Too bad this forum doesn't have a tipping feature.
Sure it does. Just look at a user's profile and if they have an address attacked to their bitcoin address field then send them a "tip". This method makes it so you you do not get the public recognition for tipping, but it also makes it more difficult to manipulate (and keeps out people begging for tips) |
|
|
|
At least that's what I just did, so I believe we are at or very close to the bottom.
Why would we be at the bottom? The selling is just beginning. Every time a new company like Microsoft offers bitcoin as a payment method, the market gains another auto-seller. There is no reason for the price to increase until this imbalance is corrected. The time to "go long" would be when a major company announces that it will be integrating bitcoin into its payroll options. This is not necessarily true. When additional companies start to accept bitcoin, more people will start to buy bitcoin for the sole purpose of spending it at one of such merchants. Each additional large company that accepts bitcoin makes it one company closer to having B2B bitcoin related payments |
|
|
|
Don't think this poll will give truly reliable/valid results.
I expect everyone to be honest,what would the point be of lying? The real question should be, "what's the point of buying bitcoin so I can spend it on goods and services that I can already buy with fiat. Why should I take the extra step?" Unless companies like Microsoft and Time also begin offering employee pay in bitcoin, we're going to see continued selling. The reason you will take the extra step is because merchants can receive your payment via bitcoin more efficiently, and will eventually pass along those savings their their customers. Also when purchasing some kind of service bitcoin offers a much greater level of anonymity then fiat based payment methods |
|
|
|
I keep about 80% of my bitcoins in my Coinbase (US company) online vault, and about 20% online in my BTC-E (foreign company) account. I always have a teeny tiny worry in the back of mind that I'll wake up one day and the headlines will read "US Government bans Bitcoin, freezes all Bitcoin assets" and I will be unable to access my Coinbase coins. Am I paranoid?
You keep 100% of your coins on online exchanges where you do not control the private keys....... punch yourself hard in the face. This. You currently own 0 bitcoins. He still owns the coins in question, however not directly. He owns the bitcoin via his legal claim to the ownership of his accounts at coinbase and btc-e. The issue is that the assets in these accounts can potentially be taken via court order, ect, while this is not the case when you control the private keys of the subject addresses |
|
|
|
Oh my god, i think this is biggest transaction i have seen  I wonder who have that address ? Early adopter / super rich person  Hope the owner not sell all their bitcoin I think that's not early adopter, but maybe some mining farm If bitcoin that much selled, we will see bitcoin price under $100  It is probably some company/entity that holds/owns bitcoin on behalf of others (like an exchange). It was/is actually rumored that the transaction had something to do with an audit of bitstamp |
|
|
|
Don't know whether you agree with this but this scenario is caused mainly by people who bought bitcoins with the money that they don't actually own. That means they either borrowed money from banks or even gamble away the future fund they allocated for their kids' education and stuff like that. This mostly comes from hedging and leveraging their position. Therefore I'm not surprise, these are the first group of people who get targeted by these fudster.
Always, never put your money into something you can't afford to lose. There is no guarantee of 100% return of investment and people need to realize that.
A lot of money has been made from leverage positions. The pitfalls associated with leveraged trades are well known - small unfavourable movements can wipe out your principal. People still choose to make leveraged trades. Statically speaking more money has been lost from leveraged positions then has been earned by them. Even if the price of whatever you are trading eventually goes in your favor, it only needs to go against you temporarily in order for you to lose your entire investment. |
|
|
|
The transaction is now confirmed. It did not include a transaction fee, which is why it took so long. The blockchain.info software that you are using has a bug in it. I thought that blockchain.info fixed that bug a long time ago. Are you running the latest version of their software?Blockchain.info really does not use software in a sense that people have a choice which version they use (or even have any idea what version they are using). The majority (probably 99%+) of their users access their wallet service via their website and could really only use an "old" version if they are running it from the cashe in their browser. In theory he could have used their software from github and host it locally, but I would kind of doubt he was doing this |
|
|
|
Bitcoin has so much room for growth, the sky is the limit.
Visa is nearly at it's full potential, what can they do different from what they already do? Not much.
