|
In actuality, we don't need to market Bitcoin to anyone. It sells itself to rational people -- "bad money drives out good." The synergy of speculative demand, adoption and limited supply drive the price upwards. As we've seen, that's the biggest advertisement anyone could ask for. The technology learning curve is definitely a hurdle, though. I don't think many grandpas and grandmas are going to be adopting it.
|
|
|
|
Without using any of the tools to obscure internet activity, how are you going to track me in the following situation.
Set up a node using public WiFi, and a copy of the blockchain I've already downloaded.
Receive Bitcoin into that wallet.
Use the Bitcoin to purchase gold coins.
Wipe the hard drive on the computer with the core node.
Let's start with the lowest hanging fruit. Where did you acquire the BTC and gold from? I assume the coins didn't magically appear in your wallet. If you bought the coins from an exchange or ATM, you probably had to give up your identity, or at least some identifying details -- phone number, etc. which can be used to track you down. Even in a pseudonymous P2P cash transaction, you are still usually connecting through a centralized service (e.g. Localbitcoins) who knows certain things about you. And meeting in a public place to exchange cash for coins could potentially expose your identity as well. On the other side, you need to transact with the gold dealer. Many gold dealers require ID even below the $10,000 reporting threshold. There are other more paranoid considerations. You didn't obfuscate IP address. Where are you -- an internet cafe? The transaction is linked to that specific time in that specific internet cafe. Are there cameras? How many potential witnesses?  |
|
|
|
... if it is total ban nation wide.
it is interesting that 4 users already mentioned ban as their "nail in the coffin" i wonder if this is a majority thing since this topic doesn't have that many replies yet. maybe a poll would be nice? i myself don't care about bans. in fact one of the reasons why i am using bitcoin is the fact that nobody can "ban" me from using it. so i don't see how a ban can change my mind. I don't see a ban as the "nail in the coffin" but I wouldn't say I don't care. When it comes to small countries like Algeria, it's insignificant. What about a coordinated ban among world superpowers? How robust is Bitcoin, if major governments start raiding miners and pushing transactions/mining into the black market? What can we do to make it more robust, so that miners and users can safely operate under such conditions? |
|
|
|
Consider Malta's position. It's a tiny island nation with few natural resources. Its economy is totally dependent on human resources and foreign trade. Malta is the top regulator of the global online gaming industry. It represents over 12% of its national economy now. So they have strong incentive to push this narrative -- they want to bring their Igaming regulation model to cryptocurrency exchanges and services. I personally feel they do not care two shits about a comment made by a PM of one of the smallest countries in the world.
Agreed. People are grasping at straws.  |
|
|
|
I'm an American that owns an offshore company located in Chile. I plan on opening a cryptocurrency exchange, but wouldn't have any American customers, I'd also block all US IPs as a precautionary matter. A friend of mine has told me repeatedly that I need to comply with the requirements of FATCA. This can't be correct, is it?
It sounds like you don't have an attorney to research and advise on compliance matters. Seriously, retain a competent law firm before opening a cryptocurrency exchange. You might just dodge a prison sentence. Chile signed an intergovernmental agreement with the US regarding the implementation of FATCA in 2014, so you're officially on the hook for FATCA compliance if you fall under the definition of a "non-US ('foreign') financial institution (FFI)." The point of FATCA is to force foreign banks and other financial institutions to search their records for customers with any indication of 'US-person' status and report them to the US government. In other words, it goes beyond a simple requirement to prohibit US customers. Bitfinex banned US users from its platform, but still mandates tax information for FATCA compliance. |
|
|
|
with broker being taken down by the SEC, do you think binance and bitmex next? For those who don't know, Binance and Bitmex isn't not US friendly. I know Binance had an ICO for their coin and it worries me. Any opnions on this?
