i made a cash deposit to buy coins worth $10,000 after payment seller demanded for receipt which i did sent to him , after all the process he claimed they held money in his account and he has to resolve before sending money , he has since been acting funny as money is no longer held on escrow ...nos he does not want to send money ...
From what I understand, did you allow him to cancel the trade, and thus, release the coins from escrow? If you did, then your only chance right now of getting your funds back would be if you were able to get LBC to freeze the seller's account for you, as others have said. Or try to talk to the bank about it and potentially open an investigation in the worst case scenario, though I doubt anything fruitful will come out of that. You should have never allowed the escrow to be cancelled AFTER you send your payment. Period. What the seller is doing is extremely dodgy and is most likely trying to scam you. No doubt about that. If you didn't authorise the cancellation of the trade, and you have marked the payment as complete, then your funds should still be in escrow. BTW, please move this to service discussions. |
|
|
|
|
I can confirm that I've been paid back in full, plus late fees.
|
|
|
|
|
The counter party that you are trading with doesn't necessarily have to lose.
For example, someone could trade you BTC at $4k and make a profit because he bought at a lower level, while you may be able to ride the next bull market and turn your BTC for a profit by selling at the peak.
Also, given that adoption continues to increase and if the utility of bitcoin increases, it's not necessary that bitcoin is a zero sum game.
In a purely speculative market though, which does not grow or shrink in adoption and utility, then it would be a zero sum game, i.e. your profits are someone else's losses. Examples of this would be trading games offered by exchanges that have a fixed amount of liquidity, but that is never the case irl.
|
|
|
|
Ok, I might have some difficulty explaining the concept, but the background for this is simple. Let's say the US SEC wants to make sure that global Bitcoin exchange prices cannot influence the Bitcoin price in their regulated market, would it not be easier for them to just allow price determination based on trading prices within exchanges that adhere to their regulations? Let's say, they can introduce specific guidelines with rules that needs to be adhered to for exchanges to be included in their market and for price determination. If exchanges adhere to these requirements, then institutional investments can be based on your exchange trading volume, but if you do not adhere to these requirements, your exchange price will be ignored? Can a separate market like this, help to reduce Bitcoin price manipulation for local markets that wants strict control over price manipulation and can they operate independently from a global Bitcoin market? Ps.. I am not a professional trader, so my lingo might be wrong, so I hope you can understand what I am saying. Merit goes to the person that puts this in a post that explains this with the correct terminology for everyone to understand.  How does this reduce manipulation of prices? Doesn't this further increase the potential for prices to be manipulated, since your proposal would essentially mean that SEC is the sole determinant of what exchanges are allowed to be included in this so called "price index", and which ones are ignored? If they wanted to, they can remove any exchange that they don't want from this index. Also, who says that the market will actually adhere to the price index, as opposed to still buying/selling at the best rates, even if that means that they are using an unregulated exchange? I really don't understand where you are going with this, nor do I see a point in a central entity publishing any type of price index that filters out unregulated exchanges. Plus, wouldn't arbitrage opportunities arise which lead to prices eventually levelling anyways? |
|
|
|
No. China banning bitcoin mining will simply mean that miners will relocate. There may be a temporary drop, but even that is very unlikely given that the rest of the world is still constantly in an increasing hashrate. Besides, this isn't news that is terribly new at all. China has announced their intentions long ago, and they've already done similar stuff to exchanges, which means that a lot of companies have probably already responded by moving operations out. This won't affect the actaul bitcoin network in any tangible way at all. I can never understand why politicians claim that mining Bitcoin causes a flight of capital. I suspect the reverse is true. You might just as well say that manufacturing cars causes a flight of capital, because auto-makers have to import the steel.
I think that they are probably more concerned about bitcoin itself facilitating the flight of capital, since it offers a way for citizens to bypass certain forex regulations. Their reasoning is probably something along the lines of people can use local currency to purchase the hardware, and gain BTC as a reward, which they can convert freely on the open market. |
|
|
|
The elite have a club where they talk about investing and how to make more money for the enjoyment of their lives and their families. You are not in it.
I reckon we in the cryptospace should stop using the word scam so easily. Some ICO projects might not be scams. The people calling some of them scams are the people who hold the coin of another project. We should stop doing what the SEC is manipulating us to do and encourage the growth of the cryptospace to become something big that no government can stop anymore.
I predict that the SEC or a government organization might secretly support someone to organize a big ICO to scam and fail similar to Bitconnect and use that to begin a hunt to bring down all ICOs.
