They do work to a certain extent, but they're still far too unreliable in my opinion. News and developments from all around the world are one of, if not the largest factor in crypto price movement, and technical analysis methods can't take those into account. I personally don't put too much faith in them.

I agree with everything else you said though. It's not like anyone can prove Bitcoin is a bubble by just showing a graph anyway. It's not a bubble until it pops, and experts have been predicting that for a few years now to no avail.

That's great and all, but I don't think it's very relevant to the current situation with respect to the current central bank circular. The bottom line is that it's not banned, the banking sector just rejects it. I don't think the panel allowing its use will make their central bank rethink their position, though I'd love to be wrong.

I'm very interested in what will come out of the hearing though. I hope we get a favorable result.

You can buy and sell Bitcoin with fiat, but you can't use them to pay for anything. For as long as you don't use them to purchase goods/services, you should be fine.

Source:


As a sidenote, you can't use any foreign currency to buy anything within the country in normal circumstances either, so this isn't specific to Bitcoins or crypto. The Rupiah is their only legal tender.

There are still some countries that don't require any kind of verification though, so this isn't a very good reason to believe that it's unlikely for bots/alts to appear. Even if your country does link your identity to your numbers, Telegram doesn't, so they won't know it's the same person using multiple numbers. Some people say they can get Google Voice numbers to work with Telegram too, so it's probably quite easy to set up bots/alts.

But yeah there is no easy way to tell. Bots may be easier to catch because they typically aren't very sophisticated, but alts can be almost impossible to detect if their owner is smart enough. You just have to not trust anyone blindly and not judge the size of the community by just the number of members.

I beg to disagree. The blockchain (especially permissioned applications of it) is just a glorified database in some ways. If it were so easy to apply and if it could make everything better, everyone would have already jumped into it. Not every business needs immutability and/or self-verification for their business processes.

You certainly do need a lot of imagination to take advantage of it, but I would argue you would also need even more fundamental knowledge of the technology itself.

I did say it's going to take a couple of lifetimes though, as bolded above. Innovation is a given, and is meant to render past technology obsolete, so it should be perfectly reasonable to assume that something else will take its place in the far, far future. I'm not in any kind of hurry lol.


They're similar, but not the same. Bitcoin being obsolete (which is what the topic says) does not at all imply that the blockchain will be obsolete, but the blockchain being obsolete (which is what the article says) does imply that Bitcoin will be obsolete. The latter implies one thing, while the former says another thing entirely. Friedman, the person in question, doesn't even mention cryptocurrencies, so he's probably talking about the blockchain's potential application in different fields. This also explains the hype he mentions, considering the praise it receives from several high profile people.

Nope. It's a free market. People will use the best crypto available to them for the most part. It just so happens that, all aspects considered, Bitcoin is the best crypto available at the moment. No one let Bitcoin rule the roost either -- the market did that on its own. You can't force inferior coins on people.

The price movement has more to do with all cryptos being speculative assets people use to earn money rather than Bitcoin being in the spotlight. Exchange hacks and/or regulations that have nothing at all to do with Bitcoin also affect its price negatively after all. I don't think this will change until the general public starts using them for their actual utility, because they're pretty much all the same to them at the moment.

Let's clarify: He didn't say Bitcoin will be obsolete one day, he said blockchain technology will be. He also said that it will be on the basis that intelligence agencies will be able to decrypt it. Well, good luck with that I suppose.

I do think blockchain technology being obsolete is an inevitability though, but unlike Friedman, I think it's going to take a couple of lifetimes, and it's going to be because of a similar but superior technology being invented.

Why didn't they let you withdraw the money the first time you tried?

But man I feel like I've been seeing a lot of people complain about HitBTC in the recent months. They also have a lot of scam accusations which could easily be Googled. Makes me wonder why people still use it lol.

It's all about reducing overhead and simplifying existing business processes. That being said, I don't think it's applicable for every business. You could start with specific use cases that make it worthwhile in some industries. Here is a quick rundown on how it can help banking:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2017/08/10/practical-examples-of-how-blockchains-are-used-in-banking-and-the-financial-services-sector

I'm sure there are applications that haven't been thought of yet considering how young blockchain technology is.