It should be noted that the activity 1Broker engaged in is very different than Binance or Bitmex. 1Broker offered off-exchange security-based swaps to US retail investors -- that's illegal on its face. Such instruments need to clear on a U.S. securities exchange, ever since the Dodd-Frank Act came into effect. Binance only offers altcoin trading -- no "financial products." Bitmex changed their terms and prohibited signups and deposits from US IP addresses about 3 years ago. And notably, they only offer cryptocurrency swaps. This may be legally relevant because 1Broker's sister site for Bitcoin futures was left alone by the SEC and CFTC. I can only speculate, but I don't think the CFTC or SEC have a basis for charging Bitmex-style brokers (even if they accept US customers) under the Dodd-Frank Act because there are no "registered national exchanges" for cryptocurrencies. There are registered national exchanges for instruments that traded on 1Broker -- commodities, securities. |
|
|
|
so if the SEC clamp down on this, the rest will follow.  that would be valid if the SEC were seen to be pulling new laws out of their ass. they're not. they're applying laws that have long existed to a bunch of cocky tech assholes who thought they were somehow magically exempt from them. they seem to be shocked when it proves to not be the case. To be honest, I always figured brokers like this were a ticking time bomb since they offer CFDs to US residents. US residents are generally prohibited from trading CFDs through traditional brokers because they violate securities law: U.S. regulations don’t allow retail Americans to trade CFDs
The CFTC and SEC require retail Americans to trade financial products on-exchange. One exception: retail Americans may trade forex off-exchange in the Interbank market, providing it’s with a U.S. registered counterparty including an NFA-registered domestic or foreign Futures Commission Merchant (FCM) or Forex Dealer Member (FDM), or bank registered with a U.S. regulator.
CFDs pose two problems for retail Americans: CFDs are not forex, so the one exception to trading off-exchange products above doesn’t apply, and retail Americans don’t trade CFDs with U.S. registered counterparties. The CFTC considers a CFD contract based on the underlying price of forex, to be a CFD and not a forex contract.
The Dodd-Frank Act requires clearing of swap contracts for retail investors on U.S. exchanges, which means it’s not an off-exchange financial instrument. For example, security-based swaps on Apple equity for retail investors clear on a U.S. securities exchange. 1Broker brokered off-exchange financial instruments to US retail investors. They also never registered as a broker-dealer even though they were arguably dealing in unregistered securities. The government's case is strong. |
|
|
|
That seems like a longshot. I don't see payment processors like Paypal dying out unless BTC actually becomes the predominant unit of account (replacing fiat money), which would imply ubiquitous use as a medium of exchange, not just as an investment asset. For now, not only is Paypal growing, but it's also expanding into other industries like credit card issuance. I think they'll be around for a while. bitbay will eventually reduce the use case for paypal through the DDE their market place provides.. bitcoin can offer lower rates than paypal although it does favour the vendor over the customer to quite a large extent so does not directly rival paypal as yet imho. That's an important point. Merchants need to use what customers want to use. They can't afford to stop accepting Paypal or credit cards in lieu of BTC. Customers can just shop elsewhere where they have consumer protections. |
|
|
|
I am only listing some of the factors that might influence certain age groups to react differently to exposure to Bitcoin marketing. What age group would you say, would be the ideal target market for Bitcoin marketing?
I think it's pretty clear that younger people (millennials and below) are quicker to adopt cryptocurrencies. They have a propensity for new technology -- PC and smartphone adoption was driven by younger generations as well. And they've also come of age in a time when wages are stagnant and costs of living are quickly rising. The realities of inflationary currency and an unsustainable "perpetual growth" economic scheme are beginning to set in. Younger people have much less money to invest, and they also know that the potential payoff from holding cryptocurrencies far surpasses traditional investment assets. |
|
|
|
New competitors are obviously entering the arena, but it's too early to speculate that Squire will be relevant. They only just struck a deal with Gaonchips to start designing the chips last month. When are miners actually going to hit the market? Samsung also may have lots of capacity, but it remains to be seen what kind of scale Squire can actually bring. Their $19.5 million funding round doesn't exactly inspire confidence when compared to a behemoth like Bitmain. |
|
|
|
https://blog.samouraiwallet.com/post/178536644472/09887-welcome-new-international-users-andSamourai wallet is known for its showy moves. In this particular case they've removed your USD or whatever readout and all you'll be fed is the BTC one. Their reasoning is that users need to step beyond thinking in fiat and embrace Bitcoin fully. I think it's cool. I also think it's silly and not very practical. A wallet should facilitate the management of your money and that includes knowing what it's worth at a glance. Are you turned on or genuinely sickened by the idea? Neither. I'm surprised people are talking about it at all. It's not daring or novel. It's sort of adorable that Samourai thinks this will somehow affect the transition to BTC as a unit of account. More likely, they're just trying to draw attention to themselves. It's a gimmick meant to resonate with the "fiat money is collapsing" crowd. |
|
|
|
...
remember rule 2
if its not confirmed on the bitcoin blockchain. its not a bitcoin transaction.
