Maybe DeFI's prestige is booming right now, but I saw from the beginning that Lend was consistent and the price was maintained and kept going up. Based on Coinmarketcap, Aave's ROI of 1,279.95% shows good growth from this token, so it's not just because of DeFi's prestige now but Lend is indeed a good project
ROI doesn't make for a good project. BitConnect had a "maintained" price that "kept going up", yet it's right now buried deep in the ground. There are some completely crappy coins that have a wild ROI, yet that doesn't make them better in any way besides the financial benefit. DeFis will die off just the same way tokens did, so did ETH itself. So I'd personally not put my trust in them for now - give them a few more years and see if people are still going to care about them, because my gut feeling says we'll have a deja-vu.. same thing that happened to ICOs (the hatred and all the scams/shitcoins) will probably happen to these as well. |
|
|
|
a rally is when the price goes up naturally in a healthy market due to adoption and as the result it stays up. i don't think we had any altcoin rallies ever, not just in the past 2 years. what altcoins had in the entire history of cryptocurrency market has been pump and dumps. the 2017 pumps are the best recent examples you can think of.
I guess you could also call these sucker rallies: A Sucker's Rally is temporary price rise in an individual stock or the market at large. This rise will continue just long enough for "suckers" to jump on board, and soon after the stock or market declines (or falls sharply). Most altcoins have been this way because time has proven how useless they are. No matter how much one team was able to update & improve an alt, Bitcoin always came back with a big counterpunch. I am still holding some alts myself, but while I use my Bitcoin wallets quite often, I haven't opened the wallets of my alts in years. Anything you do basically sends you back to the king  |
|
|
|
First and foremost, thank you all for replying with your sincere opinions. 1. Mix a good chunk(but not 100%) of the coins I own.
2. Send the mixed coins(on different batches) on some addresses that I own, probably more than 10 times(preferably around 25 just to be sure).
Yeah, this is definitely a good idea. I might spare some money on these txs just to hop my mixed BTC from one address to another until it gets exhaustive and quite hard to keep up with its trace. Unless I had a gaping security hole from leaving my coins unimxed I definitely would not mix them. We've no idea how uptight third party services will get about it in future, how good the tracking tools around at present really are and there may well be much better options to add privacy in future as well.
If there was a deeply pressing need to do it then doing it now rather than later at least looks less fishy a few years down the line.
I might have a few privacy/security holes if I take an in-depth look at the history of my coins as I had zero idea about any privacy issues back when I started with crypto, so I'd rather mix them up. I agree though that future is quite uncertain so it might be a mistake to mix my coins right now. This is by no means unique to cryptocurrency. Everything from using Tor to having to root your own phone to be able to turn off some of the telemetry and tracking, it is time consuming and often difficult to maintain your privacy, and this is by no means accidental.
At some point, near enough every bitcoin in circulation will have been mixed/coinjoined/payjoined/something else at some point in its history. You can't ban every bitcoin, so how far back do you look? 5 transactions? 10? 20? So all I need to do is bounce my bitcoin through n+1 transactions and now they are "clean" again? It's an untenable position for the exchanges to hold.
Agreed. Yeah, never thought that at one point all BTC will undergo a "privacy-improving process", especially as some of those willing to do so may be trying to evade taxes/charges, which means they probably have a quite impressive stash to mix. I agree, but they are usually much safer. In some exchanges like bitstamp, Kraken, coinbase, I can trust that I will be able to buy/sell 2-3 bitcoin easily, with safety.
I don't know if I would trust some random guy in the internet with such amount.
