not streaming the bitcointalk league game? i was curious what betnomi's software looked like---i haven't had a chance to check it out yet. my VPN subscription ran out and i need one to play there.  OK as I promised here is the revised table. Who will be joining Bitmutiny in Team Bitcointalk.org?
Its tomorrow night at 10PM UK time 5PM EST is it just you and @bitmutiny? how lonely! i've just registered. go team bitcointalk!  |
|
|
|
Check Binance. Non-verified users can withdraw up to 2BTC per day iirc. sure, but keep in mind that if you trigger their AML risk system for whatever reason (IP address, browser fingerprint, blockchain analysis of your deposits/withdrawals etc) you can still have KYC sprung on you at any time. there are countless examples if you search through reddit discussions about frozen accounts. binance even has a support article called "How to Unlock an Account" which includes instructions on completing KYC. |
|
|
|
It's pretty obvious that the Chinese authorities have either seized the keys from Xu or they have told them not to make a move until they finish their investigation, and somehow they were pretty convincing. Just another wake-up call for people who think that if an exchange is based in Malta or Ukraine or Singapore it can't be touched by other governments, all means zero when the people with the keys get arrested and thrown into prison. In other news, their mining pool is empty: https://www.theblockcrypto.com/linked/84229/okex-bitcoin-mining-hash-lostProbably the exchange is done for, even if they by some miracle strat to return the funds their reputation is damaged beyond repair. something worth keeping in mind is that this has happened once before to okex, when they were known as okcoin. in 2017, the chinese government audited okcoin, huobi, and possibly others. this was around the same time news was surfacing about okcoin and huobi's diversion of customer funds into high yield investment schemes. anyway, both exchanges completely shut down withdrawals for months during the audits. there wasn't much media coverage about it because not many westerners were trading on the chinese exchanges at the time, although i do recall some reddit posts and things like that. the government eventually let them cash out their customers and then both left the country, at least in name. i'm not saying things are guaranteed to play out the same way this time, just saying there is some past precedent. back then in 2017 i assumed it would kill okcoin and huobi's brands (and it did kill btc china's brand---they closed up for good) but they only got bigger afterwards, even in spite of the scandals. so we'll see. |
|
|
|
Given the role that BTC-e played in laundering Gox coins I would assume that BTC-e was their mixing strategy.
It would still be interesting to know how they got caught though, IIRC BTC-e never did any KYC on its customers. Maybe they let their IP slip? btc-e did start implementing KYC in late 2016 or early 2017. it became a requirement for bank wires to the USA. KYC was never required to trade there, of course. but yes, it seems entirely possible that he let some PII slip even if there was no KYC. the FBI had a comprehensive copy of btc-e's database, after all. there was a time years earlier when it felt like btc-e was completely out of reach from the feds, almost invincible, and also highly trusted among criminals. i guess it could be easy to become sloppy in that context. |
|
|
|
He has forgotten one wee things - governments. They're the real big beasts in goldland and in no way will they switch to Bitcoin any time soon even if it's harmful not to.
"any time soon"---what's your timeline?  Saylor is seemingly fast becoming the Peter Schiff of Bitcoin. from the perspective of an outside observer, i have to think he increasingly comes off like a wingnut the more he talks. the world dropping gold? i'll believe that when i see it. this commonly promoted idea that bitcoin has to replace every asset in its path (whether fiat money, gold, etc) is not all that believable to me. he's getting kind of annoying too---he is obviously just pandering to the media because he realized the bitcoin angle got him a few headlines. if he's really so bullish on bitcoin then he should shut the hell up and keep buying, quietly.  if i were a microstrategy shareholder, i'd be happy with his alternative investment strategy (i'm a bitcoin bull after all!) but i also wouldn't mind if he toned down his exuberant and almost obsessive attitude about bitcoin. nothing he says anymore has to do with microstrategy or what they do as a company. it's just been months of attention grabbing. if microstrategy wants to hold some bitcoins, i think that's great, but it's also just a software company. we don't need to know the CEO's every thought about price predictions, gold, blah blah blah. |
|
|
|
I don't see who would use such software at all, maybe some mining pool sponsored by some government or maybe Roger Ver&Faketoshi CW to try to damage the BTC in this way. .....or they are paranoid and dumb enough to believe craig wright et al's FUD about the legal repercussions around processing "illicit" transactions. https://coingeek.com/craig-wright-bitcoin-is-no-good-for-illicit-activity-and-heres-why/Large, professional transaction processing operations cannot fly under the radar due to their size. They are also now able, thanks to Miner ID, to reveal and verify their identity when confirming blocks. These conditions, along with the money and work they’ve invested in building their operations, disincentivizes non-compliance or engagement in illicit activity.
