I've got some things in my mind regarding your opinion here:

- Men who have responsibilities and have got nothing in hands but Bitcoin, won't hold but sell them not for the sake of profits but to pursue their responsibilities smoothly, same applies to those women who come in the same category.

- Women who are independent, have ^spare^ money to invest and keep it aside for a side income whereas they've got a real world job to survive on other hand, will definitely hold their coins for a duration even longer than men can hold, same applies to those men who come under the same category. So, you can say that women are less in crypto space compared to men; but pointing a question towards their hodling capability is not fine at all. I know one of my female friends who held her BTC till that 2017 spike and sold when it was $14k (although she wanted wanted to sell at a million bucks, she had been hodling them since 2015 so it was a great return to her patience).

Partial repayment out of 0.025 BTC loan - 0.0075 BTC sent.
Remaining 0.018375 (after calculating interest).
After internal decisions and mutual understanding, we've come to an agreement of combining both loans and shifting repayment date - it will now be BTC0.1491 on 10th February, 2019.

Applying for Content Curator job.

Ideal qualities/skills:

1. Familiarity with social media platforms, particularly Twitter, Instagram and Youtube - I'm familiar with all of them.
2. Good understand and command of English - You can check my posts to decide this (I'm not overconfident on this, I'm asking you to do this as currently I don't have anything else than this to show this quality).
3. Multi-lingual - I'm super fluent in Indian language Hindi.
4. Research ability - Can do an in-depth analysis of whichever niche I'll be assigned.
5. Familiarity with building followers and interacting with a user-base - My speciality as I'm a Senior Sales Executive and know how to influence people socially and gain users for your desired project.

Below mentioned is a list of what you asked:

1. Your portfolio or some examples of your work - None as of now because I've not done anything crypto related except advertising through signature here only. But I can prove to be the best candidate selected by you if given a chance.
2. Your LinkedIn Profile - Don't have it, but I can create if mandatory.
3. Working hours - I work 8 hours a day at my place, so getting ~ 4 hours a day is easily possible for me to give to this job. This means I'll be able to give ~28 hours to this job per week.
4. Your Telegram username - @MrBitcoiner
5. Any other information you think is relevant - I live in India, so if it is country specific, I'd request you to try me and let me serve you by my place and make my country feel pride and honor through my work. 

I believe this ETF thing had been hyped way too much that people were being put under the FUD to be played with these puppets as and when these so-called influencers wanted to. Even if they withdrew it, the markets remained so stable that nobody panicked and didn't really react the way these guys wanted. I believe that ETF is not a news of that high level when we compare these talks to Bakkt's launch, I'm awaiting on what's next on it.

First thing, SEC have got too much time to study the markets and people don't really give a fuck about ETF getting approved or not.
Second, CBOE withdrew their VanEck/SolidX ETF application due to a rule change discussion that will be compulsory for an ETF to get approval. So, when such news is out, others who've filed their applications will think twice before keeping themselves in the game as VanEck/SolidX ETF had been an all-rounder in all ways but still they backed off. So, things are becoming easier for SEC as they're getting the reason of their headache being blown away itself.

You said that it is now not safe. You meant that before this, was it safe? A straight NO.
Because it had been said many times that providing your KYC anywhere is full of risks of theft/abuse/sale and to remain safe from such problems, you need to trade under limits but you can have multiple accounts to keep your side safe. This is one of the most significant reasons why I'm not supporting regulations; because then, everything will go in the hands of Govs and eventually, even companies will start selling all your crypto-related usage data (they must be doing it already). So, try to save yourself from such attacks, I know that to trade with higher limits on exchanges, you need to verify your account with KYC, but you can also choose to have more than one account (it's illegal over some exchanges to have more than 1 account, but to save yourself from getting your data sold and abused, you can try).

They are not going to crack it down for us at a stretch, they'll see and utilize the markets' sentiments, play with them, gain some money as it's a Billion dollar industry after all, and then clamp it down like a balloon to burst it off. The KYC thing through exchanges is a favor for them actually as they're gaining lots and lots of data of people whom they'll catch today or tomorrow and start torturing those innocent ones against charges they've not even committed. Regulations are good only if they come on an agreement that no one's privacy will be teased with, at any cost.

