Sure you have a more detailed link with exact pricing options? Just put it on a website for us to see (I'm actually curious), you'll get more offers that way. Catalonia shouldn't be this expensive, though... 2.6m comes to half a mill per flat.

P.S. There's a legitimate way for EU residency that'll welcome your crypto, actually. Check out Estonia's e-Residency programme, complete with ID and business registration for all you Bitcoin whales. You don't even ever need to be physically present.

That's right. I was just thinking for a moment that this "whale" at that amount of coins isn't that much of a whale. I mean, sure you dump 30% of Bittrex's daily volume but that's a drop in global volume... not even half a percent? But as you point out, it's good that these whales sell off every dump and that always helps explain why declines keep sliding since sell offs trigger sell offs. Maybe in ten years, even 1k BTC can be considered a whale. I'd love to have a thousandth of a whale's holdings!

Thanks! You're the second person I've seen trying to write about those whose names have fallen off the grid (I assume correctly?). As I mentioned, at least one of the devs of Skyledger is claimed to be one of the early developers - all the Googling I've found points only to one recent video interview that suggests a bit of deep knowledge but nothing that couldn't be gleaned off just following discussions. I've also been following the trails of some others, all cypherpunks of some water, only for interest but I can't help but wonder if any were involved in launching the Bitcoin experiment.


Already done many years ago when it was quite fashionable for journalists to try their investigative skills and claim the find for themselves. Satoshi's writing was quite consistent, and it is likely the inconsistencies were deliberate obfuscation. One of the most compelling results led to a patent application for encryption, but the three who submitted all denied links (Neal King, Charles Bry, Vladimir Oksman) and even had no knowledge of Bitcoin (so weren't that connected to cypherpunk communities?). So false positives?

It's a little strange to me also, actually. Holding isn't aomething that occurs to me as a suggestion for trading. It's more of a stance you take as a long-term viewer.

To me, if you're a serious and regular trader, then you have clear entry and exit points. A stop loss is the basic risk management tool every trade should specify. Don't remove it except to trail gains, definitely not to change according to hold suggestions!

Not that I should have any reason to other than being from there, but am glad to see a rare opinion piece from Southeast Asia (where Bitcoin has quietly been gaining a small but loud voice, one of the more significant minorities, I still think) from someone who's been around for a while.

I know it can be difficult to see this, especially when this is the first time most of us are experiencing first hand the pullback from the climb, but as pointed out - in relative terms, Bitcoin is actually finding its way towards stability. Swings were much larger in the early days. The media hype, followed by the doomsday prophecies, have all followed the price, always behind it, always trying to keep the momentum either way. This has all happened before. And this will all happen again.

And because of that, lest we forget, the most important point we have to keep advocating is Bitcoin's technology and what it really means, and what the masses still haven't fully grasped (quote from the piece): "The price of Bitcoin is the least interesting thing about it. The value of Bitcoin is in its ability to do what it set out to do, and do it best. When you truly understand the technology, you’ll realize it’s true value."

To be fair, a lot of these "raids" and "crackdowns" are a direct result of public pressure for the authorities to clamp down on activities not actually related to, but using Bitcoin as either a means of payment or the bait to lure unsuspecting members of public. I'm simply recalling the number of police reported cases in Bangladesh and India where scammers robbed people after luring them on Localbitcoins with cheap face-to-face deals.

Of course, it is only natural that the link to Bitcoin is misconstrued, but as the government, they can only err on the side of caution until they fully grasp what Bitcoin is. Remember that it's still very misunderstood.

Oh don't be down. We had a really bright side of life to behold only two months ago and less. We all enjoyed it didn't we? Time to also enjoy this temporary drawback. I keep saying how Bitcoin continues to surprise, surpassing all my most optimistic thoughts about it on the way up, so I'm really prepared to be surprised each morning when I see how much more it manages to slip. It's a strange thing to see but it's not so dark that we should despair.

So chew on life's gristle... for Bitcoin's quite absurd and death's the final word =p

Well, unlike all of you who predicted a Chelsea stroll in the park, I thought Watford would make a good account of themselves and snatch a point with a 1-1 draw. Of course, the Premier League loves to toy with our hearts and the game is now 4-1 to the home side in stoppage time.

Shame I didn't watch the match, but I can see an early red card meant Chelsea played the game with 10 men for at least 2/3rds of the game. Still absolutely no excuse to lose like this. I'll be reading the match details on the news, definitely want to see the highlights.

What were the odds for a Watford win btw? Something like 7x?

It's always been usable for me, ever since I started using it in 2016 In fact, it's still more than 95% of my digital money use (and that's only because almost 5% is Paypal ).

Again, always a bit misleading to use a dollar value for the average fee if you don't include the average transaction value, which currently (same source as you) is $60,409.

Now that we see the average fee isn't even 0.01% of the average amount sent, is there really a cheaper alternative at the moment outside of crypto?

Agreed. I'm of course all for deregulation and Wild West if people know how to protect themselves, but people can't. And I know no amount of regulation can stop a fool from parting with his money, but I'd be much happier if the lot of shite ICOs and projects get cracked down on and exposed for the thinly-veiled scams they really are. People will blame all the external factors when/if/should the crypto market one day crash, but it'll be all these false ICOs spinning hype and valueless tokens that are the harmful elements. Good riddance I say.

Here's a belated pat on the back =) I've never considered selling anything, holder by choice and circumstance but I thought myself to no longer be worried by price late last year (during the boom!). Gotta admit the heart still flutters when I see my dollar value getting wiped out, but then I remind myself I want those bitcoins next year, the year after, likely past 2020 (when I reach a psychological age as it turns out).

