Great so I'm part of the nerdy drug dealer stereotype apparently as it was some time around 2012-2013 I would have actually taken notice of Bitcoin, and then finally signing up here in early 2013.

We've all been through a lot with Bitcoin, and it is quite surprising if you take a moment, and look back at what effect it has had on the world. People often talk about Bitcoin being unsuccessful as a mainstream currency, but I would argue that its already achieved what it was setup to do. Prove to people that you don't need to rely on a third party to manage your funds, and you can dictate your own freedom.

I understand this was a joke, but my immersion, and wishful thinking got ruined when you hinted at other planets being colonized by year 2140. Otherwise, I'm with you

Without going into specifics, and with a little estimated; compared to 2020 we are probably seeing only 25-50% of the amount of reports, and that is probably done by only a few individuals rather than spread out among users. Reporting certainly has taken a downward motion, though that doesn't mean users are choosing not to report anymore, they just might not be exposed to posts that need to be reported. For example, the bumping changes in the Altcoin section have contributed significantly to the amount of spam users are exposed too.

Yearly would probably be fine for most users.

This was the result I was most disappointed in. Ryan Hall is a fan favourite especially for those that watch the Ultimate Fighter. Unfortunately, and it was quite evident in Ultimate Fighter that this was the case, he is probably the best I've seen at what he does, but he doesn't offer a great deal outside of that. His ground game is phenomenal, and he isn't too bad at throwing punches from time to time. However, he doesn't present a massive threat on the feet, and his takedowns are particularly concerning. I'd like to see him ditch the roll, and try to single or double leg take down from time to time just so that his opponents wouldn't be able to predict him as much. Basically, in training camp all they have to do is learn to avoid the roll, and when caught how to get out of the 50/50 position since that is the primary goal of going for those leg hooks.

That foot of his was already damaged or weakened by the time he came to plant it. I don't know if it was done in training prior to the fight or if one of those checked kicks did the damage, but for certain it wasn't the way he planted his foot on the ground that caused it. It was the fact that by that time it was already mashed up.

Yeah, Conor was doing well up until the guillotine attempt, but he managed to get back up after a while, and that last exchange no punches landed from either fighter it was just the fact that Conor had a significantly messed up foot. However, that's part of the fighting game, and technically its a loss. I did say earlier in the thread that Conor didn't look too bad at all in the fight so its not a direct criticism of him, but just unfortunate luck. Conor won't be back for a few months though as its recovery time, as well as regaining the strength he has lost in that ankle of his, as well as gaining the fitness back. By that time I would expect Poirier, and Oliveria to have already fought for the title.

I'm assuming because you are using the API of Binance that any KYC documentation will be seen by your company, and Binance? So that the documentation is shared between the two or does it go directly, and only to Binance?
One could easily argue that Binance is easy to use, and is perfectly acceptable for new users to start trading on it. If you are using Binance for the security side, you are effectively operating as a white label exchange, which you design your interface, but use Binance for all the heavy lifting, which wouldn't make it anymore secure than using Binance direct, unless I'm misunderstanding something?
 

Yeah, any limitations imposed by Binance would still apply even if you are using their API. You would have to check the documentation to be absolutely sure, but generally this is the case, and part of the API terms of service.

Good catch. I've not overly familiar with his takes as I tend to ignore most famous people who side with x, and y, but seems like a typical infulencer which will say whatever the way the wind is blowing. I suspected as much when there wasn't any real reasoning to his arguments on why Bitcoin would specifically hit 80k, and it just seems like a figure pulled out of his arse.

So, it seems like David Gokhshtein is just jumping around cryptocurrencies, and praising them wherever he can. The fact that he's praised some of the cryptocurrencies which don't really have anything interesting going for them says it all.

In terms of adoption, and promoting it to other people the point still stands though. Especially, the point about people being afraid of what they don't understand, since Bitcoin is a rather complicated system, it means the adoption rate will be effected by that complexity. If we could reduce the complex nature of Bitcoin, the adoption of it should go up.

This could be achieved through education or by tidying up the user interface a little more. Personally, I think we've come a long way in terms of interface for wallets etc, and that has definitely played a part in the adoption that we have seen. This is kind of why I believe online wallets are so popular, they are easy, and they don't require any technical knowledge or setup. Unfortunately, that means the majority of new users are using insecure systems to store their Bitcoin.

Anyway, while it might not apply directly to most of the people here, it does give us something to think about when we are trying to develop ways to increase adoption.

