It could be. A lot of people already use it as such. Bitcoin seems to be much more popular for its HODL potential than its actual utility as a spendable currency after all.

What do you mean by deterministic sense? Either way, it has already changed the world by birthing an entirely new asset class, and could change the world even further, depending on how adoption plays out. The end game, or in my opinion at least, is for it to be well established enough to serve as a reserve currency a la USD.

This is my position as well. I suppose we do have some reasons to expect a surge, but I think this run is too much for those, if that makes sense. The rate of growth definitely feels a bit inorganic and unsustainable. I expect a correction in the coming weeks, but I would love to be wrong.

From a different perspective, Bitcoin did grow from $1k - $5k in 2017 alone and hasn't really gone below that level since. You can never really tell.

This also confuses me. Do you mean that there's a separate altcoin named Bitcoin Segwit (which I couldn't find with a quick search)? Or are you making a political statement that Segwit-enabled BTC is an altcoin?

You could have good security and still get hacked. I'm not saying Binance did, but theirs is probably a lot better than most small exchanges. Point number one doesn't make any sense because the hack has nothing to do with crypto's inherent security. It's all about the exchanges.

Point number two could be true, because only uninformed people or people who have financial stakes would suggest you to safekeep your coins in exchanges. They obviously had security issues, but they at least had SAFU in place to cover the losses, so no users will be losing money. I guess you could still say it's safe, to a certain (or really low) degree.

I still wouldn't recommend anyone to keep non-trading coins in exchanges, but things could have been much worse.

Well it can't be denied that there's a small correlation. Even if you're only paying the minimum of 1 sat/byte, if Bitcoin's value skyrockets 1000%, then the fees you pay also increase by 1000%. It's going to be a long while before this potentially becomes a problem though.

Either way, it doesn't seem like fees have been a major factor in market movements thus far. That's kind of expected too, considering most people still consider Bitcoin more of an investment than actual money that can be spent daily. It's only going to matter substantially once Bitcoin's utility becomes the primary driver of its market value.

So we're meant to close our eyes and cover our ears? Sure this is bad for the market, but this also invites other exchanges to step their game up. If one of the largest exchanges could be hacked, then you can't trust any of them with your money. They have to find a way to change that.

If you want to find the bright side to this story, it's that Binance promised that user funds won't be affected. I won't trust them or any other exchange with my money, but kudos to them.

Pointing out hypocrisy is still antagonizing regardless of the intention though, which is counterproductive IMO. It doesn't change the fact that Bitcoin is used for scams either. Therein lies the logical fallacy.

The two sides on the argument, as you mentioned, in this case, should be that Bitcoin can be used for scams and that Bitcoin can be used legitimately. Pointing out that fiat is just as bad doesn't paint Bitcoin in a better light; letting people know of its actual legitimate uses does.

Or that's my two satoshis on the matter, at least. I feel like adoption shouldn't happen necessarily because fiat is bad, it should happen because Bitcoin is better.

Most reasonable people would agree. Calling them out this way, however, is a logical fallacy called Appeal to Hypocrisy, which ultimately leads nowhere.

I feel like it's more important to highlight that crypto is, and can be used for so much more. Majority of people who believe that Bitcoin is only used for scams, or even that Bitcoin itself is a scam, only know of Bitcoin as an investment vehicle. You're more likely to get through a person if you don't antagonize them, and you could even educate them on the actual subject itself in this case.

This is because everything is priced in fiat though. Heck, even fiat is always paired with other fiat. That's just how the world currently works, and I don't think it will ever change outside a complete overhaul of the global economic system.

But yeah, for as long as Bitcoin is used as an investment asset, people will never stop focusing on its monetary value. That's not even strictly a bad thing, because everyone should be able to do what they want with it.

See: Shill

This isn't even isolated to Youtube as they're everywhere on the internet these days. Heck, even McAfee who some people considered a good crypto ambassador has admitted to shilling for random altcoins. Make sure you take everything anyone says with a grain of salt.

There hasn't actually been a true Bitcoin ETF yet, which is why people think this is a big deal. There's an ETN, an investment trust, but not a single ETF. I'm fairly sure this is true outside the USA as well, but I could be wrong.


They actually may have a fairly good idea what will happen; it could get manipulated and they won't be able to do a thing.

You have to acknowledge that plenty of people use Bitcoin in this way though. Given the market's volatility and the tendency to grow (and lose) money instantly, what crypto investors are doing could be described as gambling. Not that that's a bad thing.

We can't really shake off these labels until Bitcoin establishes its utility beyond speculation and store of value. We're seeing plenty of progress on that end, so it's only really a matter of time.

Doutbful. I remember some people thinking Bitcoin has bottomed up at $10k, and here we are.

Let's not forget that Bitcoin has uncharacteristically been resistant to any price swings in the midst of the Bitfinex/Tether news, when that could easily have been a catalyst for a price slide. That could mean that one is looming.

Either way though, in the long term grand scheme of things, it's incredibly cheap at the moment.

They've actually been feuding publicly. It could be a farce for sure, considering their backgrounds, but I doubt it. If you mean they're both on the side of nutjobs though, I completely agree lol.

As for McAfee, he seems to be claiming for a while now that he knows who Satoshi is. This is his tweet from Nov. 2018:

https://twitter.com/officialmcafee/status/1063496032506531840?lang=en

If you read the replies, he also claims that the CIA is monitoring him. The CIA is probably monitoring everyone to some degree, but he phrased it in such a way that he's an important and powerful person. The real reason he backed off is so that he doesn't lose the miniscule credibility he has left.

Wait, how does that work? Don't you have to opt-in to their rewards program? That should mean they'll be showing you non-obtrusive ads.

If you're a fan of that business model though, then this would be better. BAT is essentially useless and IIRC they have plans to introduce KYC measures in the future.

This is a very dangerous suggestion as Google tends to show ads as top results. It's far safer to type out websites on your own.

Lol yeah you'd think what's currently happening in Venezuela would spook a few people. I suppose it still boils down to risk management for most, but you can never be too safe. It's crazy how a big part of Bitcoin's success hinges on the failure of traditional finance though. I mean, I don't want that to happen, but I guess being resistant to that inevitability is the whole point.

No nation can really claim anything in space as their territory as stated in the Outer Space Treaty, but I imagine things will change once Mars actually becomes inhabitable. Interestingly though, it doesn't seem to say anything about private individuals.

I'm not going to rule crypto out because aforementioned private individuals like, say, Elon Musk probably has the capability to build a community there, claim it, and for some reason decide to use crypto as an official currency. I think it's far more likely for the treaty to be amended once sustaining life there becomes a possibility though, in which case a global superpower or a collection of them could control/claim it. Fiat would almost certainly used in that case.

One thing to consider though, is that crypto used on Mars would have to be based on Mars internet, as the Earth's would likely be impractical due to the distance lol.

It depends on what you mean by trust.

Can you trust them in a sense that they won't run away with your money? Probably. They haven't existed long but they have a pretty solid track record of not stealing.

Can you trust them in a sense that they won't sell out? Probably not. I mean, if something is offered for free (trading in this case), it has to come with a catch. The catch is, they appear to be doing this.

At the end of the day, it's not a wallet, so you can't actually touch the coins you purchase, but that probably doesn't matter if you're in it purely for investment. It's great if you want to access a huge chunk of your portfolio with a single app, but if you purely want to go after crypto, there are several better options.

Well there have been more than a couple of those throughout history, but it seems that the greater public still isn't very conscious of the risks associated with putting all their eggs in the fiat basket. It would indeed be pretty huge for Bitcoin if they start to learn though.