So, the hacker used information they stole from the Bithump hack to carry out a targeted attack on the users and get more information to actually steal funds from the users accounts. This does make the user partly liable for the scam along with the exchange, although I couldn't find information on how affected users were notified of the data breach besides the percentage given;
This could mean the users were not duely informed of the risk they were exposed to.

---

It is best practice to not keep your funds on a centralized platform or hold them in centralized tokens. In the recent Kucoin hack series of events happened to show the risks of giving up control of your funds;

• Firstly, the exchange security was breached and the hackers accessed funds stored on their hot wallets belonging to users of the platform. The users of course do not own their private keys and could do nothing to prevent this - no control
• The exchange temporarily locked withdrawals and deposits, meaning users could not access their funds, this was a security measure, but goes to show how centralization works and how users can be arbitrarily locked out of their assets - no control
• Developers of centralized tokens which were stolen restricted transactions to prevent the hackers from moving those funds. This 'freeze' feature can be abused by such devs - no control

One of the objective of bitcoins is users transacting freely without having to trust a third party, this purpose is defeated when a centralized party is involved.

If the user can be proven to have been cheating the rules previously, that could be a valid reason for a tag at a later period. But it would have to be proven that they are alts and that they were temporarily banned at a point and evaded that ban.

Considering the most recent feedback in the main, inactive account, the suggestion by other members that the account was banned temporarily and the user was evading the ban at the time is likely accurate.

I agree that trust feedback should not be used for moderated rules and such cases, like ban evasion should be reported to moderators, but, in this situation there may be some merit to it. The user is currently unbanned and the mods can not ban the alt accounts for evasion, but if the user was actively evading a ban at the time with no regard for the rules of the forum, such behavior could be considered untrustworthy and deserving of a tag (neutral or negative).
'Ban evasion' may not be the accurate comment for the tag, as you wrote. The user is currently unbanned, so, something in the lines of, 'flouting the forum rules' may be more appropriate.

I just realized that the the coinbase reward for each 4 year period (or ~210,000 blocks) before each halving corresponds with the percentage of the total supply that would be mined during that timeframe;

• From the Genesis block to the first halving, 50BTC was given for each block mined, and total of 210,000 blocks were confirmed, adding up to 10,500,000BTC before the next halving.
This summed up to 50% of the 21 millionBTC that would ever be in circulation.
• The next halving period produced 25% of the supply, and the next 12.5%. Hence, before the end of the current halving period, we would have added 6.25% to the total supply, totalling 93.75%.

As the flow of supply trickes down with each halving, I would expect the market value to increase, if demand remains the same or increases.

If bitcoins market value continues to increase, miners could still be earning similar or more rewards in fiat equivalent, despite the drop in number of bitcoins given for each block. There would also be likely improvements in mining hardware making it less cost effective and more rewarding.

*edited
I voted for the latter (just a guess with not real analysis). We have just over three months left in the year, and I personally do not expect more spikes to happen to move the value above $12k for sustained periods. I also do not expect the price would fall too low i.e, below the $10k mark, any time soon. If I am to choose, we are more likely to break above $12k than to drop below $10k.
The festive period could of course bring some surprises in the market.

My bad. *Sleepy eyes*

From my perspective, that opinion of Bitcoin being shady or criminal is not as popular now and is mostly used by government and banks, as well as people who spread FUD. I discuss Bitcoin regularly and have been part of some webinars on the blockchain tevhnology; people mostly view it as a complicated system and are genuinely interested in learning about it. As you pointed out, it being complex is one of the barriers to adoption.
In my opinion, for regular people to use it on a global scale, it would need to be through a third party service which would handle the technicalities of it making it more convenient to own. This may lead to different types of users in years to come.

Afaik, this would depend on the regulatory laws. Some countries subject Bitcoin to capital gain taxes and income gotten in Bitcoin (such as through trades or payments received) is also taxed, this would put it higher than traditional currencies (which are not regarded as assets) and discourage holders, to an extent.

True, the report reads;
"If you hold bitcoin for one year or more in Germany, you won’t have to pay any taxes. Regardless of how much money you make selling your BTC, you do not pay capital gains as long as you have held your coins for a period exceeding 12 months.''

Capital gains tax is the tax that it paid on an asset based on its Return On Investment (ROI). So, under this conditions, bitcoin would be taxed whether or not the holder actively trades it, as long as it is held for over a year and there is an increase in price from when the user bought those bitcoins to the point they sold.

According to the report the unnamed politicians want to make Israel more accommodative for digital assets growth and as a step want to cut down on the taxations of the asset, so as to encourage adoption. If it's considered to be a currency then holders would not be subjected to capital gain taxes but would still be taxed based on income earned through it, like profits withdrew from a trading platform, coins purchased during a Token offering or payment received in bitcoins.

