...
Some of the more trusted senior members act as merit sources, ie. they receive part of a monthly pot of sendable merits to distribute amongst posts they deem constructive. In other words, there's a steady inflow of new sendable merits coming in.
...
Also worth to note that anyone can apply to become a merit source and that there is limited amount of sMerits issued, currently up to 11975 sMerit per 30 days. ... This can now be deleted  You can't delete, but you can lock the thread - bottom left (scroll down) |
|
|
|
...
The stock market has the same 3 states only. Similarly there is nothing preventing it from collapsing/seriously declining. It's all based on perceptions in either market, if people suddenly decide they do not want the stocks or the cryptos then they will collapse.
Not quite. Stocks are backed by the actual companies providing goods/services. To overly simplify: imagine listed, profit making company, with current position of $100 million net assets. If you hold a share representing 1% of company, then you wouldn't sell it for anything below $1 million no matter how crazy the market gets, just like you wouldn't sell $100 bill for $90. You don't have this with crypto. There's no particular reason why BTC can't be worth say $1,000 or $100,000. |
|
|
|
Not bad OP. You made me chuckle.  |
|
|
|
Roger Ver is going to be rolling out Bitcoincash ATMs: https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/963214514392129536I just bought 50 Bitcoin (BCH) ATM machines for a bit under half a million dollars. Thanks to our purchase the manufacturer has agreed to roll out BCH support to their existing 1000+ machines world wide! It needs more publicity though - bitcoincash is fading out of the mainstream media coverage of crypto. "I just bought 50 Bitcoin (BCH)" It's BITCOIN CASH, not BITCOIN. He seriously needs to stop doing this. BCH started of as a fork under different name, by their own choice. It's not Bitcoin by any definition, even if it adheres to the original Bitcoin whitepaper more than the "legacy" Bitcoin does. I'm pretty sure RV pushes BCH=Bitcoin only because he chose to jump from BTC to BCH while still owning "Bitcoin.com" and "r/btc". |
|
|
|
...
c) Have played dice (or other games we launch in the future) by depositing to BetKing. Not faucet.
...
Is there a minimum wagered requirement? If not, that won't really stop anyone from creating multiple accounts. Would you also disallow multiple players logging in from same ip to play at the same table or same tournament?
Are there going to be a separate balances for poker and dice, or can players use the same funds to play both? Have you decided on buy-in/blinds structure? If so, can you share the details? |
|
|
|
...
I guess in the US it's less stupid than in Europe, since if you end up broke you can still declare personal bankrupcy and your debts disappear.
Except for the student loan, which normally wouldn't be discharged in bankruptcy process. ...
In Europe you will never ever get rid of your debts. This I know for sure.
Where did you get that idea from? Of course you can declare bankruptcy in any European country, depending on the country, process can be easier or harder, but definitely possible. In the UK people are declared insolvent or bankrupt at a rate of ~250 people a day. |
|
|
|
Nice. McAfee is nuts, but still seen as a positive persona in crypto world. You made a typo in thread title: "JHON" |
|
|
|
Out of their 7 indicators, you could only apply 3 to Bitcoin, maybe 5 if you wanted to do it for entire Cryptocurrency market, and the data would be less reliable than the data for stocks. So probably no point in strictly applying the same indicators. I would love to see something like that for BTC/cryptos, CoinDesk had similar tool for measuring market sentiment index (positive/negative) but it's retired now and I don't know whether it was any good and how exactly was that measured. And I have my doubts on usefulness of the CNN's tool. Current score is slightly lower than that of 2008 crash and I don't think things are as bad (sentiment is as low) as back then. |
|
|
|
If a customer of Lloyds Banking Group also registered a Debit card under the same account, then I guess theres no problem at all. Lloyds actually doing something good to benefit investors from making poor investment decisions and risking more than the amount that they can risk losing.
...
They try to spin it this way, but how does this make any sense when they have no problem with you spending your entire limit on booze/hoes/gambling, but want to "protect" you in case of BTC price drop. The purpose of credit cards is to provide you with a quick (instantly approved) loan option. The limit they set for you should be based on your income and credit score and should be low enough to make it possible for you to pay off your debt even if you splash it all out by impulse buying. So there shouldn't be a need for a 'nanny' approach. The other thing is, before the credit crunch, UK banks were giving away credit cards like candy, with limits often exceeding customers' abilities. |
|
|
|
... All that being said, buying cryptos with credit card is pretty stupid idea, unless you know you won't have any trouble in paying that off.