...
Perhaps your rule needs some work. You are saying that all of the transactions in the Bitcoin mempool are not Bitcoin transactions since they are not confirmed. If that is the case, then your definition of "bitcoin transaction" is not very good. I don't know. That's debatable. I mean, what defines "Bitcoin?" If it's the whitepaper, then miner consensus seems central to Bitcoin and therefore Bitcoin transactions. This is what Satoshi once said about unconfirmed transactions: 0/unconfirmed transactions are very much second class citizens. At most, they are advice that something has been received, but counting them as balance or spending them is premature. There are reasons -- perhaps not just practical but also philosophical -- why unconfirmed "BTC" shouldn't be counted as BTC in your wallet. This is one of those "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" sort of problems. If settlement hasn't occurred, has a BTC transaction really taken place? Many transactions are dropped from the mempool and never confirmed. Many transactions aren't propogated to the network at all because of node policy. Surely, when a payment channel is closed and the channel is settled on-chain, a Bitcoin transaction occurs. But everything that happens inside a payment channel? I'm not so sure. |
|
|
|
something people didn't mention (maybe i am making a mistake) is that Satoshi went away near the time when Gavin was asked to go to one of those 3 letter agencies and they asked him some stuff. maybe about Satoshi's identity and about bitcoin so maybe that is the reason why he disappeared. in order to keep his identity private and be safe from harassment of government.
Yeah, I was about to mention that. Gavin talked about it in an interview once: This is quoted from the defunct Bruce Wagner Bitcoin podcast:
Bruce Wagner : When was the last time you chatted to satoshi <laugh>
Gavin Andresen: Um... I haven't had email from satoshi in a couple months actually. The last email I sent him I actually told him I was going to talk at the CIA. So it's possible , that.... that may have um had something to with his deciding So, the timing of Satoshi's disappearance definitely points to that. It may have been the last straw -- an indication that Bitcoin was getting too big for him to remain involved and also keep his identity unknown. |
|
|
|
they simply became the owners of the world, in any corner of the world they put their nose and even do not want to know and respect the laws of other countries. The United States government holds in its hands a great power over this world. Something very dangerous.
Why do you think Bitfinex got rid of Americans? As long as companies explicitly reject American customers they should be OK. 1broker didn't bother so they've arrived at this outcome. That's what it seems like so far, but it's possible they're just been going after the lowest hanging fruit for now -- those that explicitly allow US customers while remaining unregistered as MSB, not doing KYC, etc. It's really easy to trade on Bitfinex or Bitmex from the US with a VPN. That might be relevant in the future, since these cases often seem to hinge on whether agents can successfully "do business" with the defendants from the US. Take this case, for example: The SEC alleges that a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, acting in an undercover capacity, successfully purchased several security-based swaps on 1Broker’s platform from the U.S. despite not meeting the discretionary investment thresholds required by the federal securities laws. |
|
|
|
"someone must make the call"  ... um no. thats the centralised mindset. solution not having a reference client that has a moderation policy and a 3 step judging system to even get a proposal wrote to code. and only the proposals that fit their roadmap get accepted. That's because most Bitcoin developers support that roadmap. Not just Core developers, but Bitcoin developers generally. It's not because there's some secret cabal that's dictating the future of Bitcoin development. As FOSS, Bitcoin development is consensus-based. Sorry, but there is no charity for unpopular ideas. If alternative implementations were relevant in terms of developer activity, robustness and testing, they would be more relevant to the direction of Bitcoin development as well. But... they're not relevant. |
|
|
|
how seized by FBI and they came back and they refund?
that's impossible!
Because it wasn't actually the servers that were taken, but rather just the domain, which is usually registered somewhere where the US have some sort of jurisdiction. It's possible the servers were seized. That's what happened in the case of BTC-e -- they relaunched the site from backup servers. I hope we get some clarity on that. It'd be good to know for peace of mind whether customer logs are in the hands of the US government. Whether or not the servers were seized, the funds should be safe if they took the right security precautions. I'm wondering if there are any domains that are so to speak "unseizable". Apart from .onion ones, i don't think there are?
