It should always be irreversible and by no means a done deal once the sent button is done. However one can still divert the said transaction if it isn't confirmed yet, so the mistake can somehow be corrected within a few minutes, so people should be keen on the details of their transactions. As for thefts and fraud, I can say that the irreversible nature of tx somewhat pushes people to better their security and the way they keep funds. It's a double-edged sword, but certainly a good thing since it urges people to take extra caution in handling their money in order to prevent hacks and thefts.

In order to negate bad press, and to ensure that people will keep patronizing them. Also, the SAFU fund does not specify which 'extreme cases' is it talking about, so surely this does fall under Binance's terms for SAFU, because CZ already announced it.


1. Highly likely, as shrugging it off would make them look as if they aren't concerned for their customers' funds.
2. Could be, and a highly successful cover-up if you ask me.
3. They surely have thought this out with their legal counsel so this is out of the equation.

Philippines and Canada here. Currently I'm residing in the Philippines and there are limited ways to use your bitcoins directly, though there's one exchange that lets you buy/pay for a lot of things through their service. Just last week, I went on and dine at a resto bar somewhere in the heart of Makati and they had this kind of promotion running solely for bitcoin. Food is good, drinks are great and cheap, too. As for general merchandise, I think there's nothing around yet for such trades to happen.

They are not intentionally manipulating alt coins but rather the money is being transferred from altcoins into bitcoin simply because traders know that there will be a push.

I remember the scene from Avengers where the Hulk explains that what happens in the past cannot be changed, and if it does, the future is somewhat ruined. If the rollback is done, imagine how much damage it could do to the whole bitcoin network just for the benefit of one network. It's a good thing they are no longrr vying for such action to be done because the complications can be so severe and the damage, irrepairable.

They are different because that's how they were designed. Having said that, if the USD is also a deflationary currency (lol this will never happen), then we can see its value rising over time however that means limited control for the government. The government needs to control their money supply in order to match that of the current economic situation of the country and of the world. They'd print up more money when needed and hoard when needed, too. On the other hand, bitcoin's price is decided by speculation and optimism, causing the price to go up higher than before in every cycle that happens within its market.

And no, the USD is not faling due to crypto.

Clearly one of them expensive trades gone wrong scenarios. It's hard to know whether an address is associated to a certain persona or not by just looking at it plainly. The only thing you can do is dig information on the platform you mentioned and start from there. If there's a substantial amount involced, I guess the police can ask the said platform to divulge information and help with the proceedings. I'm sorry, but this seems to be a hard case with quite a lengthy resolution.

Next time, try to use escrows and only deal with reputable platforms to not get scammed.

This is a classic bait and switch trick, although you are not getting anything in return once you deposited money in their site, kind of like the "Nigerian Prince" scam. For those of all you newbies out there, better know this one rule in cryptoeconomy ALWAYS: KYC and verification shouldn't require you to send funds, it should only be done through email and through submitting documents required for compliance, nothing else. Don't let your greedy mind get the better of you and think of the potential profits first before thinking critically.

Perhaps the reason for this is because a lot of merchants' and people's clients are already SegWit-enabled? There's not much to analyze here if you're pointing out that those coins are transferred to SegWit addresses. It should be the standard anyway.


There aren't; they are still both bitcoins at the end of the day and tainted or not, people will still accept it as long as they can use it to buy something or for it to hold value.


No authority decides which coins are tainted and which aren't. Blockchain parsing services can have it enabled (taint analysis) on their explorers or they don't, and it's entirely their call.

This is actually not a bad idea considering that many traders have been targeted lately of physical attacks and their coins being forcefully taken from them, but then again this will go against AML and KYC regulations so I don't think any exchange would ever try to implement this. The best thing people/traders can do is just be discreet of their dealings and never tell someone that they are involved into bitcoin trading. With the rise of the number of people being beaten close to death just to get their private keys, it's best to keep your "trader identity" a secret, even to your closest circles.

