|
those traders are talking about margin trading.
the only way to take profit "in BTC" is to use a margin platform like bitmex, deposit margin collateral, go long/short, and then close the position in profit. when you take profit, you are only closing your margin position, not selling your coins.
you couldn't sell BTC for fiat on bitmex even if you wanted to. they only offer contract markets.
|
|
|
|
Two layer systems that would make it off-chain would cause a big spike in "debt" like banks do. It is not going to be named debt, but if you could wrap anything you want and call it the real thing without actually owning the real thing, that is not going to end up very well. "layer 2" refers to pegged systems that settle to the bitcoin blockchain. LN, RSK, liquid, etc all require that bitcoins be locked on the mainchain before layer 2 currencies can be issued in their place. unless there is specifically a protocol vulnerability--- like the ones in bitcoin that would have allowed extra inflation---what you're talking about can't be done. the issue you raise is more about asset tokenization by trusted third parties---things like WBTC or USDT which may not be fully backed. that's a different idea than layer 2. |
|
|
|
Only 9 players make the final game not 10. Those 9 players are Betwrong Iv4n 1r0n1c webtricks TikTokLyfe Teethow TrayvonKang noobhere icopress. There are 4 eligible for the little final. Those 4 are rak3y0urchips FmBet steamtyme and FOMA777. Both games will be this Sunday same start time with 50k stacks. I will pm everyone the pw for the game they qualified for. I'll wait til the game is in the lobby
only 4 of us in the mini final? what's the payout structure on that---100% to 1st place? this should be fun.  see you guys on the felt sunday! good luck to the finalists, and thanks @yahoo and @betnomi for putting it all together. any side bets going? |
|
|
|
Actually the more important question is not about any of that, it is all about the price of bitcoin. Saying block reward won't be enough to secure the network is actually saying that bitcoin price is not going to be high enough (or would drop hard) to ensure hashrate remains high enough to make attacks impossible due to extremely high costs. it doesn't seem optimal to depend wholly on price, as is the case with the large block size/low fee revenue model. as block rewards drop and drop, miners will become increasingly sensitive to price changes, potentially leading to large swings in hash rate. to prevent that, fee revenue must rise to dampen the effect of the falling block subsidy. that means restricting block size, probably rather conservatively. You see bitcoin doesn't even need the fees to keep the incentive so much higher than needed for security, not only that but also this won't change any time soon. this is the early adopter phase when the block subsidy is still relatively high. how about in......12 years or 16 years? then the issue of block size will be extremely important because fees will be the primary source of mining income. |
|
|
|
Any person would sell their stash at few 'x', what factors made you keep holding it?
experiencing 2 distinct bubbles (2013, 2017) is what did it. in 2014, it was very easy to get pessimistic about bitcoin: merchant and consumer adoption was disappointing, nothing much exciting was happening in the development space, the price was bleeding and bleeding nonstop. there was a general feeling that, "maybe the naysayers were right, maybe it was tulip mania, maybe bitcoin is just a niche currency, maybe i should sell my coins." fast forward to 2017, when i was holding a lot less coins. that 2nd bubble showed me that bitcoin was here to stay, that mass adoption was an eventuality. and my depleted stash of coins taught me to hold onto them for dear life this time, instead of worrying about the sky falling in a bear market. that's what it took for weak hands to become strong hands, in my case at least. |
|
|
|
@Karartma1. Do you really assume that institutional investors are buying bitcoin presently on where its price is? This might be the bubble stage and buying now is gambling that it might pump more. Institutional investors do not behave like this.
