depends on the price you placed the order at.
for instance if you put the price at $12k each. you will have to wait for the markets to even get to $12k to even get to your order.
th top price was about $9027 so if you put your order to sell at anything higher. you have to wait for th market to get to your price

if you put an order BELOW the current market rate then it should have sold instantly

its not an auction house where the highest bidder wins or they match speculators at different prices. its market rate of live trades based on the market price.

the requirement of a counterparty (co-signer) = no longer independant
(imagine difference between having your own bank account vs a joint bank account with your wife) = independance lost

its not peer2peer, its middle-men managed

hop model fails(only needing 1-2 channels). only hub/spoke model will work(nodes with large amount of channels). right now there are 1600 nodes. some nodes have well over 160 chennels =10% of control/co-signing authority
(imagine a hub(node with large amount of channels) as a local bank branch manager. it needs their authorisation(multisig signature) to make payment and they have facilities such as chargeback(CSV revokes) and 3-5day settlement(CLTV))

LN is just banking 2.0. each hub will be bank branches of hundreds of account holders(channel counterparties)

remember if a channel route limits its daily reserve for routing or runs out of funds your payment will not get authorised to be routed.
(meaning close your account(channel) wait 3-5 days for settlement(CLTV) then reopen a new account with another bank banch(hub))

LN is not an unlimited restrictionless system it was promoted as

read beyond the glossy padded fiction of reddit

wrong
here is my reasoning.

bitcoins revolution side stepped in 2014 when a certain team deemed bitcoin to not be a 'electonic cash':satoshi's white paper. and instead a investment vessel (store of value)
this made bitcoin be treated no longer as an alternative to fiat. but as a get rich gimmick to increase fiat. thus killing the revolution

they intentially took out the tx fee policy and did not evolve the block size to cause a tx fee civil war which renderd it near impossible to be treated as a electronic cash. merchants stopped accepting bitcoin as a payment method for their products and services.

then the team went after not wanting bitcoin to be 'peer2peer':satoshi's white paper. and instead try to make the community believe the only evolution they would allow was a off chain accounting system involving the requirement of a co-signer(multisig LN channel) and middle men(hop-hub) routing

next instead of the community seeking out "consumer protection laws" they wanted advocates to seek out "regulation". these are 2 very very different things.
regulators charge a huge fee to allow a business to operate. but then require the business to self report on its customers..
consumer protection is an insurance and criminal action group that customers can report on bad businesses

by saying regulation is good is putting up a huge price tag for businesses to start up. but then letting them get away with murder, while the customers suffer.

this is where regulations actually cause there to be a need for ICO's because suddenly ethical businesses need to fund raise just to start up. rather than just sell a product or service.

many advocates from before 2014 gave up trying to get more merchant adoption because of the wrong path that this teams roadmap has taken the community, as they have seen their hard work of merchant adopting prior to 2014 being undone recently by those merchants stop accepting bitcoin.

so let me be clear
regulations - no!!. it does not help users or ethical businesses
consumer protection - yes!! it helps consumers and ethical businesses

as for the evolution of the network, onchain capacity of legacy transaction types need addressing. because the non-legacy address types are all going to become multisigned addresses with schnorr to disguise how many and who the co-signers are. so that people no longer control their own funds and dont know who will backstab them to take the funds away.

original client satoshi-qt 0.1-0.7   oh look bitcoin core blocks are not acceptable to the original client
the brand name "bitcoin" was decoupled when core got involved in 2013-2014
the network is not a straight line. a fork (which there have been many) is self explanitory, a fork is a fork
             _QT
_______/             _
           \__core__/               _______core(segwit)
                        \_________/
                                       \_______cash

no one owns bitcoin
core owns bitcoin core
cash owns bitcoin cash

america owns us dollar
australia owns au dollar
canadada owns ca dollar

trying to say core owns bitcoin
trying to say america owns dollar
is like saying the dollar is centralised
is like saying bitcoin is centralised

put it another way.
amricans do not speak english.. you yanks speak american.. deal with it.. its tom@o not tom8o. stop pretending you yanks own everything

you are also trying to define that a dollar belongs to america
sorry but australia can have the dollar too
as does canada, fiji and many other countries.

