Does Seedrs even allow that to happen? Kinda counterproductive if they decide to invest in their own projects with such a large amount if they just want to scam people though. While it is not impossible, I'd rather believe they are not that stupid just to seek a hundred euros for extra funding.

To be fair it is not impossible if you're not their target audience, especially if their operation is limited to one or two regions.

Isn't this contradictory to your first paragraph? Let's just say that there will be no ATH and the price will fluctuate between 15k and 40k as you mentioned above, what is wrong with that? You can still use Bitcoin as usual. You can trade, DCA, and make profits through other means other than chasing new heights if that's what you're worried about. It's not like the coins become worthless if it doesn't make new ATH every 4 years or so.

That being said, as long as fiat inflation is still happening (which means a decrease in purchasing power), you can rest assured that assets like Bitcoin will keep going strong.

Does this mean you tried to connect it to the Ledger Live app and failed? The process is quite straightforward as long as you use a wallet that supports a hardware wallet connection and a phone with Android 8+ (that's what is stated on the Ledger website, never tried it to verify myself for a lower Android version). For example, here's the official guide to connect your HW to the Ledger Live app[1]. The steps should be similar if you use other wallets app. CMIIW.

[1] https://support.ledger.com/hc/en-us/articles/360021488913-Connect-Ledger-to-your-phone

As big as Bitmain and Canaan are, Intel should have more capital compared to them, right? I can understand why they decide to stop though since other markets are definitely more interesting for them. Crypto is niche compared to CPU, GPU, and so on. Not to mention their GPU division is still in a shaky position right now. Plus their HEDT market was beaten by AMD in the last few years. It is understandable that they would rather try to improve their products there compared to Bitcoin mining.

In Southeast Asia at least, this doesn't seem to be the case. Most governments still do not allow crypto usage for payments, but people can trade just fine. Exchanges are being regulated heavily, and oversea exchange that does not have an office in the country seems to be blocked through DNS blocking, etc. Fortunately, they don't block and fine every exchange as long as they follow the latest rules. At least that's what happens in my country. I believe this will be the status quo for a while.

Have you asked your friend the same question? What is his answer?

I believe what he's trying to say is quite different from what you understood when you say "if satoshi is identified as an organization". Sure, the government can sue him for whatever crime he commits, but he is disconnected from the network as an individual. Unlike other companies that run or control their own node, or do their business in which the value from their native tokens comes, putting satoshi in jail serves no purpose other than trying to scare the market.

Of course, they can expand the definition of criminal to miners, and so on, but they can simply move from one country to another, or even stay anonymous if needed. Not to mention the legal ground can be challenged by anyone, especially if the government starts being inconsistent with the law itself. I believe doing such things is also a waste of time and money for the government. They'd profit more by simply regulating the market and earning taxes from trades.

Your question is too broad. Everybody uses different definitions to discuss the topic you asked for, which led to different conclusions. You don't even share where you hear that claim and share your own opinion on this topic either. What kind of discussion do you expect to happen?

At the end of the day, both are wealth that people can own. Fiat though is guaranteed to never be fully controlled by individuals. As for crypto, some of them behave like fiat while others don't, as mentioned above. If both of them lose in value, then your wealth is definitely getting wiped out, regardless of where you store them. Neither of them is invincible to that, just like any other asset.

Thanks for the info. I've seen many companies like this but never knew what their types are. Makes me wonder where the real business lies, or if they are really operating as a business or just a single person delegating work to freelancers and so on.
Personally, I'd never trust any company that shares an address with dozens of companies, including the scam ones. At the very least, I should be able to visit them so that if everything went south, I can at least physically confront them. If their address is not clear, I'd probably waste a lot of time trying to look for them just in case they scammed me.
So you have experience with them? How do they do the transaction? Do they use multi-sig, and what contacts are they using to connect their customers? Their website offers little information, I'm not very keen on registering on a new website just to see how their OTC trades work.

At the end of the day, it boils down to data availability and the algorithm used to train the machine. For example, they can easily feed past season data and then use recent form metrics to help people predict whether a team is going to win their next 5 matches or not, and so on. Someone can certainly develop that with enough time and money. Even if they become accurate, like, 90% (honestly doubt it), the gambling platform is still gonna make profits either way through one way or the other.

I'm not sure they are the same though. I mean, they are trying to solve different problems. Those P2P services are closing because it is no longer profitable since that is the only thing that they do. If anything, I believe competitions from other payment gateways are quite strong, not to mention there are open-source alternatives out there. In this case, the reason given is also quite clear. Market conditions and disagreements on terms, basically mean their investors believed injecting more money into them with the terms that were discussed at the time was not profitable for them. At the same time, they failed to find another investor and can't lower their demands since that was probably the minimum level to run their operations.

I'm not sure why their operation on one network makes them centralized, but as far as the website goes, I believe most of them are just a UI to make smart contract interactions easier. If they remove it, people can still interact with the contracts as long as they learn how to do so. But this will obviously deter many traders. If they want to seize the website, it is also possible that people would just deploy their forks or run the UI on IPFS or something similar. Would they also claim that should be regulated under the same law?

I think a lot of people are not happy with the SEC right now. They just give a notice that claims Bittrex is violating regulations, but Bittrex claims they were never given answers when they ask the SEC about security rules, etc. It is weird that they go after Bittrex too when there are other exchanges that are clearly shadier compared to Bittrex, at least that's what people complain about on Twitter. Basically, SEC is being perceived as inconsistent and instead of trying to give clarity, they tried to make it more ambiguous. Even the chairman is caught shilling for Algo IIRC, after they claim Algo is security.