Bitcoin’s protocol rules that new coins (i.e. those “discovered” by transaction processors) cannot be spent until a further 100 blocks have been processed. This allows ample time for a block to the “orphaned,” or discarded by the network. he implies that a miner majority will eventually collude to censor the blocks of "rogue" miners. you buy that theory? indeed, anyone mining with blockseer would be shooting themselves in the foot, obviously damaging their own profitability. this is an interesting experiment, but not one i expect to be particularly successful. Would it be technically possible to somehow block such mining pools if they really started to pose a bigger problem?
by orphaning their blocks from the best chain, yes. it's not necessary though. let them mine a few less profitable blocks, if they can even get the hash power together. who cares? bitcoin already works via economic incentives, and honest miners will confirm "censored" transactions in subsequent blocks. let these idiots shoot themselves in the foot. rational miners (the vast majority of the network) aren't dumb enough to join them. |
|
|
|
Orbit (and thus Betfair Exchange, except Orbit isn't region blocked) currently has Biden at 1.10 and Trump at 10.5 to be the next president. PredictIt is also showing similar numbers. Prediction markets are generally considered sharp.It's great to see sites like Sportsbet.io and Stake payout early (essentially as a promotion, since there's a non zero chance that Biden doesn't end up being president), but I personally wouldn't fault other sportsbooks for not paying out. It might seem like a clear victory for Biden if you look at mainstream media, but there's clearly a number of factors that somehow give Trump a 10% chance of winning. i'm pretty sure it's just staunch trump supporters with their heads in the sand who keep betting his odds up. there's no way trump's true chances are close to 10%. the odds of having the results overturned in multiple states (whether by recount or supreme court decision) based on past elections is way under 1%. it's completely unprecedented and there's been no evidence of foul play---just baseless rumors from the usual suspects. i'm surprised some sites paid out as early as they did. as unlikely as i personally view a trump victory, they would be in a very, very deep hole if they paid out biden bets and then the results were overturned. i think it's fair to wait for certified election results in any close election. |
|
|
|
I wonder how much money these exchanges make from illegally seizing their own customers’ money just because they reside in a country they don’t service?
when it comes to americans, most exchanges just close the account and return the money. it used to happen all the time on bitmex. i imagine it's different if you're accessing from a sanctioned country or something---then you might get your money confiscated. tbh, i'm amazed this didn't happen a year ago when they officially kicked americans out. i had just assumed they were blocking american IP addresses after that. i've actually used binance.com a couple times since then and used a VPN because i assumed i'd be blocked otherwise. |
|
|
|
Until now, the exchange has allowed American users to access its platform. A US resident just had to click the "I'm not [American]" button to create an account on Binance.com.
Binance currently sends emails to US residents based on their IP addresses.
"We noticed that your account may be linked to an IP address from the United States. In accordance with regulatory requirements we are unable to provide services to citizens or residents of the USA […] If you are a us citizen or resident, withdraw your assets from your account within 90 days. We recommend that you consider using Binance U.S. or other platforms in the United States, " the letter says.
Binance took these steps after the US government launched two lawsuits against the BitMEX crypto derivatives exchange. the feds just came after bitmex for letting in americans through VPN. binance meanwhile hasn't even been blocking american IP addresses all this time. interesting. this piecemeal move at least indicates they don't intend to stop allowing unverified accounts for a while. the crypto wild west is still alive, just barely. i came across an interesting article detailing binance's compliance strategy: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldelcastillo/2020/10/29/leaked-tai-chi-document-reveals-binances-elaborate-scheme-to-evade-bitcoin-regulators/?sh=698480312a92The leaked Tai Chi document, a slideshow believed to have been seen by senior Binance executives, is a strategic plan to execute a bait and switch. While the then-unnamed entity set up operations in the United States to distract regulators with feigned interest in compliance, measures would be put in place to move revenue in the form of licensing fees and more to the parent company, Binance. All the while, potential customers would be taught how to evade geographic restrictions while technological work-arounds were put in place.
