This is indeed a controversial topic and in my opinion, its disadvantages far outweighs the advantages.
Privacy and data protection is a fundamental right and tampering with these, through creating a back door or completely breaking the encryption would have lots of consequences and as mentioned in the article; would not really solve the problem as malicious users would simply avoid such platforms and look for more covert meant of sending messages.

Trusting the government to go through private information assumes the position that the system is incorruptible which unfortunately is not the case, and in the wrong hands such back door can be heavily exploited. (Wrong hands also includes hackers who would be able to navigate this back door)

True, dictatorship like rulers would favour such a development.
In my topic about Rising tensions between Nations I discussed the face off between the U.S and China with the United States accusing the Chinese government of storing user data using apps which operates from China leading to bans on such apps. In a situation where user data is fully accessible by the government under the guise of 'security threat' it could greatly increase tensions and spying by countries on each other.

Doesn't have to mean it was deleted by the mods, IIRC, mods would mark reports as good if an action has been taken before they checked it. So if they got your report and on looking up the post it was already deleted by another mod or the OP (which was what you requested), they would assume it was a good report and mark it as such, rather than leaving it unhandled.

I have once mistakenly reported a post to be moved to a certain section which it was already in at the time of making the report and it was marked as good.

I would say there is positive energy now about bitcoin and it's adoption with bullish sentiment growing in the community.
In my opinion, the last ICO hype was a natural occurrence, the novel blockchain tech was getting lots of attention, developers go my interested and so did investors who saw it as a way to profit. This then attracted scammers who saw an opportunity to profit off the greed of others, overall, it was unsustainable and with time fake/poorly developed and scam projects died off or never took off. Attempting to recreate that environment again may not be possible; there were so many scam iICOs that most investors have already given up on crowdfunding all together.

Also, most reputable members here are mostly interested in Bitcoin and may not want to partner to launch a token which may not share the same qualities.

I can't find the post in question anymore on the thread, but checking the profile on bpip there seems to be no post of the user deleted by the mods, so it's likely that they deleted the posts themselves.
What is the current status of your report?

Moderators actually have more work without reports as they'll have to manually check al.threads for rule breakers. Reporting is the community's way of helping out in keeping the forum clean.

The next correction would depend on the next bull run.
In 2017, Bitcoin had a bit of a quick run up, the price at the beginning of the year was below $1000 and remained low for most of the year. At about the end of the third quarter/beginning of the fourth, it was within the $5k range, just before the big push which saw it reach the heights of $20,000.
This year has been a bit different, Bitcoin kicked off at over $7,000 and all through the year it has mostly remained above the $8k mark, trading below it for only short periods of time.
During this year also, there has been a higher bullish sentiment around Bitcoin from investors, with demand far surpassing the rate of supply, especially after the halving.

All that being said; I would not expect a huge correction when Bitcoin eventually enters into a bull run, maybe a drop of 20 or 25%. The next spike should take Bitcoin to a new support and resistance range above what we have now.

Just completed the survey. Nice work on the compilation.
In my opinion, some of the questions were a bit abstract and answering them by clicking a number in a scale may not pass the actual message it requires, but it's probably the best option, especially when you want to make it as convenient as possible to keep those taking the survey hooked till the end.
Good luck and hope to hear some feedback soon.

I would definitely not either. I've discussed Bitcoin with a couple of people IRL whom I met on some other platform (preferably one where my identity is already known; the part which I choose to show). Bitcointalk on the other hand is more privacy centered and I would rather not link my personal profile to my online identity on the forum.
Some people may have built strong relationships which has gone beyond the forum, but imo, this should only be between a handful of people at most. Meeting "random" members who just wish to hang out and who I do not know beyond their pseudo username bears some level of risk as you're trusting them with that information.

