Maybe, that's the difference though. We are comparing this data with America, UK, and other developed countries. However, if this data was collected in less developed countries then I can see the data being skewed because of that. After all, local currencies in developing countries are generally less stable, and there are more people that are poverty stricken, which therefore might mean they were already looking for alternatives, and happened to stumble upon Bitcoin. 

I would have to agree though, comparing this data to my observations locally, it's massively over inflated.

Although, I understand this is probably a localised issue, but where I live most people seem to be quite hostile towards Bitcoin or just simply don't know enough about it. I would be interested in looking into exactly where this was conducted, what sort of background the respondents were from, since I find it hard to believe that almost half the population think Bitcoin is more trustworthy than local currencies.

I do believe we are getting better in terms of perceived legitimacy, but I didn't think we were here quite yet. Also, I would have thought security, and trustworthy would have had similar results, as really you can't have one without the other, so that piece of data is a little confusing to me.

I would say 40 to 50 percent of the population has heard about Bitcoin, and know roughly what it is, I wouldn't expect even half of that number to consider it more trustworthy, otherwise wouldn't they be using it? At the very least as a reserve currency.

Exchange wallets have a much bigger potential for pitfalls than personal wallets. Personal wallets as you say; you have complete control over, though an exchange wallet could be compromised at any moment, despite you having pretty decent security. Storing your Bitcoin on a exchange wallet for any long term period defeats the point of Bitcoin entirely.

Actually, I'd say most people get complacent which leads to loss of coins, at least in personal wallets. Exchange wallets it's usually down to internal compromise or the user making a weak password. The thing is with exchange wallets they have a much larger attack vector than your personal wallet, which inherently makes it much less secure.

You'll be hard pressed to find any exchange operating without Know Your Customer (KYC) since KYC is required in most countries, this is usually because they are trying to reduce fraud, and various other illegal activities. However, it's your right to choose other services that don't require KYC, the only option you have is peer to peer transactions,  so you can either post a thread in the Currency Exchange section on this forum, or use an exchange which doesn't actually trade Bitcoin themselves, but allows users to trade on there.

Also, don't use the exchange wallet for long term storage, and all exchanges should be compatible with whatever Android wallet you use, since it doesn't really matter too much on the software, just how it generates the Bitcoin address. So, a Bitcoin address is a Bitcoin address regardless the software.

Chinese phones will always be the best bang for your buck, though they often have fake specifications or potentially have been compromised. So, it's best to check the item physically, for example there's a load on the market which claim to have dual speakers, when in fact they have one speaker, but two openings that give the illusion there are two speakers. Also, about it being potentially compromised, all phones could potentially be compromised, and that's why I always recommend flashing a custom ROM, either one that is natively supported or using a Generic System Image (GSI). The hardware could still be compromised so that's something you'd have to decide on.

Bitcoin should work on all of them though, it just depends on what brands you trust just in case they're compromised, and either give away your privacy or potentially compromise your Bitcoin wallet.

China takes the alternative route by placing restrictions, and laws to prevent its use. That however, usually has a detrimental effect in the long term, once the people start getting tired of being censored. However, I think the point still stands, China wouldn't benefit attacking Bitcoin by taking the majority of network hash rate, since there's cheaper ways to try, and prevent people from using it.

It's one thing achieving the majority, but maintaining it for any period of time where it would contribute considerably to their goal would be rather unrealistic, and unsustainable. Hence why we haven't seen it, Bitcoin has many enemies, yet there hasn't been that many significant attacks. Bitcoin is getting stronger as time goes on due to increased adoption, the optimal time to attack was the first opportunity that they learned about it. Though, I guess back then it didn't have as much faith in it as it does today, though that's the counter balance really, it isn't going to be sustainable for anyone for a long period of time.

What some of you might find interesting which I stumbled upon today, Mike Tyson actually went onto Logan Paul's podcast "impaulsive". It literally starts off with Mike eating mushrooms, so take that as you will. I know Tyson does a podcast too, but I couldn't seem to find a Logan one. Makes me thing that Logan is a an even greater businessman than people give credit for.

This fight was likely going to happen before that podcast, and the only way I see Mike actually going on there is because it was written in the contract. Then Logan benefits from the fights purse, as well as the amount of traffic which will inevitably end up on that podcast. Smart move, the guy definitely knows how to make money.

I do suspect that Jake Paul will pull of his usual stunts prior to the fight, though Logan seemed to be quite respectful on parts of the podcast I watched. I didn't watch it all though.

The government, and Hilary would be well up to date on Bitcoin. She might not have the knowledge about it personally, but the government have been aware of its existence from its very inception. I wouldn't take Hillary's comment as the government are going to start cracking down on Bitcoin though, I took it as her personal opinion rather than anything official or her being in the know of things that might be official.

