And why exactly do you think that it will make the coins lose their value if this were the case?  Contrarily, it would make bitcoins gain value due to a higher hash rate and thus, a more secure network.  You can only mine so many bitcoins in a given time because there is only one block to mine every 10 minutes or so.  The reason why it's scary to some users is that it would insinuate more centralization than how mining tends to be now, and it's already very centralized in some aspects, where only big time mining farms running tons of ASICS can earn a decent enough ROI to keep going... for now.  When halving comes next summer, it'll be interesting to see what happens to a lot of the mining farms and if they decide if it's worth it to keep running.

I think when you're asking this question that you shouldn't just ask for what country people who are answering your question are from.  That is way too broad and you need to be able to narrow it down into what section or area in their country they are from, because there are simply way too many people with different opinions in a country.

Case in point:
I'm from the USA, but not just the US... I'm from the South where there are tendencies to be way more conservative in ideologies and on top of that, way more religious (Christian). The people I have come across that has heard of bitcoin tend to 1) not understand it; or 2) fear it.  They don't really take the time to learn about it, because it is so revolutionary and goes against the status quo, and since they tend to be more conservative, want to stay with what's the norm and believe that nothing can beat the Dollar because of the "'Mericca! Fuck yeah!" thinking people here tend to have.

People also fear it, because a lot of people that I have talked too have this belief that this is the sign of the "rapture" or "Armageddon".  If you don't understand or have read the bible before, there is the "book of revelations" that say one of the signs to tell Armageddon is around the corner is the establishment of a one world government and a one world currency, which obviously bitcoin looks to be that currency.  So I get people saying to me all the time that I'm supporting essentially Armageddon to happen, and that if I keep "going down this road" that I'm "going to hell".

So yeah, it's a little frustrating trying to talk to people about this kind of stuff here because of the lack of knowledge about what Bitcoin could bring to the table as an economic savior.

The thing I really don't understand when they, or in this case the person being interviewed, that there is an interest in bitcoin from Wall st. mainly because they like the block chain technology in order to verify transaction like stocks, assets, and other things they are interested in trading.  It's not like they can just use bitcoin's blockchain to be able to verify a certain stock transaction has happened, because the only thing bitcoin is transacting is currencies.  When people say that wall street is interested in using the block chain for these purposes, do they mean that they are mainly interested in buying and using bitcoin to be able to trade in for stocks, or do they mean that they want to develop a block chain technology where they can verify stock transaction that happen there? 

I feel that they are pissing in the wind if the later scenario is the case because they wouldn't even come close to the Hashing power that verifies bitcoin transactions.

Well, here's the thing.  There are many speculation threads that predict what will happen when the bitcoin halving occurs, but there is no way of knowing the "true" value of bitcoin due to it's volatility.  In theory, it makes sense that the price will double in order to make miners happy/making some sort of ROI (if they run a fairly big mining farm)... but because of the fact that know one can really tell what the average price of bitcoin should be and it's not regulated in any form, makes it to where we can't really know if the prices as of right now are taking into account the halving coming up.  I just have a feeling bitcoins price inevitably will go up before the halving due to speculation alone, which can be a good or bad thing.

Very true, just because you hit a long streak of luck that could possibly make you .6 from .003 btc doesn't mean you have found some sort of "system" to win "free money".  Just leave it to where you can say you have had a very lucky day and don't say you have found a right "system" because I'm sure you or other people on here that try it and put a lot of money into it will lose out pretty big. Be happy and celebrate, but now it's time to save that .6 and you can possibly leave .1 in the site to gamble some more if you feel the urge.

Back when bitcoins price was decreasing fast into the sub $200's, I decided to go full YOLO on an investor ponzi game that looked promising, even though I had promised my self I would never get suckered into a scam like that. I think I ended up losing .4 btc on that site when the site creator ran away with the money like everytime and felt pretty stupid, even though it didn't necessarily hurt that much. But yeah, that was my biggest and most idiotic loss on a gambling site I ever had.

That's looking at Bitcoin in a very asset/stock type of view rather than a functional currency for the mainstream to adopt. The block size debate is the most fundamental thing that needs to be decided before things proceed. Bitcoin devs need to choose right, because while in the short term it seems mass adoption is going on and prices going toward the moon, there will be that critical point where the problems under the hood can't handle the transaction size. It's just like running your car for 20,000 miles without changing the oil... You have to have functionality and the problems under the hood to be fixed before you can see major businesses trying to adopt it... They don't just mainly look at the price and just think "oh what the hell!".

