Hi all, any traders able to recommend a reliable company that can buy Bitcoin in bulk quantities for wire transfers? A number of my clients have approached me looking to sell their positions in Bitcoin, some of which are companies / groups.
I must say that those are a bunch of dumb clients.  ) Or maybe they have just reached the edge of the knife and need to pay their rent. I'm not judging anyone.  Why don't you just make an account on bittrex, bitstamp, kraken, etc. and sell them there? Because he's likely just a troll starting an FUD thread here. If he really did want to sell 10,000+ BTC, then over-the-counter (OTC) would be the way to go -- not directly on exchange order books. That way, he could avoid slippage. Bitfinex has an OTC trading desk, and so does itBit. |
|
|
|
I can't bring myself to touch XRP. I just cannot wrap my head around it. It's incomprehensible to me.
The diamond comparison is on the money. I see more appealing rocks every time I go to the beach yet De Beers have managed to fool people into handing over lord knows how much for them for years on end.
XRP speculation is so silly — one only needs a tiny amount to fund a lifetimes worth of transactions. And that’s all it’s good for: burning for fees. It really goes to show you how little investors understand Ripple. It’s basically a debt-underwriting system where you extend certain amounts of trust (credit risk) to other people, where XRP is a spam deterrent. |
|
|
|
Jack Ma advises to learn from others' mistakes rather than their success stories. So i kindly ask you, guys, to share your biggest mistakes (or mistakes that you think the others can avoid) in trading, securing your coins and etc. in this thread. I hope "new comers" will be able to learn a lot from this thread Let's begin with me: Mine is almost a cliché but still there are a lot of people who do this mistake - I blindly followed some traders on twitter which cost me 30-40% of my funds You learned the hard way that trading isn’t easy, and requires a profitable system that can cut your losses quickly. It’s no surprise that most traders actually lose money, because they trade blindly based on emotion. When it comes to trading, stay away from altcoins until everything is bullish again. Altcoins get massacred during the bear markets. When it comes to security: Don’t use exchanges as wallets. Get your own dedicated desktop wallets. And you should also start keeping most of your coins in cold storage, in case your intenet-connected PC gets compromised. |
|
|
|
As a matter of fact, XBT Provider (Swedish Bitcoin ETN) is widely available to US investors through most brokers, and it does very impressive volume compared to ETFs in the US. There is a distinction. While both are securities, ETNs are generally unsecured debt notes. ETFs provide shares into a fund that holds the underlying assets. They carry different risks — mainly, credit risk vs. tracking risk (whether the fund actually tracks the underlying): https://www.investopedia.com/investing/etfs-vs-etns/ |
|
|
|
Also, Andreas has a nice explanation of this topic in his book Mastering Bitcoin: In Blockchain Forks we looked at how the bitcoin network may briefly diverge, with two parts of the network following two different branches of the blockchain for a short time. We saw how this process occurs naturally, as part of the normal operation of the network and how the network reconverges on a common blockchain after one or more blocks are mined.
There is another scenario in which the network may diverge into following two chains: a change in the consensus rules. This type of fork is called a hard fork, because after the fork the network does not reconverge onto a single chain. Instead, the two chains evolve independently. Hard forks occur when part of the network is operating under a different set of consensus rules than the rest of the network. This may occur because of a bug or because of a deliberate change in the implementation of the consensus rules.
Hard forks can be used to change the rules of consensus, but they require coordination between all participants in the system. Any nodes that do not upgrade to the new consensus rules are unable to participate in the consensus mechanism and are forced onto a separate chain at the moment of the hard fork. Thus, a change introduced by a hard fork can be thought of as not "forward compatible," in that nonupgraded systems can no longer process the new consensus rules.
