Woah, it's good that you noticed it pasted a different address. Please be careful. If you have been affected by something like this then you could have other stuff in your computer, such as a keylogger. Run different antiviruses and see if that helps.

Other than that, I suggest you consider using Linux. Ubuntu, in particular, is easy to install and is really easy to use. You can run it alongside Windows as well. It's not bulletproof, but these kinds of viruses can't penetrate it easily.

I don't know if I would consider Bitcoin to be comparable with bimetallism. His main justification seems to be that people get excited over new monetary standards, creating a fad. Bitcoin is comparable with things like fiat and gold, but I don't think it's specifically a monetary standard. It's a public currency which no one is able to control, with several advantages that is in line with the technological revolution. This is supported by the fact that governments are increasingly interested in creating their own online currencies. It's evolution at work.

That possibility cannot ever be discounted. What we know for sure, though, is that these forks are bad for the original Bitcoin. I'm not too concerned with Bitcoin Gold as I don't think it will gain a lot of traction, but the segwit2x fork has me a little worried. It has a lot of heavyweight backers, and is a legit threat to fracture the Bitcoin community. It's a serious cause of concern when you see people asking which Bitcoin will be the real one after the fork. At the moment, if any fork can take over, it would be the segwit2x one, just as any future forks with substantial improvements can.

As much as I dislike Dimon and his antics, this isn't hypocritical at all. He has always been against Bitcoin, but never really disparaged blockchain technology. Blockchain technology can be embraced without embracing Bitcoin. His main issue with Bitcoin is its lack of inherent value -- people basically decide how much they want to pay for it depending on the supply available. The blockchain technology, on the other hand, has many different applications, and it just happened to be the technology Bitcoin is built on.

I hate Dimon's guts, but it's good that they're adopting blockchain technology.

Context:


It's basically still the old argument that Bitcoin has no inherent value, and is thus, wildly unreliable. I agree to some degree, but I also assert that the same can be said about fiat. Fiat currencies have failed before, while Bitcoin is just continuously surging. Honestly though, it doesn't matter to me whenever a country says they're never going to recognize Bitcoin as an official currency. For as long as its use isn't declared illegal, I'm happy. They disparaged Bitcoin but didn't say anything about banning it, so there's that.

Lmao that is insane. I had no idea there was a banking blockade against Wikileaks. Good on them. It's also a perfect example of why governments are wary of cryptocurrencies. They have no power against it.

It's ridiculous how negative the replies are though. They have so many likes too. It just makes you wonder how strong the anti-Bitcoin sentiment really is. The concern with criminals and terrorists is alive and well, too. It's unfair because there are no statistics available, and for all they know, fiat is more widely used for illegal activities. Bitcoin is much, much more widely used for investments and its growth supports it. If they're condemning Bitcoin for its potential, then they should also condemn fiat for the same reasons.

It's kind of inevitable. This is the price we pay to avoid an outright ban. If they decide not to tax it, then everyone will just move to using Bitcoin to avoid taxes, and tax collection will plummet. The government will not be able to provide welfare and infrastructure and won't have enough funds to keep the country running. It's annoying, but it's probably the only way to stop mass adoption from causing anarchy. I'd rather have that than a complete ban. It's not like governments will be able to control Bitcoin directly anyway.

Lmao. Well, to be completely fair, that information would not matter to majority of Bitcoin users. You're only really going to need that information if you plan on mining, and maybe not even then. They're getting away with it because no one really pays attention to it. Great catch though! I do agree that it shouldn't be over simplified in such a misleading way. I would be just as simple and far more accurate if they just say your computer will have to perform complicated operations to mine them.

His comments mean nothing for Bitcoin at this point. His rant is pretty much a rehash of what critics are always saying. It's cute that he thinks people are stupid for buying into it, but plenty of people are willing to pay a premium and it's not looking like that will change anytime soon. We're on a bullish run, and if he thinks his words can disrupt that, then I have bad news for him.

I like that he's on board with blockchain technology though. The world needs innovation.

There's really not much we can do other than to voice our support towards it. This could at least put pressure on our respective governments to take a favorable stand towards cryptocurrencies. Governments taking a favorable stand towards cryptocurrencies could also soften its citizens' stance towards it, inching us towards mass adoption. Taxing would be inevitable, though, so I would just look at that as a trade off. Other than that, I think we should just let things run their course.

It's worth noting though, that general outlook seems positive. A few countries haven't been kind, but most seem to accept the rise of cryptocurrencies and are leaning towards riding the wave.

