...
AFAIK, exchanges will actually try to bypass verification as far as possible and allowed. Because they know that they'll get a much larger following and user base by doing that instead of requiring strict identification.
...
In my opinion only the less legitimate exchanges (Bitfinex, CEX and similar exchanges) will try to bypass verification as far as possible. The licensed and regulated exchanges are actually pretty eager to conform to the expectations of the regulatory bodies. E.g. exchanges like Bitstamp take KYC pretty seriously as anyone, who ever had to fill out one of their KYC forms can confirm. Besides, some exchanges are even acting in advance of passed legislation: Japanese Crypto Exchanges Unite to Form Self-Regulatory GroupWhat about exchanges such as Binance, and poloniex/bittrex before they were pressured into adding KYC? Exchanges have a significant benefit to gain if they do not implement KYC. If they do implement KYC, it is either because of regulatory pressure that force them into doing so, or, they are most likely doing it with some malicious intent to hold customer funds with KYC being somewhat of an excuse. That's the two most likely reasons, no one wants to be compliant just for the sake of it. Just look at previous cases with respect to HitBTC KYC, and the lengths that they ask you to answer questions at, that relevant legislation probably doesn't even cover. |
|
|
|
Data posted by a Twitter user simply known as Asimov shows that Gold mining consumes 23 times more energy than Bitcoin mining. Asimov’s data shows more on banking systems, governments and paper currency minting. It's not really comparable per se. Gold obviously has a higher "user" count, and a much bigger market capitalisation. But the narrative that bitcoin is somehow more environmentally damaging, when compared to the extraction of metals that are basically solely used for their monetary and investment properties, as well as traditional centralised transaction processing, is illogical. We can talk about how much more energy or damage gold mining is using compared to bitcoin, but I think most significantly, it is important to realise that the energy used in bitcoin mining is used to sustain the network - it isn't going to waste. The bottom line is, if the energy that is used by bitcoin miners is sustainably generated, then there shouldn't be a problem. And there is no indication that bitcoin uses significantly more energy than what traditional banking institutions do, especially when you consider the environmental costs of developing real life locations. |
|
|
|
Half of the threads in this board (i.e. Speculation) is about whales manipulating the market in one way or another. But do they really exist and what is their real impact? If you want to find out, stay with me
I think it can be assumed as an established fact that there's some kind of market rigging going on at any time, which makes room for speculations about rich dudes moving prices as they see fit. Just as there is little doubt that some market manipulation is actually happening (though it remains to be seen how much of any given price move is in fact caused by this manipulation), there is also little doubt that quite a bunch of people involved in cryptocurrencies are extremely rich. But are they really behind every price manipulation out there?
My take is that they are not. Of course, when they start to sell, the price goes down, and when they go on a buying spree, the price goes up, which is kind of self-explanatory. With that said though, I'm strongly inclined to think that much of the market manipulation we see these days is caused by cryptocurrency exchanges alone. Indeed, you could say that they are the whales in question but I have to disagree with this point of view as they don't own the funds of their traders (though they definitely use these funds to massage the prices to their advantage)
What's your take on this?
I tend to agree with you. People stress about what the whales are doing too much, and automatically assume that every single move within the market is caused by bitcoin holders. Personally, I think that not only is it more likely that these big time stakeholders will not change the composition of their investment portfolio drastically in the short term, it is also absurd to assume that they are behind all the price action, especially when you consider that people can use leverage and derivatives to achieve the volumes that the so called "whales" have, if they buy/sell on the open market. A lot of the transactions are probably not even done on the open market, but rather on the OTC market, where it doesn't reflect openly on the price. It's just lazy analysis in my opinion if one's just to explain a certain price movement because "a whale did it", or something along the lines of that. IMO, even just looking at the fundamentals and macro factors will do you more good than this. |
|
|
|
|
Like others mentioned, I don't see any abnormal fees at the moment. The recommended fees by electrum is 12.6 sats/byte for within the next block (I'm using a bech32 address).
I think that it is much more likely that you have many inputs/coins which you are sending, which may be contributing to the high fees that you are experiencing.