I like his explanation. Hard forks are most easily understood as incompatible consensus changes. Unfortunately, we use a slightly different definition in Bitcoin development. Generally, “hard forks” refer to consensus forks where rules are removed. “Soft forks” refer to consensus forks where rules are added — these are compatible with previous versions as long as they are enforced by a majority of hash power. But “User-activated soft forks (UASFs)” are a priori incompatible with previous versions, because they activate without regard for hash power. ...which brings me back to my original thought. Andreas’ definition is much easier. |
|
|
|
Too bad for AT&T, apparently they will have to pay since it is clearly its fault but I doubt the punitive damage will be accepted as it is by the court.
It’s clearly their fault in a literal sense, but that doesn’t mean they have to pay. The law (Data Protection Act, etc.) calls for exercising some sort of reasonable care in authenticating customers. Across most industries, the threshold is pretty low. Usually all a hijacker needs is your account #, name, and a few pieces of identifying info about you. That’s why it’s been an industry standard among exchanges for years now to offer at least TOTP authentication for 2FA. Anyone linking a phone number to an exchange account is asking to get robbed. |
|
|
|
Now that market seems always falling down these will prevent day traders to day trade crypto which relatively most of the money from the investors will going to end up day trading with some of the individuals who were always looking after at the graph of crypto market price movement. Now I think they should better be gone. Without these day traders market price could go a good increase all the way. I hope they will not come back.
Falling price doesn’t deter traders; they can go short as well as long. If day traders left, why would price go up? Anyway, day traders don’t dictate whether price goes up or down, as the exchange and OTC markets are much larger than them. They benefit the market, though, because they provide additional liquidity. If anything, we should be thanking traders for that.  |
|
|
|
|
Even though you control the private keys on blockchain.info or greenaddress.it, you still have to trust their websites and servers. This could expose you to MITM attacks. Not safe for storing lots of coin.
The above options are still better than an exchange, though. Blockchain.info has better UI, but greenaddress.it has more useful features (like Segwit) and security settings.
|
|
|
|
It's not a cult, it just has a lot of believers behind it who can see its divine potential. Wait, that does sound like a cult . I think the trouble with bitcoin is it just attracts both the crazy and desperate. The people who never shut up about it are usually those that have got significant money invested in it so it's in their best interests to scream it from the rooftops with a passion. It’s definitely not a cult in any conventional sense, but plenty of vocal proponents come off sort of cultish with their intensity and fandom. Bitcoin is great, and it works. I’ve been a user and proponent for several years. But I don’t shout it from the rooftops, because of the image. It’s definitely getting more mainstream now, though. |
|
|
|
Question with ssi in terms of bitcoin.
I am trying to get ssi for my disability. But I have some storage of various coins, bitcoin, ethereum, litecoin, etc.
I am wondering, do I sell all my coins, in order to be poor enough to get ssi? Or its not needed to sell? Because even though I am not making money on coins now (and only losing money on the coin) I'd hate to miss being a millionaire, 2 years in the future, but I lost out because I sold all my coins. But right now, my coins are giving literally no income, thus I need ssi.
I have a close friend on SSI. Over the years, she's had a couple large inflows of cash. During those times when she had assets, she was no longer eligible to receive benefits. She had to dispose of them, or lose the benefits: SSI Asset Limit A resource is money as well as something that you own and can turn into cash. Examples of resources are property, stocks, bonds, and bank accounts. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a needs-based program. To get SSI, your countable resources must not be worth more than $2,000 for an individual or $3,000 for a couple. We call this the resource limit. Countable resources are the things you own that count toward the resource limit. SSI Spotlight on Resources - Social Security https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/spotlights/spot-resources.htmNow, whether the SSA would ever be able to figure out you own cryptocurrency without you telling them -- that's another story... |
|
|
|
Then presumably you just import them in pieces and put them back together again. There's nothing all that unique about them as actual units, bits of circuitry and some add ons for cooling and power. Prohibition might create a black market, but it'll likely cut the market down in size, and maybe that's the point. From what I've read, outages are common in Vietnam. Maybe they're trying to deter miners for that reason. Is it even worth mining in Vietnam?
