Certainly, I am not going to be stressed thinking of something that can happen not in my lifetime. Let them have all the debate they want to the question if there should be more than 21 million coins, that would certainly not my concern anymore but I am just wishing that cooler heads will prevail. At least, with the help of this forum, future Bitcoin leaders can certainly search for this thread and see how some of us are looking at this issue. I am wondering if there will really be big drought of Bitcoin if no additional supply of this asset can be created...or are we not just dreaming in a broad daylight?

As what I understand, decentralization has become a buzzword for many and tied to this is the use of the blockchain technology. I am sure that there is an increasing interest with the blockchain that even governments who are uneasy with Bitcoin are getting into the frenzy. Now, certainly, decentralization and blockchain will not save us from the host of problems we are into but certainly they can contribute a lot. The blockchain technology holds a lot of potential in innovating many industries and even governments themselves can derive some benefits from.


I am sure it is an assumption that many governments will certainly not look at Bitcoin or cryptocurrency with kind eyes as these are supposedly big disruptor mainly with money, banking and finance and they can be afraid that their economy can be affected. Latin American countries for sure can be a huge market for cryptocurrency and we are already seeing some good developments on this respect so much so that state-issued cryptocurrencies can be a trend to watch on this region.

Expecting early adopters, investors and leaders of Bitcoin to continue what they did in the past is just like saying that one person should be sticking where he is and should not be exploring any other ideas or passion. I mean as human beings it is quite natural that we sometimes lost interest with something...and that opens up opportunities for other people to take the place and maybe even contribute more than others in the past. This is just like any other business, there will always be succession and a relay of the bastion from one person to another.

Even if 99% of us here in Bitcoin community are really for the money or what gains we can get with our involvement and only the remaining 1% are really here for the technology, at the end it would not matter much because we don't actually need a multitude of people to be technologically-oriented as far as Bitcoin is concerned. Well, getting the basics will do.

Just imagine this: 99.99% of people who adopted the use of airplane as their mode of transportation most probably do not know anything about why airplanes can fly and the dynamics that many technologies involved in an airplane...and one does not need to know those things one has just to have a ticket so he can board the plane and reach his destination.

I think it is the same with Bitcoin as it continue its evolution.

I would say that this death cross can be a good thing to discuss academically but we know that with Bitcoin not all of our predictions and projections can be happening. Though there is nothing wrong if we have threshed out this phenomenon layer by layer. I am not a very technical prson but I am equally amazed at this discussion and how will the market be eventually swayed by this. Let's see in the following weeks if this death cross can really mean more dips for Bitcoin. The use of the word "death" is more alarming to me rather what its meaning, actually.

You just made me laugh and well "cry" all because your post made my memories with Bitconnect come back. I was actually one of the people who believed and supported Bitconnect and though overall I never lost money with that program it still pained to see it go leaving many victims with nothing but empty bags of promises. It was a little bit of an advanced ponzi scheme that uses its own cryptocurrency to pumped up things. Up to now, I still do not know for sure the very people who started Bitconnect though I heard that some arrests have been made. With the program has no faces of people identified as the leaders,  Carlos Matos from New York became its meme symbol. Months ago, there was a report that BCC is coming back but of course nobody doesn't want to be fooled again...no matter if they promised the whole heaven and Earth.

Out of the 10 coins mentioned in that article, these have better chances of making a good run to be very profitable: Bitcoin, Ripple, Ethereum, Litecoin, EOS, NEO and even Stellar Lumens, as to the rest they must have some surprises right under their own sleeves to get the attention needed. Waltonchain, tZERO and QASH may not be that known compared to others but if the people behind these platforms are working well this year then they can expand fruitful harvest next year. In addition to the list above, for pople who are looking for exotic type of project but has a big and bright future ahead because of their use-cases, they can take a look at Pantos (PAN) and OmiseGo (OMG), together with Stellar Lumens.

Changing terms of the bounty promotion is actually unacceptable especially after we realized that the project made a good run in its ICO crowdfunding activities. However, these people are making sure that any changes they might implement are still within the parameters they set in the first place, in other words there is nothing we, as bounty hunters, can do but obliged to their decision. There is no way we can stop them to do whatever they want to do. There is no course of action to address any complaint we may have. We have no court where we can file a case against them for some damages or to enforce the original and published terms and conditions. In summary, we are powerless and all we can do is to make some noise in this forum. This can be the big reason why many already stop doing bounties as they are not anymore that attractive to do. Still, am hoping that there will be changes come 2020, hope springs eternal as they say.