Since the DNS is highly centralized, they would be few and far between. Some country code top-level domains are probably unseizable by the US -- in uncooperative or sanctioned countries like Russia, Iran and North Korea. For sure, anything on .com or .net can be seized very easily. Those TLDs are controlled by VeriSign, who always complies with the US government. |
|
|
|
PoS costs nothing to create a block. and so gives no value to the cost of acquisition of the fresh minted coins.
PoW has a cost and no one is foolish to sell at a loss. this gives bitcoin an underline value. That's inaccurate. In both consensus systems, it's not the cost that matters. Users don't care about miner/minter costs -- why would they? You're only addressing supply, not demand. [1] Even then, your assumption that miners won't sell at a loss is not only unprovable but irrational. That's like saying no investor -- in any asset -- would ever sell at a loss. If that were true, every market would rise in perpetuity. That's untrue on its face. Aside from speculation, users are paying for security. Users aren't buying BTC so that unprofitable miners can reach their break-even point.  [1.] the cost of mining does NOT equal the current price. but does create a support of underlying value EG when the price was $20k. the underlying support was around a few thousand from november 2017 to date no one has taken the opportunity to sell below $5.800 Perhaps no one has taken the opportunity yet. It was at that level just last month, so your point isn't very convincing. Either way, you're using arbitrary numbers to cherry-pick. Some miners definitely have costs below your arbitrary estimates. Throwing out $5,800 as "the cost to mine a bitcoin" (for the last 10 months?) is totally inaccurate and overgeneralizing. You're just cherry-picking to fit the recent lows on the chart to support your illogical narrative. Logically, miner costs don't "create a support." Price support implies demand. Whether miners withhold newly mined coins from the market doesn't matter if there is no demand. this is because of a underlying value created by acquisition cost. You keep saying that, but there's no evidence to support that idea. It's logically incorrect, since you aren't explaining how demand exists at that price. Mining costs do not create demand from users and investors. |
|
|
|
Can it also seize the domains of larger exchanges based on foreign soil like Binance? I believe, it is enough that the government of the United States should contact the government that registered the domain and then seize the domain, they are the powerful ones and only find difficulties in countries like russia, china, venezuela and korea of the south that are countries that try to confront them, but without many successes It's even worse than that. With the .com TLD (as well as some others), the US government just needs to get a court order to seize the domain. These domains are all controlled by one company named VeriSign, and they have a very close relationship with the US government: Bodog.com was registered with a Canadian registrar, a VeriSign subcontractor, but the United States shuttered the site without any intervention from Canadian authorities or companies.
Instead, the feds went straight to VeriSign. It's a powerful company deeply enmeshed in the backbone operations of the internet, including managing the .com infrastructure and operating root name servers. VeriSign has a cozy relationship with the federal government, and has long had a contract from the U.S. government to help manage the internet's "root file" that is key to having a unified internet name system. In the case of BTC-e, the .com domain was seized by the US government, but interestingly the .nz mirror site was not. They refunded customers through the .nz domain. |
|
|
|
PoS costs nothing to create a block. and so gives no value to the cost of acquisition of the fresh minted coins.
PoW has a cost and no one is foolish to sell at a loss. this gives bitcoin an underline value. That's inaccurate. In both consensus systems, it's not the cost that matters. Users don't care about miner/minter costs -- why would they? You're only addressing supply, not demand. Even then, your assumption that miners won't sell at a loss is not only unprovable but irrational. That's like saying no investor -- in any asset -- would ever sell at a loss. If that were true, every market would rise in perpetuity. That's untrue on its face. Aside from speculation, users are paying for security. Users aren't buying BTC so that unprofitable miners can reach their break-even point. |
|
|
|
Hi everyone,
I have not been active in the community since 2013, so I'm quite far behind the times. I used to write for the Devtome and earn devcoins, and I was looking to get back into doing that. Does anyone know if the Devtome is still paying writers? Is Devcoin even worth anything anymore? Or has the crypto world moved on to other altcoins?
Thanks in advance for any help.
The altcoin world has definitely moved on. There's over 2000 coins at this point. I lost touch with Devcoin years ago. If you go to Devtome, it still says you can earn devcoins by writing. No markets are listed on Coinmarketcap. It apparently trades on Freiexchange and Altilly, but I'm not familiar with those exchanges. The last price I see is 1 satoshi with no recent volume. Check the ANN thread if you want to get up to date on Devcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