This thread would be better fit in the exchange subsection;
Marketplace > Service Discussion > Exchanges

---

Going through the article I think a bit more information could be added and some wrong ones corrected;
*'Provides more features than decentralized' is a bit vague, the author could have listed out some of the features offered on various exchanges for comparison as both types offer different unique services.
* There was also a conflict on speed of transactions, as is says under decentralized exchanges that: "The transactions are instant whereas on centralized it depends on buying and selling of people,"

If you're going to shill a website, a lot more work could be put in to make the articles more accurate and detailed.

Watched the interview earlier today, what I found most interesting was how he compared both assets;
"Gold is a 5000 year brand and is a go to asset in terms of inflation" and later on;
"I own many many more times gold than bitcoin but frankly if the gold bet works the bitcoin bet will probably work better because it's thinner, more illiquid and has more beta to it."

This means he considers an asset which is almost 12 years (from the Genesis block) to be a better bet than gold which has been around for 50 centuries. The more people come to this realization, the more adoption Bitcoin would get.

There are currently a few services which have been granted the SPDI charter to function as a crypto bank;
• Kraken Wins First Crypto Bank Charter In U.S. History
• Avanti Digital asset bank
These are custodial services which function effectively as centralized exchanges for buying and selling cryptocurrencies, as well as holding assets for its customers. They also offer banking services like IRA, debit/credit cards as well as asset management services.

No, although if you're unsure of where to store your hardware or paper wallet, you can keep it in a bank vault, same way precious metals are stored. In this case, you still have control over your funds and can access it through your backup. Custodial services hold your assets as you're storing on their wallet and as such they can freeze your funds and block your account.

If you're looking for a coin to invest in, you would have to do your own research. Pump or hype around a project does not mean it is credible or worth holding for the long term, and if you're looking for a get rich quick venture, you should understand it's a huge gamble and you bear the risk of burning through your capital quickly as well.

The altcoin space is a bit crowded in now with so many new projects springing up due to the DeFi hype, as an investor you should learn to filter through it all and decide if any coin or token is actually worth your investments.

Utility is also an important factor. Some projects do not survive market cycles cause they were built on hype without actually trying to solve any problem, which would have driven demand to it.

If one is investing in altcoins, they are technically not Bitcoin investors, but cryptocurrency investors.
I do not think that should be a tip for new investors as there is no necessity to invest in other cryptocurrencies. If one finds a coin which they consider to be worth investing in after going through the fundamentals, they can take the risk, but new investors interested in Bitcoin should be under no pressure to diversify their holdings.
In my opinion, the best form of diversification is having a real life business or source of income which would prevent you from dipping into your Bitcoin stash for regular needs.

From your topic title and this quote, I would assume one of your inquiry is, a way to send Bitcoin 'instantly' or in seconds.
Bitcoin transactions are added into blocks which are confirmed averagely every ten minutes, after which a new block gets filled up for confirmation. So regardless of the amount paid in fees you cannot make a transaction get confirmed instantly (as this depends on the network), but only put it closer to the tip of the mempool by paying priority fee.
You should note that 10 minutes is the average time time for block confirmation, it could take much longer than that or happen in seconds.

Bitcoin does not lose value when sent, what happens is you pay a fee to miners to get the transaction confirmed, and if you're using a centralized exchange like binance, they charge a service fee on transactions. These fees are taken from the funds in your wallet, if you're sending the maximum amount, it is taken from the transaction input.
To avoid this service charge, use a non custodial wallet to make transactions.

This is not unique to ATM services. Bitcoin ATMs function as a regular centralized exchange where one can buy or sell Bitcoin directly using a debit/credit card or bank transfers. Such services offer liquidity for the Bitcoin market, as not everyone can or is willing to trade on decentralized exchanges or through OTC trades.
If combined with privacy practices, like use of non custodial wallets and coin mixing/joining services, it could be done right with little effect to anonymity or privacy.

I am yet to use one as it is not quite popular in my country.
If I'm to use one in the future, I'll likely trade below the KYC limit as some ATMs allow one to buy or sell cryptocurrencies below certain amounts without needing to register on their platform and input personal details.

Is this a recent transaction you made or an old unconfirmed one?

