It's quite a dilemma. Government acceptance would mean we would be a step closer to mass adoption, but it would also mean there would be government regulations. Governments can't endorse a technology to its citizens and not be able to protect them from it, and they certainly won't allow that much money to flow without them getting a cut. On the other hand, operating from a legal gray area is enough to discourage majority of the population from getting into it. If we want Bitcoin to spread, then governments will get involved. It's an inevitability, and sadly, we don't have a say in it.

As far as the reason for its existence goes, Satoshi described it as a "system for electronic transactions without relying on trust." That should hold even when under regulation. It's also worth mentioning that Bitcoin wasn't designed to be completely anonymous.

Not to defend him, but at least he's put his money where his mouth is by supporting Kraken, BitPay, and Armory. He's obviously not doing it out of the goodness of his heart because he has everything to gain if Bitcoin continues to succeed, but concrete support is concrete support. He's at least better than Dimon who disparages Bitcoin just to nuy dips.

Thayt doesn't mean I would trust him with my money though. He's supporting Bitcoin because he has an agenda, and will withdraw for sure once he feels there is no more money to be had. He won't think twice about using his followera to this end. His prediction does seem out of touch with reality, and you're correct that he's clownish in terms of that bet.

I read an article saying they are looking into regulating it. The ban has never been said to be permanent. The Chinese government is simply trying to come up with ways to prevent capital outflows and money laundering. They're also planning on releasing their own online currency, of which other cryptocurrencies play a role. The question is not if the ban will be lifted, it's when.

Username: jseverson
Post Count: 516
BTC Address: 1PsEmeSg7nxJPvzgWhiQAxunggJZtX4N8m

Will change signature if accepted. Thanks!

Hi aTriz, I'm from your Crypterium campaign. Would it be possible for me to switch to this one?

Bitcoin Talk Name: jseverson
Bitcoin Talk Profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=109482
Rank: Sr Member
Post Count (including this post): 515
BTC Address: 1PsEmeSg7nxJPvzgWhiQAxunggJZtX4N8m

I'll switch to the correct PM, Avatar, and Signature if you let me. Thanks!

I want to say he's crazy, but he's really just putting his money where his mouth is. The problem is, that money isn't his alone, but for his family too. As much as I would like to say it's completely irresponsible, they seem to be doing well for themselves at the moment. It's not like they became dirt poor, they just liquidated their assets into Bitcoins, so they'll still have access to necessities. It's a bad idea as it's a classic case of putting all your eggs in one basket, but we'll just have to wait and see how his decision fares for him. I just hope this move doesn't compromise the education and future of his children.

Iberia Bank in the US? Yeah, they must have a company policy against Bitcoin or something. I read something a while back on reddit saying he was contacted by the bank when he tried to link his coinbase account into it. It sucks, but if it's a company policy, then there's little you can really do about it. It might be part of their internal protocol to avoid money laundering since reputation is everything for banks these days. Just speak with your money and open an account elsewhere. At least they haven't had the chance to potentially block your Bitcoin transactions yet.

I see no way for Bitcoin to fight corruption. I mean, sure, every transaction is recorded and transparent, but they're also all anonymous to a degree with no regulating body. It would take a hell of a lot of resources to pin down an address to a single person, so a large scale anti-corruption operation would take ages. The same reason is also why it's being used to launder money.

Blockchain technology is a different story though. Governments are already looking to use it to improve convenience and transparency. Dubai is planning on doing this with their land registry to eliminate the need for their citizens to visit physical offices, leaving the process with less room for corruption.

There are already some terms floating around. Satoshis are pretty popular, being the smallest denomination currently possible, but mostly because they're used to refer to transaction fees per kb. Electrum also uses mBTC as its default denomination, but I don't think I've ever encountered anyone who uses it. These tell us that denominations are only popular for as long as people widely trade using them. There's really no need to come up with anything new right now as pretty much everyone HODLs their coins. The denomination term will come up when it's necessary, and coming up with something right now will just make things more confusing for newbies.

Well, he's not wrong. It's a fact that money laundering is easier with Bitcoin than with fiat. Bitcoin transactions are not regulated, and are thus not subject to tax, so it could be argued that it contributes to tax evasion. As for terrorism funding, I don't think there have been confirmed cases just yet, but since the flow of money can be near un-traceable under adept hands, it's plausible. I don't think a heavy handed approach is the solution though. Regulations are welcome for as long as they don't stifle growth and innovation. I believe the problems being raised about Bitcoin is being overblown. They're looking at its potential to disrupt, rather than its actual impact. He's not wrong, but I don't like it.

It's a conspiracy theory in my opinion. Why would the US government be interested in him? He did found Bitcoin, but he has no control over it. He also made his exit before Bitcoin actually boomed. He was a revolutionary, and I'm sure every single Bitcoin holder and cryptocurrency holder has varying degrees of respect towards him, but they recognize that he can be nothing more than a figurehead with no power or authority.

