Japan is so advanced than the other countries in so many things, one would be its government. The trust their government has with the experts on the field is simply admirable, and to know that these experts could abuse the self-regulatory status of the crypto industry in Japan makes it worrying and amazing at the same time. It's amazing that they believe in the real experts rather than push the agenda of some of the government officials that knew nothing about the industry. This is surely another step towards bitcoin adoption, and surely a positive one for the news.

Main reason is for seamless transfers in between exchanges when a trader wants to move funfs without compromising the value of his assets. It can also serve as a hedge in tough times when a trader decides to stop trading for a while and get back to action once everything settles down.

Convenience and hedging are the two reasons I see why they created stablecoins. They aren't backed by actual dollars but somehow, the ones responsible on the inception of these coins convinced people that they are useful.

Part of it is true due to the nature of consumers: they tend to ask for more than what they should receive and in order to keep their peers coming back, companies deliver. Some companies, on the other hand think outside the box and deliver innovation that the consumers never asked, and after some time the consumer slowly accepted and praised the said innovation. With that being said, merchant-consumer relationship is, at most times symbiotic since the merchants provide what the consumer needs, and in turn, the consumers support the merchants' products.

These innovation and movement were made possible by bitcoin enthusiasts since 2014. Exchanges such as coins.ph have opened a wider gate for the Filipinos to use their bitcoins in numerous places and services which, formerly can only be utilized by paying in fiat. Also, the willingness and openness of the Philippine government towards bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies also helped, albeit their constant reminder to the Filipinos that investing on digital assets is still the Wild West of investments. Though not a pretty sizeable country with a strong economy, the Philippines still see something good in bitcoin rather than just the negatives.

The more these critics press the energy issue on bitcoin, the more people will ignore it. It is not the miner's fault that they are using energy that comes from fossil fuels, but rather the providers that supplied them with such. Some operators have already stepped up their game and used hydroelectric power on their operations, and these critics don't even care to include those on their reports. Nuclear energy is always available to be used, but the amount of building an infrastructure would cost much, that's why most energy companies tend not to do it. It's greener and cost-efficient in the long run, but then fossil fuels and coal are still being used for most of the world's power.

The blame has to be thrown somewhere, and bitcoin is the perfect candidate for that.

I usually don't, but when a project really catches my attention, I'm sure to follow it closely up until the point that it goes live in the markets and see whether there is substantial volume for it then I buy and trade for a little while. With all the new tokens and coins popping up here and there, it's hard to find a gem that has a solid dev team and community nowadays, and at best, your funds would only be diversified in a few coins that performs well. If you can't handle multiple coins at once, it's best to just focus on one coin and just learn the market movements and the rest is profit.

The term '51%' in bitcoin is referring to the amount of hashing power percentage that could potentially 'fork' off the main chain and start doing its own copy of transactions from a single divergence point (the time when the 51% of the hashing power decides to create its own chain) and has nothing to do with owning bitcoins at all. Anyway going back, if people found out that the banks and the governments are owning more than what they have, it's either they're gonna dump on the market pretty hard or just continue with the flow, thinking that they have the big and the 'good guys' on board. With the present market, most of the people are in it for the profit and not the virtue bitcoin enthusiasts once had, so you can expect that these new people will think like an investor playing in conventional trading assets. Also, 90% is a huge sum to hold; volume and liquidity would be an issue if they are really owning that large of an amount.

The Dow and NASDAQ losing those points doesn't necessarily mean that a financial crisis is about to ensue as we're still up in the game ever since Trump's administration started. While the signs aren't hinting towards an immediate materialization of the financial crisis, it doesn't mean that we're not going to see it on our own eyes. Personally, I'd like to stash my savings in crypto and gold as early as possible, while the prices are low and while the market is stagnant. People will look for alternatives while the stock and derivatives market are crumbling, and crypto would be their best bet.

The blockchain is only a ledger; it isn't controlling the flow of transactions but is only recording it together with a timestamp. People can always follow the taints of every transaction but knowing that an address doesn't relay any personal information to its owner whatsoever, it's not that easy to trace/track criminals. Also, bitcoin transactions are irreversible; once it's done, it's done unless a double-spend is created before the transaction is confirmed.


You'd be amazed how the crimes made using fiat currency overshadow that of bitcoin's. Take this for example, even the most respected banks tend to launder money through established connections. Not only that but they were successful in moving billions of dollars without ringing some alarms

Whatever works for people today will be their primary choice, and at this day and age, no one really cares about the improvement of our financial systems; they are much more interested in inflating their assets and bank accounts rather than deviating from the current financial system. Only a handful of people wants a complete overhaul of our financial system, and almost everyone are just busy living and making it out alive.

What this world needs is the redistribution of wealth, though I'm afraid that that wouldn't be achieved in our lifetimes.

This is what the author is referring to, and to know that the article referring to the "cancer" ecosystem doesn't directly pinpoint the disease makes the author's argument invalid, and therefore biased towards established financial systems. How can a decentralized ledger actually be employed to cure cancer directly? It makes no sense at all.


The author also missed the fact that some institutions and firms are researching the potential use-case of a blockchain in a centralized environment ergo making this quote invalid again. There are tons of blockchain fundamentals that the author has failed to iterate on this article that it shows that he is biased towards the current system. There are tons of applications of the blockchain in the real-world, and if there aren't any, why would the big companies and governments take the time, effort and resources to research about it?

