Most of the ICOs are not profitable to anyone. While I say most of them are not good, but still there are few ICOs which are linked to a real life business. When a new company decides to list in to a stock market, they offer their shares through IPO which is Initial public offering. But in real life stock market, we have regulators who ensure that the company is already an established one and they have registered profits since last three years (in my country). But the ICO is a method through which a company raises funds for their upcoming ventures. So they want to raise fund for a business which is yet to come and doesn't exist now. So the risk is very high.
China has already banned ICO and Canada government has already started cracking them down. Which looks like a proper step to me. If it can't be regulated now, it will become a ponzi market and people will start loosing big amounts of money. Invest in ICO but make sure they have a legal business to back them up.
I was just discussing with a couple of parters actually touching on something you said. I'm not a big ICO chaser. This year, I participated in exactly three, and all modest sums below USD 1,000, basically a small pool between myself and two friends who can't be bothered to get into crypto. At this very moment, none of them are profitable! Other than an actual interest in the tech/product, I spent considerable time and effort to conduct some research and invest only in those we felt were long-term buys, with solid developers on the team, etc etc. It seems even the best-researched decisions are prone to failures. For our next possible venture, and perhaps for the foreseeable future, we have actually thought along the lines of ICOs that are more like IPOs. Similar to our second ICO, we want something with a real world business that simply wants funding to expand. So not necessarily blockchain innovation or decentralised solution. Simply a business with a tokenised model for expansion. At least we'd have a product with a track record to look at! |
|
|
|
When you buy something on eBay or Amazon, you pay the seller, he ships the product and upload a tracking number.
If you haven't received the item, you can call eBay or Amazon and, basically, what happens is that if they have a tracking number that shows that the item has been delivered, then it is ok, otherwise eBay or Amazon reverses the transaction and you get your money back.
Is that possible with bitcoin? What if I buy a boat online for 2 bitcoins and I never receive it? Is bitcoin able to solve this problem?
Thanks
There's an even better solution, which I enjoy using now. If you've traded in crypto marketplaces, you might be familiar with it: escrow! I only sell my Bitcoin with Localbitcoins and Bisq, which have inbuilt escrow releases. Even dark markets used them. I know people have mentioned them earlier, but here's a few places you can find them: 1. This forum. There are several professional escrowers in Services section. Contact them for their services, they charge between 1 to 5% of the fee, but that's probably far bigger savings than what you'll end up paying for Amazon's administration fees on reversals, for example. 2. Coinpayments.net is an example of a professional service that'll set up an escrow payment for you. They even have ICOs using them now to escrow investor funds. They'll verify you've received your goods, and release payment to the seller. Not perfect, but that to me is a better solution than what's traditionally available. If you've ever had to fight for your money in a dispute over some seller not delivering... you'd understand it's a huge waste of time (not to mention you get back your money minus "admin fees"). |
|
|
|
All arguments don't make sense. There was no secret nor was there any bank there. Central banks are not banks per se. They are monetary boards that regulate how money works and is being used in the country. There was no statement in the news nor in mine that says that we are dealing with commercial banks.
Bottom line is that the government in the Philippines did not regulate bitcoins that would be advantageous nor disadvantageous to it. The fact is that they only are regulating exchanges so that they will not be used for money laundering or terrorist financing. Nothing more. The BSP is not dealing in crypto or bitcoins!
