The site is still online, but they turned scam about a month ago giving a lame excuse that their system was hacked and over 2.8 BTC was stolen.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1149545.msg19395836#msg19395836

They have put their domain on sale on Namecheap, https://www.namecheap.com/domains/registration/results.aspx?domain=epay.info

But it looks like until the deal gets through they are taking everything coming their way. I believe their domain is older than yours so better search rating. It is not difficult to differentiate between a microwallet and an exchange website, but people who just deposit seeing epay might end up losing their coins.

Flippening is happening. Ethereum might surpass bitcoins cap, but precisely what is fuelling ETH price? ICOs. A large number of ETH is getting locked up because of ICOs and thus causing a reduction in supply. ETH would be sailing smoothly until some ICOs fail to deliver and then there would be a substantial crash in Ether's price.

Limited supply, security, store of value, settlement system, even if Ethereum gets past bitcoin it still lacks these. So it would not be a concern for the people who have invested in bitcoins. ICOs are what Ethereum has to depend on to propel it's growth, a couple of fuck ups and price comes crashing down. Bitcoin on the other hand is growing rapidly and widely getting accepted as digital gold and payment system. Ethereum has its own advantages, no doubt about that, but as a digital currency it would not be able to compete with bitcoin.

Based on bitcoin, there can be four types of people:

1. Those who have no idea what bitcoins are.
2. Those who know about the basics of bitcoin, but didn't like the concept so didn't try it.
3. Those who know about bitcoins, tried it, ended up in losses/it affected them negatively at some point and now staying away from it.
4. Those who are well-aware of the concept of bitcoins, knows the exact pros and cons, risks and benefits, and are still using it without any judgement and like it.

1. It is easy to explain about bitcoins even to a five-year old kid using some apples as examples. This category of people does not have any preconceived notions about bitcoins so it is easy to explain to them.

2. These are the ones difficult to deal with. Even without using bitcoins, based on their experience and their ideology about fiat, they have concluded that bitcoins are not worth giving a try. These are mostly elder people, probably bankers If they know the basics and are willing to look at the whole picture, it is worth explaining to them or just leave them with their rusted ideology.

3. This category is also tricky, they do not need to be given a class on bitcoins. You can convince them to be a part of the bitcoin family again by giving some investment advices, but god forbid if in ends again in losses for them, you are finished

4. Yeah, these are we.

So basically, it is too easy to explain about BTC to newbies. People who do not like it have their own reasons, convincing them would not be difficult if they are willing to listen. Listening to and acting upon it is their choice.

There is a correlation between bitcoin and altcoins especially BTC/LTC, comparing the chart, it is evident that LTC prices rises and drops according to bitcoins. ETH also has a correlation with BTC prices, it was somewhat like LTC in the beginning, moving according to bitcoin market, but in the last couple of months, it seems like fluctuations in bitcoin price is not much affecting ETH.

The price drop was just a small correction, it is increasing again.

I do not think leaving a secure job over speculating on bitcoins is a good choice. There is no doubt bitcoins are a source of passive income, but you cannot entirely depend on it to provide you with a long-term source of substantial, secure, steady income, solely because of uncertainty. There are traders who are full-time into trading and then miners, but these require heavy investment and even after this there is a huge risk of ending up with losses. If you have a unique concept and some BTC to spend then bitcoin/blockchain related startups would be better in terms of a job.

For passive income the best options would be setting up your bitcoin related blog, selling products and services, doing microjobs, article writing etc. You can do your full-time job and earn some passive BTC with zero risk.

If you have the private keys to your wallet in the case of a chain split you would be able to access and send coins from both the chains. There is a possibility of double spend and also the confirmation would be linked to both chains. For example, if you send from chain A you would have to wait for it to be confirmed on chain B. And most likely bitcoin exchanges would come up with chain splitting services, allowing users to convert and send from just a single chain. At the end there would be only one chain, BIP148 or legacy.

I went through around 10 posts you made in the last one hour or so. Found this,


Some of your posts are solely based on criticism and assumptions, that also not constructive criticism. No offense mate, but you are just blatantly criticizing or disapproving based on your own POV without doing any research or thinking the other way aroynd. I live in India and know the scenario here. Just easy to say, not going to stay and listen to the same story about every damn country on this planet. Apart from this sole sentence do you have anything to backup that bitcoin demand has not increased in India, nope. Instead of asking for volumes or concluding it is an inflated story, if you had put the effort to prove that bitcoin demand has not risen in India that would have been constructive criticism. I guess you got my point.

You have just made a similar point here, that every exchange, wallet, casino just adds a couple of digits to their user base. I believe there is some truth in it. But still the point is bitcoin use has increased in Venezuela. In short, the numbers mentioned on Forbes or BI might not be exact, but at the same time it would not be an assumption that Venezuelan citizens are gradually adopting bitcoin.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/16/venezuela-bitcoin-economy-digital-currency-bolivars


I hope Amazon counts as a shop.