I think this is partly the reason why the market no longer cares much about what the SEC does with approving ETFs or whatnot. Because the market is starting to realise that regardless of what happens to the decision, the ultimate benefactors aren't going to be bitcoin users - but rather, institutions. The same thing can be said with any other type of crypto regulation or legislation, and not necessarily limited to the SEC either. Their best interests aren't going to always be what's best for users, but rather, how institutions can benefit from the market as well. I wouldn't go to the lengths to say that they will be somehow involved in a scam or anything, since there is no proof of that. But at any given time, they may put the interests of certain lobby groups and established financial institutions ahead of the rest. |
|
|
|
I heard BitConnect Promoters got put into a Lawsuit and the SEC charged them. Did they pay any money to the victims or pay any fines etc?
From what I've heard in the past, there were a bunch of outspoken youtubers that were put into the class action lawsuit as defendants. The only one that I've heard updates about though is Trevon James, and apparently he didn't even lodge a response to the lawsuit which led to a default being entered against him. Whether or not any sum has been reimbursed or not I don't know, but i'd expect that if any funds were to be reimbursed there would be at least some sort of media coverage around it. There has been virtually no updates that is visible for months now regarding the situation. Plus, I don't even think that this is relevant to you given that you said you live in Australia your other thread. Also, I don't think that the SEC has charged them, though there has been an investigation: In a parallel storyline, James is a person of interest in an ongoing SEC investigation into BitConnect. For some of the remaining defendants, namely Glenn Arcaro, Ryan Hildreth, Ryan Maasen and YouTube, the case appears headed to mediation.
On August 29th a joint notice was filed advising the court that a mediator had been agreed upon. Pending approval by the court, the class plaintiff representatives and the defendants above are expected to enter into negotiation later. |
|
|
|
Im still trying to understand what it was "money laundering" in what he did.
He took money from people he did not know, that He did not know about how they got the money or what kind of business they have. He bought Bitcoins with that money, got 5% and put it in his pocket, and handed the Bitcoins to these people. He also went the other way. Taking Bitcoins and handing over money. The main question should be, why did these people pay 5% to Him? That's money laundering. It does not matter whether he knew it or not. But these people who negotiated with him were interested in hiding the sources of their resources. From what I understand, the 5% was simply the spread. It's quite common for people to be willing to pay that as a fee on Localbitcoins, because of the anonymity that they get through the transaction, as well as the convenience of not having to wait for fiat deposits and a bunch of issues that potentially could arise through using an exchange. That had probably nothing to do with what the case was about. What made it illegal was that he was dealing with an extremely large sum of money, and with that, keeping no records while smuggling cash (or at least that is what I saw in the article). I guess this kind of case may be the reason why Localbitcoins have now started to force people into verifying their accounts if they want to open advertisements. Jacob Burrell Campos was sentenced to two years in jail and $823,357 million in illegal profits, due to the pledge of thousands of Bitcoins through an unlicensed money transfer company.
Where he pleaded guilty for running an unregistered platform and thus not subject to anti-money laundering rules.
Was the "million" a typo? That would be a huge sum of money. |
|
|
|
Traders and analysts are screaming about the stock market’s “historic” first quarter. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) – which tracks 30 of the largest American companies – has staged an epic rally since the start of the year, chalking up 12 percent.
But forget stocks. Bitcoin is outperforming the broader stock market by a huge margin. In fact, bitcoin is outperforming every stock on the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Except bitcoin's market capitalisation is much smaller and as a result, moves much more easily compared to stock markets. Also, equities and currencies are simply not the same concept, and in equities, capital gains is only a part of what constitutes a trader's profit. I don't think that this is a fair comparison, or demonstrates the superiority of bitcoin as an investment necessarily. You'd have to be entering at the perfect time to realise these types of gains, and the same thing could be said in reverse when bitcoin underperformed stocks. That said though, in the medium to long term I would personally be more interested in keeping my funds out of shares, and diversifying more into bitcoin given the fact that adoption of bitcoin will likely outpace new share investors, and the ease of which bitcoin can be accessed compared to stocks. But in the short term, these statistics mean virtually nothing. |
|
|
|
Cryptocurrency bull Tim Draper has fired a shot at the chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, Jamie Dimon, nearly two months after the big four U.S. bank announced the creation of a digital currency known as JPM Coin.
In an interview with crypto personality Wendy O, Draper said Dimon’s actions show that he is grieving stage of acceptance with regards to the inevitability of cryptocurrencies:
"That guy… first he says that bitcoin is a scam. Then he gets all paranoid… then he lines up all the banks against it… then he says credit cards, my credit cards cannot be used to buy bitcoin and then he decides he’s going to do his own coin. I mean that was so ridiculous. That’s typical… it’s like the seven stages of… they go through denial… then they go to acceptance. So he is at acceptance."