They don't see the need to regulate it now, maybe they believe the exposure is just to small to regulate but you are right they regulated the exchanges and in fact they already issued license to some who applied. When they regulate, they are bound to follow the rules and they need to do reportorial requirements to the bank, that report should include compliance on the AMLC because money laundering is rampant using cryptocurrency. @Luan, yes you're correct, these statements from central banks in our region (I'm from Malaysia) are pretty much only worth lip service. My country and Indonesia have regularly come out with opposite statements saying that they don't recognise Bitcoin as payments, but the nett effect is close to zero in terms of actualy volume. Southeast Asian trading is still very low globally, but they have been climbing and if they keep at the same rate for a year or two more - which they surely will, they may very well become significant minorities in the global market. Nevertheless, a lot of people will see this as positive. Now on the point of regulating exchanges, I believe coins.ph and Luno (active in all three countries I mentioned) have been several months in talks with central bank reps from all three. If nothing more, it merely legitimises their business of trading Bitcoin. Won't have affect on price, but definitely adoption. |
|
|
|
|
Poor Nova. I started by very first few Bitcoin trades with smaller exchanges Nova and Tradesatoshi. More experimental than anything else, since I was new at the time to altcoins. Found a new-ish ANN thread with what looked like a fun coin, discovered that it was PoS and was introduced to the idea of staking. So I got my first stash of several hundred coins from Nova, staked for months. My last login was in July, to sell off everything. In total a 300,000 satoshi investment returned me just over 0.02 BTC. My very first profit.
I know much better today than to risk trading large amounts of BTC, but we've got to appreciate all these smaller exchanges listing exotic coins. Hope the new management understands the importance of having actual developers on their support staff.
|
|
|
|
I just set six bets on the upcoming Champions League matches tonight. What do you think?
Celtic vs Bayern # over 2.5 goals @ 1.52
Paris vs Anderlecht #under 5.5 goals @ 1.32
ManUnited vs Benfica # double chance, draw or win Benfica @ 2.38
Atletico vs Qarabag # over 2.5 goals @ 1.86
Sporting vs Juventus # Win Juventus @ 1.92
Olympiakos vs Barcelona # Win Barcelona @ 1.25
That's interesting, I took Benfica at +1.25 for 1.9x odds, thought it was very good - I don't normally look back *after* making bets. This one is a real gamble, to be honest, since Man Utd play home and will want to put this group's winner out of reach. Hope he still insists with Mikhi and he plays as badly as ever. Good odds on PSG/Anderlecht, would have taken that as a parlay pad for sure had my bookmaker offered it. Qarabag... after last week's performance, I wouldn't put it past them to go down to a slim margin. Athleti and Torres are misfiring right now. Apart from that, I'm also with you on Barca and the Old Lady to wrap their group up with both of them victorious tonight. Eh, what a way to lose the Benfica game. An own goal and a penalty? That was just really bad luck for them, and Mourinho and co get to benefit as usual. Seems like they'll be in the Last 16 for sure, unless both Basel and CSKA win their last two matches AND Moscow somehow score 6 goals without reply in those games. And Chelsea, what the hell? No cards in the game, 5 treatments, 11 shots (6 on target) and they still manage to lose. Athleti had better come up with the goods in next game, they really blew this chance with Qarabaq, but what about them right? 2 draws and 2 points in their first ever Champions League against Roma and now Athleti. Sweet games. And eh, wrong calls on Juve and Barca. Bloody draws. |
|
|
|
I just set six bets on the upcoming Champions League matches tonight. What do you think?
Celtic vs Bayern # over 2.5 goals @ 1.52
Paris vs Anderlecht #under 5.5 goals @ 1.32
ManUnited vs Benfica # double chance, draw or win Benfica @ 2.38
Atletico vs Qarabag # over 2.5 goals @ 1.86
Sporting vs Juventus # Win Juventus @ 1.92
Olympiakos vs Barcelona # Win Barcelona @ 1.25
That's interesting, I took Benfica at +1.25 for 1.9x odds, thought it was very good - I don't normally look back *after* making bets. This one is a real gamble, to be honest, since Man Utd play home and will want to put this group's winner out of reach. Hope he still insists with Mikhi and he plays as badly as ever. Good odds on PSG/Anderlecht, would have taken that as a parlay pad for sure had my bookmaker offered it. Qarabag... after last week's performance, I wouldn't put it past them to go down to a slim margin. Athleti and Torres are misfiring right now. Apart from that, I'm also with you on Barca and the Old Lady to wrap their group up with both of them victorious tonight. |
|
|
|
|
Come to think of it, there's been a drop off in celebrity endorsements of Bitcoin, hasn't there? We had the Ashton Kutchers (however you spell his name) and the Whoopi Goldbergs thrust Bitcoin into the spotlight some years back but haven't heard of similar news lately. Some MMA people, basketball people, rappers, yes but those to me have limited fanbases outside North America.
