|
I think even 1% or 2% can be too much for some people, but I'd say that everyone should invest as much as they can afford to lose in Bitcoin and maybe a few other coins, because the potential payoff can be huge in the long run. I think many investors have already taken this approach, but maybe they prefer to not talk about it for some reasons, like maybe they don't want to be judged by their Bitcoin-hating colleagues.
|
|
|
|
The fact that Bitcoin is used in illegal activities means nothing - fiat is used way more than BTC, yet no one makes a big deal out of it. We shouldn't stop the progress because some wicked people would benefit from it, if people were doing so, we would still live in stone age. Because of the semi-anonymous nature of Bitcoin, it’s used in ransomware attacks. Hackers breach networks and hold them hostage until payment is made to them. Hospitals and schools have been victims of these types of attacks. However, unlike cash, which was favored by thieves in the past, Bitcoin always leaves a trail in the blockchain that investigators can follow.
this is what I really admire about Bitcoin, we can trace wherever Bitcoin is because all transactions are recorded in Blockchain. even when Bitcoin will be converted to conventional money through the Bank, its owner can be traced...hopefully, the governments can think of this, the positive side of Bitcoin and Blockchain. Mixing makes transactions pretty hard to trace, so chain analysis is usually used only in big investigations. Also, there are some developments that can potentially add new privacy features to Bitcoin, meaning it will be nearly impossible to trace transactions. I think that honest people would benefit from it way more than criminals, so it's not a problem from moral point of view. The government might use is as an excuse to attack Bitcoin, but that's another topic. |
|
|
|
|
This is a good post, I think you've covered most of the scams, so I just want to add that people should be extremely careful with their cryptocurrencies in general - there are no intermediaries and no chargebacks, it's like handling cash to a stranger, so people should think carefully about every transactions that they make.
Also you should cover one of the oldest scam - the exit scam. It's when some online service that keeps coins of their customers, like an exchange, decides to suddenly close and run away with all the coins. This has happened many times in the past, so people should never hold more coins online than they can afford to lose.
|
|
|
|
Gold has been considered to be money for millenniums. This doesn't seem to be changing in the foreseeable future, in my honest opinion. Therefore, I definitely don't disagree with the statement that gold is money, however in the current time it is definitely still a valid investment. It only depends on your definition of what an "investment" is, really.
But gold definitely hasn't really rallied for a long time, and seems to be consolidating and moving sideways exclusively recently.
It could definitely be a good time to buy some, but just like any asset, be prepared to hold it for the long run. Gold is probably more of a store of value for the long term, than a short term speculative investment.
Gold was considered as money in the past,but how about now? If gold is really "money",can you buy food or pay the bills with a piece of gold?  No,you can`t,because: 1.You will need a very little amount. 2.I don't think that any merchant will accept it as a payment. This is why people came up with banknotes that could be exchanged for gold - gold it too inconvenient to use on daily basis. But later economists decided that paper money can just replace gold and that they can control the whole economy by printing more paper money, so they have proclaimed that gold is not money anymore but a commodity. Bitcoin is our chance to get back to economy with "hard" money that are not controlled by the government, and even if Bitcoin or gold are not suitable for small daily transactions, it's still good to have them for long term saving that won't get eaten by inflation, unlike fiat. |
|
|
|
|
Micropayments might be more attractive in developing countries were people can't afford to pay for monthly subscriptions - for example HBO's Game of Thrones show is the most pirated show in the world and most of the pirates are from poor countries, but maybe if people could pay for exactly this show instead of full subscription, some of those pirates would choose to do so. Also, not everything can work on a subscription model, so micropayments will find their place in the Internet economy.
|
|
|
|
The govt may not be considering Bitcoin, or it may be, I have a feeling the state crypto talk is a bit of a smokescreen.
Right, sanctioned countries often talk about launching their own crypto to allegedly circumvent sanctions, but Venezuela's example clearly shows that it can't work - other countries are not accepting new state-owned coin, traders don't buy it and countries that impose sanctions quickly prohibit any deals with those new coins for their citizens. |
|
|
|
|
The correlations between haspower and the price are very complex, but it's simply wrong to think that you can keep increasing the price by adding more hashpower - the demand for Bitcoin is the main factor, and increasing the hashpower will have very little effect on demand. This analysis would have been better if they have explored what price can be supported by existing hashpower and future hahspower, because when the price increases too fast, it's important that hashpower increase too, to maintain the game-theoretic balance that makes potential attacks unprofitable.
|
|
|
|
To the surprise of nobody, Warren Buffett isn’t interested in Bitcoin at all.