Source

---

This is a good move should it be adopted and would put Isreal ahead of the digitalization curve along with other nations who are receptive of bitcoin. According to this report, there are currently about eight countries who do not subject Bitcoin to capital gains tax;
• Portugal
• Germany
• Singapore
• Malaysia
• Belarus
• Slovenia
• Malta
• Switzerland

I believe that countries who are more accommodative of Bitcoin would experience more growth than those who use regulatory laws to try and control the network.
Do you expect taxes on Bitcoin to become more popular as the community of users grow?
And would this hinder adoption rate?

I have seen similar post related to Bitcoin as a gift, and I think it's a very cool idea. I would say the gift 'related to Bitcoin', should depend on the level of knowledge the person has about what Bitcoin and digital assets are;
• Someone who is completely new to the crypto space would benefit from the hard or soft copy of a good book which teaches the fundamentals of bitcoin. How interested they are in it would show how interested they would be in holding actual Bitcoin.
• For a more experienced person, maybe a hardware wallet or some other Bitcoin merchandise that they would value. (A hardware wallet may be quite confusing for a beginner as they would need to begin from the basics before they can understand what it does, and there's no guarantee they would be interested after).

Actual bitcoins is a good idea, but it is better if the person values it as Bitcoin and not simply for it's fiat equivalent, in which case you would have been better off giving them some cash.

There are no cryptocurrency scammers, just scammers looking for any means to swindle unsuspecting users, and to achieve this they would exploit any means available.
I also do not think scammers feel safer operating in cryptocurrencies, if discovered and investigated they can actually be prosecuted for it; the most recent of such case I can recall is - SEC Charges Film Producer, Rapper, and Others for Participation in Two Fraudulent ICOs.
The DeFi sector is very popular now and attracting lots of newbie investors looking for a means of making quick profit, this is sure to also attract scammers.

Mainstream media links scams to vulnerabilities in cryptocurrencies which are exploited by scammers, but it's not peculiar to the industry. Far more scams are run using fiat currencies than with cryptocurrency, but it's less associated with illegal activities.

According to whale alert on Twitter, large withdrawals were still happening from Kucoin addresses even after the disabling of withdrawals and deposits.


The likely situation is they were hacked and the withdrawals were direct transfers on the blockchain (hackers have access to the private keys) so, it is not affected by their security measures, hence only regular users have their assets locked.
The CEO is currently live on YouTube to explain the situation - https://t.co/gsM6XLjMRX?amp=1

Another reason to never store your assets on a custodial wallet as you are making someone else responsible for your security; not your keys, not your coins.

I personally do not like the idea of Bitcoin being classified under a particular context, as it can be limiting. Bitcoin represents different things to different people and can be utilized in a couple of ways; its speculative value makes it attractive as an asset which can be traded, its resistance to inflation and supply shocks makes it a possible hedge, it can also be used as a currency for transacting and making payments and is described as A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System in Bitcoin's white paper.

Regulations of cryptocurrencies or its recognition by government agencies is not necessary for its growth. Bitcoin does not need Banks to function.

It was declared legal earlier this month after years of not being recognized. Although under the current legal stance, cryptocurrencies are considered to be securities until proven otherwise. So, sponsors or developers of various currencies are expected to prove that their projects are not securities. Bitcoin however lacks a centralized authority and would likely remain one.

For us to understand the effect it may have, I think we would need to get information on how many people are actually taking the offer, their average age and if they actually need the aid at the time; a 29 year old liquidating their retirement savings can make up that back with more years of work ahead of them and would not be as dependent on the government after retirement as a 45+ year old in the same situation.
Also, one who is currently at a crisis financially would benefit from the scheme to keep a business afloat or provide basic needs.

There is a slim chance that those withdrawing without actually needing the cash at the time are doing so to put that cash in some other investment which they think would be more profitable at the time they are fit for retirement. That would be a huge gamble.

@bullrun2020bro, you make the rest of us look bad  
Congratulations on your achievement on the forum and the near record breaking time it took you to get there. I can't read most of your posts, but the ones which I can were quite impressive and educative.
A self made (potential) legendary member in less than a year is quite commendable and a testament of how the merit system works and how, with enough effort anyone can climb up the rank rungs to the top.

I couldn't read the full article, as I got a message to subscribe to their services a couple of lines in, but from the headline they seem to want to avoid using the term Bitcoin as little as possible; replacing it with words like, "crypto" and "coin" (which makes no sense),.even though microstrategy has expressed interest in just Bitcoin:


In a recent tweet Michael Saylor also replied to articles claiming he said they would sell bitcoins at any time;
To view Michael Saylor's position one would be better of listening to his podcast interviews than the comments of mainstream media.