I suppose it was only a matter of time before some global superstar like Ronaldo got his face into the pie. Just waiting for the Branston or the Ver crew to get it on with the likes of Sam Jackson or Morgan Freeman. Or make an appearance on some late night show.
But why so negative, crypto and charity have had a long history, and may their relationship live long.
|
|
|
|
Good observations that I agree with. In our defence we’ve committed to building the OlympusBC blockchain whatever happens with funding since we need it for our main business platform and business plan which is Plutous. Plutous came first and was originally planned to run on Ethereum which would be the easier path for us to follow but because of reasons it became a problem using Ethereum which made OlympusBC necessary for us as a business.
It’s perhaps a bit of an unusual situation where we are developing a blockchain to enable us to do our business of Plutous but we believe others will have similar business requirements that makes OlympusBC a useful blockchain in its own right. OlympusBC was first discussed at the end of 2012 and started to take form more over the following years. If we can raise funding to support the development of OlympusBC then that would be far better than trying to develop the blockchain on a tight budget and extended timeline which is what has driven the ICO.
I think there are many reasons for ICO’s today, sadly most are just get rich quick schemes with no real business case or purpose. Hundreds of millions of dollars for a tweaked Bitcoin branch or a handful of smart contracts for some personal interest. Among them though are some great business plans and innovative smart contract based businesses or blcokchains. As with the .com boom, the challenge is to spot the unicorns because I have no doubt that we’ll have some major successes akin to PayPal, Amazon and Google.
That's the spirit of enterprise! I think in this crowded space with scores of projects launching daily and all of them vying for the attentions of a rather limited number of adopters, you have to remember how the earliest projects started: with a few people working diligently amongst like-minded individuals, all believing in something without any immediate gain. In fact, despite what people may think, a lot of the early developers of Bitcoin (and even ETH let's say) spent years on the ideas and building up the tech, and have little to show for it today except the recognition and experience. If they are to be believed (and I do take some of what they say at face value), not every early developer sat on mountains of crypto in the hopes that they would be fabulously rich. Some of my largest holdings are coins which had no fundraising origins. Bitcoin is doing well of course, while others not so, but the belief has remained with the developers, and that has bought my belief (I want to say trust almost). If you look at all the self-acclaimed angel investors and crypto billionaires, you'll find that none of them (my generalisation here) were programmers or developers. Simply people who bought up or mined coins. Nevertheless, at least your project seems to have started from a desperate need, to enable Plutous as it is. And it may not be necessary to be a unicorn to provide something that is useful and beneficial... in my real life example, I continue to use the same free, open-source tools that may never gain the fame and recognition of bigger enterprises, but I am happy they remain relevant 20 years after I first used them. |
|
|
|
This has been brought up before. To clarify, nowhere in the statement does it actually say ban. What is prohibited is to accept is as payment. This is only natural, as has been the same, unchanging stance for the central bank since 2014. This is exactly the same as with neighbours Malaysia in the same year - both central banks are historically on the same page when it comes to digital currency. They had the exact position with e-gold a decade before this, and with Paypal years earlier.
All these positions have actually been the result of use by groups linked to pyramid/ponzi/hyip schemes who use these currencies/payment processors.
Since 2014, not a single action has been taken against those using the prohibited currencies for personal, OTC, or private transactions. All known exchanges are still operating today, and localbitcoins volume has not been affected.
So don't worry. If you aren't doing anything naughty, you're good.
Thank you for Clarification, then after all the Indonesian Government just doing nothing for their law? Therefore the Law is just for "person who used bitcoin on bad activities" ? All I'm saying is, the typical Bitcoin user should have nothing to worry about. These central bank warnings are not new in our part of the world, and serve as cautionary advice to people unfamiliar with it - as they are usually hearing it for the first time as a "get rich scheme", and then when they lose their funds they turn to the central banks, who in some part guarantee the safety of funds stored in regulated banks (BI and BNM for example guarantee all customer funds in banks, up to a certain limit). Of course there is always a risk when the government steps in, but if they really made moves, you'd hear it first from the exchangers you're likely using. Luno and Localbitcoins come to mind. The motives behind these statements are unclear, made worse by media who don't understand them. In worst-case scenario, the banks will want to ensure citizens have a chance to act before just seizing anything to avoid fallout. |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for sharing, first time I've come across the term "Bitcoin as programmable money". I've got a question (or observation?), with early caveat that am as close as it gets to being a Bitcoin user with zero-knowledge on programming/coding language.
