I have looked into may different websites that claim to use your pc to gather bitcoin, in return for a small %. I am not sure but this doesnt seem very legit to me. Would it be more worth for me to invest in my own set up?
This isn't possible for Bitcoin at all, but is probably possible for some alts. In this case though, there's really no advantage to having a middleman. Whether or not it will be worth it depends on your hardware, electricity rate, etc. though. You can then easily exchange the alts you mine for Bitcoin. If you're in this to gamble, I would recommend that you stick to buying Bitcoin. If your anonymity is a concern, you can use services like mixers or CoinJoin. |
|
|
|
-snip-
that "edit" is also wrong. nowadays they are turning Iran into China as far news goes (eg. China banned bitcoin!). they release some nonsense not at all researched article and people eat it up. the fact is that the "official rate" of USD in Iran is around 12k which is also the street value of it and with that rate you can see that bitcoin is being traded around the same price that it is everywhere else. and nothing has changed over the past couple of days that this news keeps coming out. as for 42000 it is not "official rate". USD has one rate but this low value is the rate that government sets for importing certain basic needs such as medicines so that it can prevent super inflation of these items. It's a worthless article for sure, but how is their clarification wrong? From what I can tell by your explanation, you basically just said the "official rate" isn't the government rate, but rather the street value. If we take semantics a bit more loosely, you're both saying the same thing: that Iran's government has its own dictated forex value (which the article refers to as the "official rate", whereas you simply describe it as government-set value) separate from its actual value (which you refer to as the "official rate", or street value which you and the article agree with), and that no one really uses it. ...or did I misunderstand you somehow? |
|
|
|
The article has been updated since you posted it: In reality, it is not uncommon for countries with weak national currencies — such as Venezuela — to have dual exchange rates: one “official” rate set by the country’s central bank and the other, the actual market rate, or the real amount of dollars a regular person would get for their rials.
[...]
In other words, while the “official rate” is around 42,000 IRR per 1 USD — which would result in the $24,000 price per Bitcoin — the actual rate in the street would give one something closer to BTC’s actual global market price, currently around $7,300 USD.
So no, there's no manipulation going on, and there's probably no premium for Bitcoin either. |
|
|
|
Even if historically speaking Bitcoin goes up every time halving happens
The thing is, halvings haven't had any immediate effects on prices. We associate halvings with growth because of charts like OP's, but that doesn't necessarily have to be the case -- growth could have come without the halvings, and we wouldn't really know. I agree that HODLing is the best course of action if you want to gain in this scenario, but only because it's the best course of action is most scenarios. People looking forward to the halving are very likely to be disappointed, and disappointed market actors often lead to a falling market. |
|
|
|
|
Regardless of whether he's telling the truth or not, is it possible for Kraken to try to settle out of court? This is just a discrimination suit after all. If so, what will happen to the shady business practices allegations? I imagine regulators are going to be watching this very closely, but I don't know if they could actually use a dropped lawsuit as a basis for an investigation.
|
|
|
|
Did you guys read the video's description? Also known as Faketoshi, since no one believes that he is really Nakamoto, especially because he has never been able to prove it, Wright talked with us about what people mistakenly believe is Bitcoin. LOL the disrespect straight from the video uploader. This kind of proves that outlets only really interview him for added exposure to their platform, not because they want to hear his thoughts. |
|
|
|
|
I personally don't. The amount spent on mining Bitcoin doesn't have anything to do with its market value because the market doesn't care about that. Unlike traditional physical goods, manufacturers (miners in this case) don't get to dictate the selling price of their product (Bitcoin), so their production cost doesn't really matter in pricing.