From an investor point of view, I will without a doubt choose to have Bitcoin as long term investment.
The only benefit you'll receive from Visa is an established, inclined growth over a very long period of time (assuming the life of the business is infinite as you should when investing) Bitcoin on the other hand does not have guaranteed growth, but in the very likely chance it will grow, you'll receive a massive return. Bitcoin does have lots of room to grow and the sky truly is the limit, we are all still early adopters You also get the benefit of receiving dividend income from owning visa stock, while you would likely need to spend some amount of money to keep your bitcoin investment secure |
|
|
|
1. In Europe the only place where you will not be treated as a foreigner is where both of your parents (and grand parents) are born. Meaning that a German will always be a foreigner in Spain (not even speaking about language difficulties).
2. Most cities and towns are not car ready (16 lanes both side inside downtown)
3. Culturally and socially wipeout by WW1 and 2 and others groups (those pressuring to destroy the concept of family and community to replace it with national or European identity).
enough?
Some young Europeans feel european and the European institutions will do whatever it takes to save it (themselves?) so it has a chance of surviving or maybe it will be cut in 2 or 3 with one or two countries totally leaving the union. At this point the Euro will likely fail in the event that even one country stops using the Euro (even if they end up staying in the EU). This may or may not make the EU fail, however the EU was created to be an economic union where people can trade (and travel) freely within the union and this will be much more difficult without a common currency You can have free trade and travel without a currency. If some countries go out of the Union, they could create their own currency are and there could be two different Euros. The ECB will likely inflate the Euro to save it. Buy Bitcoin and Gold  You can have free trade without a common currency (the US has signed several free trade agreements with many other countries) however a common currency makes it much easier to trade from country to country as you do not need to deal with the currency conversion process. I would say that if two or three countries were to abandon the euro, they would probably go back to their respective national currencies, not form their own new currency |
|
|
|
...
I know that they are accepting it if you do some research BUT why hiding it ??
...
Why? Likely for the same reasons Mozilla removed bitcoin donation button. It distracted page viewers resulting in less donations. https://fundraising.mozilla.org/bitcoin-donations-to-mozilla-17-days-in/We received numerous requests from donors that they wanted bitcoin featured right on our primary donation form. Given the volume of page views to that form (millions during the life of the campaign), I was concerned that adding any unnecessary text would distract donors and depress non-bitcoin conversions, the source of more than 99% of all our campaign revenue. So we decided to add “Donate with Bitcoin” text, and test whether it depressed conversion or not. Here is what that looked like: [...]
The test showed that revenue per visitor drops by about $0.07 USD. Here is the Optimizely graph showing a 7.5% reduction in revenue per visitor:[...] I find it hard to believe that $0.07 is a statistically significant amount. Especially considering that most of the other payment methods involve high fees, so even if overall donations drop, the amount received by modzilla (or wikipedia) could potentially increase |
|
|
|
|
If you are trying to make money from trading (aka speculating on the direct that bitcoin is going) then exchanges are good, but I really don't like them for converting bitcoin to fiat (or fiat to bitcoin).
The thing about circle is that, even though they allow for large trades, they really do not market themselves as being used for a $5k trade, they seem to market themselves (to me at least) for consumers who are just getting started with bitcoin and are wanting to buy a small amount to spend at overstock (for example).
I think coinbase has somewhat refined their security procedures so that they now need to stop many less transactions after the fact as the number of complaints about them canceling trades has decreased substantially. Maybe the same will eventually happen with circle.
|
|
|
|
The bank can always get more money from the Fed provided with eligible collateral.
Oil is eligible collateral, but not when it is under $10 per barrel, same for housing, when price is in a long downtrend, anything becomes bad asset, and is not eligible collateral anymore Not for the Fed, it mostly takes fixed-income assets. In theory the Fed could take some kind of security/derivative that is backed by oil. I don't see why either would want to use oil as collateral though as it's price is very volatile (to the point that it's price is excluded from CPI) |
|
|
|
I'll be buying a scrypt miner next year, but need to know what to expect for profit. I'm looking at the ZeusMiner Volcano which features 300 MH/s. Can anyone tell me how much I can expect to make, based on today's market values and difficulty. It would be nice to have an estimated $0.xx per MH/s
Thanks in advance!
