In his 20's, Warren Buffett's salary was $12,000, but his net worth exceeded $140,000 by 26 and $1 million by age 30. Keep in mind that someone with $1 million was quite wealthy back before the decades of inflation at the end of the century.

https://www.gobankingrates.com/net-worth/rich-warren-buffett-age/

Older people are more conservative because they have more to lose, and also because they aren't as stupid as younger people.


Anyway, Buffet invests only in things that he understands well. That should be lesson one for any newbie investor. If you don't understand what you are investing in, you are just gambling.

I would like a better explanation of what the problem is.

How exactly are bitcoins being lost? You can't send BTC from a BCH wallet, and if BTC are sent to your BCH wallet, you can still recover your BTC because you have the private key.


Sorry. There is no "Bitcoin" brand, and even if there were it seems to me that Bitcoin.com would have a good claim to it.

The identity of any developer is only important if you need to trust them.

"Scarce" is a concept in economics that means "limited" or "finite". It does not mean "rare" or "difficult to obtain".


Bitcoins are not more rare. There are 1,700,000,000,000,000 satoshis, and there will be 2,100,000,000,000,000 satoshis-- enough for 300,000 per person. 300,000 per person of anything is not rare.

It is not possible to know which addresses are accessible and which are not, but you can make some good guesses about some addresses. Here is a list of likely "burn" addresses: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=917913.0

There are now only 17 million and when all the bitcoins are mined, there will be 21 million. There is more available for trade and investment every 10 minutes.


It is "supply and demand", not "additional supply and demand". The halving does not reduce the supply. The supply is greater after the halving than before because there are more bitcoins. An increasing number of bitcoins tends to cause the supply curve to shift the right, lowering the price of a bitcoin.


Mining fewer bitcoins does not affect the price because bitcoins are not consumed. Fewer bitcoins simply means that miners will make less money.


The subsidy will continue long past 2020, until about 2140. See https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply

Bitcoin is not more scarce. The number of bitcoins increases every 10 minutes until it reaches 21 million.

If there is a metric, it would be risk-adjusted net present value. I don't think there is a "system" for measuring that. You would have to evaluate each ICO individually.

The article basically talks about GPU mining, and then gives two examples of the block reward being correlated with the price, and finally claims that the value of the block reward is a leading indicator.

I disagree with the article. Not only does the value of the block reward directly depend on the price, but it also depends on the difficulty, which also depends on the price and lags it. There is no component of the block reward that leads the price.

This is not a bug in Ethereum.

You are exaggerating.
Your descriptions are misleading.
Your analogies are not accurate.

Nobody knows how the LN will organize itself, so you don't know if if will be more or less centralized than Bitcoin itself. In fact, that is the real problem -- LN is the de facto scaling solution for Bitcoin, but nobody knows how it will turn out.

 
As TryNinja has already stated, the fee is the same regardless if you have received bitcoin at one address or many addresses. The determining factor is generally the number of inputs used by your transaction. The seed also has nothing to do with it.

If you can figure out who is the owner of the address, you can always try to contact them. Explain your mistake and ask them to send the money back to you.

https://bitcoincharts.com/charts/bitstampUSD#tgSzm1g10zm2g25zv

I recommend getting the earliest data from the Mt. Gox chart and then switching to Bitstamp as soon as they start diverging.

Old news.

That article and many others like it were written several weeks ago, and have already been linked and discussed here.

This question has been asked a thousand times. Try searching to get your answers more quickly. In the meantime, if a couple dollars a day is worth the heat and noise, you can mine altcoins with a high-end graphics card. Nothing else will be feasible for you.

FYI, "scarce" is a concept in economics that basically means "limited" or "finite".


A resource is not called "scarce" because it is hard to find or rare, but because there are limited quantities. Bitcoin is "scarce" because there are only 2,100,000,000,000,000 satoshis.

Dollars are not scarce because there is no limit on how many can be made.

Space in a Bitcoin block is artificially scarce because validation rules limit the size to 1 MB of data (or thereabouts). If the size limit rule were removed, space might possibly still be scarce because there might be economic reasons for miners to limit the size of the blocks they produce.

More info: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/scarcity.asp

I was initially surprised by this article, but I have found that the cost of the equipment is now a major factor. The difficulty is so high now that an S9, which costs over $1000, hardly mines anything any more.

I hate to spoil your fun, but ...

• It looks like it has been redeemed.
• There are no bitcoins on it: https://chain.so/address/BTC/18GZfuricuhovSXzg3JF3WastNdMPZTrPP
• Uberbills says that it has never been funded: https://casascius.uberbills.com/?address=18GZfuricuhovSXzg3JF3WastNdMPZTrPP
• BTW, that's not a Series 1 sticker.

I don't think ether can be classified as a security now no matter how it came into being. It simply doesn't pass the Howey test since profit from investment in ether no longer comes from the efforts of a promoter or third party.