If you're an experienced user maybe, but for the average person it requires understanding and a lot of patience with how confirmations can either take a few minutes or even an hour in some cases.

For most people it's safe to say that the benefits of using a DEX don't outweigh the trade-offs, because there are many. It's also largely still underdeveloped because it's not profitable at all to spend time on this for developers.

What we are missing is incentive for the wealthy elite in Bitcoin land to pump money into development, but that's not going to happen considering that the elite either directly owns an exchange or has a large stake in it.

It depends on whether or not you're dealing with a private blockchain. Private blockchains don't necessarily need a native currency/token to utilize. In that case it will be similar to how you use a database.

Public blockchains such as Bitcoin do require a currency. It's to reward miners and you need Bitcoin to pay for interaction with its network in case you're using applications built on top of it. No Bitcoin means no interaction.

The same applies to Ethereum and the many dapps running on top of it. Even if you don't like Ethereum, you still need Ether in order to interact with these dapps. Similarly, no Ether means no interaction.

I actually like that aspect of gold. It just requires you to melt it and then cast gold bars to get rid of any taint. This is where Bitcoin lacks, because coins that are lost are lost for ever, which can be problem long term speaking.

Gold on the other hand can be re-used even after thousands of years. It doesn't lose any of its properties. And yes, this property of gold can be and is already quite frequently abused by criminals and even central banks.

No way that central banks don't know what and who they buy from. They just don't care what brand and number has been stamped into the bar because it's still pure gold at the end of the day. It's worth just as much as their other bars.

Coinbase is an exchange, not an online wallet platform-- people have used them as a wallet for years now, but that's not what it is meant for. Based on that I would just recommend people to use an SPV client, much better and more control.

Also, Coinbase no longer allows you to freely use their platform like they used to do before they changed their terms-- verification is mandatory, so one more aspect that makes Coinbase a bad platform to use for that purpose.

The benefit of an SPV client such as Electrum is that you can use RBF, which comes really handy in case a large service processes a lot of withdrawals at once, which then causes the fees to spike up. One fee bump can save you hours of waiting.

I doubt it, but when that happens, Litecoin will be hit much harder due to the insane fake volumes it has been generating for a long time now. BSV is doing much better on that front and may even rise above Bcash and Litecoin.

I however prefer to see the change in action before I believe that there is going to be a significant enough fundamental difference in the way that the new ranking system works.

CMC is incentivized to not be too harsh on the shitcoins and shitcoin exchanges a lot of people visit their site for, because losing them means less valuable ad slots and therefore less income. Big win for its competition.

It's very difficult to figure out what you actually try to explain.

Firstly, it really depends on what country you're in to figure out what can be seen as a taxable event and what not, but generally speaking, it should be something like this:

Fiat to crypto = (mostly) not a taxable event
Crypto to crypto = taxable event
Crypto to fiat = taxable event

What matters is the fiat value of your entry point, and the fiat value of your exit point, and over that amount you either report a gain or a loss. Pretty straightforward if I may say so.

Depending on your country, there can be a certain allowance for gains and losses that you don't have to report, but to be sure you really need to contact your tax authority.

It's important to know that not every ICO starts off as a scam. It might have been a project that was trying to deliver an actual project, then ran into problems they couldn't overcome and took a run with people's money.

This of course doesn't make it any less of a scam even though their intentions initially were to deliver a product, but in these cases the main operators of the ICO's are known and so far none of them have been attacked physically.

But then again, most of these ICO operators didn't live in a third world country. If they did, things might have been different. Scamming westerners usually leads to lawsuits while in third world countries they'll kill you for that.

Bitcoin has corrected more from its current year high than US stocks did, so from there I don't really understand the negative tone towards stocks. The same applies to gold where its chart looks way more bullish than Bitcoin's chart.

The very fact that stocks aren't bleeding shows that there is still enough capital (debt) circulating that is being utilized to buy up the dips. It also shows that there isn't much fear yet, otherwise stocks would end up bleeding hard.

I tend to agree. Too many people here are stuck in their moon boy bubble and ignore very realistic (but not so pretty) bearish scenarios long term speaking. Probably too much to ask for here.

I am very open to the idea of Bitcoin never reaching $250k, or at least, not without the more dominant fiat currencies around the world losing so much of their value that Bitcoin is being helped out in that way to increase.

I consider $100k a 50/50 shot. In order to speculate about anything above the $100k mark I want to see this price be hit first, otherwise what's the point of this speculation? If you can't hit $100k then you obviously won't hit $250k.

It's not easy to make the general public accept the benefits of something they think don't need and at the same time is a very niche sort of a service. It will take years before the sentiment around mixers clears up.

A pretty large number of people just can't fathom how important privacy is, otherwise they wouldn't have sold themselves to Facebook and other social media platforms already and therefore think it's normal, unfortunately.

When Libra becomes an actual thing people will regret having been so open to Facebook after getting their payments blocked and account limited in some way. It's going to be the reality of the day.