So? Who says that our accounts are not worth anything? What's wrong if an account (that is long used and not that alt-type account) is given as a collateral not to cover up the loan value but to justify that the person who is giving their all-time dedication and work to that account believes he/she can put his/her account on stake and get a loan for some time? Sorry, I'm literally not supporting account farming, but giving value to anything (be it even BTC that is evaluated based on people's sentiments, or our accounts here) and deciding what to lend and risk with the borrower totally depends on lender's thinking as well as collateral-acceptance standards.

First of all, it's not a currency, nor is it being used as the same as the value is too much volatile that we can only call this thing an asset that's being traded - so don't say that currency will perform better because it's not a currency in public's views but rather more like a stock over which they can make some bucks. Secondly, it's true that tracing everything will become so easier and that, scams may (slightly) decrease in number and arrests may also happen in found scams (but then, whatever goes into Gov's hands will be used for their own good) and they're not really going to do anything in average Joe's support, even criticize him to stop using crypto as it was his/her fault if he/she loses the coins in any such scams. At least what we possess right now is kept safe and most importantly "PRIVATE". Do you really want to lose your freedom of using crypto anonymously just because you want BTC to perform better? I'm against regulations knowing that it can't be ditched but we can bypass it. Govs are in the mood of putting up clauses like 'you can't send your BTC outside your country without letting them know or without their permission', 'you need to pay huge taxes over crypto gains', and so on.

There are 2 things I can suggest:

1. PayPal is risky enough for first time traders and charge backs could be a big headache and an extremely painful experience for such newbies, I'd suggest you to send your money to a friend whom you trust (only if you personally know them as well as have faith that they may never cheat) and ask them to buy you BTC locally. Exchange at their place may have cheaper fees than what you're being suggested. I'd ask a question someone already asked - Why only PayPal?

2. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583572.0
Shdvb's thread, this guy is trustworthy enough if you wish to buy BTC, the only problem is, he doesn't sell BTC with PayPal, but you can use:

If you could manage PayPal, then I guess that purchasing USDT won't be a big deal for you as there are e-currency exchangers that do such trades, but it's more riskier than PayPal alone. So, if you could manage MoneyGram, I believe that buying BTC won't be a big problem.

@OP,
I've read the whole infographic, but what I didn't get here is: why should someone get a negative feedback if they take an account as a collateral? It's their choice to lend someone after taking one's account as a collateral (I'm talking about bitcointalk forum account as it does have a value which lender decides at the time of lending) so how can it be considered a practice of account-farming?

Sorry if there's something already decided in Meta and I'm unaware, please draw me towards the fact based on which you've added the said thing in your infographic. I know it's not official, but still I'm curious. 

Bitcoin is not people, it is for the people. And it's an open-source code only that's being worked out as a digital currency just because it is a token that has value, and that value is given by people. Sorry to say this, but IMHO, you're wrong in your words, if social construct is what makes Bitcoin ^Bitcoin^, then the code (which makes it able to show those numbers correctly in your wallet and stop double spending), the network (that keeps the transactions going smoothly and securely without any intervention) and the devs (who are responsible as well as working hard behind BTC's back to keep it secure and let it remain the number 1 cryptocurrency are all equally responsible in the making of this beautiful crypto.

Glad you saved some bucks before it gets increased in its value; it shows that when such chances are given, those who are dedicated to "contribution" and not just spamming and making bucks should not hesitate in taking advantage of the same. I'd suggest admins one thing that I haven't seen mostly anywhere, and i.e.; if it's possible for them to make a USD pegged button for such membership, it'd be beneficial for both forum and people's welfare (like they decide a specific value in USD and choose an exchange based on which price will change in BTC considering its volatility).

Wait, signature campaigns?
I've never seen any of those copper members (those possessing newbie ranks and having a copper membership bought) being accepted in any signature campaign and it is merit that could get them higher ranks. Yes, it's true that they're given real benefits and privileges just the way users having "Member" rank enjoy, but purchasing a copper membership doesn't really guarantee you'll be accepted in a campaign. Please don't misguide others about this, as well as what you said about that $10 payment for a Member rank, were actually alts they wanted to purchase to get into signature campaign.