Adoption of Bitcoin has already started. The difference is; it's being used as a reserve currency rather than a every day currency. This doesn't really hurt fiat currencies all too much in its current state, fiat currencies do that to themselves, because of their inflation which is a design flaw. If fiat fails, it's because it's flawed, and there are better alternatives out there. At the moment though, Bitcoin isn't the answer to all our problems. I see Bitcoin as a way of controlling your money right now, and it probably has more potential to earn you money over a period of time, than if you were to collect the tiny amount of interest banks offer.

A government adopting Bitcoin, and then paying through the teeth to have enough resources to maintain over 51% share of the mining power is even more silly than using a currency which you can infinitely print. Though, this hasn't stopped them in the past to be fair.

Nah, in all seriousness the expense required to maintain that sort of share in the network would greatly outweigh the benefits. It would be a better idea to try, and convince the mining pools that they need to follow some sort of law which gives the government control of their pools, and even that is far fetched.

Basically, dkbit98 said it above. If they consider Bitcoin a threat to their existing model, they'll likely evolve that system into a sort of government backed cryptocurrency, which will have all the same limitations or minor variations to what fiat is today, except their marketing plan will be far greater than anyone else's. So, in simple terms they wouldn't centralise Bitcoin, because in all reality it's impossible to do. Instead, they would attempt to replace it with a similar system, but something they can control.

I mean, most people are already converting to digital finances which will make the transition easier.

Edward Bernays taught us you don't have to destroy anything, instead you convince the people that your solution is a better one, and with the government's marketing budget, they''ll be able to easily convince the general public.

He also suggested that lack of acknowledgement usually brings more harm than good, and you can see that several governments, in fact probably at this point most governments in the world have acknowledged Bitcoin, and set certain regulations such as taxes.

I've always seen Klopp as a mentoring type, that's why he's so successful in turning players that weren't at their best, and getting the most out of them. So, I'd like to think he's going to have heavy involvement with these shadow talks to try, and ease Gerrard into the role. That's if he is definitely leaving, I'm really hoping he stays. It says a lot when you have a club legend like Gerrard who could potentially manage the team in the future, which is very movie story like, but most of us would prefer to have Klopp at the helm. That says a lot about how much we respect, and love Klopp.

Easily, the best manager post 2000's, and I think there could potentially be a argument for being the best of all time. Though, with Shankly there's definitely some decent competition out there. Though, they're very similar I think.

With how shaky Liverpool's defense has been recently, I'm personally feeling 3-1. I might see if I can remember the throwaway email I used for this, and just see how many points I end up with by mass putting in the results .

Makes sense, probably worth putting a punt on Jake just because I haven't got absolute confidence in Tommy on the best days which have been few, and far between recently.

As for the weight minor difference there for Tommy, I don't think he'll struggle at that weight, after all both men are probably walking around much heavier than that, so higher limit while still being only a minor difference should benefit the cut rather than hinder performance on the night.

I'm a fan of Adesanya so a slight bias, but I also have tremendous respect for Whittaker. This is easily the most anticipated fight throughout the whole UFC for me. I can't think of anyone else that I would be more hyped to be fighting each other. It's probably seconded by Conor vs Khabib a few years ago, but other than that I actually believe Whittaker has what it takes to cause an upset, and Adesanya always puts on a show.

I've heard it numerous times, I listen to a lot of podcasts surrounding the UFC, so I can't remember exactly which one, but they've alluded to several dagestan fighters being the next Khabib. Luckily, their other content is entertaining.

From what I can gather this particular fighter doesn't even have the style that Khabib has, which is basically executing basic moves to absolute perfection, which is rare even at an elite level competition.

Fair enough I'd say, but would they consider a post from the site admin to be credible enough? I'd like to think you can't get anymore credible than the website themselves posting information about compromises.

I'm guessing they're going to be rather picky about it being specifically a third party that has reported on it. Which would be weird, since most third party reports are grossly inaccurate (not specifically Bitcointalk's, but in general).

Anything involving investments should probably be considered for bias. I'm not sure what their take is on other investments that may be deemed risky.

I take a similar approach to Mprep, in that if the majority of the post is on topic, then I'll likely leave it. After all, I think we all stray somewhat off topic, but as long as we keep the main point on topic, and the majority of the post on topic I don't think it's that big of a problem.

As far as I know, this will likely lead to harsher actions being taken if this continues. Likely starting at personal messages warning of the fact, then leading onto a temporary ban. Though, I've yet to be in this position, most people aren't that persistent, and just accept it or complain in Meta which is fine.

Yeah, in a perfect world that's what would happen. Though, I'd like to think that if someone was being punished unfairly or at least suspecting that a moderator has gone rogue as you put it, contact an admin to get it sorted or at least look up where to post complaints.

I'm not sure how much this has happened in Bitcointalk's history though, I don't think I recall many instances, maybe once? So, either the admins do a good job of getting on it right away or it just doesn't happen very often.

I'd like to think they care, and I'd like to think I'd care if I was in their position. Though, you're probably right, and I'm just romanticizing it. Well yeah, I think a lot of people would argue that Saudi are here because of the UK helping them achieve what they wanted to achieve.

