Bitcoin eased further on Wednesday following its initial drop after the weekend announcement that South Korean cryptocurrency exchange had been hacked.

Other major cryptocurrencies also weakened markedly.

Bitcoin traded as low as $6,455.91 early on Wednesday Asia time, its lowest level since April. Bitcoin pared some of those losses to trade around $6,581.88 by 3:15 p.m. HK/SIN, according to CoinDesk.

Bitcoin had fallen around 10 percent over the weekend following news that South Korean exchange Coinrail had been hacked, with a number of lesser-known cryptocurrencies such as Pundi X counting among those affected. Bitcoin, however, was not mentioned by the exchange in its statements, according to Google translate.

The continued downward move was unlikely a result of last week's hack, which saw a limited level of damage caused, said Mati Greenspan, senior market analyst at eToro.

"The narrative that such a small hack caused such a large price reaction has definitely been overplayed," he said, adding that bitcoin's drop on Sunday was caused by a technical correction.

Over the last 24 hours, Bitcoin has seen a dip of around 4 percent, according to CoinMarketCap. So far in 2018, the cryptocurrency is down more than 50 percent.

Chart analysts have indicated that bitcoin's move below the $7,000 mark suggested a speedy recovery was unlikely.

As for other crypto assets, the last day has proven challenging.

Ethereum, the second-largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization, was down almost 7 percent in the last 24 hours, CoinMarketCap data showed. Ethereum stood at $496.47 at 3:15 p.m. HK/SIN, according to CoinDesk.

Ripple was lower by nearly 6 percent in the last 24 hours, according to CoinMarketCap. It traded at 56 cents at 3:15 p.m. HK/SIN.

In my experience bitcoin cash is a fork of bitcoin even BCH is faster and cheaper to use due to larger blocks but still it'a seen that most of the people are using BTC than BCH so why is bitcoin doing better than bitcoin cash?

Currently the cost of bitcoin transactions is very cheap due to the relatively small amount of transactions, moving 48,000 bits per 4 cents, very cheap compared to December 2017 at some time up to $ 50 due to too many transactions at that time. . However, when the market recovers, there will be many transactions to be made and then whether technologies such as Segwit or Lightning network will help bitcoin trading faster and transaction costs do not become expensive. or not?

Why are many disturbed about the  drop in the price of bitcoin  . Come on guys, this is the not the time to give up on this amazing digital currency. Although this year has been a very volatile year for bitcoin, but one thing has always remained whenever this amazing digital cryptocurrency goes down, it bounces back much stronger than it was before. This is hope that keeps most crypto enthusiasts like myself who are resilient and have compelled us to develop a strong faith in this amazing cryptocurrency called bitcoin. Please this is not the time to give up on this amazing coin. 

I engaged with young people and layman people in my communities on the quest of exposing them to cryptocurrency. During the period I discovered that they find It so difficult to understand the concepts, they are so much acquainted with fiat currency and traditional ways of making payment transactions.
I will be impress If I can get a valuable ways and methods in making them understand what cryptocurrency is all about and engage them actively.

                             In an economic sense,
 An INVESTMENT is the purchase of goods that are not consumed today but are used in the future to create wealth.
                                         In finance
An INVESTMENT is a monetary asset purchased with the idea that the asset will provide income in the future or will later be sold at a higher price for a profit.

I really don't want to turn these into an economics class but the both definition of what investments are clearly should settle the argument of whether BTC is truly an investment or not.

We broke 300 even sooner than expected, this ship is sinking faster than you will imagine.
My experience from long time successful trading is to get out as soon as you can.

Great explanation from Reddit, thank you for sharing!

The fact that the "too" may be implicit at the end of "black lives matter" is an interesting one, many of us may think that it is implicit. But that organization doesn't use that word, maybe it isn't implicit. Maybe they are trying to get more attention to just black people, in the context of every race needs to fight for itself.

If the statement was "Black lives matter too!" there would be no room for confusion, no misunderstanding, no implicit feeling that they only care about their race.

While there have been some awful, public crimes against black people. There have also been awful, public crimes against white/asian/hispanic/indian/inuit/arabic/[insert race here] people.

A lot of the "victims" this organization believes are examples of the system not demonstrating that black lives matter were criminals - not innocent people, but people who stole, hurt others, cheated, disobeyed the norms of society (norms that are created by everyone in society, every race, every culture.)

It's hard for me to understand an organization that limits its charity to one class of people, let alone one that uses examples where the victims were criminals as their prime examples of the "injustice".

It's unfortunate that this organization doesn't add the "too" at the end of their slogan, because that would remove all doubt AND include everyone (implicitly). It would clearly explain that black people believe they're not getting their fair share...