Well, it's true that nobody can put a "cap" over how much one can attain and what capacity they need to keep with them; but then, what about the 51% attack and even more hash power than that gained by any one entity or institution? What if their intentions are not good? That won't affect the network alone, but the value in everyone's mind for BTC is just because it can't be attacked that damn easily and be used as a borderless currency, what would happen if everyone's faith will be shaken up if some stupid statement comes up from big shitheads like Craig Wright or Roger Ver? Sometimes, these people don't try to manipulate everything including hashrates to market values on their own, but rather influence people on doing what they want these people to do.

---

Well, then what would come up would be called an alt like Bitcoin Cash which is not Bitcoin itself. It doesn't really need any Core devs' permission, but we need to come up with that consensus thing over the decision on whether any/many of the miners would actually support and run your developed software or would they continue with the ongoing one? This only gave birth to many alt (or I should say shit) coins due to having no support from people during the beginning and even now. Remember, it's us in the end who are going to use it, so decision over supporting such proposals need to be taken with too much care. Else, asking other devs to come up with an alt to show what they've got (through testnet first) would be highly preferential.

Don't know how mods will react to this, but I second you on this.
What you did was good, but what the OP proposed was great as their dream turned out to reality. This is an example of how one can achieve anything even if they've got nothing but super strong will power to turn the tables and make their dreams come true. It was just a proposal 4 years back, and it's now an act that is going to take place very soon and let the Shoppers buy BTC through the supermarkets without any hurdles - this is what will drag us towards the mainstream - this is the power of a dream.

Get a good PR rating from Google, try to advertise your site first over AdWords or whichever you find cheap for your website, check and use the best keywords over there to gain quality traffic, take user interests like what they want to see there (paid reviews or paid advertising). Even if you go for paid reviews, I guess you may hire an Editor to give the keywords the better finishing to keep up with the reputation of the website. You may then proceed with small text links of ICOs that you believe will surely deliver (but chances of getting scammed are higher, so DYOR at an extreme level before even letting an ICO content landing on your website's page/s). Try to find direct relationships to businesses that relate to the specific content of a published material, then show that advert only for that article and ask for a better price if you're going to give them some great exposure. Going for ICO adverts is literally stupid and even I stopped one of my friends to advertise such material who've got more than 10k subscribers at his crypto related news website.

Well, what are you putting your expectations based upon?
I don't really see BTC ending up there (at least not less than $1500 if it ever goes least), but I too have a bottom assumed in my mind for this year and it's not lower than $2950. We've got many good things like Bakkt and ETFs (yeah I know that I don't support regulations, but still, it'll bring in fresh money which will have the power to drive the markets crazy once again and the accumulation had already been done) and many countries are also in preparations of a new framework for crypto space to regulate as well as tax them (in other words, legalize crypto world). Even there's a news that BTC has now become a way of digiwar between Russia and US, and both of them are trying to gain as much BTC as possible to get a hold on the biggest share they may accumulate. There's one great news I'd like to share: https://dailyhodl.com/2019/01/18/crypto-hits-the-mainstream-shoppers-can-now-buy-bitcoin-at-us-supermarkets/

You still think it'll drop down that hard?

That was the advantage of spreads that traders took, but without the involvement of banks, it can be said that only digital payment modes such as PayTM, Amazon Pay, Freecharge, PhonePe, etc. can help in such cases (but chances of getting scammed are very high in these), because if banks aren't going to support and are going to close your accounts even based on suspicion, will only let such black trades rise in number where everyone needs to pay a lot more in premium in order to buy BTC. Just think, what would happen if they ban BTC here? Will public of India stop trading BTC? No, because BTC is not something easily traceable and the only thing that will happen is, other countries will take advantage of this and ask way higher prices than market price if Indians want to buy BTC from them.

Any employer who wish to pay in crypto, will either have a lot of BTC/alts already saved with them they agree to pay in, or they may choose to buy them immediately in a good quantity or the exact amount during the time they need to pay (may be through exchanges or direct deals in which they can buy for some less %).



I've had a work that was USD-pegged once I agreed to do it based on fiat-pegged pay, I completed the job and handed it over to them. It's not how you think, if the value would have increased when they've had bought, they'd only send me the amount that matches my pay (in terms of USD), same applies if the value decreased. The only thing that differs is, advantage; and it totally depends on this increase/decrease and who gains afterwards. They don't go bizarre even after any change in price as we're all aware of the volatility in markets.