visit shady sites and don't indiscriminately click on ads because that's a good way to get a virus. Lastly, protect your online identity with a paid VPN service and use Tor. There are lots more actions you can take, but these are the most basic steps. You shouldn't encounter too many problems if you stick to doing these.

1.) You can use segwit features if recepient address is also implementing segwit
2.) Not right now (as far as additional features go), but they may in the future. What segwit does at the moment is basically fit more transactions in blocks by segregating witness (segwit stands for Segregated Witness) data from the rest of the transaction.
3.) Nope.

Segwit is number two in a nutshell, but it may be too technical for most users. Try googling "Segwit ELI5" if you want a simplified explanation. Other internet resources could also explain it far better than I could. You should really take the time to try to understand it as it's basically where we're headed.

You phrased it so simply that it was almost convincing. Really though, when it comes to the economy, things are rarely as simple as they sound. What sounds like a good idea on paper may not work well in practice.

First issue I see with this is risk. Can struggling economies really spare money for investments? Bitcoin is already well established, but is still far from a sure thing. Should a dip happen, would they still be well equipped to deal with hungry citizens? Can they protect their economy from collapsing?

Second issue I see is Bitcoin's volatility. If they were to convert their budget to Bitcoins, the price fluctuations could very well cause them to lose money instead of gaining it. It's also going to take a lot of resources to monitor on a minute-by-minute basis.

Lastly, conversion. Just like USD is to other foreign currencies, Bitcoin isn't currently widely accepted as is. They would have to convert to and from fiat whenever they want to move money. This also incurs fees, so it's not better than USD in that regard.

Does it matter what it's called? Either way, altcoins originate from the word "alternate", and they're only considered such because they are alternative options over Bitcoin. In other words, Bitcoin is the standard. It really doesn't matter if it's the first, or if it's the last -- it's considered the main one, so it's incorrect to call it an altcoin, at least in the present.

Not to mention the other stuff mentioned in the article aren't even cryptocurrencies. They're just forms of digital payment. I'm not sure where this hate is coming from, but at least try to come up with logical explanations.

Has there been any negative talk at all? I've found recent news to be quite positive, just like what you stated.

The only negative talk I've heard recently was about Bitcoin Cash, and that was hardly organic. It was an organized attack which capitalized on Segwit2x's cancellation that integrated social media FUD with mempool transaction spam. Things were looking bleak for like a day or two before things settled down and Bitcoin went bullish again. You can safely ignore what you hear about this (inflated transaction fees, very slow transactions, etc.) because these are direct consequences of the attack.

But yeah, in general, the mainstream media seems like it loves Bitcoin again.

Well that was a pretty damning trail. For things like this to happen this frequently, it's hard not to assume that it's an inside job. I mean, that amount of money has to have cutting edge protection. These have to be virtually un-hackable unless you have someone on the inside. It's also sickening how the customers have to bear the brunt. It's also interesting how the hacks aren't detailed, but that may be a security concern.

Also, is it at all possible that North Korea could be behind this? I know that I'm treading on conspiracy theory territory here, but they do have the resources and motivation, and we have always been warned that their state hackers are targeting exchanges. If it's not an inside job, then we should be looking at massive hacking groups that are actually capable of such an attack.

You sweep them under the rug. It's pointless to argue, because people spreading it tend to have an agenda. You'll be wasting your time as they keep redirecting the argument in their favor.

As for Bitcoin and FUD, Bitcoin has progressed to the point that simple statements and bankers being against it doesn't affect the market price. Bitcoin went on a slide the first time Jamie Dimon disparaged it, but his subsequent attacks had little to no effect. This shows that overall, holders have much greater trust in Bitcoin to be swayed by simple FUD. This also extends to the entire cryptomarket as far as I can see, so I would say FUD isn't too big a factor for dips anymore.

I've also been noticing this trend. I guess it would be hard not to cover it as it keeps breaking all time highs one after another.

That being said, most news I hear is pretty much just said in passing. It's not really popular enough to make headlines yet. Even then, those who hear about it constantly growing are likely to get on the bandwagon to hopefully ride the wave. Most of the reception seems positive too. It doesn't look like FUD articles get a lot of mileage anymore. The media has been all about its growth. I do hope this trend continues.

I don't think so. Bitcoin and ICOs are only loosely connected. One's rise has no bearing over the other.

ICOs are being dragged through the mud with all the controversies and regulations surrounding them. It's pretty much already public knowledge that the overwhelming majority of them are scams. On the other hand, people are warming up towards Bitcoin. Bitcoin won't be bearish just because ICOs are slowly being exposed.

Regulation for cryptocurrencies is pretty much inevitable, sadly. The question at his point is when regulation will come, and how it will be implemented. As for India's case, it doesn't look like anything is set in stone yet, so it's too early to talk of bans. The way it usually goes, though, is regulation is announced and is typically is slated to take effect on a future date. This way, there should be a small window for you to cash out. India is a very populated market though, and it would hurt Bitcoin's future outlook if it gets banned there. For now it doesn't look like there's anything you can do but hope for the best, and avoid getting involved in anything shady to stop Bitcoin from getting an even worse reputation.

Never? Printing money sounds bad, but it's an important aspect of the economy, at least the way things are run now. I guess it sounds like a horrible idea because inflation and whatnot, but countries actually target some inflation. I don't want to go in depth on how the economy works, but inflation basically spurs spending. If you knew your money could be worth more tomorrow, then you're more unlikely to spend it (like Bitcoin lmao). Too much and your money will be worthless, too little and no one will spend -- fiat is being printed to counteract these scenarios.

Whether that is good or bad, I would rather withhold my opinion. What I will say though, is that it is an imperfect system, but it kind of works, and it's really all that we have right now.

I don't think there have been formal studies conducted. Bitcoin's electrical consumption is well documented and the issue is well known within the community, but few outside are aware of it. It shouldn't be too hard to determine if you have the resources though, as the largest mining farms count for large percentages of hashing power. That means less entities to interview/study.

Miners seem to be consciously moving to renewable energy though. Renewable energy tends to be cheaper in the long run, so miners are driven to seek it for the price, if not for their ideals. Here is one more example among the others cited in this thread:

https://news.bitcoin.com/japanese-city-cryptocurrency-miners-renewable-energy/

This is not surprising at all. Bitcoin has been quite big in Japan for a while now. Even the Mt. Gox scandal was basically based there. It would be hard not to have heard of it. Still, though, even Japan, one of the most welcoming countries for Bitcoin has a long way to go. The headline can be a bit misleading as it somewhat implies that Japan as a whole is into Bitcoins, but majority (56.2% according to the article) doesn't even know what it is. If it's this bad in Japan, then I can only imagine what statistics would say on other countries.

Still, I wish every government were as progressive as Japan's. I'm sure the market would boom if every country were as open to technology.

Pieces like this just means Bitcoin has come a long way. There are still a lot of doubters for sure, but more and more people are starting to take it seriously. It was only really a matter of time until institutional buyers start dipping their toes in the crypto market. This becoming widespread will surely increase value and even stability with more holders around.

I also want to highlight this:


Majority of the traders interviewed thinks Bitcoin is legit. I honestly thought it would be around a 50-50 split. If this isn't a good sign of Bitcoin's long term future, I don't know what is.