Each of them has a very specific list of which coins they support. The most popular alts are typically supported. If you're interested in one, you should try visiting their website. Make sure you don't buy from third parties.

To answer your question though, it would depend on the token. I know Ledger and Trezor supports ERC20 tokens (ones that run on the Ethereum blockchain), but I'm unsure about the other kinds. Airdrop tokens of the ERC20 variety could definitely be stored in them.

This is the only one I've found, in Brazil:

https://www.dippli.com/2018/04/13/masters-degree-in-cryptocurrency-finance-now-offered-in-brazil/

One question though: why? There are free online courses that cover a lot of ground (Coursera comes to mind), and there are resources all over the internet that are likely enough for you to be able to learn what you need to learn. I guess it does make sense if you want to go purely from an academic perspective though.

How exactly is it going to be held back by its energy consumption? Is the massive amount of consumption even a problem in the first place? It's not like we're under an energy crisis or anything. The gradual rise of renewable energy technology should also help curb any long term concerns -- I believe that we're bound for a breakthrough and it will invalidate any so called problems.

Pollution is a potentially big issue, but I imagine it would be hard to map out precise numbers to mining.

As for miner profitability, well, I would say it's best to let the system and its difficulty adjustments fend for itself. I personally don't see any red flags that would require any intervention.

To be fair, Bitcoin was the first crypto, and it wasn't really built with complete anonymity in mind. A case could even be made against that, considering how the ledger is completely public. But yeah, I'm nitpicking here lol.

This is an unfortunate side effect of regulations starting to creep in. You also need KYC for pretty much anything that relates to money, and if crypto is money, then it follows that it should be held to similar standards. I'm not saying it's fair, but you sadly can't have it both ways.

Yeah, I prefer giving them the benefit of the doubt and try to think to myself that this is basically their rationale. I mean, even if we were to assume that its founders are frauds, I'm sure that some people actually believe in the ideology. There are multiple ways to approach a single problem after all, and bigger blocks is a fairly direct-to-the-point solution to address scaling.

That being said, I'm still against their marketing because I believe that it's misleading.

I would be surprised if they went this far. All they would really need to do is to say US residents are not allowed to participate and have them swear on the ToS that they're not US residents. That way, they get more potential customers by giving people an opportunity to lie and participate, and it pretty much frees them of the legal responsibilities.

But yeah, the SEC is clamping down, and ICO organizers generally like easy money. Very few of them actually want to go through the trouble of complying with regulations when there's still a lot of business elsewhere.

I'll try going for a quick tldr;

Wash trading, in the traditional sense, is buying stocks through one broker and selling through another in an attempt to create fake trading volume. This is also applicable in crypto, and is bad because it fools other people into thinking the market is more active than it actually is. The manipulator can cause others to make bad investments, and at the same time, sell his holdings higher at the expense of other people.

Spoofing is creating buy orders only to cancel them. Done on a scale large enough, a manipulator can raise prices with ease and take advantage of it by selling.

As for solutions, they're being kept in check in traditional markets through trading regulations. Regulators could probably force exchanges to comply with anti-manipulation practices in the future.

This is actually a very bad idea because if your computer gets compromised, your private key could get stolen. If you only store them physically, they would have to be physically stolen. Store them digitally and you also run the risk of having them stolen remotely.

The Coinbase ruling is specifically for the IRS, and the IRS doesn't have any jurisdiction over your taxes. Even if the IRS somehow got their hands on your data, I seriously doubt they would waste time reporting you to the proper authorities. That also means Bittrex won't send your data to your tax agency unless they are specifically requested to provide it, and even then they could choose not to.

I do not recommend not declaring transactions, but no, I don't think you're fucked. You could probably get away with not doing anything right now, but you risk being in bigger trouble in the future in case France pulls an IRS-like move. I'm not saying it will happen, just that it could, and all things considered it may simply be safer to just declare your losses (I mean if they're as big as you say they are, you shouldn't get a big tax bill anyway) and move on.

That sounds pretty hefty. Would you still need to pay income tax on any gains by holding? That would be ridiculous if so. But uh, I guess this legitimizes crypto and would shut the door on any talk of bans in the foreseeable future. Can't have it both ways, I guess.

On a related note, does the RBI still want banks to close accounts that deal with cryptocurrencies? Would taxation affect that?

I don't think it'll change critics' views. They've already made up their minds that Bitcoin is evil, so this is just another drop in the bucket. Never mind the fact that kidnappers have asked for cash in kidnappings since time immemorial.

