You cannot easily change Peter Schiff's mind when it comes to cryptocurrencies and his stand with gold. Knowing that the dude is a gold bug for a few decades now, I don't think no key points would ever be laid down on that debate that would convince him that bitcoin is also the real deal and not just gold. But considering the experience of these two with the two assets that they have been working on, this might just be a good debate with some interesting points to be taken.


For sure Antonopoulos would make Schiff a little more interested with what bitcoin as to offer, especially on the technology side of things. He's just the dude that I highly respect and knows what he really talks about when it comes to bitcoin and other things re: economy.

I won't recommend nor suggest anyone to be one, knowing that people who fall under the said category are usually those with limited point of view and are not really open to innovations and new tech. I'd rather check new tech and other alts to see whether they offer new things out of the box than to stick with bitcoin and have my knowledge limited with only bitcoin. Any new knowledge is welcome to me, and even if it one-ups bitcoin in any way, still it's okay because I learn that there are other areas in which bitcoin is not that improved yet.

The volume of transactions you are making usually are the catalyst for them to notice your account and apply a temporary ban to it unless you complied with what they are asking. Here in the Philippines, if you happened to trade with a daily volume of $2000 with a level 2 verification (they have it mostly the same on almost all exchanges I have worked with), they will need to ask you where does the funds come from and other KYC documents such as address etc. Personally I would avoid such service/exchange, but since they are the largest exchange here in the Philippines and they carry a huge volume with them, I'm forced to do what they say which sucks.

A lot, for sure, still truly appreciates the primary goal of bitcoin and that's for sure. Many, usually newcomers and not those within the early days of bitcoin are always moved by huge gains and profits for themselves. We cannot blame them since they think they have found a pot of gold and a milking cow that is bitcoin, and of course it's normal for them to be excited whenever they feel like they won the lottery by seeing the gains bitcoin made over time.

I still dream of the day wherein 1 bitcoin = 1 bitcoin and no unnecessary fiat pair would be tagged along with bitcoin, but then again we know that this will not come to fruition.

Bitcoin is already moving faster than gold, though of course at a much slower rate than Max Keiser proposed. Knowing that gold is a completely regulated asset and its marketplace is pretty much an airtight container with different regulations applied as locks, it's completely free from any form of manipulation and other weird and nefarious trading techniques. As of now, bitcoin is still going and going, while gold is still staying on to where it's at currently, and we just know what the reasons are, of course.

Pardon me for not understanding you, but what do you mean when you say capacities?



Experiments are obviously done to know more about our life in general. Calculations and trajectories, movement of heavenly bodies and other objects in space are measured because they may pose as a threat to our own planet (say, a collision) and again, to better understand things. Who gives the job? Our endless pursuit for knowledge and to quench the thirst of our curious minds. Results? Technology. Goal? Understand things and help us live better and easier.


No solid questions were raised, honestly.


The protocol gives the tasks, obviously, and the miners themselves chose to compute these super complex algorithms in exchange for the block reward + transaction fees. The people then give value to bitcoin by trading it, and so that block reward is what the miners are aiming for as incentive for their work.

Timing is everything for bitcoin investments but then again, you cannot time the markets, so it's pretty hard to tell when should one be pulling the triggers and when would one take it slow. But for the past 10 years, bitcoin is still on an upward journey, so if one is patient enough to wait a couple of years, then perhaps their investments would have gone up so high and take a handsome profit in the end. Then again, we know that people are tempted to collect profits whenever it already knocks at our door, and who wouldn't take that chance right?

Ahh no. It can though certainly won't without any form of corrections and setbacks along the way. Also, isn't he the same dude who said that bitcoin will continuously go on from $18k to $400k simply because people are buying bitcoins like crazy? Huh, I wouldn't really believe those predictions until something really happens right before my eyes. It's okay to be a bull if one knows what they are really talking about and their claims are backed by sensible facts, not just some random gibberish and predictions without any basis.

Multi-level marketing, as they call it. Ponzi schemes dressed as legitimate businesses by actually owning something they can sell, however their main profit maker is by means of inviting other affiliates into their schemes which would then pay off to become a member and sell those damned products. Yeah, it could work.



This is not a ponzi anymore but rather a form of a legitimate business if they have been venturing and investing to other firms through which they can get their profit. Primarily, ponzis get their money from inviting people into the scheme and getting the money off of those newly-joined lads. But with other profit streams apart from affiliates, I don't think you can consider it as ponzi as they now have the means to pay off their so-called investors without depending on new affiliates for money.

But then again, no business is too big to fail, so no matter how this ponzi scheme fare, or how well it treads on the market, it will surely has its fall too.

You cannot send fake transactions in bitcoin, and if it was possible then I'm sure a lot of people would be doing that to scam others. While you may not be able to perpetrate with what you are thinking, one can still produce a 'fake' transaction by redirecting the same tx into some other address. Technically, if a transaction is not yet confirmed, there is still a possibility that it can be sent out to another address, so one can still provide a broadcasted, initial txid to someone and while the transaction is being replaced by the sender. This can be done if the tx has an ultra low fee paid for which, obviously would take longer than usual to get confirmed and just replace it with a higher fee to another address and there you go, you just created a 'fake' (not really) transaction.

