A pretty theoretical and trivial question at best. If our experts fail to get a read on the price for the next couple of months or so, how would one be able to distinguish the price a hundred years from now? Assuming that the world hasn't gone to shit due to political pettiness and the hunger for power and money, it should be big, just totally big since by then, the world must have accepted bitcoin and is being widely used anywhere in the world. I can't quite give an estimated figure, but should the global economy that we have right now is the same as 2136, my guess is it's somewhere in the $100k-$1M range.

You see, it's easy to pull of numbers out of thin air if you really don't know or have no clue of what's to happen a century away from you.

I usually get inputs from other traders and use that as a basis of my trading ventures, though I don't solely rely on those alone. I also have my own strategies formulated over time, but it never is a pain to look at someone's prediction of what's to come and weigh whatever is more plausible and reasonable. Oftentimes, our gut feeling really helps, but that alone IMO isn't a sufficient basis for monetary/financial decisions as they are not guaranteed correct 100% of the time. You might kick yourself in the process while saying "I told you so" when you turn out right, but then again, deductive reasoning and pure logic is still far superior than just gut feeling alone.

As someone who has been around for 4 years, I'd say that bull runs aren't really the center of this ecosystem but the changes it might bring to what we currently have/use. Sure it isn't always sunny for the traders, but it somehow promotes a connotation that the crypto markets are nothing but cows that are always ready to be milked with cash which I think is wrong and may lead to empty pockets and heavy losses. Besides, if one is really a good trader, would he/she need a bull run in order to profit? I think not.

Perhaps some (well, most) of the cryptocurrencies sprouting nowadays are just money-grab opportunities for the devs and their teams. It has slowly turned into Ponzi scheme for these crypto but bitcoin still hasn't lost its identity yet, as it can still be used into a lot of transactions and still carry a significant value that is enough to keep it as an asset for most people. Good thing though that the governments are intervening and are proposing several types of regulations to address this concern, and so far it has been effective especially on places wherein fake ICOs plagued the markets already.

This is also happening ironically even at the poorest countries. Even though banks know that their clients don't have much in their savings, they still ask for a ludicrous amount for 'maintenance' even though there's really nothing to maintain anyway, or can be done even at the lowest of rates. That's why it's hard to choose a bank--or to just use banks in general--that will not rip you off of your savings. Instead of saving something for the rainy days, they are slowly, silently and legally taking your money away from you.

Volatility is the primary culprit I see why there's a huge number of people not wanting to have their money involved with bitcoin, or get paid with bitcoin in exchange for their services and/or merchandise. Also, the association of bitcoin with illegal entities and activities may have also affected the perception of people with the said cryptocurrency as they fear that they might get in trouble if ever they meddled with it. These factors are the ones I can think of that strongly changes the opinion of a person with bitcoin, though there are lots of other reasons a person might have why they avoid using or getting associated with the said currency.

The industrial scale integration of blockchain, IMO, would definitely attract a wave of new hopefuls, especially programmers and build yet another market for another environment. Only a few are certified blockchain devs who really know what they're doing, thus creating a higher market value for them with a high demand on the industrial side. Perhaps in the near future we'll see blockchain-related courses on universities if the demand continues to increase.

It has become an investment vehicle more than a tool that is replacing fiat. Almost all regulations covering cryptocurrencies are also related on it being an asset/investment rather than a transactional currency, so not much has changed. Price wise, it has changed drastically, though I think it's an improper metric to gauge whether bitcoin has become successful or not.

Overall, I'd say bitcoin changed for the better, at least when comparing it to 1014 market conditions.

It's quite unusual that even at this day and age, with a lot of techniques and new practice on safeguarding a platform, hackers are still able to get through even with the robust of security systems. I wonder how tight their security are and what their system admins do for the hackers to still find a vulnerability on the platform. Also, this stresses the age-old question of whether to keep your funds in an exchange or not, and the answer is laid right before our eyes every time a theft occurs.

Another Linux elitist. This is easily preventable if the user don't really play with torrents and keep it clean on their computer, doing regular scans and avoiding downloading on direct links, especially on websites that are plagued with ads that would surely contain adware/malware on the side. I keep my games, downloaded files, and a lot more stuff in the same computer but I haven't encountered any such thing, not even once.

And I'm running Windows, and you should understand that not all are familiar with the UI of Linux.

