It's already affecting the markets in a way though, so I don't think that it will stop from here. Also, giant companies are already noticing the capabilities of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies if they were to be integrated into their own systems. Perhaps this time is too early for the global markets to feel the effect of bitcoin but someday it will, and it's actually starting now with regulations and acknowledgment from the governments and the private sector itself. Blockchain also is making rounds around the industries and that's a plus too even if that doesn't necessarily mean bitcoin is involved.

Interesting, and I immediately thought of the LHC due to the project's name. Anyway, as most of us believe, theoretically there will be no two addresses with the same private keys/public keys considering the vast amount of possibilities there are, and also the project itself is very young to stumble upon a collision early on.

Is this technically difficult? No, you just need to understand the mechanics of creating addresses and automate the creation process through a script. It's that simple, though given that there are 2^160 possibilities, it would take you a loooooooong time to come close to a collision (which is highly improbable anyway), so the effort will be dire and the resources invested would only go to waste.

I wouldn't be surprised if that happened, especially if the higher echelons of AIG have some deep connections with the government. Nothing would be checked and investigated in here since the Federal Reserve has been doing this for decades. It's just a shame though that even though we know how everything works, people just turn a blind eye over it and pretend that nothing happened. Also, it's kind of unfair to the working class taking loans in a bank compared to a private company taking loans to save its life. This system is screwed, and money is not created to stimulate the economy anymore but to bail out those who got bankrupt, as long as they have close ties with the government.

Money is today is not backed by anything except the promises, services and infrastructures of the government that us, the citizens are paying for. We're getting screwed in the ass and we still allow it since we believe we can't be without order.

The blockchain would surely excel on those areas, especially in logistics and as a ledger. Many companies and services would surely integrate blockchain into their systems causing a massive change in efficiency in handling data and accessing it whenever they need to. Perhaps some of the Wall Street magnates would look into the tech and build their own version of it, as what always happens when a certain breakthrough tech becones the talk of the masses. The blockchain will reduce a great amount of mess and will sort things out evenly and smoothly, compared to what we have right now.

This isn't even a problem IMO since mining centralization isn't really happening though the media wants you to believe that everything is "Chinese" in terms of hash power. Also, mining couldn't be made illegal if operators acquired their machines legally, paying their taxes and doesn't use illegal power whatsoever. There simply isn't any grounds for a government to ban bitcoin mining since it might create a loophole and affect other industries.

Lastly, slower hash rate doesn't mean a slower network if there are still a lot of scattered plaers in the field. The difficulty will adjust automatically once it noticed a sudden drop in hash rate and the nodes would just need to sit back and do their thing.

It's been a long time since the price movement of bitcoin was affected by any news surfacing on the internet and mainstream media, so I doubt this too will make a dent on bitcoin's current footing. Traders nowadays are much interested in stats and facts on the market, not around it. A massive change in volume and demand would surely permit the next volume, but any news about regulation, services and whatnot in the meantime would remain as news and nothing more.

You can't achieve decentralization and trust-less network/cash system if you don't have any means to verify that the information you received and relayed is true. Bitcoin was never anonymous, and it also doesn't contain any of your private info, too, so why would someone watching addresses toss and flip coins would bother you? There are methods to obfuscate the taints if you really are into hiding your activity with the said cryptocurrency if that's your main concern; if that is, you can always use fiat and stay hidden in the shadows.

Bitcoin's main goal is to help the un-banked have some power within the global economy, and to also promote being one's own bank without the need for any third-party to hold their money for them. Privacy is just a feature, but was never the main goal.

Could be, or maybe they are already in the works of creating their own exchange? We don't know, and most likely most people won't care at all.

If they are to switch over to SegWit, the thing is they will not be the first to do so, thus this will not make it anything special (but somewhat important). My likely guess is a crypto exchange, or another branch of their services.


So is this another ICO? If so, that would be a shame, I'm expecting something big from them but never an altcoin of any sort. It would also be quite ironic for them to create one knowing that their explorer is focused on bitcoins, not any other altcoins.

Edit: added something, browser immediately submitted my post lol

With or without crypto, the digitization of services and money will happen. Mind you, even before bitcoin existed, credit card companies already existed, and banks have shifted some of their assets into digital ones, so the shift towards digitization is inevitable. However with bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, it only made the shift faster and people more confident about it. The acceleration of our technology can also be attributed towards people's confidence regarding the digital age; governments are ditching traditional paper files for some of their safekeeping and has since shifted to computers and such given the convenience it offers and productivity it brings.

The world is going digital day-by-day, but going 'cashless' is still too far from us, IMO.

$1000, perhaps? Though that figure is way too far from where we're at right now so I have doubts that we'll ever see those again. As far as I'm concerned, 50% less of what I initially bought in at, I will bail and call it quits, but due to bitcoin's nature of redeeming itself every 3 or so years, I wouldn't sell it since I already profited a lot and will just hope for the best. Besides, I already made my finances stable and bitcoin is just another part of my investment portfolio right now.

