|
DCA is better to use when price drops to 20% or 30% so I think it is very applicable to do it manually. People must prepare money and wait for chances to do DCA manually. Sometimes, they DCA no matter what price movement is and when they see -20% or -30% drop, they don't have money in hands to DCA.
You can set up buying orders on exchange manually, and wait. I don't think we actually need DCA service or bot for this investment approach.
|
|
|
|
Plagiarism User: juwel509Today, I put up a post to celebrate my 365 days(1 year) of being registered on this forum but then I had to delete the contents, lock, and move it to archival because a user said it was merit fishing and other stuff. Truth be told I felt terrible because I know how much of a struggle it was to stay in the forum. I was offline from January 17, 2022, to April 5th. I won't go into details because it is personal.
This incident got me thinking about the forum before the merit system was created.
Aside from merit fishing, spam, low-value, and garbage posts, what other accusations were leveled against other members of this forum?
How do you create topics that you feel matter to you without making it seem as if you are merit fishing?
Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5402879.0Today, I put up a post to celebrate my 365 days(1 year) of being registered on this forum but then I had to delete the contents, lock, and move it to archival because a user said it was merit fishing and other stuff. Truth be told I felt terrible because I know how much of a struggle it was to stay in the forum. I was offline from January 17, 2022, to April 5th. I won't go into details because it is personal.
This incident got me thinking about the forum before the merit system was created.
Aside from merit fishing, spam, low-value, and garbage posts, what other accusations were leveled against other members of this forum?
How do you create topics that you feel matter to you without making it seem as if you are merit fishing?
|
|
|
|
you mentioned the profits they make not just from the "maker" "taker" of people doing orders, and the withdrawal fee's ..but you forget they also make profit from the "spread"(gap between the buy market list and the sell market list). this is another secret area where they can make money.
I know. I did not mention about their hidden, shady activities to get profit from wash trading volume, traps to liquidate users. Because I wanted to bind with things relate to their service fee: trading (taker/ maker), withdrawal fee. I know they have different things to build and maintain their service: security, maintenance, consolidate inputs, process withdrawal, etc. but they must assign income from their service fee for those things. Secretly over charge withdrawal fee and when get accusation, saying "we use it for different things of our service", it's not fair. |
|
|
|
This is however what makes Bitcoin halvings so important: miners "drain" money out of the Bitcoin ecosystem by paying their hardware and electricity suppliers. Each halving means they have less Bitcoin to sell, which means this "drain" gets less every 4 years.
Halving events are all set by satoshi, we can not change it. Halving events are not new but just magic that every 4 years, we see halving effects. Miners can be categorized as diamond miners with diamond hands; and speculative miners with very weak and soft hands. The type 2 miners usually sell most of their Bitcoin for monthly bills and in bear market, they will capitulate. After next halving, they will regret why they sold their Bitcoin in 2022 or previous years but they have no choice because of their leverage, bets on Bitcoin steady growth. Speculative miners usually can not resist against bear market. |
|
|
|
A half truth is not a truth! It is applied for Binance US only and it serves as a hook to attract new users to Binance US. Exchanges in general and Binance (not Binance US, I don't know about this branch exchange), charge very expensive (and unacceptable) withdrawal fee. |
|
|
|
People need to take NYKNYC more seriously and withdraw from exchanges.
Before they understand it and truly practice it, they must read enough and think deeply enough. Maybe many of them don't care to read. Many of them don't care to practice, until a day they lose money because of exchange hack, scam, exit, government seize, etc. |
|
|
|
This is the golden rule when navigating your way through crypto land. If you don't have access to private keys or seeds, you'd risk yourself getting all of your coins lost or stolen in the long run. Most people rely on centralized exchanges and wallet providers because it's more convenient for them. If only they knew that without the keys or seeds they don't control their funds, they would've used switched to non-custodial or decentralized solutions already. We need to educate the masses in order to reduce attack surfaces as much as possible. As long as the majority has access to keys/seeds, the number of hacks will be reduced by a large margin.
When you don't own key of your coin, you must trust a third party with their honest, fairness and seamless operation for your transaction request. You don't control anything. What you see is a credit number in your account and whether your order for trading, withdrawal request is approved by third party or not, it is unknown and uncertain. Nightmare might appear anytime if you don't own your keys. At least, crypto/Blockchain tech's popularity is rising. Who knows if people become more aware about securing their funds in the crypto/Blockchain space?