I had a hard time reading your post, but still I'd answer your query based on what I understand.

Bitcoin isn't really deadly or dangerous in the future if ever it goes big. Like gold, it could potentially be one of the most used asset in terms of storing value and whatnot. Right now, people and governments are seeing the potential of bitcoin and the blockchain in our society, most notably in cross-border payments and service integration respectively. Albeit the negative light that other groups are giving bitcoin, it's fine because the positive outweighs the negative in our current times.

This is true on anywhere you will go in the globe; you must make friends with those in power in order to do the things you desire even without following official regulations (lol).

Anyway, it could simply be that he didn't follow the regulations and rules regarding the ATM. If that's the case, then the law should always be followed, otherwise this is just a clear representation that India doesn't really want crypto to flourish in their country. With all their regulations and their effort to cut off any connection of cryptocurrencies in their land, extra caution should be observed so as not to get placed behind bars. It's just sad that other countries are progressing towards better tech but India is regressing in all aspects of tech and governance.

They simply don't have power over bitcoin, that's why they hate it. They 'like to control and tax the movement of money' together with the banks, and because of that the emergence of bitcoin seems to be defeating their agenda. People can take their money and assets in bitcoin and the governments can't do something about it. This diminishes their control over people who wanted to deviate from their state-issued currency and just hoard their money somewhere else. To combat this, regulations are created to possibly 'limit' the amount of people taking their interest towards the said crypto (see India for example.)

At the end of the day, the government simply wants to establish their control over their land, and to do this, the gold standard was ditched, introduced fiat currency and made their citizens use the said money to ensure that everything is within their power. Money easily controls the mind of people, and the government have done this perfectly on the introduction of the fiat system and their crazy taxation system.

Eventually, they will have to switch their assets into digital tokens just so they can keep up with the latest technology that the governments would soon use. It is without doubt that they are really interested in using the blockchain into their services, but cryptocurrencies? Though there are some countries that have already expressed their liking on the thought of going digital in terms of their currency, we're still far off from seeing one nation fully using their state-issued cryptocurrencies for brick-and-mortar shops and completely replacing fiat. Once the society has fully accepted cryptocurrencies, governments would then have the chance to issue their own and replace paper money as we know it. The chances of having it in the near future is low, but the thought and the interest is already here.


I think the primary goal of state-issued and bank-issued cryptocurrencies are mainly for economic purposes and not necessarily assets/investment vehicles, so the assumption that they will try to combat bitcoin and other prominent crypto is plainly wrong.

Isn't it ironic that these respected institutions are the ones who are quick to throw shade at bitcoin and cryptocurrencies as a vehicle for fraud and money laundering yet they are also the ones conducting large-scale money laundering themselves? Actually, it's easier and more difficult to follow where the trails lead once the money is converted into cold, hard cash, and this wouldn't be possible if banks are not in for the job. If their connection with the money laundering scheme is proven, this would be another blunder indicating that even the banking system isn't safe from these types of illicit activities.

I will not be surprised if another economic crash indeed happen, just look at the derivatives and the housing market. At some point, it will implode and leave everyone hanging, watching in awe as they see their investments consumed by the fire of greed and carelessness in investing. It might not happen within the next year, but it will surely happen within a decade since the markets are already over-leveraged and over-saturated with ETFs, ETNs and other bizarre derivatives.

The thought that something is 'too big to crash' isn't actually applicable in the entire world markets, and a great testament to that is the bankruptcy of the Lehman Brothers in 2008. Before this crash goes to materialize, I'm sure that my money is in crypto and gold, just to save my assets from depreciating in value.

It's normal for those who are invested in bitcoin to be anxious when it is not performing well, or is bombarded by negativity that affects the price big time. I myself would be anxious to see that my investments are performing poorly, and of course I might take some actions regarding that or just leave it be, but due to bitcoin always rebounding after a few or so years, this anxiety of mine regarding crypto-investments waned over time. There are still some people who aren't convinced by facts and statistics, and even if bitcoin performed absurdly well in the past 9 years, the historical data it left within its markets isn't enough to satisfy the anxiety of these so-called "bitcoin hodlers." One great tip is to not check bitcoin-related news or write-ups regularly if you plan to hold your coins for a long time. It alleviates anxiety and help you be more productive, too.

If the identity is verified but the message goes that he can't access his coins, I won't. Firstly, why would a man with that level of intelligence ask for donation if he could obviously work his way to riches by just.. working? Secondly, why broadcast to the world that you're bankrupt and needing some help financially? Lastly, these identifiers can be compromised easily if someone close to him turned their banks on the guy and just decided to use the identity for personal gains.

I admire the man's genius and amazed by his opus, but that doesn't mean that I'll give him something just because he says he need it. It might sound blunt but at this day and age, you'll never know.

That's why some society never progress: they are too far contained in a box using the same method over and over again, using a lot of resources even though a more efficient method already exists. It's okay if you don't like change, but knowing the applications of blockchain in traditional services could possibly yield positive results, I'll gladly accept change for security and efficiency. While the banking industry is already pretty robust, there are still rooms for improvement that blockchain could take care of, so yeah.