Even though one size cannot fit all there is need to do with what we have at this point and that is why emphasis is placed on the KYC/AML option as that is the only viable means of regulation. As time goes on, I see some form of restrictions being applied for money to be moved. Currently in most countries, the banks are required by laws to report the movement of certain amount of money to the authority depending on the category one belongs to the same thing is applicable in the airports and point of entries. This method have not be full proof but its still combating the issue of money laundering. The 'fear' of being accosted is enough for one to have a rethink. As a form of upgrade service providers related to crypto,would also be compelled to comply with the provisions that would be made available.

Another upgrade that I see, is the aspect of revenue collection where this service providers are by default governments agents to furnish it with tax deducted and details of who it was deducted from, the nature of transaction and the amount involved. All of this is what will make government to regulate to a large extent the ''seemingly impossible to regulate market'. KYC/AML might not be the answer to everything but its surely the beginning of what is to come.

If there is any take out from this is the fact that times are changing and more countries are being receptive to the way they see crypto currency. The moment they are regulating bitcoin, it is by extension affecting the whole crypto industry. What matters now is to wait for how the regulation is going to run out because the article is just about what is to come and not what it is and that is what we should be focusing on now rather than rejoicing about what is yet to happen. Eventually, several countries would have to follow this path that is why I pity those who just decide to go the route of ban when they could have been the leading country in the technology of the future.

For one, I think it depends on the individual making the investment decision and the amount of information available to such person. Not everyone have access to the same type of information and that is why sometimes some people will make some investment decision and I wonder why take such decision. For me, I would be tilting towards crypto currency in general rather than limiting it to bitcoin because I have seen firsthand how a coin that barely worth nothing at some point ended being sought after in a matter of months. No property investment could bring such returns without repercussions.

However, there are still some things that should not be compromised on and one of them is shelter. Imagine a family of 4 staying in small house under the guise of investing somewhere else. It goes beyond the interest or returns but sometimes the very reason of existence.

Just like the expression used in the article "coup" this is nothing short of that. I cannot imagine building a business being taken away and sold and no matter how against it you are, there is nothing you can do. I have seen business owners forced out of their own businesses because of issues of majority shareholders deciding a particular cause of action which the owner felt is not the right way.  All they need to do is to put it to a vote and you have no choice than to step aside. Just like you said its a lesson for those looking for Angel investors here and there, its good but make sure no matter how desperate you need the money for expansion, never let go of the majority and ensure those who are the other shareholders are diverse in their opinion to agree on a cause of action.

When they come in with their money, they have one goal in mind irrespective of how calm or mild their approach was, taking over is the end game and making more money at the end by adding unreasonable premium on whatever they invested, appoint key people loyal to them and still claim they are operating at a loss

I think every country should be allowed to operate in its own pace because the political, social and economic environment of the countries differs from one and other which makes comparing them difficult. The united States would have its own reason for not going forward as much as we want then to do and I think its largely due to their influence in world economy. They would want to first get a grasp or some form of control on the blockchain (if possible though) before rolling out their own regulations and the moment they do that a whole lot of other countries are following suit.

I don't think its an outright war against US economy rather its fear of the US might. Today you see a lot of ICOs at the planning stage already disenfranchising US citizens not because they know the law that stops then, but rather they want to avoid "trouble" at all cost as they know wherever they are, they can be reached.

What I see here is show of strength from both sides as they all believe they are in the position of strength in all this thereby not backing down. I see the United States having the upper hand here while their Chinese counterpart is talking about reporting to WTO which I believe they already know what is going on and would act if they have any need to do anything. The fact is its beyond that and I don't see the United States backing down in all of this. All that is needed is just for them to consider those who will bear the brunt of their actions and what it would mean for the man earning decent wages and wanting to stay out of trouble. In all, let's just wait and see where this would end as none of them will stay in power forever.

