Can pretty much make up for a good movie about deception and human stupidity cramped up in a single Hollywood film. Kidding aside, this is a next-level exit scam strategy if you ask me, and would likely not end if the owner really died. What's questionable though is how things are arranged perfectly right before his death. Is he anticipating his own death right before it comes? Because if he did, it's absolutely strange.

To reduce blocksize as these information also consumes spaces within each block, at least that's what I see it. If this is to be implemented, imagine all the extra bits a transaction might have which could possibly lead to a full block which have less transactions than usual. Also, deleting the old blocks in a blockchain isn't a 'blockchain' any more without this integral part, so there's that.

Idk whether the CEO's death is legitimate or not, but as far as I can tell, the turn of events doesn't seem to be doing any justice to what has happened to the funds. This could be another exit strategy but also a daring one if you'd ask me. At the first few days of the incident, short dumps may occur, but like any other hacks/funds disappearance on exchanges, this will be forgotten, too.

As for bitcoin's scarcity, it just adds up to the lost coins, but we'll never know how much is really lost as there are no definite ways of finding it.

Not new, this has been talked about since Feb 2018. Many people have pointed out that the dumping dates made by the trustee caused a lot of following dumps which resulted to the ultimate crash of 2018. I don't think we should ponder on this event for too much as no matter how many questions were thrown at the trustee, he simply wouldn't admit what he did (and he can't be prosecuted for that, too). Besides, $17k per se is already unsustainable, so what do other people think about $19k?

This is true not only on stocks or cryptocurrencies but also on other aspects in life. Warren Buffet has all the experiences he needs to influence and help other people in starting out their own ventures. While the man is a known critic of cryptocurrencies, citing that they bring 'no value to the table,' he still deliver some great knowledge on investing and handling investments as well. He might not know it but bitcoin is also facing similar events that happen on stocks and bonds, albeit the former experiencing these things quite often. Nevertheless, Warren Buffet is someone to be respected, and his words are applicable to crypto whether he likes it or not.

$2700, as $800 seem to be a bit too extreme for the current market conditions, though even the former seem to be somewhat far-fetched today. Right now, I'm commencing my buys whenever the price reaches $3300, just to at least average down my buys which started @ $6000 at the latter part of 2018. It's a pain, I know, but somehow I still believe that this market will still recover. Whenever I have the spare cash, I buy, I hold and just hope for the best.

That's where multi-sig wallets come in handy, but if one man don't trust his mates in sharing the part of a the password for unlocking the cold storage, then there really is a problem. First off, this is not his personal funds that we're talking about, but the funds of many other people trading on the platform. Second, he has a chronic, lifelong disease that could severely attack him at any given moment, so why wouldn't he created some sort of a backup plan for this? Lastly, why create and sign your will 2 weeks before the incident? Seems fishy but hey, we'll never know the true story after all!

Being proactive helps, and similar to what you have done, my local pub now accepts bitcoin and ETH for the drinks. A few drunken conversations with the owner plus some sober, straightforward exchange of ideas led him to consider integrating bitcoin and ETH payments on his shop. At first he was quite hesitant knowing that there isn't a wide market for cryptocurrencies, but after convincing him that cryptos are not his goods but his drinks and service and crypto is just a payment/investment if he so do wish, he thought about it and QR codes are just at the counter if someone wants to pay for crypto. While services and big companies are on their own when deciding for these kind of things, do remember that it's us, the consumers, who are the primary reasons why they are doing some shits and stuff to their brand.

Within the country, I don't see any substantial or intrusive fees within my banking ventures and transactions, so there's that--however, they are charging $0.26/withdrawal no matter the amount, which is fine by me as I rarely withdraw cash from my account. International wire transfer fees ranges from $25 - $100, depending on the amount, and this is understandable knowing that there are several banking networks that need some form of inter-connectivity with each other to process payments and fees usually go to that middleman. Anyway, there are also maintenance fees that the bank collects every quarter, and even if your account is idle, they'd still take $5 from your account to cover up for the said costs. This gets a huge chunk of money for the banks, and I think that is where they get most of their profits from, knowing how many people are signed up with them. All profits usually go the banks, at least here in the Philippines.

And this might again, cause an outrage over anti-bitcoiners thinking that bitcoin is designed to support terrorists instead of doing something good for the people. Good thing though that they aren't receiving that much support in bitcoin, though we don't know how much are they receiving in fiat deposits since the trail over that medium is somewhat tricky for people to follow. Anyway, this just goes to show that any form of money and currency is subject to evil and nefarious use, so this shouldn't be surprising in any way.

