How long have they been unconfirmed? Unless you really cut back on the transaction fee, I don't think you should be too concerned. This happens quite a lot especially if there are lots of transactions going on.

I don't think it's worth it. If you can get away with not involving third parties in Bitcoin transactions, then don't. It's a somewhat trivial problem, but I see how some people are concerned given how there are wallets out there with dead owners. That's mostly because people were not able to foresee the value in crypto though. I would assume that it's certainly a consideration for older people now. It's very simple to write down private keys on your will, or leave a piece of paper in your vault. There's no need to avail of any service.

Great news. That's the most progressive way of handling the rise of cryptocurrencies in my opinion. Regulations are not always bad, but they also have the potential to stifle future innovation.

Should governments actually cherish the advantages brought about by Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies without imposing regulations, then we will have a bright future for sure. It's the best way to spur future evolution in the technology, and could grow the userbase with no drawbacks. Let's hope countries pay attention to his statement.

The difference in fees isn't significant in my opinion. The difference lies in convenience, of which Bitcoin has a fairly big advantage. If people decide on using other cryptos, I would guess that they would still need to convert it to Bitcoin in the end, offsetting the potential savings from transaction fees all the while taking more steps. It still has more than enougha advantages to be a prominent competitor in this area in my opinion.

I disagree. While I am a fan of this approach, because this usually means Bitcoin use comes with no regulations, it also means the door to a ban is open. It just means the certain country is still at the starting point; every country that has taken a stance for or against Bitcoin used to not have one. While it's certainly possible that a country will let the use of cryptocurrency unregulated indefinitely, it's extremely unlikely, especially if you consider its booming popularity. Having laws in place give some sense of security, since it will be harder to reverse laws than to make a new one. It's always harder to deal with somebody who's sitting on a fence because you don't know what will set them off to pick a side.

Those amounts seem rather arbitrary. I wonder how he came up with those. I guess it's somewhat reasonable though? 3% for casual investors who are willing to take on some risks seem spot on, and I'm guessing he implied that people who barely want to risk anything can go even lower than that.

It's interesting how he says people in retirement age shouldn't invest anymore though lol. I wonder what his reasoning behind that is? Is it because he predicts that crypto won't truly take off in just a few years?

I kind of don't understand completely. The second number you called were the hackers? If so, then that's incredibly meticulous of them. And scary. They were able to take advantage of coinbase's mediocre support for phishing. I've heard plenty of stories and techniques, but this is new to me. I probably would have called the second number too had I been in a similar situation. This just goes to show that you can never be too careful.

This also shows that if you don't have the private key to your coins, you don't own them. I don't now why people keep using coinbase despite all the horror stories. If you want a free, secure wallet, use Electrum. It's just as simple in my experience.

It simply won't work with the way Bitcoin is currently set up. It's better for you and people you transact with if you don't reuse addresses. It would also make all of your transactions very public, so anyone and everyone can take a peek at your finances. It's going to create more problems than solutions, and if governments start requiring this, I'll probably stop using Bitcoin. If we're only trying to solve the taxation problem, then I think it's still much better to just tax transactions through vendors and exchanges. Your Bitcoins are inevitably going to end up there one way or another anyway.

I would say state-backed currencies could give Bitcoin a run for its money. I don't mean that they're going to compete in every aspect, obviously, because the state-backed currencies are for sure going to be decentralized, and I don't think they'll be anonymous. As a currency for daily transactions, however, they may fare better. The general population is more likely to trust them, and vendors in that particular country are more likely to accept them. They're going to be designed in such a way where transactions are confirmed near instantly for point of sale transactions, and they might come with little to no transaction fees. They're going to stand in the way of Bitcoin mass adoption in this respect.

Bitcoin is still going to be a much better investment though, as it's independent of specific countries' economy.

Simply not relying on online wallets already add a layer to your security. You don't really need a third party to keep your Bitcoins for you, especially since they're not going to be able to do anything anyway if you run into a problem. You're much better off using desktop wallets such as Electrum, or you could even take it a step further and get a hardware wallet. You don't own your Bitcoins if you don't have their private key.

The point of Bitcoin is to not have to rely on trust unlike fiat. Get a wallet, store your coins, secure it. You have 100% control, but you also take 100% of the responsibilities in keeping it safe. It's not even that hard, even for non-technical users, or what you call ordinary people. Most hacks involving Bitcoin appears to have stemmed from social engineering of some sort, so you really only have to be smart.

I'm confused. There are no South African cryptocurrencies to my knowledge. Would you happen to be talking about ICOs? I suppose they could be considered new to the markets, but that does not really disqualify them from having good ideas. You simply have to apply the same due diligence you apply to ICOs from any other country. You only have to be wary about investing in theirs for the same reasons you have to worry about others'. I see no reason to treat them any differently

As for state backed cryptocurrencies, I don't think there's a point in investing in them. Only reason you might want to is if you're running a business there from overseas or something.

