Capital control is just one of the ways in which governments manipulate the value of their local fiat currencies, so if they cannot control the outflow of fiat, then they will find other ways to influence people not to send "money" across their borders. Tax is just one method to reduce the amount of "money" that are being send out of the country. 

Bitcoin being borderless is a threat to local currencies and the control and manipulation of local reserve currencies and this is one of the reasons why governments are turning against Bitcoin. 

Well, the theory is that miners will continue mining because the miners fees would increase as adoption increase and this will generate enough transactions to make up for the Block rewards that would not be paid in the future. I think technologies like the Lightning network undermine that theory, because these transactions will be done off-chain and it would cause a reduction in the on-chain transaction volume. 

This is why Bitcoin is still seen as an experiment, because not all scenarios has occurred to determine if it would be self-sustainable in the future. I think people will still mine, even if it is just to support their other Crypto currency businesses that are built around Bitcoin payments. 

Well 100+ coins will flag a lot of attention from the wrong people if you use exchanges that requires KYC.    Why not try to transfer some coins to decentralized exchanges or OTC platforms where it will have less impact on the price. 

Not that 100+ coins will any significant impact on the price, but the less coins being sold on exchanges are better for all.    Try out Bisq with some of the coins and use several other platforms to attract less attention. 

Now that you have a basic understanding of a double spend, you should consider the consequences of such an attack. Let's say you successfully execute a double spend, it would quickly get noticed and people will hear about this. The direct result of that would be that massive amounts of people will start dumping their coins, because the whole concept of "security" would be destroyed.

The demand for coins will dissapear and there will be a over supply of coins on exchanges .....the next thing you know, the price will go down to almost $0. So the attacker will never be able to do this again and the remaining coins they have will be worthless.

Never kill the Cow for it's meat, because you will lose the daily milk.     

When I started there were only a few Alt coins to chose from like LiteCoin and DogeCoin …. but everyone knew none of them will ever be the next Bitcoin. This belief become stronger as we went through a plethora of Alt coins being added over the years and also several "hostile" takeover attempts with all these forked coins.

In future things might change and some other coin might get massive support from governments and Banks or some huge social media platform like Facebook, but it will never be the same if they are centralized and controlled by a single entity. Bitcoin will always be the "People's Coin"    

I think people should be more observant and also not be too lazy to double check and to verify the link that they use on a daily basis. Some people simply click on a bookmark in their browser, thinking that the URL cannot be tampered with. They will simply click on links in emails, without verifying that the URL does not redirect them to a phishing site.

If a URL is short, just type it... it is as easy as that and also check the auto-completed part of the URL, if it is stored in the browser cache, because that can also be tampered with.

Simply be more observant and double check every URL, before you use it. 

I travel a lot for work and we recently had a project in Kenya where I was amazed at how people were using a payment system called M-Pesa on their mobile phones. Now, I saw people as young as 10 years old and old people of 70 years that used those old phones to pay for items in the markets.

Necessity force people to adapt and this is clear when you see people trying to adapt to new technologies, just to survive. If you ask the large majority of those people to explain to you how the centralized technology behind M-Pesa works, then they will not be able to tell you, because they simply use the technology and it works. 

Well, every single Bank note has a unique serial number and that serial number can be recorded on a public Blockchain, so when notes are used, people can scan a QR code on the note that would check if that serial number on the note is recorded on the Blockchain or not and if it is used in another location or if it was destroyed. <Similar to how people track ownership of digital items on a Blockchain>

So in theory, more than one person cannot own a single note and use it in 2 different geographical locations at the same time. So the recipients will be able to see where it was last "verified" and the system can flag it as possible counterfeit if it is geographically far apart.

They can also see if it was "destroyed" and if people are trying to use notes that has been previously destroyed. 

The problem I have with debates like this is the fact that most participants are bogged down in their own strong perceptions of what they think Bitcoin should be. Strong emphasis would be placed on specific positives and negatives and none of the parties would budge on their view of that.

Why should Bitcoin only be a stable "Store of Value"  if it can be a currency and a highly speculative commodity at the same time? People should be able to decide how they want to use the Bitcoin technology and how that fits into their needs.

I would much rather have a technology with several uses, than having it shoved into a specific use case and then criticizing it for not being good at it. Gold can be used for several things, why not Bitcoin?

Now, I know Bitcoin is all about consensus and such, but I still think if we only had one SegWit implementation from the start, then adoption would have been much faster. Yes, anyone can add things to Bitcoin and the majority would decide if it is used or not, but this over complicates the issue, when too many things with similar changes are added at the same time and then users are forced to make a decision and this takes too much time. 

I am not against open consensus for the decision making process, but I think it is sometimes a stumbling block for quick progress in a OpenSource project like this. 

Well, you do not have to die, if you can simply move your operation to a country where they cannot touch you. We have seen this being done with several Crypto gambling operations and also some Crypto currency services that were forced to shift their operations.

I think a lot of these "Anonymous" operations are hunted down by the regulators and then they are given the option to close their doors or to be subjected to criminal prosecution if they continue.

Blockchain.info/com would not have generated a lot of income from simply providing free wallets, so I guess if they got a taste of some good profits from advertisement income, then the shift to an exchange with their existing user base, was inevitable. <Why make use of Shapeshift and external exchanges, if you can pocket all that profit by doing it yourself.>  

Also let's not forget who has some influence in Blockchain.info/com --->Roger Ver  <He would have taken some massive hits with the failure of BCash>

A few years ago, exchanges in the Asian countries faked their trading volumes because they were in competition with other exchanges to get more people to trade on their platforms. So to show that you have a popular platform, you have to fake the trades to create the perception with "new" traders that they would have a better chance to get their buy or sell orders to go through quicker than with their competition.