the stock market is in a bubble too. it's been making nonstop ATHs for years. who do you think is the driving force behind that? institutions, of course!  institutions do not only buy at the bottom of bear markets---i dunno why you are clinging to that assumption. they buy whatever is going up. and bitcoin is performing better than every other asset on the market. several institutions (skybridge, ruffer, microstrategy, etc) recently said they were buying in november/december. give it a few weeks and another big name will drop. just wait. 2 weeks ago they were diving into the market. you think that's suddenly changed because the price went up? |
|
|
|
during 2014-15, i spent around 20 bitcoins on foodler.  it was a food delivery app that eventually got bought out by grubhub. at the time, i thought it was a really cool way to spend my coins. currency of the future, amirite?! every one of those $40 meals now cost about $3000.  i still have my deposit address bookmarked on a block explorer. i check it every long once in a while, when i need a reminder not to spend/sell all my coins! |
|
|
|
I can't wrap my head around how most exchanges won't try to optimize their consolidation habits to reduce the transaction fees. For starters, allowing Segwit addresses would have resulted in a huge fees savings. Choosing a more optimal time for consolidation would result in better fees rate as well. Perhaps there might be some rationale related to their operations for this so I would hold my pitchforks for the consolidation part. i reckon that minimizing the amounts held in the hot wallet at any given time is a higher priority than minimizing fees, right? after all, they can just pass the fees onto the user. that may explain why they don't time consolidations optimally. they might do it totally on demand, on an as needed basis, same as they do with withdrawals. There really isn't a fair way to estimate the profit/loss an exchange makes when users deposit/withdraw. I think the point still stands, there are ways to lower the fees but the exchanges wouldn't really care because the fees are typically being passed down to their consumers. +1. that's why many exchanges have been so slow to implement batching and segwit. |
|
|
|
I'm looking for an exchange with: - Low fees
- Strong security
- Large list of cryptos
- Efficient verification processes
I joined Binance, but the verification process has taken weeks, and I've missed out on this latest surge in value, so I'm pretty pissed and want to find another exchange. Thanks in advance. at this point in a bull market, you'll likely experience verification delays at any exchange. the same thing happened in 2017---too many people trying to onboard at the same time. this is why some people are willing to pay big premiums on p2p platforms, to avoid those delays. binance.us has the lowest fees and most coins on offer. kraken is probably the top choice after that but as mentioned, it's impossible to say how long verification will take right now. |
|
|
|
They used over-killing fee. Around the time of that transaction (5:26 AM UTC), fee at 50 sat/(v)byte (even 10 - 15 mins before that time-point) can help to get confirmation next 1 block but they used 100 sat/(v)byte.
It is not a new discovery that exchanges usually use over-killing fees for their transactions. They need to prepare for sudden rise in mempool AND don't want to spend sources to do Replace-by-Fee. They want something absolutely is done with 1 attempt.
The over-killing transaction fee (100 sat/vbyte) can be accepted but earn 93.1% of withdrawal fees (in BTC) is what I brought here. It is not an attack on Binance as it exists with all exchanges.
i'm not just talking about that transaction. what about their consolidation transactions---the ones which allow 74 withdrawal outputs to be sent from a single input? exchanges process lots of small deposits, more so than withdrawals, because customer deposits are free and withdrawals are not. at the very least, you should be including the fees paid in these transactions in your accounting of their "profit". arguably, the cost of their entire wallet infrastructure should be included as well. |
|
|
|
Hey, are you from the US by the way and located in the US? yes. I heard of usdc. But that usdc is for binance.com or binance.US? both. but specifically i was talking about binance.com since you trade there and were looking for a way to cash out fiat. But what is the purpose of them having usdc? Is it so ppl who trade for altcoins on binance.com can easily sell it for fiat by sending it to coinbase since coinbase has usdc? yes. You also mention circle. I used circle once to make a small withdraw to my bank account a long time ago with no issue. But after a while, they no longer allowed you to sell btc for fiat anymore. Circle allows that now or you make mistake here? they no longer provide a platform for buying/selling bitcoin. i've never had an account there. for all i know, you can't redeem USDC there anymore either, but according to this link you can: https://support.usdc.circle.com/hc/en-us/articles/360015269692-How-to-redeem-USDC-for-USDSo bitstamp bittrex and kraken, you say you can use their usdt market but won't honor it for cashouts. If that is the case... again what would be the purpose of them having the usdt market? I assume its for ppl who have usdt from other exchanges and then want to convert it to fiat/usd without having to pay double the fees? exchanges list USDT markets because they generate trading fees and their customers need to hedge fiat value. this is particularly relevant on altcoin exchanges that have no fiat markets. wouldn't it make sense to always trade it for usd not never bother with USDT? yes, but that obviously doesn't work on an exchange like binance.com. if you want to avoid KYC verification and you want access to lots and lots of altcoin markets, for example, then stablecoins are a necessity. How could the top altcoin exchange not processs deposit/withdraws in fiat? that's just how it is. they have their reasons. their jurisdiction and lack of AML/KYC probably makes high volume banking relationships unworkable. stablecoins provide a way to bridge the gap. |
|
|
|
I personally think it's a bit dishonest from exchanges to take revenue in form of withdrawal fees. 99.9% of their revenue comes from trading fees, and charging hidden fees on withdrawal just creates frustration and confusion among their users.