.0011

Well there is the "dumb luck" approach when playing blackjack online. From what I know, there is no possible way to card count because the cards are digitalized that uses probably fair randomization in dealing the cards. So it's not exactly "skill"... Texas hold'em is more of a skill based online card game because there is the use of bluffing tactics and knowing when to fold because you are essentially playing against other people and not the "dealer/casino".

One more question for you RHavar, if I have a mobile wallet that I use for everyday transactions that can't sign messages, do I need to transfer funds to a wallet that can on desktop or can I just use that wallet? It seems using my current wallet is a problem mainly because I can't verify it throug a PGP signature, and just wanted to make sure this wouldn't cause problems before playing.

Idk about the truth to what you said. Sure, things they have promoted like google+ to take over something like Facebook has failed in comparison; but they have slowly but surely made a lot of people to use gmail, because of its benefits. Even though it seems they pretty much took over the entire internet, they make everyday stuff for businesses, students, etc. that much easier. Google docs, slides, and it can be argued pay are revolutionizing how we share information with one another. So I wouldn't really say Google is flopping by any means necessary.

Actually I think this is the only real use Google would have for these type of computers. I would think they would use them to help solidify their place as the only real source of all information to be had on the Internet... Either that or *spoiler: tinfoil hat time*

1) use it to test/produce the worlds actual first AI.

2) be in the process of making 10 or 20 of these things to centrally run nodes for their own crypto they've been secretly working on. So in a way to overthrow Bitcoin and keep the blockchain features which governments and central banks could get behind.

I know it's super conspiratorial ideas, but I've had little sleep ans the coffee is starting to kick in to begin another work day for me lol.

Well, simply put, even if Google started hashing the shit out of Bitcoin to become the single leader of total hash power being put into Bitcoin, it won't exhaust Bitcoin supplies. There can only be so many blocks over time, so therefore theoretically, Google can only hash what blocks are available.

I just don't know about all this speculation though... Google is just now starting up "Google pay" or something of the sort, so they might see Bitcoin as a threat/competition.

That's true, I never really thought of it like that. Maybe as more people list out the pros and cons of keep key and other hardware wallets, you can put up a table in your reserved spot that lists out each hard ware wallet, their price, and features that come along with it. Great over view of this though, I might have to start thinking about getting one in the future if I feel there is a need.

Well, theoretically if this were to happen you have a couple things that would happen:

Bitcoin will most certainly become way more secure if they put all their power toward hashing bitcoins. But then, Bitcoin mining would be so centralized, that it's pretty much pointless for other miners to remain in/or start trying to mine with so much of bitcoins hash rate is done by Google alone. I don't know much about QC's, but it's a scary/exciting thing to think about.

It looks very nice and I'm sure it very simple to set up once you get your hands on it... But what I rely don't understand is why it's priced so high? Better yet, why do they feel the need to secure the packaging so well, if you know you are going to inevitably take it out of the box sooner or later to use it?

Og, why are you trying to sell these bars for such high prices? The current price of silver is around $14 per ounce. So therefore taking this into account, $140 for the 10 oz silver bar is a fairer price, plus you have to keep in mind shipping... Or does the price tag include shipping?

Yeah, this honestly doesn't matter when you think about the fact that no matter how many address are created in your wallet, all the payments you request with different addresses end up going to the same place. The main thing here is that you (in this case coinbase) has the private key for that wallet which solely controls the bitcoins, and you just have to provide the password to access the use of that private key.

Which is mainly why I don't keep funds in coinbase or any exchange site wallet, because I don't control the private key.

The only way this has even the slightest chance of happening, is if people can pay their bills/loans/mortgages/etc. with Bitcoin. Since a large majority of those companies that we all need to pay every month is highly regulated by government and needs to be able to tax this kind of thing (not to mention income taxes) then we can't proceed with this type of mainstream adoption.

I think this guy is a hoax, let me be clear on that... But the reason why I think that this guy all the sudden had the gall to try and present him self as Satoshi is because of the fact that there was a statement saying that the pseudononymous alias of "Satoshi" had won the Nobel peace prize. Doesn't anyone realize how much every scientist/academic strives for this title? If he conjured up a way to make himself look like Satoshi, then he could try to take the title for himself (even though the people who would award him the prize would've likely asked proof of PGP signature).

It just seems to me it's a guy who desperately wants to be known for something that he didn't do. He just wants the title and the fame, which to me screams out this isn't Satoshi. I think the real Satoshi will only make himself known on a deathbed type of confession, or if Satoshi is a family man/woman he would geniously find a way to leave his wealth in bitcoins to his child/ren.