BTC's price increased a lot in few days without any convincing reason, being very hard to have a solid prediction about Bitcoin's progress on short-term.
I see a lot of optmism on forum and a lot of pessimism in another sites, where the public isn't mostly composed by Crypto-Currency's enthusiasts. For me it seems a 50%/50% situation, Bitcoin can continue on a positive trend or not. Don't expect too much from the currently moment, but at same time don't underestimate the moment.

There are already some decentralized exchanges, but they aren't popular at this moment, maybe because they are young yet or because people are very confortable with their operations at centralized exchanges. I think it's upon to each one to choose what is better for them, a centralized or decentralized platform. The important is to have different options to choose and to try. I believe what Crypto-Currency needs the most is to continue being developed technologically.


Decentralization makes this possible not only for an exchange, but for anyone who manages to accumulate such amounts of the total supply. The pure decentralization is an utopia. Decentralization can be the perfect tool to achieve the centralization by some individuals.

Sorry, with all due respect, this forum's cleaning talk is a fallacy. On the internet, people are like chameleons, taking different personalities, names, addresses at any time, when desired or necessary. People are negatived/banned here, but they aren't neutralized, they will just come back with a new clean profile attacking again.

In this forum's cleaning war, the only impaired are those who want to stand loyal to their accounts, that eventually becomes worthless from many perspectives, and the only benefited ones are those who are building their reputations hunting people exclusively in inferior positions (those who doesn't have anyone behind them), putting scammers, non-scammers, abusers, non-abusers in the same basket, just because they can. It doesn't even need to make sense. It's all about personal power, influence in a forum where money plays a big role.

What people say here doesn't have much importance, unless their trust score is high. Opinions worth depending on who express it.

If you really want to clean the forum, another measures, tought and fair ones, would be necessary to be taken. Any other palliative is just a "jerry-built". Between a severe general policy and the ridiculous currently methods employed at this moment to clean the forum, the first option doesn't sound a bad idea. At least the terms would be the same for everyone, instead of the currently one where, for example, if a policeman in particular likes or dislikes according to your face or your clothes, you will be fine or in trouble. At least we would have a police instead of the currently militias.

Especially those people who bought BTC when it was expensive last year and experienced a hard drop in BTC's price next. It wasn't a positive experience for them on short/medium term and there is a good chance these people have sold their coins fearing to lose even more money by holding for more time, boosting the dump in BTC's price that we are still seeing.

It's indeed a bad move, but I understand these people, as many of them are new in Crypto-Currency world, don't have experience and are just trying to avoid more depreciation over their money. Unfortunatelly these people spread bad news, by sharing their negative experience with Bitcoin.

Yes, there are many illegal casinos operating in countries where gambling is forbidden. I think it's worse for countries this way, as they have a kind of business operating in the shadows, while it could be operating legally and generating tax income and turistic attraction for visitants from different places. Gambling is part of human culture since the earliest periods of its story, it's a mistake to try separating the man from this activity.

At least it's allowed in your country. Casino owners make a lot of profit and the expensive taxes they have to pay are useful for the cities development (if there isn't corruption, of course). Capital cities are usually more wealthy and have more activity than in country cities, it means more profit, but more taxes as well. In the end it's still profitable for casino owners.

It's worse when the country totally bans gambling, they don't see its potential, like in my country.
The only institutions that have the right to organize gambling - bingo games are the churches and other institutions that are collecting donations/money, and they don't need to pay any tax. People laudering money uses this method, donating to avoid taxes.

A fase Alpha começou, primeira semana somente convidados, então a partir do dia 7 de abril, qualquer um com 100+ CRS pode participar.

Only countries where people don't have access to internet need paper money. In a futuristic society there isn't any need of using paper money, only if people wish for some particular reasons... Countries can regulate their economy virtually and it's even easier for them to track the money in a digital format than in paper. Paper money can go to anywhere and it won't be tracked, while digital money is being tracked all the time.

