I do think this may pose a threat to workers. Historically, as technology has improved, the skill level needed to be productive in the economy has slowly increased. (e.g. needing to be able to operate a computer for office jobs) This hasn't previously been a problem, but if in the future one does have to be knowledgeable in complicated automated systems in order to not be replaceable by a machine, this may eventually lead to lots of unemployment. It probably won't happen any time soon, however, as AI and automation still have a long way to go before being absolutely better than a human, but it is definitely a possibility. However, this automation will also end up dramatically bringing prices down and making the world more efficient, meaning that people will still have access to basic services and necessities.

Some taxation is definitely justifiable, as ideally you pay taxes in exchange for government-provided security and services. If you say that the government can't take your money without consent, then logically you should not get to live in a country with secure borders without the government's express approval either. However, if abused, taxation can become theft, when governments use it to enrich themselves and consolidate wealth rather than to provide a basic functioning society.

If you really want to mine bitcoin on your PC with ubuntu, you could look at cgminer. However, you won't be able to produce any meaningful hashrate with a regular PC, so it won't be effective in the slightest and I wouldn't recommend it.

Bitcoin mixers are still useful, as exchanges can still flag transactions and can still monitor things like this, even when using XMR. For example, if you change $1,000 of BTC to XMR, and then a bit later you change $1,000 XMR to BTC, those transactions could be linked, especially if you did this repeatedly. Also, most reputable exchanges are KYC in order to comply with the law. That's not to say all non-KYC exchanges are bad, just that mainstream/KYC law-abiding ones are more likely to be trustworthy.

That doesn't really matter, as bitcoin doesn't need government support to function. Once enough people realize that bitcoin is the better way, they can switch without anyone's permission, and the governments will eventually be forced to adapt once everyone leaves their system.


I disagree that the government needs to keep people poor; they just need to keep them under control. Bitcoin isn't trying to bring wealth, it's trying to bring security and sovereignty, and to allow people to control their own money. This is what the governments want to stop, as bitcoin is a direct attack to their power.

From the MtGox claims website (https://claims.mtgox.com/):
so unfortunately it seems that it's too late to file a claim...

The doc didn't actually present any compelling evidence that Peter Todd was Satoshi; it was all just hype and marketing. Just because Peter continued a thought of Satoshi's on the thread doesn't prove anything, especially because someone as intelligent and vigilant as Satoshi surely wouldn't accidentally log into another account, let alone even create a forum account under his real name at all.

It would only matter if he could prove he had the keys to the original Satoshi wallets, otherwise there's no real proof. Several people have claimed to be Satoshi, but nobody's yet been able to provide cryptographic proof of it.

I agree that bitcoin is a more reliable investment, but a hotel could be way more profitable short-term because you can increase the profit by putting in more work and making the hotel better. That doesn't mean it's the better investment though, because the hotel requires constant work to stay profitable, and it's much less dependable for all of the reasons you mentioned.

I'm not saying that if Trump becomes president the whole government will become friendly towards bitcoin, but he won't push for even more SEC harassment and crypto regulations like Harris probably will.

Even though Trump doesn't actually support bitcoin and won't do much to help it, he also probably won't do anything directly bad for bitcoin either, so he's still the better choice by far.

There is no "base transaction fee". The fee is just an incentive for miners to confirm your transaction and add it to a block, so theoretically the fee is optional. However, transactions with a low enough fee won't ever be picked up simply because there isn't enough reward for the miners, but there is no "base" or minimum fee programmed into bitcoin.

While not impossible, Trump most likely doesn't actually support or care much about bitcoin. He knows it's an easy way to earn the support of a group of voters. Also, if he was actually a bitcoiner, he wouldn't be making his own crypto project (https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/crypto/trump-crypto-event-world-liberty-financial-rcna171407), instead he would be all in on bitcoin. That doesn't mean he won't support bitcoin and crypto, but we shouldn't be too hopeful about it.

These two aren't very comparable, as a hotel requires ongoing effort to maintain and run, whereas with bitcoin you just need to buy it and let it sit. A hotel may be more profitable than bitcoin, but it still requires you to devote a lot of time and effort. Also, a hotel cannot be scaled as easily as bitcoin; you can just buy more bitcoin if you want, but you can't just open a second hotel very easily. Therefore, bitcoin would probably be the better investment choice for most people.

That doesn't mean it's the death of bitcoin. Bitcoin was never intended as a replacement for instant payment services, that's was additional layers like lightning are for. Bitcoin is meant as a replacement for centralized banks and other ways of storing value, which it is still best at.

No, even once no new bitcoin is being mined, miners will still receive the transaction fees. Also, unlike with most other cryptos, bitcoin's hard supply cap means that it will only become more and more scarce, therefore the price will most likely keep increasing forever.