Beyond Chrome, which is something people should be avoiding if they value their privacy anyway, this highlights the fact that browser plugins are yet another attack vector. If you can live without them, please do so. This goes beyond the operating system too, so people using Linux or Mac should be equally cautious despite their reputation for being more secure.


I personally use Firefox with Duckduckgo as my default search engine, but I don't know if there's any sort of standard. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people used Chrome. Some people use so much of Google's services that changing browsers probably wouldn't do much for them. Convenience over privacy yada yada.

Each country typically has a poverty threshold, in case you're asking for precise numbers. It's determined with cost of living, etc. in mind. This is mostly used in official ecnonomic numbers.

Still, the word itself is largely subjective, as everyone who's struggling is likely to classify themselves as poor. There's no use in trying to draw a line between them.

I just want to point out that Breadwallet's main reasoning behind their open letter is actually lower fees, and lower block weight resulting in more transactions per block than just legacy. You may be right that Segwit is actually more inefficient memory-wise, but they're not at all commenting on where development should be, or should have headed -- just that Segwit has lower fees now.

I'm against forced updates as much as any other person, but this seems more like a plea than a forced order. People really should do their own research before upgrading though.

From strictly a scalability standpoint, I don't think so. Bitcoin debit cards are usually used for services that don't accept Bitcoin to begin with, so there wouldn't be on-chain transactions anyway with or without their help. I guess it could be argued that they make fiat conversions less frequent, but a person can just as easily just convert a big amount directly to fiat all at once.


For now. They at least provide alternative mode of payments by making Bitcoin compatible (and I use this word very loosely) with legacy systems. If things go well, they'll be obsolete in the future.


I'm not sure about Coinbase's service, but you normally use Bitcoins to top them up and you end up with a fiat balance. It functions as a normal prepaid card from that point on.


Still the banks. You're using a run of the mill payment card as far as the merchant is concerned.

That's pretty sound advice, especially because it can make old-ish GPUs relevant. How do you choose which coins to mine though? I'm sure you've wasted time mining some coins that didn't take off as well, with so many useless coins popping up. You should probably share your experiences with those too.

Well you avoid shady exchanges and their tracking, for one. There's no shortage of exchange horror stories on the internet, and if those spook you, these platforms are your best alternative. Some people use these exclusively just for privacy.

That being said, they can be a little more expensive, as you said, and less convenient because trades don't usually happen as fast. It's up to the user whether they value convenience or privacy more, and that's great in itself because you have choices and alternatives.

I see where you're coming from. This is the crypto world, and it's only smart to question people's motives. You're correct that this could very well be a marketing attempt. You're also probably correct that they only really stated the obvious for people who can connect the dots. I still welcome these figures though. I mean, everything we say is really just conjecture until someone shows up with numbers. These confirm some suspicions, at the very least. Maybe it will also get people to stop complaining about whales because it paints a picture where coins are distributed a bit better.

That is all, of course, assuming that they're actually good at what they do and that the numbers are as close to accurate as possible. I don't think there's really a way to confirm that though.

Well it's advantageous to operate your business where most of the user base are. There's also a sense of security that comes with dealing with a company that doesn't operate from somewhere not much people don't know about.

Malta is hands-down better policy-wise just because of clarity alone, don't get me wrong, but if it were such a no-brainer, everyone would be packing up to go.

That's kind of a little too conspiracy nut for me. No one has had any evidence whatsoever that a government entity was the brainchild of Bitcoin and the blockchain. They certainly have nothing to gain by working with forum members on Bitcoin matters.


Here's an article that tackles the US debt issue. tldr; the US is fine for now, and even defaulting won't equal a collosal USD collapse.

What's sad is that Zaif is a regulated exchange. I mean, we already know that the measures taken by the Japanese government probably wouldn't help security that much, but seeing one crack so early is quite discouraging. This may also lead regulators to tighten regulations even further, to the point where exchanges may not want to bother.

But yeah, the market has been desensitized to news like this, which is sad and amusing at the same time. There hasn't been any market reaction, and there likely won't be.