Warren’s strategy is to have an adequate but consistent return over a long period of time.
The key is that he knows he will be rich someday, but he is not in a hurry.
In cryptocurrency world, it is not possible to make a position and forget it for x number of years. Hence, it does not fit Warren’s style.
So what is your opinion?
What do you mean "he will be rich someday"? He is already crazy rich, so he doesn't need to take any risks at the end of his life to become even more richer, maybe he wants to be remembered as the man who never suffered a major lose, and avoiding big risks can be a good way to do so. Also, he doesn't bother to learn more about the technology of Bitcoin, he saw explosive market and immediately proclaimed it a bubble, just like many other economists and investors - but ultimately it doesn't matter, because Bitcoin will be judged for its capabilities - it's not some commodity like gold or oil that are the same as they were 1000 years ago, Bitcoin is ever-evolving software and a giant community of users. |
|
|
|
According to these sanctions, any bank that deal with Iran, will be punished by United State's government. So, people need a decentralized currency without any middleman.
I'm sure that sanctions also include cryptocurrency transactions, so you can't just do business with Iran while using Bitcoin instead of banks and think that you've outsmarted the government. If you want to circumvent sanctions while operating in a country that have imposed them, you will be commiting a crime, and your only hope to avoid prosecution is to hide it, so you need cryptocurrencies with strong privacy and a way to launder your money. But this is a really risky thing to do and most likely not worth it, so businesses will just seek for other markets instead. |
|
|
|
|
When there are some news about potential privacy improvements for Bitcoin, I always wonder how would it affect it's legal status in the future - it's clear now that most governments can tolerate cryptocurrencies as long as they aren't fully anonymous. Investigators also have tools to undo Bitcoin mixing, so it wasn't the problem for them usually. It can be very awkward for them if they will fully legalize Bitcoin and will have to later create additional regulations to ban privacy-enhancing protocols and tools.
|
|
|
|
Some people say that volatility is preventing Bitcoin from being adopted, but often times the advantages of using Bitcoin outweigh the risks of volatility.
It's not even the volatility directly, but the long term potential that's preventing people from spending their coins. People don't want to buy a TV with $1000 worth of Bitcoin when they strongly believe that it can be worth +$2000 a year or even months later. It would sting even more when you spent a large amount of Bitcoin back in January last year, where at current levels it means that your coins could have gained 900% in value. I'm sure that if the market would grow with just a few percent per year, the barrier to spend coins would no longer be there. I do believe that it's just a matter of time before we reach that state, and that with lightning network is a killer combination. I was thinking more about the merchants, since they are having a more conservative approach to their finances than their customers - many of them view accepting Bitcoin as a huge risk because of it's volatility, as they can lose a lot of value if it crashes. A lot of companies that were or still are accepting Bitcoin are actually using proxies like Bitpay that immediately convert it into fiat. As for people unwilling to spend it due to belief that it will increase in value, I think it's okay, since storing value is pretty big use case and it also counts as adoption in my opinion. Even if we for a moment imagine that Bitcoin will fail as a currency (although there's no reason to think so now), being "digital gold" is still a huge achievement. |
|
|
|
What is this "electrum dot com" that you speak of?  That's the first site I've actually had this pop up on... good to know that things are working as intended  This is actually pretty cool, I guess there are some anti-phishing addons, but they are probably not very popular. So maybe a good solution would be if addons like Adblock or Ublock that are used by almost everyone, would offer additional anti-phishing feautres to report malicious site like this fake Electrum site. |
|
|
|
|
So, 2 of these regulations are about anti-money laundering, which doesn't have anything to do with security of exchanges. The rest 3 regulations are not that useful - it's already the main interest of exchanges to not get hacked, I really doubt they need some laws telling them to do so. The government can't solve this problem, because everything that is connected to the Internet eventually gets hacked - banks and traditional payment systems also get hacked, but as centralized systems, they can undo the robbery, while it's nearly impossible with cryptocurrency (the DAO fork is one of a few examples). This problem is created by people not using cryptocurrencies as they were supposed to - being your own bank and store coins in your own (preferably cold) wallet.
|
|
|
|
They've already successfully manipulated the public's perception if they've managed to get other people to start calling it "Bitcoin Core", rather than just "Bitcoin". Literally no one called it "Bitcoin Core" before the bitcoin.com website started calling it that. Don't fall victim to their game. They're clearly trying to discredit Bitcoin's decentralised nature by claiming that only one dev team makes all the decisions. If you look at the bitcoin.com website, you'll notice they're now stressing that BCH has multiple dev teams and using that as a selling point. It's a deliberate and calculated attempt to dictate the narrative. Bitcoin is not just one solitary dev team and we need to make people aware of that.