There's bound to be some correlation because miners have to adjust to actually profit. Let's take Litecoin as an example: its price should have skyrocketed after its halving because it costed significantly more to mine, but miners turned off their machines instead because they have to follow the market, not the other way around.
|
|
|
|
I will probably get another Motorola or Samsung
You may want to avoid Motorola if you're going for privacy. It's owned by Lenovo, a Chinese company, which may be compelled by the CCP to hand over user data by law. It's true that we don't have a lot of options with the Android/iOS duopoly, but Apple is probably the lesser of two evils privacy-wise. I would also argue that they have longer lifespans, considering they update their devices for up to five years unlike Android OEMs, most of which only update for two. They have competitive battery life now too, contrary to their past reputation. I don't even think they're necessarily overpriced anymore, with the iPhone 11 being even cheaper than the Samsung Galaxy S10. You should probably give them a second look, and that's coming from someone who has primarily used Samsung phones for the past 6 years or so. |
|
|
|
I wanted to know if at least buying BTC using traditional e-wallets like Paypal is safe, or can third party type scam be pulled even there?
Once the coins are sitting in your wallet, that's final. The only scam that can be pulled off against you in this scenario is they don't send the coins at all, and even then you could probably chargeback. The seller shoulders all the risk, basically. I should also note that offering to buy Bitcoin with Paypal in this forum can get you red-trusted unless you already have a good trading reputation, so I would advise against it. |
|
|
|
This is hardly a threat because no one uses IE nowadays. No such attack should work on any modern browser. Copy pasting is not an issue for as long as your system isn't compromised. What this does, however, is show that scripts can be dangerous. Everyone should have script-blockers (NoScript for Firefox, ScriptSafe for Chrome) on their broswers nowadaysj to make sure they don't get randomly attacked. |
|
|
|
I'm not sure where exactly they are, but even traditional financial entities are essentially expecting them by preparing custodial solutions for them: Bakkt expands into custodyFidelity launching custodial servicesAs to whether they simply want first-mover advantage or is actually catering to already-existing demand out there, us small players can't really know yet. I'm taking it as a positive sign on that end though. |
|
|
|
If we want to take Satoshi's words for it: My choice for the number of coins and distribution schedule was an educated guess. It was a difficult choice, because once the network is going it’s locked in and we’re stuck with it. I wanted to pick something that would make prices similar to existing currencies, but without knowing the future, that’s very hard. I ended up picking something in the middle. If Bitcoin remains a small niche, it’ll be worth less per unit than existing currencies. If you imagine it being used for some fraction of world commerce, then there’s only going to be 21 million coins for the whole world, so it would be worth much more per unit. Values are 64-bit integers with 8 decimal places, so 1 coin is represented internally as 100000000. There’s plenty of granularity if typical prices become small. For example, if 0.001 is worth 1 Euro, then it might be easier to change where the decimal point is displayed, so if you had 1 Bitcoin it’s now displayed as 1000, and 0.001 is displayed as 1. So yeah, there are a lot of theories, and some may actually convenientrly make sense, but at the end of the day Satoshi himself said it was an educated guess. |
|
|
|
but there is rumor going on that there will be a real official licence to exchanges soon
Do you have a source for this? I'm not sure if things have changed since (this is from November 2, 2019), but Binance's CEO and other people based in the PRC debunked a photo which some people claim to be an official crypto exchange license: On Oct. 30, an analyst claimed that a photograph of a cryptocurrency trading license issued by the Chinese government has leaked, indicating that crypto exchanges are allowed to operate within China.
However, Zhao and other investors based in China including Primitive Crypto founder Dovey Wan said that it is a basic generic business license containing the phrase “trading services” and that it does not represent a crypto trading license for local companies. Considering the risk of capital flight and China's shaky position at the moment, I don't think they'll be allowing exchanges to operate freely and legally anytime soon. |
|
|
|
Dollar did lose its value and it shows that it would have been a bad store of value.
