Well, I think it's a matter of lack of supplies? That's why they refuse to do checks for millions of people. Not to mention that if millions were to be checked, it'd span in weeks if not months, and such situations where the person checked was infected AFTER being checked, well, then their efforts, money and supply were wasted no? Can't really blame them being helpless when confronted with millions of people. There's also the issue of asymptomatic infected, which makes things a lot more complicated when it comes to testing obvious symptoms.
Let's be real here, even if they were to present test results, that doesn't mean that the same result would still be accurate the next day right? Or week? It's actually inefficient even if they did try to do so. They only need to be strict when it comes to implementinig safety measures, especially since not only would their reputation drop they're employees themselves would be affected in case a positive infection gets in, leading to damages that exceed compared to them closing down temporarily.

Well, China is a country with strict control and regulations when it comes to its citizens. Plus, as the origin of the country, they were able to spectacularly quarantine the Covid even before the worse situation was to come, so that was prevented there and then. The only negative thing here is most likely the fact that they allowed it to get out of their country. Well, considering that it was just discovered a few months after the possible case, It can't really be helped but then again, if they were able to notice it much earlier, the number of cases right now wouldn't be as high.

It's not like I agree with the way China runs its country, nor can I actually disagree with it fully since I don't run one, but the fact that they adopt such ways was possible the reason they were able to progress with regards to the virus right now. With how they have total control over literally everything, with anything against their way being met with absolute retaliation, It was no doubt that they were able to, as you can see anyway with how other countries are faring. If you were to compare it to other countries, then China would be pretty tight with security while others are pretty lax ( in comparison with the way they do things that is).

Not surprising tbh. It happened everywhere and would probably continue happening in the near future. Not to mention that illegal vendors placing their stores are being strictly checked now mostly due to the government having no choice but to do so mainly because of health measures. Not to mention the unemployment, even small to medium businesses are suffering basically because the government has failed to support any type of that sort of business right now, which they should really be doing imo. 

It's amazing how some issues actually take up the majority of the attention after the possibly worst wave of Covid happened. It's like the problem that's supposed to be topic #1 for meetings became an afterthought, mostly because they really have nothing they believe they can do anymore.

True, these measures implemented has at the very least shown us what a world where everyone maintains a pretty comfortable distance feels like. But do you really expect such things to continue afterward? When the vaccine is finished and the fear of Covid is still there? I don't really think so. Even now, some places still refuse to maintain proper distancing from each other, and most PUV just do that so that they are allowed to accept customers for travels. It's all but temporary mainly because of the population of the people on each country, maintaining this state of comfortable distance in the foreseeable future just seems impossible imo (until the vaccine is made that is).

Not that dangerous doesn't really mean that they'd be safe from it. It just means that there's a lower mortality rate for those people at the younger age. And really, it's not enough of a reason to actually not practice preventive measures stated by the DOH. Sure, if the virus only affected one person, then do whatever you want, no one cares, but no. This virus spreads from person to person so even if you are young, you still get infected BUT you chances of you recovering is still high. Still, that just means you can infect others while you're still infected.

Yes, I'd still buy it. I never really saw it as an investment for some reason. Sure, at first, I bought BTC and was waiting for an ATH, but as time passed, well, my mindset changed quite a bit and started using my supply of BTC every now and then. I still hold a bit of them and buy them every now and then, but even without the chances of achieving another ATH, Bitcoin being an option to buy some stuff I want without finding out who I am seems pretty nice to me.

This is just a sad mindset and has probably failed what Satoshi's goal really is tbh. Well, not that I can blame you, the community up to now has pretty much lead us to think of Bitcoin as an investment after all. Still, "boring" seems kind of taking it as Bitcoin now being "useless". It's not like the only characteristic of Bitcoin is being a speculative asset. You're basically blinding your eyes to a majority of what it can do due to being blinded by, yes, profit.

Did fiat became worse when criminals were using it for their drug deals/weapon deals etc.? No. In fact, fiat is still being used till this day no? So I see no reason why crypto should be labeled as a weapon for scammers when the word "scam" involves two PARTIES, not METHODS. A Scam is basically someone exploiting others' ignorance of a certain subject, making money out of them due to that.

