That's a really bold assumption, cause I don't see any signs of Bitcoin taking over anything - I've joined this community more than 3 years ago, and I feel like global adoption barely changed. Back then people were discussing how soon Bitcoin will replace fiat, and here we are in 2019, when Bitcoin is still mostly used for speculation. To start asking what will be after Bitcoin, Bitcoin needs to become big first,  otherwise this question isn't really relevant.

Use this instead of Math.random() - https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Crypto/getRandomValues

There's no excuse to not use it when you are dealing with something that is even remotely required to be secure, just a few lines of code can potentially save someone from big trouble in the future.

Also consider creating a repository on Github for this project, so that people can see the changes in the source files and download from a place other than the site. Also Github is a good place to discuss issues and suggestions, and you might even get other people to help you with your code.

It's not a step towards mainstream adoption, because there most likely will be no working product, or no one will use it when it will get released. So many companies have already claimed that they will launch their own cryptocurrency or blockchain, and then absolutely nothing happened, because it all was just a PR stunt, or the project just couldn't leave the development phase. This is because blockchain is actually not a fundamental technology that works everywhere, but instead the opposite - a very narrow technology that so far only works in one field - money, specifically cryptocurrency.

If a person doesn't know how to write a whitepaper, it means they shouldn't be doing it in the first place. Whitepaper is a technical document, it should be written by the developer. Any project that uses services to write a whitepaper for them is 100% a scam, because it's a sure sign that they don't plan to deliver any product, just grab investor's money and run. Writing whitepapers is not something a beginner would ever do, so I don't get what's the point of this article.

Futures isn't just an instrument for buying Bitcoin, it's also a method of shorting Bitcoin, so it doesn't make sense to try to scare investors away from using Bakkt. I don't think that all what happened was a coincidence, but I doubt that one person or a group is behind all of it - most likely someone just timed their big selling around the time of difficulty change and Bakkt launch, just to make the market think that it's all connected, thus triggering a chain reaction of panic.


If "fiat masters" wanted to extinguish Bitcoin, they'd simply ban it. But they don't, because they don't care.

Lol they are 2 years too late, blockchain hype is on life support today, it's nothing like it was in 2017. It's obviously just an attempt to boost their image in investor's eyes. The end users - their fans, don't care about blockchain, don't know about blockchain, and won't feel any difference even if we imagine that they successfully implemented a blockchain. But this whole idea doesn't even make sense, why would anyone need a decentralized database protocol for engaging with their audience?

You can't artificially change the language, new words enter our use spontaneously, just because they make sense. Gold has been associated with wealth for thousands of years, but Bitcoin is still unknown to many people, so saying something like "Bitcoinish opportunity" will make people look at you like you're some weirdo.

I'm currently testing a fix for this unsubscription problem, but as for "permission denied', I don't even know, cause I never encountered this error on any of my browsers. That error means that you should manually give permission to show notifications to this site in your browser. Like I said previously, push technology is still experimental, so it's expected that it won't work perfectly in all browsers.

I also plann to add a new feature after I will fix this problem, so I'm definitely not abandoning this project, I just don't have much free time currently.

Exactly, blockchain's claims sound great to people with no experience in tech, but if you think about it, companies managed to build giant and very complex structures without blockchain and they work quite well - I never heard about some massive problems with trust between banks or other organizations. To me all these medical blockchains, supply chain blockchains and whatever else they try to do, they all sound like they try to solve a problem that isn't even there.

I think the pre-Bitcoin part is a bit too short, there's much more to it. Check the first chapter of Princeton's "Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Technologies" (the book is available for free), I was truly amazed when I read it for the first time and found out just how many attempts to create electronic money there was before Bitcoin. Surely Satoshi knew about many of them and learned from their mistakes.

Different people have different opinions about what Bitcoin is, but in reality Bitcoin is easily both and more, because the whole point of Bitcoin is that people are free to use it however they like, without anyone else telling them what to do. I like the phrase "a solution in search of a problem", but it's not about Bitcoin, it's about blockchain technology and altcoins. They need to find a problem to justify existence, but Bitcoin doesn't have such need.

There's nothing that would make Bitcoin so special that technical analysis would be rendered useless for Bitcoin. It's just that those articles that you get for free from crypto news sites have very bad analysis, and technical analysis on its own is never 100% accurate, in fact it just has to have above 50% accuracy to generate profit. Check the Speculation board, some users there post some quite interesting technical analysis which I saw being correct a few times.

It's all like you say, but that wouldn't make an interesting article for an average crypto investor, people want to get one big single reason why Bitcoin dropped, and it must be something that sounds really scary. Crypto is full of retail investors without any experience in trading before they picked cryptocurrency, which is why these news sites are of so poor quality - they don't have to produce any high quality analysis and overview, a simple clickbait would do much better for them.

Under my definition, a scamcoin is any coin which was developed strictly for making quick profits for the team, without any goal of delivering on initial promises. If you think about like that, there's actually hundreds and thousands of scamcoins, and they were/are listed even on reputable exchanges. A project that looks like it will be the next big thing today can easily turn out to be a scamcoin in a year or two. There was a thread recently about how so many multi-million ICO's of the past are not worthless and how devs have long ago abandoned them.

No way Litecoin could influence the market and Bitcoin, Bitcoin is the only coin that influences the market, aside maybe from Ethereum which can influence its tokens. This whole thing looks like a manipulation - hashpower swings + Bakkt + price drop in short period of time. It's very likely that we'll get back to previous levels soon.

How is Electrum not user friendly? It's much more user friendly compared to Core, because it has mnemonic seeds, ability to create signed transactions in GUI, easy coin control, and so on. It's all really easy and intuitive, Electrum is a good wallet for beginners, if I were to recommend a wallet to a newbie, I'd recommend Electrum.


Not true, Electrum is not private, since it relies on servers, and those servers can monitor your transactions. If you want privacy, run your own private Electrum server or just use Bitcoin Core.

Blockchain not Bitcoin? What year is it, 2017? It's understandable how people could have believed in this in the past, when there was a lot of hype and altcoins had powerful marketing teams behind them, but today, after all these years of blockchain failing to produce anything, I just don't get how people could seriously believe in that.

Strange that you have missed the biggest fundamental of any cryptocurrency - the underlying consensus algorithm. If algorithm isn't theoretically secure, the whole cryptocurrency can't be considered safe and decentralized. A ton of altcoins are using iherently centralized algorithms, which makes all their supposed achievements irrelevant - the point of cryptocurrency is to remove the middleman, not create a new type of middleman.

Google and Facebook don't moderate their ads well, they probably only have some not very good algorithm to detect potential phishing and other scams, but there's no verification by real humans before they for approving an ad, which is why things like this happen. They host millions of ads, so it's probably not feasible for them to hire people to review them.

First, there's no real quantum supremacy right now, Google didn't develop a quantum computer that can crack modern crypto today, they have just (supposedly) developer a quantum computer that is better than normal computers in solving some specific small problem.

Next, Bitcoin protects public keys with hashing, and they are only revealed when an address is used - since Satoshi didn't send his coins to a reaused address, quantum computer wouldn't be able to easily steal the coins even if it is capable of breaking ECDSA.

So, don't spread panic and misinformation.