Ranks are determined by;
• Merits, these are given to you by other members if they find your contributions to the forum helpful. Putting in effort into your posts and replies would improve the quality of your discussion and increase your chances of getting merited. All your posts before this one has been bounty applications in the altcoin section, those type of posts do not contribute to the community and decreases your chances of ranking up.

• Activity, this is determined by your posts within activity windows. You can only get 14 activity within a 2 week time frame.
Use the search feature as suggested above to get more information about ranking up. You can use this thread to learn how to properly utilize the search option.

This is where most campaigns get it wrong. Quantity over quality means your signature would likely appear under posts of users spamming the forum who may be ignored by other members, or it would be made in spam mega threads and boards only visited by other spammers, so no promotion is actually being done, as the target audience does not get to see the ad.
Spam wound not help any genuine project build engagement, it can only be useful to scammers looking to attract unsuspecting newbies to their HYIP projects like we saw with Cryptotalk/Yobit.

Overall, removing signatures would only dissuade genuine projects from advertising on the forum, actual spammers would always find a way to jump through hoops to cheat the system. Although, there would be far less engagement to attract them without signatures.

I do not much follow crypto content using YouTube so I would answer from a general stand point (including articles, podcasts etc).
One thing I see too much of is 'clickbaits'. Content creators, in trying to build their audience use various tactics to attract traffic, this is not inherently a bad practice, but when done with little or no back up content or using inaccurate information it would have a negative effect on the community.

What is lacking from my PoV is reliable creators who give out undiluted information with the sole motive of educating the audience. Such creators may not 'trend' often, but would eventually stand out from the pile.
A lot of them started of this way, but as they gained more relevance, offers to quickly monetize their audience by promoting below par projects came along and some jumped on that.

I would answer both questions together as they are somewhat related;
What keeps me hooked and what I think creators should focus on are, relevance and entertainment.
A creator should find their preferred niche where they are most educated in and stick to that, this improves their relevance and allows their select audience find them easily. Entertainment value is what gets their audience through their videos, articles or podcast recordings.

It's almost impossible to find a whole community that appeals to everyone. There would be the good, bad and of course, the shills. The trick is to filter the bunch, find what is beneficial to you and stick to that.

Gambling platforms allow this mostly to attract more visitors and to make their website user friendly by encouraging privacy, however should the user get a huge win on the platform while gambling illegally, they would have to provide some means of identification to claim they rewards. This could be a problem if the user is not above the age requirement.

I wish more gambling platforms would pay more attention to ensuring consumers gamble responsibly; If a user would need to verify themselves to withdraw certain amount thresholds, it is only fitting that they would also need to verify themselves to deposit similar amounts on the site. It is difficult to completely eradicate underage gambling, but through this they would be protected to an extent and would not lose too much to the site.

Bitcoin is flexible, meaning people use it differently based on how they view it; it can be a store of value, although it is highly volatile. It can also be considered as an alternative investment which is resistant to inflation due to its controlled supply and fully decentralized.

Yes. Bad fiscal policies would negatively affect the currency and reduce the confidence of the citizens, leading then to seek alternative assets to escape currency devaluation and inflation, resulting in increased adoption of Bitcoin. This is the situation in turkey where Bitcoin crossed its ATH against their local currency.

Investing is a personal decision and would depend on the individual's knowledge, level of risk tolerance, amount they can spare on investments etcetera. It's also not a case of one or the other, with an efficient investment plan a person can hold bitcoins as well as more conservative assets like Gold.

Regulate it, to reduce usage and also generate revenue as it can be taxed. A more extreme approach would be banning it.

I would rather transact using cash than a highly transparent and regulated digital currency. I would also want people to have the freedom to choose which they prefer to accept as a payment. So, cash or both.

Finance is a universal language and has been used for years by governments to maintain control by regulating money flow, inflation rate, availability of loans and so on. A completely digital currency would mean full transparency and as it would be centralized, the issuing body would have full control of holder's funds.
In the recent kucion hack, issuers of centralized tokens that were stolen locked some of the looted funds, so the hackers could not make away with it. This would be similar to the sort of regulations that would be present in a digital fiat currency and could be used on anyone. In summary it would result in;
• Lack of privacy
• Lack of control.

Imo, privacy would be waved off. I would assume there would be higher demand for decentralized currencies like bitcoin or other less regulated assets like Gold and silver to keep transactions off the chain.

More efficient criminal investigations at the cost of financial freedom? I would definitely pick financial freedom, scams and frauds have gone on in the banking sector, and I don't think any agency should have full control over the flow of money, especially as a utopian society does (and would) not exist.

A line from the original article caught my eye regarding how it relates to Bitcoin;

"The Eurosystem task force, bringing together experts from the ECB and 19 national central banks of the euro area, identified possible scenarios that would require the issuance of a digital euro. These scenarios include an increased demand for electronic payments in the euro area that would require a European risk-free digital means of payment, a significant decline in the use of cash as a means of payment in the euro area, the launch of global private means of payment that might raise regulatory concerns and pose risks for financial stability and consumer protection, and a broad take-up of CBDCs issued by foreign central banks."