Looks like 7-8 cents per kWh on average. And it's a warm/hot climate. Then you might have to factor in import tariffs. I imagine there are better places to mine. |
|
|
|
The ETF is being made too big a deal of at the moment. The last ETF to get approved was (I think) copper. Copper's been around for millions of years. Bitcoin's not even ten yet. Bitcoin ETF gets rejected? So what?
I'm amazed that most people think it's a slam dunk for approval -- and soon. Some ETFs take years for approval as it is; this is an asset class that didn't exist 10 years ago! I personally don't care, but it might be nice just for the positive press.
True, but there are downsides. I think it'll encourage more and more bad practices among investors and institutions/brokers/exchanges. Increasing amounts of investors will buy securities rather than BTC. We know how that can end. Leverage financialization also improves liquidity, but it does so artificially.
“In the negative context, it means liquidity is improving but it’s coming from the bad kind of leverage—paper claims to an asset that aren’t backed by the asset itself, or “circulation credit” as economist Ludwig von Mises calls it,” says Long.
The Wall Street exec went on to point out that fractional reserve banking doesn’t only occur where the Federal Reserve creates money from nothing, explaining how most of the credit created since the 1980s has been created in securities markets, not in the traditional banking system. Securities market credit is in the form of paper to assets, usually piled on top of other paper claims to assets, just as banking system credit is.
“And this is what I worry will happen to bitcoin—paper claims, piled upon paper claims, piled upon paper claims to the actual bitcoin.” |
|
|
|
SEC has the right to postpone the adoption of the decision.
1) for 45 days in case more time is needed for studying
2) another 90 days to justify the rejection of the application
3) and another 60 days, if again more time is needed to study the documents submitted
Total 195 days And then after that, they can reject the application, and then applicants would be sent back to square one, trying to figure out how to appease the SEC. Personally, I think the SEC commissioners -- most of them -- want to see the markets mature for a while before approving an ETF. That's just fine, really. An ETF -- like the CME cash-settled futures -- doesn't really matter. |
|
|
|
don't know which poll to believe-just below there was another poll
stating that only 5% of americans wanted to invest in cryptocurrencies, this is not 50% not even 20% - 5%! It'll largely differ depending on how they frame questions and who they ask. I've seen poll results suggesting that ~5% of Americans own cryptocurrency, so the 8% figure doesn't surprise me too much. This is quite different: Being "willing to try out" BTC is a far cry from actually going out and buying it. I'm willing to try out lots of things, but that doesn't mean I'm going to research and spend money on all of them. |
|
|
|
I even think its against human dignity to be subjected to that amount of ridiculous conditions.I actually left them months ago and only started dealing with them again when circle bought them.
Has anything changed since Circle bought them? I see the same complaints as always. I suppose it would be naive to think things would improve overnight.  It's a shame because I used both of them in 2017 equaly much and didn't even require the KYC to operate withdrawals and deposits.
Indeed, it seems like we got out at the right time. I used both Polo and Bittrex a lot through late 2017 and never had longstanding problems with either. I saw the writing on the wall, though, after the account lockings started piling up. |
|
|
|
Okay, that's fair enough. Although I notice that trading volumes at Bitstamp and Bitfinex declined throughout the year as well. I think that's probably natural following a run-up like 2017. The hype ends and speculators become disinterested. CME's volumes aren't that bad at all. CME's volume for AUG 2018 today is 4900 contracts, which means 24,500BTC = $159 million.
Top exchanges by volume;
Binance; $336 million USDT.
OKEx; $227 million USDT.
Bitfinex; $196 million USD/USDT (never know the ratio since they count everything as one).
CME; $159 million USD.
The first true USD exchange is Bitstamp with $65 million in volume.
If you discard everything else, you'll see that CME is probably the largest exchange measured by its actual USD cash settlement value.
