The article doesn't even present anything with regard to the split widening. It just says that as Bitcoin is getting more established, people's beliefs are firming up. It then presents three approaches to help you decide where you stand. I guess it could be interesting, but it's mostly just clickbait.

Saying Bitcoin Forks is too broad. Forks should be a good thing because they're basically aimed at making an existing technology better. It has only received a bad name because of all these lame attempts as cash grabs, and some part of the community has even basically dismissed it as free money via airdrops.

If they're done in good faith with the proper support and consensus, I don't see any reason not to support it. I don't care for forks like Bitcoin Gold because they're basically irrelevant cash grabs. I wouldn't support forks like the upcoming Segwit2x because they're aiming to disrupt the status quo by taking over the main chain with hostility; no single entity should be able to decide Bitcoin's future.

Goldman Sachs have been quite talkative with regards to cryptocurrencies haven't they? Blankfein first made headlines by being the first banking giant who openly announced that they're thinking about getting into cryptocurrencies. Now they're saying it could be the future without actually committing to it.

Bankers know that Bitcoin is a threat, but at the same time they know that early adopters have a lot to gain. Goldman Sachs will have to take a concrete position at some point, but I don't mind the good publicity in the mean time.

You want to sell your Bitcoins before the drop right after the fork with the knowledge that it will rise again? So you're basically planning on using this opportunity to sell high and then immediately buy low? I don't know. I mean, that sounds like a good plan on paper because you're basing your actions on certain precedents, but I don't think Segwit2x will be like the other forks. Certain entities are aggressively pushing for it to become the main chain, so it's certain to create much more flux, for better or for worse. You might be able to gain more just by waiting for the airdrop. It would be much safer and wiser to hold both until the dust starts to settle in my opinion.

That's hilarious. You would have thought that the threat of being charged with an illegal activity would be enough to dissuade people from being involved with ICOs and exchanges, especially on a country with a less than stellar record on human rights. I guess I underestimated the Chinese people lol. Still, everything has moved underground so no one can really say that regulations are useless. I'm sure most of the smaller holders have stopped doing business altogether.


Why do they need to hide? Only exchanges are banned as far as Bitcoins go right? Trading with other people should still be perfectly legal.

Doesn't Bitcoin just being "Bitcoin" imply that it's the original one? I feel like that's enough of a distinction. This way, basically everything Bitcoin with a suffix is an altcoin.

But yeah, all these forks are just ridiculous, and are confusing to people new to the cryptocurrency scene. I don't think we can do anything about it though. The only real solution is for people to educate themselves. If they end up buying the wrong coin, they're probably not cut out for cryptocurrency in the first place.

Lol that sounds extremely silly, but it has some truth to it. Bitcoin does fall, but rather than a bad sign, investors typically think of it as a good thing. They consider it dips, and basic investment knowledge say you buy dips.

Bitcoin's fall from $4500 to $3000 during the entire China ban FUD was very real, but investors saw that as an opportunity and has grown their money by more than 100% since then. We were able to recover within a few weeks lmao. But yeah, falls invite more demand, which can be considered momentum. This cycle can't last forever though, as there inevitably has to be a ceiling.

I'm, glad they're keeping the door open, at least. I don't particularly see this as bad news because they're obviously not against cryptocurrency as a whole. Heck, they even said that cryptocurrencies as a technology will remain. It's weird how they say they view Bitcoin as a private cryptocurrency though, when it's basically as public as public can be. Their own fiat cryptocurrency, on the other hand, I would consider private.

It also bothers me how governments keep saying that Bitcoins are susceptible to misuse when fiat suffers from the same issue. I guess it's just the most convenient excuse.

Bitcoin is not relatively young. It's young, period. If it were human, it would still be in grade school. It has much more room for growth, both in value and in technical features.

Other than that tiny detail, I agree with what you're saying. The problem with decentralization is that it's basically anarchy. There's no clean way to settle internal disputes. Everyone can do whatever they wish, including supporting a new forked coin. The users basically hold all the power. What's sad is that a lot of these users would rather not wield it. All they know and care about is that they're getting free coins once the fork drops, nevermind the precedent the fork sets. This problem will only get larger as the userbase gets larger.

Well, that seems fair. Pretty much every country I've been in has a certain variation of this. They're simply including cryptocurrencies in the guidelines. This is good, in my opinion, because it puts cryptocurrencies into the same level as fiat currencies and gold. If people start seeing this in airports, they would know Bitcoin and alts are here to stay.

I don't know how they would implement it though, as your wallet could be safely up the cloud or in your laptop. They probably just crafted this to have an excuse to punish people who they actually catch in the act of money laundering with crypto.