Lmao. Getting "hacked" is every celebrity's go-to response for their stupid antics. I'm guessing the guy read about Bitcoin and some forks while tripping on something and went all smartass about it.

This is good for Bitcoin, at least. I'm guessing his followers are googling Bitcoin and forks right now lmao. They might end up knowing more about forks than some people around here, which is just a hilarious prospect.

Why would you think you'll make 5% profit daily? How did you arrive at that figure? I guess it's possible to earn that much on average, but over a long period of time. If you check your Bitcoins daily, you're going to get disappointed.

It is backed by nothing. That's where most of its criticisms come from. Critics often say Bitcoin's value is only what the other person wants to pay for it, and it's somewhat true. I don't think there's anything wrong with this though. Value is a man made concept, and for as long as Bitcoin is considered to be valuable by its user base, it will remain valuable. It's the closest thing we have to a currency revolution, and people will rally behind it for as long as it is.

The thing is, though, cryptocurrencies as a whole hasn't reached the general populace yet. They're barely even being used as a currency. At the moment, majority of the people who are trying to get into the cryptocurrency game are getting into it thanks to the tremendous money making potential. This means that the underlying technology is secondary to them, for as long as they are able to put themselves in the best position to earn. This is mostly why Bitcoin is still far and away the most popular cryptocurrency, even though there are already technologically superior ones in the market. Once people actually start looking to use these as true currencies, factors such as full anonymity, fast transactions, affordable transaction fees, etc. are going to take the foreground.

That being said, I don't think the crypto that can take on Bitcoin has been created yet. Bitcoin is king and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

And don't use WPA either. There's a reason why it was replaced by WPA2. You don't really need to use a wired connection because if you're using a PC, it's highly likely your operating system already has a patch out for it. The first thing you should do is search for updates and install them. Client side patches are effective enough. You only really need to worry if you're using an old-ish Android device which doesn't get updates anymore. Don't use those for Bitcoin transactions unless you take proper precautions, such as a VPN.

It's not an ICO. Heck, I would even hesitate to call it an altcoin. It's basically the Ruble, except in digital form. It's really hard to make assumptions right now, since we have no clue how it's going to be implemented. What I want to know, is how its value will be driven. Will it have the same value as the Ruble, and is that even possible? Does this mean they will be basically increasing the currency in circulation? Will it have anonymity features as implied by the Crypto prefix in its name?

The way I currently see it, it won't be a direct competitor to Bitcoin since they have core differences in functionalities. They will only be direct competitors when it comes to spending. If you're looking to strike up deals without the involvement of third parties, or if you want to place an investment, you're going to have to use Bitcoin as I don't think CryptoRubles can provide that.

I love seeing bigwigs duke it out publicly lol. I hate Dimon's guts, and McAfee is absolutely correct in that if Bitcoin reaches mass adoption, banks will be the first to go. What people should take note of, however, is that McAfee isn't completely objective towards Bitcoin either. He has acknowledged that he's one of the largest miners, and is presumably holding a very sizeable amount. He has predicted that Bitcoin can reach $100,000 in a few years' time, and would have everything to gain when it does reach that amount. They're basically the same, except they stand at opposite sides of the same spectrum. I still support McAfee though lol.

Basically this. If you want extra precautions, though, you have extra options. The most obvious one would be to update your device. Windows, several Linux flavors, and macOS have already released patches. I have no idea about iOS, but Android would be a little tricky because of patchy updates. Do not rely on router firmware updates, as it could still leave unpatched devices vulnerable. Next, you should look into VPNs. Free ones are generally hit or miss, and paid ones are cheap. As for your regular browsing, https sites should be safe from eavesdropping, but you could look into installing the Https Everywhere add-on to force https connections when available.

You should also take note that potential hackers cannot exploit this remotely. They will need to be within range of your wireless network, but they could break in without knowing your SSID password through MAC spoofing. If your wireless network is accessible to lots of other people, make sure you take steps to secure yourself as soon as possible.

You can't really quantify how smart a person is, though, unless you use rough metrics like IQ tests. This is largely subjective. I would say there are smart people who are against Bitcoin, and there are smart people who are for Bitcoin.


I agree. It's because Bitcoin is a pioneer, and I don't think anyone even Satoshi predicted it would be used the way it is used today. It was simply meant for transactions with no reliance on trust. Satoshi wanted to change the world, and he did.


I think it's a little unfair to expect altcoins to revolutionize the economic landscape the way Bitcoin did. Bitcoin already revolutionized it. Altcoins, which are basically created in the same vein, can't do much more in this aspect. Instead they're trying to improve in ways they believe Bitcoin falls short.