If you're really concerned that fees will rise drastically in the near future, then perhaps you should consolidate any small dust inputs that you may have right now when fees are still relatively low (I think you can get away with sub-10 sat/byte at the moment), so that when fees are high, you minimise your amount of inputs, and thus reducing the overall fee you have to pay.
|
|
|
|
Its funny how after releasing their own JPM coin JP Morgan have done a complete u-turn and are now endorsing cryptos (providing you still use a normal bank sevice of course). When JP Morgan slated bitcoin last year there was a sudden price drop. Even though they were caught buying bitcoin on the dip for their clients the facade was allowed to continue. Pretending to rubbish publicly something whilst secretly working on it is the oldest trick in the book and its sad that so many people still take taken in by this game. I suspect that any day China is going to declare its support for crypto and lift its ban even though we all know its working on blockchain projects in the background. It just means we have to wait longer for the price to go up I guess. Here is the JP Morgan article https://www.newsbtc.com/2019/03/20/jpmorgan-executives-flip-bullish-on-crypto-after-jpm-coin-release/It's obvious that they are simply trying to do what is best for their corporation, which is often to give off the impression of something that you're not, or take a false stance. It doesn't matter what other corporations think about bitcoin, no matter how large they are. This is the fundamental thing that most people are getting wrong, in my opinion, which is caring too much about what executives of certain companies have to say. The BTC network is decentralised for a reason, and that reason is exactly that of no one is able to ban, restrict, or manipulate the bitcoin network regardless of whether they're a centralised institution on a mass scale or not. JPMorgan is probably only interested in BTC as a means of making profits, not so much so as an actual viable means of payment or currency. Thus, it is easy for them to shift stances like this, and it makes sense given that they are also somewhat invested in having a crypto venture at this stage. I would personally pay no close attention to any of this, because Dimon or other execs could come out tomorrow and say something completely different, should they change their own outlook regarding their crypto project. |
|
|
|
Though, I'm not sure whether this is just a blatant scam, or an actual phishing site, because I'm not sure whose site they're trying to impersonate exactly.
AFAIK, Phishing generally means an attempt to trick someone to provide their private or sensitive information which could give the attacker access to the victim's electronic accounts. Website impersonation just happens to be one of the techniques. I guess. If we were going off your definition, then the site could certainly be classified as a phishing site given that it's obviously trying to maliciously obtain the private keys of the users. But they might not actually trying to impersonate anyone's site in particular as you say, since the closest thing I saw to their project is probably Agrello, which was rebranded from delta, and this site currently looks absolutely nothing like what Agrello's site looks like or even the service that they provide. At the end of the day though, this barely matters. They are a noob-targeting scam, no matter the classification. |
|
|
|
Hi everyone!
I'm searching for some realiable Exchganges who not ask a lot of documents (hacking risk). I wish buy with SEPA or Debit Card
You will be able to find people that will accept SEPA as a means of payment on p2p trading platforms such as Localbitcoins, although, if you do not want to provide KYC docs you'll likely encounter drastically worse rates and higher spreads than if you were able to provide that. Debit card is going to be harder. I'd actually recommend that if you've got bank funds, don't pay via debit card. Withdraw the cash and do a p2p trade, or use bank transfer. You'll get much better rates for your money. I'm fairly sure that Virwox still works for debit cards, and that's always reliable as it's been around for ages. Any site that has simplex integration will likely be able to facilitate a no KYC debit card payment option (changelly offers it afaik, but I personally would avoid them), but rates are fairly bad again. |
|
|
|
Only 9.5 months left to go until we see which of these Crypto-Nostrodomisii are proven right- or so very, very wrong:
Sonny Singh: 15k to 20k by Thanksgiving
Sam Doctor and Tom Lee: 36k by DEC 31
Ronnie Moas: 28k by Dec 31
Mike Novogratz: 10k by end of Q1 2019 (2 weeks to go? Not sure they actually spoke to Mikey)
Fran Strajnar: 200k by Jan 31 2020
Arthur Hayes: 3kish all 2019 (What? BURN THE UNBELIEVER!) lol
CoinSwitch.io: 23.5k by DEC 31 2019
I think that most of these predictions won't even pan out. Given the predictions listed above, there are a lot of people who expect the price to somehow jump to 5 figures by the end of the year. I don't think this is possible in such a short period of time, and with all the bearish sentiments still remaining in the market. After all, people are still quite uncertain and much more conservative in their investment approach after the downswing. It's important to note that most of these so called "experts" are just mainstream media guys that throw out arbitrary sensationalist predictions. I would bet that most are completely unbased as well, with no valid fundamental or technical analysis in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
This pretty much means nothing in terms of how the network is actually run, or the underlying fundamentals of bitcoin.
Nor is this the first time that we've seen this occur. Bitcoin dominance is known to fall drastically in bullish times, most likely because people seek to park their funds in the short term in other tokens which have higher volatility in order to "ride the wave". It doesn't mean that bitcoin itself is becoming less popular, or its adoption is slowing down.
