Reward incentives wouldn't be sufficient for the miners should the value of bitcoin stop appreciating, that is, and if governments adopt bitcoin into their financial system, whatever the role of bitcoin is, they will mine the said coin in order to keep the network alive so as to protect bitcoin in their disposal.  It's quite improbable that miners would mine at a loss, given that each batch of miners the manufacturers are selling are priced according to what the current value of bitcoin is, so the governments who are doing the hashing wouldn't really mine at a loss if the price don't stale in the long run.

Ever since the bear market started, I began studying about the past cycles of the market and how it relates to the current cycle we're in. I'll admit I'm quite a noob in trading and TA so I rarely or never comment on topics with the said subject involved, just read what other users are talking and drawing a line from that post to other resources of information to expand my knowledge. I might not be trading full-time now as I used to do a few months back, but knowing how markets work and how TA helps in some ways might help me get my feet wet on mutual funds and the local stock market scene.

Ahh yes, a banker who probably has no idea about decentralized systems and the concept of anarchy giving out his wise opinion regarding a topic he cannot grasp. These statements about bankers telling people that bitcoin is dying and isn't worthy of something just wouldn't stop. Meanwhile, on other parts of the world, institutional investors are doing things to get them a closer view of what's happening within the cryptocurrency markets, so that kinda nullifies what Hansson is talking about IMO.

So it seems that the upper echelons of the society are also into cryptocurrencies seeing how easy it is to get some money off of it. They also realize how big a platform Bakkt will be and they don't want to miss a slice of the cake that's being offered to them. I don't think Bakkt will ever open the door to the general public as they already are being backed by a lot of huge names in the finance world even before the platform goes live.

Unfortunately, those who have the means to act won't act since they are getting tons of benefits of keeping bitcoin on where it is right now. Let's face it, our collective individual efforts wouldn't get much if we only are spreading the word but not practicing what we preach, and also without the help of those with the $$$, our ideas will only remain ideas unless we put some more effort and money into it. Everyone can be as enthusiastic in getting the word out, but not everyone can make a drastic change in the current shape of the ecosystem.

Or wealth redistribution? The term 'looting' implies a negative picture for those who use bitcoin and makes those who lost their money on bitcoin appear as they're the victims of the system. Buying and using bitcoin is voluntary, and no one forces anyone to buy it and be a part of the system, so yeah, that cannot fall into the definition of looting IMO. Wealth is being redistributed everyday in different manners and forms, and bitcoin is not the only culprit I see for the 'looting' the article wants to point out.

A big chance, but I'll still go for a sideways movement for 2019 before going on to do all things crazy on 2020. The way I see it, we're just barely catching up from the horrors of the 2018 crash, and there are still a lot of things to shrug before getting on to a massive push. Institutional money might pour in @ bitcoin for this year but it will not go directly to the market just yet but rather on side channels such as the futures market and Bakkt should it get launched this year.

Blockchain =/ cryptocurrencies, so I don't see why you're talking about value when we see that blockchain's application on certain industries are a much important and related thing to talk about. It is the tech in which cryptocurrencies are dependent to to mint new coins from their systems. Most blockchain applications are coming from financial services and governments at this point in time, and we would be seeing more and more application of the said tech on more areas of the industries for years to come. Even the health industry is trying to integrate blockchain in keeping medical records as they see a potential on the tech.

That's where these global organizations come into play, manipulating the supply to treat people like shit and squeeze a lot of money out of their hands. It seems to me that these legal organizations are just syndicated crime organizations that are hiding in plain sight since governments gave them approval, power and trust to control certain things. Oil and gasoline is one of them, and they're actually doing a great job at controlling supply for global demand and to keep the price stable. If there's something amazing about these guys, that is their power to manipulate and rig things even up to the last point until such time that it cannot hold for any longer (i.e. global economic crisis).

We would probably see some unmanned exploration to Mars first before we see another bull run. Though institutional investors have already expressed their interest on bitcoin for 2019, I still don't see the market being crazy similar to what 2017 conditions were. On the fundamentals, we are still holding strong even though a lot of things really hurt in 2018. I expect more development in the ecosystem and in the code, but not much in price as most traders are still not feeling it for bitcoin and we probably haven't hit the bottom yet.