If the government is keeping tabs on him, I find it unlikely that it's because of Bitcoin. We don't know where he is or whether he started other projects before and after founding Bitcoin. Still, I find all of this highly unlikely. I honestly think people should stop trying to find him as a sign of respect.

It's junk for him because it will be hard for them to make money out of it. Bankers not liking Bitcoin is hardly new.

I find it alarming that they will go all-in on government cryptos though. These, I believe, are the true threats to Bitcoin. They're in direct competition with Bitcoin, which will likely have the same features if not better. They're also backed by the same entity which could pass legislation to outright ban Bitcoin or stifle its growth. Then we have these bankers that are just ready to get on board. I hope it doesn't come to that.

Right now, the only way I see it working is with a substantial markup. They would also have to price their goods in USD or their local currency, to be converted to BTC plus something like a "volatility fee" to act as some kind of buffer to protect them from sudden price drops. Another thing to consider would be the transaction fee. They might also require you to pay more than you usually do in fees for the transaction to be processed more quickly. It's a little too complicated at the moment and it's more convenient to use fiat or credit cards. It makes me wonder, would there be anyway Bitcoin transactions could be integrated with NFC?

What the hell? Is there any particular reason you think you got keylogged? How would a keylogger infiltrate your system in the first place? Where exactly did you leave your computer running? I feel for you man. I don't know your financial status, but losing that much money would hurt no matter what. For what it's worth, I don't think keeping that much Bitcoins in your daily computer is moronic -- it's just harder to secure. I hope you receive closure of some sort.

Wow, I'm incredibly excited about this. This move is so progressive and I think countries adopting blockchain technology pretty much cements the fact that blockchain technology is the future. I can't wait to see how they will implement it.


We don't know for sure yet how this will impact Bitcoin price. They share the same underlying technology, but we don't know how the public will react to the blockchain move yet. Its success should, at the very least, get people talking about Bitcoins though. Dubai is also planning its own cryptocurrency, so their citizens will have a lot of exposure to cryptocurrencies in general.

I'm fairly sure most do. The same people who say that altcoins are shitcoins and that ICOs are scams are also the ones most likely to look past that stereotype. If you press them on their statement, they'll just say that most, but not all are, just like majority of the replies in this thread. I, for one, would be more than willing to support legitimate causes, but I'd rather not lend resources of any kind, including word of mouth, to scammers. I'm sure everyone feels the same way. We all know the potential of legitimate cryptocurrencies and ICOs, but it's just so difficult to sift through the scammy garbage. Not speaking out about the reality of the situation would make matters worse, simply because more people will fall for it, and more scammers will be born.

It's just like how people pretty much assume every ICO they see is a scam. A massive majority of altcoins are pump and dump. just as majority of ICOs are scams. I wouldn't go as far as to call it a "disservice to the cause of wealth redistribution touted by Bitcoin enthusiasts", but rather just a case of a sweeping generalization and maybe discrimination in some cases.


This is a legitimate concern, actually. The way I see it, though, is that Bitcoin is too small at the moment to warrant an allocation of such resources, and that it's just going to get harder as Bitcoin gets bigger. It is a possibility, but hopefully a remote one. There's also the fact that if they want nothing to do with Bitcoin, governments have the power to impose an outright ban which would effectively cripple Bitcoin trading in their countries -- people will likely still be able to trade with each other, but having no exchanges or vendors to accept transactions would complicate things a lot.

Lol it doesn't look like Singapore is too interested. Them not currently planning to regulate cryptocurrencies is good news to me though. The live and let live approach has been working well around the globe thus far. Governments should wait and see how the technology evolves before taking a position for it or against it. One thing that isn't clear to me here though, is whether or not they consider cryptocurrency exchanges as bitcoin payments. It would be nice for a government to leave exchanges alone for a change. As for the ICO warning, it's well deserved.

There's so much news coming out of China it's becoming a little confusing. Didn't they already release a statement saying they only banned it temporarily to craft regulations? Their economy is bleeding, with capital outflows being a massive problem. Temporarily banning exchanges and regulating them was the government trying to plug up one of the many holes in their ship. I wouldn't at all be surprised if they come in heavy handed with their regulations though, since they're also planning their own digital currency. Either way, we're recovering fairly well without China and we should be unaffacted unless they go with an outright ban.

Where are you from OP? 50% increase in four months, that's a pretty rapid expansion, especially considering there were only 3 a few years ago.

We have a grand total of 4 in my country, and in rather close proximity to each other. I wish there was one in my vicinity because I honestly have no idea how one would work. Do they give better rates than your local exchanges, or are they charging a hefty convenience fee? Are there maximum withdrawal amounts?