But yeah, it kind of baffles me why they would ask Bitcoins as ransom money. They realize they're going to have a ridiculously hard time spending it because the addresses involved will be heavily monitored right? Cash would be a lot easier to hide and spend. They're probably planning to escape overseas or something, and even then, their identities could still be traced fairly easily. It kind of makes me think that the kidnappers themselves know nothing about the technology. Misconceptions work both ways, if that were the case, and they will be brought to justice because of Bitcoin lmao.

Nope. There is no central authority that handles lost Bitcoins. For your case specifically, you likely got scammed, and if so, I don't think there's a way to get your Bitcoins back. Bitcoins that are lost are typically lost forever.

That being said, it's entirely possible that there was just a misunderstanding on your part, so if you could share what happened, someone may be able to help you. The exchange itself, if you used one, may even be able to give you your coins back depending on the situation.

What they are:

https://www.coindesk.com/short-guide-bitcoin-forks-explained/

Are they safe:

They don't affect you or your coins in any way. The complications start when you start claiming them. Once a fork is launched, you're likely to find a lot of wallets, in which you will need to import your Bitcoin private key to gain a corresponding amount of the forked coin. Fake wallets are going to take your private key, and steal any Bitcoins within. Make sure you only use the official wallet for the fork and empty the Bitcoin address whose private key you will import beforehand.

How to earn:

Once you claim them, you hold then sell, or you sell immediately. You earn from them just like you earn from any other altcoin, except you got them for free.

Die is a strong word.

I imagine traders are going to want to stay away because it's going to be hard to profit, but holders who have already taken out significant returns are likely to stay and let their money sleep for a while. I wouldn't say stagnancy will kill Bitcoin, but it could very set adoption back, if nothing else. Merchants are willing to accept Bitcoin payments because of the increasing number of holders, so that number dropping could also hold back merchant acceptance. Purists and enthusiasts, of which there are quite a few, won't bat an eyelash to this.

That being said, everyone will be rushing back once Bitcoin is ready for primetime, so I don't mind. Utility that rivals that of Visa, et al., which is the end game, will be the driver to true adoption anyway.

For those of you who want to read the actual article:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-24/bitcoin-manipulation-is-said-to-be-focus-of-u-s-criminal-probe

Before overreacting, I'd like to know how they're going to be doing the probe. Are they, themselves, going to watch exchanges and have access to all the transaction data, or are they going to basically have the exchanges follow some anti-manipulation protocols? I would be fine with the latter, but I imagine the former is going to be a disaster.

If we're only at the price level we are now because of rampant manipulation, I would imagine we're going to be in for quite a crash.

You could very well end up with stolen coins, and they could very well be tracked to you. Any investigator worth their salt, however, won't assume that just because you came into possession of them means you're the thief. There are going to be a lot of factors involved, like how the mixer works, could they have access to the mixer's logs, etc. Worst case scenario, probably, is you get tracked down and questioned.

For as long as you're not doing anything shady with mixers, you shouldn't have anything to fear in the least.

You may also want to link this in case people don't believe that most ICOs are scams until they see actual figures lol. Perfect for that red text "a good percentage of ICOs are indeed scams":

https://www.investopedia.com/news/80-icos-are-scams-report/

Aaand you should have enough merits to be a member for those images now! Keep up the good work!

Here's a proper link:

http://www.scmp.com/tech/enterprises/article/2146648/theres-bitcoin-bubble-says-alibaba-executive-chairman-jack-ma

I personally don't care, and I don't see why anyone else should. Whether or not Bitcoin is a bubble is a matter of opinion at this point, and only time will tell which side has been right all along. But yeah, billionaires seem to be speaking against Bitcoin one after another lol. I don't think there's any conspiracy or collusion between them of any sort, and it doesn't look like the market cares about their opinions anyway, so all is well.

That's pretty interesting, but how are the numbers on a per country basis? China still seems to generate majority of the network's hashrate; does mining there cause any substantial damage to the country at all? I would guess that's a no, and that it would also be a no for any other country with significant mining operations. That means that this particular statistic isn't worth raising any alarms over.

Even if it does alarm regulators, they should be basing their decisions on statistics within their own country, because there's no point in citing worldwide numbers for domestic regulations. I don't think Bitcoin mining has ever caused severe power shortages anywhere yet, except maybe on some severely depressed areas, where it should probably be rightfully throttled.

Personally, I would first narrow it down to the long running ones, check out their reputation and scam accusations, and only then will I consider the fees and other factors. Even if I find one I'm quite happy with, there's no way I'm trusting it with a significant amount of coins.

But yeah, all you really need is some patience and Google. Plenty of exchanges have threads in Bitcointalk too, so I would also recommend checking them out to see how they interact with customers.