Let me inject a little of my opinion. Maybe the big reason OP is looking for a non-ICO project is because ICO projects have been known to be victim of the pump and dump problem and so if the project has not been using the ICO strategy there is more chance that its value will not be suffering great losses in the marketplace, but still since they are still altcoins they are also subjected to the volatility this industry is known for. In the past, I know that Polymath never had an ICO. Just recently, I supported the Png.me platform and Minter.

I can feel that we are going down further so I am sure there are now many people just determining which can be the bottom so they can be ready with their Bitcoin order. The dip can be a good opportunity if taken right. Volatility has been one of the major hallmarks for Bitcoin and though this can be a bane to many merchants and other holders, traders can look at this an opportunity to ride with in other words a boon to them. So that is a bane and a boon depending on how you look at it and how you can take advantage of the situation...like somebody throwing a big lemon at you either you will cry like a baby (whining) or you can make a lemonade out of it. We are sure that after some weeks, Bitcoin can be back growing again and may even try to breach the $9,000 zone.

Okay, let's just agree to the assessment of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) that Bitcoin failed miserably as a form of currency and store of value. This is a big good news, actually. Why? Because had Bitcoin succeeded as such in their point of view then they will categorize Bitcoin as a big threat and should be controlled if not entirely blocked and eliminated. So let's just follow along with this evaluation anyway BIS has no pull and influence with the industry and certainly has no effect on Bitcoin's price in any way.

The message of this released statement is quite clear: Bitcoin is fine but Libra is not. How will Libra able to convince member governments of the European Union can be a story to watch and learn. Will Mark embark on a journey to talk to the heads of these governments and explain to them one by one why Libra should be allowed to operate in their jurisdictions or will he group them together, throw a big party, bring in big entertainers from Hollywood and promise them anything they wanted just for Libra to make a launch without hitches?

The most important thing is that Bitcoin is okay, not a threat and therefore can go on developing more of itself as a currency and a store of value.

I have some Dogecoin and I am just letting them asleep in the Yobit exchange. Dogecoin has been one of those old coins that many of its supporters are still believing will be making a big pump soon. Now, that claim by @thedogenode is just a pure illusion on his part and just a mere coincidence, for sure. He is not that a big influence in the Dogecoin community to be able to make such a connection. I mean anybody can do that and claim a connection, just anybody includes me but I am not that feeling self-entitiled to do so. Sometimes it can be baffling how some personalities in the cryptocurrency industry deceive themselves of their own importance and influence. Wake up, @thedogenode!

I am also sure that soon there can be a good deal for Telegram's TON. TON will be slapped with a million-dollar fine and maybe do some cosmetic changes to the project...and then everything will be good. I am estimating that Telegram has to shell out more than $20 million dollars as penalty for accepting investments from the USA citizens without full permission and coordination with the SEC.

This has become normal with SEC just like what happened to Block.One (operator of EOS). This is one governmental regulating agency that has become very powerful and influential with the cryptocurrency space in the said country and a project planning to get involved with the country's huge market must make sure it gets the nod of the agency first before proceeding, otherwise all hell breaks loose.

And I am the wondering: Is SEC just doing its legal job or is it already overstretching its arms and reach?

The future is bleak for Poloniex. Not only this exchange has fallen off the radar for the past many months and now this another blow that it is officially leaving the huge USA market for good. Where its eyes will be focusing from now on is something we will watch. I am sure that this decision comes with a heavy heart but people observant of the things happening in the crypto space of the USA know that this is forthcoming. The USA market is now under the control of regulators and the burdensome regulations are placing strong pressure to existing exchanges to comply or start packing up. Poloniex chose the easier way but can lead to its eventual oblivion.

I hope they can choose the path taken by Binance and overhaul their marketing department aside from introducing many innovative features to attract more traders to its side. I am now wondering: Can this be the end of Poloniex or will there be a Phoenix which this exchange is hiding on its sleeves?

Unfortunately, there is no chance that bounty campaigns can be back to those days when we can rely on the credibility of the people behind the project and running the campaign. These days people are more on what they can get and do not care if they bulldozed people to the side of the road, so to speak. I remember the days of 2017 where big projects really happen and many of them paid their bounty hunters well...but even then at that time scams were already rampant. These days, scams are still everywhere sadly we can't find good projects anymore even if we search the needle in the haystack.