Why would this start a bull run though? The price didn't really stumble when they put the ban in place, so I don't think doing the reverse would affect prices either.

Either way, this is probably a good thing because it could encourage exchanges to go legit for more effective marketing. People also wouldn't have to worry about crypto ads being outright scams anymore if Google tightens its certifications. I don't think this will be good for the market (in the short-term at the very least), but it's certainly good for the community.

The difference is pretty explicit if you ask me. The problem is that newbies don't know what private keys actually do. If they knew going in that their private key is essentially their wallet itself, a prospective scammer would have to lie pretty creatively to have them share it. OP was right to list that first, and what sharing it could mean.

It would reduce the fees for sure, but only on the exchange's end. They pay your fees for you and charge their own fee on top of it, so they may not even reduce fees on your end. It completely depends on them. But yeah, it will be better for the entire network if exchanges use Segwit anyway, so I agree.

What exactly can a virus do to a mining farm though? Shut down operations? For what reason? They certainly can't make money out of it, and compromising Bitcoin security can't be advantageous for anyone. Stuxnet probably had massive resources behind it which can't be replicated by a bunch of hobbyists.

Anyway, it could be an inconvenience in the short term, but thanks to Bitcoin's decentralized and distributed nature, there is no single point that can bring the system down.

Just a little update, it seems like people expect it to be delayed again:

https://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-etf-delayed-comments/

Nothing is set in stone yet, but the process has definitely started.

Why would it be based on gold? Just so it wouldn't be dependent on USD or any fiat value anymore? It kind of doesn't make sense to me, because gold value is also paired with fiat anyway and also has its own fluctuations in value. Bitcoin actually being backed with gold is also out of the question because of Bitcoin's decentralized nature.

Either way, you seem to believe that the USD will collapse soon, and I beg to disagree. A USD collapse, which is the largest reserve currency in the world, would also mean a global economic collapse, and there may be bigger problems to worry about than what to pair BTC with. Also worth noting that people like McAfee's prediction takes into account massive USD devaluation, but they price it in USD anyway. Just my two satoshis on the matter.

Wait, 6.3 billion what? US Dollars? Weren't people always taught to include units as a kid lol.

There's one thing that aligns with my observations though:


Either way, we obviously can't trust the actual numbers' precision, but I feel like if there's anyone who's qualified to come up with numbers like this, Chainanalysis is. I'm quite inclined to believe them.

That doesn't really prove that Bitcoin isn't dead though. I mean, the natural order of things is to live until they die. They can simply say that this chart shows Bitcoin "living", and that it's going to die at some point in the future either way. It's just like trends continuing until they don't.

But yeah, not that whatever argument they're using can prove that Bitcoin is dead either, because every single one has fallen flat on its face so far. It's ultimately pointless to argue with people who will only believe what they want to believe, so whatever they say lol.

I think this just has a lot to do with people being set in their ways. I mean, they've been using cash and banking for their entire lifetime, which generally work well enough for people not too look towards riskier alternatives. There's this mentality that revolves around not fixing what isn't broken, right? The traditional financial system isn't broken as far as most people are concerned.

All I think we can really do to earn their trust is to keep using crypto to at least provide proof of concept to them that it can work. No preachy bullshit that fiat is a scam, etc., because that's more likely to alienate them -- you don't attack deep-rooted beliefs like that. Or that's what I believe, at least.

I'd like to clarify that I'm talking about cryptocurrencies, not virtual currencies (though it is a kind of virtual currency), and that they can be very different. You should be more specific and say cryptocurrencies instead from now on. But yeah, welcome to the community!

It's pretty strange because he would have no need to use another person for Localbitcoins trades. It doesn't ask for KYC unless you're handling large amounts. Did he talk about how much money would be involved? You'll probably be aiding in money laundering with your personal information at worst, and you get an easy job at best.


It's legit and legal under normal circumstances, but this sounds shady, so take everything with a grain of salt. Post any additional details here so the community can help you.

The trading you would be doing would be pretty straightforward though, if you're worried about that.