It's important to have a say for sure. S2X is a power grab, nothing more and nothing less. It is an attempt by an influential minority to fracture the community and gain control. Divide and conquer.

The majority should resist it. If no one perceives it as valuable, then it will have no value. S2X winning over the original Bitcoin creates a dangerous precedent, in which anyone can usurp Bitcoin's throne, creating further instability. Bitcoin is decentralized, and the community as a whole should decide whether a hard fork is necessary. It's basically our responsibility to take a stand, no matter which side you're on.

Those are eye popping numbers. That is even assuming that there would be 21 million Bitcoins in circulation, which we know is not going to happen. Satoshi alone is estimated to have disappeared with 1 million, so we only have around 20 million at best, without even counting coins that are lost daily. I know that Bitcoin is a deflationary currency but I honestly have never even thought about its value reaching those heights.

Still, this is assuming that we reach global levels of demand, and that Bitcoin will live that long. I'm not too skeptical of either factor, but we're currently still way off mass adoption, and Bitcoin isn't even a decade old. Projections are nice, but there will be hiccups along the way for sure, especially with the length of the time period involved.

It is great that they see the potential in Bitcoin. The way he phrased it makes me think they're not really considering it as a mode of payment at the moment though. He explicitly praised it as a digital equivalent of gold, even bringing up the parallels in mining. He also went as far as to say that it's a store of value and you don't need to spend it.

He's right to some degree as well. Bitcoin is notorious for its users going the HODL route. It's a digital currency, but that is currently not its main utility. Either way, based from this, I don't think Amazon will accept Bitcoin anytime soon.

Damn it. I thought all the while that this topic was satirical. I mean, seriously. Why would you name your fork Bitcoin Silver when Bitcoin Gold already exists? Wouldn't that automatically undermine Bitcoin Silver's value by virtue of naming alone? If you talk about it with a newbie to the crypto world, I'm sure the first question they'd ask is if whether there's a Bitcoin Gold, and why they shouldn't invest in that instead. A little creativity would have been nice.

But yeah, this is nothing but a way to make a quick buck. Everyone should be careful in claiming their airdrops, as this is likely even worse than Bitcoin Gold.

I'm sure Ethereum will be even more successful in the future, but I don't think it can emulate Bitcoin's explosive growth. While they're both cryptocurrencies, they have different focus, and Ethereum's is mostly towards the applications of its own technology; it's basically a programming language on a blockchain after all. Bitcoin's focus on being an alternative currency completely independent of central banks and governments is more likely to resonate with the general populace.

Another major difference is that Ethereum supply is not capped, ultimately making it an inflationary currency, as opposed to being deflationary. Your Bitcoins are likely going to be more valuable as time goes on, while your Ether is likely going to be less valuable.

I could be wrong though, of course.

I would like to note that the estimates of gold mined since the beginning of time varies wildly.

I don't think it's going to work simply because no entity could guarantee nor impose a fixed exchange rate for Bitcoin, because no entity is capable of issuing it. And even if it did work, I'm not sure it would be an entirely good idea. Gold standard was abandoned for a reason, and while it did and still does have advantages, its list of disadvantages is markedly longer. Also, while it's true that more and more people are expressing distrust towards central banks, the vast vast majority still trusts them. I don't think we'll ever revert to gold standard.

Why do they even need to be compared? One does not have to be better than the other. Gold has been around for millenniums, and Bitcoin was never meant to emulate it to any degree.

There are a lot of factors in play. Gold, obviously, is much much more stable, given the fact that it has been around for nearly as long as humanity, making it a perfect storage of value. It has inherent value and that same value is recognized by just about every single person in the world. Bitcoin, on the other hand, is volatile, but is continuously growing, making it much better suited for investment. Currently, not everyone is aware of it, not everyone believes in it, and not everyone would accept it, but it has the advantage of being capable of being transferred electronically. They cater to different needs.

They're both going to be around for a long ass while, and are not in direct competition with each other.

They can only regulate its use. They can't touch it otherwise. That's the beauty of decentralization. In a sense, it could be said that the government can control its citizens' actions to some degree using the law, but they can't control cryptocurrencies at all.

That being said, regulations can still affect cryptocurrencies significantly, given the fact that their value only really stems from demand. Overly restrictive regulations can dissuade, or even penalize citizens from getting into cryptocurrency, and lax regulations could make it attractive for them to invest. That means the bottom line is, they could regulate it to some degree, even with decentralization in play

I don't think any of these forks will have a lasting effect on Bitcoin. Most people see them for what they are, which are basically altcoins plastered with the Bitcoin name. People are bound to be excited by them, as they could basically be free money, but for as long as people recognize which the main chain is, no fork can really threaten Bitcoin. That being said, it's entirely possible that a fork comes out in the future that can truly fracture the community, and that moment could be the end of Bitcoin as we know it.

It could in theory, thanks to Bitcoin being an excellent safe haven of value. If people start looking into Bitcoin to save their money from inflation, then demand would increase, and along with it, the price.

In practice though, it would take a drastic change for lots of people to actually start moving their assets into Bitcoin. Relatively small fluctuations, such as in this example, can't really create any significant change to demand. I don't think anything short of an impending economic collapse will make entire countries flock to Bitcoin, and maybe not even then. They'll still have USD, gold, etc. as an option.

