Unfortunately, I must inform you that Bitfinex is no longer in a position to do business with you. This should not be taken as a reflection of any particular business that you may undertake or your fitness to do business with any other digital token platform or, indeed, any other counter-party. Regrettably, furthering this business relationship is not consistent with our terms of service and outside of Bitfinex's risk appetite at this time.
Accordingly, please remove all property that you have on the platform in the form of Bitcoin (BTC), if any, within 3 Days. In 3 days, Bitfinex will permanently suspend your trading and withdrawal privileges. The current restrictions on your account are being manually removed in order for you to meet this request, so please allow up to 24 hours for those restrictions to be disabled before expecting your withdrawal request to be processed.
bitfinex is disappointing on many levels but at the end of the day, they at least usually prove to be honorable. i'm glad to hear you're getting your money back. you certainly aren't the first to get your account closed like this. they've been ramping up account terminations for the past year or two---as have many other exchanges. something about the "risk-based approach" to AML/CFT required by various laws where they operate. http://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/Risk-Based-Approach-Banking-Sector.pdf |
|
|
|
Malta looks set to lead Europe as the continent goes into its seventh consecutive year of economic growth. The island’s economy is forecast to expand by 4.2 percent over the course of 2020, driven, in part, by its embrace of blockchain technology. we'll see if those projections hold up over time. the whole "blockchain island" narrative seems to be falling apart: -bittrex just ceased their maltese operation and launched a new exchange in liechtenstein. -in september, 11 months after moving to malta, zebpay left for australia. -in august, coinone's malta-based exchange CGEX shut down after less than a year in operation. -there have even been rumors circulating since february or march that binance is planning to leave malta: https://lovinmalta.com/news/crypto-giant-binance-denies-plan-to-quit-malta-we-will-continue-to-fully-support-blockchain-islandmalta's financial authority seems to be clamping down hard on crypto platforms, and maltese banks are making it very difficult for them to obtain bank accounts. https://news.bitcoin.com/malta-might-be-blockchain-island-but-dont-try-opening-a-crypto-bank-account/if these increased growth projections are based partly on crypto platforms, the numbers will probably be revised downward next year. |
|
|
|
If some of TDAmeritrade's users really wanted to trade or invest in bitcoin, I'd assume they'd do it on exchanges that are already available to them.
well that's the thing---TDAmeritrade's clients are mainstream retail investors, not bitcoin early adopters. they don't necessarily want to invest in bitcoin yet. i think there's lot of nocoiners out there who are waiting until bitcoin is offered on more established and reputable retail venues like this before even considering investment. up until now, there has only been futures, options, pink sheets, and largely unregulated spot exchanges, none of which appeal to mainstream retail investors. the availability of spot trading through mainstream brokers (if not ETFs) will make a big difference during the next bubble, when the market enters the public mania phase. |
|
|
|
I see the rise to 13k/14k as being completely unsupported by search trends and thus actual public interest in bitcoin. why would you expect search trends to be booming already? public interest spikes during the parabolic mania phase of the bubble/bull cycle:  i don't think the market is anywhere near that point. in the above example, the $14k run is more comparable to the "take off" phase and the june-october correction was the "first selloff/bear trap". the public hasn't really taken notice yet. and they hadn't taken notice after the initial "take off" in october-november 2015 either. the public is always late to the party---they are the late adopters, not the smart money or early adopters. |
|
|
|
Tether is a great excuse for no-coiners. They come up with this story from time to time under the false perception that there is no actual demand.