It'll be interesting what players they sign, because I'll be curious how many top players are willing to go play for a team that's currently struggling, and will have to work their socks off to get anywhere near European competitions. It might sound a little crazy because Manchester City were in the lower leagues, but I think rebuilding Newcastle is harder than Man City's rise to glory.

I just can't see them getting enough signings that are of good enough quality, without massively overspending, putting their financial fair play at risk (whether or not they care about that since Manchester City doesn't seem too) in January. Usually, teams that are doing well want to keep their best players to try, and finish as positively as they can, those that are particularly struggling will also want to keep their star players, to keep their position in the tables respectful.

Obviously, you can make big signings in January transfer windows, I think Torres was a January signing for Liverpool way back, and do I recall Suarez also being a signing in Jan? I can't quite remember. However, Newcastle need more than just one or two players. They need a complete overhaul. The only players I see at Newcastle that should probably stay are Wilson (though injury prone), Saint Maximin, and Miguel Almirón. Those players are pretty decent, and are relatively young for their importance to the team.

You could potentially argue that players like Murphy, Hayden, and Joe Willock should be staying, but personally I think they should be setting the bar higher that these types of players.

Exactly, just because Chiesa has struggled in the past with wrestlers, doesn't actually mean he's going to struggle again. I think we'll see him make the necessary adjustments to his game plan, and this fight will be won, and lost in the stand up, which like you say you've got to favour Chiesa on paper.

I don't expect a knockout, I expect a competitive fight right up until the end of the third round. Chiesa winning via unanimous decision. I expect cleaner shots, more impactful shots, and he's probably going to rock Brady at least once during the fight.

It'll probably be no winners announced due to it being a exhibition match. Though, you can definitely come to a conclusion on who's the better fighter in exhibitions. To be honest, I don't think exhibitions should exist, if you're cleared by the commission to be able to fight, then that's it. There shouldn't be any going easy on your opponent, fans pay big money to watch boxing fights. In fact, I've never been to a boxing fight because they're so damn expensive to go see. Especially, if you want to be anywhere with a decent view.

I'm not all that fussed on knockouts, I'd rather see a competitive war, than a one punch knockout. There's nothing worse than staying up all night for the main event, and one of them gets knocked out in the first few seconds.

It would only be market manipulation if they are directly benefiting from it or at least trying to purposely do it. Otherwise, it's just making predictions without any substance behind them, both pretty bad. Though, most people don't care about either. Do we know how much JP Morgan are invested into Bitcoin, is that public knowledge? Since, if they did offload Bitcoin after claiming Bitcoin would reach x amount, then that would be clear manipulation, trying to artificially inflate the price, and then sell a large amount, and reinvest at a later date, rinse, and repeat.

Though, I'll be honest I don't know how effective the above title would be at increasing the price in the short term. After all, Tesla was bigger news recently, and that didn't really have much of a significant impact, at least not for long.

I'd argue that the political stability was much more fragile than that in the USA. We all know that the US has a lot of problems, and at times things can start to look like the balance has tipped, but I still think they've got a lot more resources to combat any significant dip. Civil unrest, and various other factors contributed to Zimbabwe. You're right though, I might be slightly underestimating how quick things can change, though I think I still stand by my original stance, not going to happen anytime soon (within 10 years).

I tend to find that the older users here are a little more optimistic, than the ones that have just invested. I would wager a guess that most long term users, were hoping for the best which swayed their vote to thinking it was different. For example, I don't actually tend to take notice of much of the patterns, because I like to follow the correlation doesn't equal causation approach. Though, I hadn't voted on this poll.

For those wondering what justifies being reported I'd say If you receive any type of personal message which you deem is unwanted, you can report it. The admins then will likely see if this is something that is happening on the mass, and if it is deal with it accordingly.

Could be a temp ban or could be permanent. Depends on a case by case basis I would say, since you may assume they have only contacted you, but in reality they may have sent it to hundreds of users, and that likely justifies more than a temp ban.

As for confirmation that the report has been acted upon, probably not unless a Global mod or admin thinks it's justified.

I'll definitely agree with that, he did decent against Woodley. I mean I was hoping Woodley would've got the job done, but I was met with the same frustration as watching him in the UFC. Although, there was definitely a point in that boxing fight which was a little weird, he definitely caught Jake, and Jake fell onto the ropes which should technically be a knock down. Jake looked a little dazed at that point too, but did recover fairly well.



Yeah, I say it'll be a circus, but I guess that's one of the draws of boxing these days. The era is definitely changing, and boxing is becoming more entertainment outside the ring, than inside. Maybe, that is unfair, but I've definitely started to not watch as much boxing as I used too, though I'm probably an outlier, and this is partly because of MMA replacing it.

Yeah, if your Jake you fight Mcgregor whatever he offers.  Jake Paul walks out of that fight with sponsorships, and more exposure than he could ever ask for. He doesn't necessarily need the money from the fight.