Lol, don't go jinxing yourself now man. It's true that hardware wallets are one of the safest ways to store your coins, and you're definitely safer now than you were ever before, but it would be dangerous to assume you can't be stolen from. Overconfidence can cause certain lapses, and those lapses could lead to your coins being stolen.

Hardware wallets could also have certain vulnerabilities, of which there are recent examples, like here: https://cointelegraph.com/news/are-hardware-wallets-really-safe.

It's highly unlikely you're going to get victimized by anything at this point, as hardware wallets are still ridiculously hard, if not impossible to exploit remotely, but it would still be a good idea to be as careful as you were before. Good luck!

There's definitely a few.

One of the most glaring ones is the transaction time. You don't really know how long a transaction is going to take to be confirmed, and it's not advisable to send out your item over a transaction that doesn't have, or only has a couple of transactions. You might have to wait a couple of days only for the transaction to be "cancelled."

Another is transparency. Everyone is going to be able to see that you made a transaction, and while it's anonymous to some degree, it's possible to trace it back to you.

Lastly, I would say volatility. It's not a big issue since Bitcoin always finds ways to bounce back, but if you have short terms on your retail business or something, you can definitely lose money thanks to the rapid price movement.

Bitcoin is the future of banking? Lol, it's more like Bitcoin is the end of banking. The mass adoption of Bitcoin would mean people have to rely on banks less. People are not going to need to rely on a third party to keep their money for them anymore.

That being said, I don't think Bitcoin can truly replace fiat. I am of the opinion that our best case scenario is that they exist alongside each other. That also means banks won't truly die, but they'll definitely be less influential, which is a change I think the world desperately needs. Having the option to use Bitcoin or fiat is also better for the consumers, as they can have the best of both worlds without truly sacrificing anything.

Well it happened with BCH and BTG, so it will likely happen again. The effect was much tamer on BTG than BCH, but that could be because there's a fork scheduled so soon after it. We might see the full effects once we near the B2X fork. Either way, I expect the B2X fork to make larger waves than either BCH and BTG. B2X is more likely to retain its value than the two of them after all.

Based on the community feedback, I'd say it's worth next to nothing. Most people are indifferent towards BCH and BTG, but there are some people that are straight up hostile towards B2X. It's simply way too controversial. I personally do not plan on supporting it, and I will be putting my money where my mouth is. I'll dump them as soon as I get the chance to to get more Bitcoins. I expect a lot more people to do the same.

Good for Canada. Regulations get a bad rep, but in this case, it's a complete win for consumers. The regulations only really affect the ICO organizers, so investors have nothing to worry about. ICOs are really nothing but a scamfest mess right now, and I am of the opinion that regulation is direly necessary. Eliminating these scammers should help the smaller and lesser known but legit ICOs to raise the capital they need. It's a win for legit ICOs, and it's a win for investors. I hope the rest of the world takes a similar approach.

It's kind of weird for this specific case though. The article said these entities were barred from pushing through with their ICO, but didn't say why. Still, if they wanted to go through with it despite specific orders not to, I can only assume something shady must be going on there.

My take is that they could be. I mean, I would consider them a contract for sure, because it's really just an agreement between two or more parties. My question would be: Why would they need to be legally enforced? Smart contracts are self-executing and self-enforcing. Heck, I think the point is that you won't need any lawyers. Smart contracts take care of themselves so you don't have to. By the time a lawyer can possibly get involved, the smart contract would have already executed and enforced itself, and there should be nothing left to talk about.

There will be another one for sure in a few weeks, called the Segwit2x. There haven't been any confirmed forks after that, but it's pretty much certain that there will be other forks in the future. Everyone is free to create their own forks, so it's just not something anyone could stop. There will always be people who would try to exploit this by trying to make money off Bitcoin's name, so yeah.

Blockchains are simply the technology cryptocurrencies are built on, and has nothing to do with them otherwise. The fall of cryptocurrencies doesn't mean the fall of blockchains, but the fall of blockchains will certainly mean doom for cryptocurrencies.

As for the article, it's an interesting take. The author seems to think that defeat is inevitable, and that we should quit while we are ahead, so that we will be better equipped for future battles. That would make sense, if we are to say that all his assumptions are correct. Is defeat really inevitable though? I honestly don't think so. It's certainly possible for the banking industry to use its monetary influence. Money talks, and if they use enough, they might just be able to have a say in Bitcoin's value. The question here is, of course, how much money would be enough? It's not like the banking industry is one monolithic block. They're going to have to work in perfect unison, knowing full well that there is a large risk involved. I don't think that's likely, and I don't think Bitcoin has to die for other cryptocurrencies to flourish.

This, basically. I'm guessing these people that are rushing to get their Bitcoin Gold are doing so to be able to dump as soon as possible, anticipating a dip. I know I'd rush into it, too, since it could be worthless at any given moment, but come on. There won't be any scammers if there are no people to scam. I have no idea why people think it's a good idea to trust a service that's pretty much days old. The correct way to go about it is to wait until a reputable wallet pops up and supports it. Its value might already drop by then, but is risking all your Bitcoins really worth the few hundred dollars?

If you see ads about it anywhere, report it to the site in question as it's likely to be a scam. We should be taking an offensive against scammers.