I don't think his statement restricts Bitcoin at all. He simply said that the internet needs its own currency and that Bitcoin could fill that need. I don't necessarily agree with needing a native internet currency, but it would make sense for Bitcoin to be just that when things get down to it. Meanwhile, it could just as easily be real world money at the same time.


I don't think that's applicable to Bitcoin at all. Fiat isn't inherently more valuable than Bitcoin, and even if it is, Bitcoin's value wouldn't need to drop for it to be considered "bad". It mostly revolves around the inherent value of the actual currencies. For this to kick in in favor of Bitcoin, people would have to consider paper (with ever increasing supply, no less) considerably superior to scarce digital money which could be spent regardless of borders.

Well I mean, it's a legitimate concern. Managing economies is hard enough as is, and adding an uncontrollable variable on top of that surely wouldn't make things any easier. Either way, I personally don't think crypto can destabilize economies as it currently is. Their worries are several decades too early. I just don't know if they're purposely thinking way ahead or are ignorant of the topic at hand lol.

I think you may have misunderstood it. They're saying something can only be classified as a Digital Token if the rules for creation or supply can't be dictated. They're basically creating a new asset class and are setting new guidelines in place.

The only distinction it creates is if certain coins don't fit the criteria, they'd most likely be considered securities instead of Digital Tokens.

You could argue that our education system is flawed, but the fact remains that children need time to develop. Their formative years need to be spent for that purpose. They could possibly try to earn money during that time, sure, but how exactly?

Society, as it currently is, also expect them to be educated by the time they enter the workforce. For this to even be somewhat viable, society as we know it has to be overhauled from the top down.

Also, what do you mean Bitcoin is easy to earn? Do you want them relying on faucets? Trading? Signature campaigns? I don't particularly care whether or not they try to earn for themselves, but again, they need to invest a lot of time on their personal development (not necessarily formal education) to actually be able to acquire the skills that will help them earn money they could live off of. It's easy to say that they should be earning money as soon as possible, but there's the question of how.

Eh, I'm pretty sure even the most hardcore hodlers still spend every now and then. I think the issue is that it's not as straightforward as swiping your card or using Paypal, which deters the mainstream from using it, which, in turn, deters merchants from accepting it. This should get better with time though, as information slowly disseminates.

You sell, then buy in again. If for example, you bought $100 worth in January and it had plummeted to $50 by December, you can sell it then claim a $50 capital loss. You then buy the same amount again. Don't trust random strangers on the internet though, you're better off talking to professionals.

So the hack's origin is apparently unknown, and could very well be just a collection of past hacks:


It's no reason for immediate panic, but it's a wake up call to people who reuse their passwords nonetheless. It's also worth noting that some email providers are better with security than others. Remember the Yahoo breach?

There are actually very specific guides that cater to people who churned out a loss in the US. Here are a few:

https://www.cryptotrader.tax/blog/how-to-handle-your-bitcoin-and-crypto-losses-for-tax-purposes

https://www.ccn.com/op-ed-how-to-turn-your-bitcoin-and-crypto-losses-into-tax-savings/

Either way, it can get very complicated very quickly especially if you haven't been cashing out or trading at all. I would recommend you contact an actual professional.

I feel like that's taking it a bit too far considering this is just an ETF. The SEC's decision won't have any fundamental effect on the Bitcoin network or its transactions at all.


Yep, ETF approval is just one of the many possible catalysts. It's also the most obvious one at the moment, which is why people won't stop clamoring for it.

Okay, let me reclarify my position. I never once mentioned anything about gold or Bitcoin as an investment. I was talking strictly within the context of Russia diversifying from the USD, keeping their money's value given the choice of gold vs Bitcoin. In this case, I said, gold would be much better than Bitcoin short-term because it is less prone to tanking -- something which may concern Russia in Bitcoin's case because they aren't exactly doing  well. When their shit hits the fan, which may happen soon, they'd probably want to hold the more reputable asset as far as the global economy goes. I concede that it may not be actually good like you're saying, but at the very least, I'd say it's less bad than Bitcoin. Either way, I agree to disagree.


I completely agree.

I could be wrong, but the way I understand it, miners can choose which transactions their nodes accept and put in a block. They're not voting per se as the confirmed transactions depend on which miner actually mines the block. I guess they can "vote" or at least let their opinions be heard by not choosing to mine certain transactions like in this case.

This is true. The way the system is set up is a race to the bottom for fees by going for quantity over quality. I wouldn't be looking at running a Lightning Network node to make money, especially not at this point where it hasn't really reached the mainstream crypto population yet.


It's very much still in its infancy. It looks like they've only processed a hundred or so transactions as of the time of writing:


It's also not as straighforward as setting up a server and keeping it running lol

You may have misunderstood my point. I wasn't saying it's better as an investment short-term, just that it's one of the best options for them if they want to diversify i.e. keep their money's value. They're not turning away from the USD to make money after all.

That's a fair point. I never looked at it that way. I still think gold is the (much) superior option short-term though, as you don't risk it losing ~80% of its value in the span of less than a year. Either way, there's really no way for us to know what these people are doing behind the scenes lol.


Yeah lol it's not as much a "report" as an out of nowhere claim. It did get him a small spotlight though, so good for him.

This looks like it belongs to the Services section. You'll have a lot more hits there. You can move the topic by clicking "Move Topic" on the lower left corner of the page.

Also, you may want to include references of your identity, past work, etc.

I don't think it's a lack of belief, it's more of believing that Russia will not be able to afford to risk that amount for long-term gains. A lot of believers here are in for the long haul so they couldn't care less about how well Bitcoin is doing in the short term -- something that Russia should probably be very concerned about.


It wasn't even a news outlet. The reports apparently came from one Russian economist, and everyone just picked up on it. He does have ties to the Russian Government though, which is why he was taken seriously.

But yeah, same dude also speculated that Bitcoin will reach $2m by the end of 2019. He could very well be a sitting on a good amount and wants to make some cash. We won't know for sure though, I guess.

It can't, because it's based on very shaky speculation. I'm pretty sure no one wholeheartedly believes this, considering Bitcoin's recent woes and how large the amount is. They probably can't risk all of that, especially because they aren't even doing well financially in the first place. If it does happen though, I'd expect a furious bull run. I mean, Bitcoin as a reserve currency? Sign me up lol.

Most people actually recommend that you run it in conjunction with Windows Defender, so while it's incredibly reliable, it's probably still not as reliable as you think and/or might need it to be. If you must run Windows for crypto activities, you're going to need to stop risking all of your funds for small freebies like pirated movies, software, etc., as your coins are probably worth more than they are. You have very little room for error, if any at all.

Welp, that would perfectly explain his position as a "big advocate of blockchain technology". I think you may have cracked the code lmao.

But yeah, regardless of the source, Russia hasn't even taken a clear stance on crypto right? I find this to be highly unlikely. Would they really risk that much money on a volatile asset? If this really happens though, it'll fast track Bitcoin's ascent to reserve currency status lol.

What kind of progress are you seeking? Scaling? Genuinely asking.

Also, doesn't Bitcoin Cash exist for people who are adamant on on-chain scaling? I'm curious as to why you want to change this Bitcoin, when there's another version that aligns with your ideologies better. I've also seen you claim that both coins are Bitcoin, so it should be fairly easy for you to pick one and stay with it. I personally choose to ignore the politics and focus on the fact that it's a good thing that there are two teams who are trying two different approaches for one goal.