https://youtu.be/NoMDt3E9tygThis is quite interesting, it's nice to get a bit of a bearish opinion even if you're a huge bull. I personally thought this bear market was a bit rushed and this run might not hold much substance (but I don't listen to hunches)... Once again, if you have no idea what to do with your coins: hodl hodl hodl - like I'm doing now. The chance to buy may have passed or it may return but if it has gone, 4000$ was a bargain.
I was here in 2015 and that coincided with the tx malleability hack of the time (I think) ... I absolutely agree. It's always nice to be prudent in your approach when you're dealing with BTC speculation, in my opinion. I echo your sentiments regarding how this bear market seemed to be rushed. I would have expected the consolidation process to take at least a few months longer than it did before a complete trend reversal started. It could probably be attributed to the fact that institutional investors are more active this time round, and the market overall is recognising the trends better and reacting much faster to cheap coins, although I'm still quite cautious given the fact that these levels of growth is simply unsustainable for the long run. For now, I don't see any reason why BTC won't go higher - I'm just saying that a major correction may come. I still think that the $10k support will hold up, though. |
|
|
|
Do you think that once the Lightning Network becomes used in the mainstream world, it will eliminate the need for centralized exchanges with its atomic swaps feature? This brings a new breakthrough in the Blockchain space, as it would allow anyone to exchange one coin from the other in a P2P fashion without the need to interact with an exchange platform. The approach seems to be much more convenient than decentralized exchanges themselves too, as the process of exchanging coins is seamless. Still though, even if atomic swaps don't succeed in taking over centralized exchanges, they'll be a nice alternative for anyone who's looking for a quick and easy process to exchange one crypto to another without the intervention of a middleman. In some ways, centralized exchanges seem to be too big to fail as they're the ones with the most liquidity, and money. Still though, as people realize the risks of hacks and theft within centralized exchanges, they will resort to other means. Which is why, there might be a possibility that decentralized exchanges and atomic swaps will become extremely popular in the future. Nonetheless, what do you think about this?  I personally think no, though you're right in the regard that it's going to offer a nice alternative. Even if you are able to swap between digital assets, there will still be significant demand coming from fiat <-> BTC trades which simply can't be handled on a decentralised platform, or at least, not yet. You could argue that stablecoins can be used, but not everyone is willing to deal with the risks that are associated with using a token that is potentially based on fractional reserve, so completely replacing traditional exchanges will probably be out of the equation. |
|
|
|
Hello everyone so now i want to share a very good information with that the facebook community says the the price of facebook will be stable like a USD so its mean that there is no threat for bitcoin because all investors want that they gain more profit in short time that is why they invest their money in bitcoin because the btc price is fluctuated and for good investment need the unstable price.
I don't think that even their intentions was to compete with BTC in the first place. The fact that they are structured much more like a centralised stablecoin means that they essentially acknowledge the fact that they won't go into the decentralised market (probably due to regulation as well), and that their primary competitors will be traditional banking institutions, as well as the issuers of existing stablecoins. This is why you see articles that state concern about Libra's legality, because a lot of people in the banking industry is concerned with the competition that it brings. But even if it's not a direct competitor of bitcoin, should it be used? No. It is very easy for them to base their currency off fractional reserve, and in which case, it'll be no different to traditional bank deposits except they may be subject to even less reserve regulation. |
|
|
|
I wanna share my story how I got my BTC. I run a small private game server and last April, a player optimistically suggested that I create a BTC wallet so that he can donate to the game server I run. I decided to make an account on Coinbase initially but when I asked this specific player, he recommended Binance.
In my thoughts, Binance and Coinbase both have the feature of creating a wallet. Believe it or not, I've already browsed and saw differences between Binance and Coinbase, interface-wise I love how Coinbase looks because of its visual appearance.
So my question is, based on user experience, where is the safest and stablest wallet I can use so that my BTC won't magically disappear like what have happened historically.