I know the regulators clamped down on some of these exchanges and some were also closed down, but I have not heard of any of them being closed recently, so I guess it is not that prevalent anymore.  

Well, another method that people use to steal people's coins, is to hijack their email account and to look for emails where you request payment for services rendered and then to send a new email to inform the sender that you changed your initial address <One that the hacker owns> and that they must rather send it to that address. <They just look for invoices etc...>

People are doing this currently with Bank account details and invoices that are send or received in mailboxes. So, if you can hide the Bitcoin address, then hackers cannot replace it with hijacked emails and the recipient can validate the senders Bitcoin address by phoning you or with Sms verification or WhatsApp. 

You just need to change your concept to help protect people from things like that. 

I also created wallets when it was still Blockchain.info.    I even recommended it as my first choice online wallet provider, because it was user-friendly and it did not require all those KYC nonsense. Now, they are trying to legitimize their service and they are implementing full KYC requirements and they are launching a 100% KYC compliant Crypto exchange.  

This is becoming a new trend now, because we also saw how https://localbitcoins.com/ changed their service to become 100% KYC/AML Compliant.  

Money and profit is more important than protecting people's financial privacy now. 

It may be a good time for you to watch this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZloHVKk7DHk <The amazing Math of Private keys> So, once people understand the math, they might also see how impossible it is for people to generate private keys that has been generated before.

The new buzzword for most newbies is Quantum computing and their first argument is that Quantum computers will reveal private keys for addresses that are filled with coins.    <They forget that stronger Algorithms exist that can be implemented, if computing power catch up to solve the current SHA256 algorithm.>  

Do not get hyped up with future technologies that does not exist and also know new stronger algorithms are also developed to counter stronger computing power.  

G20 leaders, including India reaffirmed their previous stance towards cryptocurrencies in a declaration following the G20 Summit in Osaka on June 29. https://www.mof.go.jp/english/international_policy/convention/g20/communique.htm - It says, " Technological innovations, including those underlying crypto-assets, can deliver significant benefits to the financial system and the broader economy. While crypto-assets do not pose a threat to global financial stability at this point "

So, why would they now want to ban Crypto currencies, if they signed that declaration?

We know some of these countries are corrupt and they have hidden agendas, but signing a declaration like that gives citizens in those countries ammunition to ask questions about their recent actions.  

The answer is very easy. Warren Buffett is one of the richest people in the world and he is admired and followed by millions of people around the world. His opinion on Bitcoin is important, because it will help with global adoption and it will also motivate 1000s of retailers to accept Bitcoin as a payment option.

A record breaking 16200 people attended the yearly Berkshire Hathaway's (BRKB) shareholders meeting in 2019. A lot of these people are influential business people like, Bill Gates. <You only qualify to attend this meeting, if you own shares in Berkshire Hathaway>

Warren Buffett has a cult following and people admire him as a cult leader.  

By "country" you mean government right? Well, let's say for this argument you are referring to the government of a country accepting Bitcoin as a reserve currency. I can tell you now that it will not happen, because most of these governments rely strongly on the ability to manipulate the value of their own reserve currencies and they will not allow a global "open" market to determine the value of their own reserve currency.

Yes, some countries embraced Bitcoin as a "payment option" like PayPal, but it does not replace their own reserve currency. A country like Japan already saw the advantages of being Bitcoin friendly and they will prosper in a global context. 

During the recent Berkshire Hathaway annual shareholder meeting at the CHI Health Center in Omaha, Nebraska, Buffett was once again asked to share his thoughts on BTC, this time calling it a “seashell” and saying that it “doesn’t do anything.”

Source : https://www.newsbtc.com/2019/05/04/warren-buffett-claims-bitcoin-is-like-a-seashell-in-his-latest-attack-on-crypto/

“I’ll tear off a button here. What I’ll have here is a little token...I’ll offer it to you for $1000, and I’ll see if I can get the price up to $2000 by the end of the day...But the button has one use and it’s a very limited use.”  - Comparing Bitcoin with one of his jacket pockets.  

Source : https://cointelegraph.com/news/berkshire-hathaway-ceo-warren-buffett-offers-fresh-metaphor-for-bitcoin-as-a-seashell

He was also rumored to have said that if he wrote a cheque for $1 000 000, that check is backed by $1 000 000 at the Bank. <Again some tangible thing, he can touch>

Now, I bet you that Warren Buffet have never bought a digital item for an online game before or used a virtual voucher to buy things online. He does not grasp, that what he has not experienced before and he needs physical contact with something to make it real.

His shares in Coca-Cola becomes physical when he drinks a Cherry Coke or when he puts Heinz Tomato sauce on his fries. <He owns shares in both>

We are moving into a new digital revolution, where digital items have value and Berkshire Hathaway's investment in Amazon shares shows that his advisors are seeing that value. <He admits that he did not make the decision to buy Amazon shares>

Source : https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/03/berkshire-hathaway-has-been-buying-shares-of-amazon-warren-buffett.html

So, hopefully someone at Berkshire Hathaway might see the value of digital tokens in the future and realize that Warren Buffet's obsession with physical items might be his downfall in the future.  

Bitcoin is a digital item, not a Jacket button or a seashell, if he wants a physical item, give him a paper wallet. 

The problem is, precious metals value are still pegged to fiat currency value, which is being manipulated by governments.    Also, under current federal law <US>, gold bullion can be confiscated by the federal government in times of national crisis, so this complicates this issue and it gives no real protection against corrupt governments.    <Example : Gold Reserve Act of 1934>

I would much rather protect my wealth with something like Bitcoin that cannot be easily confiscated by corrupt governments. Gregory Mannarino is betting on the wrong horse.