The number 3 is, I think, the easiest thing to spot on determining whether an ICO is a scam or not. There are many times that I have considered buying into an ICO only to look at the dev team and being disappointed by the results. Normally, if the team behind the coin is transparent and really want to get their brand known, they might as well get themselves known by the public. Oftentimes, dummy accounts and fake credentials are being used in such ICOs that it's easy to question the authenticity of their project and whether or not they're lying. From this simple point alone I base my decision while the others you mentioned remain in the process albeit only getting a minor role.

Things like this happen all the time, especially since it involves money in the process. There's no real way to combat hacks, just upgrade the systems responsible on keeping an exchange/service safe. It will keep on happening as long as bitcoin has value and because it's easier to get away with it compared to when you hack a bank. The money can be tossed around and moved around without anyone noticing. Bad times for Bithumb, though they manage to keep their heads up and reimburse what's lost with their clients, so all in all not a Mt. Gox 2.0 looming and possibly causing a negative impression towards bitcoin in general.

That's big and deep words being used on bitcoin lol. It's been almost a day since the hack was done and so far, there are no major movements toward the negative side of the spectrum, so how would that be a struggle and how would BTC be exhausted at a price range it's been sitting at for nearly 2 weeks? Such reports were also made in February where BTC could face tremendous losses and sink down to $2.5k yet nothing happened, and $5900+ was the bottom of the pit and a rebound to $9.7k happened afterwards. Honestly though, fear-mongering and FUDding won't do too much damage right now as most people are now smart enough to not be swept away by emotions and negative news.

1 or 2% +ve changes shouldn't be called recoveries and not be celebrated at all, except if it's a continuous rise over the course of a few months/weeks. Just a quick look at the charts say that there are no recoveries happening along the way, seeing that the bearish sentiment over the market is still strong and selling pressures are still present. The market is going sideways and one big sell order could change the course of the next few weeks. Right now, we haven't been into sub-$6k despite the continuous selling pressure the market has seen for the past few weeks so it's still good in my book.

You're right, the market needs to constantly pump in billions of dollars every year just so the market could stay afloat within $50k ranges, however, there are no definite sum of money that needs to go in the market in order for the price to maintain its throne. There are times wherein a huge selling pressure is present and there are also times that the market seems calm and all are in the green. Methinks that $50k is definitely reachable, though the word sustainable isn't.

As for the block reward being halved, always remember that machine prices adjust according to what's the current bitcoin price, so again, there's no general way of getting the average expenses mining operators might face in the next ~2 years.

Maybe I'm not reading too much but this is just one of the few times I encountered a complaint against Coinbase. I still remember reading about their 10 BTC raffle back in 2015 wherein a 16-year old dude won, and back then, Coinbase was the most prominent BTC/USD exchange among others. Personally, I never used Coinbase or anything, but my colleagues in the US who used the said exchange conveyed that their (Coinbase) customer support takes an awfully long time to respond to their clients' queries, and that's already a bad thing. As for deposits being lost in the wind, this is the first time I encountered such. I don't think regulation is to blame for non-professional practices by a certain service but perhaps the management itself. After all, regulations are created to ensure that no illegal things or wrongdoings are done by the service to its peers.



You're not alone. It's easier to use Circle than any other established exchanges present nowadays.

During the inception of bitcoin, it literally has no value whatsoever. People just chose to give it some value and so history begins. Others thought that it could be a great speculative asset and so trading of bitcoin starts, with exchanges being set up and enthusiasts putting some real money onto it. The value of 1 bitcoin became something significant that enthusiasts started to think that they could 'farm' it on a large scale via mining, so dedicated miners, called ASICs are created just for mining bitcoins. From then on, people are buying and selling bitcoin up to the point that it reached such heights that people back then never thought would be possible. Right now, the cost of mining 1 bitcoin + supply and demand are the main factors on determining bitcoin prices.

Actually for a country that's financially-oppressed by gangster-like people, keeping their assets in something discreet seem to be a nice move. It also saves them from inflation that might happen in their country and enables them to control their money at will. It might sound like it's not a necessary thing to do but for starters, saving your money from an economy spiraling out of control is always the best move, and Kenyans might have the shot for that. A third world country like Kenya 'might' not seem to need crypto, but looking at another angle, this could totally help them.

TBH if a user only intend using bitcoin on general transactions like sending and receiving, the user doesn't need to know about the inner workings and technicalities accompanied by it. The option of sending or receiving money by just scanning a QR code is actually good for the average Joes who wish to use the cryptocurrency. Also, fiat with its inner workings and technicalities is also difficult to grasp, but do people need to know about it? No, because as long as the paper/coin is able to hold value and is transferable, they can use it in exchange for goods and services, just like what bitcoin does essentially.

I see it as this, the market is just tired of seeing the same hack issue every now and then and it just continues on its merry way. We've been bombarded by these 'x exchabges i hacked' for the past 2 or 3 years and every time an exchange goes off, the effect on the market goes less severe as time goes by. It could be that there are just no scared-ass holder of the coins left in the market and everyone now is just busy accumulating despite the bad news and such. But from what I see, negative news or positive news, the price doesn't move that much; are we past the phase of bitcoin being moved by shoddy journalism and news? I hope so.