I get your point but I still do not trust them. I barely trust sending $10 to an exchange at this point, as I'm just sick of their procedures. The fact that you cannot trade on a website without having the ensurance that your money will still be yours afterwards is annoying as hell. I'd rather find other ways to trade and accept stupid mistakes I may make than ever use them again. |
|
|
|
It's been months since I started contemplating improving the anonymity/privacy of my coins. There's just one fear I keep having though, which is.. say I CoinJoin my coins a few times and then go through a mixer as well. 5 years later I want to sell my mixed coins - will I not get in trouble with the authorities? It starts to feel more and more like the further you want to improve your privacy these days, the bigger of an enemy of the State you become. With all the crypto-related stuff that has been pushed in the last few years, it gets to the point where I think that in a matter of years mixing your coins will put you somewhere on the government's blacklist - in fact, it already got to that point in some areas of the crypto sphere such as exchanges not accepting XMR anymore or blocking/seizing your funds because they found out your BTC went through some mixer beforehand. So my fear isn't far-fetched, is it? Therefore, while I would love to go ahead and mix the heck out of my coins just so that it becomes a big headache for and almost impossible for the government to keep up with my coins' track, there's this fear I'm having that mixing my coins now may turn into a big headache for me in the end as I might have to answer some questions I will literally have no answers for. I can't imagine myself being able to prove for example where my coins actually came from in a matter of years if some authorities ever ask me to do so - if you asked me right now to show you all the wallets I've ever used, I'd probably send you to my local junkyard to find my shredded/burnt paper wallets and put all them pieces back together because all that's where all my previous wallets are, lol. So what do you think, is it worth it to use mixers or could I get into a bigger trouble in the end? |
|
|
|
They usually seize it if they can, and after a while organize an auction. If the said BTC has been proven to be used in criminal activity, there's a high chance they'll seize it. But then you have Bulgaria who owns a massive stash of more than 1% of the existing BTC and hasn't sold/auctioned it yet. These Bitcoins have been seized as well. Guess each government has their own plan - although the fact that more than 1% of existing BTC is in the hands of Bulgarian government is kinda worrying to say the least. |
|
|
|
I don't have much money on my crypto waller account so I don't care much about security and privacy, that's me before but I realized that it is not good for me as a bitcoin, I should secure well my account even though it has no huge amount of money because there would be a possibility that hackers can still steal target you and will steal your money. but if I will have a huge amount of money, I will really need privacy and security, hackers always want huge money, they are common targets those people with huge money on their account knowing that they will make kore money compared to others.
Hackers probably care less about your privacy exposure than your government does at this point. If there was an entity to fear more between the two, I'd choose the government tbh. Why? Because they're legally getting into your personal life using various silly excuses +80% of the people fall for. You should hide your identity from anyone no matter what. It's something you should have under control. If I rewind back to 2013, I remember a LOT of people talking about how much financial freedom and privacy Bitcoin gives and how bad that is for the authorities. Where are the same people now? Because at this point it seems like they only stated these things in order to create more FOMO so their own wallet's value would grow.. |
|
|
|
I think you are being incredibly generous. I'd put that figure at well over 90%.
I'd rather still have a little hope that it's not that bad yet.  Most people do not care about their privacy, like, at all.
Well, they have nothing to hide, do they?  Yup. And it's not just exchanges either, although pretty much every centralized exchange is becoming more like a fiat bank as time goes on. The biggest payment processor - BitPay - is also thoroughly anti-bitcoin, pro-KYC, privacy invading, etc. The most commonly used wallets - Blockchain.com, Coinbase, Coinomi, Trust wallet, coins.ph - are either custodial, closed source, or both. Even the majority of altcoins in existence are centralized scams.
I always thought that's why Bitcoin was so rejected by most governments and companies at first while now they seem to be the friendliest. The dots don't connect anymore, it's like they've all magically changed and suddenly want to support us. It started to be obvious that this is their current strategy of fighting Bitcoin: taking it over in terms of privacy and financial freedom, and people don't give a damn and still look up to so-called "partnerships" with PayPal and so on as if we're heading towards a good path. My friends are "buying" Bitcoin through Revolut now, they say it's much easier than having to learn everything about wallet creation and how the system works - and this is how the average person thinks. All of the above only further confirms the fear I expressed months ago in a quite desperate attempt to open at least a few minds. A quote from my post that perfectly fits this thread: (..) From the idea that Bitcoin could turn the economical and governmental systems of the world upside down, today I see it as nothing else but an obstacle the governments overcame long ago and for which they surely have a plan of attack so that it would never be a threat for them be it in the present or short and long term future.
(..) today we have laws that appear as if they are opposing more and more the fundamental ideas of cryptocurrencies - almost as if the intention behind these regulations was to destroy them while using this entire time the "cryptocurrencies are used in criminal activities" excuse.
