Australia is seriously underrated. I think a lot of people are discounting them from contention and mentioning other names like Serbia, which is fair, but honestly they have as good of a chance as anyone to win gold.

Team chemistry is a serious issue that a lot of teams sorely lack, while this Australian team has been around for a decade without much of a change. You see that through Bogut's mid post game as well as aggressive cutting from all of their guards, and it's quite evident to me that they just like playing with each other.

Either way, FIBA had turned out to be a much better experience than I would have expected for sure.  Turns out team USA withdrawals have made all the positive difference.

The coins never actually exchange hands on the blockchain.

Everything is done on the localbitcoins escrow platform, as in once the trade is released, the seller is automatically credited the amount that is outstanding from the trade into his LBC account. He can then withdraw that amount if he wishes. There is no "third party" account involved other than the localbitcoins platform itself.

In most of the cases, LBC actually doesn't do anything as the trade flows smoothly. They would only really actively intervene if someone disputes the transaction.

Are we just forgetting about Jamal Crawford at this point? I mean yeah Carmelo is an important storyline, but Jamal's dropped 50 on his last game as well - not too shabby, eh?

Clippers should sign him back on a vet minimum or something.

Yeah, he can't play defense but he can entertain the hell out of any crowd still and he's looking younger every year. Plus, he's a clippers fan favourite so from a marketing perspective, the ownership and executive should take a long and hard look at Crowford for sure.

What I can say is that there isn't any easy way out. If you aren't determined to quit for good then you're just screwed, plain and simple.

There really isn't an option for you.

It's good that you have recognised this problem and are trying to speak out publicly about rectifying it potentially. But that doesn't mean crap if you don't do anything about it.

Occupy your time with something meaningful. Gambling urges come when you have nothing to do. Also, get out of the mindset that money is going to come quick. Every cent needs to be earned, and money which comes from sheer and pure luck will never last. Realise that.

If you gamble because of the social aspects of the "community", find some irl friends.

Adding to that list my own experience with nearly being scammed this way: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2335323.msg23758209#msg23758209

I've always had a feeling those accounts who created ERC20 tokens in order to scam are probably all related to each other one way or another, and I would be extremely surprised if at least a few instances of the same scam couldn't be attributed to the same scammer behind the screen.

Also, you might want to add KYC scams to the list. Exchanges/projects that hold people's funds as hostage while they use KYC as a facade to cover their actions.

With decentralized exchanges, this could be possible.

However with centralized exchanges it is pretty much impossible for anyone to offer a fee-free service, unless they are doing something shady in the background that they would be able to generate revenue from. Just think about it - an exchange's primary function for the owner is to generate profits. If not from fees, you'd really have to question their legitimacy.

I think the trading fees itself for novice traders isn't even that big of an issue, given the fact that it's a percentage based fee that is significantly lower for traders with lower volumes. You should be looking at other fee structures such as withdrawal/deposit fees instead.

Release the ideas here, or don't expect anyone to reach out to you on Telegram.

Somehow my intuitions tell me that $100 isn't going to do much in terms of creating a new business, and if your business ideas were really that attractive, you would have no trouble securing funding elsewhere for that small of an amount and no way would you need to resort to begging for funding on the forum.

I would not be surprised if this is somehow related to gambling and/or trading on low margin with high leverage on Bitmex (which to a novice, is essentially gambling).

Rebuilding Venezuela will be ultimately dependent on what the Maduro administration chooses to do, essentially.

Even with all of the benefits that Venezuelans can get from adopting bitcoin, such as the fact that they are able to now have access to a liquid, low cost, long term store of value, as well as being able to be banked, away from the chaotic banking system that they've got with tons of limitations in terms of controls of how much money you can take out, if there aren't structural reforms within the economy, it'll still continue to sink down.

It's deeply saddening to see Venezuela in this state. BTC is able to help Venezuelan individuals for sure, but when it comes to things like their trade balance, spending deficit, and rampant inflation, there is nothing it can do.

I think they got the idea of currency and commodity around.

Data monetisation in my opinion has more to do with the selling of personal data as a commodity, as opposed to using it as any sort of currency, given the fact that it's simply not fungible, nor is it a good store of value in the long run.

Of course, if they were talking about the data stored within the blockchain that essentially constitutes cryptocurrencies, then it would be an entirely different story. But I think that their focus of this more so on data mining, data warehousing by firms, etc.

I've heard similar stories regarding purchases made with various fiats, and converted into cryptos, being delayed by Coinbase and put on hold.

Personally, I understand from the perspective that they are trying to minimise the risks on their end in terms of fraudulent activity by the user, as well as potentially stolen identities/credit cards/bank funds. But at the end of the day, doesn't it defeat the purpose of using coinbase, given the fact that their purchases using fiat is supposed to offer convenience more than anything?

Not to mention their track record of suspending accounts almost arbitrarily, whenever they see a suspected transaction to even gambling sites, which is none of their business; and being extremely unresponsive on their support end.

All you can do is wait. If you are continuing with their service in the future, it may result in less instance of frozen funds, but is it really worth it?


This has absolutely nothing to do with Coinbase APIs. Read the OP.

I personally think that it's merely a coincidence that the stock market and bitcoin markets have rallied at around the same time.