I personally don't see Jamie Dimon actually being in the "acceptance" phase or whatnot. It's completely irrelevant. His attitude towards bitcoin has essentially shifted alongside JPMorgan's plans of integrating cryptocurrencies into their future. I think that he's more of an opportunist more than anything else, it is likely that he still doesn't believe in bitcoin or what it offers, but would just rather be on the ride as he sees more institutional adoption in the future. That is not something that is wrong inherently, but it does mean that what he says publicly should be taken with a grain of salt. I personally think that Tim Draper here is taking him way too literally. What he says in public is simply a tool to maximise JPMorgan's success, as all corporates do. |
|
|
|
Thanks everyone, the country I'm from is Australia. The person who promoted it to me is American and he just moved back there.
I guess I can sue him, but I doubt I'd get anything out of it based on all the time and energy I pour into it.
Anyways, based on Australia what do you guys think? I could sue the promoter for $ or they'd just get issued some fine? You can probably initiate some sort of civil action, but again, I highly doubt that you'll be able to do anything about it. If the guy isn't even Australian and he's moved back to his home country, it'll be a difficult task to even get him to court let alone try to find compensation for your current situation. Furthermore, you'll probably have to consult a solicitor which will set you back probably a lot in legal fees, and effort in general, as I've mentioned. Even then, you've got to prove that the guy knew the whole thing was a scam as he promoted to you. It'll be difficult since he's only a referral promoter himself, and not actually involved in the runnings of the scheme. The best thing to do right now is to probably move on and learn a lesson, though you could pursue the legal path if you really wanted to. |
|
|
|
|
I really don't think so.
Bitcoin's environmental impact in my opinion has been greatly exaggerated to the point that it's being made out to be worse than pollutants from actual mining or whatnot. And people are failing to realise the fact that bitcoin's energy use isn't just going to waste, it is being used to validate transactions much like the traditional banking system.
Also, if you add the fact that bitcoin is likely using up electricity that would have gone to waste if not used given that most countries don't have infrastructure to store excess electricity. So as long as the electricity itself is generated in a sustainable manner, there is really nothing to see here.
|
|
|
|
Hello everybody I'm happy to be here. I signed up for a reason and although I wanted to protect my Bitcoin friends from fraudsters since I have been playing with Bitcoin for years in casinos, I have the certain experience. A very good Bitcoin casino which is only recommendable Fortune Jack. What I can not recommend to you is Sportsbet.io and Bitcasino.io these are both scammer casinos that just rip you off with certain programs that just let you win in the beginning. Overall I've lost more than 30 BTC at Sportsbet.io and Bitcasino.io and perhaps won 1 BTC with sports betting. The casino is shelling the support too. The casino has no license and many of my friends had the same problems. I even think about taking legal action against this casino but I want to hear your opinion for now maybe we can file a class action ... I will still provide screenshots of evidence and would advise against playing there. Who can recommend a good casino?
Please do provide some proof, because you still haven't attached any. Let me make this clear, though. Sportsbet.io is by no means a safe company to deal with given their track record and reputation, and the fact that there are many, many previous incidents where they have proven to be extremely shady, especially with holding customer funds multiple times. That's the reason in the first place why they've got a tainted reputation on the forum. But an accusation cannot be unbased, and solely based on anecdotal evidence. It's like someone saying that a casino is a scam solely because they've lost money at it. |
|
|
|
|
I would still be willing to do some short term swing trading if the fear of missing out within the market becomes obvious in a particular rally. But the bottom is set in my opinion, I don't expect prices to regress back to $3-4k in the medium run unless a big country decides to release some new regulation that disadvantages the crypto industry on a massive scale.
Apart from that occasional short term trade though, my personal strategy is still to hold since I'm confident in the bull market emerging during the next cycle (which arguably has already started), and that prices will at least return to close to the previous high due to the improved fundamentals from the last bull market.
Even though there may already been a few rallies that has taken place, I would still recommend dollar cost averaging as a method of accumulating if you are a long term investor, especially in short term dips. I don't think that the size of these current rallies are really going to be notable when you zoom out to the long run, and right now, the long term trend is going to be bullish at least until past the halving in my opinion, even if short term there may be adjustments and dips here and there.
|
|
|
|
|
These are options that were available for a long time to users already in platforms like Exodus. It's not a new concept.
Just because Trezor has partnered with their services doesn't mean that there are all of a sudden no risks to using them. There are still problems with these services in the past that would render them untrustworthy, at least in my opinion, such as Changelly holding customer funds while executing orders at a less favourable rate.
Also, this is not a trustless process which I think people can be misled into thinking. You have to trust the third party to do its job, and Trezor can't do anything to help you if something goes wrong.