It's a gimmick meant to give people a false sense of security. If Bitwala really cared about giving the control back to the people, they would offer a service far different from their current business model.

People need to look through this, and definitely not get hyped up because it looks like they will contribute to more adoption. I'm not against centralized services in general, but this is purely them deceiving the ignorant joes.

People first say f-you to banks, then welcome them just because they do something with Bitcoin or other cryptos. By the same logic it means that when the legacy banks adopt Bitcoin, they suddenly become good guys.

I'm not keen on the multi-signature part when Bitwala is as much as an authoritative signer as you are yourself. You either hold the coins yourself or don't. In this case you don't, it's that simple.

It's an artificial form of security they offer to trick people into thinking that their coins are much safer like this, which I beg to differ, especially with how vaguely they are describing the whole process behind it.

I am however curious to see how much demand there is for such a platform and the actual volume it generates. It could just as easily be something that people will ignore after the initial launch.

It think the main reason was that at that time it simply wasn't available for registration. If you look at the whois links I provided below, you'll see that the .com site has been registered 227 days before the .org site.

http://whois.domaintools.com/bitcoin.com

http://whois.domaintools.com/bitcoin.org

That being said, .org domains are generally better suited for non-profit organizations, which is kinda what the bitcoin.org site is. .com domains are usually more appealing, but in this case the .org site is known to be the original site.

Governments have every reason to be hostile towards Bitcoin since it directly competes with their own monetary system that doesn't function. Governments don't like to see something else (better) thrive at cost of their own system.

People often look at how the Bitcoin price has gone up throughout the years, but what really happened is that the US dollar value has gone down against Bitcoin, and will keep going down in the coming years.

What we have seen so far from governments are desperate attempts to exercise control over the centralized ecosystem, and they're doing a pretty good job making sure that they know who owns what amount of Bitcoin.

OpenNode is backed by Tim Draper, so it's much better on that front than all the other centralized payment gateways. It might also be a convenient way for him to accumulate Bitcoin instead of directly selling for fiat.

Roger Ver offered $1 million to OpenNode if they would provide support for Bcash, but they declined the offer. Now that's what I call dedication. It was a big f-you in the face of Roger with his money that this time couldn't help him.

I'm already happy that we see LN integration instead of yet another main-chain accepting merchant. It's clear by now that it's not cost effective to use the main-chain for low value payments.

It depends on what time window the market seems to respect. One day it can be the hourly chart, the other day it can be the 4 hourly chart. It's impossible to say right now, you have to figure that out whenever you start your trading session.

Some people are happy closing positions that yield 1-2% per trade, which if you day trade is a respectable profit margin, especially if you combine that with a 2x leverage multiplier, but that's something you have to research first.

As for the stop loss percentage, I would say that it's good to start with a ratio similar to your minimum profit expectation, that way you don't lose too much-- from there you can adjust your stops based on how much experience you gain.

There is USDC in case the trust in USDT isn't there, which is perfectly understandable. Ethereum isn't a good option with how volatile it is, and just because it has gone down a lot doesn't mean it's suddenly a good option.

If we look at the most stable top tier altcoin, then it definitely is XRP, but still, it can't compete with the characteristics stablecoins offer. People may not like their centralized nature, but they're doing their job exceptionally well.

There is a decentralized stablecoin called Dai, which operates on Ethereum, but there is little adoption and therefore not a good option if you want to take advantage of arbitrage opportunities across multiple platforms.

I honestly expected more too. I think Binance shot itself in the foot by allowing whales to front run others and also operate its own bots to buy into these IEOs, which means that the average person doesn't stand a chance to invest.

Another reason Binance might not have taken the initial mini hype to the next level is because they beforehand knew that they had to stop serving US residents, who acounted for a large percentage of their altcoin trading volumes.

Overall, it's a good thing IEOs didn't grow past their infancy. It means less people will lose the money they worked hard for because most of the projects listed were scams with pie in the sky promises.

It's not fear as in being afraid of a certain event to play out, but more so fear of losing money when the price starts to decline. People either are over-invested or have invested with borrowed money. Both common contributors to fear.

As for the CSW case, nah, the smart money moving the markets know there isn't much to sell aside from his personal stack he managed to accumulate through scams and the various pumps and dumps his partner(s) initiated.

I think this question would have more relevance to it during the crash from $14k to $10k and below. That's far more intense than the ~$900 drop we have seen two days ago.

Crypto indeed doesn't need banks to exist, but the far majority of the people want to see prices increase. In order to do that, money has to be wired to a bank the exchange in question works with.

If you take banks away, there will be way less liquidity coming into crypto, that the prices will keep falling and investors will lose interest. Crypto has only speculation going for itself. Take that away and you're left with a house of cards.

Only when Bitcoin has really grown on people as store of value and they appreciate the decentralized nature of it, then things could be different, but we aren't anywhere near that point yet. Be careful what you wish for.