No no, it's the other way around. Abusers have made a lot of issues to Cryptocurrency due to them using it as such. And in the end, there's nothing wrong with it imo. Government use taxes to secretly stash money right? Does that make taxes wrong? No. It's the government that's wrong. It's simply a misaligned conception, especially due to the fact that crypto is a new idea that just came up a decade ago. Still, such scams of investment have long been here imo, not just through crypto, but rather through other means even with using fiat.

Hmm not really. If you consider the entire world, I suppose only a minority of those actually want something like the concept of Bitcoin. Most would rather want something automated, something secure (secure in the sense that they don't need to guard it, but can leave it to others), something they basically can leave to others without worry so that they can do something else.

Still, this doesn't mean that it'd phase out all of a sudden one of these days, the idea of decentralization provided by Cryptocurrency is an amazing thing, one of which that can help us in various situations, but in the end, it can't really accommodate for every situation, not to mention the complete opposition (most likely) of centralized organizations. It'd probably be a part, but it doesn't really have the ability to eat up the entire economy, replacing centralization as its core.

Can't blame them in this case tbh, accounts that were hacked were of famous people that have the capital to actually do what the posts say, so who wouldn't try right? In case you want to argue that there were a lot of accounts that said the same thing, I can also argue back that did they know? Not everyone that Follows Apple twitter also follows Elon Musk right? Well, not saying that they aren't completely not to blame for the actions they made, but eh, it's done already, not much we can do about it. Even if we do blame them for all that matters, fact is, they got scammed, and it was one that was well, arguably better than some random sht poster asking you to send money to xxx site for money.

There were talks about having an insider with relation to the hacks. The situation inside the company must be heavy as hell. There were news about how the hacked accounts even completely changed the mobile numbers and email accounts linked, making retrieving them a lot harder than usual.
Who knows whether they're stating the real problem or not? Seeing as how a lot of companies have already used the "plain text" bug so much in the past, they probably thought they could use it as well to avoid any problems with regards to publicity and the like. Plus, if the passwords were stored in plaintext, whenever the system crosschecks it, shouldn't it be a miss or something? Or is it that, there was a separate database where the said bug saves the plaintext records of passwords, but the system still hashes them to match to the stored hash in their database?

Well, it's the experience that counts I suppose. He didn't deposit that much so I suppose the transaction fees aren't that much of a problem. But really, based on price for when I checked right now, can I assume that the fee for the transaction is around ~20%? Damn, Crypto-ATM's are really there to suck the money out of your wallets. Congrats on that 15mile travel that costed you around $20 I think?

It'd be a tad bit too obvious for others who are observant. Everyone suddenly tweeting about BTC being sht? About it being bad? Sure, 1st/2nd day it may actually have results, but after that, some observant people would see something weird, something odd. Plus, simple research would obviously result in seeing that such tweets are odd after all, so I don't think they would've opted for such a decision that wouldn't bring them any guaranteed profit. At the very least, with the way they did, they managed to earn something.

It's not that they have low IQ, they probably either didn't have enough time since they believed they would be busted quite quickly (which indeed happened), or they guaranteed the minimum amount of profit instead of going for the maximum one. Still, using a scam from way back 2017 does make these hackers seem like they have low IQ's.

I suppose it's too early to say? After all, the future of Bitcoin is still uncertain. Besides, 2100 is 80 years later, so why not go for somewhere smaller and decide based on that? Let''s say around 2040? That should be more than enough time to assume what would happen to 2100 by then. 2040 or maybe around 2075? That's around the middle time of since when BTC was made and possibly when BTC ends. Still, I believe it's still necessary, mostly because miners are still being paid of transaction fees, plus, Bitcoin would only grow in price if more and more keep hodling it. Ofc, there would come a time where it would probably stay at a steady price, but that's still mostly by the end.

Then doesn't the premise change if the price exceeds $10k? Like, let's say that the price did exceed $10k, but stayed there for around 3-4 months. The idea is now that long term investors are willing to check out of the market if such a situation happens, so wouldn't the price go down? Whether it be slowly or not that is.
Importance? That's just talking about the price, and I'm pretty sure that the price is the lowest part of the importance one can get when talking about Bitcoin. Plus, considering the 26k people who responded, that's just a drop in a bucket right? Not to mention its twitter, if the survey was done with investors in mind as the respondents, then twitter isn't the way to go. A more specialized one should instead be the best decision.