Uganda is really taking the forefront of this especially in Africa as while others are considering it, Uganda is implementing it but this implementation is from the aggressive point of view. Asking people to pay tax for visiting social media, is a form of stifling their independence and freedom because the more they can't visit due to the amount of money they have to pay, they are shut out from seeing things going on across the world.

I think this is more of freedom stifling than economic point of view because if its mainly economic, there are sure several ways of going about it than trying to clamp down peoples voices which happen on most social media. Its not to support fake news spread across social media but there are also better ways to curb that too. I hope the freedom activist can challenge this form of aggressive approach to silence the people.

Banks will never become obsolete not now not in the future. The worse that would happen is reliance on them will become so low that a lot of transactions that they today would be taken over if crypto currency is allowed to flourish to the fullest. Even if the crypto is legalised as a legal tender, people would still need an organisation to help them keep their wealth, they want to have someone who will pay them interest on their savings, others would want to borrow to finance their businesses, governments would want some to act as intermediary in keeping revenue generated, international trades would still need to be facilitated etc put all this together, any organisation or business licensed to do all this, is technically a bank.

I hold the view that the economy will continue to grow as long as there is human existence and there are people doing the valuation every time. They are the ones giving us the figures to conclude that the economy is growing based on two reasons.

1. We will always have advancement in every facet of our existence. Technology, education, sciences, trade, music, culture, politics etc. they will continue to get better and better and when they do, we tend to attach value to it which in turn means the economy is growing.

2. For the fixed resources, they will continue to increase because of the premium will place on it not because they are increasing on their own. A bar of gold or one btc is still the same it was say 5 years ago but the value has increased simply because we are the ones that give it the value and as long as this is applicable to everything, we tend to conclude in our statistics that the economy is growing.

The topic and the content were quite contradictory though, for the topic my position would have been, has bitcoin lost its place in the market in the first place for it to start struggling about restoration because its when one lost something that you begin to look for it which is not the case here.

For the price, I think people are entitle to their opinion on the direction they feel price will be towards the end of the year. The only thing to do is to wait as everything depends on which forces will work towards their own objective as that is what will matter after all and not expression of opinions that we always see.

I think what is being said there if I am not mistaken is in two parts

1. Emphasising that your API should be used for assets you have control over i.e those ones that are your own and not those in your reach as a custodian. Its just a way to hammer it to those who have been using it for such purpose which I am sure is something that would have been in the terms and conditions of its use.

2. The second part is just telling the other use of the API and how it can be used on mobile for the same purpose its used on the web. Its as simple as that. But if all this does not apply to you, you don't need to act on it.

When I also got the notification of their movement accompanied by loads of grammar in form of articles to support their position, I was wondering what effect would that mean exactly. Would it increase the number of people on their platform of make their platform safer? I personally felt its the chasing of shadows to be doing restructure based on the surface just like a company changing its logo with really changing his concept or a brand changing his bottle and not the content. It amounts to waste of time and resources.

Yes they have provided a support over the years and still doing so because before I know about any other web wallet, it has been blockchain.info which I am sure people will agree with me on but beyond that they need to start upgrading to the technical level of making bitcoin better and safer. The SegWit is one, the other is the lightning network which I have seen any statement of support from them.

Several things that started in movies have become a reality today but not everything that we have seen is also in existence as at today example is the time travel machines, cloning of people, existence of super heros etc. AI existence continues to grow and they continue to make life easier but one weakness that they have is that contrary to what we see in movies, they are existence is still very dependent on human intervention. There is a Google AI system that if I choose to turn of remains off. Robots needs to be charged, they needed to be fed information for them to function, they can be corrupted and the shut off. So, there is no need to fear as to whether they would take over the world.

This is really a good news to be coming at this needed time when India is working on the opposite side of things. It is expected that the effect that India will bring will be neutralized via this but unfortunately, while the forum is full with talks about India, no one is saying anything or creating several threads about this great development yet when price falls, we get to see threads like ''Effect of India ban on the current crash'', ''Will bitcoin ever recover from this ban in India?'' not knowing we are the ones giving it the publicity necessary to drown the market.

