A lot of people in the community are dreading, but fail to see all the inspiration Bitcoin has caused that lead to other projects improving upon Bitcoin and Blockhains code and original idea. Ethereum could well be considered Bitcoin 2.0. The introduction to smart contracts and the utilization of tokens really took the whole scene a leap forward. The proof of work consensus algorithm pathed the way for proof of stake and all the others that were inspired by it. It was obvious this would happen, Bitcoin was going to become scarcer due to future halving's.

I really don't think that Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme, though it does share similarities with the "Tulip Mania" era which had collapsed in February of 1637. It was considered to be the worlds first recorded speculative bubble. Unfortunately socio-economics comes into play so there are numerous unknown variable that could effect market prices significantly, other than just whales shifting money around. Bitcoin is an attempt to completely digitalize and decentralize a monetary system, while block-chain revolutionizes the way was digitalize the ledger system. It's a bold step forward for transparency.

So are we going to crucify this guy for spending his own money? I thought the guy had stole something or worse. You mean to tell me, he spent from his own wallet and now hes being dragged through the mud?
  I can understand the impact it may have on people, if a guy important as he is for Ethereum platform is dumping his hard earned share could cause investors to lose faith. Wilcke said it wasn't an unsubstantiated claim, that the funding was to support development for his game.

It makes more sense to see Stablecoins being adopted first way before Bitcoin ever will because Bitcoin is too volatile and your ordinary average Joe working class citizen wouldn't know what to do with cryptocurrency.
  Fiat currency is based upon stability, if my grand mother has $5, by the time she gets to the supermarket, the $5 will still be $5, not $4.97. Stablecoins will thrive in mainstream society, look at what Facebook is doing with project Libra? They're already one foot in the Door!

If 20/20 means clear vision, then let's hole 2020 will be a clear year for all Bitcoin politics and undergoing. 2019 was very regulatory as it should have been because more institutional investors are starting to pool in and invest. How long before we actually get to see an ETF get approval, or for clearer regulatory guidance within all sectors of finance, not just from the IRS or SEC, but guidance from all of those bodies?
  Let's make 2020 the year of the Blockchain, so I hope the regulators get the ball rolling!

I agree, mining is going to become a whole lot more difficult and expensive after the Initial Block halving.
From here on out things begin to seem centralized, a small few who control the majority share of the mining.
  This is why I believe Bitcoin is open source, so that resolutions can be made in the form of better consensus algorithms, scalable blockchains, and any other problem Bitcoins original code can't address.

This is a prime example portraying what can and will happen when over regulate, because the end result is the stifling of innovation. Apple is potentially shooting itself in the foot at his point (from a technological standpoint) regarding it's stance on cryptocurrency. It's a modest and conservative move they've taken, being that crypto is quite the controversy these days. Their approach seems to be to avoid crypto related things at all costs until more regulation rolls in. The problem is that Apple was founded and branded on it's innovation. Cryptocurrency is a spicy subject and conversational piece, If Apple is wrong, when projects like Libra finally do start to take off, Apple will be behind again in the innovation race.

The Bitcoin price was becoming highly inflated back then when there were more Airdrops and bounty campaigns that were abundant. The market was also highly unregulated with little to no guidance except from the IRS on how to navigate within the sector. Once regulation started rolling on, and clearer guidance was issued like from the IRS stating airdrops were taxable, or from the SEC stating that ICO's could be violating security laws, and should be considered securities, the Freebies became slowed down to a crawl.

I really don't know the answer to that one my friend, and I'm not sure if the two will ever be directly connected anytime soon, but what I do know is that cryptocurrency market operates in a remarkably similar fashion to the stock market but in a more decentralized kind of way. The Forex market may be the best and closest comparison you could make to the cryptocurrency market. This is why many people find the transition from The Forex markets into the crypto markets an relatively easy switch.

Before cryptocurrency I had never traded Forex or Cryptocurrency before, but I found this free guide and school course on FOREX essential for learning how to trade both markets correctly.

It's a FREE guide and course system on trading, no bullshit!
https://www.babypips.com/learn

I agree, I think this year is the year that was meant for for high regulatory scrutiny. The crypto scene has been very disruptive for the past for years. The ICO scene was so wild it was being compared to the Wild West, from time past where regulation, policies, and law itself operated on some rough and really murky waters due to there being no proper enforcement agencies on the scene. The U.S as we know it was still a young budding, developing country in the midst of building a solid enough foundation to stand on. Mean while at that time civil unrest was happening between the American north and American south. A lot of time, money and energy went into actually uniting the states as many where divided.
   During this period, the western states where rural, ranging from prairies, to mountains, to valleys and desserts. A lot of these territories didn't have a strong enough law enforcement, and thus the scene was called the Wild West. In order to get a clearer picture of the scene, just check out an episode of one of these old "American Western" (shows) portraying those times and events, like  "Guns Smoke", "RawHide", "Bonanza" and the "Rifleman" just to name a few.
  The Crypto scene at the time was very similar, a little unorganized and and very unregulated. Regulation was bound to happen, it is the only sure way to get institutional investors involved. In my opinion, the only way to push forward is to find a middle-ground with the policy makers and regulators and reach a compromise that leaves us with clear guidance for navigating within these murky waters and gray areas of law.

