If there ever will be an effect, it will at least be a few months away:


Creditors can also be paid directly in Bitcoin as far as I know, making a huge sell-off even more unlikely. Also worth noting that the trustee sold to an OTC exchange in the past, so all the coins don't necessarily hit the market all at once, even if they decide to go through that route again. We'll just have to wait and see.

What was the court supposed to answer? There's apparently a creditor's meeting at September 26th though, which will take place in a courtroom, so maybe that's what you're referring to? If so, then you're not going to get any news until it actually takes place.

I just want to chime in to say that this isn't necessarily bad. Selling everytime the price rises could end up losing you money in the long run, especially in the crypto market where growth is explosive. You could easily end up selling below or near the next bottom.

I'd personally say there are really no standard practices when the price dips, other than to make informed decisions unclouded by FUD. There's no real way to avoid losses anyway.

Wait, you're the dude who creates street art that accepts tips in Bitcoin, right? I've seen your work being discussed around here. Some people were even talking about how your QR could be altered into a different address lmfao. Either way, I'm a fan!

I hope your event goes well!

Well not necessarily. It looks like they're going into R&D of blockchain technology applications, so they're not necessarily be going to promote Bitcoin itself. They're going to want to find new uses for it, which may or may not involve cryptocurrencies. I don't think this will help Bitcoin's technological aspect either, unless they somehow find a way for crypto to scale that Bitcoin can use.

Either way, this probably won't have a drastic effect on the crypto space. Mining is still projected to be a thing, it's just that people won't be rushing into it.

I completely agree that this is all completely speculation, but Tim Draper isn't really considered an analyst. The only reason people care about his predictions is because he predicted that Bitcoin would hit $10k in 3 years back in 2014, which ended up being true. He's really just a permabull who got lucky with an almost equally absurd prediction in the past. Getting an absurd prediction right kind of makes his newer ones seem less absurd, but I'm not holding my breath for it lol.

But yeah, if he gets lucky again I'm not complaining either lmao.

Well the most glaring difference is that you can't alter the data on a blockchain, while the same isn't true for a database.


The only obvious one I can see is immutability. Permissioned blockchains could also be more distributed thanks to its nature, so it may make it easier to protect from data loss. Other than those, I guess it really just boils down to taking advantage of their key differences.

That's because they aren't moderated, and likely will never be. This place is ran in such a way that the community takes care of community issues, while moderators and admins only address forum-specific issues. This is good in my opinion, because it decentralizes influence between users and moderators. The community basically decides which way it's going, and there's no gatekeeping.

It's all up to the people involved to practice due diligence on whatever they may want to involve themselves in.

This is actually a barrier even in developed countries. Both China and Sweden have encountered problems going cashless:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/11/china-cant-afford-a-cashless-society/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-18/-no-cash-signs-everywhere-has-sweden-worried-it-s-gone-too-far

It should be better in a few years as technology gets more and more accessible.

That doesn't mean that crypto doesn't help with financial inclusion, of course. I just wanted to share that to let people know that the issue isn't exactly black and white.

Either way, I agree with the general message of your post. Crypto offers real solutions to real problems, which is one of the reasons I believe it's going to stay.

Lol there are still clamors for it, as evidenced by the apparent 1400 public comments urging the SEC to approve VanEck's proposal. It does seem like people have been feeling like the SEC has been stringing the crypto world along though, with even accusations of manipulation popping up.

Either way, an approval would surely still affect the market favorably, we just don't know if it would be sustainable, or if it would be good for the overall community.

That's kind of a slippery slope. No one should have to be questioned for protecting their privacy. Some people could simply not want everyone to know how much money they have (which is why most countries have bank secrecy laws in place), and even just that is a perfectly good reason for obscuring your identity.


This is only really true (or half the time anyway) if you somehow committed a crime big enough to have large government agencies not spare any resources in tracking you down. They typically won't go through the trouble otherwise, and certainly not when you're just trying to protect your privacy.

Nothing at all. The market decides which coin is best, and the current runaway winner is Bitcoin. There are zero indicators that something will leapfrog it anytime in the near future either. Bitcoin is only going to get better and the gap is only going to get larger.

To further support that stand, this is a ranking put out by the Chinese government -- the very same anti-crypto government that banned ICOs and fiat exchanges. I'm not saying that this is propaganda (though it could easily be, knowing them), just that they're not exactly in a good position to rate cryptocurrencies in the first place lol.

To be fair, he actually reiterated it because he was asked about it in an interview. Here's the source article with the interview itself:

https://www.thestreet.com/investing/bitcoin/tim-draper-reiterates-250000-dollar-bitcoin-price-target-14712907

It was actually pretty interesting, but of course the media focuses on his prediction lol. I didn't know he was able to buy Bitcoins off the Silk Road coins auction.

I know the chances got better with the recent pro-crypto SEC appointment, but I still wouldn't hold my breath. I'm sure an approval would do wonders for the price thanks to all the hype (still) surrounding the issue, but would it really be good for the long run if large financial entities held massive amounts of coins? I'm not saying it won't be, just that it's something to ponder on.

Also, I'm sure this is going to come up at some point, but I'm pretty sure this wasn't delayed in the interest of price manipulation.

There's no way other than asking other coin holders to sell you coins for Paypal. You're likely going to get tagged as a scammer though, since you're not trusted, so I wouldn't suggest it.

You may want to consider something like Localbitcoins instead. They don't really ask for identification unless you're trading large amounts.

I'd say they're completely unnecessary for the average joe, but may attract companies or large entitities who lack the expertise in handling them. They also offer insurance, etc. to mitigate risks.

All-in-all, they're catered towards institutional money and will only really help adoption towards that end. Considering the lukewarm reactions to crypto in the financial space at the moment, it's going to be a while before these custodial solutions make an observable effect in the market.

You need to use a mixer to cut off the trail to your wallet. There are probably a few other ways, but that's the most straightforward one at the moment.


It should be safe enough. Running a VPN could add to the anonymity factor though, and might help with snooping Tor exit nodes depending on how you pull it off. Nord does say they don't keep logs, they're in an internet privacy friendly country, and that you can pay them anonymously with Bitcoin, so I'd say they could probably be trusted.


Have you already set it up? You should be able to pair it with a browser plugin. Check their website. You spend coins pretty much the same way you do with any other wallet afterwards.

They shifted business models long ago:

https://www.coindesk.com/chinas-bitcoin-exchanges-shift-p2p-model-domestic-crackdown/

As buwaytress has said, for as long as they're not selling crypto for fiat and vice versa, they're pretty much free to do whatever they want (except start ICOs I guess lmao). That's how China has been retaining an okay-ish trading volume. Cryptocurrency isn't blanket banned.

Also, I don't know if people noticed, but OP listed Vietnam in two sections lmao. Either way, the best approach would be to research specific countries that concern you because things are often not as simple as legal/illegal.

How are you so sure? I tried to do a quick research on the subject and came up empty. It's hard to know who coins belong to, and much less where they came from.

That being said, while Asia seems to dominate the trading volume (Japan, China before it), Asian news don't tend to move the market as much as American news do. Neither means anything except that we can't really draw a proper conclusion without actual numbers.

It did create a new industry, and consequently new jobs, but I don't think it's a significant job creator yet in the grand scheme of things. Most countries obviously don't see it as a positive factor in employment yet, considering their general wariness in letting the industry in.

Things are completely different in Japan though, where there are a lot of exchanges lining up for licenses. It's looking like they're about to solidify crypto as its own industry in the near future.

As for people getting jobs launching their own coins, lol. Most of them really just prepare themselves for an exit scam. We're better off ignoring them.