You have the G20 gearing up to release a standardized set of rules and guidelines for regulations which most people view as somewhat vital for the development of crypto and also a possibly hurdle for further advancements. You have the US barring overseas services from entering their market and forcing crypto exchanges/services to setup a dedicated American service to continue their business there. You have the EU pressing Malta to change their ways and to possibly convert the said country into a bitcoin and crypto-hostile soil, further forcing crypto businesses settled there to set sail for other countries.. Regulations, regulations, regulations, they are helping but they are certainly making the world smaller for consumers and service providers. All I can say is that it's not going to be a pretty future, but hopefully the spirit of decentralization and P2P-everything still persist in the end.

Liquidity is my main concern, as with any other traders too, of course, knowing that it's easy to trade back and forth if there are loads of volumes on the buying and the selling side of things. It will also state whether the DEX is a reliable platform or not, because frankly, who would use a platform where reliability is close to nil? Next up would be UI and advanced trading features that one can only find on a third-party trading bot (some, but not all). I crave a simplistic yet elegant UI on exchanges as it doesn't strain the eyes and helps me see things clearly and execute a move whenever I see fit almost immediately.

Unlike anyone on the scene, Antonopoulos has my respect due to his understanding of bitcoin's nature and how it can really help people connect with each other without the use of centralized financial services offered by banks. He's not a man of senseless talks; his ideas are well-thought of and that is what I liked about the dude. I also had a copy of that book which I gave away to a friend of mine after finishing it, and I will also agree that it's a good read for anyone wanting to have a view of a neo-liberal.

There are no evidence that Satoshi originated from Japan. His moniker/pseudonym is of Japanese origins but there are no traces in which one can tell that he really is a Japanese, though his posting patterns on this forum suggest that he was from the far east, as his posting habits were entirely different from that of the Westerners.


Which makes sense if you don't believe that a single person could create bitcoin even in its earliest release. There were numerous bugs that weren't seen even after two years of bitcoin running but considering that the system was flawless and well-thought out, it's possible that Satoshi is not a single person but a collective name for a group of people.


If that was indeed true, they should have moved the coins on his known addresses which, 10 years later, remains untouched.

Schiff has always been the stocks guy, and would certainly do everything just to maintain this reputation and shill the hell out of what he currently holds. For anyone who would be handed out free money without conditions, of course they'd take it any day, and this is what Peter Schiff is doing. He neither confirm his direct involvement with bitcoin nor deny it simply because he gets something, and he'd be a hypocrite if he denies it. It's just that he's playing it safe by trying to not turn the tides and make his locely stock shares plummet in value.

Ledger itself is already $100 in price, so I don't think that anyone would be willing to spend that much for a few dollars at best just to let people get the hang of it. A good old paper wallet is great, just laminate it so as to cover the whole thing and make it weather-proof/destruction-proof for a long time. Just don't misplace it and that's where one of the many problems might persist. Also take a look at some good old Casascius sold in the Collectibles section of the forum.

It's not like major changes could and would happen overnight, and if such an idea be proposed, you know that it will ultimately be the miner's choice on where would this network move to, so it's a dire effort all in all. Also, the network is heavily dependent from ASICs for processing everything, and while that may seem to be implying something negative, it has well protected the integrity of bitcoin transactions for the past 10 years, and is not, in any way, prone to any 51% attack that could potentially destroy bitcoin (hi bitcoin gold), not unless miners banded together and decide to screw it up--which they will not do as it will only cost them money in the long run.

Max Keiser has been pretty bullish for bitcoin and crypto ever since, though he's not blindly bullish for bitcoin at all. He proposed some facts over his stance on bitcoin and it's pretty much a valid argument, like the case of transferring money between bitcoin and banks, the affinity of the millenials to the newer fintech than gold etc. Unlike Tom Lee, Keiser sees bitcoin's application and feasibility on the economy and not just painting lines on graphs and take it as 'evidence' of bitcoin's strong footing.

The difference between Swiss bank accounts and bitcoin is that the former is still legally flourishing even up to this day no matter how many controversies were unearthed involving the said bank and the latter is being chased by regulators, hoping to contain it right before it even explodes. As much as most of us want to have a decentralized exchange, it wouldn't happen any time sooner as most people are still enjoying the benefits they are getting in trading centralized exchanges, and these services, in turn, acts as pets of the government since if they tried to disobey just once, they would see their license revoked, meaning an end for their business. DEX is pretty much the future of P2P trading, honestly, but the problem is the support and interest from the community and also enthusiastic devs working on the said project.

We're talking about bitcoin alone in here, sans other cryptos. Bitcoin only constituted the $317-B out of the $600-B total crypto market cap of the 2017 run, so it will really be a long journey before we reach $1-T market cap for bitcoin alone. I'm a bit optimistic for the rise though at some point, I tend to ask where would the remaining money flow from? There has to be a source of money for this to be done, but then again for the past 10 years, bitcoin never failed to surprise people for the unexpected things it has done.