Wait what? Has this ever happened under the context where the country wants nothing to do with X, but unbans it with regulations? China's exchange ban, for example, is reversible because they have said that it needs regulating, and is not a permanent ban by any means. If South Korea bans Bitcoin trading under the assumption that it's a ponzi, then doesn't that rule out a softer stance and regulations later? Has there ever been a country that declared Bitcoin or something related a scam to justify a ban, only to reverse their position?

Anyway, losing South Korea will be a big blow, but nothing we can't survive. I still can't wrap my head around why some people think Bitcoin is a ponzi when they're so fundamentally different.

Bitcoin volatility is well documented, but do you have a source in saying that Bitcoin is being run by an organizations?


I actually think forks show the exact opposite; it makes a great foundation for some shitcoin some random person is trying to launch. Fact of the matter is, most altcoins were based off Bitcoin, which is a testament as to how solid it is.


It was meant as a method of payment. Whether it is ideal as a form of payment is up in the air. I personally believe it could be, and that its value will settle down once it actually gets a good chunk of adoption.


I'm not sure this will destroy Bitcoin. It will cause a massive slide, yes, but recovery isn't out of the question. Not to mention that this will never happen; Satoshi has had every opportunity to be a billionaire and has never taken it. He's not going to take it now.

Because it's the most popular with the largest user base. For the most part, the cryptocurrency market still revolves around it. In the speculative world that is the cryptocurrency market, it's still the most stable, with the highest potential to make it for the long run. Most altcoin holders are also Bitcoin holders, but not necessarily vice versa. Its head start created tremendous momentum that's still being maintained today.

Altcoins have slowly been gaining ground in terms of market share though. You have stated very good reasons for an altcoin or two to switch the script on Bitcoin, and I certainly can't discount that possibility. If the confirmation times and fees problems aren't addressed in the near future, then Bitcoin is in real trouble.

These guys are fooling themselves. Keeping the "Bitcoin" on their name only solidifies the fact that it's a knock off. They're never going to be able to win over miners, and they'll be far more vulnerable to network attacks as a result. Bitcoin Cash will be considered obsolete once the Lightning Network rolls out.


Litecoin has faster transaction times, lower transaction fees, and has been growing at a better rate. Bitcoin Cash has always been doomed, as all it ever had going for it was the "Bitcoin" branding. I hold both Ethereum and Litecoin in higher regard.

There's mBTC (milliBitcoin) but it's hardly being used. It's equal to .001 (1/1000), and is the default base unit used in Electrum. In your case, the jacket would cost you .12 mBTC, which is a little easier to type, and maybe say out loud. There are also bits, which are one-millionth of a Bitcoin, but that's even rarer.

Other denomination names are going to pop up once necessary, I'm sure.

Not really. I have always known about the problem, and I'm sure many others have as well. It has always been a growing concern, it's just that we're only experiencing the actual problem now (Bitcoin Cash attack doesn't count because it was artificial), which is sooner than we probably expected. I don't even think that we're too slow to solve the problem. It's not easy coming up with solutions that would work for the majority. It's just that Bitcoin has grown so much the past few months, that the development is unable to keep up.

I would still preach patience here, and even though there's nothing more I would like than mass adoption, I hope Bitcoin futures will be the last mainstream "window" for a while. Bitcoin can't handle it, and it risks ruining its reputation.

That's kind of true and it's hardly a surprise. Crypto's claim to fame is value. Value is all people are really fixated on. The majority isn't interested in revolutionizing the system; it just so happens that revolutionizing the system coincides with massive profits.

We are still growing though. Segwit adoption is coming along steadily, and Lightning Network is on the horizon. There are also innovative altcoins that are starting to make a name for themselves. It just so happens that the growth of the value dwarfs that of the technology.

Yeah, everyone investing in crypto should acknowledge that there's a significant risk involved and that the price could crash at any time. The heads up is nice because certain specific events could cause dips. Traders should keep an eye out.

A crash though? I dunno, I feel like it's unlikely. None of these seem to have the same magnitude as a sudden China exchange ban and the 'crash' that caused lasted what, a week? I know there's a risk but I'm simply not worried.

In the grand scheme of things? Next to nothing. People seem to overestimate the effects of these things to Bitcoin and vice versa, but the reality is too few people actually use Bitcoin to make a difference. Bitcoin can be used to sidestep these for sure, but we're not there yet.

I'm sure coming regulations are going to plug this hole too. It's not even a pessimistic view; just realistic.

It really is clickbait. Media companies tend to sensationalize, and this is just another example. Nice catch for the user though. I wouldn't even check. Still, how is this legally? I wouldn't classify it as an attack, but it does border on exploitation.

I read an article somewhere that these in-browser mining scripts could replace ads in the future. Thepiratebay tested them recently and also got caught. I personally don't think it's a good idea because who knows what else the scripts can do, but eh.