If they have accessible options that fit their needs, I believe most of them would never touch centralized exchange. So decentralized options need to get better too. At the end of the day though, they accept the risk, and as long as they understand that, unless something crazy happened I doubt we can change their mind easily. What we can only do is spread awareness and encourage them not to store their money on some centralized platforms. It is unfortunate but most people only learn the hard way.

A lot of mobile wallets provide Uniswap integration though. So yeah, they have little incentive to provide a native app since they make a ton of money just from running the website. In addition to this, creating a new app will probably add another weak point since hackers can spread fake apps. They probably don't want to deal with it too. That being said, I doubt people will switch to dex asap even if they have a mobile app.

Yang saya maksud bukanlah exploit pada wallet/penyimpanan kripto yang dimiliki pengguna om, tapi target klik iklan yang ada di background tersebut adalah jaringan iklan yang membayar dengan kripto. Sejauh yang ane pahami, klik iklan di belakang layar ini tidak memerlukan input dari user, jadi bisa saja malware ini mengklik iklan yang ada di jaringan iklan kripto sebagaimana yang ane maksudkan. Sejauh ini sih memang belum ada kejelasan mengenai ad fraud ini menargetkan iklan di luar kripto atau tidak, tapi ane rasa kemungkinan itu ada. Yang jelas, mau kripto atau tidak, device pengguna dimanfaatkan sebagai botnet supaya penyebar malware ini bisa mendapatkan keuntungan atas klik iklan tersebut. CMIIW.

Source: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/android-malware-infiltrates-60-google-play-apps-with-100m-installs/]

I used them in the past, and leave immediately after doing one or two trades. Would probably never touch them if one of my shitcoins can be liquidated somewhere else due to the low performance I've experienced that time. Can't say I'm surprised if they got exploited, whether it was an inside job or not. They have this third-tier exchange aura which is hard to explain to new users.
At the very least, you have the option to revoke contracts/permission from a dex as soon as possible or use a dedicated wallet for trading so your holding is not affected if an exploit happens. With centralized exchange, you give more data, with a possibility of lower security control, although you get better liquidity in most cases. Can't say it is a good trade-off if you don't need that liquidity though. But yeah, using an air-gapped wallet is obviously the best choice if you don't want to expose your holdings to security risks. CMIIW.

I believe OP is referring to Seedrs funding/investment for LondonLink, not LondonLink itself. I believe they are just an investment platform for crypto start-ups to get more funding if they want to. Just like Kickstarter or something similar, but specifically for crypto start-ups. CMIIW.

The address looks like a shared office space address. Other business lists the same address such as this one[1]. At the very least the building does exist, but it is unknown whether they really operate from there or not. Not to mention there is very little information available for users who don't want to register on Seedrs, even the official website has little to no information. Not really a good idea to pitch your business imo.

[1] https://www.gibraltarlaw.com

To some extent, I believe this is already possible if somebody is giving away many of his details on exchanges or other platforms which require KYC. The government can easily label any address related to their exchange address is related to them in one way or the other. Obviously, it would be even scarier if the government can simply check somebody's biometric details and trace everything from there, but an option to not use their biometrics should be available. It is impossible to prevent someone from creating new wallets that don't require their biometric data unless the government or any organization monitors them 24/7.

It is surprising to see that this website/app is still alive after years of people asking whether they are a scam or not. Even their Twitter is full of replies claiming they are scamming them and so on. OP, I suggest you install an ad-blocker so you don't click malicious links which might redirect you to a malware site. Also, they are not really mining with your computer, they just turn your computer into a botnet for their farming activities/collecting personal data/etc, and 'pay' (scam) you with some miniscule sats. Stay away from any app like that.

By Microsoft, do you mean a Live e-mail account/Azure AD? I don't think there is enough demand for that. Even for the non-crypto market, it is very rare for a Live instant registration feature. I don't know if it is possible, but if a user can create a throwaway account with just an e-mail address it would be great for a trial. Basically, they can use an e-mail address to log in, and then your platform will send a code for each login activity. This is obviously not intended for long-term usage due to security issues, so a user who wants to pay for a higher tier for example would not be able to use this. There is also an issue of the possibility of alert abuse if you do enable this, so do keep this in mind. CMIIW.

Agan yakin itu block tidak berasal dari ISP yang agan gunakan? Selama ini ane menggunakan berbagai jenis explorer blockchain tanpa VPN tidak pernah mengalami blokir IP. Kalaupun iya, alternatifnya ya menggunakan VPN/DNS encryption kalau agan tidak mau repot. Btw, kalau sekedar konversi ke IDR bisa juga pakei Preev, Pnnv atau website sejenis. Tinggal kopas saldo wallet agan dari explorer ke website tersebut.

SEC emang lagi gencar memperluas sayapnya untuk mengontrol kripto di berbagai sektor. Kemaren juga ane dengar mereka ingin memperlebar cakupan definisi exchange ke berbagai platform defi. Untuk Bittrex US sendiri, ane rasa sejak beberapa tahun lalu memang volumenya turun jauh dan kalah saing dengan exchange US lainnya. Kalaupun ditutup ane rasa dampak ke harga tidak begitu besar mengingat liquidity di tempat lain juga masih banyak. Mungkin yang kena dampak terbesar ya user US yang makin sulit mencari CEX untuk likuidasi ke fiat, mengingat exchange lain juga kemungkinan menutup registrasi ke user US supaya tidak kena fine dari SEC. CMIIW.