|
Seems like an obvious one. They didn't even put the tiniest effort in designing their site, or spelling words correctly.
If anyone asks you for your private key you should be alarmed, whether or not the entity asking you for it seems to be an established project or not. The reason why it's called a private key in the first place is that you're not supposed to share it with anyone, and if you do, then the trustless nature of most cryptos will just not apply anymore.
Also, don't just blindly trust someone just because they have a site. There is no evidence that there are any legitimate development activity happening at all, and they're asking for investments.
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.
|
|
|
|
the bank does praise the technology in the working behind bitcoin. The technology, being the entire crypto protocols It seems like that a lot of institutions are now comfortable with the idea of integrating blockchain tech into their operations, but they are still quite negative overall about BTC as a currency. That said, though, this is an absurd accusation. If anything, bitcoin is more so money than fiat currency is, because it is able to serve as a long term store of value due to the fact that the currency supply is fully decentralised and cannot be manipulated, diluted, or debased by a central entity the way fiat has essentially been depreciating for as long as it has existed. It serves all the functions of money, just like precious metals, but in a much better and efficient way. Though, when you get banks to comment on BTC at any time there is always some possibility of conflict of interest, as bitcoin does somewhat take away the control that they have. |
|
|
|
|
I don't think that this is necessarily the most logical way that most online workers would be able to benefit from blockchain. This whole "paid to get advertised to" thing has already been established in a large scale in terms of PTC sites and all that, and it doesn't necessarily need to incorporate blockchain.
However, decentralised cryptocurrencies that facilitate global transfers of value clearly will have and already has an impact on online workers.
The fact that the transfers are relatively cheap and much more convenient compared to traditional fund remittance services will push globalisation of the labour force. Outsourcing of international labour will be made much easier given the fact that the payment aspect of it is now trustless, and funds won't get held by a third party, etc.
|
|
|
|
I noticed that if BTC has a big dominant rate the entire crypto is bad, in short it looks bullish.
Though the rate now is very consistent to 50% and above, what do you think will happen to the market if it will drop that low.
Will this gives a bad or good effect to BTC and Altcoins?
Bitcoin dominance has no effect on the runnings of the actual network. You have to realise that. Bitcoin dominance is simply the market share of bitcoin relative to all the other cryptocurrencies in the market. Prices are independent of the code underlying the system. If bitcoin dominance drops, all that means is that the markets now tend to favour other cryptos relative to bitcoin. Usually, this happens in a bull market because when people have FOMO, they tend to move their funds out of BTC and into other coins where the hype is. There is no real "beneficiary" from the drop unless the entire market is growing, though you could argue that traders can take advantage of the drop by speculating on the index rebounding. |
|
|
|
|
It doesn't matter what reserves or what powers a country has.
At the end of the day, the fiat currency that is issued by the US is backed by absolutely nothing. You could say that the value may derive from oil or whatnot, but at the end of the day, there is absolutely no legal promise that the bearers of these notes are able to redeem it for a form of commodity. China holds a lot of gold, but their currency's value certainly doesn't follow the price of gold, nor is it backed by gold.
Besides, if the central bank/government wanted, they could essentially dilute the value of existing currency by producing new ones/lowering the interest rate. That's not a commodity backed currency to me.
