I don't know how valuable those "Cyber security" ratings are. They don't know the ins and outs of each exchange's security architecture, their cold storage procedures, what they've expended on penetration testing.

No exchange puts this stuff on display -- for good reason -- but I would stick with a reputable and/or licensed exchange that is adamant about holding most of its coins in cold storage. Coinbase, for one. Binance sticks out among altcoin exchanges in terms of reputation but I don't know much about them.

I guess it matters in the "grammar nazi" sense. I always make the distinction myself (Bitcoin as the protocol, bitcoins as the currency unit) but I would never correct other people. Who cares, right? It reminds of "You say tomato, I say tomahto."

Americans can use Paxful, sure. It seems like the best alternative to LocalBitcoins if you're trying to avoid KYC.

I used Bitstamp several years ago as an American -- always good experiences, no complaints. However, that was before they mandated KYC and got a Luxembourg license. I've heard a few horror stories about them holding funds hostage (probably because they contacted law enforcement about the accounts in question) or requiring really invasive KYC questionnaires and documentation.

Yep, until there is a bill officially signed and approved by Putin, I don't take these proposals seriously. There's been a slew of proposed bills contradicting each other. There's also been lots of different officials stating contradictory views on the legalities surrounding cryptocurrency. It's all moot until something official happens.

Trump is a one-term president if I ever saw one.

This isn't coming from the Trump administration anyway. The bill's being brought forward by two Congressmen as a bipartisan effort. IIRC, the last time the de minimis tax exemption was put in a bill, it got shot down pretty quickly, so I don't have the highest hopes. If it did pass, it'd be great news. This bill is about as good as it gets -- it's a hands-off approach with good tax policies and exemption from securities laws.

There's a lot of excess generated electricity that would otherwise be wasted because it's difficult to efficiently store. Hydroelectric power during wet seasons is a good example. Mining operations can definitely have a symbiotic relationship with power plants if only as a matter of load balancing.

The ideal is to create the proper incentives (and perhaps disincentives) to drive miners towards excess capacity, where they can work with power plants to soak up excess power without spiking demand. Right now, miners just go where it's currently cheap -- probably with little regard for grid capacity -- and then they drive up everyone else's generation costs and/or threaten the entire power grid. That's a problem.

From the aspect of customer service, they definitely should. However, Cryptopia seems to be hiding behind the police investigation in order to bide time. They probably haven't figured out their next move. A depositor bailout by new investment is possible. So is a general haircut or bail-in style situation like the Bitfinex hack, where they determined how much was lost in USD value and socialized the losses to all users. They're probably also hoping for more information about what was frozen at Binance and how much might be recovered. All of this stuff takes time to figure out, and they can't affirmatively say who still owns what at their exchange.

Yup, it's similar to Malta's move to grab market share in the cryptocurrency service licensing industry. Malta pushed hard into online gaming licensing too during the online gambling boom and now it comprises 12% of their GDP. Small nations with limited resources need to pounce on these kind of opportunities. Mining and hardware production could similarly become a major portion of Georgia's national GDP. 


Without low enough costs (including subsidies), miners will move elsewhere. But the effects of using largely excess power (hydroelectric) on the environment are nothing like strip mining operations.

Why not? Here's how the term is commonly used:


The US court system and CFTC view Bitcoin as a commodity: Virtual currencies are commodities, US judge rules

So, it seems like a reasonable enough position.


https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fiatmoney.asp

I'm mainly talking about a general move away from fiat currencies and back to other forms of money should the USD ever collapse.


That depends on Bitcoin's position within the "commodity money" and "store of value" niches. You're assuming that over the coming years, Bitcoin won't take a bite out of gold's market.

If Bitcoin follows the course of most mass adopted technologies, its usage and price will plateau after it becomes ubiquitous. At that point, it will hopefully be much less volatile than today. I'm sure it'll always be somewhat volatile, but it might act more like gold or silver once it has a more established and liquid market.

