I don't think he has compared everything on overall wider scale. Yeah he does have a point to focus on some areas where bitcoin will find it tough to compete but if he's looking at different angle like for instance cross border payment, that is where bitcoin will stand out. At least 30 to 40 percent taken from existing market share already means a lot.

Facinating? I think it deserves more than that. There are so many theories and assumption made thus far based on the little known facts that we are trying to imagine and create with all kinds of scenarios. And as we all know bitcoin is always full of surprises I have a feeling the outcome will caught everyone by surprises.

Fact is you don't have to rush into things. I suggest you find out more about bitcoin and the benefits that it offers and then only decide for yourself. Most of the time, we often get dissapointed if you treat bitcoin solely as an investment or another get rich quick scheme. It's never meant for that.

I think the idea of having blockchain means more than that. And if that doesn't fulfill the criteria of having something that could be solving all the world economic issues and imbalances, then I'm not sure what else would. He's over qualified and that's for sure. Perhaps the biggest obstacle here is the anonymity part.

We'll be looking at something similar like this.
http://www.etftrends.com/2015/10/winklevoss-twins-bitcoin-exchange-could-drive-demand-for-etf/
It's not actually having to directly buy the coins and keep it but it's more like traded fund or stocks. And the discussion about the launch has been going on for sometime now and though I have read reports some claiming that it has gone full swing, but in reality I don't think so.

I don't think bitcoin name should be targeted here. Seems like we are getting victimized and wrongly implicated. Thus it is creating all that negative impression. It should by right more accurately refer to any form of services that promise high returns for investing in bitcoin. And talk about it doesn't that apply the same towards fiat as well...

While I frown upon the idea of regulation, I think if that means bringing bitcoin popularity and adoption towards the next level, then I'll agree to it. I hope by having some form of control, this will instill trust and confidence of those people having doubts towards bitcoin. Sometimes you just have to sacrifice something and that's a fact.

I got myself involved in bitcoin not because I look upon it as a quick way to make big bucks or to treat it as any form of investment, but more towards a hobby. What got me attracted in the first place is perhaps because it is free from being controlled by banks or anyone else for that matter. And if you are thinking towards that direction, I think things will sure turn out different.

The ultra-advanced, superior technology of the digital currency Bitcoin and it's Blockchain public ledger system are in danger of being co-opted.

Taking a quote from your post, a true bitcoiner will be able to differentiate between a real crypto and something which is not, so I don't think in any way these cryptos (whatever they decide to name it) controlled by a central banks will ever become a threat. If centralization means anything, it has to be the first priority on why we chose to move away from fiat going to cryptocurrencies.

Which I have a feeling the money actually comes from a source where the people there want to see bitcoin failed. And one more thing we shouldn't forget is that fiat can be printed infinitely so whatever funds can actually be generated on the go. Even if the objective does not succeed to prove anything, the money is still basically free money.

I also have the same opinion which I don't understand their motive. Even if they come up with another blockchain based monetary control system which they claim will make it more transparent with more accountability in it, for me, it won't make any difference. Banks are still banks. The last thing that we want to see is to have our money getting frozen and being charged ridiculously fee to use the service.

I think the best approach right now is still on how we can protect the trust and ward off all the negative perception people are having towards bitcoin. Instead of looking at ways we can promote and spread the message around, we should also look at how we can protect the trust factor which is on the declining trend. People need to believe in bitcoin and everytime when I talk to people who are new towards cryptocurrency, I'll always tell them, it wrong to put the blame on bitcoin when something bad happen. Also recommend to them trusted exchangers.

I think if somebody or an organization has the motive to bring down bitcoin, there is far better alternative, may cheaper or even more feasible, which is to damage the reputation of bitcoin. Something like exchangers collapsing, scam accusation targeting newbies, though might no happen immediately is enough to cause the ripple effect as time goes by.

I think it's kind of unfair that this type of blame is directed towards bitcoin even though it is actually the fault of the exchanger trying to prey on newbies. I think it would help if we have some kind of official list that shows trusted exchangers and with their rating which has been endorsed by the community which are of high quality that can be used as a guide to help newbies instead of they going about and clicking on the next ad that they see. It has to be some kind of official list and not something plucked from local blog.

Anyway, it still goes back to the person to carry out some background check and take all the precautions but that is one of the ways we can help them to ensure things went smooth.

I think he has done the community a great deal of favor by pointing out weaknesses in the system. At least once we know where the loophole is we can have a patch to cover up during the next update. At least on the bitcoin price this has not been affected as it is still on yhe uptrend.

I think the scenario that you are trying to project here is the ideal condition assuming nothing changed and calculation works as it is. However, don't forget still a long way to go and I'm skeptical on how things would turn out. Probably something that we can't totally imagine. The transaction turnover rate has to be every high to support that. But one thing I'm sure is that I won't be there to even witness it.

I think most of them are the miners which I believe they might not be selling their stash of coins everyday but only when it reaches a certain amount or when it comes to certain time like for instance when it comes to month end. Time to pay the employee or pay for the electricity bill. It's the same like you keep a certain quantity and wait for the target price to reach before selling off everything.

I don't think at this point, they will agree to the idea, adopt it or even make it possible. When you have an open ledger and that means every country is using the same ledger, there is no way anyone can meddle or change how they control currency. When you can't print, and that is where it fails which is what they would want to avoid at all cost.

I think the younger generation have already started learning about it but I don't think they will learn to appreciate bitcoin as most of them probably would not have started to work to earn a living. Let time takes its course. When they are old enough and once they got into school and learn more about economics and starting to realize and understand the concept of money, they will start to appreciate. Probably right now, bitcoin to them is like a token to buy more steam games.

I think when I reached my first btc milestone it was like minutes that I got it. After waiting for so long to earn some decent amount providing services, I thought I would just buy it and it's done. Never regretted though although I could just wait and watch my earning grow, but still it would be faster if I just pay money to get it.