1. So far, improvements and upgrades to the network are done through script addons, as an alternative or workaround to an overhaul of the coding structure - since that would require a hard fork (correct?). If Simplicity is a low-level language, would it also interact with Bitcoin the same way? The paper says "possibly in Bitcoin itself" but does not seem to mention how or why not.
2. Will it ever be possible to do an overhaul of the network's main script or will it be the last possible solution, since in my mind doing so without forking would not be possible?
|
|
|
|
This was actually a good read and I feel the same way as the author on a good portion if it. I also feel bitcoin gold is going to amount to nothing and I am looking to sell it off as soon as I can.
Between Bitcoin and Bitcoin 2x however, like the author I feel it may be harder to make the correct call right away, so I am contemplating on just converting into fiat on both chains if the opportunity(high prices) arises. Once chain may eventually dominate and I would be taking a slight risk, but also I believe sooner or later the winner will also have a significant dip where I can buy back in. I also think, as does the author, that the 2x camp will artificially pump their coins value at first, so in reality I should get at least 150% combined value by selling off both chains, this increasing my chances of being able to get back in the winning chain at a later time at or under cost.
I'd be wary about attempting to gamble on the possible outcomes, as there are likely to be several more outcomes that you can't predict. At that point, also, price will not be the primary concern of Bitcoin - it never has. And if you're a supporter of 2x, then you actually believe this, since Bitcoin is being blamed for impeding even more spectacular all-time highs. So if anyone is taking sides because of money and/or profit, then they would do well to be prepared to be complicit in the politics of scaling, and be prepared to find it difficult to "make the right call". For some of us, the choice has always been simple... in the manner that there was never a choice we had to make =) The article's a decent read, but I'll always find it difficult to take something too seriously from traders and from camps who look at it from a price perspective. The usual sensationalism... "hostile takeover... to remove core...replace with discredited developer Jeff Garzik". |
|
|
|
So how did you manage to do it as this transaction was only at 7 sat/byte? I used a different miner service, just submitted and they accepted. It's confirmed now, by the way. There are several others in this forum offering the same, if you search in Services section. Most do it for free, some for a small fee. Antminer also has a service: antpool.com/ you just have to register up for an account, it's within the dashboard. |
|
|
|
Oh so you are software providing firm for gambling sites just like softswiss. But haven't heard about your firm till this date. I think most of the gambling sites in this cryto world are developed by softswiss. Do you have experience in creating crypto based gambling sites and how much you charge for the same? Do you also provide maintenance of the site?
I've heard of them... quite surprised to see them try and promote themselves here though. In terms of Southeast Asian providers, they had the best streams in a region where broadband isn't widespread. Early adopters of live streaming (Asians prefer live online gaming from accredited physical casinos, who trusts RNG, right? Haha). They're ubiquitous in Southeast Asian casinos, but unfortunately, are used by quite a lot of scam casinos (in my experience, getting a lot of spam in my email from a new pop-up casino every now and then). Their dealers are quite popular, Philippine-based all of them as I recall. SoftSwiss may be one of the largest/most popular providers out there, but by no means the only one. Most full-fledged casinos will have at least five or more providers these days, especially those really popular slot-casinos you see people playing on mobile/tablets now. Oh, and SoftSwiss didn't have live dealers... or do they now? |
|
|
|
I am quite sure that this is a solid warning to all governments that if they are planning to act similarly to China, the result is that trading will move 'underground', further outside the reach of governments.
If you want to maintain some level of control, then make sure you set up proper regulations that to some extent are decent and fair for all involved parties. Governments have to accept that Bitcoin is here to stay.