|
|
|
|
The latest attack by one crazy individual and some money that was invested in the Ponzi scheme, Bitconnect, now automatically ties many people in the Crypto currency community to Right wing extremists.  <If you believe all the crap that are posted on the Internet now> The book, The Politics of Bitcoin: Software as Right-Wing Extremism by the author David Golumbia are one of these examples that are frequently quoted. Bitcoin’s early origin in right-libertarian Anarcho-capitalism is also used as a tool to blemish it's reputation. A lot of other people have since then, started to use Bitcoin and most of them do not even support these political groups. How many people in your circle of friends and family are into Right-Wing Extremism?  <I know 1000s of people who has no political connection to these extremist groups>  Let's not label a whole group of people, if a small minority of them use the technology for their extremist agendas.  <The shooter used cash and credit cards too, so we should automatically label all cash and credit card users as Right-Wing Extremism too?> It is simply unfair to label an entire user base of a currency something based on what a select few are. It's like saying that all fiat currency users are drug dealers, because a few people use cash to deal in illicit drugs. Now you see where the flaw of that argument is. The fact is that the network can be used by anyone, regardless of what their political stance is. Bitcoin itself is completely non-political, and decentralised, and it is futile to try to assign some sort of political standing to the code that is underlying bitcoin. And I certainly don't think decentralisation through blockchain is anything political either. |
|
|
|
(binance) from here or after touch 4800 its going to back to 3600, if that support doesnt work next step is 3150 and maybe 2800 once again.i dont wanna talk about that scenerio because it will be very bloody. to my opinion we will see 3200 on middle of may and it will be the last fall.on august btc's big move will start.step by step to 11k. im not pro of anything but here is my last prediction: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5038896.msg47932316#msg47932316noone couldnt even think about under 6k at that time.anyway.i wish it will happen and 1+ year suffer will end. It certainly think that it's possible that in the short term, the dominant bearish sentiment could push prices lower than the price floor that we had previously seen. And that could potentially mean a dip below $3k, as you suggest. Though, it's not looking very likely to happen right now. The $4k resistance seems to be potentially broken at this point (the market's still moving sideways so it's difficult to tell), and if it is, then expect this momentum to push prices closer to the $5k region. The question is how big the correction will be by the time this rally finishes up. I simply don't think that it's possible for bitcoin to go under $3k for an extended period of time, in the worst case scenario, because of how much institutional demand is present within the market for coins at that level. |
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure how realistic it is for an OTC service to be able to disrupt the small scale investor market.
It's much more likely that people will still find the experience of a centralised p2p platform, or even traditional exchanges, an easier alternative than having to trade over the counter. Unless of course, something drastic changes about the nature of the structure of OTC trading, which I don't think will happen in the near future.
It'll continue to dominate in the institutional space, though. Large scale investors need to accumulate BTC off exchanges so that prices won't need to be moved, and thus, OTC makes the most sense. Individual investors are unlikely to have as much of a concern for this.
|
|
|
|
My prediction: in 4 months time we will reach 18,000,000 BTC @ 5555 USD each.
That is: a market capitalization of 100,000,000,000 USD.
It's obviously not impossible, because this figure would have been seen as quite conservative when people were caught up in the frenzy of the 2017 bull market. I certainly don't think that an arbitrary prediction without at least some fundamental or technical backing is necessarily something that you'd want to go off in terms of deciding your investment strategy, however. This being possible, doesn't mean that it is probable or will happen. Prices in the short term fluctuate drastically. I do think that we'll see a significant rally some time this year that would indicate the end of the bear market, but whether or not it comes in 4 months time is completely unknown to us. Currently, even though prices are above $4k, I still think there is some resistance that is making the market move sideways for a few days now. |
|
|
|
Yep, I tried searching them up as well and evidently none of them are actual members. I suspect he will now go with the excuse that these customers were from another forum completely, however. It's obvious that he's trying to scam here. He's trying to get you to use autobuy, he's trying to get you to communicate with him offsite so he can prey on unregistered users not being able to view his tainted trust score, and he's selling discounted gift cards. All warning signs already. All he's missing is a self moderated + locked thread. On his thread he actually claims that he accepts escrow, though I highly doubt that is the truth (selly.gg or any other autobuy site isn't escrow). Even if he does, it doesn't mean that he's safe to deal with - the cards that he sells could easily be carded/fraudulently obtained, and as a result, if you are the buyer, you will not be protected even if you do receive the cards through escrow. |
|
|
|
The subject of cryptocurrency during the two sessions of the National People’s Congress (NPC) in 2019 has augmented considerably. Numerous representatives said that “cryptocurrency illegally sets the currency” and suggested to reinforce their supervision. Several legislative delegates and political leaders call for efficient, clear and strict cryptocurrency regulations.