I think that depends on how long a time period you're talking about. The USD isn't a horrible store of value over the course of maybe a year, but you wouldn't want to hold dollars without earning interest on them, because obviously inflation would eat away at the value. But yes, fiat currency is a store of value even if it's not an ideal one. This. I would also like to note that countries suffering from hyperinflation like Venezuela are hoarding USD and Euros to protect their wealth (to a scale even larger than crypto), so we can clearly see that fiat can fill that role perfectly well in real world use. It's also literally a property of money: Second, money must serve as a store of value. Consider the barter between the hairstylist and shoemaker again. The shoemaker risks having his shoes go out of style, especially if he keeps them in a warehouse for future use—their value will decrease with each season. Shoes are not a good store of value. Holding money is a much easier way of storing value. You know that you don’t need to spend it immediately, because it will still hold its value the next day or the next year. This function of money doesn’t require that money is a perfect store of value. In an economy with inflation, money loses some buying power each year, but it remains money. It has to be said that there are clearly better options for that if you want long-term storage, but nothing beats it shortish-term considering its liquidity. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the clarification. I couldn't find reputable sources that confirm that the entire EU would be allowing banks to hold crypto, but that might be because the info has been mistranslated. This is apparently what actually happened: The bill was passed by the Bundestag, the lower house of the German Parliament, earlier this month, and approved by the upper house, the Bundesrat, today.
It amends a clause in the European Union’s Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive that currently prohibits banks from dealing directly in cryptocurrency. It allows them to legally sell and store cryptocurrencies, just as they do stocks and bonds, to retail as well as institutional investors. So the EU as a whole didn't amend the clause, Germany did. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Yeah, my statement was more of a why the US instead of China justification. I agree that the current market sentiment doesn't bode well for any crypto IPO, much a less mining related one with all the environment friendly narratives nowadays (the media is going to rip this to shreds as soon as they get a whiff). Not that mining is necessarily bad for the environment, just that the world seems to be stuck with that mindset, but I digress. |
|
|
|
I am thinking of the same, why are these China-based companies are filing their IPOs in USA? I am referring to Bitmain and Canaan. Can be because these companies are not so keen and confident on their own government and that one day the government will eventually decide against Bitcoin mining?
To be fair, Bitmain also tried filing an IPO in China ( well Hong Kong, technically) but failed to do so. There were a lot of concerns about its approval from the start because of the lack of regulatory framework in the industry, as the link mentions. Maybe Canaan would rather not waste resources on something Bitmain has already failed? Either way, why not the US? It has been far more open to the crypto industry as a country than China is, so they stand to raise more money. |
|
|
|
Do we have a better source for this? I could only find one similar article, but no one else seem to be reporting on it. I don't think this would have a huge impact though, to be honest. The banks will still not want to work with crypto-currency and definelty not bitcoin, when it is literally the opposite of the values that they support.
Some US banks have already gone around, so I wouldn't close the doors here. At the end of the day, they'll have no choice but to provide a service if there is demand for it, or they risk getting left behind by competitors. |
|
|
|
-snip-
The fact is consumption makeing economic growth is a paradox. Not necessarily. More money going around is better for the economy; businesses thrive, employees thrive, etc etc. The lower price will make more consumption.
In the short term, yes, but if people know that their money multiplies by just sitting there, and all the while goods are constantly lowering in price, they'll only purchase the absolute minimum they could live with. This will choke out businesses at some point, halting economic activity. Here's a more detailed write up. We could also take Bitcoin as an example, where people would rather hold than spend because they're incentivized to do so . If you believe in Bitcoin you should know what did Hayek said but not traditional economy knowledge.Our world is full of goverment's lie now
All I can really say about that is that the Great Depression didn't correct itself; it was corrected by spurring spending. Don't get me wrong, I would like regulation to be kept to a minimum. I just don't think a deflationary currency is the answer, and neither does Hayek himself: “I agree with Milton Friedman that once the Crash [of 1929] had occurred, the Federal Reserve System pursued a silly deflationary policy. I am not only against inflation but I am also against deflation. So, once again, a badly programmed monetary policy prolonged the depression.” |
|
|
|
With many analysts already arguing that Bitcoin could reach $1 trillion very soon
What are they smoking? Lol they probably meant market cap. BTC needs to hit ~$50k for that to happen, and while that's still a massive number, it doesn't sound as unrealistic. While there is no direct correlation as others have pointed out, I do believe that the halving will drive the prices up -- the halving itself might not have an effect, but the hype surrounding it might. That being said, the halving not living up to the hype could easily have the opposite effect of a price slide, and it's even possible (though improbable, this is where high fees are actually advantageous) for the hashrate to slide a la Litecoin's. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
