it's just idiots and the misinformed that are running around spreading FUD, as they do every time something that is perceived as 'Bad' happens, nothing out of the ordinary. wait it out and people will read up for themselves and get over it in a week's time.

it happens every time, and it will continue to happen every time; it's actually funny to see it at this point. I've accepted trying to correct people at times like this is pretty much effort wasted.

the media outlet was probably uneducated on the subject, they usually tend to be when it comes to newer technologies and ideas.

we already know it's possible; before the news of China's ico ban, bitcoin was at 4970 usd per coin. now it's just a matter of seeing at what point the price rise is going to stop, and if it'll remain there or start deprecating as a price correction.

I'd think so too; every event has some effect on an assets price and stability, even a negligible one. however, I don't think the full extent of China's actions have been felt just yet, we've yet to see a project of importance get shut down or delayed. we might be seeing some price fluctuations in the future if that's the case.

even if they do reverse their decision, it was a pretty big show of power from the chinese government that they have the power and means to affect the bitcoin market; that alone i think is a powerful card to hold. they didnt even issue a ban on bitcoin itself, just a ban on crowdfunding projects. and with that, they managed to knock down bitcoin's price more than 10% practically overnight. of course, we have recovered most of the damage now, but imagine if another superpower, lets say, the US, bans ico's as well. at that point, i wouldnt hesitate to say that the damage would take at least a year to recover from, even partially.
of course, people spreading FUD have a part in it too, but personally i think they're too easy to see through and don't have a sizeable impact on the market.

it wouldn't just dip; depending on the geopolitical influence(s) of the country (or countries) that ban(s) bitcoin have, the price of bitcoin could very well dip to 10% or less of what it is worth now. the stronger bitcoin as an idea becomes, the stronger the push for regulation and limited forms of control will become for the nations and states that govern the people. some countries could very well choose to openly accept bitcoin into their future, such as what Japan has done, but it only takes one superpower to destroy all that progress. we see that just this week, china, a global superpower, has decided to ban ICO's, which have had a major part in the growth of bitcoin in the past months. however, imagine if they were to ban the use of bitcoin outright. we've just eliminated a good percentage of the world's population that could legally use bitcoin, and at the same time diminished that much progress that bitcoin has made as an idea.

im all for the growth of bitcoin and all, but at times like these i would very much like to see some stability accompanied by steady growth. as i am typing right now, whatever exchange rate i have set on electrum is showing bitcoin valued at exactly 4500 usd per bitcoin, which is nice and all, but fluctuations of more than 10% either way in the span of a few days isnt exactly the most reassuring thing for bitcoin. my mind is set on the continual growth of bitcoin, but there's always that worry in the back of my mind as to how the next big piece of news might tank bitcoin and cause of chain reaction of panic sells, which would drive the price down even further. in the long term, stability is fundamental to bitcoin's future.

they have zero obligation to the forum's users to create a convenient mobile application. it's an idea that's been thrown around for a while, but it's more than likely that its not gong to happen. the most you'll get is an app created by one of the forum users, and even then, people are way too paranoid about having their accounts stolen / hacked by the app (as well they should be paranoid about it) to actually use the app.
in addition, even if it was made in the near future, the new forum software would render that app broken or useless until it was updated to fit the new forum software's design.

glad to be on board with the project; I'll be looking forward to the developments in the coming months.

my personal thought is, alts wouldn't necessarily die out from the association of being a cryptocurrency, but also, by that same association, every alt would take a massive hit. my guess is, for  bitcoin to absolutely disappear or become worth next to nothing over a short period of time, some catastrophic news that completely undoes the ideals and foundations of bitcoin would have to come about. however, alts being what they are with their different characteristics, might weather the storm and bounce back up after a period of time. however, that does depend upon the event that took place that would hypothetically cause bitcoin to be rendered useless. if the same event would also encompass the appeals of the alts, then those too, would be pretty much gone overnight.

i dont think there's anyone that knows his real identity, and if they do, they're hell bent on keeping it a secret. though just knowing him / her wouldnt have brought gain for me in any way, i think it wouldve been more than interesting to see their interactions with the community on the forum in its early days.

no one can ever know that; i guarantee if people knew how far assets and stocks would go, they'd work until their fingernails broke off to gather money to put into whatever investment was going to take off. no one knoew startups like apple or google would ever make it this big; bitcoin is no different. it's a new technology and a completely new type of asset, but above all else, an experiment. just being an experiment, it couldve gone either way. fortunately, history has deemed that bitcoin be a very strong technological and economic idea in today's world.

not entirely anonymous, there have been multiple big cases of an address and coins being linked to specific individuals, such as the case with the silk road founder ross ulbricht. remember, everything you do regarding bitcoin, weather it be receiving or sending, all transactions are stored and viewable on the blockchain. as long as you've put your identity out there with any transaction, your identity is now tied to that address, and if there were multiple inputs in the transaction, your entire wallet's addresses could be linked back to you. of course, i dont think anyone should ever be interested in going so far to track a person's addresses down, but if someone's got the time and effort to put into it, its more than possible.