Keyword here is probably strict. I don't think that it's likely that they are going to all of a sudden do a complete 180 reverse their stance on cryptocurrencies. They might subsidise the blockchain projects that are not necessarily "currencies" domestically, and potentially the central bank may want to issue its own blockchain based tokens, but that's pretty much as far as I can see the regulations going. They've already driven out all the bitcoin exchanges and bitcoin miners, and it's clear that they don't want them to stay even though there may be tax revenue to be made at that front. It's probably best to be realistic here. |
|
|
|
Now, about the coin. Most of the crypto-followers are after the profits and don't care about the project. There are a lot of rubbish coins that are traded a lot because they just have great potential for profiting.
I think that this is the important distinction to make here. You've got some centralised projects that are posing to solve some problem that doesn't even exist in order to raise money through selling their tokens/equities, which is really no different than that in a traditional sense - except they've added a buzzword in blockchain or "cryptocurrency". These are the ones that won't survive in the future. BTC is certainly not one of them. I've always thought that bitcoin's first mover advantage has been significant, and the fact that there was no initial "public offering" as well as it being the most practically used coin as a long term store of value and medium of exchange. Also, I disagree with your statement that all cryptos is no different to fiat. Bitcoin is certainly different in the sense that there is no central authority, or third parties that need to be trusted to control the supply of coins, nor the transfer of coins. |
|
|
|
so up to this point, the 2014-2015 seems to be playing out quite accurately, or maybe because we have no better reference, this seems to be the only proper way to make these long-term analysis.
I do mostly agree with this. Even though there are valid concerns that past performances does not always equal what the future holds, I think that a combination of the intrinsic cycles that are present within the bitcoin market, with the halving happening at a regular, periodic time, which increases scarcity of new supply; as well as the psychological factor that people do expect this bear market to somewhat coincide with the past one, essentially forming a self fulfilling prophecy, means that I think in terms of percentage change, and time this bear market should be quite similar to the 2014-15 one. It's very possible that short term dips are still possible, though I don't think we'll see large scale panic dumps anymore in the short run. As you suggest - a bullish breakout is imminent (I think in the next 2 years at max), even though we may regress to past price floors. |
|
|
|
The easiness of creating tokens on existing blockchain has seen the crypto market flooded with different crypto assets. This really have an effect on the price level of cryptocurrency but the confusing question is how? I will really appreciate a clarification on the connection between token emergence and the price level of cryptocurrency market.
I think that it depends on the nature of what is being tokenised. If it's equity of a company simply issued in token form, then I certainly do not think that it's direct competition to a decentralised cryptocurrency like bitcoin, and thus, I do not believe that the value of other decentralised cryptocurrencies will be diluted as a result, especially when you consider the injections into the total market that would have resulted anyways. If it's another new, decentralised crypto, or a fork of an existing crypto, it could possibly pose direction competition and as a result take value away from existing coins if it doesn't attract external investors. But TBH, the market as a whole right now is large enough that these little dents don't really matter. |
|
|
|
|
Tether is essentially a bank that runs on a blockchain, without a storefront.
I've warned people about this all the way along. Stablecoins, no matter how trustworthy they may seem, eventually are not trustless the way bitcoin and other decentralised cryptos are. You are relying on the legitimacy of their audits, their reports, and their full reserve promises at the end of the day.
And what they are doing right now with shifting the goalpost on their full reserve target imo is just confirming that. They want to make profit, and they know that they can't do this through operating at full reserve, which is why they very subtly changed to basically a fractional reserve system. Using them makes no sense at this point to me.
|
|
|
|
I don't simply believe that bitcoin's future success will have to depend on political support at all, I think it's something that had always been hyped up by the media. Adoption can happen without necessarily an "candidate" supporting bitcoin directly per se. As long as there are not overwhelming negative legislation that is put in place that completely restricts access, I think that there is enough organic adoption from grassroot individuals to fuel network growth anyways. Really? Have we forgotten about McAfee so soon? Isn't he also running (and hasn't he run already?), or is his being an outlaw now voiding his candidacy?