Reading the order, I was impressed because it was not based on empty promises rather thoroughly thought out process which include training of qualified personnel in the development and use of blockchain. In addition to that is the establishment of a body to regulate entities having relationship with crypto. This is really step into the future that should be commended.

Its really a bad one and I see the effect spiralling into the mainstream of the price and the price that is just recovering might face another round of downward trend with no time for recovery in sight. But at the same time, I strongly believe its just going to be a set back and not a total defeat because when people have a will, there will surely be a way to go about it. I see new means if trading popping up in a more decentralised way that cannot be stopped or linked except for isolated cases.

I foresee a situation whereby people will start coming groups on Telegram, WhatsApp, Facebook to carry out trade they decide who will act as escrow and with the continued availability of the internet, they are still connected to the global market. I hope the Indian government would review this policy of theirs in the near future.

The answer is simple the precious token might not be as precious as you think it is. People achieve closure at different point of their activities and what is precious to Mr A is not precious to Mr B. Aside from those who really spend money to buy the token and the developer that kept some for themselves, who are still expected to exercise to exercise some restraint in dumping, every other category didn't really believe in the project. Signature campaigners, blog campaigners, Twitter/Facebook posters, article publicist, translations bounty, bug bounty, developer bounty, airdrop and a host of other "free" inflow, just worked for their time and energy so the issue of it being precious was never in the picture to influence their decisions.

When people make posts, thinking its just to increase their post count, they forget there is a ''review board'' which does not necessarily have to be a moderator. I have seen some nice posts sourced from outside the forum but without the proper reference. The first 3 comments you see will be about where is the reference or acknowledging the source but they seem not to get it and someone would still do the same thing. I have read it several times, plagiarism is an outright ban without any consideration or appeal to that. I guess we can only continue to call people attention to it while the forum rules will be upheld no matter who is involved.


His posts are mostly two liners or one but if its making sense, its not how long as sometimes I drop few words here and there but plagiarism is a no no that cannot be entertained.

I don't know why I had this feeling that Op was just trying to bad mouth a particular cloud mining site to the advantage of the other. Although, its a generally accepted fact that all cloud mining sites are bound to exhibit some scamming attribute at some time in their life time. While some might be immediate, the other might come at a later period. But on the matter being discussed, why would anyone go ahead and invest $92k on cloud mining to be earning a paltry $2 dollar in a day it would take 126 years to break even. And when he realize that another platform is paying better (assuming he didn't know about this), why didn't he withdraw and invest in the better option which I believe a rational investor would have done and not coming on the forum to make a fuss about it.

Visited the site and I must commend the amount of effort you put there and the site is rich with information that would be beneficial to anyone visiting the site. But I feel there is still more to be done in making user experience unforgettable. For me, I would like to see a more categorization of the news posted on the site because on my first visit, I saw series of information facing me that I am even finding it difficult to see one that I would read. Put into categories like exchange news, legal news, crime, development, etc all related to bitcoin and also the headlines should be worked on to be more captivating.

Finally, when the traffic starts coming and you needed to start placing ads, I want to encourage that you be prudent with it by not clustering the sites with ads thereby the sites lose its very existence due to the quest to make money by the administrator. Wishing you the best in your venture.

I am kind of indifferent about it because I didn't even know they accept bitcoin to book for their services. On their own part, I am sure its something they would have given adequate thought before discontinuing the service which they would have also put into consideration the amount of revenue they would be losing for that course of action. For those commenting they would lose revenue, of course they would but two things are important to consider in this scenario

1. What is the amount of revenue they will be losing in relation to their entire revenue? If its just a fraction they can do without, then I don't see them having any difficulty in arriving at this decision.

2. Sometimes in the life of a business the monetary costs might be minimal compared to other pressure the company might be facing behind close doors. For a company with several international presence and affiliations like this, its more complex than we usually see which I feel would play an important part here. Anyway, its a decision and not a rule which means it can be reviewed anytime and there are other options to choose from which is why I won't sweat over this.