If historical cautions are any good, then you should be using neither as a wallet. Sure, they both have functionalities of a wallet. Sure, coinbase's UI is good. But that's not the point here. The point is that both of them hold your private keys that you have no control over, which means that essentially you're dealing with an IOU with the both of them when you deposit any funds with them. You're wasting the trustlessness of the bitcoin network and putting an unnecessary risk upon yourself. Furthermore, hacks, insolvency, and KYC threats in exchanges and hosted wallets are extremely common, and you don't want to be affected by that, trust me. Even downloading electrum will be better, since it's trustless, though its UI may not be that aesthetic. But if you can afford one, buy a hardware wallet. |
|
|
|
I uploaded an image with his skype name and you can see he put me the same protonmail. So the user matches.
He send me a pm to contact him on skype.
Conversation says like this.:
-snip-
so. he's not getting flagged?
i think there are enough reasons..
that guy isnt even answering. Somebody who does not scam its suppose to appear and give his explanation isnt it?
I think that you need to provide a stronger link between Traderpolo on the forum, and the person that you are talking to on telegram. The link that you stated is way too complex, evens involving Skype, and you should at least upload some screenshots to prove it. Also, it would be nice for you to incorporate these translations into the evidence image, because it makes it much easier for DT members to decide whether or not you have a legitimate case. Your whole case is all over the place with evidence scattered everywhere, you need to make it clear and concise. I also got scammed of $50 yesterday from TraderPolo212 over skype.
He's not the best at covering his tracks and i've tracked down his genuine facebook profile. I'm sure Doxxing isn't aloud on here and i'm also sure that if this guy has scammed a couple of members already he will see this post.
Not indorsed by bitcointalk I will be messaging all linked friends and family from Hassan's facebook to let them know that he is a con man unless my $50 is returned to the wallet address already provided to him
Don't expect it to happen. Even if you message his friends and family what leverage are you going to have to make him send back the money? $50 is way too small of an amount to pursue legal recourse from your part, especially internationally. And yes, doxxing is not allowed in this subforum. |
|
|
|
"Bitcoin has gained widespread attention globally in 2013 and is the first online currency based on a peer to peer network without any central authority or third parties. Its market capitalization reached US$ 8.5 billion in December 2013. However, despite its popularity some issues like network security (thefts), anonymity (privacy) and wealth distribution (inequality) have plagued it. Of considerable importance is the last issue of unequal wealth distribution as it may create a huge socio-economic burden for the society. A group of researchers estimated that the GINI coefficient for the network was at an all time high of 0.985 in Jan 2013 and that the rich were getting richer as the network grew. In the present work it has been strived to determine how the GINI actually increases or decreased depending upon the wealth distribution. For doing this a raw transaction of data of more than 36 million transactions has been sourced and a list of all users and their wealth in the network has been computed. The final results are very alarming as GINI has increased to 0.997 by the end of 2013 and the market share of top 10 holders alone has reached 6.6% of the entire market. Therefore, the rich have actually got richer and steps should be taken to curb such a wealth accumulation model in the network." It seems bad news for bitcoin price. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-13-0755-3_15It could be true. It wouldn't be surprising if one of the contributing factors is the fact that there were a lot of investors who panic dumped at the bottom of the bear market, that essentially transferred BTC to the hands of the elites who recognise the cycles within the market, leading to an increase in inequality of distribution. There are some in this thread that say that this stat doesn't matter at all in reflecting distribution inequality, while others that say it does effectively. The truth is probably somewhere in between. At the very least it does show a problem with people's blind trust with centralised platforms to hold their coins. But I'm just wondering, could you give examples of BTC's "network security" and "anonymity" being under fire in recent years? I couldn't think of any major developments that would hurt BTC in these regards. |
|
|
|
We all know that China doesnt want to be involved on cryptocurrency for some reasons but after whats happening to China and Hong Kong, it seems like bitcoin would be the main option.
The two countries are currently under stress because People in Hong Kong vehemently oppose a proposed bill, which would give authorities the power to deport those suspected of crimes to mainland China.
Hong Kong people obviously engaged in a rally for them to change the leader's mind. With this, the people, most specially rich ones wanted to withdraw all their money in China or makes it anonymous that's why they are eyeing on bitcoin as the main option for transferring of wealth.