Totally flawed and suspicious as a statement. yep, it's just a rinse/repeat of the willy bot FUD. "mt gox faked the price, nobody really wanted to buy $1200 bitcoins!" i hate agreeing with tether because their responses in these situations are always so overly defensive and unprofessional sounding. but there's no doubt this study in particular is a total crock of shit. this article picks the study apart fairly well:According to Jeremy Allaire, Co-founder and CEO of Circle, the Tether study makes the mistake of attributing a custodial account address to a single trader (although the authors maintain that this is an individual deposit address). Exchanges pool customer funds into a single wallet before netting and batching transactions with partner institutions; traditional banks do the same. A single Bitfinex wallet could easily represent the aggregate trades of many customers. The authors also examine the top 1% of hours with the highest Tether issuances, and find that these issuances were typically preceded by a falling Bitcoin price. They suggest that Tethers were issued to provide artificial price support. 1 While the issuances do seem auspiciously timed, it may simply be that Tethers are issued in response to user demand. Kraken, another cryptocurrency exchange, has previously noted 2 that Tether issuances positively correlate with their own cash deposits. Every Tether issuance is publicly reported on the blockchain, and traders use bots to algorithmically trade on this information. No surprise that Tether issuance can amplify demand for Bitcoin. There may be a confounding factor. In late 2017, the Chinese government imposed a ban on cryptocurrency exchanges. According to a report from research firm Chainalysis, traders in China exchanged large volumes of yuan for Bitcoin after learning of the impending ban. Once the ban was in effect, the traders had no way to trade crypto back to yuan, so they shifted to using Tethers on overseas exchanges as a substitute for fiat currency (after all, the yuan is roughly pegged to the dollar). A more recent study found that Tether was used in 99% of Bitcoin spot trades in China this year, accounting for 60% of all on-chain transaction value. Tether may even have a use case beyond speculation. Chinese importers in Russia reportedly buy tens of millions worth of Tether each day to send remittances back to China. The U.S. has threatened to ban Russia from the Swift international payment network, and Tether offers a sanctions-resistant alternative without the volatility of Bitcoin. Another study using data from the same period finds that Tether issuance has no statistically significant impact on bitcoin price – the amount of Tether printed at any one time is dwarfed by amount being actively traded – although the data granularity is coarser than the University of Texas study. |
|
|
|
Overall, do people here really care much if Libra never gets to launch? I don't think they do, especially with how most people have a similar thinking about the importance of decentralization.
personally, i'd hate to see libra launch. it would be like satoshi said about wikileaks: WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet's nest, and the swarm is headed towards us.
they've already triggered enough regulator attention just talking about launching. i'm really not sure how much we could expect libra to affect adoption/price either. how would it drive bitcoin adoption? almost everybody has already heard of bitcoin already so i doubt the awareness factor matters much. will there be in-wallet cryptocurrency exchange capabilities? that seems doubtful too. |
|
|
|
I haven't seen gold as a safe haven, ever. It's an asset that's based on speculation mostly with how +80% of its daily volumes are derivatives people trade. If people really cared about gold they would buy and hold it physically.
Yes, it has been around for thousands of years where people used it as money, but that still doesn't mean it has to go up in value continuously, especially with how the supply isn't limited at all.
People tend to refer to gold as deflationary currency, but that's not the case.... another thing is that gold doesn't lose its utility, which means that the gold coins or items of thousands of years ago can be put back in circulation today by melting them.
gold's supply is limited. it just doesn't have a hard cap on supply. bitcoin was really the first asset in history with that attribute. but right now bitcoin is actually quite inflationary. its stock-to-flow ratio will still be lower than gold after the next halving, which suggests to me that its price is more so driven by speculation than limited money supply.  |
|
|
|
I am bumping this.
The price did not follow this prediction, even though the trend looks kind of accurate but we weren't even close to the called prices that I am quoting, therefore how to believe the 2483 price? it's just based on an extrapolation of the 2014 bear market. we can already see the proportions don't align, so we should also expect that the end target will miss too. based on fibonacci relationships, one would expect that the higher the "bull trap" retracement is, the higher the eventual bottom will be. that's the fundamental idea behind "flat" waves in elliott wave theory: https://school.stockcharts.com/doku.php?id=market_analysis:identifying_elliott_wave_patterns#flat_correctionswe didn't quite reach the 70% retracement requirement for a flat, but pretty close. i previously thought the $2483 prediction was too high given the predicted price structure, but it might actually be more reasonable now. i still think he's way off and that the $14k rally this year wasn't a bull trap.... |
|
|
|
How does it work:
- Retrieves data from exchange
- Stores data and computes stats (we will ad more over time through the sub account @RektIndex_Stats)
- Triggers a tweet when a defined price threshold hits within a defined timer. Currently $5,000,000 and 30 minutes.(Threshold and timeframe are shown in the bio. It is obviously submitted to change as we add more exchanges)
- Liquidations are aggregated accross all (supported) markets, prices shown are averaged accross markets (currently bitmex)It means that we can reach the threshold with only small liquidations.
In which case it will most often not trigger any tweet because it would have taken more than 30mn to reach $5m.