I am sure that with two simultaneously trends: growth of Bitcoin (in value) and Bitcoin educational efforts, people will become more knowledgeable about Bitcoin and related things (how to store it, backup, recover, etc.) and less people will lose their big amount of Bitcoin because of unknowledgeable. However, a second part is important. Being knowledgeable does not naturally and automatically cause good practice. It's a different side of a coin.  |
|
|
|
This is very interesting. First of all the Date (2022?)
And I am impressed that Satoshi is somehow praising Ripple (the company which was founded in 2004, not the cryptocurrency XRP).
Anyway, as I have read in the website you posted we cannot confirm if the email is real, but it is certainly interesting.
Interesting. I did not notice it because I read it previously and when I made that post, I searched for that page again so did not actually check the date again. I believe it is a glitch issue or something technically on that website. They are building a new one similar as https://nakamotoinstitute.org/. Maybe they're building something new at a new domain: https://nakamotostudies.orgThe year of this email is 2009. It is confirmed by Mike Hear in this forum Ian, Satoshi did plan for Bitcoin to compete with PayPal/Visa in traffic volumes. The block size limit was a quick safety hack that was always meant to be removed. In fact, in the very first email he sent me back in April 2009, he said this: Hi Mike,
I'm glad to answer any questions you have. If I get time, I ought to write a FAQ to supplement the paper.
There is only one global chain.
The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling. If you're interested, I can go over the ways it would cope with extreme size.
By Moore's Law, we can expect hardware speed to be 10 times faster in 5 years and 100 times faster in 10. Even if Bitcoin grows at crazy adoption rates, I think computer speeds will stay ahead of the number of transactions.
I don't anticipate that fees will be needed anytime soon, but if it becomes too burdensome to run a node, it is possible to run a node that only processes transactions that include a transaction fee. The owner of the node would decide the minimum fee they'll accept. Right now, such a node would get nothing, because nobody includes a fee, but if enough nodes did that, then users would get faster acceptance if they include a fee, or slower if they don't. The fee the market would settle on should be minimal. If a node requires a higher fee, that node would be passing up all transactions with lower fees. It could do more volume and probably make more money by processing as many paying transactions as it can. The transition is not controlled by some human in charge of the system though, just individuals reacting on their own to market forces.
Eventually, most nodes may be run by specialists with multiple GPU cards. For now, it's nice that anyone with a PC can play without worrying about what video card they have, and hopefully it'll stay that way for a while. More computers are shipping with fairly decent GPUs these days, so maybe later we'll transition to that.
I found something more interesting |
|
|
|
But i felt i should check the Bitcoin Discussion section, I did and viola, there it is, my uncompleted post is already published, I quickly tried to delete but the system said I cannot delete the post, then I used the edit button to at least wipe out the content. Only admin, moderator can delete your topic but you can edit it or move it to Archival too. You can move it to Archival as a trash bin for normal users. Admin and moderator has their special trash bins. Another option if you don't want other to read what you have yet completed, let's lock it and continue to write, complete your post, when you finish, you can unlock your topic, copy and past the complete version and edit the original one. It's not a big problem. |
|
|
|
They are not the first altcoin DeFi project to build products around Bitcoin. Sovryn project used to reach $36 but it drops to under $1 already. The bloodbath in DeFi has yet ended and it will continue until all over leveraged DeFi projects die. Avalanche is better because they are founder of an Avax ecosystem and DeFi on Avax is one part of their ecosystem. If DeFi die (they will not because best and strongest DeFi projects will not die), Avalanche will still be fine. |
|
|
|
Official Chinese national news media outlet warns readers that Bitcoin could go to zero value in order to dissuade them from investing in and using cryptocurrency.
China ban crypto, many times. FUD or real you can verify with past events. The Bitcoin network, its hashrate is decentralized from hashrate owners to mining farm locations geographically. It will be fine even all hashrates from China turn off. Recent years, total hashrate originates from China has less dominance on Bitcoin network than in the past. It is good for network decentralization, its health and it is good to prevent negative effects from China bans, floods and so on. Again Bitcoin is named as a dead asset. How many times? More than 450 times so far. This figure will reach to 1000 soon. |
|
|
|
I agree that DAO can be biased especially, in my opinion, when it comes to smaller projects with a small sample size of voters outside of the team / statistically insignificant results / some sorts of voting restrictions. As you made a good point that DAO can not always make sense and Solend was a clear example of that.