This has changed, in my opinion, Bitcoin's destiny. (..) today I feel taken over by the world governments' regulations that ruthlessly entered my personal, private life.
The so-called "support" of cryptocurrencies by the states has proven, in my opinion, to be exactly the opposite. To be more precise, "sustaining" them has led to the resistance in front of genius Satoshi Nakamoto's essential ideas he began with. (..)
|
|
|
|
|
As far as I know, you cannot fake a "wallet.dat" file. The closest thing one can (probably) do is running a Bitcoin network from zero on a local network of offline PCs and mining it using them, basically simulating the creation of BTC. (edit: seems like I was wrong, read reply below)
Anyway, besides using this for educational reasons I don't think your question serves any purpose besides trying to find a way to scam others. No, Bitcoin cannot be faked.
|
|
|
|
The typical problem humans have when they are able to build something big: hunger for control and power. I am having the same concerns regarding Binance as well. The fact that CZ is expanding so widely and at such a fast pace puts his entire holding and true interest under a big question mark for me: What happens if the government wants give him a very good offer in the exchange of everything he holds about his customers?And this is not even the worst part: if there was to be an "internet war" between choosing Coinbase/Binance and Bisq to survive and evolve, I'd bet +60% of the people would choose the former. It's one of the first names you hear about when you create a wallet. I had a Coinbase wallet with a balance on it back in 2013-2014 and if I now try entering my wallet they forcefully ask me for the nonsense KYC - as if that'd prove the fact that the guy in my pictures is the same guy who created that wallet 7 years ago. This isn't something very new - Amazon has filed a patent more than half a decade ago to help with the identification of BTC users. These news come slowly every now and then, but if you take a piece of paper and put all these things on it you'd find out probably two thirds of the entire currently existing Blockchain industry is against Bitcoin's fundamental ideas. |
|
|
|
The human mind will work the same way whether we're talking about Gold, BTC, S&P or anything else. When something happens at a global scale, all of them will be affected. I feel like all these correlations are irrelevant in the end, because they are correlated until they aren't anymore - but nobody writes an article talking about that. If that's the case, then let's also use the meat stocks and BTC correlation CCN wrote about a few months ago. Funny how nowadays so many people look for literally any link between BTC and anything else. Bitcoin is independent, but does anyone really think that a globally-affected event wouldn't push/pull its price? Independent =/= outside of this Universe. |
|
|
|
But lets assume there is a "naked" market in an exchange for ETH. The price everywhere else is $250 and my bot puts up ETH to sell for $25 in this naked market, because I missed a zero there maybe. Would you buy them ?
There have been instances where people have missed/misplaced a zero (or multiple zeros) and got wrecked because of it, so it's not necessarily something to happen only in naked markets. I don't think you can blame someone for exploiting/scamming you because you have missed a zero though. That's like buying a lambo or a house from someone for 10x cheaper and being blamed for exploiting/scamming that person. You listed the coin, I wanted it. What should I be blamed for? According to first quote, you are exploiting/scamming (me), since you "consciously take advantage" of an obvious mistake - whether it's software based or manual misclick doesn't matter here imo. According to second quote, it's my fault and ok to buy them.
There's a quite big difference between purchasing something cheaper than it was supposed to be and finding a website bug/glitch & using it to take money that isn't yours out of a website. |
|
|
|
It's a very subjective thing. 1) Lets start with a simple example, a football match, which is offered by every bookmaker you can imagine. There is breaking news, that team A will miss a lot of their players due to a flu. Odds are dropping like crazy in all bookmakers, but there is one bookmaker that is slow and has bad software. While all bookmakers only offer 1.40-ish for team B anymore, that bookmaker still has the initial 2.00 for them. Is it ok to bet on this 2.00 ? What if a bookmaker is constantly slow with adjusting odds and you could regularly do it ? Not for 2.00 -> 1.40, but maybe 2.00 -> 1.80.
