I think that if we talk about mass adoption, it should mean that Bitcoin is largely recognized as a payment method. So I'm talking about the reality where you don't have to look for specific stores to use Bitcoin but can go to your regular ones and use Bitcoin to pay for groceries. I know, scalability. It's indeed a serious problem. Is the Lightning Network the only solution? Is it even a realistic solution?
Here's what I thought about to address the issue of transactions getting confirmed slowly. How about not waiting for them to get confirmed? When a person uses a debit card to pay for food, it's not like the transaction actually get's processed and the money is sent right away to the store. No, this process takes about a day or two, I've learned that about half a year ago when there was a mistake with a transaction. The money is blocked by your bank, and you don't see it anymore, but it's actually still there. So how about accepting that a person paid the moment after this person hit the 'send' button on the screen or something like that? What are the odds of a transaction not getting through eventually (if a person paid a normal transaction fee, of course) and being returned back to the sender's wallet? Is that happening that often that shops would not be able to take those risks?
Now, I realize it won't solve all of the problems, because if there are too many transactions that are being put through like that, the number of unconfirmed transactions will be building up. However, I think it could be a solution for a less significant adoption step or as a temporary measure. What do you think about all that?

I was sent an invite link and registered via it successfully. Then I claimed 20 free TWG and tried playing. The Hi-Lo game with cards and betting on all sorts of things were a bit confusing at first, but it's easy to get used to, and the animation works nicely. Then I started the crash game, and it was also looking weird. Firstly, there's nothing moving anywhere, it's just the multiplier on the screen and the background of the previous crash chart. Apart from that, I did not like it that Betting, Cashing out, Cancelling the bet functions are all in one button that keeps changing its name. So, for instance, I place a bet and then click the same button to cash out, and then while the same round is going I forget that I already cashed out, so I push the button again, but it turns out that now it's a bet for the next round, and then I have to push again at the same place to cancel it.
I also don't like it that the chat requires a social profile to sign in... Towerbet, I'd also suggest adding some more games. All in all, it's pretty good, but there are some things to think about.

Unsecure connection is a huge downside. I hope you'll fix this because a secure connection seems to be a must for a gambling platform. People do need to create passwords on your website, and I don't think that many will do that without https these days. Oh wait, it must be some sort of a bug... When I clicked on the screenshot to access the website, the connection wasn't secure, but then when I decided to take a look at Terms of Use, the connection was secure, but it led to Bethash, not Hashpro... What's that about? Can you explain your connection to Bethash? It's the same team or something like that, right? Because your copyright also says Bethash. It's confusing, but hashpro needs a secure connection anyway.

Of course, Satoshi was not creating stuff ex nihilo. There've been ideas of decentralization, anonymity, development of cryptography and even the first centralized 'cryptocurrency' before Bitcoin. There've been nice threads and articles on this forum about Pre-history of Bitcoin, and some threads on historical development also mention these steps like David Chaum's Digicash and cypherpunk ideology. And Hal Finney is also largely mentioned as a significant contributor. He's clearly not Satoshi, but he was helpful and important. So yeah, the article is right, but it's not something surprising to me.

I think it's a great clarification, but it would be reasonable to impose income tax just like the one for other kinds of income in that country. So maybe the euphoria is temporary because obviously no taxes is more attractive than anything else tax-related  I guess it's time to enjoy this situation while they still can, but I hope that this clarification is a good sign in general that even if some system of taxation is imposed, it will not be a harsh one. And I think that fighting scam is also important, so regulations should be out there. I did not understand why Bithumb had to pay, though. Maybe it's because in my country there is no tax like the one mentioned in the article.

If the trading volume of Bitcoin goes down and traders get nervous, the price is likely to fall down, I guess. But I've read about the Proof of keys event, and now I don't understand why traders would have problems with trading... It seems that it's something people can participate in if they want to, but it's not obligatory. Here's some info from this website:
If not many people take part in the event, it should not affect the price, right? And I think traders are the kind of people minimally interested in such things...

Well, first of all, if I'm not mistaken Youtube admitted that they made a wrong call to ban those videos. Secondly, I partially agree with you. There are videos on Youtube that talk about a scam and affect people, making them lose their money. And I think it's okay to ban such videos. But not all videos are like that. Even the same person can sometimes do sponsored videos about ICOs but at other times make videos about the new developments with Bitcoin... So it's hard to find balance between these things and make sure that the system is not getting overly centralized. And to be fair, some of the channels that were affected by the ban always say that they are not giving financial or any other sort of advice...

I don't follow Binance closely as well, but I do respect it as an exchange. It seems to have an excellent customer-oriented approach. I was especially surprised when that big hack occurred, and they offered full reimbursement to their users. As for your question, from what I saw, it seems that Binance only has BNB. It's true that it would not make much sense to make another token, because it could end up taking a part of profits from BNB (the coin rose in price massively) and divide the community for no reason. But the article mentioned partnerships that resulted in BUSD and BGBP. So technically, these are also Binance coins, but since they represent fiat, I don't think they count.

Well, I typed in the website and entered my email to receive an invitation. I gotta say that the invite-only access to the website is probably going to limit the number of potentially interested customers, and it's very uncommon out here. I also noticed that the website allows you to login via the Duckdice account, and then I read that you are affiliated with it (I really did not notice it in the ANN thread). Anyway, Duckdice does not have good trust on Bitcointalk, as can be seen here. However, the feedback is old, so you might have a chance here if you don't repeat those mistakes, I guess. I'll be waiting for an invitation. So far, I like the design.