is it actually revenue, or just recouped costs? we need a deeper analysis. i once dug into some of binance's wallet consolidations during high congestion periods and as i recall, they pay very significant fees to ensure on-demand withdrawals. even when network fees are cheap, exchanges may feel the need to hedge against future high fee periods too. exchanges that charge near the market average---kraken, binance, bitfinex, etc---i'm not so resentful of that. yobit is a different story. |
|
|
|
the top american bank regulator just published new guidance yesterday. it allows banks to use public blockchains to carry out normal banking activities. https://www2.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2021/nr-occ-2021-2a.pdfsome key excerpts: A bank may validate, store, and record payments transactions by serving as a node on an INVN and use INVNs and related stablecoins to carry out other bank-permissible payment activities, consistent with applicable law and safe and sound banking practices. A bank should consult with OCC supervisors, as appropriate, prior to engaging in these payment activities. The OCC will review these activities as part of its ordinary supervisory processes.
Likewise, a bank may use stablecoins to facilitate payment transactions for customers on an INVN, including by issuing a stablecoin, and by exchanging that stablecoin for fiat currency. In this context, stablecoins function as a mechanism of payment, in the same way that debit cards, checks, and electronically stored value (ESV) systems convey payment instructions. by "INVN" they mean: An INVN consists of a shared electronic database where copies of the same information are stored on multiple computers. One common form of an INVN is a distributed ledger. Cryptocurrency transactions are recorded on these ledgers. could this be the start of traditional banks entering the crypto space---accepting bitcoin deposits, issuing stablecoins, etc? |
|
|
|
by the way, binance.com also has a pretty deep BTC/USDC market. you can use that instead of BTC/USDT. you can withdraw the USDC to circle or coinbase, redeem it for USD, then ACH transfer to your bank account. https://support.usdc.circle.com/hc/en-us/articles/360015269692-How-to-redeem-USDC-for-USDSo kraken and bittrex allows usdt... you can trade on their USDT markets but they won't honor it for fiat cashouts. to cash out fiat, you need to trade the USDT into USD. they both have USDT/USD markets for that. so basically this requires an extra step than the one i mentioned above, with added trading fees and possible slippage. but coinbase/gemini only deals with usd right?
they both have their own stablecoins---coinbase has USDC and gemini has GUSD. no tether though. But i believe bitstamp deals with both? no, bitstamp definitely doesn't support USDT and never will. they have their own fiat pairs, and they support the USDC and PAX stablecoins. (USDC is redeemable for USD by circle or coinbase, PAX is redeemable for USD by paxos) it may seem confusing but it all boils down to this: each stablecoin has an issuer, and you can only redeem for fiat with them. |
|
|
|
I can give you an example out of personal experience: I transferred similar numbers from a Dutch bank to a Spanish one - this is still EU mind you - and as a result my Spanish account (including those funds) got frozen pending "anti terrorism and money laundering" (tax) investigation. Only after I could prove the origin of those funds and all subsequent tax had been paid has the account been released.
for a transfer between two accounts in your own name? damn. if it's a self-transfer between two licensed banks, where is the supposed money laundering risk?! at least if the OP is correct about serbian law---that there are no taxes due on cashing out crypto---then even if that happens, the money should be eventually cleared. this is a case in point for why bitcoin is superior to fiat banking though. no third party bullshit. |
|
|
|
Institutions hire traders who know what they are doing and do have a method for their trades. They do not fomo buy and cause the price to move up very fast that would also cause slippage. "fomo buying" doesn't have to imply market buying on an exchange. just because there was a 35k outflow from coinbase doesn't mean it was a market buy. it was likely done OTC. i was just implying that institutions get "fear of missing out" like everyone else, even if they are a bit more methodical about how they enter the market. i also don't think the prospect of slippage will necessarily stop institutions from entering a market. coinbase disclosed that microstrategy's buys were done partially OTC and partially through third party brokers/exchanges. What outflow? Can you give me a source on this?
check the OP. https://twitter.com/ki_young_ju/status/1345425421131649024 |
|
|
|
No, but there are other improvement which increase Bitcoin privacy such as Taproot, PayJoin and CoinJoin. But unlike Monero which force usage of the privacy improvement, it's optional on Bitcoin.
