That's not surprising at all. I mean, they've been barred from operating in the country and it seems some of them are using their social media accounts to still do business, so China is simply closing a loophole. This is them basically implementing the ban which was already in place anyway. I disagree with China's ban, of course, but this follow-up move was perfectly logical and shouldn't really surprise anyone. This is a small news for bitcoin to drop its price again. China is not the only country in the world. If this news has an impact then it will be really relative small. and beside the bitcoin price drop is due because it touched the major resistance.
I doubt this will have any impact unless you're a) using the loophole or b) you're part of the exchange whose account got banned. I don't expect any price movements because of this, specifically. |
|
|
|
Nothing changed. Let's break it down. First, he said, as you quoted: In an interview with Bloomberg in 2014, he had said bitcoin was exciting because it showed how cheap it can be.
To clarify, he was talking about how cheap it is to move money with them. Next, he said, from his reddit comment: The main feature of crypto currencies is their anonymity. I don't think this is a good thing. The Governments ability to find money laundering and tax evasion and terrorist funding is a good thing. Right now crypto currencies are used for buying fentanyl and other drugs so it is a rare technology that has caused deaths in a fairly direct way. I think the speculative wave around ICOs and crypto currencies is super risky for those who go long.
He didn't change his position at all. He can say that Crypto can be a cheap and easy way of moving money and at the same time be a risky technology that can cause death, and be consistent in his stand. From my point of view, he's just telling it like he sees it. This isn't a Top 10 Anime Betrayals moment. Why are people still talking about this? |
|
|
|
BUT now I'm curious. Why does segwit take up more space?
A simplistic explanation would be that Segwit isolates transaction witness data; only the actual transaction data is counted towards the original 1MB limit, so 1MB + witness data could result in blocks bigger than 1MB. The "true" block size limit is now 4MB including witness data. |
|
|
|
I don't use blockchain.info so I can't speak from experience, but it's normal for online wallets to assign multiple addresses to one user. The old address you're talking about is probably still associated with your account. For additional reference, this is from the blockchain.info FAQ: What is an address? ×
Addresses are strings of letters and numbers, that are used to send you bitcoin or ether. For increased privacy, a new bitcoin address is generated for every transaction. Find the address for your next transaction by clicking receive in your wallet. If you've used the old one, you were likely assigned a new one. |
|
|
|
How to use the Segwit and what is the deffernce with segwit2x
The posters above already detailed how to get a Segwit address. This is just about the most concise explanation you can get on the matter: You can download Electrum, and once launched it will prompt you to either create a "Standard" or "Segwit" wallet, choose segwit, and voila, there you have it. What do I need to do? Other then generating the wallet, nothing. Segwit2x was a controversial planned hard fork that didn't come to fruition because of lack of support. It aimed to combine Segwit with a block size increase. There was another Segwit2x project that was launched recently if I remember correctly, but it has nothing to do with the original. Neither of them has anything to do with Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I just do not understand why the patent, since the crypto world is an open source
They either want monopoly, or they want to make money off the technology. I personally don't mind for as long as the patent is filed in good faith, meaning they're actually trying to devise a way to speed things up using the method they described. Intellectual property is still property, after all, and they should be able to do what they want with it. |
|
|
|
In most cases they are being asked for their opinion on various matters, which basically forces them to at least say something, and when they don't really care about a certain subject (which is the case when it comes to Bill Gates and crypto), they mostly come up with terms that the crypto community gets nuts over. People need to look at the context of his words, and not directly jump on him like he said something horrible. Could he have used a different tone and wording? Sure, but who care anyway? Bill Gates by far doesn't come close to what sort of baboon Warren Buffett is, because this fastfood addict takes everything to the next level, and actually attacks Bitcoin, which is something Bill Gates didn't do, and likely won't do later on.
I personally don't consider Buffett's comments as a direct attack. His track record speaks for itself, and I'd say his "gut feel" is at least worth something. Still, he did concede that he basically knows nothing about the subject, which is basically a disclaimer not to take him seriously. To each his own, I guess. It's not like comments from big shots matter anyway, unless they actually start putting their money where their mouth is. |
|
|
|
|
I don't think any of these "experts" actually believe Bitcoin is a ponzi. I'd like to believe they're actually smart enough to know how a ponzi works. You'd have to stretch its definition pretty far for it to fit the Bitcoin is a ponzi narrative. They're simply using their status to spread FUD. They don't fear change itself; they fear that change will ruin their vested interests.