It depends what coin you are mining, you can mine in a pool that switch to the most profitable coin to mine. Don't expect a large profit, ROI in BTC is already difficult if you buy your miner expensively and have an electricity cost. Until somewhat recently it was actually very profitable to mine scrypt based altcoins via a multipool and convert them into btc. Scrypt was intended to be ASIC proof so there were not large farms of scrypt based miners driving up the difficulty |
|
|
|
|
I know that there have been a number of similar complaints against coinbase, especially around times when the price of bitcoin was skyrocketing.
I don't think that the issue was not that they didn't have enough information to allow you to trade, I think the issue was that something about the trade set off some kind of flag after someone reviewed it (or something about your account set off some kind of red flag). If this was the case then whatever triggered the flag would not be something that would automatically cause the trade to be declined/canceled.
I think they could solve this problem by allowing users to hold a USD balance in their account to prevent these kinds of issues - in your case they could have refunded you the just under $5k that you tried to withdraw, when it could stay (if you choose) until you can resolve the issue. I really don't know why they (and coinbase) don't offer this.
IMO this is a good example as to why you should not trade/use these kinds of services, especially for larger amounts. P2P transactions and transactions at an ATM seem to be far superior (even if you get slightly worse rates)
|
|
|
|
Yes, we all know this. They did it in the wrong order. If they need more information from me, then they need to request that information before the trade takes place. You are not going to have any financial services company ever going to whitelist you like that. If circle were to whitelist you prior to accepting any trades from you then someone could just manipulate the system until they are whitelisted. Any KYC/AML/suspicious activity policy needs to have it's employees exercise their judgment. They didn't put my withdrawal on hold - they canceled it, hours later, leaving me with less money than when the trade happened. That's what rolling back a trade is, regardless of what their AML/KYC procedures are. Rolling back a trade as a result of a mistake on their part (not completing their AML/KYC procedures before the trade took place) should not be without repercussions. IMO this would be the typical response anytime any company decides they cannot move forward with a transaction for AML purposes. Lastly, "my own security" =/= legal compliance by Circle. Don't lie to your customers. In theory these kinds of laws/regulations protect "society" and anytime these laws are broken "society" as a whole is harmed, so if your case was a case of AML laws being broken then you would technically be harmed (I am not saying I agree with this logic, but this is probably what the logic is) They certainly don't immediately sell the BTC on an exchange (unless they are not in control of your private keys) - or at least the BTC you send them. That wouldn't be hedging, anyway. I'd assume they just maintain a hot wallet of customer BTC balances under their own private keys and a balance on an exchange, which they may use to buy/sell when people on Circle buy/sell. (This leaves them with a small long position, which I think they may be comfortable with.) I'm sure their system is more complicated than this basic example, though still lacking sophistication, as evidenced by this experience I've had dealing with it.
Your probably right. Anytime they have their customers buy x amount of bitcon more then what their customers are selling then they would execute a buy order on an exchange (the opposite is true as well). This is essentially a more drawn out process then what I described, but the effect on their position of bitcoin is the same. A couple of things to add - 1 - I am sure that their ability to cancel trades like this is somewhere within their TOS which you would have had to agree to when you signed up. 2 - This probably happens both when the customer ends up with "less money" and when the customer ends up with "more money" but you will never hear about any of the instances when this works out to the customer's advantage. I also am curious to know if you are connecting to circle via a VPN, if so I might speculate that has something to do with them canceling the trade if you are. I really don't see much of a point in connecting via a VPN as they know your identity anyway |
|
|
|
|
They are worried about not properly following AML/KYC rules. It is difficult to confirm that the name on your bank account is your name, so they are afraid that they are withdrawing money to a bank account that belongs to someone other then the person you told them you are (they probably assume that the bank account belongs to you, but are unsure as to your actual identity).