Also not every purchase with debit-card, automatically means debt right? One can have his own funds there and than its just ordinary payment. But in general I do agree, not the best idea. You meant "credit card"? In general terms, using credit card = debt, but yes, you could make overpayment or transfer money to your credit card account and have a positive balance (I am a few pennies in credit on mine), in such case you're not borrowing from bank and it's no different than paying with debit card. But rarely anyone keep positive balance on their credit cards. Other case when paying with credit card makes sense is when there are incentive programs for using CC (you earn points, get cash backs etc). So instead of paying with cash/debit card, you pay with CC and pay off the debt straight away. |
|
|
|
|
Funny how things change. Back in the early Bitcoin days, Barclays were accused for terminating accounts of clients involved in Bitcoin trading, they would've never clearly stated what the reason was, but if the only change in your activity was occasional crypto-trading, then the reason is pretty obvious. Now they look like the good guys in the Bitcoin world, at least comparing to Lloyds and Virgin Money.
All that being said, buying cryptos with credit card is pretty stupid idea, unless you know you won't have any trouble in paying that off.
|
|
|
|
...but will at the moment still allow with debit cards.
Banning credit card purchases is somehow justified, as those are bank's money, not yours - it's a form of a loan, if they don't like the purpose of the loan - they can say "no". They couldn't impose such ban for debit cards (as long as cryptocurrency is not delegalised), it would be as ridiculous as bank forbidding you to buy certain food products, certain newspaper etc. |
|
|
|
|
What would be the benefit of investing in cryptos via the middle-man if one is savvy enough to do it himself? There's no tax benefit of doing that afaik. You wouldn't have to bother with keeping all your trade records - that's a good thing, but you'll have to pay management fees and lose easy access to your holdings, plus you'd have to trust 3rd party.
|
|
|
|
From the article: Russia has many miners, and this is partly due to cheap electricity. This is to the extent of miners mining cryptocurrencies in the residential blocks. In some cases, they break into power supplies to obtain free power and firefighters warn that this overheats circuits. I suspect that this was the main reason that a fire broke out, you also see it sometimes when people steal power to grow weed for example. It's not the cryptocurrency mining that caused the fire, it's most likely because this guy jerry-rigged something to get free power and did a very lousy job doing so. ... Thought the same at first, but it's harder to steal electricity in apartment blocks and energy is quite cheap in Russia, so ne real need for that. If mining rigs were indeed the cause (it's not 100% confirmed), then it's most likely due to them overloading the circuit, i.e. multiple miners/other devices connected to one sockets via splitter. Many of the old apartment buildings have electrical wiring hardly suitable even for the normal consumption, not to mention supporting mining hardware. Remember kids - always ask a certified electrician for advice before converting your bedroom into mining farm. Btw, here's the original article (with more pics): http://siberiantimes.com/other/others/news/cryptocurrency-goes-up-in-smoke-fire-caused-by-bitcoin-mining/ |
|
|
|
Claimed and received. Thanks Dean! But think you forgot to enable stats for Golem. In 'stats' tab bets/wagered/profit shows zero, but clicking on my name correctly shows over 146 wagered. edit: Sorry, I think I was looking at OmisGo logo, both look similar. All stats are showing fine. |
|
|
|
...
You can still figure that out if it's really that important to you (subtract 1000 from Legendary merit scores etc). I just don't see it as transparency if anyone who cares already knows what's behind that number. ...
Yup, but X years from now, it would be hard to distinct actual merits earned and legacy merits, it would take a bit of investigation to compare 2 members by their score. Not every member would know when/how merit system was implemented. IMO, in terms of transparency, the solution is pretty simple and I proposed it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2862794.msg29382779#msg29382779 |
|
|
|
Some exchanges have not, and have no plans, to give access to coins from bitcoin forks. Many of them are already worth a substantial amount of money, and likely will increase in value. Is there a legal basis for suing exchanges to get access to such coins?
...
The only 2 scenarios I can imagine, when you would have a ground to sue them is: 1) Exchange promised to credit fork-coins proportionally to customers' btc balance, but later changed their mind and didn't. 2) Exchange made it impossible for you to withdraw btc for unreasonably long period of time, i.e. overly long maintenance, your transaction was stuck as pending for weeks etc. Other than that, they can do whatever they want, since, by not withdrawing, you didn't care about the fork. It's kind of like saying: bank made profit on my 0% current account balance - I demand my share of it. |
|
|
|
I read this somewhere: Scary
...
Where exactly have you read that? Post source, so we can see how that estimate was derived and comment on that. Is this based on assumption that USDT have been printed out of the air just to bump btc price? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
