I don't support it. I see it as nothing less than a hostile takeover, with the team behind segwit2x pretty much admitting that they want to fire the core development team. We can't let a small subset of the community decide the fate of Bitcoin going forward. This will give them way too much power. The idea behind it does look good on paper, but there are a lot of arguments that say it's not going to play out that way. Thankfully, majority of the community also seem to be against it. It's going to be just another altcoin even with all its backers.

The way I see it, regulation is give and take. The good is that you won't have to worry that Bitcoin will be banned, you may actually ask for legal help should you get victimized, and proper regulations can help ease the average joe's jitters over Bitcoin. These advantages can't come without a price, of course, and the price is a little liberty, and some taxes.

In Australia's case, specifically, it simply looks like the government will require exchanges to ask for identification. Most exchanges already do this anyway, so I don't think it's a bad thing at all, unless you're actually dealing with illegal stuff with Bitcoin. I would welcome this in a heartbeat, knowing the alternative is an outright ban.

It's not going to happen anytime soon, I believe. Like with us small players, I'm sure it makes much more financial sense for companies like Google to HODL their coins, if they have any, rather than spend it. I would also imagine that having two pay out options rather than just one would complicate their standard operating procedures. Conversion between currencies, Bitcoin included, incurs fees after all. If they start paying with Bitcoin, it's extremely likely they'll abandon the USD option, and will only be paying in Bitcoin. That makes this scenario even further removed from reality.

In what context? Their economy collapsing on them? Or their use of Bitcoins? Bitcoin is certainly a great safe haven in cases like this, but there's really no need to go all-in unless your country's state is already as bad as Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Fiat is still less risky at the moment, with little volatility.


It's great that these people have something to lean to with their governments failing them. I wouldn't say this story paints Bitcoin in a very positive light though. It's certainly a shining beacon of hope, with farmers being able to earn as opposed to starving, but people have been arrested for abusing the party subsidized electricity. This turns out even worse as it was revealed that they're suffering from a power shortage, so these people with massive mining farms are technically hogging resources that was meant for their entire population.

What does this have to do with Bitcoin exactly? I use duckduckgo as my default search engine and this is literally the second result:

https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12773.htm


I have no idea how often it's being updated, but last update was nearly a month ago. Why would you need this info anyway?

That's good. Yeah, it's very obvious they're trying to sell B2X hard though:



Nothing negative to be said about it. It was kind of worded in such a way that people with limited knowledge over Bitcoin is sure to side with B2X. It should at least have stated that core, and the majority of long time users are against it. But eh, for as long as we're clear which the main blockchain is, I'm satisfied.

I like to think of it as making multiple copies of an image and applying various filters to them. You basically get a complete copy of the original because it's too much of a hassle to create another image from scratch, and you edit it as you desire, all the while keeping the old one. You then go around telling everyone the new image is better because you increased its brightness, resolution, etc., and that everyone who still uses the old one as their wallpaper or something should switch to your new and improved one instead. All the pictures are open to everyone though, so while everyone has a copy of your new one, they have the option of not using it, or completely abandoning the old one for it. Now, instead of everyone in the group having the same wallpaper, the group gets rather fragmented.

That's about as simple as I can explain it. Sorry if my analogy is bad lol.

He's greedy for sure, but honestly, if you could have more, why wouldn't you want to? Cryptocurrencies are still in their infancy and it's fairly obvious from all of the arguments that we still haven't found the best way to implement them. In a way, criticisms like this are good because at least we know there are people fighting for improvements.

I don't think any Bitcoin fork can truly take its place, but in the world of technology where everything is fast paced, you're going to get left behind if you stay stationary. Bitcoin is solid enough to remain relevant, but if it stays the same while all of its competitors are improving and all the while patching its weaknesses, something else overtaking it is almost inevitable. I don't think it will happen in the foreseeable future, but it's a very real possibility.

I don't have a very high opinion of Steve Wozniak, but this is something we can kind of agree on. I mean, I would not go as far as to call the US Dollar a phony, but it's true that the possibility of printing more puts way too much power on the government's hands. It's a very remote possibility as it's a bad idea in most cases, but still.

I kind of see his point in gold, but I don't think that necessarily diminishes its value. Humans can just as easily find a ton of gold in one day as it can find half a ton in two years. The only difference is that you don't know precisely how much gold enters the market at any given time, and you don't know the exact limit. What we do know is that gold has been mined for just about how long civilization has existed, and it's still precious and rare today.

I like how he gives Ethereum credit. I honestly think that it has the most potential out of all cryptocurrencies simply because of the technology behind it, but having infinite amounts hurt it some.

This is exactly right. Most of their utility is in advertisment; the actual ability to dispense Bitcoin is just secondary. I mean, I guess they're nice for when you need Bitcoin in a pinch, but that should barely ever happen. Everyone has internet everywhere nowadays, and exchanges offer much better rates.

The problem with Bitcoin ATMs is that their operational expenses is too high. Unlike banks, which don't really use ATM machines to try to earn money directly, the actual Bitcoin ATM and operational costs are financed by the owner and is geared towards making money. Bank ATMs simply serve as a way to keep clientele happy so they could attract more and more customers, while Bitcoin ATM owners can't find incentive in that.

There's also the fact that Bitcoin is digital so you don't need it in physical form, unlike fiat, so while the idea is cool, I also think it's somewhat unnecessary.

Wait, are you saying you think Bitcoin's price will drop if someone drops $40 million in one go? How would that work? Lol.