Bitcoin would roughly fall under such global means of payment which spurred the idea of a digital Euro, meaning it could be considered a threat.
I believe there would be more demand for Bitcoin by users who wish to maintain their privacy. I also think this would come at a cost as government agencies try to maintain control through more stringent regulatory laws.

The only legitimate benefit I can think of is to 'unstuck' a transaction.
If I initiate a transaction using a very low fee without setting the RBF option, my transaction is likely going to get stuck, (how long would depend on how clogged up the network is);
• Once a transaction is signed and broadcasted, it is validated by nodes and appears in the mempool, where it would then be picked up by miners and included in blocks for confirmations. A transaction can stay in the mempool for approximately 2 weeks before it is dropped if no miner takes it up.
• To avoid waiting this long the sender can initiate a double spend or use CPFP ~ Child Pays For Parent, to unstuck the transaction. So they send the exact same UTXO to another address and can then perform the initial transaction with a higher fee.

Double spend is a bit different from a typical rebroadcast. In double spend you're not rebroadcasting as a new transaction is created with a different output and a much higher fee.

A lot of users of Bitcoin are unaware of what double spend is and wallets like electrum adds the unconfirmed transactions to their address as soon as it is sent, making it easier for them to be tricked that they have already received the funds in there wallet.

The 1 confirmation rule is sufficient for smaller transactions; below ~$1,000. If however a transaction involves a significant amount ~ $100,00 to $1,000,000 6 confirmations would be advisable, for it to be considered irreversible, although in reality what it means is that, the transaction would be too expensive to invalidate and the scammer would be spending more than the amount involved to attempt such an attack on the network.

Imo, Bitcoin was relatively unaffected. A 2% increase or decrease in price is not out of the ordinary and does not have to be based on any specific event. The fact that the price held off so well is also an indication of the increased stability in the value of Bitcoin.

A couple of years ago, news like the U.S president getting a virus or a major exchange being involved in shady deals could have had a much more significant effect on the price of Bitcoin, the price has however held off above the $10k mark, as it has been for a couple of months now.

I agree with this. Scams are unmoderated on the forum, so there is no system to confirm that someone indeed committed a violation besides evidence posted and judged by other members. The scam accusation board should be the first section to report scams and based on evidence provided, a negative feedback or trust flag can suffice.
Only extreme cases should be taken to the Investigations child board. Such cases could involve;
• Someone who is impersonating another individual. Proving who the person really is would indemnify the other party,
• Someone who is an immediate threat to the public, etcetera...

This is true about authorities in some situations, but imo, legal action is still a relevant step to take before posting someone's private information on a public forum. The internet never forgets, and even if the person is later proven to not be guilty of a crime, they cannot regain their privacy.

In the description of the YouTube video, they wrote that they have achieved a success rate of 80% with this prototype;
"we developed the routine significantly faster than previous Atlas routines, with a performance success rate of about 80%."
This is quite high and shows incredible development from a couple of years ago. Research must have gone far ahead of this design currently, and we would likely be witnessing fully automated machines in the future with huge growth in the Artificial Intelligence sector.

Change is imminent and technology has been advancing from when first discoveries of wave motion and the basic laws of motion were made. These lead to further inventions and has been causing disruption in various sectors by making work easier and production faster and more efficient - This has been the bedrock of civilization.
Humans also have an insatiable hunger for development, so it is unlikely we would hit an epoch in technological advancement, there would always be new prototypes and better inventions till we get to a fully automated era.

I commented on a similar post some time back; that humans are already being replaced. Mechanization of the manufacturing industry has lead to an increase in unemployment in that sector, as well as a much higher production rate. This impact would be more felt in the future and is a direct consequence of invention.
A fully or largely automated workforce is futuristic, and before that time, I would assume adaptations would be made in the system to accommodate such changes.

Bitcoin is fully decentralized and as such there is no individual or group who can enter into such a partnership, the Bitcoin community consists every enthusiast who is interested in bitcoin and promotes its usage. This decentralization also means it's available for any company to adopt and integrate into its system as we have seen with platforms like Sportsbet

Your statement is a bit confusing, I would assume Bitcoin is among the 'some' which is well known globally, I can not see how listing random currencies in the forex market would benefit Bitcoin.
As mentioned by @20kevin20, Bitcoin would not be accepted into a highly regulated market in its original state, there needs to be legal procedures to make it accessible to institutional investors.

Bitcoin is not really a means of earning regular income, except one accepts it as a payment for service.
On Bitcoin being integrated into the educational sector, I do not think that is necessary. There are a large number of blockchain and Bitcoin related courses on platforms like Coursera and Udemy for people to explore.

