That's true at the moment, and it looks like it will continue to be in the near future. It's not by design though, but rather by limitations. Under normal network conditions, Bitcoin shouldn't have any problems with small payments, or really any other kind of transaction. It's going to stay an investment until then, and it's not even necessarily the best in that aspect with other alts posting much better growth.

That being said, once the Lightning Network is implemented, Bitcoin could reverse all that in a hurry. That can't come any sooner.

Something kind of like this already exists. There is a concept of tainted coins, which are basically coins that are being tracked from some shady deal. It's kind of possible to wash them clean by mixing them though.

I wouldn't be opposed to your idea, but some people may think that just because a certain address is not on the registry means they're not being scammed; basically giving people a false sense of security. That's also without taking into consideration the fact that it's unlikely for a scammer to reuse an address, because that just increases the possibility of them being pinpointed.

A registry of known scams (services, websites, etc.) would be far more useful in my opinion, and I'm sure something close to that exists, but most people can't even follow basic internet security guidelines, so lol.

That's because they have no effect on the main chain whatsoever. What happens is that the entire chain is copied until a specific end point block, and the rules from then on are changed. You can think of that chain branching out, so whatever happens to it has nothing to do with the main chain. This is also why people get free coins from forks. Because the main chain is copied, your private keys will be holding copies of your old coins on the new chain.

This is a question that can be answered with another question: Why is Bitcoin the most valuable cryptocurrency when it's currently one of the slowest, most expensive cryptos? That would be because few people actually care about the tech, and more about the gains they could get. Don't get me wrong, cryptos can certainly challenge the status quo in terms of being a payment system, but with their value rising like they do, there's little reason to use it for anything else but an investment.

Bitcoin is currently the main player and while it's not fully anonymous, it provides adequate privacy. Not everyone requires full anonymity after all. However, should future regulations compromise Bitcoin's privacy, it's not hard to imagine that cryptos like Monero will be at the forefront, and Bitcoin will need to be updated.

It could very well be. The Coinbase ruling might have opened the floodgates. But then again, there have been some regulations before that. Maybe it's just natural progression. Bitcoin is quite new to the public spotlight so it should be expected that regulations will come as the public comes to learn more about it.

I do believe regulations can help, because it gives the general public more confidence in entering the market knowing they havesome layer of protection, but they could still very much stifle growth. I don't think they will be too much of a problem for as long as they don't infringe too much upon privacy. Banks have secrecy laws, and so should cryptos.

Doesn't the burden of proof lie on the accuser? File your taxes as you would normally, and if they feel that you're not completely truthful, then they'll subject you to an audit and would have to prove that your numbers are fraudulent. You don't have to prove that your records are true. They will have to prove that it's false. Everything is recorded on the blockchain, so you have nothing to worry about for as long as you don't have anything to hide.

It is quite a scary prospect, but since we're speaking in theoreticals and you're saying that you're scared to buy Bitcoins, I assume you only want to be prepared should you experience this scenario. Just record all your transactions and support it with transaction IDs. They won't be able to say anything then.

At least they don't seem to be planning any overbearing regulations right? India has a massive populace and losing it would be a massive blow in the long run.


Isn't this a good thing? Why shit on it if it creates employment? I mean, the article did mention a few facts some of us would rather not face, but comparing it to a pyramid scheme is uncalled for.


This paragraph made me chuckle. Look how contradictory it is. First they're basically saying it's vulnerable, then next they're saying it could be so secure due to its encryption that it can be used for crime. Either way, both could just as easily be said about fiat. I'd think it would be safe to assume that there are more online banking users than crypto users, and they're just as easy to hack as any crypto. Fiat has been used for crime since its inception. I'll never be able to understand this angle.

Wait, are you implying that the FBI cracked Ulbricht's private key? Because they didn't. They had to go to court for that:

https://news.bitcoin.com/ross-ulbrichts-144336-bitcoins/

The users' coins were stored in their accounts, and since the FBI was able to take control of the servers, taking the coins didn't require them to hack private keys. Source here:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/02/bitcoin-silk-road-how-to-seize

The NSA conspiracy theory has always been popular for some reason, but I would like to point out that the US Government couldn't even crack a terrorist's iPhone. It's not that simple, and it's going to remain that way for the foreseeable future.

I think it's tied to the price loss. Bitcoin is stalling while the other cryptos are growing, so it makes sense for people to park their money in alts only to buy into Bitcoin again once it starts showing signs of a strong bull run. Since the market cap stays the same, it should be quite safe to assume that people are simply going where the money is at, and it's not on Bitcoin at the moment.

I do believe it's going to recover, but it seems like an uphill battle at the moment. Fees are still high and there's still quite a large backlog of transactions. I hope the Lightning Network comes soon, and as advertised.

Well I haven't heard of blockchains being hacked yet, so I wouldn't say that for certain.

Either way, the blockchain is a new way of doing things. It has proven to be effective at promoting decentralization and transparency, and is lauded for that very same potential. It's poised to be the "next big thing", and people are starting to realize it. Companies are going crazy over it because there is no clear cut leader yet. The one which ends up at the front of the pack will earn a significant fortune for sure.

