The employer should be entitled to the proceeds of the mining since it was bought at the cost of the employer, if any. Whatever fruits the employee has gained from the GPUs he bought should become property of the employer because of his unlawful usage, how little it may be. The employee should be liable for any damages caused since he has used up the electricity of is department. The Department may choose to sell the GPUs to recover the unlawful cost of the employee. Of course a used GPU would have a lesser value but it may help them recover even just a portion of their lost.

This has been an issue in signature campaigns. As effective as it is for ICOs, it also contributes to most of the trash in this forum. Shitposters have been desperate to earn money and to do so, they would come up with thoughtless and content-less replies or threads. Perhaps if signature campaigns advocate for quality posters for better promotion, then this would be avoided. It should not be enough that a participant of a signature campaign is able to post numerously within the week. Of course, it can be helped when not all signature campaigns even hire a campaign manager.

If I were to see an ICO that was advertised by someone who post constructively rather than someone who says nonsense, I'd likely invest on the former.

I find this to be a little ethnocentric. I see that you're just trying to help others be able to post constructively, but this is at a disadvantage for those who grew up with a different native language. Ethnocentrism is where there is a belief that one ethic group or culture is superior to another. This is usually implied and done impassingly, as like every other racial comment. This treatment toward Eastern posters is an example of ethnocentrism.

I'm really glad you pointed out the "East vs. West" issue. This is usually dismissed because the users in this forum have their freedom of speech or to their own opinion. I won't deny it, there are in fact many shitposters coming from the East and (shamingly) from my own country. For someone who's born with a different native language other than english, it's going to be hard for them to construct sentences in the correct grammar. If they were to excel and post constructively, it's true that they may do better within their local boards which may lack sMerit sources. You see, this gives them minimal opportunity to contribute and participate in the forum if they were confined to their local boards.

Obviously, the "sir, dear" remark is a cultural barrier. This is being said by the Eastern because of their value of respect, and they do this out of habit because they got so used to it. A habit to one is offensive to another. So who should adjust here?

Perhaps this forum lacks a little cultural relativism. All cultures are worthy in their own right and are of equal value. Are the opinions of others no longer of value just because it is not properly constructed in English?

I heard that in Iceland, the consumption of electricity for mining is greater than the electricity consumption for their whole household residence. The government has not done anything for this but I think that a more sustainable and efficient way of mining should be discovered. Electricity uses up non-renewable energy and unless something will be done, mining is going to hurt the environment.

Miners are able to benefit from the cheap resources and climate of Iceland however the locals within that area may be affected badly. The price of electricity will surely get affected someday and having to pay for an increased price would be unfortunate for them especially for those who may be only low income earners.

Confidence does not depend on the skill of a gambler. It's possible for one to be confident without even knowing for sure whether they would win. Confidence is not dictated by their skill, but by the faith that they have in themselves or on what they are betting on. If a person trusts that the decision they make would ultimately win, that is confidence. Whether or not that person is skilled, they may still be confident of their decisions or bets.

What is his basis for saying so? Anyone can easily say this. Even I can say so simply that the price of bitcoin would double by mid-2018. Anyone has the freedom to speculate because no one can tell 100% accurately what would be the price of bitcoin in the future. There may be some indicators and we can make predictions from it but there may be unforeseen factors which would affect the price in the future. It's good for someone to make a statement as it would spread positivity however there is no guarantee that it would actually happen.

It may take a long time for that to actually happen and for that to be realized. It's quite an interesting thought. If this were actually to happen, then this would be of much convenience and an advantage for those who have earned bitcoin way before it even became mainstream. People look into the USD price now because the only way for them to use their bitcoin or spend it is by converting it into fiat and the USD price would dictate its value. If goods may be bought directly with the use of bitcoin, that would be a whole different matter.

There are two ways to trade. There's short term and long term. Holding and selling is a long term way to trade while in short term, you usually buy then sell within short periods of time. The thing about short trading is you would have to keep track of the prices and know when is the best time to buy and sell. Know about pumps and dumps. Also, keep updated about the different coins so that you can diversify your portfolio.

This would be very advantageous for each crypto-user in the country. Having to pay taxes is a hassle and sometimes discouraging. It's a pain to have to pay some amount from your income which you have worked so hard to earn. Since it is now being treated as a capital gains tax, this is similar whenever you gain some revenue through stocks. That is how it is in my country and I hope that they would impose the same kind of regulation when it comes to cryptocurrencies.