Probably one of those scenarios that seem to be a big news but tends to deliver nothing on the current price. Personally, I think Square gaining its bitlicense is a big news albeit the slump of a reaction the market expressed. Effects aren't really seen or observed overnight but rather on a long term. This move will benefit traders and non-traders that wants to acquire bitcoin and uses Square cash at the same time. No big jumps for now but once people got the hang of it, gradually over time, people will see that this is indeed a positive news and something to be celebrated.

There certaibly is an audience for such, knowing that podcasts for weird, edgy shits are available to the public lol. Methinks that this is actually a good idea, and instead of listening to some religous bullshit or conspiracies of some sorts, trading strategies and insights about the markets would probably help the average Joe trader create his own ideas and tweak his strategies on trading. This will be beneficial and inspiring, for sure, and a lot of people would gladly listen to the words of financial experts and proven traders.

Your name seems Vietnamese to me, but the recent bans point out to india prohibiting banks to meddle with cryptocurrency-related affairs. The general public interested in bitcoin seem to be the most affected with the recent sanctions and as such, it's likely that people would just forget about procuring bitcoin since it might not be worth the hassle after all. P2P trades aren't restricted, so LBC is still a viable way to go., but bank transfers to an exchange? It would be difficult to trick the bank.


It's kind of hypocritical for the Indian government to propose such a project while their citizens think that crypto altogether is bad because of them. There's a huge possibility that this crypto they're planning to launch would flop and not be supported by the locals.

The application of blockchain that they'll use would probably not include bitcoin's traditional PoW scheme as you know it. Blockchain isn't limited to just coins and whatnot, it could also be used in logistics, banking and finance.. you name it. They'd be keen on developing such a tech considering how cheap and easy it is to implement and have a robust system compared to their obsolete systems which are, up to now, still prone to hacks and thefts. Blockchain might be the greatest innovation of the 21st century and might be the invention that the world is waiting to spark yet another industrial revolution.

This all boils down to the buyers, especially if they haven't researched about bitcoin one bit. The address format is entirely different, also, they will know it depending on the wallet software they use. They can first check the internet about the difference of the two yet they can't, which shows negligence on their part. Let's be honest, it's still fraud at the end of the day, but if you haven't done anything to prevent such and put the blame into others, that means you don't deserve the justice for whatever happens to your money in the end. This has been a long-standing problem and people still can't do a single research before buying.

At first, I kinda like the idea of ICO after the successful bout of ETH, but afterwards, many wanted to replicate the success by creating their own coin without providing any real value to its peers. In short, they masked profit-grabbing through ICOs and let people think that what they're doing is innovative and right. With ICOs being unregulated, people could just create it without a hitch, grab other people's money and get away with it. It becomes the safe haven of a money launderer if not watched over so no, I don't think cryptospace being unregulated is a strength for most people. Maybe for the dev of the coin, sure, but for peers and consumers? Certainly not.

This is just another typical bullish dude who later realizes that such goals are clearly unattainable right now due to the present market conditions and moves his predictions to a more unsure date. Let's face it, no matter how hard we want the market to go crazy again, it isn't gonna happen. As he stated, there was a parabolic move that took crypto to uncharted heights, and afterwards, a blow-off happened that left us with the current prices which still is unstable. Also, I wouldn't blame regulations for adding fire to the flame. If anything it increases consumer's confidence on the asset knowing that they are somehow protected by their 'constitutional rights' upon buying the coin. It's just the market adjusting and consolidating, at least on the way I see it.

We're far from being place into such a situation given that the governments would surely benefit from allowing cryptocurrency exchanges in their own soil. Number one would be the taxes and number two, they will at least know a place wherein people might be hiding their wealth. So, assume that all countries ban exchanges altogether and the only thing left is P2P trades which will be very difficult. I think that will spark the creation of a decentralized P2P exchange in which the governments would have no authority at given that no central body really runs the operation; just a website wherein people can directly trade btc to fiat without a hitch. Generally this could work, though at large-scale trading, methinks that this will probably not be viable in the long run.

The difference between the two is that McDonald's bring something 'physical' for our short-term consumption while bitcoin prepares us for the 'future' by keeping our money intact even with the severe inflation happening all around us. Bitcoin has a long way to go, and with the positive reception from the IMF, among other countries, I can say that bitcoin has somewhat proven itself on some of the most well-known financial institutions. The market capitalization alone doesn't speak much, tbh, but to be ranked with one of the most known companies, I'd say it's pretty impressive to say the least.

I wouldn't say illegal but rather prohibited on banks and institutions that the RBI and the government have official connections with. Besides, people can still go P2P if banks wouldn't be allowed to transact with exchanges after all so it's still good. The problem is, it will remove the convenience part on the people who wish to buy bitcoins and might discourage them on giving it a go, but persistent users would surely find a way and possibly create a better platform wherein they can trade their fiat to bitcoins without having to rely on bank transfers and third party, or in other words, a decentralized exchange. The future is still bright for Indians since no official bans were in place, so business as usual, just no bank transfers for bitcoins.