Could you provide a source on this? It's pretty interesting.

This discovery theoretically could make the value of gold plummet, but it doesn't look like that large stash is accessible, so it cannot be considered a part of our supply. We don't even know if it's ever going to be possible for our technology to progress enough to be able to cover that distance, so the stash will likely stay out of earth forever.

Also, the value of gold has no bearing on the value of Bitcoin as far as I know. They're not in direct competition as there are lots and lots of other assets investors can get into if gold collapses. The very point of investing in gold is for your money to be safe, as it is incredibly stable, and Bitcoin is anything but. You don't have to choose between them. It's probably even smarter to put your money on both.

Isn't he out on bail? Either way, I don't really blame them. Even if he did just need help, the entire thing was just incredibly shady, and someone had to take responsibility. I know I would want him jailed if I were one of his customers. There were also fraud charges unrelated to the entire stolen Bitcoin fiasco if I remember correctly.

But yeah, Japan has been incredibly kind to cryptocurrencies. Japan's stance makes it easy for its citizens to have confidence in Bitcoin, which does make it a frontrunner as far as countries go.

These guys are just trying to hitch on the Dimon hate bandwagon. How can you possibly and realistically think that he doesn't know about cryptocurrencies? This guy hates on Bitcoin to manufacture a price drop, then buys the dip. That's not something an amateur would be capable of pulling off. If anything, I'm pretty sure he's more knowledgeable about the subject than most people.

But yeah, Dimon is a fraud.

I disagree. Governments are afraid because they can't control it. No form of regulation can possibly interfere with how transactions are done. They can't do anything to gain total, or even partial control. They will be at the mercy of the users, and there's nothing they can do about it. It can also threaten the economy by threatening the local currency.

Besides, I disagree about it being un taxable. Tax the exchanges and the merchants and you tax nearly everyone who uses it. They can't tax every single transactions though, which might be what he's saying.

The opinions on the article you linked are different, but they're hardly new. The argument on intrinsic value has been going around for ages, as have scalability issues, volatility, etc.

I like how it highlighted the community politics though. It's more elevant now more than ever thanks to the upcoming segwit2x fork. It is able to explain clearly why forks are bad along with its underlying issues.

I also like how it says that despite all these issues, Bitcoin's fall will take a while so it's fine to invest. I can at least agree with it on thinking it's going to be around a while longer, though my estimate is probably a lot longer.

It sucks, but I don't think this is a problem with Bitcoins. Localbitcoins charged you that amount, because they want to profit off of you. It's really just that. They're providing a service, and if you want to avail it, then you pay the fee they require. If it's too much, which I believe it is, then maybe you should move on to a different platform.

But yeah exchanges charging incoming fees are ridiculous. Bitcoin transactions are already large as is. I get that there aren't many to choose from so there's very little competition, but that's just straight up greedy.

That's pretty awesome. I'm sure there are a lot of people out there with lots of Bitcoins and few fiat. If there are some of them who are into this, they won't have to go through the trouble of dealing with an exchange. I would be pretty psyched if it was something I would be into.

I honestly don't think people will want to spend their Bitcoins though, as we've been pretty bullish as of late. There are also too few users at the moment so yeah. It's interesting how they decided they will accept Bitcoins though.

I would be. I am of the camp that believes we should all be contributing to make the world a better place. I'm not the type of person who can really directly contribute to science as it's not my forte, but if I can help out in other ways, then why not?

The Bitcoin community as a whole, though, that's a tall order. We are by no means monolithic, so you're only going to be able to get to some subsets. Not everyone would be interested, and not everyone likes giving away money.

Looks like people are a little confused as to how OP illustrated loss. To my understanding, he was saying that there were some people who bought BTC at $6100 just for the fork. It then dropped to $5700, and BTG ended up at $140, which basically means their $6100 became $5840.

I don't think that's significant though, as that kind of loss can be incurred daily thanks to Bitcoin's volatility. We also know we'll end up way above $6100 sometime soon, so it's not really a loss. You can even take BTG out of the equation.

May I ask your source for this?

But yeah, it wasn't hard to predict that BTG would flop. When it only ever comes up in topics about airdrops, and none about its possible legitimacy, you just know people are itching to dump. This is a good thing, as its sets yet another precedent that these forks are largely worthless.

Also, it's funny how people spend money to get free money. One thing people should always know is that there is no such thing as free money. There is always a catch, and looks like these people learned the hard way.

I have never used Bitcoin to buy illegal stuff and I never will. This isn't even coming from a moral standpoint. I simply am not interested in illegal stuff. There's also the fact that it's these very activities that paint Bitcoin in a bad light. Think of all the ransomware floating around the internet, with the hackers demanding Bitcoin to decrypt their files. You think people victimized by these will trust Bitcoin again? So yeah, I would rather not help in the further spread of that, especially because Bitcoin's image is slowly being liberated from that.