As a result, I'd not be concerned whatsoever, even if it continues to slip down to 40%, 30%. Bitcoin simply isn't the only cryptocurrency in the market anymore, as others try to tackle particular economic niches. But as I said, the most important thing is recognising that this has nothing to do with bitcoin itself, but more about the sentiment of the traders.
|
|
|
|
|
Seems like they all point to "coin-buzz.com" now.
I've seen this type of scam before, where the scammer continuously creates new websites that redirect to the same URL, whilst containing the same substance. And all of them seem to be based off cex.io's exchange script.
It is likely that these websites are being used for scams on discord, telegram etc. where a scammer spreads these links in public channels, or asks people to help "withdraw" their funds from these sites. Again, it's not a particularly new method. I remember the name Cryptual from previous scam accusations as well, IIRC.
The fact that they have so many domain names make it difficult to pin down and for the victim to be able to research, but if you see a new exchange that seems to be using some other site's script, with no reviews whatsoever, just avoid using it.
|
|
|
|
|
Your idea is still not failproof. Also, just because everyone is limited to one address/account doesn't mean that the money supply is fair.
Furthermore, for this idea to ever work, there needs to be a central entity which has to verify the legitimacy of each piece of identity verification. Whether we can trust this central entity to do their job is up to debate.
I simply don't see the benefits of doing this. You are not directly controlling the currency supply, and there is no mechanism in place that could ever control someone having multiple addresses/accounts. Also as I mentioned, the fact that you're essentially discarding the entire idea of decentralisation.
I think BTC's decentralised currency supply is all we need at the moment when it comes to controlling it. There is no need to do anything further than capping the supply at a point and enforcing it in a decentralised manner, so that no one is able to manipulate it.
|
|
|
|
Look at these charts! Before the BTC bullrun from 2014-2015 and now. It makes me happy just looking at it
It has really been a closer mirror to 14-15 than I think most people have expected. But it's not surprising, given the fact that bitcoin has always moved in cycles, most likely dictated by the halving as a major turning point. As we approach the halving, there will likely be more bullish sentiment present within the market, and as a result we may see a recovery happen from the bottoms of the bear market. I wouldn't get too excited to the point where I'm certain prices aren't going to go down further from this point, though, because there is every possibility that it could. Short term wise, volatility is unpredictable and even though a recovery will likely take place before next year, we could still see previous floors being tested before that occurs. I don't agree with the perma-bears with saying that BTC will go sub-$1000, though. That's just absurd given what we see with new institutional entrants to the market. |
|
|
|
|
Jesus. I can't believe that people are falling for this.
It's so obviously fake. There is absolutely no reason that Bitmain would ever contact you directly with an unsolicited invoice asking you to pay for a heavily discounted unit, when there is absolutely no way that they were going to even identify who has paid and who hasn't (assuming that they are legit, which they are not), if payments are directly sent to a common bitcoin address.
All that needs to be done is some research and due diligence. People should look up the offer at least before sending funds to it. If there is nothing official that would suggest this offer is legit, then simply don't take the risk.
|
|
|
|
Simply put, no one is out here to give you free money. Use your common sense and you'll find that this is a completely unsustainable business model, and they clearly cannot afford to give away funds like this even if they are just starting out and what to advertise themselves. What if people abuse this promo and have multiple accounts? Wouldn't they go bankrupt overnight? The only logical explanation is that they are running a con, based on the fact that they will most likely ask you to deposit more funds in order to withdraw any winnings from the promo code, or just not process any withdrawals altogether. Couple that with the fact that they're using the script of another site as anon mentioned, you've got an obvious one. |
|
|
|
Every tradingview analyst are always right in hindsight. But is there someone you believe in based on past performance?
You could always take into account the analysis which are out there, either on tradingview, in the youtube bitcoin community, or reddit. However, my main rule of thumb is to never trust them blindly. You want to have information from multiple sources before you make the decision for yourself, because technical analysis can give off completely different signals depending on how the analysis is framed, and they might even be conflicting. Don't just rely on one analyst, do your own research as well, and I'd actually recommend looking at how fundamentals are moving along as much as you'd look at technical, because that's what ultimately drives long term adoption and network growth. |
|
|
|
So I was using Payoneer for years to withdraw to the bank account. Recently they disabled my balance. support is not willing to respond it looks like.
I am thinking to use one of this following sites.
* Perfect Money
* Skrill
* Neteller
Looking for an honest review.
