What sort of division? Forum-wise or rank-wise? This might incentivize people further to improve their post quality, but some people simply just don't care as long as there are campaigns accepting them regardless of their post quality. Perhaps the solution we should have is targeted at these campaigns and not on the individual posters, but you can't mandate a service to do their business on your standards so it'll be tough.


Why is this so accurate?

A fancy term given to bitcoiners who see the coin as the superior one, ignoring the fact that there are other coins with better features and more efficient than BTC. In simple words, these are close-minded people who think that nothing will beat bitcoin in the long-run in any aspect (which is plainly wrong.) While I'm supporting bitcoin ever since, I tend to also look for other projects and see their strengths for what it's worth. It's worth noting that there are still some cool coins out there that has some unique features that can be used in real-world scenarios, so IMO there's really no reason to be a 'bitcoin maximalist' in a market full of potential growth from other relatively unknown projects.

Absolutely not. It's just another service provider in which people can use its platform to make things happen, but it's not the one who will spark the fire per se. I don't see any significance in Bakkt's launch but only hype and nothing more. It will not create demand out of thin air as if it's the only thing that this present market is waiting for., same as the ETFs that most people are banking on, thinking that it's approval will be on par with bull runs and crazy gains.

The person who asked you to help is probably the one who owns the website, or is an accomplice of the owner. It's easy to create a fake gambling website with the same cheap scripts nowadays and pull off the scam. This sounds like the Nigerian Prince asking for your help but you must first send money in order to get the riches. Best thing to do with these scenarios is to just do your own thing and never even bother to reply. For the most part, it is in replying that these scammers get their motivation to continue in their schemes, so just ignore them and you'll be fine.

Knowing that the dude spends 100-hour work weeks, it's quite impressive that he actually has some time to find a weab picture of a girl representing bitcoin and making a tweet about it. While the post seems to be satirical and made for good humor, it's still publicity at the end of the day, and might paint a positive impression on some people that the SpaceX and Tesla top dog is supporting a cryptocurrency--which would, to me, be not surprising considering that the man is an advocate of technology.

Good to see some light things going on around the ecosystem instead of the crazy rhetorical "why is bitcoin losing x/gaining y" posts.

I think this has been up for some time now, and the rehabilitiation has been going on ever since Karpeles went behind bars. With that amount of money accumulated after selling all the remaining assets of Mt. Gox, it's impossible for them (Gox and their crew) to not reimburse or somehow give something back to their investors, creditors and users. Besides, they are already legally responsible to pay the amount they owed to their users, so there's no turning back.

It feels good to know that some development is going on with one of the major blunders in the bitcoin ecosystem. It might be a part of bitcoin's dark past, but then a resolution is still possible to close this one heck of a chapter.

It will be near-impossible for such a scenario to happen, though it still can albeit the slim chances. In the event that it presents itself, I'd say the network will still continue since the hard drives aren't compromised in any way. Once the internet and electricity restarts, the network's gears would continue turning and everything will resume to normal as if nothing happened (and that's assuming that no major electricity lines and internet connections are scathed by the scenario.)

Double-spending is what you're referring to; one transaction gets confirmed while the other remains unconfirmed until the mempool deletes it after 2 weeks (which, in earlier days, were quite harsh given the 72-hr time period). It's not really impossible, you just need to know how to manipulate the core client well enough to achieve what you want to do. It's also a non-permanent transaction and only a few would know about it, considering that not everyone would have the interest to look it up.

Crypto might be another avenue to avoid harsh tax rules, but once the Chinese government knew about this possibility, see how tight they can get by also suppressing exchanges for trade history of their citizens. Right now the Chinese government is being too unpredictable and unstable, up to the point that their millionaires and billionaires are being affected. I couldn't blame them, though, seeing that a lot of possible tax is just sitting idly at Swiss bank accounts and foreign investments instead of paying their dues on our soil, but this should not, in any way, warrant such invasive actions towards their citizens who wanted to have some assets in foreign countries.

If these same investors were to hop in on the crypto train, it might bring a lot of volatility in the market after a steep rise. They'd just lose money in the process, and the ones who got out first of the mess will be the winners and seek for other ways to circumvent foreign tax rules of their country.

To know that people, even in power, still has their own right to purchase assets and partake in personal investments as long as there are no conflict of interest happening between their duties and their investments. There are some government officials who are open to such, and have never been discreet about their bitcoin/crypto investments. After all, they are still human beings wanting to expand their assets and wealth by investing properly, and we shouldn't deny them that nor look at them with judging eyes due to their involvement with crypto.

Regulations and laws coming into the crypto world is inevitable, and so the Indonesians would know soon that lawlessness regarding bitcoin has its limits. Due to the growing popularity of and demand for bitcoin in the said country, the government would soon know that it can be used to channel illegal funds and launder money, so it has to be closely regulated and guarded at all times. Money is money, and we know that the government's best interest lays where the $$$ is at, so Indonesia, too, would surely resort to regulations should the need for it arise.