In our countries cashless society isn't a reality yet because the lack of technology, as you said, and the lack of interest from older people in learning how to use digital cash instead of paper.

I don't know how much time you consider short-term, but World Cup Russia can helps Bitcoin to rise again if the publicity is done rightly. I have seen some hotels will accept Bitcoin as payment method. If more services follow the trend, we can see demand increasing fast in a small time interval. There is a lot of potential on it, many different countries involved, all the world focused on it... I think there will be enough strength to boost BTC to $10.000 again.

If it's the most "feared investment" the chances are still good... It's like the biggest challenges, the most difficult tasks: in the end the reward always worth a lot for those who were persistent and faithful. For now enjoy the time and get some extra satoshis.

They can ban ads on their platforms, but people will keep talking about Crypto-Currency, sharing news, ICOs, referral links... There are millions of users on these platforms, it's impossible to follow all these peoples actions. The effect I see is that Crypto-Currency loses some "legitimacy" with mainstream's sector, it can be considered more "marginalized" by this segment. Anyway, nowadays, who is worried about what mainstream thinks?

I believe it's not possible to have stability all the time. There are always crisis times and people must be prepared to pass through these difficults decreasing the impact maximum as possible. What happens with centralized systems, is that governments do maximum as possible to decrease the impacts on short term, manipulating the economy, not letting it be natural, as it should. On long term it becomes a snowball, bringing the problem back in larger proportions.

There are many factors influencing the economies, and they are different in each area of the world.
If Bitcoin can help or not, I don't know, but those countries which have more access and investments dedicated to technology's sector are in better conditions to overcome the difficults and boost their local economies than other countries that are only importing technology from others.

After reading this thread and seeing some points presented on it, I thought I should open a thread to discuss some inconsistencies and contradictions present on the negative feedbacks that are spread around.

1. Accounts sales, acceptable/not acceptable?
Now the statements about accounts sales say that it was acceptable by 2015/2016. As I understood, I can say it was valid by the middle of 2016, as I made sure to ask about it first before doing so. Well, if it was tolerated by 2016, why were people being negatived on that time?

I took in consideration the statements from the reputable members. It was said this practice could be frowned upon/discouraged, as people used it to scam others and abuse campaigns, giveaways, etc... But since I didn't have any of these intentions, I thought it was Ok, as others (including more reputable members) were dealing this way without problems, probably they didn't have malicious intentions as well.

However I was negatived, even making sure that all the process was legal and acceptable on that time, otherwise people would have told me on my thread things like: "It was acceptable by last year, but people are abusing accounts sales and farming accounts a lot, so we don't accept it anymore and people are considered untrustworthy and are negatived, possibly FOREVER!".

Instead of hearing that, I just heared I should control my posts quality, otherwise I could be banned for this reason, on both accounts.

---

2. Double standards
Recently, I have seen an interesting post in a thread where a forum's member asked why some members buying accounts on the early days, in a same thread were negatived, while others (with higher trust on the forum) weren't. The case was instantly solved, everyone that posted on the specific thread, except the account seller (OP) and one another bidder, had their negative feedbacks removed.

What is the difference between those who posted in this thread from people who posted in another threads on the same period of time?

---

3. As I can't proove you are guilty, proove me you are innocent
It's not hard to track criminals on the old Auction's threads. People that were looking for accounts and that posteriorly received different kinds of negative feedbacks, not for accounts sales reasons, but because they were abusing, cheating, stealing, lying, etc...

The time revealed the intentions of each one on those threads, but still nowadays, everyone is put on the same dirty basket. Those who weren't/aren't involved in any kind of fraud, as the records can show, didn't receive at least the "benefit of the doubt", being the only way to have the negative rating removed by earning reputation from other forum's members.