It's not correct. Small or big project, it is not big matter. Causes of biased DAO come from tokenomics of a project. If a founder, core team (mostly) and earliest investors (in seed sales) own too dominant tokens in total supply, they can bias DAO vote in a result they want. You rarely find altcoin projects with fair distribution. The Solend case is more terrible, it is not only a biased DAO vote but also an attempt to steal money in a wallet. It is unacceptable, unethical! |
|
|
|
My suggestion may be silly or lazy, but I think that most of those who click on the “glow” button they modify the code to yellow, and I do not remember anyone using it in red, so if this modification is simple, I hope that the basic color/Default color will be changed to yellow.
Very good suggestion because some new members don't know to customize color after clicking on glow button. Usually, red can be use for text, not for highlight (glow) effect. Paint your text or highlight it should be used when it is really necessary. If it is over use, just like capitalize text, it will cause side effects and make your post is very annoying. Nobody want to read it. |
|
|
|
If you truly DCA for hodling, you will buy and withdraw your coin to your non-custodial wallet. Hence you will have to consider two fee: trading fee (when you buy Bitcoin) and withdrawal fee. If you DCA with low capital, withdrawal fee will be expensive for you. Hence you will have to leave your coin on exchange and withdraw it it after a few times of DCA, to save withdrawal fee. |
|
|
|
If this continues Bitcoin will soon become out of reach to the unbanked who are part of the satoshi's original idea included in the Bitcoin whitepaper.
Why will it become unreachable to the unbanked? They can join anytime they want. They don't have to buy a whole Bitcoin, 0.1 BTC or 0.01 BTC. They can buy smaller amount of Bitcoin if they want to. The second layer, Lightning network is helpful for smaller exchanges too. we have billions bits in Bitcoin but how many bits are active or inactive this need, brought me to this conclusion that lost Bitcoin shouldn't be lost forever but rather reused since Bitcoin limited 21 million circulating supply Bitcoin is not enough and have become scarce resources/currency that is reflected in the current price. I like to see the opinion other forum members on this thought.
Reuse is an incorrect term. When you send your Bitcoin to a receiver, you lost it, forever. If you send it to a wrong receiving address, you lost it too. You can not summon it and reuse it! There is change addresses and there is circulating transactions of Bitcoin on the network but it is not reuse by one person. It's exchange between sender and receiver. You can use the HODL waves and make your estimation on possible lost Bitcoin. Estimation will be different when you use different cut-off of UTXo ages. Old inactive UTXO does not mean it is lost forever. |
|
|
|
|
It contains many better features and more convenience than fiat currency. It's deflationary and do you actually think it has no value?
If you think it has no value, let's fill your bag with fiat currency and stay away from Bitcoin. In addition, more important, if you stay away from Bitcoin, you must not touch any alternative cryptocurrencies or CBDCs.
CBDC is a worse form of fiat currency because it will bring more convenience for governments, increase their intensive works to print more fiat. With CBDC, they can mint it and this process is easier than printing.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin has more than one utility. Initially, people can think Bitcoin as nothing, then as a cryptocurrency, an asset, store of value, payment method but in future, it will be used for many use cases. It will mature like the Internet. Nowadays, people use Internet very naturally and they don't mind to know what is the Internet. In future, they will use Bitcoin without a question, what is Bitcoin? Does Bitcoin has real value? To end the fund on Bitcoin real value, I invite people to spend time and read: https://endthefud.org/money |
|
|
|
Although, altcoin projects try to describe themselves as decentralized and they try to provide DAO votes, they are not actually decentralized. Because big parts of token belong to internal team, seed or private sale investors. With their dominance, they can bias result of DAO vote. Terra, Solend are good case studies that DAO votes in altcoin projects are not make sense. Bitcoin is absolutely different. No internal team, no seed or private sale investors. The only founder is Satoshi Nakamoto disappeared since 2010. This decision makes Bitcoin is really decentralized from asset distribution to vote power on the network. Will Satoshi Nakamoto come back? Might or might not, we can not say Yes or No. If we consider assumed reasons why Satoshi Nakamoto disappeared, it leads to another assumption that Satoshi will never come back. Inactive and probably lost coins are gifts from Satoshi and early adopters of Bitcoin, for its really decentralization and of course Bitcoin value. |
|
|
|
It would be cool if you also mentioned that in order to avoid being victim of hackers it would be ideal to avoid two-factor authenticantion based on one's personal number, since using it may lead to a theft of funds in exchanges through SIM-swap attack: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIM_swap_scamAnother topic on it Basically, people must know the basics for security and maintain a healthy habit when they use computer, mobile devices and web-surfing. If they can, let's buy a good Internet security / Antivirus software for their device. However, it is a second layer of protection. The first layer is knowledge and healthy habit. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