You're right in the regard that it will indeed create some form of demand - the fact that the wealthy will most likely want to exchange their funds to other foreign currencies in anticipation of further turmoil will mean that BTC will possibly be utilised as a vehicle. However, similarly to people's perception of how the Venezuelan hyperinflationary crisis contributed to last bull market, I highly doubt that there is as strong a correlation as people think. One, the demand sparked by this is probably negligible when compared with other market forces, especially the market cycles themselves. Two, the fact that a lot of these wealthy elites don't place trust in BTC, and their end motive is to get themselves into a currency like the US dollar means that the demand and supply is essentially nearly offsetting from their transactions. |
|
|
|
I don't understand the obsession with satoshi - the network has ran without him for the better part of a decade now, which clearly not only demonstrates that what satoshi is doing is completely irrelevant, and if he chooses to have some privacy then so be it; but also reinforces bitcoin's decentralisation. It makes no sense to be so obsessed with the news with another new person claiming to be satoshi every hour. It simply does not affect the fundamentals of bitcoin, even if he was found. Most of these threads are filled with garbage anyways. Report, move on, and let it die by itself. Craig Wright should just log into his satoshi account and create a sub board for himself, but until he does that this isn't needed and almost certainly won't happen.
Wright is a joke, I think that's the consensus  |
|
|
|
Seems like that all of them are nuked. Nice. It's so painful to read those comments. Are they bots? If not, it appears that those users are using some kind of an online translator or paraphrasing tools. They are also not wearing any signature so I wonder what motivates them to post. Account farm?
It seems like that they are most likely using a bot, because the way that they spin the text, it seems like that nearly every single word is thesaurus'd which would take way too much effort and time to do by hand (they might as well post normally if they don't have a bot). @franckuestein, are these accounts going to get nuked as well? Even if they are not alts it is still apparent that they are doing the exact same thing, and deserving of a ban, imo. |
|
|
|
|
No way Coinmarketcap is going to be moderating every single exchange that they use as a part of their weighted average, in my opinion.
Unless enough people report it, they are likely going to just let it slide given the fact that they have such a massive array of exchanges to deal with, and it's completely unfeasible and a waste of time and resources from their perspective to police every single one of them. Especially when historically, they haven't shown the best morals, with them being one of the primary advertisers for the Bitconnect scam.
The warning they put up should be sufficient, and removing it doesn't make a whole lot of sense if a lot of coins are dependent on this exchange as their primary one. I doubt that the prices they reflect are that inaccurate anyways, which is coinmarketcap's primary function.
|
|
|
|
1. Cash trades have been removed but you can easily find them if you search for ATM deposits. Many traders still display public message saying they're ready to trade cash in hand, and give details. Their trade info are clearly marked CASH only. Changing the currency to some of the more exotic ones finds you locations all over Europe. So they're definitely not gone, they're just a bit harder to find:) So are LBC actively moderating these trades, or are they just allowing them to slide and giving sellers some room to work with by putting in person cash trades in other categories like cash depo? Similarly with gift cards, it would be interesting to know LBC's official stance on this action that essentially circumvents their removal of certain trade categories, given that I don't think sellers doing this actually breaches any rules. 2. Verification processes seem to have been updated since last week. When selling via SEPA (Euro), you're now being asked to verify if the name matches the transaction sender. There's also an additional box to tick if you verified ID as a seller (which I anyway always do for first timers).
I don't think that this is something new. I've been getting this message since at least from 2 years back whenever I'm the one that is offering a trade. All this does is contributes to the "verified by" statistics. |
|
|
|
|
A cashless society doesn't necessarily mean an economic system, or a currency based on decentralised cryptocurrencies at all. There should be a clear line between the two.
What they mean is that they would want a cashless society, in which a central entity still maintains control of the currency supply, and banks would transact with each other on a completely virtual basis.