There is the Scam Accusations board where you can report scams, this however does not mean members have the authority to dissolve such sites, but the community can report them to website like; https://safebrowsing.google.com/safebrowsing/report_phish/?hl=en which can actually pull such scams down.
On Bitcoin being linked with scams, that is a narrative that would likely get less popular as Bitcoin gets more adoption and positive promotion.

I don't think this post should be in Bitcoin discussion section as it's not directly related to the currency, beginners and help may be more suitable as it would warn newbies of similar scams which they are exposed to when on the internet. The more newbies learn how to browse the internet safely, the less successful this scam attempts would be;

• The first step is protecting your personal details. Exposing contact information like social media handles and email addresses increases the possibility of that data being sold to scammers, making one a target.
• Newbies should also understand that there is no free money on the internet and if there is, you wouldn't need to pay to get it. Any offer that requires you to deposit inorder to claim a much bigger stash of cash is most likely a scam. These could come in different forms like,
- requesting you deposit on a site before being able to withdraw
- informing you about an investment venture which offers profits, they could even allow you earn small amounts before using <inserts bogus excuse> to close it down and you now have a much higher offer to claim, but you need $xxx for <inserts bogus product> to claim it.
- there's also this case of a pay certain amount and get double sent back to you.

You heard right, the forum allows customized signatures for accounts and this can be used to promote websites, this is however not the idea a new member should have. A couple of current high ranking members started off as bounty hunters, so you can always discover the forum for yourself, regardless of the introduction you were given.
The main objective of bitcointalk is for discussions on Bitcoin.

The forum also has rank limitations;
• A newbie can not wear a signature or Avatar, you would have to be at least a Jr. Member (one merit) to enable signature space
• Only full members and above can wear an Avatar.
• Activities also count to rank, a user would need to make posts within activity windows to increase their score.

The purpose of these limitations is to allow new members explore the forum and learn about bitcoin without the pressure of reaching a post quota. Explore the stickie threads on the beginner's and help section as well as Meta to familiarize with the forum and learn the rules.

Negative feedbacks are not limited to when a user actually trades with the other member, it is a (personal) reflection of a member's trustworthiness and could be based on user behavior and general trade history. Trust flags are used for alleged scam violations.

Trust flags and feedbacks are unmoderated, so the mods really do not do anything regarding this.

You are welcome to use other forums you find to be better than bitcointalk.

+1
The last bull run leading up to the current All Time High was quite similar to a bubble as the price rose quickly after very volatile couple of months to the range of $18k-19k during the end of 2017, and within a few months it fell back down to the range of $6k in 2018, and then further below to $3k+ in 2019.
This year however, we have had slow organic growth which has reduced the volatility and built strong resistance (above the $10k range) which would support the price during a correction after a spike.

Such panic sell offs lead to further dump in the market value as investors swooped in to get some cheap bitcoins. We probably have more institutional money in Bitcoin now than ever before and companies are switching to a Bitcoin standard; using it as a reserve currency, this means stronger hands and less panic sales at a price scare.

You didn't give information about how exactly you lost your coins, but I can assume during the early days holders of Bitcoin were still adapting to safety and security and would have made a couple of mistakes leading to loss of their assets.

I was not into Bitcoin back in 2013 and I would also wish to buy Bitcoin at the price it was back then, this is obviously not possible, what is possible is buying bitcoins now and setting your holding plan, this would position you to benefit from Bitcoin in the future;

• Bitcoin is highly divisible and one can buy satoshis which are smaller units of a whole coin.
• Bitcoin's supply flow is constantly thinning due to having and as such there would be less bitcoins being pumped into circulation in 4 years than now. An increase in demand would probably lead to an increase in the price of Bitcoin
• If you set an investment strategy, with funds you can afford to put in, you can still profit. Check out this thread - (SSS) - A Sane and Simple bitcoin Savings plan
A key highlight from that thread which could be helpful;

My video review: https://youtu.be/GO2bai0AMDM

Roobet username: Upgrade00

For the Bitcoin network, it could be seen as the next step in adoption; If large multi-million dollar companies switch to a Bitcoin standard, holding their reserve in Bitcoin, it reflects growth and trust in the asset, pushing the idea that Bitcoin can serve as a reserve currency globally, as an alternative to fiat and gold.
Few years ago, individuals investing in Bitcoin could be considered to be taken a wrong, and highly risky investment, it is still a risky investment now, but people/companies are looking beyond that now and recognizing the huge potential the network has and taking positions to stay ahead of the curve

Bitcoin is risky but resistant to shocks in supply and has a finite supply, so there can only be so much in circulation; meaning it is highly resistant to inflation making it suitable for long-term investments. More large investments like these, would also improve the stability of bitcoin, making it more attractive for new investors.

As said above there is no such feature, bitcoins are not held on wallets, but on the network, the wallet only uses your private keys to allow you sign transactions, but, there is no feature as confirming transactions on the wallet software.

If the receiving address is accurate the funds are already in the possession of the other party, if they are denying that, it is likely a scam.
Is the third party an individual or business? If it's a business service, you should drop their link to warn others.