Thanks. That definitely gives some perspective. |
|
|
|
The other thing is, it's not just a matter of time. The SEC's objections regard structural issues in the market -- things like market manipulation and poor liquidity.
The same basically applies to futures. The majority of the volumes last year was being generated by unregulated exchanges, and is still the case today. The CFTC is even investigating a couple of exchanges as we speak. The difference is that entities like CBOE and CME could self-certify Bitcoin futures. They didn't need affirmative regulatory approval from the CFTC to launch those markets. ETF applicants do, however, so the SEC is in a position to drive a much harder line with them. If the CFTC could have stopped them, they probably would have. A couple months later, they were holding hearings/meetings to examine whether the self-certification process was adequate -- obviously because of BTC futures launching. The CFTC and the SEC might seem like completely different entities, but they share the exact same foundation to operate on. Can we say that the futures markets were part of a failed experiment?
Were they? Why? |
|
|
|
Imo it can be approved within a year, when a company (Winklevoss twins?) will come out with a proposition which SEC will not be able to dismiss.
One year is a more than reasonable time frame Is it? Some ETFs have taken multiple years for SEC approval. And that's for everyday run-of-the-mill commodities. Bitcoin represents a whole new class of assets that the SEC doesn't seem to know how to deal with. So, I'd expect a Bitcoin ETF approval to take longer than any other ETF application process in history. A decade wouldn't even surprise me. The other thing is, it's not just a matter of time. The SEC's objections regard structural issues in the market -- things like market manipulation and poor liquidity. |
|
|
|
David Solomon, incoming CEO at Goldman Sachs has revealed that he intends to put more Bitcoin and crypto services in the investment company’s portfolio. Still and all, the Goldman Sachs 2018 mid-year economic outlook report alludes Bitcoin will go on moving down for an anticipatable future.
I've been feeling pretty dismal about this market, so it's actually refreshing to see this forecast from Goldman Sachs. I feel like they often release bearish forecasts near market bottoms -- probably to get you to sell into their bids.  Either way, as someone who observed the last major bear market (2014 on), it's best to maintain reserved expectations about price performance after a run-up like 2017. We could have a long way down to go yet. |
|
|
|
I'm skeptical of the source and methodology. I think the sentiment is right, but this sounds inflated. "48% of males?" Come on now... Because it's the currency of young people who prefer freedom over mortgage. While older people who went through this whole financial struggle of getting a low paid job, renting a flat, then finally being able to get a house and paying off that house for 20+ years, tend to think that this is how life should be, the younger generation sees them struggle and wants a better life. Life where work is taking only a couple hours a day and you don't have to ask the bank for permission to use your money.
But where is their money going to come from? As a millennial, I observe stagnant wages and declining benefits (replaced by contract jobs). What's Bitcoin got to do with only working a couple hours a day? Is that because we're assuming 1 BTC will be worth millions of USD someday? Benefits should in fact be declining as this is a sign of a more healthy economy that steers away from all this socialist nonsense. Obamacare and the European migration crisis are prime examples of such nonsense. I guess there is some confusion about definitions. Benefits refers to employer-provided incentives (health insurance, retirement contributions, etc.) that employers use to incentivize employees and reduce turnover. There is nothing "socialistic" about them; they are essentially value added by employers on top of wages paid. Nothing to do with government. The point is that as employer-provided benefits become a thing of the past, effective wages decline. This working a couple hours a day, preferably from home, is the new trend among young people. Nobody wants to spend whole day sitting at a desk in a crowded room. People are looking for ways of making money that did not exist 20 years ago. Some examples? Live streamers, youtubers, social media influencers, crypto advertisers, professional computer gamers. I believe cryptocurrencies are and will be popular among these people regardless of whether it reaches 1 million or not.
I agree, the employment landscape is rapidly changing. However, I don't believe those occupations (on average) pay middle class incomes in developed economies, and certainly not at 2 hours a day. What I'm seeing in the United States is a new generation of adults who either live with their parents or depend on their parents for income. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
