It's futile. If people are spreading FUD for the hell of it, which is basically what you described, then there's really no way you can stop them. Small time FUDers that are bearish without reason barely affect anything anyway. FUD is most effective when used to spread confusion about real life events, such as the initial China ICO ban.

The best thing you can do is to call out sensationalized headlines so that normal people aren't victimized. Fake news has encroached into crypto territory after all.

What's so surprising about the results though? That they were different from some other poll in the past? That's kind of the thing with polls. Without proper statistical methodology, they're going to provide wildly varying results. McAfee's followers tend to be the more aggressive trader/hodler type, so his results were different from one made across several subreddits which likely include several casual traders.

I'm more surprised that only 5% of his followers invest in ICOs, given how he's been parading it as the future of funding.

I've read through it and I don't think it's going to go anywhere. It just seems like a group is protesting the regulations. But then again, the case did reach their supreme court, so I guess we won't know until they make a ruling. Personally I think having the current regulations nulled would open the door for new harsher ones, so I'd prefer things stay the way they are.

It's incredible how restless the South Korea scene seems to be lol. I wish they'd just settle down a bit.

50 have already been sold? That's ridiculous. I'd have thought it would be a very niche marketing move that would attract one or two customers, but 50? Sure some customers bought more than one, but still. I guess I've been underestimating how widespread Bitcoin already is.

What would be interesting to know is whethere there are advantages for customers to use Bitcoin. Do they give out special discounts or perks or whatever? I could see some people buying Bitcoin just to use it in this case.

Wait, if they're not open to new merchants then who exactly is currently using the service? Or is this more like a teaser launch?

It sounds great though. I won't say no to additional avenues of crypto payment. I hope it catches on. Bitcoin has been labeled unusable because of the clogged network at the end of 2017, and people need to know that's not the case anymore. All signs point to an increase in Segwit adoption (Coinbase is about to come out with support too!), and that should help handling the demand plenty.

Yes. How some exchanges work is that you are assigned a receiving address, and possibly a sending address. There are exchanges that let you request as many of either as possible, so for as long as you do not reuse any of them, you'll be anonymous as far as third party snoopers are concerned. These addresses don't necessarily reflect the amount that's in your actual account either, so they won't know how much you have stored in the exchange if you request addresses liberally.

Do note that they may be able to determine what exchange you are sending to and from by using wallet explorers though.

Yes you may. You may post any link for as long as it's clean. The only exception that I know of are for referral links.

Whether you can though, I don't know. There are limitations imposed on newbies and I'm not sure whether posting clickable links is one of them. It wouldn't hurt to try though, so go for it!

I personally think that adding such a phrase at the end of posts is fine for as long as it doesn't come across as spammy. The thing is though, that already goes without saying. That's how the system works; post something useful and get merit for it.

It may get frustrating if you feel like your useful posts get ignored, but that's just how things currently are, and actually asking for merit at the end of your posts may turn off other users because it might look to them that the only reason you're posting is to get merit.

I don't mind new members for as long as they actually contribute. And I'm sure most do. Newbies get a bad rep because of account farmers, and we should be seeing less of those soon because of merit. Anyone who actually tries to put an effort to integrate into the community shouldn't run into any problems.

That being said, competition? For what? Sure there are limited slots for bounties and whatever, but I'm sure that's the least of everyone's worries regarding a growing community. We all want the crypto community to grow.

You're unlikely to become a target because you can actually communicate well, and you seem to read enough to know what's going on. Most of the hate I see is directed towards spammers that want nothing but to pad their post counts to join signature campaigns. That mess led to the introduction of merit, toning down a lot of negativity regarding Default Trust users, but opening a new can of worms in merit abuse, etc.

I do agree that everyone should be treated with at least a little bit of respect though. Hurling insults is just about as helpful as the spam that spammers post in my opinion. Using the Ignore feature is a lot easier and a lot less negative. That being said, this goes both ways as I also see personal attacks as retaliation to red trust, etc., in which case you can't really fault the senior member for losing their top. The best way to tackle this is probably to just help who you can and try not to get too involved in personal attacks.

