It sounds like someone can just make an app, that would block coins that you send to is and create the same amount of other coins on the other blockchain. Anyway, exchanging self-created shitcoins is not really a big deal because both Mikecoin and Joecoin definetely won't have any special usage and creating a new shitcoin with a unique feature of exchanging it to another shitcoin doesn't sound perspective.

In this article a guy claims that he lost $25k after hackers stole his accounts. Either this guy is retarded or it is just bullshit because he gave no evidence and with such amount of funds most exchanges would require to pass KYC. Also most exchanges won't reset your password only with an e-mail so this story sound even more ridiculous and not realistic.

First of all you should consider what is a crypto friendly country for you. In most EU countries and in US you won't get to jail (or even your bank accounts locked) for having some crypto coins. It is also possible to make some crypto payments. And it is totally legal. But for some reason people are still searching for friendlier country.
I would also suggest that US would be a better country simply because if you are looking for a place, with a developed economy and financial markets, that are constantly implementing different instruments then it would be US.

By the way Estonia is probably the most IT friendly country in the world.
People are leaving it and the government is struggling to use different IT things in everyday life.

Well, yes. It is also possible to found a micronation on the territory, that no one cares about.

As legit I understand the main political powers that are in charge of the country. And it doesn't matter what are they doing because they are the law on this territory in that particular moment of time.
Law, and being legit are abstract concepts.

Someone is threating to throw some nukes, and Philipine president is threatening to throw back Canadian garbage. Declaration of war seems to be a joke rather than any serious intension to start a military conflict. Anyway, it doesn't seem to be such a serious issue that should be resolved on the top level by top politicians.
I'm surprised that some people are taking this article serious.

It seems like a couple points are still a bit questionable:
1. Almost all major exchanges are requiring to set any kind of 2fa as a part of their verification process. So how could someone steal their money?
2. If this $1.2B were stolen from unpopular exchanges then how we can be sure that this data they provided is legit? Maybe exchange administration stole user's money and claim that was a hack.

I've heard that chinese people when going abroad for some work to countries, where they can't use their local payment systems, are transfering money back to china in Bitcoins. So right now it seems like the system started to work in the opposite direction and wealthy people started to transfer their money out of the country.
The other point is that  China is authoritarian enough country in order not to hide their true goals.

It can't be logical until Bitcoin becomes stable. All those monetary reserves are first of all made to save the money and not to get any profits out of it. So bitcoin can't be reserve currency for such a big country like Russi then first it should become stable  to secure the financial safety of the country and then it should have enough liquidity to make it possible to use this money. For this time we don't even have enough liquidity for that.

Can anyone explain me how is it possible to steal crypto from SIM card?
So stealing money from other people in order to spend it for good purpose totally advocates this crime in your eyes?
For some reason many hackers think that if they steal electronic money then no one would be looking for them. The same thing happened many years ago when many scammers were happy to steal some money via PayPal and for some time no one has been arresting them but then everyone understood that those kind of crimes is not that safe.

Everything what is not a Bitcoin lol.
If you see that devs of the project claim that their coin will be a new BTC because they have lower fees, faster transaction speed, better community and its price is currently undervalued so it should cost 10 times more so that's a shitcoin.
There is also a small shitcoin test. Their devs always like to say some loud words. So if you open their whitepaper, press ctrl+f and search for words like "revolutionize" and other loud words. If you found those words then congrats, that's a shitcoin.

The only thing that is written in the article is that some crypto investment app has raised some good money. Which doesn't really tells us anything because dozens of those crypto related projects raised millions during their ICOs back in 2017 and it had no influence on Bitcoin adoption. Also in this article we see that the other companies have their crypto wallets simply to get their small piece of cake out of all this crypto stuff and nothing more. Those investors are interested only in money and not in Bitcoin tecnology.

Well, if one day they ban BTC trading on US then you would probably have to give a shit.

This is not necessary have to be an anti-crypto action. SEC usually bans forex brokers and controls the other traditional exchanges. If someone is not able to provide a quality service then they would ban it. Quality regulations made US market the best and it may also push crypto exchanges to improve their quality.
Considering that Bitcoin Generation is far not the most popular exchange we may think that it deserves to be banned.

And once again: crypto exchanges like Bitfinex work fine under US and EU jurisdictions. Which means that all funds on those exchanges must be secured by the law. Forex brokers are working on US and EU jurisdictions and many of them accept BTC and have BTC trading pairs. There are many ways for traditional investors to trade cryptocurrencies and they are legally secured.
It is still not obvious that traders on other exchanges are willing to invest in cryptocurrencies, even if you say so.

When someone would show us a detailed research that would tell us that investors are willing to invest in BTC. Even now everyone can make an account on crypto exchange or use some forex broker (many of them offer crypto trading pairs). But unfortunately I don't see that those assets are becoming so popular that even traders from other markets are willing to trade it. Without them all those new exchanges would be useless.

That's not really about the amount of traders but about the trading volume and market cap. No matter who is regulating the market but until for example the market cap is only 1$ nothing can ensure that tomorrow someone won't buy it for 2$ and make this currency extremely volatile.  First you need to get a mature market and only then you can think about the ways of regulating it.

There is a special board on this related to Electrum wallet. There you can even stay in contact with Electrum developers: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=98.0
Also it is better to add a link to the source of those news. I would like to see more details.
I guess, the same thing would keep happening with every popular Bitcoin wallet or crypto related service. The more people use it - the bigger piece of cake it would be for scammers.

Mining would be alive until Bitcoin exists. There is no sense for someone to run his mining equipment and pay for it without getting any profit. So if you are able to send a transaction then be sure that BTC mining is still profitable.
On the other hand, BTC skepticists always had their place and BTC price have no influence on them. No matter how much BTC cost because they are not going to buy it at any price.

Bitcoin have more than enough privacy that could be used by normal people. By using bitcoin mixers you can keep your stash safe without showing it to the other people. This is more than enough until you are sure that someone with a decent amount of resources (for example government) would try to uncover your assets.
So what we get is that there is enough privacy for those, who use BTC for legal purposes.

Almost every problem that BTC network is facing may be handled without making any shitty forks. That's just the same situation as it was with LN: community facet the problem of high fees and slow transaction, then LN was announced but before it was released many people decided to use the moment for their own benefir and made some BTC forks claiming that this is the currency of future. And that's how it works with any kind of problems with Bitcoin network.

If people want Bitcoin to be traded on the same exchanges with the other assets then they should expect that BTC would also be treated as another asset class. In this case we need to get a larger volume and market cap to make BTC more resilient to price fluctuations. This will boost BTC acceptance more than anything else.