Actually, by definition, money can be an asset. I see what you're trying to say though, and I disagree. Bitcoin is money; it's just a bit problematic how people are actually incentivized not to spend it.

And you said it yourself. Things will never change until people actually use it as money. I get that it's probably not financially wise to spend it because it could easily be worth 10x more in the future, but it won't actually get to that point if everyone just relied on everyone else to do the dirty work.

Eh, I don't think there's a reason to believe that he's lying about his views. He's made a lot of money doing what he does, so it's only natural for him to think that his way is the best way. That doesn't mean what he's saying is right, just that he's been successful practicing what he preaches up until now. Not that it has anything to do with Bitcoin, of course, because he's never had to deal with it himself and has nothing to do with his businesses at all.

If you compressed them yourself, then probably. This is in their site:


Otherwise, you may have to extract them yourself first, which I wouldn't recommend.

Not quite. The larger the market, the harder it would be to move it. A quick and easy example that goes against your point are small market cap alts -- they're ridiculously volatile even though no one really talks about them. The more established coins, on the other hand, are far less volatile even with far more FUD. This strongly suggests that the larger a coin grows, the less volatile it becomes. We are nowhere near mass adoption, but once that time comes I could easily see Bitcoin prices being more stable than stocks.

That would be because giving away money when you don't actually have to is bad business. It's possible that they would have compensated him if things didn't get this ugly, but there's absolutely no way they would give him anywhere near the amount he lost. They would spend a lot less money by simply letting it out on the open and then doing damage control than by fully reimbursing him.

It sucks but this is our current reality. Being your own bank is incredible but it has drawbacks. The only real safe way to store your coins is offline.

He's...not wrong. Rapid fluctuations are a pain. It's often said that volatility must be addressed for Bitcoin to mature. Some might deny this, but if they're the same people who don't want to spend coins because they're waiting for the price to go up, then they probably have to take a good look at themselves lol.

Bitcoin is in some ways unsuitable as a currency now, but I believe it won't be long until these competitors start shaking in their boots. They can talk trash in the meantime.

If you're within a jurisdiction that doesn't allow the use of crypto at all, I'm fairly sure the exchange won't let you purchase coins. They might not even let you register. This could cause them headaches down the line, kind of in the same vein of some ICOs not allowing US investors to buy in, with some of them even implementing IP filtering.

That being said, anything is possible if you don't get caught. You can freely use any VPN to gain access to certain exchanges and use them normally. It only becomes a problem when you're found out. Implementing bans over the internet is very hard to pull off in practice, so it should be fairly easy to get away with anything related for as long as you know what you're doing.

I would like to think that the investigation is more about Tether itself and less about Bitcoin manipulation, because there's no reason for them to be concerned about it. I see where you're coming from though, as I could easily see them using regulated markets as an excuse. It could set a terrifying precedent.

Lol yeah maybe Dimon is actually a horrible example. I should have gone with someone like Buffett. Either way, I just wanted to point out that some people get angry when someone high profile badmouths crypto without realizing that maybe the media baits them. But eh, some media mileage is better than no media mileage I suppose.

Man I wonder how many times tech/investment people actually get asked about this. Wozniak was asked about this before, and it seems his view is pretty consistent:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/apple-co-founder-steve-wozniak-hopes-bitcoin-will-become-global-currency.html

This can probably explain why people like Dimon seem so irate when asked about it. They could be talking about it a lot more behind the scenes lol.

The very idea of a free market though, is that everyone is free to do what they want, including manipulate lol. This is why people have been saying that Bitcoin is being manipulated for the longest time, even before actual evidence has surfaced. The completely decentralized model we have right now makes the market especially vulnerable, and the only way to really stop it (or realistically speaking, just slow it down) is for a central entity to come in and penalize shady actors. I understand that most people in the market want it to be organic, but enforcing that comes with the price of losing freedom.

Lol what, you're actually using Kapersky? Well yeah it should be safe for general use, it's probably just shady in terms of sending activity patterns, etc. There hasn't actually been any reports of crypto hacks involving them, it's mostly country states saying that the Russian government is using them to spy. If it works for you, great, but that should be a thinking point for when your subscription ends.

Well if I'm being specific, with Bakkt, investors can buy physically backed futures. I guess what you're trying to say is that you're basically buying Bitcoin either way, and I agree with that. Some investors might be more inclined to play with toys they're accustomed to though.


It's going to be simpler in a sense that traditional investors would be able to play with Bitcoin in their arena. They won't need to step outside their comfort zone at all because they're already used to futures. It's basically like, people can seamlessly integrate investing in crypto into their routine without any additional working knowledge.

Are these needed? I would think that most of those who have a working knowledge of crypto would say no. I do believe some people would prefer these over actual coins though, considering it's catered exactly for them. It's a want rather than a need, basically. I don't necessarily think it's going to be a smashing success, but I feel like I know where they're coming from.

Well it is a huge part of the crypto market, so sure. They may already include it in this upcoming one because how much is there actually to discuss about alts? ICOs may be almost completely irrelevant by 2020 though lol.

But yeah, Netflix seem to be banking it in with documentaries lately. I hope this one is presented as objectively as possible, considering the biases in some of their recent work.

Those are some pretty damning evidence. If I had money in a Coinomi Wallet, I'd be sweating bullets as I transfer my funds right about now. I mean, transferring data in plaintext is one thing, but are you sure some random Google employee was able to see your seed? Wouldn't they have strict protocols to avoid scenarios like that? Maybe your traffic was intercepted or something.

But yeah I suppose that's not the main issue. This is yet another harsh reminder to trust no one.

As an addendum, I hope something comes out of your legal action. Pretty much every single wallet out there state that they won't be responsible for any losses on their ToS that they make you agree to. It's going to be an uphill battle.

Maybe because it would be on a platform where traditional investors are more comfortable with? Using Bitcoin has a learning curve, and I can see why that could turn some people off. With Bakkt, people who are interested but are unfamiliar with Bitcoin's inner workings can invest in a familiar environment -- there would be no need for them to catch up on the nitty gritty details, and they can dive straight to the market. That's my view on the matter, at least.

There shouldn't be any risks at all in installing a fresh one from the correct site:

https://electrum.org/#home

If it makes you feel better, transfer a small amount and let it sit for a while. AFAIK though, there's still a vulnerability where attackers can send you erroneous notices asking you to update, linking to phishing websites. I don't know if that issue has been fixed, but it shouldn't be too dangerous if you know about it.

Also, here's a way to check if your Electrum copy is legit.

You might want to check your quote, buddy. That's not even close to what I was saying lol. You might be in the wrong topic entirely, even.

While it's true that they're working within the confines of the blockchain, they can easily choose to create artificial scarcity by withholding newly minted coins from circulation. They can also choose to dump rapidly to achieve the opposite effect. Meanwhile, central banks with no real means of managing cash flow can do what, exactly?

Well it was supposed to level the playing field. That's still true, in a way, because Bitcoin as a system doesn't discriminate against whales or small holders. It allows everyone the same opportunities and freedoms -- you can do everything a rich guy can, but chances are, they can still do it better.

At the end of the day, Bitcoin encourages free market, which people with more resources thrive on. If you try to punish people with more resources than you, then it stops being a free market and the system stops standing for freedom. People may think scenarios like this are unfair, but they can do exactly the same things whales do. It just becomes a question of scale.