Bitcoin Core are a dev team. The coin, the blockchain and the network are simply called Bitcoin. Call it what it is.
Sadly, many people have fallen for it, and you can now see many places and people accepting and using both coins simultaneously. I think the main reason for that is that they are new or don't follow all the discussions, so they don't fully understand how bad Bcash is, they might even naively think that it's an alternative version of Bitcoin. Sooner or later Bcash will die, but so far it was relatively successful in creating confusion. |
|
|
|
Because no government wants to regulate the cryptocurrency gambling industry.They all want to regulate the crypto trading platforms,because all the politicians are slaves of Wall Street and the Wall Street brokers don`t want to lose their monopoly.Sooner or later they will hit the crypto casinos.
By the way,this is a very generic article about bitcoin.
The truth is, players and casino operators don't need government's regulations, provably fair technologies already ensure fairness via cryptography, so there's only risks of exit scams and investor fraud left. On the other hand, the government can't leave a growing industry untaxed, so they will go after the owners of crypto casinos. I just hope that they will keep operating on the gray market, since it allows them to deliver the best conditions for players, which would be ruined by regulations. |
|
|
|
|
Anonymity can be a good sign too, because some cryptocurrencies can be very anti-establishment, like those with strong privacy features, so it makes sense that their creators would prefer to remain in shadows, both for their own and their project's good. What you should really be cautious of is fake identities - a lot of ICO projects have fake team members, and this is a huge red flag that signals that a project is most likely a scam.
|
|
|
|
|
I think the biggest wave of adoption will begin after the official release of Lightning Network, when all major clients will be stable - this will truly unlock Bitcoin as a currency, since confirmation times and fees are often a problem. Some people say that volatility is preventing Bitcoin from being adopted, but often times the advantages of using Bitcoin outweigh the risks of volatility.
|
|
|
|
It's generally a bad practice to have crypto keys in your source code, because often times developers forget about them and then accidentally expose them by commiting their code on github or sharing the it through other means. The solutions is environmental variables, there are plenty of guides of how to use them for Javascript developers, like this one: https://www.twilio.com/blog/2017/08/working-with-environment-variables-in-node-js.htmlIs this a secure way to sign and publish a transaction or can the node intercept the private key?
What do you mean "intercept private key"? In that example the key is in the code, so your node process obviously knows it. If you are working on backend, then your whole codebase should be perfect and you need to always check the news for potential zero-day vulnerabilities, it's often enough to have just one vulnerability to give attackers full access to your servers and steal everything from hot wallets. This is why Bitcoin services keep most of their funds in cold wallets. |
|
|
|
What if our government add tax whenever we transact fiat-crypto and vice versa, and the fund will be used for our protection(ICO,Scams,Phishings), for example the government will make a group or sector that focuses on crypto environtment. what do you think?
That's a bad idea, society should always aim to have as few taxes as possible. The first reason is corruption and bureaucratic inefficiency - often times when governments try to solve some problems, they fail and waste money in the process. The second reason is that it's just unfair for those who are willing to take risks and confident in their own judgement in crypto sphere - they would be paying a tax for a service that they don't need. |
|
|
|
the tittle says it all folks, the transfer fees are too significant for me personally so I always look for the best option that will keep my loss* minimal, any thoughts ppl? you are not just helping me but a lot of people ) * the best I can do at the moment is 2-3% loss between bids/asks and the exchange fees. I usually use Litecoin or Dogecoin, since they have very low fees and are listed on most exchanges. I find it quite frustrating that exchanges have raised fees when Bitcoin and Ethereum networks suffered from congestions, but then didn't lower, or lowered them not enough now that the networks have cheap fees again. A lot of exchanges have like 0.001 BTC fee, while the network fees are 5-10 satoshi per byte. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
