Sound idea. Count me in. With Bitcoin being decentralized, us, the users, are really the only ones who can dictate where and how it moves forward. We should not let a single entity decide for us as a whole. These hostile takeovers are getting old.

That being said, it's sad how there are very few people who are willing to take a stand. They're standing by waiting for the victor to emerge. I suppose that's the smart thing to do, but it woul.d just set a nasty precedent that will bite all of our asses in the end.

Not anytime soon. It's hardly getting use as a currency today, and while that may change in the future, it's not going to be an easy path. There are several problems, currently, including the slow confirmation times and high fees. That makes it unsuitable for frequent trading.

Bitcoin is often called digital gold, though, and I believe it has already cemented its position as just that. It's a storage of value and an investment. That is what people primarily use it for, seeing how strongly everyone advocates HODLing. Bitcoin fulfills this role much better in my opinion, because then fees and confirmation times would not matter as much.

Bitcoin had a hell of a head start as a pioneer, and it's solid across the board. Despite being dated, it's still able to cater to people's needs, so few feel the need to migrate. Perhaps the biggest factor, though, is its value and utility. It's so ridiculously valuable that people have overlooked its technical shortcomings altogether. Its biggest "pro" has been its overall value, which no other cyrptocurrency can even dream of touching at the moment.

That's also why it's unlikely to get obsolete anytime soon. You don't need all the bells and whistles that other newer cryptocurrencies provide for an investment or storage of value. Your primary concern will always be its ability to retain, and even increase its value.

Lol well that's an interesting analogy. I guess they could be considered similar in a nutshell? I mean, the overwhelming majority of both are scams, both are basically exploited to make quick money, and very few people trust either of them.

What's sad is both could be used to create a better cryptocurrency landscape. Hard forks should be used to improve Bitcoin, not to take over decision making. ICOs should be used to fund legitimate companies that work on tokens, not pump and dump scams. It's interesting how two completely different concepts could be so strikingly similar though.

I don't think Dimon wants Bitcoin down for the long term. We all know how he loves to make disparaging remarks about Bitcoin in public. We then found out that JPMorgan bought a lot of Bitcoins after the dip, and Dimon got accused of market manipulation. He currently has a lot to lose if Bitcoin plunges, unless he's planning on buying some more.

It's not going to work anymore though, since the world has gotten smarter. He's a fraud and his statements regarding cryptocurrencies should have zero credibility.

There's obviously no correct answer, but I believe the smartest one is to spend when necessary. This means you're continuing to HODL to your heart's content, but you're not depriving yourself of your needs either. Lots of people are so blinded by the prospect of multiplying their wealth that they forget that money is worthless if not spent. The middle ground seems like a fine place to be in. That's what I do, personally. When are you going to enjoy your gains if you're holding indefinitely, right?

That's insane. But yeah, that just means demand is especially high there. It's really no surprise that the price is surging. What is actually surprising, is their citizens are using Bitcoin as a storage of value. Let's face it, USD and gold are much safer, and much more stable options. It's interesting how a large number of them are flocking to Bitcoins when they have other options.

People have always said that Bitcoins are an excellent storage of value, and we're currently seeing it in action. There's no way the FUD people can put a negative spin on this. It's clear that Bitcoin is serving as a lifeline for these people who are being failed by their government.

I've seen this claim and he did say he used some topology something method to arrive at that value. He was being conservative with his estimate too. As for what I think about his statement, I think it's just Mcafee being Mcafee. It's overly optimistic.

Not that I would complain if he got it right though. It's just that he owns a lot of coins and Bitcoin's value skyrocketing would benefit him. He has an agenda, basically.

For what it's worth, he could not have moved the market on his own. He piled on the China ICO ban, which is why it seemed more effective than it really is. There's really no to know how much his words influenced the slide. His next disparaging comments did nothing.

As for firing traders, I would say it's an empty threat considering how JPMorgan bought a lot of Bitcoins, but yeah, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that Dimon is a fraud and the world knows it.

Your wallet should be safe. If the network has been compromised, the hacker would, for the most part, only have access to the data you're sending to the router. If your traffic is encrypted with SSL, https, you should be safe for the most part. Even without those, if you're not sending your private key anywhere, you won't be hacked.