It's quite likely for those who will be in position in the future would have more knowledge about crypto. It can already be seen that this generation is more knowledgeable and can easily adapt to technology as compared to the older generation. It's true that you can't teach an old dog new tricks and it's going to be hard to force the older people to get around with crypto. The new and current generation may be more open towards crypto and would be more willing to learn about it.

Not all of the time. The chance of losing your money may be greater than the chance of gaining profit. There are plenty of scams out there which makes it hard to tell which project would be good and profitable in the future. Just by looking at the current market, it can be seen that there are numerous coins that probably wouldn't prosper in the future. The same can be said with ICOs because they are too numerous and some projects are already of the same kind.

Not every trader. Others would want to avoid taxes so they'd rather that the government would not get involved with cryptocurrency affairs. It's possible that on the day that the government decides to legalize bitcoin, they may impose regulations and then put taxes.

Blockchain technology should be used by the government and utilize it to develop a better system for payments within the country. The government may choose to use crypto for the better in order to improve their country.

Perhaps the disadvantages which you have mentioned is precisely why banks are admitted to fear bitcoin, because where they lack is alternately where bitcoin is better. It's but normal to think of bitcoin as a threat since there's the chance that Bitcoin could revolutionize the world for payment systems. People may prefer the use of bitcoin over banks someday, and this is what would kill banks in the future.

The numbers are shocking. It has only spoked about cryptocurrency scams. There are plenty more other types of scams out there, and it can be seen that with just cryptocurrencies, many have lost huge amounts of money. As cited by the article, transparency has played a part on this. This article has shown how scams are still pretty prevalent and little is being done about it since it does not lessen by the day.

To conclude, security is very important for the cryptoholder. A disadvantage of decentralization is your inability to recover what you've lost and the possibility of getting hacked. Those who don't know how take care of their own wallet or private keys are those who are most likely to fall victim of crypto scams.

Since that almost anything is possible to happen for the price of bitcoin, we should always leave some room for doubt. Even I did not expect for the price to reach as it did last December, along with other users and even some of those who have have been in the cryptospace for already a long time. The likelihood for the price to reach that amount is similar to the likelihood that it would crash because anything may happen and there's no certain guarantee that the price would go up or down. For optimistic people like me, I would like to believe that the price will continue to go up and eventually at that price.

Not only have the big players been spreading the FUD, but also those who just came in the market just when the hype has started. The meme perfectly shows the attitude of those who thought that they would gain huge profit after a few months. They initially thought that bitcoin's price would continuously go up for the upcoming months but when they saw the price go down, they got drastically depressed. After seeing the state of bitcoin, they lost faith in it and began spouting out bad comments about it and thus contributing to the FUD. They obviously don't get how the price of bitcoin performs and was blinded by the promise of immediate returns or profit.

Big names are what investors look into and this makes the project more attractive. It’s a marketing strategy and although looking into the credibility is more important, ICOs get advisors because it attracts more investors. Additionally, having advisors affirms that the ICO is legit because there are numerous scam ICOs these days. Advisors may have a minimal function but it definitely can be said that they are essential.

I may not be a regular user of Paypal but if it comes to convenience - I think that Paypal is favorable over Bitcoin. More entities accept Paypal as compared to Bitcoin since it is adopted in many parts of the world. Also, there is the complication of high transaction fees and long confirmation time for Bitcoin. Although the same may be said with Paypal, I still think that Bitcoin still needs to work on those issues for it to be at par with a payment system such as Paypal.

Some experienced traders who already have experience from stocks or forex trading can judge a chart and predict from the trend whether the price will go down - or possibly a dump to happen. Of course, no one can be 100% accurate as everyone is just speculating even when it comes to technical analysis. Others have tips from insiders such as when whales or people with large amounts of coin would decide to dump and this would massively affect the price and make it go down.

That statement is a fallacy. Anonymity =/= buying drugs.

People expect a statement like that from a well known or influential man such as Bill Gates to make the market crash or the price to go down because they have seen how when negative news come out, it would have an effect on the price. I don't think that one person, even as well known as Bill Gates, would dissuade crypto-users. They know much more and use cryptocurrencies not to buy drugs but for many other purposes.