Are you looking more so for payment processors/services rather than cashing out to bank accounts? Because based on the examples that you gave, it does seem like so. If you are purely wanting to cash out your coins, and you don't want to perform KYC, I would still suggest trading p2p on either localbitcoins or paxful (beware of KYC thresholds on trading volume limits, though). They will likely give you better rates than having to convert BTC first into one of these payment processor's native currencies, and then still having to pay withdrawal fees on top of that. If you are willing to do KYC then without a question, go with a regulated, licensed exchange and sell on the open market. But if you want a wallet service/payment processor like the examples you gave, I can say that I don't really like Skrill or Neteller because of their confusing stance on crypto transactions, and the limitations that crypto deposits have. Perfectmoney has been reliable, but you don't know what's going to happen in the future. Same with services like Advcash and Payeer, because they are sort of like Libertyreserve before it got shut down. If I had to pick one though, I'd go with Advcash because there's no fees transferring in between accounts. |
|
|
|
Apparently, regardless of whether the seller you're dealing with ask for an ID or not, you will still have to provide your info for the Paxful. Paxful has implemented a global verification process which requires users around the world who reach an equivalent of $1,500 in trade volume or wallet activity to verify their accounts through ID verification.
Just thought about sharing this so no one finds himself in a bad situation where he is forced to give his info in order to get his money. I know that I'm not willing to do any KYC so for those who are in the same boat as me, I would suggest sticking to the forums for trading or Bisq. They seem to be going down the same path as what Localbitcoins has done. Though, localbitcoins seem to be focusing on the eligibility of people who want to create advertisements, while paxful is just imposing a universal ban. Does that mean that you are still able to list your own advertisements on paxful up to this certain threshold for your trade volume? It's certainly a hit, since the two most commonly used alternatives to traditional exchanges for p2p trading both now have fairly stricter KYC procedures. It's inevitable, but perhaps it is time to seek alternatives in decentralised exchanges. On forum trading is possible, but I still don't see enough low spread buyers/sellers to make it worthwhile. |
|
|
|
|
It's not really something that has only emerged in recent days.
If you are following bitcoin trading for any period of time during the bull market you would have seen very similar allegations being laid out. Whilst difficult to prove, it is very likely that at least some of these accusations are somewhat based and true.
This is a reason why I personally don't feel like TA with volume analysis always makes sense, because of the ease of which wash trading can happen with the help of exchanges internally without the outside noticing. It's also a reason why I do think that judging an exchange solely based on their trading volume is clearly not smart either.
|
|
|
|
I will not be able to show us the historical data on how the cryptocurrencies market has been behaving in the past and how the accumulation and distribution cycles has been playing out but most of the time bitcoin and altcoins do come out stronger! I will still encourage us to keep holding and wait until the condition of pricing turned around again. If you sell now you will be regretting when bitcoin get to $50,000 or $200,000 in some years to come as it has happened before and most times we regret selling too early.
Keep holding and the future is for you!
What has happened in the past doesn't always indicate what is going to happen in the future. Let's get that out of the way. Though, I do agree with the fact that what we see right now and the stage of the market cycle that we are in at the moment is clearly a reflection of what had happened in the most recent bear market of 2014-2015. There are very similar percentage losses from the peak, very similar timeframe, and overall market sentiments. It's evident that we're going to see a bull market emerge sooner or later, as a matter of time. Though, I would be extremely careful with putting an exact timeframe on when this will occur because short term volatility simply cannot be predicted by the macro cycles that bitcoin goes through every 4 years or so, due to the halving. Prices could well continue to drop below previous bottoms before finally breaking out with a rally, I'm not ruling out that possibility. |
|
|
|
I'm wondering if anything actually goes up or stays stable during a financial crisis since most things seem to fall. Meaning that currencies potentially go up during a crisis (bitcoin is considered to behave like gold at this point) but since currencies are always horrible to put money into (not necessarily short term but long term with inflation), what else?
It depends on what the nature of the financial crisis is, really. If it's inflationary, then in previous instances, gold and silver have performed well relative to a country's fiat currency, mostly because people see it as a sort of hedge against inflation. This is a reason why I think holding bitcoin will serve as a hedge if you believe that some sort of hyperinflation is going to come by, because it does have a capped supply, and essentially has all the monetary aspects of gold and silver. If it's recessionary or deflationary then I think the most important aspect you can look for is liquidity. You want your entire investment portfolio to be liquid, even if that means holding fiat currency for the short term (it's not always a bad thing). I personally think that BTC, gold and silver will still outperform property and shares in these instances. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