I wouldn't bank on this one, even though theoretically this somewhat holds truth if we are to follow the law of supply and demand. However, there isn't a clear vision of whether bitcoin will still be accepted til then, and whether we are still alive by then. There is a possibility that new coins and cryptocurrencies would overshadow bitcoin's achievements and people would choose those new ones due to what they can offer, and that already is a less on the demand. 2140 is still a hundred and twenty-two years from now, and while we're waiting for the last bitcoin to be mined, we should focus on the fundamentals, economy and infrastructure of bitcoin if we really want it to stay.

Who would, in their sane mind, like to keep their money in a third-party service? No matter how closely regulated these exchanges are, that doesn't make them less susceptible in being hacked. I'd rather keep mine on a personal wallet, encrypted and the machine never connected to the internet rather than trust someone else to keep my bitcoins. During the time of hacks, how sure are we that these guys would reimburse the loss? Not to mention that they could have include it in their ToS that, unfortunately, only a few of us really reads.

On a side note, you can always keep coins that you use for trading, but in the long run? That's a bad practice. Bitcoin was created to alleviate the need for third-parties to hold our money for us, thus proving the term 'be your own bank' since the power is solely vested unto us, its users. If we are to use these services to hold our money for us, what's the point of using bitcoin, then?

USDT prices have gone down during that day, and perhaps some people have removed their assets on the said token and have moved some over to bitcoin. This is not some sort of spike that should get us going considering that not everything hints towards a bull market; demand in exchanges remain low and prices remain stagnant, hinting that there's really not much going on right now compared to the past bull runs. With the recent spike, I'm much more concerned to the state of USDT rather than any possible bull runs.

It is possible, though only to a certain extent. Fiat would still be widely used on day-to-day transactions whereas bitcoin can be used for purchases across borders. It is also possible to hold bitcoin reserves for a small nation, and the implementation still depends on the country's needs, of course. While I expect a lot of things for bitcoin, I don't expect that it will replace fiat in any way.

Pseudo-anonymous would be, IMO, the most fitting description for bitcoin since it is only anonymous at a certain point, though it does retain its anonymity with certain conditions as well, just like what you have said regarding mixers and other methods to obfuscate the taints. Due to this, scammers and money launderers are not afraid on using bitcoin for their schemes, but that doesn't mean that scams and the likes cannot be prevented. There are scammers since there are people who are too naive to be a victim. It's not the feature that is at fault, but most of the time the users' ignorance.

And thinking on the same page that they have much power over something, why would they do some rash decision just to assert dominance knowing that it could topple the whole network and bitcoin's value as well? They may have been challenging the US for quite some time now in being the world's economic superpower, but one thing's for sure: they wouldn't lord over other countries' with their huge hashing power just to state that they are in control. Chinese are strict businessmen, and we all know that they have the means and power so why would they need to prove such a thing?

You mean you want to buy bitcoins with KRW, send the bitcoins somewhere else and sell bitcoins for USD? There isn't any regulations/restrictions of sending cryptocurrencies in South Korea AFAIK, though before buying you need to procure legal documents and get KYC'd on exchanges in there for you to not have any problems. Selling would be easy as long as you have the credentials and verified on an exchange, or you can go through LBC (Localbitcoins) and see any available offers out there.

I got this feeling that this might turn out to be illegal but nah, who am I to judge? /s

I digress. There are cases in which holding for too long causes an investment to lose its value, and even if bitcoin and crypto has repeatedly rise over several occasions and broke their previous records, how sure are we that the next time around we will be reaping the same amount just like what we had back then? Not that I'm against hodlers, but we can never be sure of crypto and bitcoin holding their value for too long. Diversifying one's investment is still king for financial literacy, as you always have a fail-safe when things get rough. Hodling long-term is okay, but putting all your money in it is not.

Gradually placing in some money in bitcoin is the best option you could always have as opposed to entering the markets out of nowhere and investing in one go. By placing your money in bitcoin over time, say, monthly, you'll have the chance to average your buys and deal with the losses you might incur in the process rather than buying in a single go and having slim chances of a recovery in case the market sentiment goes bearish. It's hard expecting positive results immediately after buying so always buy incrementally up until your intended capital is used on a certain asset you want to have.

There's one of the promising reasons why companies move their stations to Ireland. If not for the low taxes, perhaps these guys would move into bitcoin-friendly countries such as Switzerland and Malta, though relocation wouldn't be that easy given the distance of these countries from the Great Britain. Ireland is still a part of the EU, and if that doesn't hurt Coinbase's business at the very least, why not move out there since it's closer and taxes are quite cheaper?