The market is too young for a periodic pattern to be drawn. TA won't even come close into predicting near an actual time-frame since the market reacts spontaneously, though we might get some form of approximation out of the past trends. There are also many factors affecting the run towards another ATH knowing that a lot of people are now involved in the market and it's not limited to enthusiasts and a few businessmen at all, which makes it even harder to come to a close approximation of when a bull run woupd start. Add to that fact that there are instances that a great price performance would occur only to be dumped hard later. A lot of mixed signals in an already convoluted free market makes things harder for people who want to draw a line of (un)certainty.

I don't think that the main purpose of Sayoshi creating bitcoin was to be rebllious; he just wanted to help people to have a say in the growing financial markets even without the help of the banks. Micropayments was never the main goal, too, but seeing the potential of the trust-less P2P cash system he devised, it was also noted (of course) to let people know what they can do with the coin. If I have a project that I wanted to share, I'd state all of its capabilities and weakness, too, so what Satoshi included on bitcoin's whitepaper is normally what any other project developers/creators would do, too.

As you can see, bitcoin is already a great tool for micropayments due to the recent scaling solution (SegWit)  and some people in poverty-stricken countries are utilizing the value of bitcoin to live day-to-day (Venezuela). These visions were somewhat addressed by his creations today, and there's really nothing to argue about bitcoin's true purpose as in the end, it still gets the job done.

I only follow whatever gives me the better opportunity to accumulate and profit over time. I don't mind being bearish or bullish as long as I'm netting some gains on my portfolio. If you are to follow only one side of the coin, you'll eventually end up losing money, unless you have deep pockets and can bear the losses no matter the weather. The market is full of dynamism and crazy volatility that it's difficult to stay bullish since the market changes super fast.

One thing though, I never have chased any ATH/bull runs since 2014; it just so happened that I was invested by a ton during 2015-2016 and have decided to hold for another year. When the price went over the roof ($19000), that is when I turned bearish, and I am right since the price went to $10k just before the calendar changes, and has been in the low $6k ever since.

I believe we still are, considering that regulations and acknowledgment only came rushing 8 years after bitcoin's inception. Also, only those who fully understand the system are taking the risks of accepting and using bitcoin at the moment; the ones who don't are still left behind and there's still a lot in store for them should they accept bitcoin. We'll be moving on to the next phase if more and more merchants started to adopt bitcoin in their services and goods for real, with or without third-party services that instantly converts BTC to USD/fiat.

The likes of Venezuela and Greece is a fine example that bitcoin isn't affected by any domestic economic problems but it can affect these countries, especially its citizens who carry the burden of these problems. IMO, bitcoin would experience a surge in interest if a financial crisis is to happen again; people might see it as a great hedge or to just keep their assets intact in the midst of a financial storm. We are yet to see whether this will hold true, but the likelihood of people converting to bitcoin or gold during these events is high.

Yes, it might be a pain to hold into some coins that have already lost its value, but always keep in mind that losses can only be incurred if you sold at a loss, and as long as you are holding those coins, there's still a possibility that you'll get back the loss or profit in the future. Stagnant money is wasted money and opportunity IMO, so never put all your capital in one single go especially in volatile assets like bitcoin, but if you already did, waiting is probably one of the best skills you must have/develop in order to get through it.

2018 might not get us the same bull run as to what 2017 had but that doesn't mean there aren't any ways to make money in a bearish market. Those who bought during the top clearly are moved by FOMO and hype without studying the markets carefully. All they can do at this time is wait.

Why so? Do you think it's easy to topple governments just because AI and blockchain is taking over? I don't think so. We only need the governments and banks approval because they run the whole economic scene; their approval is somewhat valuable if we want to continue using bitcoin and other related services connected to cryptocurrencies without any restrictions and unfair limitations. They don't necessarily need to integrate bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in their infrastructure, but having them approve the existence, trade and exchange of bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies is a huge plus for the confidence of the masses who would want to try it out.

It can't, simply because the properties of bitcoin doesn't fit what the economy of the world needs, let alone a single country. It can be used for online and cross-border transactions, perhaps a form of salary if regulations will permit such, but that's as far as bitcoin goes. It cannot be used for stimulating the economy and for the central banks' quantitative easing since there are parameters in which new bitcoins are created, and it cannot be broken. For bitcoin to assume the role of a universal currency, it should be controlled, and that's not gonna happen no matter how many proposals and years of pleading it would take.

I don't think this will ever work on bitcoin. This proposal is only applicable to a government or a small group of people wanting to have some leader-figure in their community. Bitcoin has been okay without any central figure of authority for the past 9 years, and lots of genuine and clever ideas have sprouted due to the decentralized nature of the network. If we were to have someone as a liaison, wouldn't that give this central figure some sort of hunger for power over time? We've already witnessed how grim it could be with our present governments, and have we learned not a single lesson from that?