The optionality is a double edged sword though. If private transactions don't become more common, exchanges will become ever more biased in favor of non-private transactions as regulations get stricter (ie. more likely to freeze and audit funds from private inputs), endangering fungibility. From a handful of posts that I've seen, that might already be the case to some extend. On the other hand being fully opaque might become a liability eventually. I would not be surprise if at one point exchanges will be forced to delist privacy coins due to further regulatory tightening. this is exactly the trade-off at hand---fungibility vs liquidity---and it's why bitcoin is best off finding a middle ground. bittrex just announced they'll be delisting monero, among other privacy coins. they're one of the largest exchanges in the world by volume/balances held. bithumb did the same last year. so did some european, australian, and japanese exchanges. this is obviously not a black and white issue. |
|
|
|
I'm a senior, and just discovered 2 separate slips of what looks like a cash register receipt . They have the long string of digits on them, and a warning not to show them to anyone . I don't have any account anywhere ,just these slips of paper that I got out of a bitcoin machine . I remember holding one up to my phone to pay for services ,but that was several years ago. Is there an easy way to see if I still have bitcoin remaining ?
bitcoin ATMs supply you with a paper wallet, which should have a private key ( this is what you should never show anyone!) and a public address, which is where your coins are held on the blockchain. the better ones supply QR codes for each one, for better functionality. an example:  see that "1L.....Hn4" alpha-numeric string? that's the bitcoin address. if you plug that into a block explorer like https://blockstream.info/ it will display the balance. if you have a QR code, you can scan it here: https://blockstream.info/scan-qrhowever, i do urgently recommend that you obtain a proper bitcoin wallet, verify the download, and then sweep your private key into it. the paper wallet provided by a bitcoin ATM is generally not considered secure: It is a general practice to sweep bitcoins from such a receipt as soon as possible and it is highly not advisable to use such receipts as a form of paper wallet storage. Bitcoin address was generated by a bitcoin ATM which you cannot control, so in case the machine was compromised – potentially there is a vector of attack to access your funds. So sweep bitcoins from receipt as soon as you get your own wallet, or you have address where to send them, e.g. to pay for something. https://coinatmradar.com/blog/how-to-use-printed-paper-wallet-on-receipt-from-a-bitcoin-atm/a good choice is electrum. see here: [GUIDE] How to Safely Download and Verify Electrum [Guide] |
|
|
|
What is the most common form of payment on localbitcoins? Is it cash when meeting? no, localbitcoins no longer even permits in-person cash listings. some traders advertise within their offers that they'll deal in cash, but it's technically not allowed. Wouldn't the best method be meeting at the bank and they giving you the cash... you go and deposit it... and once you do that and its confirmed... then you release the coins? i wouldn't be comfortable handing someone cash and letting them walk away on the promise they'll send me coins afterwards. you can't cover all the exits and frankly, once the money is in their hand in the bank, i don't think you have a provable legal claim over it if push came to shove. i do enough business in cash that i trust my ability to detect counterfeits more than i trust other people to do, well, anything. |
|
|
|
Hi thanks for response.
Wait so binance.com never ever supported fiat? So anyone that wants cash withdrawn to their bank account cannot do this? Thus binance.com is basically a place to buy/sell altcoins then? Well then what is the point of btc and usdt there then? So if someone has altcoin or btc on binance and wants to cash it to their bank account... they have to convert their altcoins to btc... then send those btc to a fiat exchange and then sell for bank transfer there right?
Thing that confuses me is this. So if they have btc... and sell it for usdt... could they send the usdt from binance.com to a fiat exchange? Or would that not work? it would work, but only on the limited number of fiat exchanges who support USDT. in your case, this is further restricted to fiat exchanges who serve USA citizens. off the top of my head, you're probably looking at binance.us, kraken, bittrex. alternatively, you could just send your BTC to a fiat exchange and trade it directly for USD, and not bother with USDT at all. before stablecoins, that's how everyone interfaced with altcoin exchanges. Binance doesn't allow Americans? Well what if they are abroad almost all the time then and don't have a binance us account? I assume no issue unless they withdraw directly from binance.com to binance US?
I have binance account but i never sent in verification. So that means it would be no issue if i were to then withdraw in the future as long as it isn't directly to binance.us?
re their TOS, it doesn't matter if you're abroad all the time. they prohibit us persons, which includes citizens. so if your account ever got flagged and they forced you to KYC, they would close your account once they found out you were american. tbh, i don't know what they would do (if anything) if you withdrew from binance.com to your binance.us account. i was just saying be careful because i could imagine an AML risk algorithm flagging you for that. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