As for which is better, cash for personal transactions because they can't be traced, Bitcoin for online transactions, because they're somewhat anonymous. Really though, just don't do illegal stuff lol.

Thirteen hours. Looking around here, it doesn't look like that's too special lol. The sender only followed Electrum's lowest recommended fee too, so it's pretty ridiculous. But man this doesn't paint a pretty picture. Something must be done to speed up confirmations if we want Bitcoin to move forward. Heck, I think it would be better if like, transactions a few days old automatically get priority. It's a really rough solution and it might even create more backlogs, but at least you can rest easy that your unconfirmed transactions *will* get cofirmed at some point.

Not at all. Bitcoin has been running for a while without him, and I don't think even his identity reveal can truly affect us. The point of decentralization is for Bitcoin to not need a central figure, and while Satoshi did create Bitcoins, I would not say he has ever had control over it.

Don't get me wrong, Satoshi would be very influential owing to his status as the founder. He might not have control, but I'm guessing a lot of people will take his words about Bitcoin and its future very seriously. He can cause certain things to happen, especially with his rumored stash of 1m Bitcoins, but his identity shouldn't matter in the big picture.

It is decentralized. It's also open source so anyone can alter the code and create a new fork. There have been LOTS of Bitcoin forks, it's just that most of them have barely any supporters. Forks like segwit2x has a lot of influential backers, so it' being somewhat recognized.

In the end, the users will decide which chain is the main one, not the one who made the forks.

Of course it was figurative. That wouldn't even be physically possible lol. It was just meant to highlight how confident he is of his projections. I took a look at the twitter status, and he apparently used point-set-topology to arrive at his number. He also casually said that it actually predicts $2.4m in three years, so he was actually playing safe and was being conservative LOL. I recommend everyone to read the thread, this guy is freaking hilarious.

But yeah I don't mind his antics at all since it should be somewhat advantageous to Bitcoin. I think that's way too optimistic, but I'm not going to be one of those people who will call on him to eat himself if his prediction fails him. I hope Dimon calls him out for this if he fails though, that would just be golden lol.

It's pretty hard to argue with his points. I don't think they necessarily mean Bitcoin is a bubble though. When Bitcoin started trading at $100, I'm sure these same people would have said that it would be impossible for Bitcoin to reach the $6000 mark. But it did, and that would be because Bitcoin is a completely different breed of monster. It doesn't necessarily have to play by the rules because the rules don't apply to it, thanks to it being a revolutionary technology.

It's possible. If it happens, then everyone loses the money they've invested into Bitcoin. It's really that simple. I know that this forum is full of people who are optimistic with regards to Bitcoin's future, but I'm sure most of them also know that it's not impossible for it to lose value in a heartbeat. It's very, very unlikely, but some catastrophic event involving vulnerabilities, security, etc. could make it happen.

As for Satoshi crashing the server, there's no such thing lol. If peer-to-peer systems were that easy to crush, torrents wouldn't exist anymore. Bitcoin was built to be resilient.

Just because Wozniak says it doesn't mean it's a fact. The entire issue isn't black and white, so it is debatable at best. Obviously, governments which decide to not welcome it has a different opinion. They either think it could cause an economic nightmare whose value is driven only by demand, or they think the fact that they can't control it can undermine their power in the long run.

Either way, I'm not entirely sure I agree that the monetary system needs changes, but if you have the chance to improve something, why won't you go for it? I don't know if the endgame of that is Bitcoin, but it for sure sparked the call for change.

There's really no way to precisely find out if a site is using your CPU for mining, but yeah, the telltale sign is the spike in CPU usage whenever you visit the website. It's fairly easy to stop though. The No Coin extension should keep your browser mining free. You could also go ahead and stop your browser from using scripts altogether, either manually or with other extensions.

Some malicious ads can also steal your CPU power, so you might want to block those too, but it's always a good practice to block ads by default anyway.

This raises a good question though: Would you favor a site's decision to mine visitors' CPU in lieu of ads for revenue?

Crypto-hybrid fiat currencies are definitely going to be part of the future going forward, but so will Bitcoin. The way Bitcoin currently is, it will not be able to compete with crypto fiat because of the issues with transactions times and transaction costs. These crypto fiat don't exist yet, so they have all the room in the world to be able to solve these issues to truly compete with Bitcoin. Bitcoin isn't ideal for small transactions at the moment after all. Bitcoin will lose in that sense. If you look at Bitcoin though, you'll see that it really isn't being used as a currency too much, but rather as an investment and storage of value. There's no way crypto fiat can compete with Bitcoin in this respect. That would mean that they have different niches, and can coexist alongside each other.