I don't think that the Bank of America securing a patent on a supposedly open-source thing would help turn things around come 2019, They literally just invented an early warning system if the key storing device was accessed by an unknown entity. It doesn't even sound promising to say the least knowing that securing a private key is already an essential part of working with cryptocurrencies, though I'd give it that as more and more institutional investors flock this market, the more chances there are for the market to boom.

We've seen a lot of fake volumes in the past, especially in Chinese exchanges but that didn't even translate to a single spike in price. Even if the volume here is significantly higher than the rest of the world, still if the volume is made out of constant in-outs without anything happening, no strong movement would be established and the price would remain stagnant. However though it's quite amusing to notice that the volume on the east is this strong. The Koreans, together with the Japanese would again be a strong force should a bullish movement is established.

How much does it cost you to buy a hard drive or even a flash drive and store your data there? Those solutions are far more secure and safe since you have them at bay physically, without the need to trust a server to do the storing for you plus without putting your data at risk due to hacks that could happen to the server. Also, cloud storage providers could easily change their ToS and could read the data inside your files which might compromise whatever it is in your file. At best, avoid such solutions and use the cloud to store unimportant files that is essentially useless to you but holds some sort of significance.

A utopia with an element of politics doesn't sound nice. IMO it's best to just leave the concept of politics somewhere else and just push forward a society in which everyone helps each other, with or without a central authority or a governing body. Anyway though, it's a nice concept for a small community like this; it will ultimately test whether the possibilities of applying the blockchain tech on a wider scale and daring endeavors such as this would receive some sort of success. While it's quite far-fetched to receive some significant support for this project on its early stages, I'd love to hear more on this once it becomes a reality.

Anyone can use the blockchain technology since it's really just a ledger of transactions at the end of the day. It all boils down to the customization of the said technology based on what the company/organization actually needs work on. Most are also just joining the hype train and using the popularity of the said tech thinking that it's 'the next big thing' since everybody else is doing it, while in reality there aren't any significant advantage of integrating it on their services compared to their older systems. With the world slowly shifting into the digital realm, it's time that most companies also change their systems to keep up with the pace, but integrating blockchain into an organization isn't always the answer. Blockchain is revolutionary, but not always the go-to solution IMO.


Medical records are fine as is, and also, using the concept of a blockchain technology in such an application might affect medical record confidentiality in such a way that your information is floating freely, waiting for everyone to see. Medical databases are fine and already secure, so yeah, the healthcare industry doesn't really need this tech for sorting and storing medical records.


If anything, the blockchain would somewhat make things worse for healthcare providers. Imagine the added layers of confusion just to get the file that you really wanted to look at.

Each side always has their own biased opinions regarding the matter: which coin fulfills Satoshi's vision for an electronic P2P cash, which coin stuck to the original intended use-case of bitcoin etc.. it just goes on. Both of them technically fulfills being a currency and a store of value IMO, and the end-user still decides which coin they would like to use. Inclining more to 'Satoshi's vision' doesn't make a coin the "true" bitcoin, especially if the coin is a fork of the original coin that was created since this whole system started (that's just all my opinion).


Ahh no, there are cases in which blocks only contain a single transaction (coinbase transaction), see this block for instance. Miners can mine empty blocks if they so do wish, so the assertion that bitcoin blocks are always full doesn't ring true.

There really isn't a time-frame for profits to be harvested when you invest in bitcoin. Most of those people who made crazy amounts of money in a short span of time are just extremely lucky to have invested right before the 2017 ATH. You can always buy bitcoins for yourself and keep them stashed for, say a year or two and just hope for the best. There's really not much technique into long-term investing, but averaging your overall entry point is still a good thing to do.

If there's a way to link two profiles into one master profile, the 'conflict' would be averted. A unique code from a master account could be extracted--and only the true owner of the account, of course will be able to access it--which could then be used to 'link' different accounts to the master. It is doable but I think would not be taken care of considering that not everyone in this forum would like their alt accounts exposed to the public.

You can instead use those blank fields to 'show' people that you're account is related to that one. The fields of ICQ, AIM, YIM don't even follow a certain format--it can be used for literally any text you could think of.

I'm much more fascinated with the yearly recorded lows of bitcoin rather than yearly highs because it doesn't make much sense. The highs of every year aren't really that significant compared to the lows since the former is just a short-lived price point compared to the latter. The base point of every run would always be the lows, and as we see, the lows of every year is steadily ascending since 2009, and it's a more inviting picture compared to the crooked graph all the yearly highs paint.

They will surely revamp their existing services and integrate the most advanced fintech available just to keep up with the rapid pace of things in this current era. Banks are still a vital part of our socioeconomic lives and even with their outdated systems, they are still taking profits consistently. The move to slowly shift towards the blockchain tech has already begun for some banks, and it's just a matter of time before we see blockchain-powered bank services in the industry which will greatly increase security, reliability and efficiency for the banks.