That may be true in some cases, but India is not a dictatorship, and I prefer we give them the benefit of the doubt. Different branches are meant to function independently, which is how their own Supreme Court is questioning the central bank's move in the first place. If they were all working in unison to push out crypto, it would be far simpler for them to simply tune out the noise.


Well their central bank did explicitly state that they did not conduct any research, so it's entirely possible they don't understand at all lol.

Well you still need to gather the materials to print with somehow. If 3D printing technology ever became this futuristic, it's only going to mean that businesses will shift to cater to it and its essentials. Kind of like how smartphones spawned industries revolving around apps, accessories, etc., but in a much larger scale. I also imagine there will be fewer corporations, but they'll also likely be much larger lol.

This does decentralize manufacturing though, and would effectively kill/cripple it, which isn't much different from crypto and banking. I would have never thought crypto and 3D printing were similar in any way until today lol.

If you absolutely have to choose between the two, you may as well go for faucets. You basically lose time to get chump change (and that's being generous), while you actually lose both time and money from most cloud mining sites. Neither option is ideal though, obviously, as others have pointed out.

What exactly are you looking for anyway? If you want to use your extra time to earn money, you should take a look at bounties, which are likely infinitely better than most faucets. If you have the money and want it to grow, buying crypto and HODLing/trading is less risky than putting your money in mining sites. Good luck!

It's not even the government's handiwork. It was their central bank's. I'd say that means there's a very slim chance it has anything at all to do with crimes (not involving money laundering, etc.) or their prevention, because that's not their directive anyway.

I'm sure some banks see Bitcoin as a threat, but I'm also convinced this case has more to do with ignorance than that fear. They've admitted that much. They've been hearing that it's bad, so they'd rather not deal with it.

You do have to install Electrum in Windows first. You're supposed to create a wallet with it. After choosing the wallet type you wish to create, you are given the option to use a hardware device. You shouldn't run into any problems if you follow the step-by-step tutorial.

You know 10 BTC is a fortune right? It's utter bullshit that you don't have enough for withdrawal when you have that amount. I can pretty much guarantee you that they just want to scam you for 0.05 BTC. If they're about to give you 10 BTC in winnings, why not just give you 9.95 straight up? It doesn't make any sense. It's a good thing you asked about it here first.

Those aren't the largest holders. They're some of the largest holders. We don't have a precise number of their holdings. Satoshi's 1 million, for example, is a product of speculation more than anything. No one knows how much he actually controls. The FBI are also planning on getting rid of their holdings, or they might have already.

There's no hard data for distribution because anyone can have any number of wallets, and no sane large holder will tell anyone how much they actually own. All we know for sure is the number of coins that have been mined, and the number of what's left to mine. We don't even know the precise number in circulation.

Wait what? Is he planning on running? Lmfao. There's a chance he could win, too. I mean, look at the current US president lol. They're also pretty similar in that they just speak whatever is on their minds without thinking about it. He's going to be popular.

That being said, while I share his enthusiasm of Bitcoin, he's ridiculously corrupt as is now. Put him in a position of power, much more so the highest position of the land, and he's going to try to make money out of everything and everyone. Don't be fooled.

Well, at least a few banks certainly believe cryprocurrencies pose a threat to them. Here's one example:

https://www.coindesk.com/british-banking-association-bitcoin-is-a-real-threat-to-banks/

I'm guessing a few more share the same sentiment but would rather keep it behind closed doors. There are a lot of moving parts for sure, but we should at least be able to assume that banks being redundant for majority of the populace poses a massive problem for them. Still, I believe they'll be able to adapt to that somehow. Maybe do research on that as well?

I also read a nice piece about technology in general (though Bitcoin is also mentioned) being a threat to banking:

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/040115/technology-biggest-threat-big-banks.asp

I'm sorry that these are pretty generic, but I'm just a casual learner lol.

That's true, but I'd say the recent trade wars can have potentially drastic effects, and he's obviously primarily responsible for them. He's single-handedly alienating allies too lol. That being said, it's hard to really see how he affects things because there doesn't seem to be a healthy middle when it comes to his public perception (and policies, for that matter). Everyone seems to be completely hostile against him or has their nose up his ass, so you have to take what they're writing with a grain of salt.

I don't think the US economy is in any danger of an imminent collapse, but if I were a resident, I'd start diversifying. Bitcoin's pretty cheap so now is a good time lol.