I don't think it will ever go this far. I mean, I guess this is true for exchanges, because every business is required to have a permit, but it's not going to apply to majority of the population. I think taxing purchases will be the furthest they could go without outright banning it. Because of the way Bitcoin is set up, there's no way they can take control of it and its transactions. They can't go after every single person that uses it either. This means they can only really go for the entry and exit points: vendors and exchanges. Government intervention should largely not affect the way you trade. Bitcoin would remain independent even then, because governments can't issue them or control their supply.

I would not dismiss these as simply altcoins. It's going to be hard for Bitcoin to reach mass adoption once these come into play. Think about it: the state is going to promote it, banks are going to support it, and the vast majority of the population would rather trust it than Bitcoin. I don't see why the normal person would buy Bitcoin for their purchases when their state-backed online currency can fill the same need. Not everyone has this burning anger and distrust for their governments to the point where they would spurn their own currency. I'm not saying these coins will kill Bitcoin because it will always have its niche, but it might keep Bitcoin from ever evolving from its current state, which is basically a storage of value and an investment.

I don't see why not. It's free, and if you're not doing anything anyway, why not try to learn? I don't think it's necessary, as you're likely not going to need what you're going to learn in the future, but knowledge is always good. You're obviously investing both time and resources into Bitcoin, so it would not be a bad idea to learn everything that you can about it, even if it doesn't affect your hodling or trading.

I'm sorry for your loss, man. I would like to point out, however, that clicking an ad to get to your wallet is just a horrible horrible security practice. We all know how proliferate and elaborate phishing sites are, so it's always best to type out the URL yourself. I would advise you to contact Bing to report the phishing ad, so this doesn't happen to others anymore.

I know how angry you are, but it's probably not a good idea to divulge other people's personal information here. This should not turn into a witch hunt. If you have proof, then forward it to law enforcement and let them handle the rest. I hope you get at least some of your money back.

I've heard of a house being sold for Bitcoin before. Still, this is great news. There might be a taker somewhere simply because they're accepting Bitcoin as payment. It's interesting how it works, because I imagine holders are less likely to spend their Bitcoin in small purchases compared to large ones.

For lawyers here though, wouldn't there be complications regarding the contract if Bitcoins were used? That's a huge amount of money and I would think some tax collection agency would have to get involved. Won't the source of Bitcoins be investigated?

I wouldn't say people are against it. Investing in Bitcoin is a risk, and those who can't take that risk is naturally averse towards it. They also know money could be had by investing, so they could have some jealousy or resentment towards those who took the chance. Basically sour graping. No one really dislikes innovation, especially since no one is forcing it down their throats.

Some governments are against it though. Its decentralized nature makes it hard to control and regulate. They're probably the ones afraid of money falling into the wrong hands via money laundering, illegal sales, etc.

It's encouraging to see that not all influential figures are inclined towards parroting the FUD. I should note, however, that she was not really talking about Bitcoin specifically, but rather cryptocurrencies in general. She does not think it's a fraud, but wants to improve the technology for the betterment of society.


It would be interesting to see what approach they take regarding this, and the role Bitcoin will take.

Jamie Dimon is irrelevant. It would be better for us to completely ignore him. What I gather from the graph is that people listened to him at first, then ignored him afterward. It's worth noting that his 'Bitcoin is a fraud' comment recently coincided with the China ICO and exchange ban, which was the true driving force behind the sharp drop. Everyone has caught on to Dimon's agenda by now. He's not a factor anymore.

It' not that they're against digital currencies per se. They're against cryptocurrencies in general because they cannot control it. Historically, these same cryptocurrencies have been used as tools for money laundering, tax avoidance, and crybercrime, so they actually have reasons to justify not recommending them.

I'm fairly sure they're fine with digital currencies for as long as they're managed by central banks. There are a few countries which have already floated around this idea. It sucks, but such is life.

That's an interesting way of looking at it. I've honestly never considered it from that angle. This is somewhat true. Transactions are slow to confirm with the modest number of transactions that we have, so I can't imagine what would happen if we get much more additional strain. This is assuming that everyone who holds Bitcoins will spend, though, and that lots of Amazon customers are going to get Bitcoin just for their purchases. At the current state of things, if this happens, I would assume that the additional load would be bearable. Transactions will get slower though. There's a lot of room for improvement here.


What would you suggest to solve this problem? I mean, Bitcoin was meant to be open, so everyone is welcome to get in on it. Also, if you invested completely because of the ideals, then I salute you, as you're probably among the <1% of the Bitcoin holder population.