Well, if accounts sales encourages scam, spam, accounts farming, this condition to have the feedback removed encourages trust farming! People will be forced to make deals they aren't interested, just to proove they deserve their neutral trust back...

Someone with an empty trust score can be more or equally trustworthy than someone with dozens of positive feedbacks that were earned with the exclusive intention to earn that trust, and not the goods/money being traded itself.

Also, this condition doesn't help anything in the combat of accounts sales. It's well known that the favorite dealers accounts are those ones with positive feedbacks, and thinking this way their business is safe, as accounts with positive feedbacks aren't negatived, quite the opposite, they have their negative feedbacks removed. Account dealers just need to earn some reputation, then they will have the negative removed, plus they will sell the account more expensive than before!

---

If someone is going to be the law, this person should be at least coherent with the ratings applied.
We are already tired about the selectivity and the power abuse practiced by the authorities in our countries, I think we don't need more of that in a place that is supposed to represent the opposite of what our societies became.

It's a decentralized society, committing the same mistakes of a centralized one.

If we think this way, churches, charity institutions, NGOs, hospitals, etc... Are all money laundering tools. People do this since a long time ago, Bitcoin doesn't give them any advantage they hadn't before. What I see is that BTC transactions are trackable and many criminals were already taken this way, what is good for Bitcoin's reputation and good for the law forces that are taking criminals in a smart way, not being necessary to affect negatively legit Crypto enthusiasts.

It's always proportional. If there are many people using Bitcoin, the price will increase, so all of them can execute their transactions without worries, being the limited supply of BTCs enough for all of them. It's very balanced and sustainable on long term, the system works perfectly by itself.

Altcoins are always welcome, also a good way for people to show their insatisfaction with Bitcoin at some point, so they can move their money to Altcoins, a Plan B in Crypto Currency world. Just makes the decentralization stronger, very positive.

I think Bitcoin would be an easy way to send money to different nations in an "anonymous way", not only Bitcoin, but Crypto-Currency in general, it could be used by people helping each other to have money to survive or by governments to help allies. A World War always make a lot of damage everywhere and it's possible that at some time internet would stop working for many people, then Bitcoin would be worthless.

I imagine Bitcoin would play a secondary role in a war, usually people are more interested in physical goods than money during wars.

Indeed Bitcoin improved a lot the way people make transactions. It's a great evolvement that came suddenly with Bitcoin. It helped people from all parts of the world to connect themselves into a new system, Blockchain, making people stay closer without the need to be physically together or at the same area/country to be able to negotiate.

However the future is obscure, the possibilities are many and most of them don't depend on us, enthusiasts, but on the authorities that rule the way we live. Once each country says what they want and think about Bitcoin we can have a clearer scenario to discuss and make more accurated predictions about the future of the digital currency.

No, Bitcoin is a worldwide currency and if a country adopts it as national currency, all the other countries can affect its economy by manipulating BTC price. And even if it's not manipulated all the FUD and regulations from another countries will affect BTC's price and consequently the country's economy that has Bitcoin as national currency, it's very dangerous and unstable for the citizens of that country.

If it's a minor country, like those islands and few principalities that almost no one knows, it might work as they have nothing to lose.

This guy supports Bitcoin as the future's single currency, what means all other Crypto-Currencies are out. That is a centralized thought, very common among the "rulers of the world". I support Bitcoin, but I don't want it become the single currency of the future, because it makes all the system centralized and manipulated, without giving people the chance to move to another currency if Bitcoin becomes "corrupted".

Surely rich people will have the advantage they can adquire more coins than the rest of people, but I think the main point here is the accessibility. Anyone can have access to Bitcoin, it's equal for everyone, as it's decentralized.

There are traditional investments in fiat that have as one of the requirements a minimum amount of money to invest, that is usually high, not being accessible for poor and average people in general. Also, profitability in BTC is higher, so poor people can finally invest their money and make it grow.

The difference in terms of investment size will surely exist, but in terms of accessibility won't.