In my opinion, this is not a scam nor can it necessarily be called exploiting unless you know it's a software issue and are intentionally using it to your own advantage instead of contacting the casino about it. I don't think it'd be right for me to call you a criminal for doing something you had no idea of. If Amazon lists a $1k item for $10 by mistake, it's not my fault for ordering it. In fact, Amazon has had such glitches before and admitted it was their mistake, proceeding with the delivery of the very cheap items. So in this case, it is the casino's fault. 2) By accident you discover that a bookmaker allows to parlay 1X2 and Asian Handicap market, which is of course a software issue. So you could parlay home win with AHC -0.5 for all kind of matches, which will give you good value odds. Is it ok to parlay these two dependant bets ?
I believe this is exploiting, although I am not 100% sure what this scenario is about. Is it ok to take advantage of this software issue in general ? For $20 ? For $500k ? (Leave aside the fact, that LAngel played with "cheated" money).
No. Consciously taking advantage of a software issue is exploiting and scamming at the same time. 4) Lets say I have a trading bot (in betting or crypto exchange) and this bot goes wild due to misprogramming and I lose loads of money. Are all these users filling my orders scammers, when it's obvious that these prices are wrong ?
It's your fault. The buyers have no idea whether you wanted to sell your funds cheap or not and it's not their fault that you have misprogrammed that thing. Take it from another perspective: You go to an exchange and accidentally sell your ETH at $25 instead of $250. You clicked that Sell button yourself - is it your fault or is it those who bought your ETH so cheap to blame? Where does an exploit start and a scam begin ?
An exploit begins when you consciously take advantage of something at one point and the scam begins when that "something" starts turning into a loss from your actions. Example: say Facebook has a limit of liking 100 posts per hour. You somehow manage to get unlimited likes and like 10k for 10 hours straight. Facebook's servers are very strong and could handle your actions, but what if you find a glitch in a casino and can withdraw as much money as you want from it without having to deposit, so you take advantage of it and start withdrawing thousands of USD that isn't yours? The casino will start losing money because of you. That's scamming. |
|
|
|
|
Chances of him not winning are as high as the chances of being told Bitcoin is a currency used on the dark web/for criminal activity when asking a random stranger to define it.
Even if Brock would win, there'd be no crypto-wise significant change as in BTC becoming the national currency or something as a lot of people think & hope for. The only change might be weakened restrictions & regulations, but then we'll have "experts" calling out the "consequences" of these actions (terrorism on the rise and all that BS) so it'd all be for nothing.
Having Bitcoin as a mandatory payment system isn't realistic either, but BTC as national currency would be a massive mess. We shouldn't mess up national currencies with a decentralized system. These two don't go together, and the massive number of people thinking BTC is the wet dream of criminals doesn't help at all.
And everything aside, does anyone even know anything about this guy? It gives me the feeling that he's only running for presidency because he sees a potential in profiting off the "pro-bitcoin" status he has.
|
|
|
|
|
I have used Ethereum for a while and never have I touched a smart contract in my life. If there'll ever be demand for Bitcoin smart contracts, they'll exist - but for now, I don't think there is enough demand yet. Most shitcoins advertise themselves by talking about "smart contracts" just to bait newcomers, when in fact these contracts aren't even really used much.
|
|
|
|
While I initially had just paper wallets and a seed in one of my notebooks, the more I tried to follow better and stronger security, the less the chances are that my relatives would ever be able to recover my coins for I die. This is probably one of the biggest flaws yet most amazing things Bitcoin has: you can literally have all your money inside your brain. If I had to make some very well hidden and encrypted wallets and store all my funds there, what are the chances my relatives would find my wallets and know where to get my passwords from? The idea of making some "inheritance" feature is not going to work though. Not with Bitcoin - what's yours shall stay yours. A bank deposit box is, quite frankly, a good idea although it sounds a little bit awkward considering that Bitcoin is trying to empower every single individual to be his/her own bank. But why not? Admittedly, humans are poor safe-keepers. Until and unless they learn to grow responsible over their private keys, seeds, PINs, or even their funds themselves, a bank sounds a nice option.