There shouldn't be that much effect I suppose. A 100 grand seems like a drop in a bucket when you compare it to the amount of money being traded daily, and even if they did try to sell it all in a single day, a bit of time is simply needed for the price to bounce back up. Additionally, if people aren't idiots, twitter would most likely be the one most affected by this. Bitcoin had no say in this and let's just say, it was simply a medium used so that they can scam others of their money.

Damn, just checked the issue itself out and there was a LOT of accounts hacked. And they even managed to make it difficult for such accounts to be returned by changing email addresses and mobile numbers. Twitter is gonna get hit real hard with this issue since someone inside being involved is largely possible.

Well, the home court not only gives audience familiarity but rather the atmosphere. It's kind of a vague thing, but hell, players understand it well enough I suppose. It's basically the fear of going to somewhere unknown for others, while being at home for someone else. We're all afraid of the unknown, and players going to foreign courts to play could prove that they are pressured as such, whether there is an audience or not.
Ask any professional player out there. If they think traveling sucks, they should probably quit already tbh. It's not a matter of it being big, players would only hate traveling if they were pushed against a stupid schedule, but if things were planned properly, traveling can even be a form of relaxation. Players are also given the time to adjust their mindset afaik. They give them some time to roam the city to adjust the "unknown city" mindset, making their mentality the same as being in the home court, or at least, making it as close as possible to that type of mindset.

There were cases that the police cleaned the records of the Bitcoin itself, thereby making it like a clean slate? To remove the stamp of it being a stolen BTC, and auction them off. There have been several instances of such events happening already iirc. True enough. Since records that are released in public are officially made by them, whether they are actually the truth or not remains to be known. Still, if exchanges do stamp the coins marked as coins that were stolen, such cases could possibly be avoided no? Police pocketing them (or anyone else for that matter) are unable to sell it due to it being stamped as a stolen coin, and even if they do mix it, it's a matter of them finding it out, right? They have no choice but to release it in the form of an auction so that the stamps of it being stolen are removed.

You're making things a lot harder for farmers man. There's a simple solution in the problems farmers have, remove all those people that take advantage of their hard work and you can have a happy farmer life.
See? you already said it yourself, the actions of the Government have not been one bit helpful to them, so what did you expect? Hell, If such a system were to be implemented, it wouldn't be the farmers that would take advantage of it, it'd be those people above those farmers. The middleman of sorts, or maybe the owner of the lands farmer use (if there is one). Yes, it brings advantages but there are also disadvantages to it, mostly it stems from how people can capitalize on others' work. It'd just be quite a loss for them tbh, with them not even knowing that they're actually losing out due to the term "blockchain" being involved in their transactions.

In the end, though, you're just pretty much running from the essence of the problem, which is self-discipline. By hiring third parties to hold your money, your basically saying that "I can't control myself, so instead, you put on a leash on me so that I don't go overboard" kind of thing. Plus, the thought of it comes after you put it in an escrow, but what if you don't? There's a sort of mentality where you just put it on hold for literally forever, saying excuses, but you just don't really want to do it. Once you get this sort of mentality, it's hard to let go, and if you apply it to this situation, won't it be a never-ending loop? And the fact is, you can't even manage self-discipline by then because you believe that the escrow would do it for you, but again as I said, you'd just make up excuses to not use it for now, but in the future, and that'd just make it a loop that's going to hurt you a lot.

Not surprising really. It was to be expected at some point, since a lot of people have no where to go, might as well go gambling right? Well, there are options such as playing, but well, most of those that have nothing to do and have money belong to the age where playing games is a foreign thing and would instead play games like poker in the past when they were young (yes, I'm implying that most of these people would be around above 30s or 40s). Still, though, such cases would just probably be reduced in the long term, especially since a lot of people are having a hard time with financing their situation. It probably is true for the first 3-4 months, but after that, you'd probably see a drop in online casinos' revenue.

Demand and supply. Economic growth mostly occurs due to having increased wages, increased employment rate, increased resources, improvement in technology, etc. Countries have constant development due to them having concentrated their resources on developing their domestic products, instead of foreign trade. This doesn't mean that foreign trade is wrong, just that with foreign trade, the improvement of the country would solely be limited due to the fact that if foreign trade disappears, the country has its lifeline cut.

As long as the release of cash was controlled properly, even if there were more types of fiat released, it'd only lead to economic growth. Ofc, too much of something is always bad, and too much release of fiat at a single instance without any proper reason could lead to inflation.