Commenting on the candidate's idea of basic universal income: sounds interesting, if not immediately viable, but the models haven't been put into proper practice. It will hit home with many voters, but none who understand the crisis the US economy is already in. Even with crypto, I think I've come across a couple already attempting the concept but its got to be entrenched in some centralised aspect to kick off, so that will go down well in my opinion.
Exactly, you have to look at all sides of what they are advocating for. Not just with crypto policy. Also, you have to look at how legitimate of a chance they've got to actually succeeding. |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for putting it out there. One of the most commonly asked questions on service discussion is probably whether a company selling mining rigs is legit or not.
The fact is that, if it's not well known, and it doesn't have a verified team and product that is behind the company, any company that claims they are a "reseller" or manufacture their own mining rigs without actual physical product proofs is very likely to be scams. Even if they're not, it's probably best to not take the chance and have to find out the hard way.
There is no doubt that in this case, they paid media to put coverage about him. Remember that paid coverage doesn't equal trustworthiness, because a lot of scams use this same tactic. Their poorly designed site is a telltale as well.
|
|
|
|
Even with the efforts done by the inventor Satoshi Nakamoto and the people who supported bitcoin around the world, still these guy from EY says there was no practical use for it and the deflationary model can only give damage to the global economy. On my thinking this isn't the case if this guy could only see how good the invention was. For me he was just talking non sense. Something that should not be entertained. Imagine how many lives have been saved by bitcoin in my locality. One was able to pay hospitalization, the other have been able to buy for him a house and lot, others have been able to buy a car to get to his job early, and so many other things.. See how people even made bitcoin atms and for just a simple reasoning bitcoin becomes useless and damaging? I think this guy has to wake up... Practical use is increasing. Obviously speculation is still bitcoin's main use at the moment, but we're seeing real life usage cases. You might not be able to appreciate what BTC brings, because you may be in a currently financially stable nation. But once this facade of stability is swept away, you will see why a decentralised system may need to serve as an alternative for at least a period of time. Just look at what happened with the Venezuelan situation. I can at least somewhat get what they are coming from with "no practical use", but damaging to the economy is just stretching it. To me, bitcoin is no more damaging to a domestic economy than any other forex, or commodity. It is completely independent of the fiat system, and unlike some others, I certainly don't think that bitcoin is necessarily going to pose a threat to banking, although there may be adaptations in the banking industry to BTC and blockchain. |
|
|
|
|
I feel like that open minded, smart institutional/large scale investors are all currently looking at this bear market as an accumulation period.
That's in stark contrast with what the mainstream media is trying to feed the public with constant fear and uncertainty about bitcoin, and obviously, the regular "bitcoin has failed" and "bitcoin is dead" articles. That's happening while firms like JPMorgan, and high profile investors like Jack Dorsey and this guy here are recognising the opportunity.
You may not even have to appreciate what the bitcoin network actually brings in terms of benefits to see why this investment makes sense, even in the short to medium term. There is virtually no chance that prices are going down much further than what they had already been, and we know that demand isn't slowing, and a trend reversal is likely to happen soon.
|
|
|
|
They obviously have accounts with the major exchanges. However, I wouldn't doubt that they probably have their own hot wallet and cold wallets for each of the coins to facilitate these exchanges so quickly, and also to avoid the counterparty risk of using exchanges. In regards to how much they actually hold in their own reserves, you would have to ask the services themselves. You can try Changenow, which do not require KYC up to 11 BTC, as far as I know. I use exchangers because it is much easier and reduces the risk. Any exchange, even Binance, can be hacked, or they can block an account, as Bittrex does sometimes. In both cases, the funds will be lost, so exchanges without registration are more secure.
There was a case recently where Changenow asked Bitblender to submit ID even though they were advertised as "anonymous". For that simple reason, I will not be using them regardless of what their current promises are, nor would I blindly believe anything put out there right now by any exchanger because government policy is completely out of their control. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