That being said, Chinese exchanges will slowly pop up again, because the governmental actions were not permanent, despite people thinking that China has banned Bitcoin ~ it's ignorance from the highest levels.
Couldn't have said it better, comrade. Although if I do recall, the initial ban never did mean to include OTC and P2P exchanges, which was why I was surprised to see localbitcoins as the only one of their ilk included in the (initial) long list of exchanges ordered to cease operations. We saw how quickly the Chinese got creative and found their ways to get their trading done even via WeChat and Telegram, so we know already that even if they went after platforms, people will just move to apps. And if that gets hounded, they just keep ferreting deeper and deeper. In any case, as you say, the cessation orders were never meant to ban crypto, simply giving them space to begin regulatory measures. If any country is thinking about banning crypto, mining, or exchanges, they better be prepared to lose that battle. |
|
|
|
The article talks about energy efficiency but it says nothing about the effectiveness of the production of coins. If Samsung will earn 1 Satoshi per hour and thus do not consume energy, it will be a useless toy. I think it's just the concept of Samsung which would have continue. I understand that there is no one prototype in order to be able to talk about it. With regard to the protection I saw an alarm that uses a Siemens 35. He's not even a smartphone. What to do 5s?
I highly doubt this setup would be energy efficient to do anything else other than be a mobile phone. Because if they could be "upcycled" to perform better than their original purpose, then they're either guilty of not building energy-efficient phones in the first place, or have seriously underestimated the hashing power required to have any significant returns on Bitcoin mining. They probably are better off going for something like... Bitcoin Gold  Just because 8 phones are better at mining Bitcoin than a desktop computer doesn't make it a great achievement. Nice try Samsung, kudos all the same to your engineers for a bit of creativity but you've got to see the funny side of this. |
|
|
|
Is it inevitable or even desirable for blockchains and their ICO's to become more regulated or to least run their ICO's in more risk averse ways such as submitting to AML and KYC checks? Atlas City Finance has just begun its 1 month pre-ICO which is expected to be popular in part due to the large 30% pre-ICO discount but to offset this the ICO is unusual in that it is being run against a set of AML and KYC checks to protect the business, the blockchain and investors. The question remains whether requiring such strict rules to be applied to investors will deter investors or attract more traditional investors who welcome more voluntary regulation. Smaller investments up to 1 BTC in value don’t need KYC or AML checks but larger investments can be used to move money illegally which is why such checking can be helpful. Since Atlas City Finance is really trying to establish market credibility for its other products and services such as Plutous then it makes sense to be over cautious of how the Olympus blockchain is funded. It remains to be seen how ICO investors will react to such checks being carried out and it’ll certainly be of interest to other upcoming ICO’s who are considering how to present their coin offerings. A presentation that combines Plutous and Olympus is provided in the following link. The ICO is just for the Olympus blockchain and its Olympian coins but this presentation looks at the wider Plutous financial services platform and how it makes use of the features of the Olympus blockchain to provide scale, anonymity and smart contracts in more familiar programming languages. For full disclosure I'm involved in the blockchain and Atlas business but I find the wider question of whether AML and KYC's protection is good or bad for the blockchain industry as a whole very interesting. Sure it makes sense for a commercial organisation in the financial sector but is it over-restrictive for startup's looking to raise money quickly for without being too intrusive into funding sources? What are your views on these kinds of test or regulations more broadly? https://www.atlascityfinance.com/media/AtlasCityFinance_BusinessPresentation.pptxI believe it was inevitable. Crypto as we know it has far outstripped Bitcoin's very basic purpose as a digital P2P trustless currency. Much of the volume we see in crypto markets isn't P2P payments, they belong to exchange trading and other industries. At its height, online gambling took more than 50% of the share, and there's a growing amount of volume attributed to extra-finance industry, never mind venture capitalism through ICOs. The vulnerability to fraud, the shocks of Mt Gox led to knee-jerk reactions but also deep questionings of personal security or security of funds that identification would be necessary for. As Atlast City sees, it's also a vehicle for credibility - something that crypto enthusiasts can't deny is still one of the biggest struggles of Bitcoin in terms of recognition and acceptance. At the moment, though, I feel that most projects are only taking steps towards AML/KYC because of regulatory pressure. Reactive rather than progressive. And the motivation behind that is still, as Pursuer mentions, profit without belief in their own project. |
|
|
|
Yeah, I got that one as well (as did Lawro). Really annoying when I get a correct score and think I'll be moving up a place or two but in fact I stay the same cos the people above me also got it haha.