It's still bad practice as a hacker may find other ways to steal your data though. To be on the safe side, just try to avoid public hotspots, or get yourself a VPN.

How do they know what criminal organizations are increasingly going into Bitcoin? Wouldn't that be impossible to say for certain without the regulations in place? They're passing these regulations because they haven't started watching transactions after all. It just seems like a dangerous assumption.

Either way, these regulations seem fair. It would be better for Bitcoin as a whole if it can cleanse its name of crime.

Whoever said that banks think Bitcoin is a joke? Them not accepting Bitcoin is them taking it seriously. It's a threat, and they're treating it as such. They have been able to get away with it so far because Bitcoin users are still in the overwhelming minority, but there may come a point when they have to accommodate it.

The first adopters are more likely to be able to make massive amounts of money from it, and I'm sure if one of them caves, the rest will follow suit.

It's far too early to call these guys sinking ships. Bitcoin certainly poses a threat to them, and their speaking out means it has become too big for them to ignore. That does not mean they're as good as dead though. The cryptocurrency revolution is in its infancy. There aren't enough people who know about it, and not even all of them are holders. Crypto is still nothing compared to Wall Street.

At the rate we're going though, Bitcoin will definitely sink them, but even then, not anytime soon. Plenty of things can still happen.

There is really no meaning. The overwhelming majority of these forks were, and are still being conceived to get quick money. It's really sad, because forks should be used to pursue Bitcoin improvements. Forks should be a good thing, it's just that people are using them in a bad way.

Segwit2x looks good on paper, but the circumstances around it is just completely shady. I don't believe it is being done on good faith, and I therefore do not support it. It's a threat.

You both need to educate yourselves. Seriously. If you're both holding Bitcoins then you have a responsibility to yourselves to know whatever it is you're spending on. Googling Bitcoin should tell you within a few seconds that Bitcoin is a decentralized currency. Going by the very definition of that, you should have been able to guess that there is no central server.

Look up peer-to-peer systems to know how Bitcoin works. You should also read a lot more materials after that.

Why not just ignore him? You don't owe him an explanation. I mean, he obviously doesn't know what he's talking about, with the way he brought up confirmation times and how websites use that to exploit users.

Personally, I would at least try to correct his misconceptions. If he's still negative about it, I would simply ask him to agree to disagree. I'm guessing you are both grown ass men so neither of you need any lecturing.

I at the very least don't think it's bad. I'm guessing the reason why people are so anxious is that they know this kind of growth is not sustainable. It truly isn't. But so what? We can think of this as some kind of mini bubble, and if it pops, we will stabilize at around $5000 or $6000 which is where we were or should have been without all the forks. It's only really bad for you if you buy at the current prices.

Bitcoin will always be volatile, and it will continue to be this volatile for a while after the Segwit2x fork due to the overall uncertainty surrounding it. We should stabilize a little bit after that has been sorted out.

The problem with his statements is that he highlights the fact that Bitcoin is used for money laundering. Well I have news for him: fiat is too! Much of the concerns regarding that is also speculative. There has been no study regarding Bitcoin's use in money laundering. He's really just trying to discredit Bitcoin.

I completely agree. The tulip bulb mania is only really comparable because of the price increase and is completely different otherwise. Bitcoin has real world uses and can provide solutions to real world problems. That makes it similar to the dot com bubble in a sense that it is legitimate if used correctly. It's not worthless as other critics like to say.

There are also people who say that Bitcoin is pretty much just a mania. It isn't. It's only reached a very small fraction of the population thus far. That means demand could and will grow much more. Explosive growth doesn't always mean fad.

If you're so into the whitepaper and the idea behind Bitcoin, why would you care if people left if the price falls? It's great that you're in it for the ideals, but it's also better for you in the long run that there are more users. More users means it's more universally accepted, and you might even be able to use it for daily purchases. I'm sure Satoshi would have approved. Not that he was against holding Bitcoin as far as we know.

You're correct in assuming that no less than 95% of people are using Bitcoin because they can make money off of it though. It's not a club though, so live and let live.