Obviously this presents various benefits to themselves. Costs are minimised, it makes things much more traceable for the authorities, and also for the banks themselves to analyse spending patterns on. It's really not something that they endorse based on the ideologies underlying bitcoin, so don't get it twisted.
|
|
|
|
Hello my friend We have already canceled investments on the site!  On the project you can only play dice!  You have not rightly called me a fraud!  You tell me how to do it right, we will create another project, we are new in this case Write me:support@mydogedice.comI will add:
The other day I'll post a video game [/b] There is every evidence that your intention was to scam. If you disagree, please justify how you were going to offer a "cloud miner" investment scheme, promising returns of 0.9% per day. You only removed this after the scam accusation was initiated, but that doesn't mean that you were intending on running a ponzi. Also, please, tell us why you aren't able to make the dice provably fair. The two facts combined is a strong case of not trusting you with any sum of money, because you have shown the willingness to lie about the returns that you can generate sustainably and running a ponzi scheme, as well as operating a potentially rigged casino. |
|
|
|
I think there used to be a whole lot, but then banks started tightening their positions, and regulations also tightened. Nowadays you'll need to check with whoever you're banking with, I know for sure that there are a few American banks that don't allow it. If you are going long, then I'd suggest either maintaining a position within your own means (without credit), or simply using leverage to your advantage instead of taking out a credit card debt. I am surprised credit card companies allow it at all.
Think if somebody bought a bunch of Bitcoin with credit cards and they now own and control that bitcoin. The bull run will continue and their coin will be sitting in a high profit area and they can now cash out and trade it for fiat through their bank. Then they do have the credit card bill to deal with but what if they just disregarded the credit card company? They make no payments to them at all. If they did not pay the credit cards back the person can then negotiate with the credit card company for penny on the dollar payments from what they owe, or they can even just totally not pay them anything at all and they will just have a damaged credit ranking. Since the bitcoin is de-centralized, the person doing all of this owns the bitcoin, and they will own any fiat it if the bitcoin is transferred to cash through their bank. In a scenario like that the whole threat that a credit card company can dish out is not that big of a deal. In the example described above the person made out like a bull run bandit.
Obviously this is a possible scenario for credit card companies, but the risk of default is actually quite low in a bull market in my opinion. People are more aware of their credit scores, and legal standing than you'd suggest. Plus, they are making bank by charging high interest rates. The biggest risk for them is a bear market, or a downturn, where default rates will skyrocket. Hence, there are certain companies that don't support BTC transactions. |
|
|
|
Okei. Telegram Chat conversation and skrill transaction : https://imgur.com/a/EtHtVd6User Info : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1619834telegram user : https://web.telegram.org/#/im?p=@GT501The conversation its in spanish. But basically he send his address. I send money and then he then supposely generates vcc. At the final part im the only one talking and he seems online but dont answer. 12 hours passed. I did this couple of times with others users no problem. So thats why i dont bother for escrow . And also its not that much money. User seemed to report scams so i thought he wouldnt be one. Be careful. Do you have any proof that the telegram member @GT501 that you talked to is connected to TraderPolo on the forums? TraderPolo doesn't seem to have been active for that much for the past two months on the forum. Be extremely careful with any deals involving VCCs. If you load any money onto these cards, then the seller would still have access to these funds, and if they are fraudulent, you may be out of luck. You also should use escrow regardless of the size of the transaction, in my opinion, as long as it's not something that is absurdly small. It's not just protecting yourself, it's protecting the community as well because you're providing an opportunity for scammers to gain an income. Also, I think translating the telegram transcript will be helpful in getting the scammer tagged. |
|
|
|
Supported.
Don't believe in it just because it is advertised as a fork/airdrop of XLM - just because they are doing this does not guarantee their legitimacy or security in any way. Instead, see through what their intentions are. They do not need your private keys to distribute funds through an airdrop, yet they choose to do it this way. Why? Because they were never a legit fork of XLM to begin with and their ulterior motive is to steal your funds. Never provide a third party with your private key, especially when it has funds in it (which has to be the case for you to receive the the airdrop). Also, I wouldn't recommend downloading anything from their github repos, including software that they release. Might contain malware for all you know. Their response to the accusation is comical, but I can't believe in the amount of shills they've got in the form of bounty hunters still doing jobs for them despite the warnings. Absurd. |
|
|
|
It's not even a real cryptocurrency whose value (in theory) stands on its supply and demand. Libra's value will be pegged to a basket of dollars, euro, etc. by the Central Bank of Facebook.