There's probably a glitch for the transaction to not be on the mempool; it's possible the parent transaction was unconfirmed at the time of sending and later got cancelled (through a double spend or got dropped from all mempools) rendering all child transactions invalid.
If you're the one sending the bitcoins, you should also verify the receiving address to ensure it is a Bitcoin address.
You can also try tracking the transaction on multiple block explorers.

All these are guesses and we'll probably need more information, like txid or public address to give a more accurate advise.

If you consider the price changes in Bitcoin retrospectively, you would realize that the term 'cheap' doesn't really apply. Every spike in price does not make Bitcoin expensive, it's only higher in value than it was some time ago, but as mk4 said, if you consider it to be lower in value than it could be in a future time range, then it is still a good investment.
Investors may have seen spikes like $300-$1000 and assumed Bitcoin to have become expensive and choose to wait for a correction, meanwhile the market rode that waves to as high as $20,000.

The market price is connected to the fundamentals of Bitcoin. Bitcoin has qualities which an average Joe can think; 'I would want to own one (or a fraction) of that because of <inserts unique quality>', and an investor who may not be interested in those qualities could still want to own Bitcoin cause they feel the demand for it would increase making it a wise investment for profit.
The more demand grows the moe valuable it gets.

Bitcoin as a decentralized asset does not need to be validated by a government inorder to go mainstream. More adoption is always welcome and anyone can trade or hold it, but its growth should not depend on the actions of a person or institution.

Moving with millions of dollars worth of Bitcoin may not be a good idea. Such amount should be safely tucked away in a hardware wallet.

Except the thread is a stickie, the poster would have gotten the warning, that the thread they are about to reply to has not been posted on for over 120 days, and they should reconsider if the want to reply or start a new thread on the topic.

Is there a possibility that the reply would still be relevant today and helpful to other members who may have a similar inquiry?
Waking dead threads may be unethical in some situations, but a user could have a valid reason for choosing to do that, I think there are much easier ways to spam than digging up 8 year old threads.

---

*Edit: Issue solved. I'll also vote for that thread to be locked to prevent future bumps.

In my opinion, this could either be caused by the discovery of vulnerability in the network or government policies which limits its usage.
A vulnerability while possible, is unlikely. The network has a difficulty barrier which prevents malicious attacks and limits the effects in such a situation. It is also fully decentralized, so there is no central server or body which can be exploited and lead to a crash.

Government regulations; such as an outright ban or use of strict policies could have a huge negative impact on Bitcoin. However,
• Such a ban may need to be synchronized to have a real effect. Bitcoin currently has different legal stance in many countries, ranging from places with tight restrictions or bans to places which encourages its usage.
• The effect of a ban would likely not be long lasting, people can always move out from places with tight restrictions to more enabling environments, thereby creating an economic risk for countries which aims at stringent laws.

Overall, I would say a global consensus by governments restricting Bitcoin poses the biggest threat.

---

There is still one major threat which Bitcoin faces, and this comes from the community. If majority of Bitcoin users traded their autonomy and privacy for convenience by accessing it through centralized platforms, Bitcoin could become another digital fiat, losing it's unique qualities.
While this may not have an instant impact on the market, it could overtime become more significant as governments would be able to control Bitcoin effectively (freeze coins and prevent certain transactions).

It is rational to want to spread out your funds, but storing bitcoins on a centralized platform, may not be the best option. You can try downloading a non custodial wallet and keeping a portion of your assets there, preferably on an airgapped device.

Also, on your hardware wallet you can explore with addresses available by adding passphrases to your original seed phrase, thereby creating a new address where you can store a portion of your funds. Your added passphrase can be made as strong as possible with the use of alphabets, numbers and special characters. You then create a backup for the different addresses and store them in different locations.
Although, if your hardware device is compromised, it could potentially affect all your addresses (some other member can confirm this, as I'm not certain)

I do not, and also do not intend to. Imo, If one has access to buy Bitcoin directly without regulatory hassles then that would be the best option.