---

Edit: I scrolled really fast and was able to get the quote from the article;

“We can liquidate it any day of the week, any hour of the day,”Saylor said. “If I needed to liquidate $200 million of Bitcoin, I believe I could do it on a Saturday. If I took a haircut, I believe it would be 2%"

The word 'can' dos not suggest any desire to take an action, but means there is a possibility of it. Imo, it could be seen as a way of saying, 'Bitcoin is a liquid currency', and not that they are willing to take advantage of that liquidity anytime soon.

I agree to both points, fiat is far more accepted than Bitcoin and far less traceable. A user transacting in bitcoins is limited in what they can purchase and would overtime leave traces on the chain as well as identity links. With fiat, it is almost impossible to trace how many hands have handled and transacted with a particular $50 bill. There are privacy channels which can be utilized, but these are not foolproof and it reduces what a scammer can actually do, forcing them to convert to fiat.

We have already seen a couple of targeted attacks on privacy centered currencies like Monero;
... And whether or not cryptocurrencies become popular for illegal activities there would an increasing cost for privacy as governments attempt to regulate it more.

There have been Bitcoin improvement proposals over the years aimed at improving the cost of transaction, such as segwit. Some are in the process of being implemented currently - Schnorr and Taproot.

There are personal measures you can take to reduce the fee you spend on transaction;
• Consolidate your small inputs to reduce the size of future transactions
• Use segwit addresses
• Time your transactions so you spend low fees during times when the mempool is clear.

Bitcoin transactions are also way more secure and the network more protected from malicious attacks

Robots have been with us for a while now and have been implemented in sectors like military, medical and manufacturing;
• Drones are being used for reconnaissance and to attack enemy territory without needing to man the craft.
• Medical field has relied on technological advancement to improve the quality of health care.
• The manufacturing industry has also benefited, with production in the U.S increasing by more than 40% in the last two decades;

Source
This increased production has of course had an effect on employment which is 29 percent lower than it was 20 years ago, before the pandemic situation of course.

Job loss is an inevitable factor of development, computers which evolved into mobile phones made a lot of jobs irrelevant, same with engine-powered vehicles which has been utilized in transport, agriculture etc. Through this developments people have evolved and I believe we would do so in a robot driven world. We wouldn't stick to using hoes for cultivating lands, because it created more jobs than tractors.

It also creates low skilled jobs. Mobile phones like apple employs thousands of low skilled laborers (they could be paid better than they currently are, but that's a discussion for another thread). A lot goes into the making of a robot, raw materials development as well as manufacturing, and on a global scale it would create lots of jobs in various sectors.

Cryptocurrency: Bitcoin
Dollar amount: $65
Bank Name: Guarantee Trust Bank
Account Name: **sent**
Account Number: **sent**

Edit: txid - c05ca0109b1da5efbc19027a2453d5afbfc2e4482c9d6fcf1cfd8ac17b2cfe3e

Edit: Funds received. It is always a pleasure.

Effort is one of the important factors that helps improve a user's post quality and with an increase in quality of discussions a user can impact more users positively and increase their chances of earning merits. Other factors, like where one posts and language barrier can influence positively or negatively, but users who deliberately try to help other members emphasize the purpose of merit creation and would benefit from the system.

I should point out that admins would interfere if one who was appointed (sources) to fairly distribute merits abuse the system. There has been cases where users have been removed from their merit source position and some were the merit transactions were revoked.
Theymos also interferes if it's a calculated abuse to cheat the system. Since the trust system was modified, "votes" from users who have earned certain amounts of merits counts to members eligibility and is an incentive for abuse.
Some users have been blacklisted from the trust selection process due to merit abuse.

I personally do not like the idea of users being given negative feedbacks for suspected merit abuse. It is not a wide spread practice from my observation, so most DT members agree with this.

This is a means to herd users into breaking the privacy cloak Bitcoin offers. If it is tagged as a suspicious commodity, then bogus regulatory laws placed on it through centralized platforms can be justified and users are forced to de-anonymize themselves.
Monero for example, which is one of the most privacy centered cryptocurrencies has come under lots of attacks and criticisms from government agencies who are constantly trying to track it - Private Coin Monero Can Now Be Tracked By US Homeland Security or to reduce its adoption by exchanges making it more difficult for it to be used.

With the increasing suspicion being linked to cryptocurrency transactions, Banks and governments increase the cost of users trying to maintain their privacy when transacting, which is a big threat to government control.

This is the regular opinion I get from people. The narrative of Bitcoin as a means of facilitating illegal activities has always been a means of controlling it or dissuading people from using it.