You don't have to use it right now, because it's simply an alternative at the moment, but it may be revolutionized to run most of everything in the future. You never really know.

There's no way. Bitcoin is starting to stabilize. Sure, the backlog is still very much north of 100k transactions, but it's much better compared to like 240k like 2 weeks ago. The transaction fees should return to normal soon, and it's very likely we'll see a rally after.


Value is a driving factor, but the main culprit is the massive number of transactions. Satoshis are getting more expensive, yes, but you still shouldn't end up paying more than a few cents under normal network conditions.

It's still Bitcoin. It was born with a scaling problem, and it very much hasn't shaken it off. Cut down the number of transactions to manageable levels and it will work exactly like how the whitepaper described. Nothing has changed, and that's exactly the problem. A scaling solution has to be implemented.


This wasn't done intentionally. Bitcoin can only handle a fixed amount of transactions, and we're currently over that. As a result, low fee transactions get stuck in limbo, and users enter a bidding war to have their transactions confirmed as soon as possible.


Segwit was a step in the right direction because it allows the network to handle more transactions, but not everyone is using it. Lightning Network is on the horizon, which allows instant "confirmations" that is envisioned to reduce the fees. Other parties are going in other directions, like Bitcoin Cash whose solution is to continuously increase the blocksize as demand goes up.

I don't think people are overestimating it. They're just used to the media being so misinformed that they're a little surprised they know about the Bitcoin - Bitcoin Cash political drama. I don't expect this to make a drastic splash at all. Bitcoin Cash shills typically feast on Bitcoin's bad press coverage while they receive little to no attention. This time, they're on the spotlight and the roles got reversed. It's just funny is all. Poetic justice at its finest.

It could be irrelevant, yes, but some who are on the fence about the entire drama may now be inclined to pick a side. It's a breath of fresh air either way.

He was probably exaggerating when he called Bitcoin Cash a scam. I mean, they are claiming to be the true Bitcoin, so I see how that could kinda be loosely considered a scam.

Either way, it's awesome how the mainstream media talked about how Roger Ver and Jihan Wu are controlling Bitcoin Cash lmfao. I don't think this will affect prices or whatever, but it's just fun seeing Bitcoin Cash being the one that's shit on by the media for a change.

I do love that my views and John McAfee's align, but why do we need a spokesperson? There's only really one person fit for that role, and that's Satoshi. Maybe not even then. That's how decentralization works. A spokesperson wouldn't even be able to speak for the community because everyone is free to do whatever the hell they want with no official guidelines.

I also shouldn't have to say this, but McAfee has a hell of a lot to gain if crypto rises. His goals align with ours for the most part, but that could change in a hurry. That's the thing about hidden agendas, though his isn't that well hidden.

Its strongest suit at the moment is as a storage of value, and I don't think it will ever lose it edge at that. Sure, at the moment, other cryptos may beat it in terms of speed, fees, and anonymity, but none of them can hold a candle to Bitcoin as a storage of value. Heck, you could use Bitcoin as a reserve currency.

It may be able to win in other aspects in the future too. Bitcoin will always be in development, so only time will tell where it can go. We know speed is currently being worked on so it's only a matter of time before it gets seriously competitive at that.

This is projected to happen more than a century from now so it's really hard to say. We can only really speak in hypotheticals.

If Bitcoin were still active by then, it would be safe to assume that it has achieved mass adoption or near it, so there would be loads and loads of transactions per day. Theoretically, the fees from those should be enough for miners to profit. There's also a huge chance that Bitcoin would work completely differently by then to address this potential problem. Either way, this isn't going to happen in our lifetimes so it's up for the next generation to figure it out lol.

It's wishful thinking. I don't think this is even possible in our lifetimes. I hate to be a pessimist, but as things stand, we don't even have a viable scalable cryptocurrency. It literally cannot take over because it can't handle the load. Even if it did, not every person and country has access to a crypto capable device, or even a reliably internet connection. Fiat will still be necessary for the foreseeable future. At best, I see Bitcoin coexisting with it.

I also think pretty much every currency will fail before the USD does. It's the unofficial primary reserve currency of the world, and is the official currency of one of, if not the strongest economy in the world.

Why does everyone seem to assume that the US economy will collapse to nothing? I love Bitcoin and I genuinely believe it will play a massive part in the future, but it's far more likely to collapse than the US Dollar. The US is still the superpower and that isn't likely to change anytime soon.

Either way, the USD is only being used to gauge USD value because it's the most traded currency on the planet. If hell starts to freeze over and the USD collapses to nothing while Bitcoin is going as strong as ever, then I assume the next most traded currency will replace it.

Yeah, it sucks that cases like this is what's baiting governments to regulate crypto. It's true that it's much easier for terror supporters to send money to terrorist organizations with Bitcoin and such because it's scrutinized far less stringently than fiat. I guess the easiest way to stop that from happening is to regulate crypto and exchanges. I'm sure the exchange where the woman got her coins from played a huge role in this incident. It's a reality we'll have to face sooner rather than later.