Scammers do not care. To them bounty hunters are just another tools they can use to spread the buzz for the project. Sadly, even those that got the money, many of them are prone to be a scam as they now have the money under their own control they can run to nowhere and enjoy a life of abundance using the stash they got from the people. When we are dealing with scammers, we always lose at the end, wasting our time and effort for nothing. This is now the reality we have to face. And that is why I already stopped bounty hunting.



There is nothing wrong with changing anything as long as everything is communicated to all stakeholders and that eventually the project will be paying the people who are toiling to make it more popular. We can understand that not all projects can be able to achieve according to plans so that changes can be necessary. What is worse is if the project is totally abandoned because the minimal cap is not reached and the team is not exerting the required effort to make the whole project a success.

I already did months ago, more than a boycott I turned my attention  away from those ICO projects. Actually, we are not anymore in the era of ICOs as projects are now preferring to do the IEO way of crowdfunding or doing the whole thing with a good cryptocurrency exchange. However, this can just be an old dog with a new collar as there is no guarantee whatsoever than an IEO project will not be a scam later.

Do you that there are many not-so-reputable exchanges which can accept any project for IEO if they just pay the required fees? That is where the problem lies so the solution is always use a reputable exchange especially those in the top 5 and do not listen to the BS project promoters are peddling. Let's send these bastards a big message they should not forget: We are done with your ICOs so go away and don't come back another day!

Will a bank of cryptocurrency be appearing soon? I don't think so and the answer to that is because it would be hard to get something like this approved by the government or regulators. And yes, this very idea is defeating the very essence of cryptocurrency. However, if there is really a big demand for this service then there is a big chance that an entrepreneur can take the risks and offer this same service to the targeted market. But I am sure it would not be easy and maybe it may not worthy at the end. The concern here is protecting the digital assets but there are now many ways we can do that without transferring the assets to a middleman which is actually also a risky thing to do...what if the bank can be hacked or if there is an inside job or maybe if it will go bankrupt? Assuming that I have a good hoard of Bitcoin, I prefer to store them in a hardware or cold wallet instead, just making sure that I have the keys with me hidden somewhere safe.

Essentially, this is a matter of JPM Coin vs. Libra because while the man doused some ice-cold water on the Libra project he at the same time promoted his own firm's native coin. He must be a marketing "genius"...getting free promotions for his own "cryptocurrency" by just commenting on something. Okay, I am just kidding on that genius comment.





I guess we have to accept that sooner or later we can experience a big avalanche of may forms, sizes and types of centralized cryptocurrencies. Are you then convinced that JPM Coin is a lot better than Libra or are they just two birds of the same feather and flocking (even laughing) together?

This is a wise reminder to all of when dealing with banks and not just in Nigeria because even here in my country where Bitcoin and cryptocurrency is allowed and has not been declared as illegal there are still many big banks who, acting on their own and actually without any legal basis, prohibit their bank users to get involved with Bitcoin to the point that they really ask anybody found to be connected to cryptocurrency to close their account in the bank. The solution is don't ask don't tell they are not gonna be following you anyway.



Anybody here in cryptocurrency should learn one of the biggest lessons: Never ever lose your private keys otherwise you also lose the very assets you are protecting and nobody can do something about it. We don't have to become the victim of the best security feature of cryptocurrency. Of course, this can be just common sense but we people can sometimes be "stupid" and by 'we" that includes me.


Stock exchanges started like this and it was private and then they had government regulations and there is still time for them to regulate the crypto exchanges.
[/quote]

I think that this is inevitable especially when the industry has already got so big, government will be starting to intervene and impose regulations for different reasons. At least this can be a good compromise, they can regulate crypto exchanges while allowing digital assets to flourish in the market and intervening only when really needed like cases of scams or frauds.

There is this pervading fear among many Bitcoin enthusiasts/hodlers/lovers about the threat of supercomputers (quantum) that can possibly decipher the blockchain and destroy Bitcoin at a glance. However, up to now, no one can give us a proof that what Google developed so far can really do this. Maybe this is just akin to spreading FUD and partly marketing the technology that Google has at hand. I am sure that Google stands to make billions with this development and they are in fact withholding information so people will talk about this themselves...getting free promotions along the way. Genius! I am sharing this good article on Google's quantum technology that can possibly clarify this thing and erase our fears.

And I could not agree more. This is the problem of a centralized cryptocurrency platform some of its practices can still be considered as very Wall Street all thinking of their own interest above all else. Isn't it a big wonder then that there is a consensus in the cryptocurrency community of repelling another centralized coin on the rise...Libra? Different name same face.