I would personally still research all of my exchanges before I conduct one to ensure that I understand all the implications, all the reviews, and all the policies which are in place for that particular exchange. I also wouldn't simply settle for this kind of service simply because I want convenience. Furthermore, understand the rates are going to be worse than what market orders are going to give you in general on major exchanges.
|
|
|
|
Since the last financial crisis back in 2008, Bitcoin has emerged as a new alternative payment system for the world. The creator of this revolutionary cryptocurrency had a good mindset since he/she designed a system free from corrupt governments’ manipulation and centralized control. The benefits that Bitcoin's Blockchain provides are numerous that can transform our economy for the better. However, there's a possibility that a next financial crisis or global economic collapse will happen in the future as Banks and governments worldwide inflate Fiat currency. Of course, Fiat will transition towards becoming a digital currency backed by worldwide central banks. But when the next crisis comes, I believe that people will resort towards cryptocurrencies as a safe-haven for their investments. Which is why, it makes me wonder whenever such crisis will trigger a massive adoption of crypto in the future? Any thoughts about this?  I wouldn't be surprised if it did lead to an adoption wave. Though, there is no real way of actually predicting the nature of the next crisis, the magnitude, and the nations it hits. If the economic crisis led to a virtually unusable/unstable fiat currency then it would be apparent that people will seek an alternative medium of exchange, since the fiat currency they are familiar with would be crumbling in value on a regular basis due to rampant inflation. It's not an impossible scenario by any means, just look at Argentina in the past, Zimbabwe, and now, Venezuela and Turkey. Previously, people may look towards precious metals as a store of value in that kind of scenario, but I think that this time round in an inflationary crisis people would still want to transact normally without the hassle of physical transactions, whilst maintaining the currency's independence from fiat - which bitcoin orchestrates. So in theory, yes, adoption should increase as people lose trust of fiat, but the extent at which it happens will depend on how the crisis itself pans out. |
|
|
|
Someone can recommend way to transfer from paypal account to a bitcoin for non-US residents
I Would really apriciate that
Thanks in advance
First of all, know that you are dealing with a huge risk as Paypal has shown that their policy towards bitcoin and cryptos in general is negative. They have shown the willingness to suspend and freeze accounts when affiliated with bitcoin transactions. Once you understand the risks, there are traders on localbitcoins and paxful that are able to conduct the trade for you. From my experience, LBC and Paxful traders that sell BTC for Paypal funds without the need for verification will still give you a better rate than what Virwox offers, especially when it comes to smaller amounts since Virwox has so many fees at each step of the way. Note though that the fees you incur will be inevitable, and expect it to in the double digits in terms of percentage. That's because of the nature of Paypal - nothing you can do about it. |
|
|
|
I am trying to communicate with their support staff. But they only replied to the email sent to me KYC, and then there was no news.
I would personally not use Sportsbet.io for this reason, because they seem to arbitrarily ask for identification. I've always said that if a service wants identification, they need to make it clear when you deposit, and better yet, ask for your identification before you are allowed to even deposit into your account. From what I've heard sportsbet does neither, and leaves a lot of customers unsatisfied. While I wouldn't go to the lengths of calling them a scam yet, it is quite clear that they're not to be fully trusted especially with higher amounts, as reflected by their trust score on the forum. Unfortunately the only chance of recourse right now is probably to provide the ID that they require, even though it may not be a great outcome for you, as you essentially have committed to their terms and conditions when you deposited and they'll just cite that. |
|
|
|
|
The concept of a decentralised exchange is obviously good, and it takes away the counter party risk that traders have to deal with every time they deposit funds into an exchange. Especially in this day and age where KYC can be used as a legal reason to hold people's funds.
However, the integration of different coins and trading pairs over different platforms, especially in regards to the integration of fiat currency is still uncertain with decentralised exchanges.
Perhaps a protocol can be developed in the future that allows this to happen, but I think that people currently are still not fully comfortable with all aspects of a decentralised one yet. They instinctively still want support and fear that they won't get that with a decentralised system, and often the spreads on decentralised exchanges are just too high and there is a general lack of liquidity. I'd definitely be willing to use one in the future though, if these problems can be solved.
|
|
|
|
Happened to me in the past with a fake token as well: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2335323.msg23758209#msg23758209So it's definitely nothing new, and there is absolutely no excuses in sending fake tokens like this. But this is one of the things that if you are lending you need to be careful of, always verify the legitimacy of your collateral especially if you are unfamiliar with the coin. If it's a legit token that someone is sending as collateral, then etherscan will usually have some sort of link that redirects to the official site. You can always check the official contract address as well to be sure. Asking the tokens to be sent to an exchange to guarantee its legitimacy isn't a bad idea either, though you need to be careful that the exchange is trusted. Could be interesting to see if these people are all alts of each other, since their scamming styles are quite similar. All speculation though. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
