1. No one should keep coins on an exchange unless one is intending to sell them soon.
2. IIRC I got an email and notice from Coinbase about it prior to that even though I have nothing in the account there.  

People who don't read or pay attention then cry because they didn't take responsibility to read or pay attention.  

Anyone paying attention over the last decade+ should know that if you don't have the keys, all you have is an IOU.

1. How much?  Was it $1000 or $100 or $100,000?  Kind of relevant whether it was something they could earn in a day or a week or a year.
2. "Bitcoin as it offers a much better alternative to saving cash. " - over the long term yes, most likely, but how long until they need it?
3. Who needs a stable coin unless one is trading?  It is like those centralized cryptos that central banks (and others) are creating.  What the !@#$ is the point?  Who needs centralized crypto, just use a database.

Agreed.  Freedom in all walks of life is critical.  The internet was built on it, although it was also built on trust which ended up being problematic for some things - e.g. email spoofing, no initial S on http etc.  In the 1990s (even the late ones) the regulation that smothered projects was oppressive.  It still is.  And the monopolistic power to enforce groupthink from private companies is equally as bad.

(As an aside, unfortunately I think that with the so-called web 3.0 things like Solid, the lack of design level encryption is going to stifle the growth because people will be reluctant to store things on pods in an unencrypted form (not to mention the need for protocol level ability to migrate to a new pod).  )

Re his tweet:
The problem with online gambling pre Tor etc, was the centralized domain name system where domain names could be seized and the owners arrested if used improperly. That is the reason that casino.com and gamble.com were sold in 1997 and to whom they were sold. Dealing with the Clinton administration and the potential illegality of doing anything with them while based in the US or even outside it, was a huge risk that torpedoed the business plans.

Since the "progressives" have tried to exert more control over everything over more than the last century, it inhibits progress. 

There is definitely no evidence of this. However, smart people all over the world are using bitcoin to protect their assets, both for capital flight and asset protection.  The authoritarian collectivists the world over don’t like people having the freedom to control their own lives, let alone the freedom to use their assets as they wish.

I know a guy who lived in China for more than a decade and he just left about 10 days ago. He had a few thousand dollars with him and was very concerned they’d be confiscated.  Bitcoin helps with that issue.  Even more so if you have 10s or 100s of thousands of dollars/euros to protect, let alone millions.

Smart people in the US should own bitcoin for similar reasons if Biden wins and keeps channeling Bernie and his ilk. His philosophy is anti liberty, and downright evil. People need to protect themselves.  The time to buy insurance is to do so before the house is on Fire.

Has this impacted the price?  Who knows. It is just speculation that it has, of course it depends on the volume of people using it to do so. All the various uses and factors are cumulative.

The people of Asia, particularly China, would do well to embrace bitcoin.  These so-called stable coins have few of the benefits of a decentralized system like bitcoin and most of the issues with a fiat currency like the yuan.  A digitized yuan adds nothing of benefit for the people of China, but certainly benefits the Chinese authoritarians.  Anyone who puts their trust in authoritarians of any stripe - socialist, communists, fascist, totalitarian etc - is naive or just plain uninformed.

That is why I specifically said "new supply" - which you highlighted.  :-)  When you decrease the new supply on the market you certainly decrease the amount that miners are able to sell, whether or not they do so immediately or not.  That decreases the overall "supply" that is available to be sold on the market.  

It is critical to note that prices are set at the margin so a small decrease in overall supply due to a decrease in new supply, can have an outsized impact on price.  Particularly if demand stays constant or increases.  Similarly a small increase in demand can have an outsized impact on price when supply is constant or decreasing.  Now with bitcoin, everyone knows that the eventual total number of bitcoins is fixed (barring any overflow bugs), new supply is decreasing, the only question is at what price, if any, person X is willing to sell.

Obviously it is all complex, but miners do often have to sell at least some supply to cover costs.  Going to 900/day from 1800/day becomes significant over time just to pay the bills and they have 900 fewer per day to sell to cover costs -- at current prices 900/per day is around US$10-$11 million per day, or around US$4 billion per year in fewer newly mined coins available.   With demand from GBTC reportedly soaking up a large percentage of newly minted/mined coins back in the spring, cutting that in half seems bound to impact price.  Back in 2012, a decrease from 7200 to 3600/day didn't cost that much if the price was US$5-10, maybe $30000-$40000 per day. 

Nothing is guaranteed, but the past 2 halvings have had a large impact on price.  Increased or constant demand and less "new supply" seem to be a recipe for a higher fiat price. (Speaking of fiat, printing an extra US$5-10 trillion for coronavirus aid should make people aware of the dangers of fiat inflating purchasing power away).

:-)

This is a nice point, it goes to show why distributed services like bitcoin (twister etc) should be preferred.  Instead of someone being able to "hack into Bitcoin Inc" they would need to hack into each individual's account.  Without a centralized point like Twitter, this becomes much harder - presuming no one finds P=NP and/or breaks PKE.

Everything should be handled using on-device encryption and not sent off whatever device is being used without being encrypted. 