What's everyone got for tonight's game? I've got 1-1 again.
I...
But I expect Sean Dyche and co. to have the edge. They're at home and I guess the 'physicality' of Burnley's squad could get them a clean sheet. And Newcastle's quality isn't exactly like City.
Yeah, every time I think I outwitted everyone, they all come along with the same correct score prediction. I've stopped trying to predict unexpected outcomes since Week 9, except for Liverpool and my stubborn 3-0 permapicks. I've got tonight down at 2-1 for Newcastle. They're both closely matched at mid-table, but I still see Benitez as a good tactician who'll figure out a way to unlock Burnley, and have hopes for him to make manager of the month yet. His team will need to make examples of those around them now, and I predict they'll see Burnley as a prime example. Jonjo Shelvey is back, and hopefully a lot more mature that he'll run the engine room. Both will play Championship style brutishness, so plenty of cards and three goals to make me a happy camper? |
|
|
|
Tired of "is bitcoin is a bubble"?
Now you can enjoy the wonders of "is bitcoin a reserve currency"?
On a serious note, it is possible bitcoin could eventually become a reserve currency to replace gold. This paradigm could represent the natural evolution of cryptocoins with limited supply if it is established that limited supply and algorithmic based regulation are best methods to promote stability and long term value.
Would be interested to know public opinion on this. Would people feel safer having bitcoin as a reserve currency than they would having fiat like the dollar or euro as reserve?
Never been tired of that talk, my friend. I think it's good to have that talk come up every now and then as a constant reminder never to risk all. Bitcoin may very well be a reserve currency, one day. But that day is far into a future impossible to predict right now. It's taken gold a long time to achieve its current status, and Bitcoin is but an infant technology. Sure, many like myself are holding, shoring up reserves, and hoarding as much as we can - but these are all banking on Bitcoin. It needs global recognition as a reserve. That's many decades from now. Even the US dollar is a better store of reserve now, and will be for at least a decade, I think. Of course, I will be too happy to be proven wrong! |
|
|
|
This has been brought up before. To clarify, nowhere in the statement does it actually say ban. What is prohibited is to accept is as payment. This is only natural, as has been the same, unchanging stance for the central bank since 2014. This is exactly the same as with neighbours Malaysia in the same year - both central banks are historically on the same page when it comes to digital currency. They had the exact position with e-gold a decade before this, and with Paypal years earlier. All these positions have actually been the result of use by groups linked to pyramid/ponzi/hyip schemes who use these currencies/payment processors. Since 2014, not a single action has been taken against those using the prohibited currencies for personal, OTC, or private transactions. All known exchanges are still operating today, and localbitcoins volume has not been affected. So don't worry. If you aren't doing anything naughty, you're good. |
|
|
|
|
You know what, it's okay. Yes, less than two weeks after you posted this, Bitcoin reached a new $6,300 all-time high. Yes, you "lost out" again and again for not having the guys to buy when it's so high. But that's a good thing.
You should invest in Bitcoin now, I think this forum also has a growing following of people who actually believe in what they hope. But I think it's good that you still have a cautionary approach. Don't fall to this FOMO. Get in when you're comfortable. Get in with what you can afford.
I'm earning chiefly in bitcoins now and I try to cash out only what I need, saving as much as possible. For now, it is going well, and I can see a small savings slowly building up in my wallet, with each new ATH making me a bit more comfortable. But I don't have the guts to keep all of it, to stop cashing out, and that's a good thing. I can still pay my bills, support a family, and I'm okay with losing out on potential profits because I've realised some of them.
You're all right!
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