Basically no "under the radar" small batches of liquidations gets away from it. Everything counts. great idea. i hate whalecalls---it's just a never ending stream of mostly useless spam. there's no curation of the data whatsoever. i can already tell by looking at the last several hours of feed that this will be much more useful. followed and shared! |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not depending on china... imagine the following: if the president of china said: "from today bitcoin will be legal in china, all people in china can buy and sell bitcoin without problems, all exchanges can go back to china ..." what do you think would happen? the price of bitcoin would go up a lot and the price of many altcoins like Neo would go up a lot, this news from the president of china about the blockchain was the catalyst for the big sudden price increase ... bummer if true, because president xi's comments have nothing to do with bitcoin IMO. xi is undoing much of china's pro-market reforms from the 70s and 80s. he's also creating a cult of personality. all signs point away from free markets and free movement of capital and towards a return to communism. given this, i think people are reading way too much into his comments. the central bank is launching a centralized digital currency so they can control and surveil the finances of chinese citizens much more easily. that's all. |
|
|
|
As far as I know, the receiver cant get tricked assuming: - The receiver has had his bitcoin address ready(probably pre-copied address to his notes app, or a screenshotted QR code)
- The receiver is viewing his bitcoin address through a reputable and untampered app(Mycelium, Electrum, etc)
a sybil attack is theoretically possible. if the sender sets up lots of malicious nodes (or electrum servers), the receiver might connect to them and become separated from the honest network. this opens them up to double spending, de-anonymization, and DOS attacks. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Sybil_attackI was thinking about the receiver that is using bitcoin-qt wallet.
So if he connects to the forked BTC blockchain he'll download wrong blocks then the sender will send him BTC, a valid transaction on the forked blockchain, and then the receiver will go home, connect to the right blockchain and see the transaction has never occurred.
the attack is theoretically possible but extremely unlikely because it requires mining blocks at the current difficulty level. |
|
|
|
that was my initial reaction, but it's not really that bad.
when a hard fork occurs, no markets exist for the forked asset yet, so the fair market value is zero. that means there is no taxable income at the time of receipt. down the road if you sell, the entire realized sale would be considered a capital gain.
I wonder how would it be treated if futures of a soon-to-be hardforked coin were to be actively traded somewhere. Would that change things? i've thought about that. tbh i don't think it changes the analysis. okcoin and viabtc had bitcoin cash futures before the fork. bitfinex had chain split tokens too. the thing is, these instruments were contracts---not the forked tokens themselves. price discovery for actual bitcoin cash didn't occur until after it existed, by definition. futures contracts are pricing in all contingencies---including the fork never even occurring (like segwit2x chain split tokens)---which is fundamentally different than if the forked asset existed. anyway, i sure hope that's the correct take, because there's no way in hell i'm amending my past returns and paying back taxes based on bitfinex chain split token prices! |
|
|
|
Uh oh! Illegally removed? I don't know about this guys, but is this really true? I know that it's common to have "corporate issues" in any company like Bitmain. They're doing very well, especially that their revenue is so huge last 2017. The former co-founder of Bitmain, Micree Zhan, claims that he was being removed as the CEO without prior consent. this time last year, a similar story emerged where it was jihan wu who had reportedly been ousted from bitmain's board of executives and demoted to a "supervisor" position: https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitmain-co-founder-jihan-wu-loses-executive-power-in-board-reshuffle-says-chinese-mediaa few days later bitmain denied the reports, claiming that the board reshuffle merely regarded a subsidiary company, not bitmain itself: https://www.coindesk.com/bitmain-denies-reports-that-ceo-jihan-wu-was-ousted-from-its-boardso i'm curious to see how this all pans out. based on what micree zhan is saying, this story does sound a bit more serious/real than the one last year: “I have never thought that as a person focusing on technology and product, I have to start thinking from legal perspectives. It was embarrassing that as a Bitmain co-founder, the biggest shareholder, and a registered legal representative, I got ousted without any knowledge in this coup while on a business trip,” he wrote, adding:
“I didn’t realize until then that those scenes in TV shows, where you get stabbed on your back by those partners you trusted and ‘brothers’ you fought together with, can really happen in real life.” |
|
|
|
The plaintiff is claiming he lost $118,100 through his XRP investment, according to an August filing. caveat emptor.he waited for his investment to be worthless and now he's got buyer's remorse. here's some advice: next time, don't buy the top and baghold until the bottom. these are altcoins we're talking about, lol. i have a difficult time sympathizing with reckless investors looking to the state for bailouts. 'In a suit, the plaintiff accused the company of breaching securities guidelines by issuing XRP monthly in sales to the public with promises of gain.'
