I don't think OP is implying that you use another person's ID. He's simply discouraging people from undergoing KYC. Trying to use a fake ID or another person's ID for KYC is a horrible idea with dire consequences.


Regardless of features, non-custodial wallets (like Electrum and Coinomi) are generally considered safer because they have fewer attack vectors (more resistant to phishing, don't have to worry about password leaks, etc.). They don't have the capability to hold your funds for any reason either.

Coinbase does have the advantage of insuring their customers' funds (so they might actually be better than a lot of exchanges for storage), but you won't really need insurance if you know how to take care of coins.

Yep, they've confirmed as much:


As far as this being a good or bad thing, I completely agree that it ultimately doesn't matter because it's inevitable. There's nothing in place to stop this from happening, and given Bitcoin's anarcho-capitalistic qualities, I've always found that the idea that Bitcoin is somehow for the little guys is quite misguided. I personally don't like it, but at least it confirms that there truly is some institutional demand.

If its only advantage over the gold standard is greater transparency and resistance to counterfeiting, I don't see how it could work; the reasons why gold standard was abolished had nothing to do with these factors after all.

I know deflation sounds good on paper, but the reality is that it discourages spending, which drives prices down, which drives businesses out of business, which causes economic collapse. It's not something you would want out of your national currency, or at least not in this modern economy. If you want to escape inflation, you can easily diversify with assets like Bitcoin; there's no need to base your national currency around them.

Yeah, and there's also data to support this:

https://en.longhash.com/news/the-ico-is-well-and-truly-dead

Either way, the article explicitly mentions that ICOs are subject to regulatory approval, so it shouldn't be too much of a concern either way. Bitconnect-like ponzis are a bigger threat nowadays IMO.

He's basically saying a lot of Bitcoiners are hypocrites for celebrating decentralization all the while opting for centralized services when there are decentralized alternatives.


Yeah, it's a chicken and egg problem. Low liquidity is a result of a lack of users, which probably has a lot to do with low liquidity. I wish it was as simple as dropping centralized exchanges, but they're so much better in terms of user experience that switching really isn't a viable option for most people -- it's not like centralized vs. decentralized is the only factor people take into consideration when using an exchange. But hey, maybe a good DEX that people actually want to use will pop up in the future.

Strong passwords are important, don't get me wrong, but I don't think people should overthink it this much. Pretty much every platform knows about brute forcing by now, and thus have countermeasures against it. Heck, even phones nowadays force lock after a few attempts. A reasonably long and complex password should be enough protection for nearly everyone.

It's far more important to be aware of how hackers actually attack nowadays, like using database leaks, phishing, SMS spoofing, etc. Not reusing passwords, being vigilant against phishing attacks, and using proper 2FA methods can protect you a lot more than even a 1000-character long password could.

As an addendum, I see far too many people using information available in public as their security question answers. Be mindful of what you share in social media because they could be used to reset your passwords lol.

It's going to survive in a sense that a few copies of the blockchain will inevitably be retained, and that it can still be used like nothing happened afterwards. Granted, its survival might not mean shit depending on the scale of the nuclear war, but it showcases Bitcoin's resiliency nonetheless.

But yeah, if a nuclear war does break out, Bitcoin will probably be the least of our concerns. There are studies which suggest that even a small nuclear war could have catastrophic ecological impact.

It probably did cause a dump, but if you take a look at the charts, prices have already been steadily dropping the past few days. Pretty crazy that this happened after all the optimism people had in China though lmao.

But yeah, this might just be people waking up and realizing that China is no friend of crypto's:

I get that anti-banking people really want banks to go under, and most for good reason, but I feel like a lot of these problems are flimsy at best.


Doesn't the underlined part invalidate this argument? Bank transfers and credit card transactions can be done 24/7 nowadays. Deposits may be inconvenient, but buying Bitcoin with cash can be too. Exchanges aren't instant (and are often tied to banking systems, ironically), and peer-to-peer may carry some risks.


There are plenty of fiat lending platforms too though? I don't see how Bitcoin solves this problem at all. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that no crypto lender will lend a significant amount without collateral. As stompix has also mentioned upthread, personal loans are a thing. Independent lenders can continue lending even without Bitcoin.


I feel like an entire bank's system going offline would be a better example, and is actually a problem Bitcoin can solve. ATMs failing can be addressed by simply going to another ATM though.

There's really no need to pit Bitcoin vs. Banks, and such binary thinking will only put off people who would otherwise give adoption a chance. Let people use whatever they want and let them choose for themselves without mudslinging.

There might be better implementations, but here's one which seems to work well enough:


It apparently has over a million users, so if you're interested in the concept, this seems like a perfect starting point.

The world is a lot closer to this than we think. Sweden and China are increasingly going cashless, and contrary to what most crypto enthusiasts think, it doesn't necessarily have to be done on the blockchain, or have anything to do with crypto at all.