your argument is saying USD is the dollar
much like saying bitcoin core is bitcoin

which i rebut saying
so australia is not allowed to use the dollar, fiji is not allowed to use the dollar?
by claiming only america can use the brand:dollar you are giving america global control of finance
by claiming only core can use brand:bitcoin you are giving core global control of a network that suposed to not have control..

what you are not understanding is that "bitcoin" is not a straight line. its full of forks. some died off (2013 leveldb bug) some live on
but essentially no one owns the brand bitcoin and trying to defend a single team(core) should.. is the biggest fail for decentralisation ever

ok.. draw a line in the sand. and call that line the stepping out of the core defence camp
here is the line

---

now clear your head. open your mind to a reality beyond core. beyond teams. beyond finger pointing.

take a breathe. now think outside of the box.

in a decentralised network NO ONE SHOULD OWN THE BRAND BITCOIN
..
think of it this way
if there was a twitter username @dollar
who should own it?
america or australia or fiji or any of the other currencies that have dollars.

the real debate is not "only X should own Y" because thats destroying the whole concept of decentralisation.
instead its noticing the reality that no own owns dollar but
america has US dollar
australia has AU dollar

again america does not own dollar. america is US dollar but pretends it owns dollar.
the reality is we need to clarify to the wide world that there is more than one type of dollar
the reality is we need to clarify to the wide world that there is more than one type of bitcoin

so if someone says i have a dollar.. you ask asutralian canadian or us
so if someone says i have a bitcoin.. you ask core or cash

bitcoin core is also a fork.. it is not following the same rules as bitcoin 2009-2014
bitcoin cash is also a fork.. it is not following the same rules as bitcoin 2009-2014

some argue this
(a)             _________   1
__________/_________   2

some argue this
(b)
____________________  1
               \__________  2

reality is this
(c)
                __________ 1
_________/
              \___________ 2

silly sheeppeople that want to defend a central team are fighting A and B
1 'we are the bitcoin
2 no we are the bitcoin

the reality is everyone is bitcoin. now accept no single team owns the brand because no team should. thats what decentralisation is
so 1 your bitcoin cash
so 2 your bitcoin core

now get on with your lives

yes america has u.s dollar
yes core has bitcoin segwit aka bitcoin core

yes australia has AU dollar
yes ABC/unlimited has bitcoin cash aka bitcoinabc

but no one owns the trademark dollar
but no one owns the trademark bitcoin

by even thinking that core deserve the trademark bitcoin destroys the whole concept of decentralisation
by even thinking that australia cannot have the dollar and only america can use the dollar destroys the concept of australian independance

take off the core defence hat and take a big long hard out of the box look at the debate on the global scale

ok guys.. think of it this way

america - we have the dollar and its worth 0.81 euros
australia - we have the dollar and its worth 0.61 euros

america - no we have the dollar
australia - no we have the dollar

.... reality..
both of you shut up you both have the dollar. no one can decide who should own the trademark of "dollar" because no one should. even zimbabwee should be able to have the dollar.

ok we understand. bitcoin is what users decide it to be independantly without no one forcing the choice or controlling the choice.

so you are saying that the core team is not bitcoin?
so your saying that the segwit node network is not bitcoin?

here is the veil of subtly reverse psychology being burst
by you probably wanting to rebut that core do manage the roadmap of bitcoins evolution and are the 'core.(center) of bitcoin.. you have pretty much destroyed your whole argument of "powered by its users with no central authority or middlemen"

take two steps back when trying to defend core.. and ask yourself this. in a decentralised network nothing needs to be defended because there is no single point of attack. so if your defending something. then you deep down know there is a single point of attack that you need to defend and thus you have lost the ethos of 2009-2013 bitcoin.
and now you have to understand that there is bitcoinsegwit controlled by bitcoin core. and there are other bitcoins

if you are going to rebut that anyone not loyal to core is not a bitcoiner.. again your still defending a central point. and in a silly mindset that bitcoin needs a central point.

remember if is wasnt for the BS cartel orchastrating a non-consensus(bilateral split) by opposing other teams. there would be no bitcoin cash. instead there would be one network and a consensus decision on which roadmap the comunity unite over to evolve the network. remembre before the 2017 bilateral split cores segwit proposal only had 35% at most of the vote.