In any real sense, Libra will never be 100% backed by reserves of 'real money,' (as The Economist calls national currencies.) Where would the fun be for Mark or colonial or banana-republic elites? Why would you bother issuing a money if not to create wealth out of thin air?
These are reasons enough to steer clear of this so called "cryptocurrency". Just because something may utilise the underlying technology of blockchains, doesn't mean that it's free from manipulation or centralisation. I think people are blindly putting way too much trust in projects like these, where a centralised entity is able to essentially manipulate both sides of the market, as well as the fundamentals of their own currency. The fact that it's pegged to a basket of fiats also raises alarm bells, as in the long run, it's guaranteed to lose intrinsic value. Even holding the actual cash or insured bank deposits of these currencies yourself will be better, and you're ridding yourself one more counterparty risk in the form of FB's potentially fractional reserve, or creating these coins out of thin air. |
|
|
|
None of the above i think is likely what happend. It's more likely that some ICO or airdrop sold their database and IP adresses of users who signed up for them, and now checks if people have a deribit account using that email list. If so -> they send an email with your leaked email adress + IP that someone is trying to log into your deribit account to phish you. The problem I have with this is that why would these people target Deribit, instead of any other exchange? Either way, this shows that there is most likely at least some underlying security flaw when it comes to Deribit. Otherwise, the people with this email list would not be setting their eyes on this platform, instead of any others. It's also wise to protect your own security by instating 2FA if you haven't already, and changing the passwords to something unrelated to any of your other accounts, regardless of what the actual situation is. From my experience deribit has always been quite a professional company, I doubt they'll have too much of a hiccup in this instance. |
|
|
|
So we have Litecoin halving coming up. The media is talking about the Bitcoin halving coming up next year. That should push Bitcoin to ATH?
At the end of the day, miners need to become profitable so I think that will force the price of BTC to rise as the halvings occur. Forget 2020, I am more excited about the one in 2024 which will really reduce supply.
Any lost Bitcoins are gone forever and not replaced so that should also reduce supply over time. Scarcity will keep Bitcoin value on the rise over the long term.
I think that there will be two main factors that will contribute to halving pushing prices up. Firstly, the fundamentals that it brings mean that newly mined coins become more scarce, which essentially means that the average cost of mining a coin will most likely increase. This should push supply of new coins entering the market significantly down, and prices up. However, the more important aspect of this in my opinion is actually the psychological aspect, which may result in bigger effects than the fundamentals. People have certain expectations for the halving now because of how prices have historically went up with the halving event, which means that it becomes almost like a self fulfilling prophecy. I think it's too early to speculate on magnitude of the rally the halving brings, but I think that it'll be imminent that a rally does occur. |
|
|
|
Bitseven just pulled the plug on US residents today.
Things seem to be moving fast. I fear the days on bitmex, bybit etc are numbered.
What could Arther possibly do to stop this, what real recourse does he have? I'm sure he has a few tricks to stall. But I'm sure the other small exchange will buckle and comply.
I don't think anyon truly understands how incredibly few options American's have to buy crypto and the type and leverage etc. Regulators are breakin our legs. Total madness, makes me regret that I don't have close canadian family or friends, I'd use their kyc in a heartbeat.
I think that the trend right now is really something that is US-based, with so many exchanges seemingly closing their doors on US residents. It's unlikely to become a global phenomenon, in my opinion, because of the fact that countries such as Japan, Malta, etc. now have somewhat of a vested interest when it comes to regulating bitcoin businesses positively, because they're actively gaining revenue from these activities and firms. Despite all the talks of global regulation, I also highly doubt that one uniform set of restrictions can be put in place against crypto exchanges per se. Unregulated exchanges, as mentioned above, should always exist. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