People calling themselves prominent in the field of cryptocurrency are probably the ones who aren't really that versed or know almost nothing on the said field. Also, analysts only bank on other analysts' prediction, so it's not uncommon to see a plethora of same predictions on different websites and sources. $1000 is a possibility, but not gonna happen in the next few months if bitcoin proves its ground on where it's at right now.

The lesson everyone should have grasped on this recent bear market is that no one should ever buy when everyone is cheering and celebrating the rewards they've gotten with bitcoin. It should be common knowledge by now that during the phase of hysteria, many people are already considering on selling their coins, so it's best to avoid buying in while everyone else's minds are already on buying out of the trend. Also, it's better to buy in and average down the prices while you can as it will help you get a better and lower entry point, thus helping you get better profit margins.

Platforms can be created and developed, and people will be supporting such platforms if they know how to operate and know how to tend to the needs of the community, and perhaps some extra suggestions might take the cake as well. There aren't any monopoly on exchanges as people's preference will still matter in the end. Any exchanges can get big depending on how they market and offer themselves to the public, so if the exchange you're referring to offered something new, something innovative and something that people will like, who knows, maybe it's the next big thing?

They won't do this, or perhaps they can find a way to circumvent such regulations if this is to be implemented. The illegal arms trade is profitable for countries and arms dealers, so why would they do something that could potentially hinder their profit stream? This is an interesting thought, though sadly this wouldn't come into realization as the arms industry is just focused on making their wallets heavy and not really the safety of their consumers and the concerned parties.

Since most of the states are treating bitcoin and other crypto as assets and commodities, perhaps you can say that this bill is passed in relation to avoiding tax, but then again this might not be the reason at all. Wyoming is one of the most boring, perhaps 'nonexistent' on some people from other parts of the world but it's a start nonetheless. While not much data can be obtained from this move from the people of Wyoming, we still can see the real world effects of using bitcoin and crypto on real world scenarios.

If the trade agreement is truly mutual and both parties really agree on the terms, I can say that the EU can learn a thing or two from Japan which is known for its stance on cryptocurrency. Most EU countries are not that friendly towards bitcoin, while some are really open about accepting it all the while imposing crazy taxes on capital gains made through bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, so I guess this is a perfect opportunity for the regulators to speak with each other and exchange strategies on handling cryptocurrencies.

I don't think we are 'abusing' decentralization and anonymity, it's just that there are some gullible people who fall into such traps that often leads to scams and empty wallets. Bitcoin might have been used as a medium for money laundering and other illegal stuff, but it still fulfills its purpose to become a tool to help people get financial freedom. In any society you'll go, for as long as there is this thing called 'money' and 'currency,' expect that there'd be people exploiting some loopholes and abusing the system just so they can get the money out of other people's hands.

I'm a generic board regular, though I always find myself lurking in the Developmental and Technical Discussion, alongside Bitcoin Technical Support and never post a reply since I know I don't know that much compared to other users and I'm just trying to read as much as I can to at least know what to do if a rare case happens to me and my client.

On the wee hours of the day if I have the time, I only report and never post anything, though I find it hilarious seeing multiple replies with the same thought being rehashed into different words over, and over, and over again. Idk, aside from the hilarity that I found on these generic boards, I also found some interesting albeit somewhat nonsense topics like this one which appeared very recently.



Exactly this.

LOL at these guys talking schmuck about bitcoin while harnessing the technology behind the said cryptocurrency. If they are to use the similar concept of the blockchain on their payment systems, it's like they are somewhat admitting that bitcoin is superior albeit being harsh about it to look like dominant/supreme/they don't care about bitcoin at all. For sure, the blockchain tech will bring a lot of innovation and changes in the current financial system, but so does bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

JPMorgan seems to be the household name for scumbags that uses your tools but discredit you for what you're worth.

This is what will happen in the coming days; crypto-exchanges asking for more invasive and in-depth KYC requirements in compliance with their governments' orders. It already started here in the Philippines when a local exchange asked for details like source of funds and other in-depth stuff regarding a user's capability to buy, hold and sell cryptocurrencies which to me is just scary. Decentralized exchanges could be the way to go, but I'm pretty sure that even such platforms would be invaded by the governments' regulations and laws.


Day by day, it seems like cryptocurrencies are slowly being stripped off of its identity. Governments wanting to remove the anonymity aspect of crypto for it to be totally transparent is not a good thing. Off-chain scaling is a solution proposed to give the main 'highway' of transactions breathing room, albeit the main 'highway' not really being congested at all times. LN could go, but bitcoin's anonymity shouldn't (not that I'm against LN, but apparently bitcoin is fine without it.)