Too complicated, and would likely breed a culture of trying to get a logo for every type of denomination there is, which would quickly become confusing. I'm not much of a fan of naming denominations anyway, and would prefer to say 0.00001 or whatever the denomination is. I understand that it makes it easier, and that's fine, but I can't see the benefit of a logo. When do we deal with logos, when we are just looking at the numbers on a screen anyway?

Sounds to me, that someone wants to make their mark on Bitcoin. Rather, than suggesting a useful idea. There's no argument to be made why a Satoshi symbol would be better suited than the current Bitcoin logo.

First off, other than his prediction being merely speculation, what banks exactly have been telling us to get out of cryptocurrencies? I haven't seen too much coverage on this, and while banks do have it written into their terms of services, that cryptocurrency is a high risk transaction, that isn't exactly wrong. Banks do it, to prevent their customers complaining that they didn't offer the protection, that they would expect from a bank. Speculate all you want, but banks haven't really waged a war of Bitcoin like the many articles claim, in fact hasn't there been positive news over in the USA regarding banks allowing cryptocurrencies or even implementing it into their service?

Those that were involved with Bitcoin in 2013, want to be a part of it from day one. No matter the point that you started in Bitcoin, you'll likely always wish you were a part of it, and invested in to it before you actually were. Not only for the lowest price, but to be a part of the history.

Early on, you would have been one of those that contributed to Bitcoin's success, and would have likely been referenced just like Hal, Gavin, and other legends back from the beginning.

The whole gaming industry integrating loot cases, which is a form of gambling on games which are rated under 18 years old doesn't sit right with me. There's been multiple stories of kids taking their parents credit card without them knowing it, and using it to buy them. Not only that, even if they do have their parents guidance, its still teaching your kids the thrill of gambling at a young age. I've never been a fan of it, and I believe its absolutely ridiculous that they are allowed. I'm not your typical, "don't let your kids play violent games!" type person, but gambling should be taken serious, and who knows what repercussions we will see in 10-20 years when these kids can legally gamble.  

When its a game inside a game with no real money, and its using in game money, then that's not that bad compared to the loot box industry which uses real money, with very small odds of actually winning anything. I mean, games like Fifa have been doing it for quite a few years now, and there are no repercussions worldwide, only certain countries have banned the use.

Job openings are usually filled internally first, before they even go out to the public. Here in the UK I believe its law to actually post it regardless of whether it has already been filled internally. Using the Blockchain or other solutions might be interesting though, I've never really thought about it being involved in the application process. Personally, I'm not a massive fan of how applications work anyway, with companies now looking to diverse employees, there's probably going to be a lot of bias involved regardless of the way its implemented. Also, while you may come up with a solution that works quite well, convincing recruiters that they don't need access to the entirety of the persons background, skills, and personal details would be difficult, when they can right now legally ask for that.

It would benefit the UFC to organize a rematch with Poirier VS Conor with the belt on the line, however surely that would be hard to justify if Conor hasn't moved his way up the rankings. Isn't he something like 7th right now? Someone in 7th place shouldn't be challenging the world champion. Although, money talks so it could potentially happen.

Poirier isn't beating Oliveria in my book, though. Although, I'd love to see Poirier get that belt, I think we would see Oliveria using his wrestling skills to effectively dominate Poirer with control time.

Partially true, although marketing is a multi million pound industry, and if we take a look at the book Edward Bernays wrote titled; Propaganda you'll be able to see the techniques, and the lengths the government will go to essentially convince people that a certain movement / technology is dangerous, bad or risky.

The only thing that Bitcoin really benefits from is; its not controlled by the person that made it, and therefore its decentralized nature should be able to somewhat combat any propaganda thrown at it. I do believe we've already seen this, as news reporters seem hell bent on discrediting it at every available opportunity.

In before, Bitcoin is not suited to the project, and Microsoft release their own MicroCoin, which requires users to enter KYC to acquire, and you can earn some while you use their software! 
I'm the same, sure the technical side sounds intriguing, but I can't really trust anything that's coming from Microsoft, especially when its associated with either privacy or decentralization. I mean, every service/product they release, as significant issues with privacy. Also, their practices seem to be anti privacy, security, and freedom of choice. Lets use the most popular of examples; Windows 10 adds several different features which can't be disabled, and are added back every update, which generally its enabled by default to update automatically. Windows comes preshipped with various bloatware, and with the new rumours of the new Windows system, it seems they've included a bunch more of features, which not only aren't optional, but aren't necessary.

