The problem is that alot of people who are into BTC are not aware of many alts at all, some even ignore them completley and only beleive BTC to be the future, so that can make things biased in that direction too.

The limits are really worthless, when you think about it. You can buy and sell accounts on the forums. So if you want to go outside that limit, buy more accounts, max. out their limits, and continue doing that and using the money to get more (or just hold a few). Limits just add that extra step, and they really don't resolve anything.

There's not, because people would just create new accounts, spam until they get caught/banned, put the money they earned aside, and repeat the process. Not to mention newbies are really limited on signatures, which kills the flair.

No.  You can no longer make your money back on hardware.

Most of the people running miners today, like me, bought them last year.  Now that I have them, and they are running, I lose more money by shutting them off and selling the hardware than I do by keeping them running.  I will not make my money back unless the price of bitcoin goes back to at LEAST $700.  But a small revenue stream is better than nothing at all.

That's a pretty assholish thing to do. Imagine what they will do when they find out you are taking advantage of them.

Here is an example of the law in Spain. It bans bearer (not just cash) transactions that are payments from consumers to businesses, so it would also apply to crypto currency. Spain in a country where tax evasion is the national sport, followed by football (soccer).  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-11-19/spain-cash-transaction-ban-begins-as-rajoy-targets-tax-fraud. https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2012/10/30/pdfs/BOE-A-2012-13416.pdf My take, knowing the culture well, is that this is doomed to failure since people with just use the "black money" for many day to day expenses that fall well below the threshold.

There is no point to Bitcoin now that we have the cryptonote technology

Wow, thanks for the heads up. I thought skrill was better than paypal in terms of dealing with cryptocurrencies, and more people have used skrill.

In the United States and in Canada there are requirements that one report cash or bearer instrument transactions over a certain size and in certain circumstances but they are not illegal. In certain parts of the EU there are restrictions on merchants accepting cash for transactions over a certain amount. I also suspect that it is a matter of time before cryptocurrency regardless of how anonymous it is will be treated the same as cash is this respect.

As for cryptocurrency being made illegal in those countries with convertible widely traded currencies such as the US, EU, Canada etc the chances are very low and all indicators are against a move toward banning cryptocurrecny. What we are seeing and will see is the regulation of all the intermediary players and service providers. It is for this reason that DRK has a much higher regulatory risk than XBT, or XMR, since the masternodes due to their limited number are a prime target for regulation. I would say the same for semi centralized structures such as delegated proof of stake, and currencies such as Ripple and Ethereum. In those countries with exchange controls for example Iceland, China etc., the changes are very high that cryptocurrency will be made illegal or already has.

Spending some time understanding how government regulation actually works, will go a long way to unuderstanding  what the regulatory risks actually are. I stand by my position that a pure POW decentralized crypto-currency such as XBT or XMR has very little regulatory risk at the protocol level; furthermore there is already a fair amount of information on where the regulators actually stand. This in not the case at all with a very large proportion of the alt-coins and assets on the market today. The key thing to understand here is that any amount of centralization no matter how small will likely attract government regulation.