Let's keep the stupid blog and the guy's crap story aside:

http://www.businessinsider.in/Venezuela-is-cracking-down-on-bitcoin-fever/articleshow/57639110.cms

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2017/02/03/why-venezuelas-currency-crisis-is-a-case-study-for-bitcoin/

I guess these two sites does not belong to the "stupid" category. According to them, bitcoin users have increased from 450 in 2014 to 85,000 in 2016 in Venezuela. The hyperinflation started from 2014.

The guy has mentioned something about black market, since his story has been debunked it is not worth it to take his opinion into consideration. I do not live in Venezuela, maybe you do so you are better informed than these websites. Unfortunately when I come across a few websites relaying the same information, I deduct their might be some truth in it.

"Thriving" might not be the apt word, not native English. Should have just put it plainly "user base is increasing"

It is difficult to grasp for me why people always compare BTC to ETH. Both are entirely different, one is finite in number, the other has endless supply, it is way too easy to get an idea what would happen in the long run. There is a simple logical reason why bitcoin is called digital gold. Secondly Ethereum is a smart contact based development platform, Ether the currency. Compared to bitcoin client, the scripting language of Ethereum is susceptible to hacks and attacks, DAO hack.

Comparing BTC to ETH is like comparing an animal to a bird, both have different working models. Ethereum has the potential to give this world many innovations which would make it a better place. But if you are going to compare Ether with BTC as a currency, Ether would not stand a chance against BTC in the long run.

Yeah, the scaling issue is causing some problems right now. But it would be fixed. If BIP148 does not split the chain and Segwit gets activated we would have a solution within the next few months or most probably by 2018, Segwit2x.

Satoshi Nakamoto did not himself coin the lowest fraction of a bitcoin. I guess from this is where the term came into existence, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3574

Bitcent, microbitcent, millicent, satoshi

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3311

Before this thread you can't find Satoshi being used to refer the lowest fraction of bitcoin on this forum.

It looks bitcoin is the currency to stick to at the time of a crisis. Greece crisis brought bitcoin to spotlight and now the hyperinflation in Venezuela has forced the citizens to use bitcoins to buy food and groceries. All this is happening while the Venezuelan government is going hard on bitcoin users by blocking bitcoin related websites and mining pools. A crisis, government trying to block access to people's money, a classic example of how bitcoin is going to thrive in Venezuela.

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/opinion-venezuela-proves-bitcoin-future-money/

China has done some trial runs, exact date of launch is not fixed yet, https://coinidol.com/china-creates-its-own-cryptocurrency/

Yeah, I think both the Ecuadorian and the so planned Chinese cryptocurrency has nothing to with blockchain, but with cryptography, like token based electronic payment system.

Singapore Trials its Digital Dollar via an Ethereum Blockchain, https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/singapores-central-bank-tokenizes-dollar-via-ethereum-blockchain/

India is planning to regulate bitcoins which probably would happen by the end of next year.

A cryptocurrency without Blockchain, https://thestack.com/big-data/2016/09/12/beyond-the-electricity-guzzling-failed-blockchain-experiment/

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1404/1404.4275.pdf

I guess this is what the Chinese government is working on.

A couple of countries have launched their own cryptocurrencies and some are planning to do so. The governments know that bitcoins can't be completely centralized and hence creating their own fully centralized version of cryptocurrency. Legalising bitcoin and making it a part of a country's financial structure is in no doubt beneficial for bitcoins growth, but instead using blockchain technology to roll out their own digital currency and ultimately banning bitcoins, would it affect bitcoins progress? What do you think?

Countries with their own cryptocurrency, Ecuador, China, Singapore just tested digital dollar via Ethereum blockchain, Palestine is planning to launch their own currency and and a few countries are studying the blockchain technology closely.

IMO, governments legalising bitcoins is the best way to achieve mass recognition. On the other hand, if more countries launch their own digital currencies and proclaim bitcoin as illegal then that would definitely halt bitcoins growth, but only temporarily. Banning internet is altogether on a different level than banning bitcoins. So the growth would be halted, but the internet money would bounce back.

Streisand effect.

A few worthy points indeed.

1. Yeah, bitcoin is not ready right now, but regulation is also a slow process. I honestly believe without getting a legal status from most of the developed and developing countries, bitcoin would not have global influence. It would simply remain as a pump and dump currency.

2. Yeah, most of the people who are into bitcoins are just for the sake of speculation. They do not give a damn about scaling issues, for most of them bitcoin is like a short-term investment, a get rich quick scheme. This is where regulation is important, not to interfere with trading or similar activities, but to steer bitcoin to it's main zone, P2P payment system, installing bitcoin ATMs, making bitcoin avaible for purchasing day-to-day stuff and the outcome of this would be price stability. Just random pumping and dumping would not be able to influence the price.