I find it silly that people pay other entities to store their values. Poor safe-keeping comes mostly from laziness as most people do not research properly. Storing your Bitcoins in a bank safe makes no sense imo. You have a coin that is decentralized and are adding a third party into the game. Why live with the constant stress of having your money stolen/seized when you could simply store it properly somewhere? Do you trust the bank more than you trust yourself? Because I'd be constantly terrorized by the thoughts that some authority may find my seed out and consider the fact that I own Bitcoin a suspicious thing, or the idea that the people working at the safe may not be the best willing ones. |
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't put bounty hunters & spammers in the same pool with scammers. I would expect very new members to believe BitcoinTalk is a literal job and a way to get a Bitcoin in no time, just as I probably thought when I first registered on here. Even for older bounty hunters the reason why they aren't seen as normal/good members on here is still a question mark.
There are some unwritten "rules" of being accepted in this community as a good member, such as having to read at least a part of the replies before actually replying to the thread. Many members expect that. I bet a lot of the newbies don't even read OPs besides the title, let alone all the other replies to know what's been said yet and what hasn't. This is something even I had an issue with for a long time.
Guess it all goes down to the way each member spends their time on here. If one spends most of their time truly interested in replying to others and actively participating in the forum, they'll be seen as a "good member". I don't mind someone desperately looking for more and more bounties unless they literally throw their shitposts everywhere and fill up the forum with nonsense.
|
|
|
|
As ever these things are nothing more than Paypal with extra paranoia and desperation to yield to The Man. There'll be plenty more of this in future.
At least with PayPal you have reliable support, you are quite sure your $1 will still be worth $1 tomorrow and can solve any issue way faster. Have problems with a cryptocurrency? Good luck getting out of your own sh*t fast enough without having to be considered some sort of criminal by the authorities. Only few days ago did I say over here that stablecoins may be good short-term "safezones" for Bitcoin parabolic changes. I'm now taking back my own words. Better have a 30% overnight paper loss than have 100% of your balance frozen and blacklisted. |
|
|
|
|
This has been under debate ever since Bitcoin's existence.
Just give it time and it'll tell you 100% whether it's a safe haven asset or not. It truly and completely depends on you as a Bitcoin holder whether you consider it yourself one or not as well. One of the ways we influence price is through buying & selling, right?
If enough people considered it's the perfect safe haven asset, they'd make moves on the market accordingly and Bitcoin would then become a trusted financial asset for difficult times. If enough people think the opposite, it'd not be a safe haven. In time, things will be decided. When hard times come, it's much easier and safer to sell your Bitcoins and buy Gold if you want stability and a 100% safe haven asset. Bitcoin is still a question mark and it's too big of a mark not to be worried in difficult times about its potential and future.
Then you have regulations, which vary widely from one country to another and is under constant change. Gold has a VERY long history of regulations and chances are less to be surprised (negatively) by some new Gold regulations vs by some crypto ones. And then consider volatility - during a difficult time such as a pandemic, what would you rather do:
1. Sell your entire stocks portfolio and buy Gold
2. Sell your entire stocks portfolio and buy Bitcoin
3. Sell your entire stocks portfolio and buy 1/2 Gold, 1/2 Bitcoin
I think I can assure you that no. 1 would be the dominating answer. During such times you want to hold a portfolio that's today valued at $100k and will be $90-110k in the distant future as well, not one that is worth $100k today and might be worth $15k next month.
|
|
|
|
|
I think a large contributor to the success of a casino is also the amount of people who play the said game. For example, you can't start a casino that focuses on Chess game gambling and hope for it to succeed very well.
If I was to be an owner of a casino, I'd start off with a game and make it all catchy: UI, animations, community etc. As soon as I feel like it's time to add another game and if the community wants that to happen, I would do it.
Another way I'd do it is by creating multiple websites so that each of it serves a certain gambling game. For example, I guess "PrimeDice" attracts way more dice players than "BitcoinCasino" does since it has "Dice" in its domain & brand name.
If there was a "PrimeJack" for Blackjack, a "PrimeSlots" for Slots etc I believe it might be easier to attract a wider variety of users than having a general name. Same goes for precious metals. When you want to buy Silver, chances are you'd click a "GoldSilver" domain before/instead of a "MetalShop" website.
|
|
|
|
What's with these threads?
Might be either the typical "ask a question and never come back again" behaviour, or someone with a string of accounts creating new threads whenever they run out of ones to answer to. These kind of posts are always around. Anyway, OP, if you're referring to bumping threads then read this and this. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