One thing that concerns me about things like Solid is that they may be making the same error with regard to http and https (and others) again.  I haven't checked in about 6-9 months, but the pods are not encrypted on the device.

Good point. He did live there...I think in the thread he said he moved to somewhere in the Caribbean after this.  I'd be interested in hearing an update.

This is like saying "there are 900,000 trillion trillion trillion oxygen molecules associated with illegal activity because someone breathed them in while committing a crime, all of these molecules will somehow be breathed in by someone else."

Who decides what is illegal and where?
Who decides if someone has already used the "illegal" bitcoins and an innocent party owns them?

Think about all the gold (or silver) in the world.  At some point it is virtually guaranteed that it was either stolen, someone was killed for it, some evil dictator/totalitarian ruler/emperor/king/queen etc,  forced people to surrender it to him/her (spoils of war, taxes etc) or it was mined by slave labor.  Does that mean that all gold is tainted?  No, it means that evil and immoral people are in the world and they did something bad with some object.  

It doesn't mean that the object is good or bad, it means that the use to which is was put was bad.  Forks don't make people fat, guns don't kill people, actions by people using those implements do so.

This whole "analysis" is just idiotic.

Given the halving of new supply and increased demand, $20k is definitely within reach for 2020.  Perhaps higher.   During the previous halvings, it wasn't instant, but took months to a year.  No complaints here for sure.

No.  Do you want decentralization by the developers? Do you want decentralization by nodes?  Do you want the highest security of the network via the most hash power?  Do you want the ecosystem?   None of the alts have all that, I don't think any of them have avoided the single point of failure of having a single developer who is pretty much in charge.

It is not quite as bad, but you often see similar things in medical research.  The people doing it don't understand the math and then screw up the analysis.  

This, though, is much worse since it is like saying "Researcher says true could be false."  It is absolute nonsense, but many of these "publications" seem to have the goal solely of creating clickbait content.

The worst thing is the author holds himself out as an expert and is teaching classes about "blockchain":
"Michael lives in New York. He has been working in the blockchain space since 2015, founding, advising, speaking and writing. He currently teaches a blockchain course that he designed for MBA and master’s students at Pace University, and he mentors startups at the Columbia University-IBM Blockchain Accelerator."

His students need at least a partial refund.

There is a difference between funds up to 100K being guaranteed and between funds being taken above a certain limit to pay a country's debts.  A huge one - it is the difference between a bank making bad decisions and politicians doing so.  And if I recall from the thread (it has been quite a while since I read it), he stated later they had the account for working capital - e.g. paying salaries for their employees etc.  Nothing shady, just money used for operations.

And the guy you replied to looks to be a link spammer anyway given the look of his 4 posts.

All true. They will definitely talk their book.  Look at McAfee as an example who admitted it. 

These guys want money and power and are willing to do practically anything to get it.

This group wants (and has currently) power over the money supply via the Fed in the US and similar institutions around the world.  They can surreptitiously steal a few percent of everyone's wealth every year forever and most people don't notice the hidden tax of inflation.  When you are talking about trillions in assets, that adds up quite quickly.  Not to mention, they have the power to create money at will and lend it to favored groups, politicians etc.  Anyone that can be bought and then control a huge government.

This is why bitcoin is critical, it prevents the power-hungry politicians from controlling people and stealing from them.

Many politicians, particularly the ones who are in it for money and power over other people, will do anything within the law or without the law to defeat the people who want liberty.  Look at how far some of the politicians went to defeat Trump in 2016 and then again to delegitimize him after he won.  They were willing to break the law to "unmask" people, attempt to entrap people, lie to the people in public (e.g. Clapper and Brennan - based on the congressional testimony which was opposite what they were saying on CNN/MSNBC etc).  

Perhaps I misread it, but I didn't see him advocating elimination bitcoin, merely stating he thinks some governments will (attempt) to do that. Merely because you see something as a potential event, doesn't mean you necessarily agree with it.    Eg, suppose you saw that because the US Congress legislated that mortgage borrowers could borrow money with a lower credit score there would be a financial crisis.  That wouldn't imply you thought interference was a good thing.

Maybe there was more to the interview showing whether he thought that was a positive or negative.

The title is wrong - it was trademarked, not patented.

At least in the US, you have to specify the area where the trademark applies.  E.g. I could trademark "Apple lawn care" without impacting Apple Inc's trademark for electronics.  I presume it is similar in Spain.

lol.  Those pics are worth 1000 words. 

PayPal getting involved in BTC at this point seems pretty unlikely given the KYC requirements.  While they no doubt do know their customers, the difference between PayPal and, say, Coinbase in the KYC requirements seems huge.  (I haven't had to register for either in quite some time so perhaps that has changed).

My only quibble with that quotation is the no one should want to live under either.  Fascism, socialism, communism, "social democracy", authoritarianism, collectivism etc are all very similar, just substituting who is doing the controlling.  A limited, constitutional republic (with enumerated powers, like in theory the US is supposed to have) protects people's freedoms and rights from tyranny of the majority.