I would assume that they hedge their bitcoin trades, meaning they sell bitcoin on an exchange when you sell bitcoin to them, and they buy bitcoin on an exchange when you buy bitcoin from them
|
|
|
|
https://bitcoinwisdom.com/litecoin/calculatorYou can input the specs of what you are thinking about buying into the above calculator. You will probably be able to earn a little bit more (maybe 5-10%~) then mining LTC however this is a good estimate
|
|
|
|
the shale supply has been going on for a few years, that doesn't explain why the price suddenly collapsed almost 50% in 4 months.
most shale oil production is not even profitable below 70$
something else is going on...
There is less global demand for oil. It also potentially has to do with the fact that sanctions have been put on Russia which is a major oil exporter This is the opposite of the truth. Look at the data. There is MORE global usage of oil, not less. In fact, demand is accelerating! With lower prices, you should expect usage will increase further and more swiftly. This is really basic economics. It is almost surprising to see such confusion on these things in a Bitcoin forum. Be careful there. Demand is a curve/function, not a quantity. Increased quantity accompanied by a lower price does not itself indicate an increase in demand. This could happen with an increase in supply, along with no change in demand, or even a (relatively smaller) decrease in demand. Also, there is a certain amount of increased quantity over time that is built into expectations and therefore pricing (absent peak oil -- but immediate peak oil is not the current consensus). "Decreased" supply or demand may in practice just be a smaller increase than expected. The changing of supply/demand based on price really depends on how elastic the product is. The fact that people need to use oil based products to travel to work and to ship goods purchased makes oil not very elastic from a demand point of view, and may even have negative elasticity over the short term when the price is spiking. (over longer terms consumers will likely change their consuming habits if the price of oil remains too high) |
|
|
|
Common sense tells us that you have created a nice little false dilemma here. Obviously there is a sane, rational, third choice, which is that there is no reason so choke a man to death on the street for selling cigarettes. 1) The policeman didn't choke him to dead. The fact he is telling them "I don't breathe" is telling he was breathing at the time and was conscious. 1-1) This imply any choke hold was not applied for more than a few seconds (not enough to do anything) 1-2) This imply any hold didn't prevent blood to reach the brain (he would pass out in few seconds and not be able to speak) 2) If he had collaborated with the police he would be get a ticket and would let go out. Or maybe arrested because he was on probation for previous sentences. 2-1) When he become uncooperative and then tried to go away, the cops (there were five and a black female sergeant) had no other option than to force him to submit. 2-2) Unless you advocate for policemen to have the power to arbitrarily enforce laws (different from "enforce arbitrary laws") the police could not avoid to give him a ticket or arrest him. 3) In the end the man died because he was very sick and his health failed him in a time of stress. Even his inability to comply with the orders and be reasonable could be referred to a chronic hypoxia, but health is not an excuse to break the laws. What news papers and news shows and political hacks do not want is for people to understand that the first cause of this man dead is a stupid laws police was forced to enforce. NY City/State have the highest taxes on cigarettes, so people smuggling cigarettes from nearby states and selling them on the streets outcompete the legal sellers of cigarettes. The legal sellers then call the police to prevent this illegal competition from hurting their business. Then the police have no other choice than enforce all laws, even the stupid ones. The people guilt of this dead and of taking the freedom of people selling loose cigarettes on the street are the politicians people put in power at the state and city level. Complaining how the police enforce these laws is like complaining about guns killing people without looking at the people holding the gun. 1 - you are right on this. plus just because someone says they cannot breathe does not mean that any less force should be used against you when the fore is necessary. If making this claim would force the police to use less force then making this claim would essentially be a get out of jail free card. 2. Right. There would be a good chance that he would be arrested and released on his own recognize by a judge. 3. - I can't really speak to how healthy he was, but he looked very much overweight which is generally an indication of someone not being healthy |
|
|
|
No victim, no crime.
For many crimes, it is "society" who suffers from a particular crime. This is why most (if not all) states will try most cases as "the people vs [the defendant]" or "the commonwealth vs [the defendant]" as something happened that causes society as a whole to deteriorate. This will result in one particular person being victimized however a crime would still occur The only thing that makes society suffer is politics.... I would really disagree with that. You have violent crimes against people that makes whole communities suffer. When you have people doing things like speeding at reckless speeds, it puts other drivers in danger |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
