Shouldn't be much of a problem anymore, considering that this has been discussed countless of times inside and outside the forum. There was also an issue regarding bitcoin.com posting an ad about "bitcoin" only for users to be redirected on the trading pair of USD/BCH. Anyway, at this point people may have already known about the difference. Besides, satoshi himself confirmed that he wanted .org more than the .com domains, considering that a lot of web domain speculators might have snatched up the name already anyway.

All of the above-mentioned obstacles/hindrance for bitcoin growth is actually already being addressed. Firstly, every different country also receives/accepts different forms of money through some of their merchants, so that's already one problem solved. Next, legality is already becoming a thing of bitcoin knowing how every country is doing their best to regulate the use of bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, with some already coming up with their very own legal framework. Lastly, political, military and infotech is not even a problem that bitcoin needs to worry about considering that these things aren't really concerned, connected nor meddling with bitcoin's growth for as long as people lobby for something, especially if it's a large portion of the population we're talking about, politics will bow down and follow suit.

I think the removal of such walls is perfectly fine, although silently letting these orders out into the open without anyone taking a hint of what's happening is not good IMO. It's like allowing shady trades to occur/happen in a platform and exchanges themselves might use this in order to create fake volume. Idk but there's something eerily wrong with this IMO that it's best for exchanges to be transparent in order to not fool their peers and their traders. Instead of helping the market, it only creates an avenue to an exchange for nefarious activities.

So in other words, a charity exchange platform wherein the operators wouldn't get anything in return and those who are pretty much using the platform since the beginning will have higher loyalty perks than those with traders who trade in with high volume but shorter time? I think the reward system would be chaotic, and the setup is pretty much like a cooperative platform wherein the community chimes in a percent of work done and receiving the dividends/profits after. It would be a nice system if it would be done for charity but for a business model? I don't think it will play out pretty well.

This third-party service is asking a third-party to hold the funds for them. In the event of loss of funds due to hacks and whatnot, I'm afraid coin owners and users will have a pretty hard time determining who to run after, as I'm pretty sure both services will point fingers once they are on the said situation. The 'legit' services fucking up hard are pretty much rare, but in matters concerning cryptocurrencies, it's pretty much commonplace thinking that they can get away with such carelessness.

As for OP, I don't think it's even best to think about leaving funds on a site with no assurance that they are insured to the teeth just to take 6% interest per annum. I'd assess the risks and pretty much check whether there are other places in which I can take my money for less risks and for more control rather than leaving it there and hoping for the best.

Judging from the fact that not every prospective customers of a service really checks out bitcointalk, or get to really sift through tons of pages on topics, as a customer myself of various services, honestly I don't click directly to the ads/signature that appear beneath the post of a person that said something good; I go straight to the user's profile and check their post history in order to see how well the said user understands bitcoin and its other concepts. Idk, perhaps it's just me doing that, but knowing how much traffic this forum gets everyday, placing signatures on users profile is practically the easiest and fastest way to attract potential customers.


This gets me every time. If I see a fancy-looking ad that intrigues me, I immediately click on it and read further regarding the said ad, or the service that the ad promotes. I think it's embedded to the psyche of every person to get fascinated and intrigued by something visually-appealing and mesmerizing.

As for the stats of whether a signature campaign really is successful or not, see how long services keep their campaign to get a better view of how well they are receiving traffic due to the said campaign. I've been on the Chipmixer campaign for almost 2 years now, and still going strong.

Switzerland has been the center for bitcoin development and acceptance for the past few years until they lagged behind other countries such as Japan and South Korea. Though we never heard a lot of groundbreaking news from Switzerland regarding bitcoin since 2016, knowing how the country is home to innovative fintech and other great ideas, they have always been open regarding bitcoins and cryptocurrencies. Their biggest online retail chain accepting bitcoin and cryptos wholly is just a prime example of how open the Swiss are when it comes to bitcoin and crypto, and they are also doing the right thing, too, by letting a retail store accept crypto for people to spend their money to. We need more adoption happening in terms of merchants integrating crypto and not just platforms for investors and traders that makes bitcoin more of an asset and less of what its intended use is.