Merchants, wholesalers, service providers, etc. definitely like currency stability. Commodities like this aren't the most stable, so they're not ideal for being a medium of exchange, but they might still be useful nonetheless. It largely depends on whether consumers and other market actors want to transact in bitcoins or not.

If the fiat money system ever collapses, I think we'll see a big uptick in the use of commodity money including Bitcoin.

This is old news. The bill was introduced December 20th, over a month ago. I'm not sure how good its prospects are -- neither Congressman is very influential. But the spirit of the bill is definitely pro-cryptocurrency and in favor of more lax regulations. They want to exempt cryptocurrencies and tokens from the Securities Act and make a $600 de minimis tax exemption for gains realized by spending coins. They also want to establish like-kind exchange tax exemptions for cryptocurrencies, which would mean altcoin trading won't trigger taxable events. This is the summary:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think CryptoBridge was hacked. Some users (not clear how many) were trading on the DEX with compromised private keys. It looks like it was related to downloading a malware wallet, then using the compromised private keys to trade.

It just goes to show you: Trading on a DEX alone won't keep your funds safe. You need to exercise proper security for your private keys.

The block size debate had been ongoing since 2015, if not earlier. Bitmain, Roger Ver and others had loudly supported previous efforts to increase the block size with a hard fork (XT, Classic, Unlimited) with no intention of a network split. So, it doesn't seem obvious that it was just to get rich quick. "Hard fork dividends" became a thing in late 2017 but before the Bitcoin Cash fork, nobody knew what was going to happen. An adversarial split (like ABC vs. SV) could have just as easily crashed prices and lost lots of money for the forkers.

If Bitmain really wanted to get rich quick by propping up an altcoin, they probably shouldn't have forked Bitcoin -- they gave Bitcoin holders millions of free coins to dump on the market.

Bitcoin already falls under lots of existing regulations (tax laws, money transmission laws) and many governments are using companies like Chainalysis to observe how their residents are using it. In my country (the US), we don't need explicit regulations to tell us to pay taxes on capital gains. It's already required since Bitcoin is a type of property.

If Bitcoin is completely unregulated where you live, enjoy it while it lasts. The bigger the market gets, the more control governments will want. I'm all for breaking unenforceable laws and bypassing dumb regulations, but it's going to get harder and harder to avoid things like AML/KYC with trading and buying/selling for fiat. Governments are really cracking down on this stuff.

Some people argue that mainstream and institutional investors are waiting for more regulatory clarity and regulated investment instruments before putting their money into the market. I'm skeptical about that, but there's definitely some logic to it. Traditional investors are a lot more risk averse than early Bitcoin adopters.

If true, it means that cryptocurrency-friendly regulations or the approval of something like Bakkt could fundamentally increase market demand. That would obviously affect the price.

Everyone loves it when they think it's going to the moon. Not so much during the hangover period.

He probably wrote that track during the 2017 bubble -- it got released on a 2018 album. Now that Bitcoin is in the dumps, he's giving it the cold shoulder and calling it dead like most of the mainstream. Like you said, it's just a reflection of the general sentiment right now.

You're right, the analysis seems wrong. Anyone manually choosing UTXOs won't spend that way, and it would be really naive to assume that thieves will always spend using wallet defaults. Is FIFO even part of the default spending logic in any prominent Bitcoin wallets? I've never looked into it. I always choose UTXOs manually for privacy reasons.

If the shutdown continues next month, vital services like Section 8 housing vouchers and food stamps will be cut off. Millions of people will quickly be forced into the eviction process and threatened with homelessness. Any Democrat currently in office who values their political career won't allow that to happen.

The ETF is a complete and utter afterthought when you consider the larger issues. There's no chance in hell it's getting approved just because of the shutdown.

Check out the Bitcoin Wiki. On the front page, you'll find links to an Introduction, FAQ, and other helpful articles for beginners.


There's a lot of garbage there, too. I've seen a lot of snake oil salesman and referral spammers pushing bad information on Youtube.

I wouldn't get your hopes up.

They literally only need to type and publish a one-page rejection, with a more in-depth analysis to come later. I'm sure they can manage that with the 5-10% of staff that's still working at the SEC right now.