I never really cared about their rating, but hey, you have to give them credit for actually taking the time to respond. They seem to have done some research, at least.

Still, that doesn't mean people should give a rat's ass about them. Give them enough influence by echoing their rankings, and you're giving them the power to manipulate the market. They've done it before, and they can do it again. It's best to just give them as little word-of-mouth mileage as possible. The stock market don't need these sort of rankings, and neither does the crypto market.

I would argue that it would still have value because humans will still need to consume it, regardless of the abundancy of its supply. That means its intrinsic property to satisfy thirst gives it intrinsic value. Would you pay for it at such an instance though, assuming that all the water brought about by flood is potable? I'm guessing no, because it has zero market value at that point, considering external factors such as the abundancy of supply and the ease of access to it.

In this light, crypto doesn't have intrinsic value, and neither does fiat. Nothing's wrong with that either, because many other factors, such as government backing, or limited supply give them market value.

The problem is that people are making too big a deal out of intrinsic values. You don't need intrinsic value to have market value. Look at people buying Rolexes or Rolls Royces paying several times more than what they're intrinsically worth and see if they're complaining about the concept.

I don't know, man, I'd say it's somewhat positive unless you're a scammer:

https://qz.com/1200204/bitcoin-regulation-cftc-and-sec-weigh-in-on-crypto-oversight-at-us-senate-hearing/


If they're operating under that narrative, I wouldn't fear the regulations they're going to put out. I would certainly rule out an outright ban in the near future, barring drastic, unforeseeable circumstances.

Oh god I'm not sure if you're being serious or sarcastic. There's so much bullshit around that it's really hard to tell. If you had a ^/s at the end of your post I would have merited you lmao.

It currently doesn't seem like anything short of a cataclysmic mass terrorism event revolving around Bitcoin will cause the USA to ban it. They recently had a hearing where some regulatory heads were optimistic with the technology, and would rather see where it could go.

Theoretically speaking, it's going to suck pretty hard if they ban, but it wouldn't be the end of the world.

Going by that logic, should we also abolish police forces around the world because crime has existed since the beginning of time, and will always exist?

The easy answer as to why they need the info is that they're most likely obligated to ask for it under regulatory requirements. I understand the general reluctance of everyone to share their data given the number of high profile hackings and prolific identity thefts, but I feel like it's a necessary evil in some cases, where not having it would open the system to blatant abuse. That being said, everyone should be careful about what they share online, and to whom. It's always better to be a pessimist rather than an optimist in these cases.

I would normally agree with this, but I would argue that calling Bitcoin Cash just Bitcoin, which is what they want to do, is pretty scammy in itself. Legit competitors would want to distinguish themselves, not take over a name. Google never claimed to be Yahoo.

That being said, why would Coinbase delist Bitcoin Cash? Everyone should be able to choose which coins they wish to use, even the ones whose vision we don't agree with. Anything less than that is censorship.

Why let them get to you at all? That's obviously their own opinions, and you're obviously informed enough to form your own. They could just as easily have blown off your nagging if they don't believe in the technology.

Also, they're probably losing money because you convinced them to mine lmfao. That should be enough vengeance. Sneaky assholes are the best assholes!

That would be because past performance is not indicative of future results. You may as well ask why Bitcoin didn't grow as fast during the last month of December two years ago.

Crypto is very speculative in nature, and while trends do help some, there's no definitive way of knowing when and where it will go. You can try to analyze data all you want, and the market will still be what it is, which is unpredictable and volatile.

Because a lot of the ads are very scammy. Most of them are from bogus ICOs aiming to make a quick buck. I'm assuming they're creating a lot of trouble for Facebook to actually ban them outright; they're turning away money after all.

That being said, I don't think a blanket ban is the answer. It penalizes legit players in the crypto industry and just makes it seem like they're too lazy to enforce better screening. It also sends a message that the cryptocurrency market is a scam in general, which is unfortunate.