Electronic voting is bad - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI

Blockchain can't fix it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs&t

If some country said that they'll implement blockchain voting, I'd be really worried about potential voting fraud. I won't even be surprised if in some near future dictators like Putin will use blockchain to "prove" the world that they are fairly elected. The US quite recently demonstrated how messy electronic voting can be, and blockchain could make it even worse.

Blockchain also introduces a lot of new attack surface, because its still an unproven technology. Everyone remembers the DAO fiasco, now imagine an election getting hacked and forced to be re-run, wasting millions.

SegWit, since there was so much drama around it, and so many forces opposed it, but the community still came victorious so miners and businesses had tot accept our terms, and the minority of bitcoin haters finally forked themselves off. And lets not forget UASF, it was a small movement that even some Bitcoiners viewed as too radical, but still it was important in defeating the SegWit2x crowd.

I use Youtube because it has billions of videos, it has all the greatest content creators and I'm subscribed to dozens of channels, it has a decent algorithm for recommending me interesting videos based on my past viewing history. How is a new platform going to trump all that? Am I supposed to like it because it has "blockchain"? I don't care about how it runs, if its decentralized or not, all I want is good content.

Password protection isn't a guarantee that a public network is safe, the password can be weak or the owner might be malicious. What you should do instead is always check that the important sites that you visit have HTTPS enabled, and that their address is valid (use bookmarks instead of typing the address directly). HTTPS means that the communication between you and the site is encrypted, so third parties from the local network can't steal your data.

Liquidity, adoption and other important metrics are still low, so whatever huge marketcap we have now, it only shows that the market is mostly speculative, and this is really not a good thing. It has been largely bullish all this time, and we are yet to see true bearishness, with people seriously doubting Bitcoin and not simply waiting between bull seasons. To me Bitcoin reaching $100,000 is still an "if", not "when".

No government in the world will ever decide to replace cash with Bitcoin because of germs, they will be pushing for payment cards instead. And after they will successfully drive out all cash, they will start fighting Bitcoin. So, I view any negative news about cash as bad news for Bitcoin.

I think "all publicity is good publicity" isn't true for every case, and Bitcoin might seriously lack good publicity in the eyes of regular people - think about it, they usually hear about Bitcoin when something bad happens - the market crashes, it being demanded to pay a ransom, darknet markets and so on. Now we have shitcoiners spreading FUD against BTC on mainstream television.

Even having rich Github profile with lots of activity doesn't guarantee that a coin isn't shitcoin - things like that can be faked by making useless commits, and you probably can buy github stars in the same way people buy like on instagram. Altcoin becoming more and more similar to hyips - everyone knows they are scams, but still keep investing in them, because they hope to "win".

If you're saying that Bitcoin is better because its electronic, then so are banks with their plastic cards. If you think that Bitcoin is a part of the cashless society paradigm, then I'll have to disappoint you - when governments and bankers talk about it, they absolutely don't mean Bitcoin or crypto. In fact Bitcoin is the opposite of cashless society, since it takes away control over money from centralized entities, just like cash does.

This has been discussed many times already on this forum, so generally there are three main points:

1. There's no proof that Bitcoin was created by some intelligence service, it's merely a theory. And theories are just that - theories, you might as well propose that Bitcoin was developed by aliens or the Illuminati.

2. Bitcoin is based on the same cryptography that is used by the rest of the world, it was reviewed countless times by the best cryptographers in the world and they didn't found any backdoors. If you don't trust someone's else cryptosystem, you can develop your own, like the Russians do, but it will likely be inferior to the standard crypto implementations.

3. A lot of tech comes from military background - the Internet, GPS, TOR - just because it was created by the government, it doesn't mean it comes with a backdoor.

Majority of people come to crypto for profits and not for decentralization, so it's no wonder that centralized platforms are more popular - they are easier to use, faster, more convenient, have higher volumes, etc. Decentralized exchanges will become more popular if they will improve themselves enough to compete with the centralized ones in terms of user experience.

Do these crypto conferences even have any value for the ecosystem? I assume most of the speakers just promote their shitcoins or talk about "blockchain technology", instead of discussing really important issues like decentralization and privacy. I think only Bitcoin-oriented conferences are truly important, but a conference is just one way to reach people, and it can also be done via blog posts, podcasts, interviews, etc. So, there's no huge negative impact here.

Why do people keep trying to bring crypto to in-game currencies, it will never work well. In game currency exists for imaginary economy, it's supposed to be worthless, because otherwise there will be big problems - you'll have to deal with bots and farmers, who will inevitably damage your economy and spoil the fun for the honest players. And gamers absolutely don't care about blockchain technology or "owning their assets", they want to play quality games and that's it.

Good old patent trolling and attention whoring - just what you'd expect from this slimeball known as Craig Wright. There's absolutely zero chance that anyone will recognize his "rights", he's doing it purely to get attention and scare the noobs who easily believe everything what they read on their news. Imo CWS should be at least fined if not thrown to jail for wasting governments time and resources on his court battles, patent claims and just committing identity theft, as well as manipulating the market of his pet shitcoin bsv.

I would advice for most people to not try to trade crypto at all, it's a very easy way to burn your money, especially if you believe that you can find a "good project". Just holding Bitcoin is more than enough, it's growth rate is incredible compared to more traditional investments, but people get greedy and start looking at alts thinking they'll grow faster and higher.

It's very likely that mixers already quietly work with investigators, otherwise we would have heard more of this kind of stories.

I get how people see this indictment as a sign that the government wants to outlaw privacy tech, but there's were always people with power who wanted to do so - there were attacks on end-to-end encryption and personal encryption, but in the end it's nowhere near getting banned, at least in the western world.

I think criminals choose Bitcoin to increase their chances of receiving money, buying Bitcoin is already a barrier itself, but buying Monero (for example) is even harder for a layperson, they'd have to get their hands on Bitcoin first and then trade it for Monero on some small exchange that still lists privacycoins. And if a criminal knows their stuff, they will mix their coins multiple times, then buy some privacycoin without doing KYC, then sell it for Bitcoin somewhere else, and only then cash out.

I understand that OP just spams the article for their blog, but still it's an important topic, as a lot of people come to Bitcoin for money earning opportunities. Unfortunately, this isn't 2011-2016 anymore, the opportunities are in fact scarce and competition is huge - it's hard to find jobs for Bitcoin, faucets, sig campaigns, airdrops and all that other stuff that used to be viewed as "free money" just doesn't pay much anymore. And then there's classical bad advice, like making money with trading or gambling.

He pretends to be Satoshi because he's sure that the real Satoshi will never appear again, just notice how CWS started making claims in around 2015-2016 -  long after the days of Satoshi's public activity. He didn't make his claims in 2011 or 2012, when there was a chance that Satoshi will return, or maybe he didn't even know about Bitcoin back then. He shown zero signatures from addresses that solo-mined a full block, which means he wasn't even involved with Bitcoin at its early days.

Cryptocurrency doesn't inherently fix fractional reserving, you can still have it in some sort of crypto banks. Right now we have exchanges as the closest to such entities, but if they don't support margin trading then there's no incentive to have fractional reserve. If people used crypto as intended - storing it in their own wallet, then it would be a different story, but it would also make lending much harder, and without it you can't have a growing economy. But it all only makes sense to talk about when crypto represents a big portion of economy, and we are still very far from it.