Well to be fair, just about every business has had to adopt with the boom of technology. They all have online presence, and are increasingly adapting to consumers' shift to e-commerce. Banks will simply have to adapt like the rest of them, and they seem to be pulling it off. The dude who mentioned the term "extinction phase" simply highlighted the need to keep up with the times.


I would say so, but it's going to be a (very) minor factor. Investment banks seemed to be looking into the market some time ago so I'm sure sustained interest from the mainstream will lead to them pulling the trigger. In any case, the rise of crypto doesn't seem like an immediate threat to them.

As much as I think that this is a non-issue, the article did raise a very legitimate concern: it's going to make foreign interference easier. But then again, that's already illegal as far as I know, so they could easily use Bitcoin whether it's deemed legal or not, so it's probably completely irrelevant.

But yeah I don't think crypto being involved in politics is necessarily a bad thing. It's just money at the end of the day, and it could be more transparent and actually completely public, compared to traditional cash flow.

They still can't trick legitimate nodes into accepting bogus transactions, so no. This is called a Sybil Attack. I have no idea if altcoins have been attacked this way, but it has never happened to Bitcoin as far as I know. The only way to really attack it is a 51% attack, which would be incredibly difficult to pull off.

Yep, they also have insurance to cover losses. What I was saying is that this should extend unto any custodial services they might be planning on the future. This way, there would be a legitimate advantage in storing cryptos in bank over a personal wallet. It kind of doesn't make sense for them to keep keys and not touch the money though, unless it's a paid service.

But yeah, it's just a patent at the moment, which really isn't anything more than exclusive rights to an idea.

Lol he's probably tired of being asked about it. He's even being asked about doing a 180 or whatever. I'd be just as blunt if I were him. It's true that he's being painted as a crypto antagonist, too, which he might actually deserve, but I get his frustration.

But yeah his opinion stopped mattering after the market stopped caring. Seems like people won't stop until he acknowledges Bitcoin, which baffles me, but that's not going to happen until Bitcoin is actually too big to ignore for their finances.

It's going to have to be based on patterns and charts, and analysts can do that on their own while adjusting for certain variables that machines can't. Basically, it's going to be even worse than predictions by technical analyses, which are already shaky to begin with.

But hey, if you manage to create one that works well, you're going to be rich, provided you don't share it with anyone else lol.

Why not indeed, but we haven't really reached a point where any alt can take over yet. Would you really be comfortable storing money into an obscure coin that you believe can outlive Bitcoin? Until you can comfortably do that, your money is safest in Bitcoin, and Bitcoin alone, as far as the crypto market is concerned.

It's true that there's a small correlation between them, but the nosedive in the stock market didn't necessarily reflect on Bitcoin this time. Bitcoin's drop isn't as drastic (could even be small enough to be considered normal movement), and came a few days after. I don't think there's any manipulation as far as their correlation is concerned.

Did you mean movement for the last two months will determine how Bitcoin will behave next year? But yeah I personally don't think there will be any drastic movements until next year (and maybe midway into it, even). People keep talking about bull runs, but it currently feels like the $6k support breaking is more likely. I hope I'm wrong, but we'll see I suppose.

Either way, I'd say it's probable that speculators are just hodling, at least as far as Bitcoin is concerned. I seriously don't think they'd be leaving the market entirely just because of low stability.

Bitcoin can still do that, and people certainly use it as such. I'm sure he'd at least think that some of the services are unnecessary (especially stuff like Bitpay), but for as long as Bitcoin has that capability, he'd probably be satisfied.


I don't think it's as much the governments' requirements as it is actual users'. These services exist because there is demand for them; people don't use them because governments tell them to. People can give up a lot for convenience.

Is this what you're talking about?

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/17/bitcoin-above-7000.html

Kind of old news, but services like this are only really useful until Bitcoin can scale in my opinion. Why go through third-party services when you can transact directly, right?

Either way, this is only a patent. This doesn't mean that they're guaranteed to push the idea through. They could simply be sitting on it to stop competitors from going ahead.

This is exactly why any such manifesto is unnecessary lol. If everyone creates their own, then there's no point. There's no need to get everyone to conform to a single standpoint either -- that's the point of decentralization.

If they ever go this route, I imagine they'd offer a deposit insurance. Either way, if they offer this as a service, they should be liable for any losses. There's really no point otherwise.

But yeah, whoever thought that banks would just roll over and die once crypto makes it big is lying to themselves. They're going to be able to find ways to adapt, just like every other business that tries to survive.

Yes, but the thing is, every other coin would go extinct before Bitcoin would. I mean, do you honestly see a scenario where Bitcoin dies but Ethereum lives on? The market follows its movements, so its death would also mean the market's death. Holding Bitcoin alone is just about the safest position you could be in in the cryptocurrency market.

They may be able to weed out exchanges looking to scam, but the power to enforce that may also be abused to kill competitors.

I honestly don't think regulations can completely prevent hackings. Security can probably be improved by enforcing strict protocols that make it hard to pull off inside jobs, but there's really not much that can be done against external threats. We don't even know how hackings take place because they rarely publicize the information.

Either way, this is a victory for the Japanese crypto community. If nothing else, this implies that state regulators will be easing their foot off the gas a little.

Why would you need to brute force a private key for cryptography analysis? Simple math should say that this is nearly impossible to do. There's little analysis or research involved.

If you're trying to find out ways to crack a private key other than brute forcing, you're going to be very disappointed.

Are you talking about diversifying? Like, spreading your money across different assets so you can be protected when one tanks? That concept doesn't exist in the crypto market. The market follows Bitcoin's movement, so there's no point holding different coins for the sake of diversification. It would probably be safest to hold just Bitcoin, even.

It's always possible for Bitcoin to disappear, but it's very unlikely at this point. Alts have a much, much higher risk of disappearing.

What people really mean when they complain about stagnation or lack of excitement is that growth is stagnant. People have gotten used to the crazy growth last year and so they think price growth is a given. I expect even more of these to pop up around December lol.


If that's true, you can grow your holdings by selling now then using all that money to buy at a cheaper price later on. Not saying that you should, but if you really expect that to happen, why not right?

Visa's CEO actually very recently said that they would be willing to get in the middle of cryptocurrency payments should the demand be large enough. There's really no ideological reason for them not wanting to be involved in crypto, they simply just don't think they can make money off it yet. Nothing they decide on this issue will be set in stone.

But yeah, try Googling banks and blockchain and read up on the subject. They have quite the love affair. One thing that must be stressed is that blockchains aren't necessarily related to cryptocurrencies.

It's in beta, and it's not quite straightforward enough to use for the average joe. It's awesome that it's working well, but people won't really care about that until they can actually use it for their daily purchases.

I'd personally say stability is a good thing. Considering that the market thrives on developments, you'd imagine lack of developments would be bad for the market, but that hasn't held true at all. The other alternative, the way I see it, is people lose interest and a sell-off occurs. I'm fine with stability lol.