Also happy to get more coins at better and better prices (am an earner).

I'll see you around the forums I'm sure, probably tap you on the back again, happier times ahead!

What you're probably looking at is just information that the wallet or explorer (at least blockchain.info and localbitcoins do this) displays since the "balance" field is a simple calculation of "total received" - "total spent". Usually because of double spends that above users mention... meaning to say it still includes/considers an unconfirmed transaction attempting to spend an input already used up in a confirmed transaction. That double spend can never confirm, and its input(s) are reflected in the negative amount.

Once that double spend tx is dropped (since it can never be confirmed and thus is invalid), the balance will eventually show the correct amount.

Damn, what a rout, the Old Lady's really not making it easy for Napoli to keep pace, but full credit to the current leaders for maintaining their cling despite the pressure that must be building now. Imagine looking back at Juventus half time already leading by 4 goals! Mertens is really on song now, keeps finding the net when the team needs him most. The Turin team will fuss over Matuidi but everyone else is picking up such form that it's going to be about who slips up first. 13 games to go, so plenty of drama left... and Napoli's got Lazio up next. Just hope they can build up a healthier goal difference, would hate to miss out to Juve's goal fests.

Personally, I think this is nonsense. No exchange has ever banned a user for having funds from a gambling site. Firstly, even if the funds came from a known casino's wallet, how could they prove that it was you sending funds to yourself?

There are some addresses blacklisted already for having known stolen funds that only the thief has access to but even then, you'd have to prove that the user was that thief and wasn't some guy who unwittingly bought that stolen bitcoin.

Breaking the link prevents your funds being associated with any service, therefore is advisable. But the only reason you'd want to break the link is simply for privacy. The less your funds can be traced back to build links or associations, the less your online fingerprint can be figured out. That's for your own privacy protection.

If the guy can't tell you his tx ID, or even the address he sent from, and he can see for himself that your address isn't funded, then yeah, sounds like someone is taking you for a ride. The burden lies on the sender to prove funds were sent and it's standard for sender to send a tx ID after completing payment. If he can't do this, it's suspicious like HCP says. Your wallet's fine, explorer proves no tx was ever recorded against that address.

Not the first by any stretch. From just my observation of recent months on this forum along, they've been a slew of AI/big data/deep insight/machine learning projects all purporting to have found an effective amalgation of trading strategies for the crypto market. I have my reservations. Apart from my own participation in one such project (Peculium ran a promotion a couple of months back pitting poster predictions against the AI, and the results weren't conclusive for me, it had at least two huge double digit errors on daily BTC predictions and that's quite a problem for me) I haven't seen for myself how these different AI perform in real time.

Problem for me is that big data needs... big data. Take away Bitcoin and you generally have cryptos that have been trading seriously for less than five years. That's not big enough for me. I'd advise against entrusting it to the system. If it works, they wouldn't share it, would they?

Woohoo! Salah just scored a goal, I arrived very late to watching the game and missed the actual moment but I hope this will shellshock Spurs the way they did just last week to Man Utd. We've got a full complement of attacking power, just hope Can and Hendo can contain the midfield and starve Kane off from opportunities. Already frenetic moments right now, so looks like I'm on track to my 3-0 prediction for this game - revenge is necessary, top four is secondary for the moment.

P.S. Damned Newcastle couldn't get the second goal to seal my bet on them.

P.P.S. I have a small bet on over 3 goals but I'm pretty sure we'll see at least 5 the way things have started at Anfield!

Very interesting, am surprised I never discovered this little forum hack myself! I have entertained some ideas (far, far behind on the backburner) of trying to compile a comprehensive list of developers - not only those that contributed directly on github but also those whose early discussions and efforts would have at least made some sort of important contribution. Amir Taaki, for example, I often read about and he's always noted as an "early Bitcoin developer" but I don't see any of his contributions. Then we've got very old projects like Skyledger that claims to have been built by "original Bitcoin developers" but none of their names come up on Github. They do share the same radical outlooks and demeanour - quite unlike the devs active here and on github who I find are very collected, very logical, fastidious (I hope I don't presume).

Posterity is important to me, for some context. But I know a lot of people would be against this sort thing, judging from responses I've seen last year when some new Satoshi emails were unearthed for the first time. Understandable from a privacy point of view.

So, wishful thinking and idiocy is the realm of those who think the former peak can be reached again. Pray tell, what would be the thinking that wouldn't be considered idiotic? It's one thing to criticise an opinion, quite another not to offer an alternative of your own, but then you don't want to risk being wrong, do you?

Don't be afraid, the rest of us idiots know we'll continuously be wrong for a great many years to come. Just embrace the fact that we're speculating and only time will tell if we were right. Three years is a really short time in relative terms. I'd be very happy to wait three years to a 20k return.

Actually, my feeling is that we can see a trend of fewer new "cryptocurrency" projects coming up that are actually decentralized. In fact, there are already some projects in the works that will be completely centralized, as they'll come fully under the purvey of the governments and banks that have decided to build them. So, rather than preventing governments from controlling, these actually are directly under control by them.

And anyway, even with those that claim decentralization, what's the difference between having your coin controlled by the state, or one that's controlled by your developers? Don't need to look far for a crypto where users have no say in how the project develops or in which direction it does. These projects regulate circulation, creating or burning new tokens as they deem fit, give them away or lock them up. What's the difference? How can they still be called "decentralized"?