Microsoft have also gone on a purchase spree of companies recently, and I believe there was a massive concern about them removing certain games from platforms which aren't controlled by Microsoft, whether there was any substance behind that, I didn't read too much into it, but when I saw it I thought that it sounded like Microsoft's shenanigans.

Probably not. Its the community, and the amount of information that's here on the forum that is the main draw. You generally get used to any software you use after a certain amount of time, and groundbreaking features or even a forum redesign isn't likely to change much in the statistics.

If there was more competition to Bitcointalk, then it might have a little more effect, but currently I don't think that is the case.
Its a preventive measure that most certainly does what it was implemented to do. Reduce the amount of users registering from a IP which has previously been associated with breaking the guidelines. However, I do agree to some extent that its probably not the perfect solution. I would much rather a shadow ban system, which may increase the workload of the staff, but would not effect the majority of the users on the forum, plus with a shadow ban system, you are effectively checking each user, and prevent many more users that might have malicious intent. I'm sure there are, and has been times when a user that wanted to join the forum with malicious intent as their primary goal, were willing to pay the fee if they profited from it. I'd like to see a shadow ban system which is only lifted manually, and not just after one good post, but after multiple posts or from moderator discretion. You could argue that it would be a much more restrictive approach to newbie jail, but I think with some thought put behind it, we could probably achieve what the evil fee is doing, and more.

Being frugal, and actively going hungry is different. While the OP may well be a figure of speech, it certainly didn't read that way, and was more like an attempt of convincing people that going hungry is either admirable or impressive, which it is neither.

food, water, and family are generally considered essential, if you are neglecting them because of investments, which may or may not ever materialize, that might even be considered criminal, depending on who its effecting. It most certainly is neglect, even if it is only effecting yourself.

Government would likely use propoganda as I believe they have already done so to combat the adoption of Bitcoin. Though, being able to tie it to a person, is much more impactful than tying it to a currency. If they could convince people that the creator of Bitcoin, created it for malicious purposes, it would likely be forever seen in that light. Plus, even if it wasn't propaganda, and lets just speculate that Satoshi did create it for malicious purposes or perhaps has a particularly bad history/background, that would absolutely negatively effect Bitcoin, and in the same way would tarnish Bitcoin in the same light.

We already have the issue that Bitcoin is branded as a currency used by criminals because it offers more privacy than fiat currencies, well supposedly. Since cash is pretty damn popular among the crime industry. 

Well, it definitely can, and is used as a currency. However, its not very practical in its current implementation for the majority of people. Hence, why you see it used as a more reserve currency or for speculative investments.
Depending on where you live, not exaggerated. While I absolutely cannot, and will not recommend going hungry for any speculative investment, it almost certainly does happen. Money isn't everything after all, and what's the point of putting yourself in danger or worse, putting yourself, and your family at danger just because there's a chance you could profit exponentially in the future.

Conor will likely always bring in the crowds, regardless of whether he wins, loses or draws. However, is legacy certainly is being tarnished now. At the end of the day, if he took that with a bit of humility, then the injury would have been just that. The fight started well, and it would have been interesting to see what would have happened in the second round. I thought Conor was doing okay on the ground, and was landing some nice elbows. Poirier actually didn't get too much damage in while on top, it was probably about equal in terms of damage. So, Conor by no means was out of that fight prior to the injury, he just lost the round, but he did a few times clip Poirier, and as Poirier said himself; he was a little buzzed.

I just wish Conor just let the fighting do the talking or at the very least keep the smack talk to more on the light hearted side, with the intention of getting in their heads. He seems to be really stepping over that line recently.

I'm not a fan of Jake Paul, but its a brilliant move on his part. Plus, with him losing to Poirer yet again, and looks to be going off the relevancy chart, a fight with Jake Paul might actually redeem some of his wrong doings in the eyes of many. Although, I'm not even sure Conor is playing that bad character anymore, and he seems to have morphed into the bad character. There's currently a bit of drama on some tweets he posted up, and deleted shortly after. I don't really understand the Irish lingo used on the tweets, but it really doesn't sit well with me the angle he seemed to be coming from.

What a way to ruin a legacy. As for the purse split, I doubt Poirer who prioritized a fight over Conor than the title fight, would only get 1 million from it. It has to be higher or at least more equally shared.