Notably, the document explicitly calls for the “strategic” use of virtual private networks (VPNs) that obscure traders’ locations as a way to evade regulatory scrutiny by the SEC and the NYDFS. In addition to a guide to using VPN’s on Binance’s website, CZ has in multiple instances advocated for VPN use as a way to obscure a user’s location. In a June 2019 tweet he wrote that VPNs are “a necessity, not optional.” Forbes has learned that the Tai Chi document is currently circulating among law firms, accounting firms and others associated with Binance, and there is speculation that the FBI and the IRS may be investigating. When reached by telephone, an FBI agent in the Washington, D.C .field office initially denied knowledge of Binance and hung up. Later, the agent formally issued a “no comment.” |
|
|
|
the attorney general is launching an investigation into possible election fraud: https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54882647it looks like he is just pandering to trump. even fox news is shying away from covering the allegations coming from republicans because nobody can offer any evidence to support them. nevertheless, trump's odds are up to 9% on betfair. where can i still bet against trump, with bitcoin? |
|
|
|
But this time retail investors aren't coming en masse, so there's a scenario where a new ATH won't come. why would retail investors be coming en masse? that doesn't happen until much later, during the bubble. remember 2017? the media was silent during the whole 2015-16 bull market, until bitcoin passed the 2013 ATH. then CNBC and forbes started hyping bitcoin every day of the week. then i started getting phone calls from family members asking about bitcoin..... that's how markets usually work: institutions quietly buy in the beginning stages of bull markets while retail investors are sleeping, then they dump their bags on retail buyers at much higher prices after the bull market has already played out. this is a common exit strategy for institutional investors. retail investors tend to be emotional/greedy and they tend towards fomo buying without any exit strategy. that's why they usually begin entering the market en masse after exponential gains have already occurred. retail buyers = top buyers. I can totally imagine guys from Microstrategy selling all their coins at $18k, because getting 80% profit in a few months is already crazy good.
get a load of this: Michael Saylor claims the company will hold Bitcoin for ‘100 years’ |
|
|
|
no, it will be exactly the same as the previous one and continue having the indifference attitude towards bitcoin while pretty much the same regulations are forced on any centralized service (such as exchanges) that work with bitcoin.
i wouldn't call the trump administration's attitude "indifferent". last year, they pushed the FATF to implement much harsher requirements on cryptocurrency ($1000 reporting thresholds) than those that apply to fiat currency. trump himself said he dislikes bitcoin. not to mention the harsh, new FINCEN regulations his administration published last year. i expect this trend of increasingly rigid and burdensome regulations to continue under biden. in fact, it'll probably be worse than under trump, as @theymos rightly points out: Long-term, a Biden presidency is probably somewhat worse for Bitcoin, since his administration will be more anti-Bitcoin and will be much more likely to put forward harmful regulations. (Not that Trump is super pro-Bitcoin or anything...) I wouldn't expect these sorts of long-term predicted effects to cause much shorter-term price action, though, other than maybe a very-short-term panic crash.
|
|
|
|
what we need are lax regulations that minimize the red tape involved in running crypto services/exchanges, p2p trading, etc. with the way the EU and FATF are breathing down everyone's throats, we know crypto regulations are coming. the question is just how bad they'll be.
Cayman having lax regulations would mean zero if the EU decides to cut the banking link between customers in the EU and exchanges based there, so all the lax laws would be useless. there are lots of VASPs that don't even interface with customer banking, who would be unaffected. you're only thinking about fiat exchanges. and that's also a big if. if you're suggesting that every country in the world is going to fully comply with FATF or EU or FINCEN regulations to the letter, i think you're mistaken. there are dozens of jurisdictions (several of which are used by the current generation of crypto exchanges to hide behind) that openly disregard FATF rules and have for many years. i dunno why that would all suddenly change now. the trend of increasing segregation between crypto-only and fiat platforms will continue. that's a given, due to the compliance and security risks of holding custodial bank accounts. Unlike you, I'm not focusing at all on exchanges, if bitcoin indeed becomes mainstream exchanges will be a thing of the past just like those hundreds of stands at the airports that changed francs to marks and to pesetas.
whether you are focused on exchanges or not, FINCEN and their counterparts are applying the same AML/CFT framework to p2p traders and non-exchange services as they are to centralized exchanges. even bitcoin faucets who were operating from the EU felt the need to shut down after AMLD5. my point was not about exchanges but rather the extreme barriers to entry being created for all crypto businesses via burdensome regulation. |
|
|
|
The UK start of the Sunday Social is 10 PM. chefcatradio---you're running those games now? look at @Globb0 blowing up on the interwebz! so this is a weekly affair then? i was too busy for poker this past weekend but my schedule is finally freeing up going forward. 10pm UK time = 2pm local time for me. perfect, for once! |
|
|
|
Biden's lead has only continued to improve in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Arizona. There is no chance this thing gets overturned.
Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania are pretty much thin, and if recounts happen, theoretically, it could flip. Let's see how the legal battle goes, as Trump's camp said they would make lawsuits on Monday (today). trump supporters are still giving us great odds to bet on biden because they don't understand just how unlikely a reversal via recount is. do the math: based on historical data alone, the chances of the election results being overturned based on a recount is somewhere in the realm of ~0.05%---probably even lower actually since the turnout was high. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/07/joe-biden-donald-trump-us-election-lawsuits-recount-supreme-courtBetween 2000 and 2019, there were 5,778 statewide elections and 31 statewide recounts, according to FairVote, a voting reform group. Three of those recounts resulted in a reversal of the results. FairVote found that margin shifts are usually smaller in recounts with a high number of votes cast and presidential elections usually have the highest turnout. that 0.05% probability is the chances of overturning the results in one state election. trump needs to have the results overturned in multiple states! and we're talking about a high turnout election. the supreme court route is a dead end too. they have zero interest in interfering with multiple state elections. in spite of the claims trump is making, they want to distance themselves as much as possible from politics. there is only one election case at the supreme court level---the pennsylvania case re ballots that came in after the election---and it's not gonna change the results even if republicans get those ballots thrown out. and if trump wants to pursue any other election challenges, he needs to bring them through the lower courts first, and then they need to progress to the supreme court and be heard there before the election results are certified next month. fat chance! 1.06 on biden is basically a sure bet. |
|
|
|
Yes, Coinbase is bad, as are other exchanges, but overwhelming majority of coins are still held by users themselves, so there's really no need to worry about it too much. coinbase currently holds ~5% of the circulating bitcoin supply. let's imagine this consolidation of coins into the hands of custodians continues and we're talking about single actors controlling 10% or even 20% of the supply. then let's imagine one of these custodians get hacked---cold storage compromised, everything gone. don't you think a custodian controlling 20% of the supply on behalf of users would be quite influential in facilitating a popular fork that recovers the coins? this is the kinda concentration of wealth that resulted in the DAO fork on ethereum. we can laugh about this stuff and make fun of CZ when binance gets hacked for 7k bitcoins, but i think it'll be less laughable when it happens with 3 million bitcoins, or something crazy like that. |
|
|
|
Oh, one thing, if they really want to become crypto-friendly they would make BTC legal tender! Simple as that, no need for the rest!
legal tender status just means people/businesses would be required to accept BTC for payment of any debts. this applies to everyone, including those who have no idea how to properly secure their coins. tbh, i don't see that as a good thing, and i don't want bitcoin to have legal tender status. what we need are lax regulations that minimize the red tape involved in running crypto services/exchanges, p2p trading, etc. with the way the EU and FATF are breathing down everyone's throats, we know crypto regulations are coming. the question is just how bad they'll be. |
|
|
|
So it took almost 3-4 days to call the elections in favor of Biden. The impression that we got before the elections was that it would be a landslide for Biden and he may end up with close to 400 electoral votes. i wouldn't say that. the polls were far closer than 2016, and the betting markets favored biden only 2:1 heading into election day. fivethirtyeight only gave trump a 10% chance, but that wasn't because they expected a landslide (victory by overwhelming margin) but just because trump was too weak in a handful of important swing states.  ^^ got my bet settled already and it's a lose, does this mean Biden was proclaimed the new President in the USA already? I like Trump to win the election as he is not interfering with my country's politics unlike Obama. betfair is still giving 20:1 odds on trump.  he is pursuing recounts in every state he can legally. based on historical data alone, the chances of the election results being overturned based on a recount is somewhere in the realm of ~0.05%---probably even lower actually since the turnout was high. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/07/joe-biden-donald-trump-us-election-lawsuits-recount-supreme-courtBetween 2000 and 2019, there were 5,778 statewide elections and 31 statewide recounts, according to FairVote, a voting reform group. Three of those recounts resulted in a reversal of the results. FairVote found that margin shifts are usually smaller in recounts with a high number of votes cast and presidential elections usually have the highest turnout. at these odds, it's still pretty tempting to bet against trump. |
|
|
|
I kind of whish they had gone to a 50/50 format for live and online - even switching back and forth ever 3 sessions or so. that would have been ideal. more competitive, and frankly live is just more entertaining, especially since these aren't super nosebleed stakes......$500/$1k like at full tilt back in the day would have been fun. It seems both of you guys totally missed the next session. They both have played another 2 hour online session and Dneg is currently losing around 275k. He was up 117k from the live session but taking a huge beat on the online session. You guys can watch it Here or Herethanks, yeah i'm a couple days behind and wanted to make it a point to watch the live session. with these announcers and no hole cards, i'm more just interested in the highlight reel and the results of the online sessions. |
|
|
|
Nothing concrete just circumstantial evidence, and a hunch.
i can't even find anything circumstantial. ver has defended SR on political grounds many times over the years, and he also raised money on twitter for ross ulbricht's legal defense. that's about it. Did Ver even know Ross Ulbricht before his arrest? all signs point to no. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
