Bitcoin had appeared countless of times on numerous occassions concerning prices, legalities and other aspects of the mainstream news, but that publicity didn't do much for the said cryptocurrency. It faced several criticisms (bitcoin) on different governments and people still didn't care. Perhaps there really isn't any incentive for them to use it and no reason for them to do so. Only a few places to use and not much in store for users? No interest generated no matter how much publicity bitcoin produces.

No matter how much we 'campaign' for bitcoin, if the people don't like it or if they are benefiting much on the aid of the banks, we simply can't persuade them and change their minds no matter how good the cause is. We've been doing this for years now, and have tried asking people what their perception of bitcoin is up to no avail. Being edgy and anti-bank won't help the cause, but rather just divide the community even further instead of being one, so this is yet another dire effort.

IMO this wouldn't change much for bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. As time passes, the term 'blockchain' becomes vaguely used and largely dissociated from bitcoin, making it hard for the laymen to recognize that it originally came from bitcoin and not really the brainchild of giant capitalist companies.  It might make things better for LG but not really for bitcoin and its ecosystem. The blockchain slowly deviates from cryptocurrencies and is slowly making its way to the global economy by being embedded within companies' services and whatnot. It's great, but there's really no beneficial effect of it whatsoever for bitcoin.

Are those countries with certain circular/memorandum from their central bank regarding bitcoin and cryptocurrencies count as a form of 'legality' or even 'formality' in this case? If so, the Philippines would be one of them. Only recently, people have been receiving certain bans and suspension on their accounts on a prominent exchange due to the BSP (Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas or the Central Bank of the Philippines) memo regarding fraud and anti-money laundering concerns. This particular publication expresses the BSP's concern regarding the rise of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, so the Philippines should somehow be on that list.

It seems that the liquidation is still in process, and that the creditors would still get their fair share of the money that was taken away from them. The processing of reimbursement seems to be smooth as well, and there had been no massive selloffs in the market after the trustee had been called for what he had done. As for the case proceedings, no news have been surfacing whatsoever even if the end of September is nearing.

Prolly because they don't consider bitcoin as a threat? And should bitcoin grow bigger and bigger, they already have the means to contain it without much effort. Knowing that the banking industry overshadows the cryptocurrency markets by a huge margin, it's not really hard to control the flow of the markets if they ever feel threatened by the popularity of bitcoin. Right now, they don't deem bitcoin as a threat, and there's a huge possibility that they are already benefiting from it. Also, they are trying to get the people believe that digital currencies are the future, and perhaps overhaul the need to print physical money and just replace it with digital cash instead. That way it would be easier, more convenient, and allows them to control the money supply with more flexibility and at will.

And it's quite an ironic advice given your forum name

Most of the time, traders are inclined to trade based on what available news are there and extracting other invaluable things which aren't really necessary for trading. News are great indicators of the general market sentiment, but they aren't great indicators of what's happening on the trading action in an exchange-level. Volume and order books are what's essential to a trader nowadays, considering that most people have deviated away from 'trading by the news' method and are concerned about daily profits, see the recent ETF rejections but we still stayed afloat through it all.

Institutional investors have always looked on bitcoin and cryptocurrencies after learning that there is sufficient interest in the field to make profit happen. Upon seeing that only a few services and organizations are built around crypto, jumping right into a relatively-uncharted territory seem to be the most obvious decision to make. They want to build services to profit, not to really help the industry grow--though upon entering on the market, they bring with them tons of support from the conventional banking and finance sector. It's good that services would be spread out and not constricted into one institution which poses a risk for thefts and hacks. The more players playing the game, the better it is for the whole community.

It's kind of a bummer, but the explanation isn't even an explanation that their clients deserve. Their grounds regarding this is so vague that it confuses me as to how they came with certainty that it was indeed proceeds of a gambling money. Anyway though, what's done is done; que sera, sera. Just have to find another exchange that will lay the ToS as concise as possible in order for me not to miss out those tiniest details that they can alter at a split second. Good thing I haven't lost much money in the process and the amount of money left in the account is negligible for most people.

Bitcoin managed to grow from cents to a thousand of dollars without legal intervention and recognition from 2009 to 2013. From a community of enthusiasts and developers, we grew into a community wherein almost all walks of life are involved. We managed to get the cashless revolution growing by simply existing and talking about things we 'think' would be better for the society. Bitcoin managed to grow and develop without government acceptance, and right now, everything is just a plus considering that many people are already considering to see it out and think whether going 'cashless' would be better for them.

Sooner or later, government intervention would be there. It's inevitable, especially to a growing cause that started as a vision and can potentially spark another global movement towards a better society.

As we all know, coins.ph is one of the most trusted bitcoin exchange in the Philippines, and they've remained at the top since 2014. However, after 4 years of doing business with them, they decided to ban my account fully due to some connections with 'fraudulent activity' on my account. I've skimmed on all the transactions I have on that wallet since 2014, and I haven't seen something suspicious, though there are some transactions that came from an online betting platform from 2015 which, according to a circular from the central bank issued @ 2018, is illegal since online betting was banned in the Philippines. Knowing that there really isn't a clear definition of what 'bitcoin' is in the Philippines, why would the platform immediately ban the account?