This will only be true if a blockchain-based or crypto-like national currency would be as important as you project. As China and Sweden demonstrates, digital fiat is already a thing, which leads me to question the significance, and even use case, of a national crypto. We all know that China is challenging the US for global supremacy, and the fact that the US doesn't feel the need to announce a competitor to China's own crypto implies that they don't think it's important for the global race. China's own crypto could very well be just a tool to apply even more control on their citizens without any global use or impact whatsoever. Either way, all we can really do is wait and see.

You'll find that the threat of jail time is more than enough to dissuade a lot of users. Hardcore users will continue what they're doing, but keep in mind that this will also hurt user experience -- no more exchanges, businesses can't accept crypto payments, etc. The fact that Bitcoin prices have a tendency to run on news (and one of the biggest and most active markets being shut down would be bad) could also lead to prices plummeting. Bitcoin won't die, but a move that drastic would undo several years worth of community development.


China backed off the mining ban, and they still let OTC exchanges operate.

As for the topic itself, Trump has already banned Petro with an executive order, which is more closely related to Bitcoin than e-cigarettes are. Does that mean we should be scared?

Windows 10 is a privacy nightmare, though there are steps you can take to prevent that. It has a built in keylogger, and even amidst large improvements on Microsoft's end, users are finding that they're still collecting data. These may all be inconsequential at the end of the day considering Microsoft's reputation, but some people are still understandably concerned. I actually only use Windows for games and Linux for everything else (not because I don't trust Microsoft, Linux is just easier to secure), but I realize that that may be too big a leap for most people.

This may also be a good opportunity to remind people to review their privacy settings.


Yeah I only use the free version on my Windows machine, and come to think of it, I've never actually needed it lol. I've found that Windows Defender is good enough protection, and I only really have Malwarebytes for added insurance. To each his own though.

Personally, I don't think paid services are necessary. Windows Defender is more than good enough as a primary antivirus, especially when used in conjunction with Malwarebytes and good browser add-ons (uBlock Origin, NoScript, HTTPS Everywhere, etc.) The less third party programs you have in your computer, the better; you never really know which ones spy on you these days, and they could easily end up being vulnerabilities themselves.

One thing to note though, is that no matter how protected you might think your system is, you still shouldn't be clicking random links and downloading random files. Better yet, you should have a separate system (dual boot, live USB OS, Raspberry Pi, etc.) just for crypto and/or financial stuff, so a single misstep doesn't end up costing you thousands of dollars.

Is it really that hard? Maybe we can ask Roger Ver what he did lol. But yeah, I think you can choose to renounce (or to be a dual citizen) once you gain another citizenship.

The FBI shouldn't chase you if you don't owe any taxes or aren't wanted for any crimes though. I think people only need to pay a one-time exit tax nowadays, and that's only if you're making a certain amount.

Mixing coins is perfectly legal:


So I don't see why something like this, which won't even be a centralized service, wouldn't be.


It's too soon to tell, but the fact that it requires some interaction between users may dissuade some people. Instant gratification is preferred if available nowadays. Either way, the more privacy options there are, the better for us.

The fact that they haven't banned Bitcoin when they've had all the time to do it makes me somewhat optimistic. China has a hardon for surveillance, and they probably like that they can monitor transactions all they like. They're very trigger happy with their banhammer, so the fact that they never implemented an outright ban probably suggests they don't see it as a threat at the moment.

On the other hand, if Bitcoin for some reason stood in the way of their crypto's success, I'm fairly certain they'll ban it without second thoughts. But hey, depending on what they come up with, the two may be able to coexist. Only time will really tell.

They're apparently trying to improve on that front. One of their justices even penned a piece for the World Intellectual Property Organization:

https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2019/03/article_0004.html


Doesn't the CCP hold each and every one of them by the balls? Lol. I do know they assign people to large companies. With their renewed focus on blockchain tech, I wouldn't be surprised if they already had people in Bitmain too.

Nah, the media does that on its own. The world perceives China to be a massive crypto superpower, so basically everything they do is put on blast. They don't give a shit about global perception regarding their human right abuses, so I don't think they would care about what we think they're doing with Bitcoin. What they do care about is their population's opinion, and what they're doing is softening them up for whatever national crypto they're planning.

If it turns out that Bitcoin is in the way of their crypto's success, I'm sure they would ban it in a heartbeat. People are cheering now because their interests currently align with China's, but I don't think it will remain this way for too long. I hope I'm wrong though.

Here's the article that OP's article cited, which has more information:

https://thenewdaily.com.au/money/superannuation/2019/11/13/bitcoin-super-smsf-cryptocurrency/

Anyway, it's a survey conducted by an exchange. I can't find their methodology, but I'd say it's likely that the people they surveyed trend towards being interested or at least are keeping an open mind towards crypto. Boomers seem to be closed minded towards technology in general, so I'm taking these results with a grain of salt.