This is good. The announcement was made publicly so it's going to add to the legitimacy of Bitcoin as a currency, at least in the eyes of the general public.

It's also good that they're not there yet, because neither is Bitcoin. The scaling issue needs to be addressed first, so let's hope the Lightning Network works as well in practice as in theory. Bitcoin in its current state cannot handle the additional strain eBay can theoretically cause its networks.

Just because the market cap for cryptocurrencies have reached $500 billion doesn't mean cryptocurrecies are worth that much. Not many people seem to know this, but crypto market cap is only measured by ciruclating supply x price per unit. Crypto's value isn't that linear, because simple movement can cause the price to change.

You think someone with $500 billion can buy every cryptocurrency coin in existence? Nope. As the supply decreases, the value increases. This works the other way around too, because massive dumps cause massive dips.

I concede that it's a good metric to measure crypto's collective growth though.

Because Bitcoin still has some anonymity. There's usually a trail, but there are specific cases where there simply isn't. This is one of those cases, as the hackers could simply create new addresses to send the hacked coins to. At that point, you know which addresses hold the coins, but not the owner. No part of the hackers' identity is public. That could change once the hackers start liquidating the coins though, as the trail will finally have endpoints to follow.

If you're a regular person that cashes out through an exchange or other people though, that essentially means part of your identity is public (your exchange address or the address you used to deal with the third party), and it could be used to trace your other addresses. There are still solutions to this, of course, like using a mixing service like Chipmixer before sending out your coins.

It's good that someone has finally come out in the open and said this. Some people seem to think that each is out to kill the other just because Bitcoin is being touted as "digital gold." They do share some similarities, but are vastly different as far as investments go. They are not in competition, and you don't have to pick one over the other. You can have both, though the truly rich are more likely to gravitate towards gold, and the general population towards Bitcoin.

I agree. There's no way Bitcoin's value can keep rising indefinitely after all. It's going to peak at some point, after which demand will start to dwindle. If it's not growing anymore, then wouldn't it make more sense to use a storage of value that actually has some utility? But then again, who says Bitcoin will only be a store of value? Bitcoin's end goal is still to be a trustless currency. This is why the community is hard at work to address the scaling issues, which is for the most part, the only thing that's really holding Bitcoin back.

The only reason Bitcoin is only being regarded as a store of value is because it's pretty much all it's truly good for at the moment, and it's one of the best out there in that aspect. It can be used as a currency, but pales in comparison with other options.

Are you interested at all in Bitcoin? From here, you can get other altcoins or even experience Bitcoin trading. If you are at all interested, try sending some to a different address just to experience how it works, or even use it in actual transactions. The network is still congested, but it's not as bad as the past few days. You can also use it to try other cryptocurrencies like Ethereum, which has actually experienced more growth this year than Bitcoin.

If you don't really need the money, even if you're not interested in the technology, just hold it until the value appreciates some. You could wait for it to reach some arbitrary value like $20k, which is not that far off, then dump. It's quite a waste to simply dump now in my opinion.

No one should be talking about the market cap anyway. It's basically just the current price x the amount of circulation. If half of those are dumped, the next half wouldn't be worth as much. It can only really be used to compare cryptocurrencies because of their different supply values. Using them in any other context just doesn't work, and more people will be able to take in the growth if you simply use Bitcoin's USD value.

I agree otherwise though. Futures trading takes us one step closer to the mainstream. Even people who don't know anything about the technology can get their feet wet, which is the start.

Why would we be forced to use that other one over Bitcoin? Cryptocurrency is just one application of blockchain use. The blockchain is basically just a public ledger after all. Dubai has already set its sight on a use that doesn't involve cryptocurrencies.

I would support governments using blockchain technlology, even. I wouldn't say no for added transparency, and this is exactly that. The blockchain is a revolutionary piece of tech, and it's only going to evolve from here.

Government backed cryptocurrencies are a different story though. I would have to see one in action before I decide where I stand on the issue.

Man these Satoshi conspiracy theories are getting crazy. I would like to highlight the biggest flaw to this theory: AI hasn't advanced far enough for it to be able to create code as complicated as Bitcoin's. That level of conceptualization and problem solving is exclusive to the human mind, or to geniuses, even. Satoshi also had an online presence here and none of his interactions has ever suggested that he's a bot.

This is fake moon landing-level in terms of conspiracy theories.

Not really. It seems to me like it was always set up as a trustless alternative. I don't think Satoshi ever claimed that he wanted to bring down anything. It certainly has the potential to disrupt the status quo, and may actually threaten banks in the long run.

Either way, governments themselves have started to accept that Bitcoin is here to stay, applying regulations and charging taxes for it. Governments and Bitcoin are going to coexist for the foreseeable future, nevermind what the anarchists say.