Well for one, we are bound to a certain country that issued a certain currency that is widely used by people. Also, we receive several services and privileges from the said government, too, and by that means they can issue money out of paper and a few metals and tell us that it's worth something since we benefit from it. Because we are bound by laws to use and treat the paper with a certain value, we cannot break it as long as we're under a certain country. The thing is, people unconsciously agree that something is worth something if a person with authority or greater knowledge says so. Accept it or not, we are being controlled by our own governments just by using their issued currency and making us believe that it is really worth something.

That's what they also said with the advent and the boom of the internet. Fortunately though, they were not wrong, and the big money actually made something happen on the entire web. Developments on infrastructure, alongside bringing the tech closer to people really helped a lot on our present state.


That is IMO not something we know right now. The only goal of financial institutions and the big guys is to develop the blockchain tech and integrate it into their systems. Not much for actual development but it still helps if you'd ask me.


In the meantime, the hype for bitcoin as a speculative asset isn't waning, so in the short-term we'll see it mainly as an investment vehicle and not an actual tool for liberating the woes of the financially oppressed people. Perhaps it will never alleviate the weight of poverty to these people, but it can still help redistribute wealth in some other ways.

I'd still choose a tangible business since bitcoin trading doesn't really have any assurances that you'll get something for a day whereas in a real-life business you get to have a guaranteed profit every single day depending on the niche you target and the product/services you offer. Right now, a printing business is what keeps me afloat  here in my country, and when it's the summer break, I shift into a different type of business focused on cold beverages and stuff which turns out to be a pretty good source of income. In bitcoin, yes it has its own fair share of the limelight but it's just not that reliable compared to your traditional businesses IMO.

Be happy but also learn to observe things around, for you might never know what could happen while you are busy being happy by having bitcoin. While the banks and the governments are slowly acknowledging bitcoin and making their own moves to utilize it, I'm still not that concerned about this unlike everybody. Personally I see this as a strengthening on bitcoin's stance on the economic world since if governments and banks see something in bitcoin (blockchain) and cryptocurrency in general, why should the normal people be scared of it in any way? Though as I said, stay observant since there are cases in which good things most of the time turn out negative in the bitter end.

Gold and silver will always have a special place in the commodity market given that demand is always present for these two. They have proven their value and worth in a variety of ways, and they are still the most sought after hedge asset whenever an economical crash occurs. For a couple of centuries now, gold and silver have been in the pedestal for the most reliable investment/asset there is since it's always accepted literally almost everywhere. While it's not always a good thing to buy gold and silver, in dire cases such as an economic crash, it's still better to stash up your gold rather than risk it on failing stocks and securities.

It's also worth mentioning that mining pools can choose what transactions can they include in a block, though in most cases, the higher the fee, the higher priority it has on the queue. Mining pools have different rules they follow in picking up transactions in the mempool. I have personally encountered a strange scenario wherein I paid the highest tx fee to get the transaction confirmed within the next block yet I have mine confirmed on the 5th which, to me is quite puzzling--but that is a rare case, mind you.

Volatility is a double-edged sword in relation to bitcoin's growth and adoption, IMO. With volatility, it is easier to attract a lot of potential investors in the scene. On the other hand, it scares the common merchant in involving their businesses in cryptospace since their profits could turn into dust the second that a market swing occurs. Since the cryptomarkets are free for everyone, it's really hard to eliminate volatility since there would be different factions doing different trades resulting to a convoluted movement within the price. I guess we just need to accept that volatility is here to stay and it's the primary driver as to why more and more people are getting hooked up in trading cryptocurrencies.

Considering cryptocurrency ban and pushing their own cryptocurrency for the public's consumption? That seems a very legitimate move to me. Instead of focusing on enriching their economy--and allowing cryptocurrency and related services includes them--they instead built a giant statue worth 29 billion Rupees which symbolizes "India's integrity and resolve". What has that to do with the evident poverty within the country? India, instead of progressing, is regressing towards the Stone Age. Well what do we know about their internal policies and such, anyways.

So do we, Jamie. We also don't give a shit about your opinion. This is not 2014-2015 wherein a single statement from a relatively known persona in the financial space could move the markets hard. Also, the banker doesn't know that without bitcoin, the idea of the blockchain wouldn't even spring to mind. If he doesn't really care about bitcoin, or care about anything relating to it, why admit that blockchain is technology? He is one of the finest hypocrites living in this planet today.

Always two sides, eh? But yeah, I'm also inclined to believe that people will throw their money on bitcoin and other crypto should an economic crash occur. While there are doubts on bitcoin's ability to hold value, still the performance of bitcoin for the past 9 or so years testify that it is indeed capable of being a trusty asset that also has its own cycles, just like your conventional asset within the traditional financial markets. Still though, there aren't any guarantees that it will be just like what we projected in here knowing that there are still other assets to move their funds to in the midst of a crisis (precious metals, lol).