That being said, there are some valid concerns. It's true that the market is speculative, and each coin is only worth what the next person will pay for it. I believe in Bitcoin's value which is why this isn't a concern for me, but I can see how some people would have a problem with it.
|
|
|
|
Well, "economic sense" isn't as black and white as simply looking at their energy consumption. Banks spur the economy by lending, and they provide jobs, etc, so you're going to have to factor in much more than just cost. The economy is a complex thing. To answer your question of consumption, here is an article I've read about the subject: https://hackernoon.com/the-bitcoin-vs-visa-electricity-consumption-fallacy-8cf194987a50tldr; Author conservatively estimated banking's energy costs to be around 3x Bitcoin's |
|
|
|
Well for one, I'm pretty sure people would appreciate any help they can get, whether that be in Bitcoin or in fiat. Second, the help as specified in this case seems to have strings attached. This sums it up pretty well: This behaviour reeks of disaster capitalism – the use of a natural or economic crisis to reshape and mould a society into one which entrenches a libertarian, hypercapitalistic worldview. When you are without power for months and feel ignored, any offer of help can seem a good lifeline with little thought for the consequences.
If you're helping, but have a hidden agenda, are you really helping? I'm not saying that their idea is bad; they actually seem progressive and could actually benefit people in the long run. It just seems downright exploitative that they're using a disaster as an opportunity to push their agenda. That being said, the article comes off as very anti-crypto, and seems to be pushing an agenda of its own. |
|
|
|
I do not agree with his reasons. He should have at least kept his first thoughts of Bitcoin being better than a currency and exciting because it is cheap, but this second thought and the reason he gave with the purchase of drug with bitcoin is an insubstantial reason.
If you only want someone to speak about one aspect and shut up about another, it's censorship. I do agree that the drug reason is overblown though, and he obviously overstates crypto's anonymity focus. Rather than not speaking out about the negatives though, I would prefer people don't speak out about issues they don't know about; something Bill Gates did in this case. |
|
|
|
I do not see a clear prohibition for US citizens to invest in ICO.
That would be because there are none. The US considers most ICOs securities, so companies will have to comply with US regulations if they want to cater to US customers. Some companies find this way too troublesome, so they simply implement an in-house rule that they don't deal with US citizens. I don't think using a VPN to circumvent this limitation is fraud (in a criminal sense at least) either, but they may choose not to honor your holdings and there's nothing you can do about it. |
|
|
|
|
Yes, for as long as you pay all the applicable taxes. Make sure you document everything, including the transfer of coins to them in case they try to do anything shady because they'll likely be traced back to you.
|
|
|
|
Another problem would be the transaction fee for bitcoin because it is too high. Imagine having to pay for a good then paying more than the amount of the good just to make a transfer. If that were the case, I would opt for other payment methods.
Unless you're only paying a few cents for what you're buying or you're paying from an exchange, this shouldn't be true. Fees have been low for a while now. That being said, it could change in a hurry, which brings us to another problem: scalability. Let's hope the Lightning Network can address it. |
|
|
|
and so if there's really a possibility to find other trusted places making the same services would you please suggest !?
It depends by what you mean by trusted. There are some places that actually offer "legit" accounts that actually contain the balance advertised, but you have to keep in mind that all of these accounts are compromised one way or another. Using the balance may come with legal repercussions. People typically use Bitcoin or other crypto in some capacity to help "wash" the funds, but it's always risky. I would highly recommend that you stay away from this. |
|
|
|
|
It's probably because they want their transactions confirmed as soon as possible. Having coins stuck in limbo is not fun, and I would assume their support gets swamped when it happens. The faster transactions confirm, the less time there is for complications to arise.
I don't know what fee is considered normal for Ethereum so I can't comment on that specifically, but exchanges typically charge more than the recommended fee.
|
|
|
|
|
Buying when the price is sliding is risky because you have no idea when it'll bottom out. Buying while the price is growing is also risky, because you have no idea when it'll reach its peak. It's hard to say which is more likely, but if the price is surging, then people are buying. It should be safe to assume that people are most likely to buy if a) there are signs of growth and b) the price is relatively low compared to recent ATHs. Buying the dip is a popular mantra, but actually takes balls of steel to practice.
|
|
|
|
Is this the beginning to regulate exchanges of Bitcoin or the market will continue to be decentralized?
They're forming a self-regulatory body, so it has nothing to do with government regulation and policy. They really only just follow their own rules on top of the government's, so if anything, this is a step towards centralization. Moves like this also tend to hurt competition and ultimately customers, so I hope other major exchanges don't follow suit. |
|
|
|
There's an exchange named Robinhood which recently gained more than 1 million traders after it announced support for crypto currencies. Awhile ago coinbase added more than 100,000 new accounts in a single day. We have statistics that say the number of total crypto users doubles every 16 months. There are plenty of positives to focus on. Yet somehow people fixate and can only talk about "volatility". I don't get it.
More users doesn't necessarily mean cryptos are thriving as a currency though. Lots of these users talk about HODLing and investing, which doesn't help their case as a currency. But yeah, I don't get the whole drama surrounding it either. Why can't it be both? Users can use them for whatever they wish, and they seem to work well enough to attract new people every day anyway. They can grow in value, making them a good asset, and they're easy to transfer and split, making them ideal as a currency in the most basic sense. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