I'm not sure about this as the messaging app has less than 60M concurrent users every month, and only a limited part of the Southeast Asian region really utilizes the said app (popular in Singapore, Malaysia and SoKor, if I'm not mistaken) for everyday use. Integrating a crypto wallet into something that people uses everyday is a great start, no matter how few or how many the users are. They will get curious and it will spark their interests even further, causing a surge in searches for the term and possibly, surge in investors. A good move, I'd say, though I don't think the change or effect would be substantial/

Similar movements in the market have been spotted on the wee months of 2016, continuing up until the height of the bull run in Dec 2017 until it's blow off. These kind of movements, as was evidenced from past graphs, tell us something about the present market condition. Basically, these movements signify a bull run intensifying from afar, although again, "past graphs don't paint the similar picture for future events" so again, this will not be applicable to the current market that we are in.

I'm as optimistic as you when it comes to market movements, although we have seen similar things formations in the past that didn't ring true to what it usually translates.

Of course, even if everyone tells the same thing about investing, one should still follow what their guts say and always practice due diligence on what they're doing, especially when it involves risking your money in exchange for profits. On the scenario that you've given, I don't think that everyone on their sane mind would even consider buying into a coin that's already reached its peak, especially in a sphere wherein most coins are being pumped and dumped on the regular. Even if March wanted to hold the coins only for a month, during that time the top may have already blown itself off and instead of profits, March may not see profits but rather chase losses in the end.

I don't think they are fully endorsing cryptocurrencies immediately after releasing a press statement regarding their plans on the launch of their own coin. I'm still skeptical about JP Morgan's position in the cryptosphere as they--or should I say their CEO--are still on a badmouthing spree concerning bitcoin and crypto in general. For now, let them launch their own coin first and see whether after positive public perception, they will get their heads turned around for real for the first time, but I highly doubt that.

Only things I wouldn't consider buying secondhand are hard drive and flash drives, the rest can do. Mouse, I definitely wouldn't buy secondhand as for the macro buttons and it is somewhat programmable and can store data--and obviously for hygiene purposes. The rest cannot easily be programmable or require deep technical understanding to store data/malware (CPU, RAM and gfx cards) so i'm good in buying them. For monitors, it isn't programmable AFAIK, so it's also good in buying them.

They prolly would need some documents proving your ownership of the coins, otherwise text conversation wouldn't prove anything but rather a wasted effort. Also, AFAIK they wouldn't be reimbursing the whole amount in BTC but rather in USD (or so I've heard) so at best, people would be receiving their money in bank deposits. Try to look up whether you have some screenshots of your balance on Gox. That could save you, somehow.


I agree. Not everyone takes a screencap of their balances so a regular account overview/statement sent through email is really, really nice.

Introduction of a paid service that, IMO should have already been included in LN is somewhat a Biggus Dickus move. Lightning Labs is like the EA of crypto industry: you can't get the full feature, you have to buy our DLC for exclusive content and better access. As I understand, the Loop is like a 24/7 terminal wherein the channel never closes, and passengers can keep on coming without delaying the time of departure (please correct me on this). If so, this is creating a central hub in which hackers and malicious users could target, and could therefore result into different errors and failures that could potentially lead to lost funds. This is not a good move, Lightning Labs.

Try Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase who has been bad-mouthing bitcoin ever since it boomed on the media and all other outlets. He was practically a sworn anti-bitcoin lad since his statements are basically detracting bitcoin in any way possible, yet bitcoin managed to do the impossible and get an ATH of $19k while he kept on shouting bad things about bitcoin. Ultimately, his company is now creating their own cryptocurrency for what ever purpose they see fit, which, to me, is like sucking bitcoin's dick acquiescently.