I don't want to create another Craig-related thread, so I'll ask my question here. Okay, he was clearly wrong that there wouldn't be Bitcoin, as we can see. But yesterday and today I've been waiting for the resolution of another Craig's dubious story, related to the Tulip blind trust which kept his and Kleiman's money till the end of 2019 and was supposed to release it on January 1, 2020. Unfortunately, the news portals don't seem to be covering this story well. So what, are we supposed to just forget about that stuff and let him get away with it? I only see some articles on minor websites such as this one...

Generally, I would agree that he's a troll and does not deserve so many threads. However, he is influential in the crypto community, so ignoring him completely is pretty much impossible. Moreover, the first days of January are not the days to ignore Craig, since it's time to hear the truth about allegedly existing Tulip Trust fund that is supposed to hand in the private key at the very beginning of 2020. It's important to see whether this story will check out, and if it won't it's good to talk about it, so that people on this forum who honestly believe that he is Satoshi (and there are people like that here), could see through his lies. Perhaps the spam problem could be solved by making something like the ultimate Craig Wright discussion thread where every news about the guy should go.

That's a good question. I think that Bitcoin will definitely not bring such high profits to investors as in the previous decade, but it is likely to continue to grow in price and thus bring some profits. So then it depends on whether something more profitable appears or not, not really on Bitcoin. And I sort of hope that in the 20s Bitcoin will stop being a profitable asset and start being a rather stable currency that can be used to pay for basic stuff like food, rent, transportation. I also hope that more govs will recognize Bitcoin as legal tender rather than property/asset/security, and thus will not impose heavy taxation of transactions. It's been only two days, so it's clearly early to say, we'll see.

Happy New Year and welcome to Bitcointalk! I agree with others that it's refreshing to see a new website offering a non-traditional game. I like your design, and allowing to play for free on a demo-version also sounds like a wise decision. And if I get it right there's no KYC or anything, right? I think it would be better if you wrote Terms of Service as a separate webpage, though. This would allow people to understand what they agree to when they deposit money there because for now a lot of things don't seem clarified. Oh, and a chatroom would not hurt as well. Good luck!

Okay, first I want to say that I find it weird that you quote a case in China to prove your point. Those who talk about problems with mining often push the ecological thing, and I truly support that, but China is not a good example. While I remember there've been articles specifically saying that China is against mining for ecological reasons, this is ridiculous, since it's one of the biggest polluters in the world talking, and clearly China has other real reasons to be against Bitcoin.
As for mining in general, it seems hard to determine whether it's an ecological problem or not, I've seen conflicting research on that matter.
When someone's mining coins illegally and this is causing problems for other people, it should definitely be stopped. But I don't think it's realistic to think Bitcoin would become PoS, and neither does it seem realistic that electricity consumption will reduce. So I think we have to work on more eco-friendly ways of consuming energy.

I agree with the majority on this one. It's hard to beat Craig Wright because this guy manages to create the news around himself on a regular basis. He keeps pushing that thing about him being the creator no matter what. I think he'll be the drama queen of 2020 as well because interesting times are coming. Starting today (January 1), when the Tulip Trust is supposed to release bitcoins and give that to Craig Wright who then has to give a solid amount of them to the family of Dave Kleiman. There's already an article reminding of this event. I don't really believe in that stuff, but I am interested to see how it goes, and I am ready for the truth.

I think many people already don't use them. It has $1.8 billion market capitalization, compared with $131.5 that Bitcoin has. So Bitcoin SV bullsh*it convinced a bit more than 1% of Bitcoin users, which seems like nothing to me.
I had a funny situation with Craig's admirer who wanted to tell me how great Bitcoin SV is and will be, and convinced me to download a wallet to my smartphone, so he could send me a bit of that stuff. I did everything right, and he was sitting right next to me and trying to send those coins, but there was some sort of a bug and each time he pressed the 'send' button nothing happened  That's my only interaction with Bitcoin SV, and I don't intend to get to know it better than that.

So mjglqw, answering the question in the name of the thread, the coin's already irrelevant enough, and I think it'll naturally keep getting even more so.

I think that it's justified to treat cryptos for tax purposes the way fiat currencies are treated. Normally it means only income tax. In my country the legislation is tricky with two different ways and amounts to pay depending on the type of business. Anyway, there are countries with reasonable progressive tax system which even allows people with very small income not to pay anything.
There are also small states which are tax-free, and some zones for crypto businesses that allow not to pay taxes or not to pay a lot for a while.
The exchange idea is also nice. It's kind of like we all pay VAT which is embedded into the prices of goods. Easy and useful.

Wow, I really enjoyed reading thr article. It's an interesting question with technologies and methods of storing data. I intend to leave some BTC to my yet unborn children, but I opt to keep up with the trends and transfer money from time to time when something gets outdated. It's sad that with bitcoin we have so many questions compared to fiat bank accounts. People regularly lock money for their newborns in banks that have been around for a long while, right? Surely, it does not have any guarantees, but it's just that bitcoin is not tested with time yet, so its way harder to predict what will happen.

I don't think it's possible now. I mean, there is one company that dominates the market, but to get 51% it still needs some consolidation if I remember correctly. Moreover, it's something that will ruin the company's business and reputation, so fortunately it's very unlikely to happen. Profits drove the companies, and losing everything is not in their interests. It seems that this has never happened, though, and would not destroy something as big as bitcoin right away anyway.

Do you buy things from a vending machine often? In my country they aren't popular, the only ones which are quite used are those with cheap coffee. And the machines are very limited in terms of money here. They accept only cash, and only coins or banknotes of small nominal. If they don't even fully accept fiat, why would they accept Bitcoin LN? And if vending machines aren't very popular, I think it does not matter for Bitcoin adoption.