Has anyone experienced the same thing? Their customer support's replies were bland, and no further information were given as to why they disabled the account, but I'm inclined to think it's because of those transactions I have with an online betting site which served as a payment for some brief works. Just a heads up to people out there who use the said platform, never try to withdraw bitcoins on gambling sites directly to your coins.ph account.

Uhh, why would you want to be anonymous in the first place?

If you are not doing something nefarious about bitcoins and the reason you came here is not because of you hiding something then you shouldn't be too worried about your anonymity. You can employ the user of mixers to break the trail of coins every time you want to get a transaction masked, but that's a lot of effort and hard work plus fees on the side. Or you can send them to an exchange, withdraw it out on an address you desire to send the coins to and you're good to go.

There really isn't a generalized system by which a poor person/family is determined. Though the amount earned of a certain family compared to the cost of living in a certain area can somehow be used to see whether a person/family is poor, it doesn't end there, but it's already a great determining factor. Imagine living in a city wherein $2000 is the amount needed to get by a month for a family of 5, and you guys are earning $1500. Other areas need $1000 or less but you can't just go over there and settle knowing that there aren't any opportunities available for you guys to work with, so you end up stretching your family budget as hard as you could until such time that you needed the aid of loans just to get by a month. The debt will stack up, and you have no choice but to make-do until you're free from the constraints of the said debt, and that is when you are considered as 'poor' by most books.

While this may be good for the overall manufacturing industry, once robots and other automation processes are deployed, it will replace human hands and would, by then, increase the rate of unemployment and other areas of the industry will be overcrowded and others will be left with no jobs. The idea is very unique and innovative but comes with the expense of other people's jobs. The blockchain technology would surely ignite the fourth industrial revolution, but what would happen to those affected by automation? Perhaps you can't really move forward without having some compromises along the way.

They can't control cryptocurrencies but they can certainly create their own and ride the wave of interest cryptos have gathered over time. Seeing that people still drool over cryptocurrencies and how easily people can be swayed with only the term, they're willing to jump on-board and keep up with the decentralized cryptocurrencies in order to gain control towards people's spending. State-issued cryptocurrencies really aren't appealing, since it's like fiat but with more control over what you do and more eyes on what you use it to. It's very disturbing to know that every step of the way, someone sees what you do and what you use your money at, and to know that it's easily achievable through state-issued cryptos, it just becomes scarier.

The only thing that will be affected by what the FATF wants to achieve are the exchanges who operate with cryptocurrencies and not necessarily the cryptocurrencies per se. The initiative is good and what they want to implement is also good, but knowing the nature of most cryptocurrencies, they really won't solve anything and the best they can get to are exchanges that are still being used for money laundering and fraud due to regulations that has some holes that can be circumvented easily.

If they really are serious in their effort to prevent such, collaborative effort is needed in order to establish a standard to combat fraud and money laundering among entities that deal with cryptocurrencies.

The problem is people who are in the poverty line can't break from the chains since capitalists are continuously making the gap wide between the rich and the poor by making the poor work more for less. Perhaps the poor can adapt cryptocurrencies, but with the little time they have left to study crypto, the harder it is for them to understand and see the positive effect of it to their lives. Though cryptocurrencies might alleviate some of the weight, I don't see it single-handedly removing the problem altogether.

I wouldn't count on the ETFs anymore for major price boost. There seems to be no development in that area even if Trump gave his positive remarks regarding the ETFs. Another delaying tactic, it seems, and they have been doing the same things recently, only to turn down the ETF after the extension period has expired. Surely traders will capitalize on this, and it might turn bloody in the next weeks or so.

Much to our dismay, no matter how many reports are published removing bitcoin from negative allegations, most governments would simply shake the reports off and just do their own thing. Even before bitcoin existed, terrorist groups are funded with fiat, and what's even worse is that these terrorist sometimes get advanced weaponry that can only be procured with special licensing and deals, etc. It's quite impossible to see someone selling weapons for bitcoins at a huge volume, and there aren't any official reports stating that bitcoin has been used for terrorism and the likes. Money laundering and fraud, yes, but terrorism?

Sadly though, bitcoins aren't used for money transfers but rather as a form of investment. While that doesn't seem too bad, people fail to see the practicality of sending money through bitcoin which will cost them significantly less than your traditional wire transfer. Also, one thing preventing people from using bitcoins for.money transfer is the amount of time and effort it takes to acquire bitcoin. While getting approved for KYC isn't that hard, it still consumes time and the ever fluctuating value of bitcoin gives people the hesitation of using it. There are a lot of factors as to why people haven't switched yet, and it's not exclusive to the amount of fees they're going to pay for a facilitator.