it's the first step; the chinese government cannot hope to regulate bitcoin without drastic measures; controlling the miners (51% attack) is one possibility that comes to mind in giving control. however. even if they manage this, they would have to continue maintaining that hashrate to maintain control. it might not be the best way, but its just one potential method off the top of my head. i dont think at all it would be economically feasible for any organization to do this, so they do what they can: in this case, the chinese government outlawed ICO's in order to (this is just what i think) hinder decentralized projects that it cannot oversee and control if necessary.

it seems to me a great majority of the new people that come to the forum do so because they hear about sig campaigns and whatnot; given that, its strange how people only narrow their view to sig campaigns as the sole means of 'earning' bitcoin, as if they've never heard of a job or being paid for a performed task.

even without any marketable skills that are in demand, there's always menial work that people could take up; i've seen plenty of people take up offers for solving captchas for what amounted to pennies. there's always something that can be done, the only ones that say there's no chance bring it on themselves for not seeking out the opportunities.

you're reaching so hard it's unbelievable; first off, there's been numerous accounts and stories of bitcoin theft, you can just Google it and we at least 20 separate, major cases. secondly, you cannot simply compare gold, an asset with a history of stability and growth, with bitcoin, an extremely new idea with a history of volatility.

I don't think it's possible to accurately predict the price of bitcoin and how it will change; bitcoin is, and will always will be, an experiment. It's a rather special sort of asset unlike any other, and I think we've yet to get a firm grasp on what makes it valuable.

Dunno why people would think that; not saying they're wrong, but I can't see any evidence leading to the fact that the ceiling before the crash would be around the 5k mark. There's also no reason to think people will suddenly dump at 5k either, that's pure speculation.

i think with all of these problems presented, especially with scalability, im of the opinion bitcoin itself wont be going mainstream. if anything, a new cryptocurrency based on bitcoin that aims to solve these issues with long term use and scaling in mind will probably be the one to take the torch and be the first real result from the experiment that is bitcoin. who knows, maybe not even that hypothetical cryptocurrency will go mainstream, it'll take a lot of time before we have anything with all the right attributes to actually implement into a large scale economy.

also true; no matter what, people will resist change, especially change in something that has remained unchanged in their lives up until that point.

no, there will always be a demand for a physical form of any currency that can be easily traded off without hassle, fees, and other procedures that might hinder the process of a simple trade. why go through the process of sending a transaction, paying a fee, and waiting for confirmation times for a small, everyday transaction? it's just incredibly inefficient. what im reading about the lightning network is supposed to rectify this issue, but im not too sure yet, ive still got reading and catching up on the subject to do. physical forms of currency provide a practical, simple solution as well as an alternative form of payment that doesn't require a network connection for people (i would imagine the connectivity might be an issue for some people in various parts of the world).

so? anyone can use paper cash to buy weed off their neighborhood weed dealer, these purchases aren't taxed, and its definitely illegal. in addition, hand to hand cash trades are even more anonymous than bitcoin, where you can view every transaction on the blockchain. every one of the reasons you've listed can also be said of paper money, yet the government doesn't outlaw it do they? you're looking for reasons, yet not thinking them through.

your comment is paradoxical; if a government has its own jurisdiction, then they're free to ban or legalize anything within their jurisdiction; ie they have full capability to do so within their reach. as far as saying these 'international organizations' have no power to do so, you're partially right; orgs such as the UN do have some geopolitical influence, but they are more or less a peacekeeping organization, and would have no place supporting financial legislation / policy.

good is  a subjective term in this sense; some authoritarian governments that like to control every facet of how their economy is regulated might see bitcoin and blockchain technology as a threat, wheras people like us, who take an interest in the topics mentioned, might see it the complete opposite.

this is exactly why i think a cryptocurrency, not necessarily bitcoin, will be the currency of the future. bitcoin as it is cannot hope to support an international economy, perhaps the economies of small countries at best in its current state (with future forks and improvements, maybe even a first world country's). however, bitcoin is an experiment; it has laid the foundation and has shown us the potential of cryptocurrency as well has helped us discover and develop technologies that might very well be at the core of our economies in the future.
one point of yours i disagree with though; traceability / anonymity. i think we should leave transactions to be traceable still; it would simplify tracking funds that may have been stolen as part of a crime and such, drastically increasing the deterrence to crime. anonymity could be implemented to an extent, ie not being able to view the balance of an address without a proper signature.

I think it's less about keeping it for themselves rather than keeping it away from the masses (just a tiny distinction, but an important one to make). Russia's government is an authoritarian one, and anything that might be construed to loosen the government's control is seen as a threat, especially economical powers such as bitcoin. this could also just be a political move to give their judicial system leverage; they can now prosecute anyone for any underlying reason if they can be reasonably be shown to be affiliated with bitcoin.