Not to mention the irony of their purpose. They're an organization that purports to fight racism by preaching that one race of people's lives are more important than others. I realize they don't say "Black Lives Matter MORE" but saying that "BLACK lives matter" any excluding all other races is inherently racist. If they really cared about all races and ending racism they wouldn't limit their love to just one race.

Imagine that you’re sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don’t get any. So you say “I should get my fair share.” And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, “everyone should get their fair share.” Now, that’s a wonderful sentiment — indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad’s smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn’t solve the problem that you still haven’t gotten any!

The problem is that the statement “I should get my fair share” had an implicit “too” at the end: “I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else.” But your dad’s response treated your statement as though you meant “only I should get my fair share”, which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that “everyone should get their fair share,” while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out.

That’s the situation of the “black lives matter” movement. Culture, laws, the arts, religion, and everyone else repeatedly suggest that all lives should matter. Clearly, that message already abounds in our society.

The problem is that, in practice, the world doesn’t work that way. You see the film Nightcrawler? You know the part where Renee Russo tells Jake Gyllenhal that she doesn’t want footage of a black or latino person dying, she wants news stories about affluent white people being killed? That’s not made up out of whole cloth — there is a news bias toward stories that the majority of the audience (who are white) can identify with. So when a young black man gets killed (prior to the recent police shootings), it’s generally not considered “news”, while a middle-aged white woman being killed is treated as news. And to a large degree, that is accurate — young black men are killed in significantly disproportionate numbers, which is why we don’t treat it as anything new. But the result is that, societally, we don’t pay as much attention to certain people’s deaths as we do to others. So, currently, we don’t treat all lives as though they matter equally.

Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase “black lives matter” also has an implicit “too” at the end: it’s saying that black lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying “all lives matter” is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It’s a way of dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means “only black lives matter,” when that is obviously not the case. And so saying “all lives matter” as a direct response to “black lives matter” is essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem.

When most people look at the world around them, they see only the trees; they do not see the forest that is there. It should be obvious that God exists because of His creation, not only us humans, but the world we live in, the galaxy that world is in, and the universe that the galaxy is in.

It makes no difference what I think.  

I am only trying to clarify the underlying and substantive issue, because I don't care one rat's ass about you spewing polemic about some evil Republican religious knuckled dragging degenerates because you, sir, are no exemplary example of Enlightened and Progressive Humans, at least judging from past posts.  You are not the one standing up against anything, but simply coming along behind those who have done so, babbling, one voice in an ocean of babboons, one might say.

Let's here what your votes are on the two issues cited.

Well, you see....we are pretty much in agreement on ALL OF THAT.  Now comes the difficult part.
*****

THE PRIVATE ISSUE:
Someone has a moral and ethical disagreement with a law, and is willing to stand up against it, in spite of possibly grave personal consequences (jail, public ridicule, etc).

HERO OR VILLAIN?
I say, as long as it's a non-violent protest, HERO.
That goes for MARIHUANA, IMMIGRATION, MARRIAGE.  And countless other issues.

THE PUBLIC ISSUE:
Public officials have a moral and ethical disagreement with a law (for now let's say it that way, the reality is often they are pushed in a direction by political pressures) and they enforce law selectively, and choose whom to punish selectively.

HERO OR VILLAIN?
I say VILLAIN. 
That goes for MARIHUANA, IMMIGRATION, MARRIAGE.  And countless other issues.

You can't even logically process your own bias. The court said the paper signed was valid. "Bone picking" has nothing to do with it, unless it was a political move by the gay couple, not based on #lovewins. There is no need to go any further. They are married. The Scarlet Letter will be on the face of the gay couple forever because they wrote that Scarlet Letter themselves, accepting to be a farce for all the world to see, a martyr for others like them to be free from people like davis, and send her to jail.

They should accept their martyrdom fully and be happy, forever and never.

Why pick on religion?  Is it somehow unique from other personal beliefs?

Let's NOT ENFORCE the federal law on IMMIGRATION and BORDERS.

Let's NOT ENFORCE the federal law on MARIHUANA.

FUCK YEAH, let's slap it to those religious bigots WHO WANT TO DISOBEY THE FEDERAL LAW.

Are you guys insane?

Look can we just have some honesty here?

You see something okay in Fed enforcing the marriage thing, but not in them enforcing the weed law?  

So who gets to pick and choose when and to whom to apply "law" to?

Leaving aside for the moment that this constitutes the very reverse of law, who?

No hiding behind vague slogans please.

Then... The gays has no rights to force her to re-sign a document that is perfectly legal, and already signed and 100% valid. Would you agree with that?

So does State trump Federal when you want it to (weed) but Federal trumps State when you want that to (Marriage)?

that's some screwed up thinking there.   Really there are no principles involved here at are, are there?  It's all about I want what I want and it's my right to get it my way and screw you.  I am able to change my opinion here if you can present a logical method to show why your approach doesn't just mean no principles, and no rule of law.