3. Everyone has a perspective on looking at the scaling debate, but from whatever angle you look, it is evident that two sides are not able  to make a compromise which eventually would stagnate the growth of bitcoins. The diversion is happening, from the past couple of years many alts have shown a considerable growth and if the scaling issue goes on users would readily choose some alternatives.

4. Regulation would make bitcoins more accessible. Tie-up with banks and enabling local currency deposit or withdrawal for BTC is a possibility. But something like this would take the whole decentralization away.

5. IMO common man is the average guy, neither highly educated nor illiterate, family man, follows government rules and regulations, is not glued to latest technological updates and here is also why regulation is important. Government pushing bitcoin forward as a legal currency is somewhat like comparing BTC to a family member of their local currency and that gets attention. Common man gets to know about it, government rolls out a simple how to use bitcoin ad, and since it's not a complicated process, the common man would grasp it.

I believe almost all exchanges do follow KYC and AML regulations. The moment you convert BTC to your local currency anonymity is gone. Buying directly with cash might be an exception. On rest of all BTC conversions tax is imposed so basically in countries where bitcoin is not banned, still using bitcoins cannot be considered completely anonymous. Government cannot centralize bitcoins, it would be impossible, levying taxes is another thing.

Is regulation necessary? Nope if it wants to stay as a pump and dump currency, a bubble. Yes, if it wants stability and be defined as a proper currency.

Here you go, https://news.bitcoin.com/the-japanese-using-bitcoin-expected/

Many merchants and retail stores have started accepting BTC and it is expected that some giant Japanese e-commerce stores would integrate bitcoins by the end of this year. Bitflyer has seen a rapid growth in it's user base since April 1.

Now, there are two scenarios:

1. Users prefer bitcoins solely because it is decentralized and pseydo-anonymous. They do not want it to be regulated by a governing authority.

2. Users who think that even if bitcoins get regulated, it would not matter much. They are okay with accepting the centralized, tax paying, non-anonymous version of bitcoins.

First of all, even if bitcoin is not legalized in a particular country, users do have to pay taxes on conversion. Secondly, it is not entirely possible to enforce a complete ban on bitcoins so if bitcoin is even banned, users can still somhow escape without any legal implications.

But after Japan legalized bitcoins we have seen a tremendous spike in bitcoin price. Solely because when a governing authority backs and legalises bitcoin, not only it gets huge attention, but the citizens of that country believe it is something legal, it is something new, it is something technologically advanced, it is something that has future, it is something that we should try.

So the point is, IMO the more countries legslise bitcoin, the more it would grow, the more the bitcoin community and users would benefit from it. Obviously on the downside decentralization would be taken away, I guess at least partially.

So what's your opinion, do not want bitcoins to be regulated and let it grow on it's own or regulation is required for global adoption of bitcoins.

PS: I mean by global adoption, not 10% of a country's population using bitcoins, but at least 50%.

I guess you are looking for open source blockchain platforms. I found a few, but not an entire updated list.

https://lightrains.com/blogs/opensource-blockchain-platforms

TIX Platform
Openchain
Hyperledger
Monaco
Bigchaindb
Eris
Hydrachain
Multichain
Storj
Abra

This link also might be helpful, https://due.com/blog/101-top-blockchain-companies/ (it mostly contain blockchain related starups/altcoins)

The Ecuadorian government's policy to ban bitcoin and establish dollarization by rolling out their own digital currency has two flaws, Dinero Electrónico is backed by the Central Bank of Ecudaor, but the private banks do not have much faith in this own digital currency system plus bitcoin is banned, but Ecuadorian government has not specified any law against people using it. For example, in Bangladesh bitcoin is banned and people caught using it would be booked under anti-money laundering laws and imprisoned.

Yeah Humaniq did an ICO targeting millions of undereducated, unbanked people with providing 4th generation humanitarian mobile banking plus P2P lending and insurance. Africa is underdeveloped, suffering from years of poverty, water scarcity, lack of basic education, lack of healthcare. A couple of ICOs would not make much changes in the current African socioeconomic conditions. A string of ICOs targeting the major areas like the NGOs working in Africa are doing now is needed.

The current fee structure has taken away one of the biggest advantages of bitcoin had over any other online payment service. Bitcoin still have some plus points over PayPal, decentralized, pseydo-anonymous, no chargebacks, more privacy, could be used globally, bank account is optional. But right now merchants who had opted for bitcoin are in a dilemma and merchants who were planning to integrate bitcoin are having second thoughts.

Once the scalability issue has been addressed, bitcoin would get back it's fee advantage, but still if it needs to compete with PayPal it would have to dominate the e-commerce sector. What PayPal is to eBay, bitcoin is to something way bigger than OpenBazaar.