remember having multiple teams on one network IS decentralisation. but the core team opposed all of that.

now if you are still going to defend core.. you have lost the argument of a decentralised network. and just going to cry about how cored DISTRIBUTED(thre is a major difference) deserves the brand name and control of the community

if it handles fiat.. then expect it to be treated like a traditional financial service.
lets pretend coinbase swapped fiat for beanie babies. and beanie babies for fiat
yes im talking about them popular smal teddy bears.

if wikileaks accepted beanie babies and then used coinbase to swap beanie babies for fiat.. coinbase would still not be able to continue service to wikileaks

its all because of the fiat side of coinbases business. not the beanie baby/token/crypto

lets clarify the truth

barclays cannot themselves handle a vault of bitcoins and offer a trading platform for people to trade fiat for bitcoin directly.
barclays however recently accepted coinbase to use barclays bank account services to offer deposits/withdrawals for coinbase customers.
muh like apple opening an account with barclays to accept UK £ to buy apple products, does not suddenly make barclays able to sell apple products in a bank branch

in short
this does not mean barclays is getting into the 'bitcoin' market. it just means that there is a connection between a bitcoin exchange and barclays. which many stupid and silly word twisters then want to propagandise as barclays may get into the bitcoin market.

again
barclays cant/wont offer a bitcoin trading platform. but barclays can be shareholders of coinbase or another third party service, separate from barclays business where coinbase could develop a special service under the coinbases brands for something barclays shareholders want

already did.. did you not get the hint

ref: 900635
ref: 900635
ref: 900635
ref: 900635

screw it. here goes

i dont think you understood the hint..
i was going to just leave the image, but then i literally spelled it out for you.
accepting funding measured in british pounds.. is not protected by, what you think is a ICO cloak of invisibility.

ill give you another hint.. although coinbase handles bitcoins and other 'tokens' the FCA is not about bitcoin/tokens. its about the FIAT (££££)
coinbase could not operate in the UK even if it was trading £ for bitcoin/tokens unless it had a licence to cover itself for the £££ part of the business..

is that not enough of a hint to you...
now shut up go find your insurance policy, go check out the FCA. because instantly responding to the forum means you care more about gtting customers then you care about being legal/ethical/moral.

seriously i know you dont have a legal team otherwise you would be spending more time slapping them on the wrist for not knowing the basics. rather than bashing at your keyboard on this forum.

so knowing you dont have  legal team its better you yourself take a look at FCA. and stop this pretense of "i have a legal team that can handle it" because shouting that 20 times does not excuse your scammy practice of avoiding the obvious.

insurance policy reference now.
and the insurance policy reference would not reveal any special information about USP. its just a reference number and insurers details customers should/need to have to cover themselves if/when you run off.

there is no risk of company data leak worries(cough excuses). its just a publicly publishable policy number.
if you dont even know that.. then you really are way way way way over your head

now you are making things up

coinbase got FCA approval first...
ref: 900635


which then allowed them to partner with barclays.

in short. to explain it in laymans:
they were unable to open a UK bank account to offer certain services without FCA approval.
coinbase got approval. and thus they were able to open an account with barclays that offers the extra services coinbase wish to offer this year that they could not previous years

cough, laugh cough

http://uk.businessinsider.com/coinbase-uk-gets-fca-licence-access-to-faster-payments-with-barclays-2018-3

coinbase gets FCA licence

ill give you another hint. about where your cloak of ICO invisability fails.



if you accept funding and its measured in great british pounds and your business is operating in the UK. then there is no cloak of invisibility.
it really is worth you reading FCA guidelines. because "i have a legal team" is no defense.

now show your insurance details 

firstly you are already taking/requesting funding, and promoting that your service is insured.
publish your insurance policy details.
you cant now rush and try finding an insurer and in a year publish a number.. its something you need to already have NOW

secondly. just like other scammers who think handling bitcoin/crypto makes them invisible to FCA/SEC, it doesnt. and same goes for ICO's.
ill give you an example. if you give a prostitute a car for her services instead of cash does not mean you cannot be arrested for soliciting a prostitute, by thinking not using cash protects you

thirdly. you can in your own mind pretend that its all invisible under a cloak of undefinied ICO. but your scam is actually breaking rules that have been around even before bitcoin existed. thus its not a ICO/bitcoin thing. its a legitimate business thing. something that would still be a scam no matter what 'token' method of financing you used

but to put the ICO cloak you think protects you as a scam artist aside. you are still failing the very basics of business/finance ethics in regards to consumer protection.