As for the topic at hand, I'd say that alone would barely be able to influence the price. That's a massive amount for sure, but with the current price of $6000, that would only amount to around 6667 Bitcoins, off the 16,600,000 in circulation, which is barely a hundredths of a percentage point. I'm no economist, but I'd say that's too low of a number to be able to move the market on its own. Much, much more Bitcoins are moved on a daily basis.

It's pretty much a case to case basis, but your local police might be able to help you. Other than that, I don't think there's anything anyone can do.

It's more likely for you to receive some sort of help if your country's laws recognize Bitcoin though. If they treat it as actual currency or an asset, then you should be able to receive help just like money was stolen from you. If you live in a country where Bitcoin is unregulated, then I wish you good luck; you're going to need it. Legal help and protection is one of the positives of governments regulating cryptocurrencies.

You can fork it as much as you can if you wanted to. No one really has absolute control but the collective userbase. It's only really bad if a fork puts itself in position of being the "true" Bitcoin with a significant number of supporters. Bitcoin cannot be changed, so forks happen to implement certain improvements. This means forks with significant technological advantages and a high support level can fracture Bitcoin's existing holders, making it less valuable.

I personally don't care about majority of the forks as they're pretty much shit, but forks like segwit2x are a cause for concern. I expect it to make a wave, but it won't be able to usurp the original Bitcoin. It's going to be able to retain some value like BCH though.

It's possible in my opinion. Certain governments have already accepted the rise of Bitcoin. They don't really need to control it, they just need to gain revenue from it. For as long as they monitor the exchanges closely, there should be few problems. That being said, I don't think Bitcoin going mainstream means governments will have to abandon their own currency. State issued fiat still have far too many advantages over Bitcoin, including much better stability. I'm sure people would much rather prefer having the liberty to choose between the few.

As for the volatility, I believe it has to do with the fact that Bitcoin is still too concentrated as far as distribution goes. The smaller the user base, the more unstable the demand is. More users should stabilize its value some.

I don't think so. Realistically, I think Bitcoin will only coexist with fiat, not outright replace it. Your advantages, for the most part I agree with, but I don't see how Bitcoin can be backed by external assets when there is no central issuing authority. Even with all these advantages, digital currencies, as they currently exist, is not better than fiat in every aspect. Your last point, for one, requires global modernization to be true. As things stand, there are areas in even the most developed countries which are far behind in technology. There's little doubt that Bitcoin or any other digital currency will boom in major cities, but these aforementioned areas will still have to rely on fiat thanks to the lack of proper infrastructure. Bitcoin can also be paralyzed by calamities which cuts off electricity and internet connections.

There will surely come a time when the world will be ready for a truly global adoption, but I don't think it will happen in our lifetime. Far too many countries have far too many problems that must be prioritized. Until that time comes, fiat cannot be replaced.

Hi, I'd like to reapply.

Username: jseverson
Post Count: 565
BTC Address: 1PsEmeSg7nxJPvzgWhiQAxunggJZtX4N8m

I'll change my signature if I get accepted. Thanks!

I don't want to make another rehash of Bitcoin vs fiat, so I'm just going to go over the advantages that I think electronic currency can bring.

I'd say the most important advantage is security. Electronic money is far harder to steal as it will be inherently secure. Moving to electric money means there will be less pickpockets and there will be less muggings. Stolen money will also be much easier to track down as every single transaction is recorded. Corruption by public officials will be much more visible, and money laundering might be killed off altogether. All of these hinge upon proper execution of electronic currency, of course.

Second is convenience. ATMs will no longer be necessary, and you won't have to go to the bank to withdraw anymore. You can take care of all your transactions all on your own, so you theoretically have complete control over your finances. Purchasing items at groceries or restaurants can be as easy as NFC, and online transactions would be just as easy. Everything would be nearly, if not completely instant.

There are also certain disadvantages of course, the most prominent one being the reliance on proper infrastructure, but I'm sure that will be addressed in the future.

It is. It's come against further scrutiny after the China ban though. Refer to this article:

https://www.ft.com/content/57626298-92f7-11e7-bdfa-eda243196c2c?mhq5j=e5

It basically states that ICOs are very similar to Initial Public Offerings, so it's possible for them to be regulated as such. You're free to start your own ICO, and you're free to invest in them. Should you scam, or get scammed, it's very possible for the state to intervene. It doesn't look like a ban ala-China is on the table. UK is generally very supportive of emerging technologies.

What exactly will this entity be capable of? We know for sure they won't be able to issue Bitcoins because of its decentralized nature, and we know there's really only a small fraction of people who actually needs help in keeping and regulating their Bitcoins. The vast majority of users who know how to protect themselves will completely ignore it and its services. Also, what does a Bitcoin account card mean? Is it basically a paper wallet? Lol.

The only thing I can think of that would keep them from being a paper tiger is if they had the power to reverse transactions in cases of fraud and theft. This would be counterproductive though, as that feature is also likely to drive away more than a few users.

Bitcoin will end. It's inevitable. Everything reaches its end sooner or later with no exceptions. In Bitcoin's case though, this will happen much, much later. Its end is inevitable, but it's safe to assume that uneducated opinions such as Brazil's Central Bank Chief's won't cause it. Some countries have already voiced their support, and some their dissent. It's just the nature of society; introduce a new concept and there will always be a group that will be against it. For as long as Bitcoin continues to gather support, though, and it does, it's not going to die anytime soon. It slows down the advancement of the technology for sure, but the continued growth just might make them reconsider their stance in the future.