Is there any truth to that? If that's declared to be the case then they're in for quite the ride. i don't pay particular attention to ripple, but i've kept a loose eye on it ever since 2013 and i read the headlines. i would be very surprised if they ever explicitly promised returns on XRP investment. like BNB/binance though, ripple labs' actions do imply returns, and i'm not sure where the SEC stands on that. it doesn't look like we're gonna get any resolution on the question anyway: While the complaint alleged that the cryptocurrency XRP is a security, it is unlikely that this question will be resolved during the ongoing proceedings, according to legal experts. |
|
|
|
With little financial resources you can get the price in Argentina to break the $20,000 all time high in a minute. Thin orderbooks and massive spreads are the cause of these premiums, nothing else, premiums that market makers happily exploit; they let you sell into their low buy order, and let others buy these coins much higher up. Very common tactic in any illiquid market.
if the premium were sustained across all exchanges, it would be notable. according to the article, only one of the exchanges has this massive premium: Bitcoin price on one of the country’s local exchanges is currently trading at a 25 percent premium. that usually indicates problems with the exchange, not increasing nationwide demand. the largest argentinian exchange isn't even listed on CMC so i have no basis for comparison. if ripio customers aren't experiencing fiat withdrawal delays, i would guess this was just a temporary spike due to lack of liquidity. |
|
|
|
I heard similar rumors about the 2013 bull run as well (when the exchange rates went up from $5 to $1261). But back then it was more believable. The accusation was that Mt Gox rigged the exchange rates and this caused the Bitcoin prices to rally. Back then there were only a few exchanges operating, so there is a chance for that happening. But how can this be possible in 2017, when there were hundreds (if not thousands) of exchanges. Is it possible to manipulate all these exchanges, which are spread out all over the globe?
devil's advocate: hundreds of exchanges list USDT pairs. in fact for most of them, these are the only liquid "fiat" pairs. bots/algorithms respond to price moves at bitfinex and the biggest USDT markets like binance because from a volume/arbitrage perspective they should have a significant influence over the market. USDT's daily volume ($27 billion in the last 24 hours) surpasses that of BTC so it certainly can't be ignored. tether is effectively one of the world's largest exchanges so it should greatly affect price. that's still a far cry from claims about "manipulation" though. if that's the standard being set, then every asset on earth is manipulated. the only evidence being presented here is this: 1. someone tried to buy a lot of bitcoins via tether 2. this created a situation where demand outweighed supply 3. the price of bitcoins went up afterwards it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why price went up. for university professors, these guys seem pretty retarded. |
|
|
|
Here's the source link for the full newsHello everyone, especially US crypto community! I have a question for you all! Do you honestly think that cryptocurrencies are considered to be a threat to the US Homeland Security? Do you agree about the statements of both US senator Mitt Romney and FBI director Christopher Wray? Is it going to slightly affect the US crypto market in the future? it's a threat insofar as terrorist financing is a threat. there's no way around it---as cryptocurrency usage becomes more commonplace, terrorists have been increasingly using it: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-bitcoin-jihad-in-syria-and-beyond-tales-of-crypto-currencyit was the same with western union, moneygram, paypal, etc. this isn't really a function of cryptocurrency itself. it's just how adoption of payment rails works. criminals and terrorists will use whatever works, and bitcoin works because it doesn't censor them. |
|
|
|
The most frustrating thing is the liquidity aspect. If you follow their guidelines to the letter, then a single overpriced trade at 0.00000001 BTC volume could result in billions of dollars in tax liability across the market. It's completely absurd. that was my initial reaction, but it's not really that bad. when a hard fork occurs, no markets exist for the forked asset yet, so the fair market value is zero. that means there is no taxable income at the time of receipt. down the road if you sell, the entire realized sale would be considered a capital gain. |
|
|
|
That's insane to owe tax on unrealized profit. it's not really unrealized profit though. in the above example, you started with 10000 USD, but then you put 15000 USD worth of capital into the altcoin trade. how could you do that without realizing any profit? i wish altcoin trades were tax exempt like-kind exchanges but the tax code says they explicitly aren't. It basically makes it impossible to make money trading unless you immediately cash all profits out to fiat. Otherwise you could end up owing tax when BTC was at a way higher mark than you could currently cash out to pay the tax you owe. that shouldn't really matter because it means you are sitting on massive unrealized losses on your BTC holdings. you could offset your tax liabilities by realizing some/all of those losses in the same tax year. in fact, this may be an underlying reason why BTC crashed in december 2013 and december 2017, the last two bubbles. best to plan for taxes on an ongoing basis throughout the tax year. if it's an afterthought at the end of the year or the following april, it can be a real headache. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