I don't think that the governments can really stop any anonymous cryptocurrencies unless there are specific mandates, policies and regulations purposefully put into place that would stamp out any cryptocurrency to fiat conversions. That would really stifle the scene and people would start panic selling. Instead I believe organizations like the SEC, CFTC, the treasury departments and congress will each issue some sort of small amount of guidance on to to proceed lawfully within these sectors. The toughest part is to prevent the strangling of innovation while still maintaining balance and order.

This would be awesome, imagine If major corporation merchants and vendors decided to allow the implementation of  cryptocurrencies as an viable payment option. Bitcoin would most likely be the first, then maybe Ethereum being a future second choice. You walk up to a beverage or snack machine, perhaps scan your phone or use some kind of near field communication option on your phone, and bam, instant snacks!
  In fact, you could probably add a scanner to read paper wallet public keys, and create some interface on screen to make it simpler. Your a genius bro, this sounds like an awesome idea. Bitcoin ATM's are becoming more popular but a freaking vending machine would be stellar. Get a permit and contract for your local college campus, and bam!
 Just wishful thinking though! Just my two cents 

By far I think for legalities sake the safest option would probably be for me to choose a utility token, as long as it isn't a security. Many projects are in the past and up to now have faced big hurdles with convincing the regulators like the CFTV and SEC that their start coins are not securities and are in fact tokens based upon and around their utility. Just look a Telegrams token offering, it was touted as a utility token, but the SEC gave them the shakedown and made them cease and desist all activity related to their token while an investigation is underway.
  Scary to say the least,  as this will be a daunting hurdle for many projects in the future to overcome.

I bet this might have caused quite a stir up within the cryptocurrency related content creator community within youtube. I would be be madder than a hornet if they not only demonitized my content but remove it as well? I hear that it was a sweep removal of all things crypto related, including the educational channels, not just the those offering investment advice.
   This seems like good news that they were able to acknowledge their fault and correct the mistake without much hassle. I thought it was a sweep stemming from regulatory uncertainty, due to the legal guidance being sparse. An alternative platform maybe be needed as a backup for future reference.

I think a lot of the hate comes from people not being able to literally see or hear Satoshi in actual real life, up close and personal. The fact that Satoshi had chose to remain anonymous gives some people the impression that he/she is a vigilante of some kind, like Batman  .
  Bitcoin and blockchain was so great that Satoshi most likely seen the far reaching implications it would have and how disruptive the tech could be, hence taking an anonymous choice.

I think it would be utterly ridiculous to convert all of ones money into cryptocurrencies, unless one wanted to loss the shirt off of his/her back and then some.
Cryptocurrency is way too volatile to dump an entire Bank account into it. Are cryptocurrencies the future, almost certainly, whether or not Bitcoin will still be around is highly debatable, but Fiat really isn't going anywhere anytime soon, you can count on that.
  Maybe within the future once regulations and policies are much clearer for everyone involved, but to each his/her own! Fiat is way too easy to use whether physically or digitally, try explaining Bitcoin and Blockchain technology to my grandparents, they'll laugh at you then ask you does your president or local Congressmen support it? If not, it's probably a no go!

Certainly, as long as you study the basic logistics of creating a white paper, you could probably earn some extra income helping people write theirs here within the community. If you analyze the structure, study the formula, examine the layout, it shouldn't be that hard to grasp the basic concept.
  Now, you might run into serious trouble creating a white paper from scratch, that is where the real innovation steps in. Anyone could learn the process, but few have the creativity and spark to write something as life altering as the Bitcoin and Blockchain whitepaper. In other words, mastering the process and layout of writing white papers in general is quite attainable and even feasible, but creating one from scratch with it's own original concepts and ideas, and technical explanations is a hard  daunting task.

Neither, it is stuck in a suspended animation, or limbo if you please. Marky Mark and the Facebook bunch took the right approach by going ahead into Congress first in order to get approval instead of just shooting for the stars and launching right out of the gate, which would be a sure way to see a disaster. I think after more regulatory guidance is issued and once Congress has a better grasp at the far extending reach cryptocurrency could provide, they might soften up and give old Mark Zuckerberg the green light to go ahead and launch his platform.

I think people are putting way to much emphasis on Bitcoin itself instead of the Blockchain. Satoshi Nakamoto made the Bitcoin and Blockchain source code open source. So most likely Satoshi knew Bitcoin was flawed, hence making the project public in hope's of people contributing to where he left off. As we speak, other projects are being developed that blow Bitcoin and it's current blockchain out of the water. I don't think Bitcoin was designed to be permanent but instead it was just a proof of concept demonstrating the use of Blockchain and what could potentially be a new form of digital currency.
  Instead people took Bitcoin and Blockchain and ran with it. I doubt Bitcoin makes the long run, I see Bitcoin as the archetype and prototype for future cryptocurrencies and blockchains, being made after Bitcoins likeness and image.
Delegated proof of stake and sharding seem like a more efficient and viable choice at the moment, but eventually even these methods will be replaced by better ideas as I am sure Satoshi envisioned.

Quantum computers are a long ways away from becoming general purpose computers. As of right now, quantum computers are highly limited to only being able to perform specific kinds of calculations and tasks. There is no threat stemming from quantum computers at the moment and there won't be for quite some time now.
   I would worry if quantum computers became commercially available like smartphones, then there would probably be room for panic to ensue. I believe that people have been watching way too many science fiction movies.