He has a point. His basis of saying that Bitcoin is the biggest wealth distribution system ever is its ability to break down financial barriers, as per this quote:


He's basically saying that to some degree, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies help narrow the gap between rich people and poor people in terms of opportunities. While rich people still have the upper hand because they have more money they can invest, poor people are free to ride the wave with whatever little money they have.

Well it looks like he's already doing pretty well for himself, so he doesn't really need to invest on anything anytime soon. It kind of sucks that he made his comments in public, but where a grown man decides where not to put his money should be none of our business.

Also, Saudi Arabia didn't prohibit the use of Bitcoin. It simply warned its citizens that investing their money into it might impact their finances negatively, as per the article. It's overly pessimistic, as the opposite could also be said, but I'll take that over a prohibition. For as long as things stay that way, we should not be too concerned.

I would say no. While things were as simple as that on previous forks, Segwit2x is a little more complicated. Your primary consideration should be that it does not implement replay protection. If you don't know what that is, look it up.

Another consideration is that the fork is meant to replace the old coin, and it has a lot of big backers. The forked coin may, however unlikely, replace the legacy chain as the main Bitcoin. It would be safer to hold both coins until things have started to settle in my opinion.

Nah. The recent drops could be attributed to the normal Bitcoin price fluctuation. We're floating just above $7000, and I haven't seen it deviate from there too wildly.

I don't think people will be migrating their Bitcoins back to alts anytime soon though. The upcoming fork raises the question of which is the true BTC, so I expect people to play safe and hold both while the power struggle is taking place. We can expect alts to rise again once everything gets back to normal.

I'm guessing smaller retailers have a greater need of attracting customers, which is why they're adopting Bitcoin payments. I'm sure big companies like Amazon have considered it because that's part of their job, but somehow came to the conclusion that it wasn't beneficial enough for the hassle. Bitcoin is not ideal for small transactions after all.

Big retailers aren't late adopters, small retailers are simply early adopters. The slow confirmation times and large fees need to be solved first before it can be seriously considered.

This would depend upon the person, and the amount they're investing. I personally only put in a small initial investment, so I honestly had no considerations. It was money I was willing to part with, so I have already considered it as such. I didn't have any consideration for my next purchases either, but that may be because I feel like I know the market enough.

For people who are planning on putting a massive portion of their net worth though, I'm sure they're considering everything, up to the technical aspects for a better outlook on Bitcoin's future.

They are independent for the most part. There are certain considerations at play, however. Most altcoins are purchased with Bitcoins, so you will have to buy Bitcoin first, which makes it likely for altcoin holders to also be Bitcoin holders. If you're new to the game, there's no way you're not going to consider Bitcoin before any other altcoin.

There's also the issue of Bitcoin forks, which basically gives you more free coins the more Bitcoin you have. People take advantage of these by trading their alts for Bitcoins to get more value out of the airdrops, then trading back to alts after. This is why there is usually a Bitcoin surge and an altcoin slide whenever there is an upcoming Bitcoin fork, and why the reverse happens once the fork is done.

You're definitely right. It will go down. And it will go up. After which it will go down again. And then up. See a pattern? That's just the way Bitcoin works. It's volatile because demand for it is volatile. This volatility should not matter if you're concerned with Bitcoin's long term outlook though. That part of the future is bright.

As of the current value, I do think it's a little too bloated thanks to the two forks pretty much right next to each other. I don't know when the value will start correcting itself because there will still be lots of uncertainties even after the Segwit2x fork, with there being a power struggle and all. But yeah, I believe the long term outlook is good, so I'll just enjoy the ride.

I don't think so, no. The way I see it, Bitcoin ATMs are a novelty more than anything. I love them, because they serve as excellent advertisments, showing people that there truly is money in Bitcoin, but as for their original utility, I personally find them kind of useless.

All your Bitcoin transactions could be done at and within the safety of your home, online. You can buy, sell and trade to your heart's content, pretty much 24/7 for as long as you have electricity and an internet connection. That being said, when will you truly need to use an ATM? Should you need to buy for an emergency, you only need to log into your exchange and buy. There may be a few scenarios when Bitcoin ATMs could save the day, but I don't know. They just seem impractical in the grand scheme of things.

I've read about this in a thread a few weeks ago. Some user said he had the very same problem. It's very alarming if you're blindly using copy paste, but I'm willing to bet that most users at least try to cross check their addresses. This is money we're dealing with after all.

Still, they have already stolen a few coins, and it's just alarming how these hackers are crafting viruses specifically for hacking Bitcoins. This is a relatively simple one, but if these are starting to get popular, how long will it take for more elaborate viruses and trojan to spread right? Everyone should really learn how to protect themselves.