As if most people don't know about this already. The Chinese exchanges were the most notorious platforms when it comes to faking volumes. Not that I'm generalizing it but just look at the orders and market depth at a given time and look at their stats on their own site and CMC. Since 2016, people knew about OKCoin's practice of manipulating displayed volume in order to get a lot of customers into thinking that liquidity is darn buttery-smooth in there, but apparently it isn't.

I mean at this day and age, what exchange do you expect to not fake the volumes anyway? Everyone did it at some point in time.

Binance has been pretty much a great app for me in the past few days that I'm tinkering around and working on with it. Some app like the Kucoin trading app which I have used somewhat crashes when trading activities go over the roof and a lot of orders are placed and fulfilled at the same time, whereas in the binance trading app, never had it crashed once on me even if the transactions kept on coming and orders are literally going through the roof. Btw, I'm using the same phone that I used on Kucoin (Galaxy S6 Edge) so it's not the device that has the problem, IMO.

The charts have painted a pretty good picture for the past few weeks, and if it's telling us something, it's that we're in for some surprises in the coming months. Overall volume for the whole market has increased without any significant change in the price, which is still bound to $3600 - $4000. If anything, it tells me that people are already accumulating silently while letting the unknowing ones think that this is just normal fluctuation on the daily volumes.

Freedom is a vital component of bitcoin, given that the very nature of the said network is decentralized. Everyone gets the job done and does what everyone needs to do without the need to look at what everyone else is doing while reaching a consensus at some point if the community needs to decide for an important matter. In a real-world society setup, the ruling party doesn't always ensure that everyone is happy and everyone agrees.


Knowing that the whole setup is completely decentralized and not everyone is being affected by a single party, I believe it's okay to hardfork at a 95% agreement, 6% to veto the process if and only if the whole network is fully decentralized. If it isn't, I wouldn't be okay with that as anyone with a large number of miners can simply do as they please and halt progress that the majority of the community wants to have. As for softforks, so long as they are still following the general protocol, it's fine if they don't want to upgrade as again, freedom is a vital part of bitcoin.


Going back to real-world scenarios, you don't expect a 100% vote onto something as other people will still have different opinions and POVs regarding a very important matter. Bitcoin is a decentralized network, and not one single party can ever urge the whole network to vote for their agenda no matter how 'perfect' and how well-planned that agenda is. The majority rule in a decentralized network, I believe, is the perfect approach for consensus, and the 95% agreement 6% veto setup is already fair enough for the whole community.


It isn't immoral, IMO as it's just preserving the integrity of the data being stored, transferred, and relayed within the network. That's why consensus should be reached first before moving forward towards a new different client (if that's the case). Freedom is a vital component of the bitcoin network but then again, it is not the only component that makes the network strong.


I cannot speak for this as I don't and won't have a plan to setup a full node unless I have my own miners and a large array of spare hard drives and computers in my arsenal.


At times, yes, I believe that Core dev team is somewhat in control of what happens in the bitcoin network. People have the options to go around and explore what version of bitcoin do they think will be beneficial to them, but since bitcoin is where the money's at and where most people dwell, the question of who controls what in the code somewhat became political, up to an extent that it's not about bitcoin anymore but rather about who should be in control of making code changes. If bitcoin never reached this big, I wonder if we will still be having some questions on who replaces what on the code or whether we'll have a talk on who the devs are, at all.

I like SegWit's idea of trying to relieve/alleviate the stress on the nodes and cramming more transactions in a block compared to the previous LBTC code, but do we really have to resort to another network in order to solve the scaling problem that we've been bothered since early 2014? For what purpose does the main chain of bitcoin serve if we are just going to load most transactions at the LN? I don't think bitcoin getting 'too expensive' is a problem in bettering the code for the way it handles data. It should 'scale' if we want it to compete against other payment processors (Paypal, Visa, etc.) without relying on a third-party service that also asks for fees in exchange of using their platform.