Only if it's truly decentralized. The Etherdelta situation demonstrated this perfectly. You can decentralize specific aspects like trading, but for as long as only one group is completely responsible for running operations (i.e. there's a point of failure), it can be exploited one way or another. The funny thing about this is even if someone had the idea on how to make it work, it would be difficult, if not impossible to monetize lol.

I saw that and I was confused because there was no Bitcoin ban in the first place. I thought it was talking about the exchange ban.


I'm actually pretty sure this was just clickbait. I mean, it referred to a favorable Shenzhen ruling that has nothing to do with a ban at all. They probably just wanted clicks. That, or a translation error maybe? Either way I don't think the Chinese government has anything to do with it.

Were there any Bitcoin Black Friday specials last year? I can't seem to remember.

I'm personally not doing anything special. If I find a deal I like and I have to spend Bitcoin, I'll go with it. I also don't think people are in a hurry to spend their coins, considering the general sentiment that we're currently at the bottom.

So the reason why the author said it may take 700 days is because it took 700 days the last time? My thought is that it's incredible how they were able to make an article out of this when I was able to sum everything up in one sentence. Very few details are actually needed to get this across lmao.

But yeah, no matter how unreliable this is, precedents are all we have right now. We'll see if the market behaves the same way this time around.

Here you go:


The malicous part of the script is also shown in the article. There were also no (reportedly) lost funds, apparently.

You should try to avoid payment processors if possible, especially when you're only running a small business where it would be more than manageable. Coffee shop items are small purchases, and if crypto hasn't taken off, as you said, things should be fairly simple on your end. All you really need to do is set up a desktop/mobile wallet at your counter that can generate QR codes that your customers can scan. You can choose to move the coins to a more secure wallet at the end of the day or keep them there indefinitely.

This should be at least good enough at first especially if you only really want to do it to attract customers. If the demand is stronger than anticipated, which I kind of doubt, you can look into the more sophisticated options.

It's characteristic, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's distinctive. Volatility should fall under control as the market grows.


I don't think regulations can solve Bitcoin's volatility, unless it's been established that the only factor behind it are manipulators. Regulation can't really influence the way the market moves externally.

Clean energy actually is efficient enough to power miners. Plenty of them are looking into renewable sources. Technology in this sector is bound to improve and become cheaper in the coming years, too, so things are only going to get better from here.

Mining hardware only really generate heat, which isn't a pollutant. It could even be harnessed for other purposes.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic with your methodology, but the post above yours cited the survey.

But yeah I have no clue why anyone would say that the UK is a country of crypto believers when only around 30% actually believe it has a future. There's also this:

Not who you're asking, but Bisq seems like the closest thing to a truly decentralized exchange right now:


If nothing else, like Bitcoin, it has no single point of failure unlike EtherDelta.

There's actually an argument to be made that it's not completely decentralized:


There are also issues like this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/6u5jz6/etherdelta_is_not_at_all_decentralized/

If that's the loophole the SEC was going for, then that's smart of them. We'll probably see if factors like this affect their decision making depending on whether or not they go after fully decentralized exchanges like Bisq.

Just to add context:

https://www.ccn.com/california-midterms-see-largest-us-state-elect-pro-bitcoin-governor/

But no, it's not going to help unless it translates into actual pro-crypto policies. Even then, he can't do anything about federal taxes, which are quite hefty.

I really don't think they're too concerned with hackers. They target everything anyway. There's really no solution to them except by making their activities unprofitable through protecting ourselves.

In this case, installing a script blocker on your browser (like NoScript for Firefox or ScriptSafe on Chrome) likely would have protected you. You should install one either way as they also stop stuff like malvertising.


Yeah, it just means 700k websites loaded the script. The malicious part doesn't kick in unless it's loaded on gate.io. This isn't as bad as it's being painted to be.

Does it matter at this point? Coburn already settled. This sets a dangerous precedent for decentralized exchanges though. The SEC has been very busy with crypto.

That's way too much. From cex.io's fees, you should have ended up with around $24 worth of ETH after fees with a debit card. Your transfer somehow cost you ~$2.50. Maybe look into other exchanges? You might be disappointed though, as there are very few exchanges that accept credit/debit card payments for crypto purchases (Coinbase doesn't accept it for all regions IIRC).

They apparently aren't patching it because they believe cache-snooping mitigations are enough to solve the problem:

https://hothardware.com/news/intel-no-plans-patch-tlbleed-hyper-threading-cpu-exploit

That was a while ago though, so maybe they've already taken steps I'm not aware of. But yeah, at the end of the day, it's just malware that you can avoid getting infected with with some precautions.

Why day traders though? Assuming the article's premise is even correct, bottoms can be predicted by a sustained trend of sustained negative difficulty growth. They would need to observe for a long period, so they can't exactly earn regularly.

Either way though, correlation doesn't imply causation. There is a trend but it's exceedingly likely that it's just a coincidence, considering the fact that mining difficulty doesn't directly affect prices. I personally wouldn't rely on this.

They're not necessarily trusting Bitcoin, they're simply saying that there's a trend of interest among institutional players. It's not going to have much of an effect unless their report's actually generates more interest than what has already been reported. A self-fulfilling prophecy, in a way.

It might not even affect the market at all because it's apparently geared towards derivatives, rather than actual Bitcoin. Their report says that everything is already going on, after all, and we haven't really experienced notable changes in the market.

Oh man I hope you're not based on the US lol. Then again, even if you aren't, your income from crypto would still be most likely subjected to income tax. If you're not paying because crypto is decentralized, I suggest you read up on your country's tax laws before you get into trouble.


15% is apparently low as far as US capital gains tax go. Short term capital gains tax are rated much higher.

While I agree that it's pretty much an inevitability, we don't really have to like it. I know it's going to come with pros but I'd like to delay it for as long as possible. Regulation could easily be the death of Bitcoin's association with freedom.

Either way, the good thing about Bitcoin is that regulation can only really affect its use, not how it works. That gives regulators limited amount of options to mess it up. They can mess with the market, but they can't mess with Bitcoin itself.