That is, again, based on a certain model and these projections are calculated based on an ideal setup wherein everything is measured up to the last decimal. We cannot really do that in bitcoin, and the current economy is somewhat hazy. Everyone can give their opinion of what bitcoin's fair value is, though the market will always dictate and decide what the value will be. Also, these numbers seem to have been pulled somewhere in thin air. Austrian economics, IMO, isn't really applicable anymore to bitcoin knowing how much government intervention and capitalist involvement is already in place.

Those who doubt bitcoin due to the price performance are just in it for the money, and probably are the ones who bought in when the price is still high and are now trapped and can't get their money out. Developments are happening within the ecosystem albeit some companies resizing their workforce and restructuring their organization due to the decline in price. Institutional investors are eyeing bitcoin and crypto more than ever, so there's that. Code-wise, we are still receiving consistent updates from developers even though they already have millions in their pockets. Let the doubters doubt.

I don't think a single company who has decided to restructure its operations has the capacity to spell doom for bitcoin and the whole of the cryptocommunity. It would be a different case if they are to shut down and leave the community behind. It's a huge loss, but then the network and economy itself is already big to sustain the loss of a mining giant. Steep crashes might happen, but eventually bitcoin will find its footing and set sail for greater heights, again.

It is always the time to buy bitcoin, especially if you intend to keep it for the next 2 yrs or so. We might be in a bear market now but do note that it does not take forever before we can recover, and 2-3 yrs is already an enough time for the market to recover. As for the ETF, if the SEC really wanted to approve that, they would have done it by now, or at least a few months ago yet they keep on delaying, which, to me, suggests that they really don't want it in the first place.

Now I'm curious as to how much is 'too much' for the central banks. Of course they'd be hopping onto the bitcoin train once it reaches serious levels--levels that could compete with gold--and by then we would see how much does a single country  really have in their arsenal while everyone else is busy thinking that the governments don't want anything related to bitcoin. Most countries would surely want to get a 'head start' against other countries in talks of owning more coins in reserves, and we will see how aggressive policies will be on certain countries and confiscation of bitcoin assets would probably be rampant all over.

I'm also currently residing in the Philippines, but for the most parts of the year, I live in Canada. Tbh, one of the most reputable exchanges in there did a pretty great deal of bridging the gap between the Filipino people and bitcoin in general, though I must admit that most Filipinos are still seeing bitcoin as a ponzi scheme and a get-rich-quick scheme, which is quite saddening. Coins.ph also does a great job in being a concierge with bills payment and buying e-load and whatnot, and I must applaud how their customer service remain top notch even after all these years.

Those who own that 'unlimited' supply of money you're talking about wouldn't want to mess up with bitcoin. If they do, they've done it a long time. Also, another question is if people would be wanting to sell their bitcoins in the market. Sure, with hundreds of trillions of money printed around the world can buy the supply, fiat can easily buy bitcoins no question. Assume that all bitcoins were bought, then what now? A new system would probably been floating around by then, and do you think these same people who bought all the bitcoins would likely buy the new system tokens all over again? No. They'd rather keep their money safe and sound than spend it all on bitcoin alone.

I'd cling more on the market's sentiment which will cause the poor performance of the cryptomarket in 2019. Most people won't buy into a mess when there are no definite signals available anywhere; they need some sort of assurance that their money isn't going to a waste. As for the developments happening within the ecosystem, I'm pretty sure that most people are just waiting for Bakkt to launch and that's pretty much their signal in buying (that is if it gets approved, he he), but for now, everything is mere speculation and assumption by us.

45% on stocks and commodities combine during a recession? No, I guess I'll take a larger share for crypto and real-estate investments rather than invest anything on stocks during a recession. Perhaps I might consider buying in on stocks when the carnage is at its maximum peak, when almost everyone had already sold, but not during the early stages of a recession. I'll hold cash but only to get me by for a year or two, the rest would be on crypto and real-estate. It's a gamble and I have never really experienced the full-blown effects of recession (I was only living with my parents during the 2008 crash) but I think I might be OK in staying away from traditional assets that is associated with fiat.

How can one gauge or measure how many bitcoins are already lost? The figures that you see on articles and websites were only a guesstimate based on the current circulating bitcoins, active wallets against the total minted coins. It's a useless metric if you ask me, considering that there is no clear-cut way of finding out if bitcoins were really lost or it's just a cold storage of some dude who basically don't want to use the coins until a certain amount of time.