It's probably due to the fact that the cycles in both simply occurred in the same time, more than any underlying macro factor. Sometimes people try way too hard to find correlations between anything, and I mean anything, and it's completely futile.

For BTC's bull market, it's simply due to the fact that there has been a trend reversal which meant that we're currently in the bull stage of the cycle. For gold, it's due to its own cycles, and the fact that it's consolidated for so long, as well as a spark in demand probably due to the dubious nature of the political sphere. For the stock market, it's probably just short term volatility more than anything else.

OP, I hope you do realise now that YOVI is nothing more than a pyramid scheme endorsed by the exchange itself. Essentially Yobit here is playing both the referee of the game, the rule setters, as well as the manipulators (most likely).

I think that the fact that YOVI is a rise only market had just as much to do with you losing your funds, as Salek11111's actions. Even if he did carry out his end of the deal, i.e. give you access to his account, it'll be months/years before your sell order gets filled.

In the future, please look at the reputation of the person you're dealing with, because this person has been tagged before as well. And also, do your research regarding any platform you're using, to avoid confusion with the person you're dealing with.

Interesting take.

I can understand where you're coming from, about the correlation between the movements of BTC and other cryptos. But is this relationship solely dependent on BTC price, or are there more fundamental factors apart from that?

But why did we see the opposite happen in the 2017 bull market? Bitcoin did not move sideways (in fact, went from $400 to $20k in pretty much a year), yet its dominance shrunk significantly. I would attribute that to more than just BTC's movements.

Also, when do you think that time will be, when BTC starts to move sideways?

Go on coinmarketcap and look for yourself. Search up the token that you are looking to trade, scroll down, click "markets", and there you will see a list of exchanges. However, just make sure that the exchange that you are looking at isn't shady, like Yobit, HitBTC, etc.

If you are willing to conduct KYC, then the amount of exchanges that you are able to use to exchange your cryptos is huge.

I personally think that if you're a newbie, then you can't really go wrong with Binance at the moment. They are one of the top exchanges, yet they are still offering no-KYC accounts, which is a rarity these days. Though, since you're new, make sure that you never use exchanges as a wallet. That's a huge mistake that a lot of newbies make.

Personally, I disagree with this.

I don't think that it's ready for the masses just yet. While there are developments within the bitcoin network recently such as lightning network that aims to lower transaction fees and allow mass adoption to occur, these aren't widely accepted yet, nor are merchants actively utilising BTC just yet.

I think that this process will happen as a matter of time, but I just think that this article is most likely confusing institutional interest with what they view as mass adoption. BTC has certainly attracted many more institutional investors through the 2017 bull market, who will likely make moves within this bull market. But as to the real life acceptance, there is still ways to go.

It could be possible, but I doubt that it will pick up any steam if this was ever utilised in real life.

I agree with odolvlobo. What you described is essentially a cryptocurrency with a guaranteed time value in terms of labour, but the fact is that certain skills have higher skills requirements than others, making the relative opportunity cost in terms of training for these skills higher than others.

Universally assigning time values to each of these labour skills makes no sense to me. Even if this does go into effect in a local setting, I can see people straight away charging a premium for certain services that are more demanded or less supplied.

You raise a very good point.

It'll be a long way to go before any DEXs will fulfill the functions of a centralised exchange, in my opinion, which is why I think that if regulations do tighten in the future, the default thing that people are going to do is to go to newer exchanges that are willing to potentially operate unregulated.

Of course, eventually we'll see them succumb to regulations, if global mandatory KYC was ever going to be a thing. But I think that the profit margins for a new exchange will incentivise a lot of them to pop up so that there will never be a concern where you can't buy BTC without KYC as a consumer, if you are willing to carry a certain amount of risk.

I too initially thought that this was regarding the Bitfinex hack that involved hundreds of thousands of BTC. Apparently not.

An arrest in this case means virtually nothing, because that doesn't mean that the money stolen is now in the right hands. What matters is if Bitfinex gets reimbursed.

And even if bitfinex does get reimbursed, how are they going to compensate the victims? Will they even compensate the victims given the fact that they had no wrongdoing technically in this case, or will the funds be directly transferred to the victim's accounts if they file a lawsuit?

This just shows storing funds on exchanges is utterly stupid. You're essentially subjecting yourself to so much more risk.

I think that a lot of people had expected BTC dominance to go down as we saw the bull market unfold, because in the 2017 bull market we saw a huge dip in this index from 80+% pre-bull market to the sub-40%'s.

So, why is this trending in the opposite direction now? It pretty much went from 35% to 62% within a year and a half. Historical data and intuition would tell us that as euphoria enters the market, more people will toss their money away towards "penny-tokens".

Could it be attributed to institutional investors, the better fundamentals underlying BTC and the network, or a more mature market? Or is it something else?

Anyone know whether or not there is a definite link between this Bitconnect 2 con and the original Bitconnect? Because I haven't seen any.

No surprises though, because Trevon James and co. apparently has already started shilling for this new scheme on Youtube, which could be potentially harmful to newbies who have absolutely no idea what they are doing, just like last time.

Use your common sense. BCC is a confirmed scam that resulted in millions lost, and that's not something that is disputed. This new scheme is not refunding a cent of those who were previously damaged. It's simply using the publicity that BCC is associated with for its own good.


There is no "underlying technology" behind BCC whatsoever. It was only valuable because of the scheme that underlies it.