i personally hate regulation(bcause they are not about consumer protection). but am well versed in it.
but what i do want to see is consumer protections. to not have scammers ripping people off and then making things like blockchain/cryptocurrency/bitcoin get bad press.

again your claim of funds bing insured, means you need to have a publicly viewable insurance policy reference ALREADY. so that any victim can have redress if you ran off anytim between this second or any time in the future. so show it
no excuses about delays, or paper work needs to be filed or your too busy. or the documents are locked in some time locked vault that only opens some randomly chosen date in the future.
its something you need publicly viewable NOW

yawn

more finger pointing civil war social drama over at reddit.
makes me wonder whats happening with real dvelopment thats not happening/flawed. that requires reddit to try these social distractions

no matter what/how you change/modify the mining algo. there will always be a way of gaming the system

EG
if it was a PoS.. lets say 100k individuals staked. .. 20 pools(managers/top guys) could simply make 10k stake each(200k) 3.3% of the time a pool get a block and 0.00033% of the time a individual wins a block
EG
if it was a PoH(harddrive).. lets say 100k individuals had nodes. .. 20 pools(managers/top guys) could simply buy 10k raspberry Pi's each(200k) 3.3% of the time a pool get a block and 0.00033% of the time a individual wins a block

they can as they are getting the rwards more often then use the profits to buy more nodes/stake and increase their % of the pie, diluting the chances of the individuals

forget ever thinking that there can be a "1 note 1 cpu 1 vote" situation because there will always be a way to pool resources

...
pool cartels are not a problem. because although a certain reddit group shouts out propaganda about such. the real problem is everyone is relying on one github source for bitcoin rules.. this is the central point of failure of bitcoin.
yes the nodes are then distributed. but the decisions of rule changes exist in only one github repo. and any other repo that wants to have a public vote on a different/better/positive roadmap usualy gets treated as an opposition rather than a decentralised democratic choice. and thus the single central point of failure github repo team then try everything they can to treat anything that threatens thier dominance as an altcoin. rather than a consensus challenge.

DW you are a scammer. i find it funny how you are pretending your just a web dev. its obvious that you are orchastrating this whole thing.
you know that i done my research the last time you promoted this scam and then deleted the thread.

yes you subcontracted out your work. thats what scammy ICOs do. they pay a script kiddy to make a coin. and another script kiddy to make the templates, and so on. that does not mean you have a dedicated team. it just means you have subcontractors.

but let me be clear
you are not FCA complient. that is more than obvious just checking the website. and if you have no clue what i am talking about then that shows how little you know about FCA complience.

its people like you that make the bitcoin community look bad.
if you want evidence just look at your website.. if you cant see the evidence then it shows you know nothing, if you want to know the specifics then go read some FCA complience handbooks

ill give you one hint. publish your insurance policy number so 'customers'(future victims) know who to contact when you run off.
i asked this last time, and your response was to delete the thread

blah blah blah

another topic of speculation all based on a daily movement of less than 10%

guys when will you learn. the price is never going to be a stable 0.03% rise a day..
it will never be a stable/guarantee double your investment in a year.
some people who are smart can double their income in weeks. and some emotional investors may lose... get used to it

it always going to go up and down
just enjoy you can make more then 1% a day if your smart enough

just stop caring, viewing, thinking about the ATH(all time high). all that matters is the low. and you will notice that the yearly low is on a increase since 2009
stop hoping for another one time spike. because when it actually happen 99% of people wont have fast enough fingers to take advantage of it and then when it corrects to a low. you just sat there waiting for the next ATH spike and hope your online fast enough.. (which most never are)

so just stop screaming "bitcoin is less than half the value of ATH".. instead say bitcoin is $2k higher than the LOW of 6 months ago

..
smart traders dont care about ATH
smart traders dont speculate years ahead
smart traders dont trade once a year hoping to double their funds. by having the luck of being online the exact second a ATH spike occurs
smart traders take their 1% a day and cumilatively it all adds up to a more secure profit