We all know that it's gonna happen, the question is how long would the system keep things afloat before the imminent crash materializes? Bankers are now conditioning people that no such recession is happening in the near future, but the people aren't buying that anymore. Somehow, the money has to flow to somewhere since people would surely love to guard their assets and avoid for it to depreciate in value at all costs while the rest of the world is burning, so cryptocurrencies and gold might be the vest hedges against this crash. The global debt is ever increasing at a rapid pace and no one would surely want to pay that.

This has been quite a talk in reddit some years ago, and I don't think this has come to fruition in any way. The talks about microchip implants has been around for decades, and the first use people suggested it for is for medical use and social identification (kinda like a national ID sort of thing) but it can also be used as a bitcoin wallet if one wishes. This solves the rather normal cases of misplacing wallets, forgetting passwords, thefts etc. that is still a huge problem for people even up to this day. If you are highly paranoid then yes, this might be the solution in keeping your wallets safe and sound, but is it worth implanting chips inside your body just to keep it 'safe'?

That's for you to decide.

He knows that something's up but he just wants to lure more people into the market just in case. What else would you expect from a banker that earns millions or billions every year doing nothing, duping people out of their money? First off, there'd be no trade wars happening between different countries if everything is in harmony. Second, most expert economists who have predicted the same recession in 2008 wouldn't be shitting their pants if something isn't happening. Third, Jamie Dimon has been known spewing things that never happened (or were unlikely to happen) and always turn out wrong in the end.

I don't think this should warrant some sort of worrying from users as the quantum computer they unveiled are likely incapable of brute-forcing private keys and such. Also, it has been discussed countless of times here that you would need a lot of quantum computers and a lot of energy just to get a single, fascinating collision which would make the internet and cybersec community turn their heads and react. Also, I don't think this quantum computer would really be available for widespread commercial use, and IBM would probably ask for some details etc. for them to choose who would they sell the said tech to.

Russia wouldn't be interested in buying bitcoins in any way. Besides, they haven't changed their stance with bitcoin since 2016, and no official press agency from the Russian government has stated about the said article. This isn't news but just gossip until official press releases from Moscow happens.


This is true, but unlike Iran, Russia still is doing good economically speaking, so bitcoin adoption is still out of the equation for our Russian brethren.

Code development doesn't translate to price hikes. We've been receiving updates and development for bitcoin consistently for years no matter the weather. Also, the 'founders' you're referring to may or may not be involved with bitcoin anymore, given how many changes had happened in the past 10 years or so. The issue of maximalism has been around for quite a while, and I don't even think the devs are pushing for that. Just so you know, any other devs of different coins are pushy on maximalism but bitcoin devs doesn't seem to have that; it's the community, not them.

I don't see anything great about ETFs except for a price bump that it could potentially bring to the table if ever it gets approved. Investors would have easy access to coins that was never in circulation, creating an entirely new market separating bitcoin from ETFs and creating new money for the rich as well. Also, this could also be a reason for yet another run for manipulation and insider trading, so I'm kinda wary of ETFs being approved, too.

The ratio and said opportunity doesn't always present itself to a newbie trader so it's really hard to make a stable stream of money solely on trading if you are only beginning to get your feet wet. Also, it should be common sense to not risk any trades for a 1:1 reward as you only wasted time in the end without gaining something significant for your toil. While I agree on the thought that any profit is profit, one should also consider the risks accompanied with it to minimize the loss should things go awry and not in favor of the trader.

Switzerland is always the first in fintech innovations and advancements, so I don't think it's news if they'd be having a new president that's interested in cryptocurrencies and such. They're already a leading bitcoin hub before everyone else followed suit, and they're continuing to be one albeit the negative remarks of other countries against bitcoin so I guess it's not a big deal if a bitcoin-friendly president sits on the executive chair for years.

Bitcoin's current system can end at any given moment IMO, but the idea of being a separatist, especially from a government and a financial institution won't. The idea of anarchy is already there, but the creation of bitcoin only made things clearer for most of us here that don't believe in disorder and have been believing the government for as far as we can remember. We have too many interpretations on what bitcoin is, and we also have our own different way of looking at things such as this, but the way you look at it, so far, is my favorite, considering that bitcoin itself has helped sprout tons of cryptocurrencies 'hoping' to replicate what bitcoin achieved--aside from obvious monetary success, of course.