Eh, one does not claim that their platform is safe when they just got hacked $40M worth of holdings. Binance is a good platform up until this point, don't get me wrong, but the recent actions of CZ, especially his statement regarding the hack suggests otherwise. Personally I would avoid trading and using the said platform in the meantime to avoid loss of funds.

Lastly, I don't support the rollback, as any sane person who knows how everything works in bitcoin would also do.

I don't think that would be much of a problem now with the maturity of LN though I must admit that only a handful in the community have actually used the said off-chain service. Anyway, as the price increases, of course, fees will also increase in respect to BTC/USD relationship plus a lot of people wanting to not miss any action during the bull run as it happens. It will get in the way for some traders that don't want to miss the even a single dollar on the transfers but certainly not going to stop the big guys from moving around funds in between platforms and wallets.

For a while they will lose their value and 'die' though I don't think they will die for good. Once bitcoin started climbing down, the capital of people will go somewhere else, and people will get back to trading alts, pumping and dumping them for a while then go back to bitcoin once it shows signs of bullish touch all over again. What happens when bitcoin starts climbing is that people trading on alts are just moving their funds on what is more profitable, and at that scenario, bitcoin is the best bet that's why the altcoin market is looking gloomy while bitcoin shines. If both fails, other assets will receive that capital and the cycle continues.

There had been a lot of articles that perused that similar graph/picture that comes with your OP, so it's hard to pinpoint a single article as a reference. Anyway, your assumption is pretty much supported by historic charts, just look it up over the internet and you'll see that the cycle ends up higher than the previous cycle it was in. This time, however will be harder to know whether the next ATH will be higher than the 2017 one, knowing that it will take a lot more firepower to get this rocket surpassing $20k and higher.

That is why one must be discreet in order to not get eyed on and later robbed when the moment is opportune. Keeping a low profile and not shouting to everyone that you have a huge bitcoin/crypto holding is possibly the only way to not get robbed physically. A great internet habit such as not visiting malicious and questionable sites is also recommended too. If bitcoin can be taken from us virtually, how sure are we that we won't get held for it at gunpoint?

Stay discreet, stay low and stay safe.

I can assure you, this has nothing to do with Binance buying up bitcoin with Tether, and it does not make sense since Bitfinex and not Binance has association with USDT. If anything, this is just traders following some sort of sign and feel like buying now is the right time before the price leave $5000 levels for good. No good news seem to complement with what's happening in the market right now and I think no single explanation can satisfy the question of what's happening right now.

Satoshi always envisioned bitcoin to be used on a large scale, as was evidenced by the whitepaper itself and his forum posts here on bitcointalk. He predicted that, and now it's happening. The thing is, the algorithm he placed on the blockchain at the time is somewhat lacking to handle the demand, and therefore several forks have been constantly made to address this shortcoming. A permanent solution cannot be placed within the code as the environment and conditions are always changing, that's why the code is open-sourced in order to chime in any solution that they see fit for the current situation.

Let them be, for they are making a fool of themselves and are generalizing way beyond an acceptable point. The financial sector already knows that bitcoin is one tool/currency that is good if regulated correctly, and only those people who are uninformed, misinformed and disinformed are the ones still rambling about bitcoin being the criminal's tool. I'm actually appalled that these guys don't dare see bitcoin in a different light, and fiat currency too. Well I guess some people have their own limited perspective on things and I don't blame them for that.

Most prominent members of the community, especially those who had the chance to actually converse with the real Satoshi back in the days think otherwise. IMO, this is yet another try at generating unnecessary attention and interest towards the persona that is Satoshi, hyping up the public for profits then bam! Crash and the cycle will repeat, but with a different subject matter this time.

Just another day at McAfee's office.

They are literally just wanting to make their own currency and shut down the competition as early as now. This is one of the highest level of hypocrisy: banning something that oneself will use anyway but with just their own rules, produce, and regulations. I don't blame them though if they don't want competition and they want their economy to prosper, but outright banning something that falls under the same category as the one you are planning to launch is somewhat confusing for the masses.