|
I mean, as long as they don't ban debit cards from gambling as well I don't see a problem.
As a credit card issuer you have the right to stipulate what activities your credit can't be spent on, and gambling is an obvious no go given the fact that it's so dangerous, both from the user's point of view and from a debt recovery point of view.
If this ban extends onto debit cards though there's an issue since you're restricting people from spending their own money, which is never a good thing.
|
|
|
|
Look at what happening around. The first cryptocurrency bitcoin was invented to reduce the hassle of third party and have borderless transaction. Isn't it true? Now, look at what happening. People are more into investing it than using it as currency.
Most interesting is people are most interested in coin which give more ROI, they are not interested in the currency-ish of a currency.
For example, some people are talking a lot about BSV, but if they have some research, they will never take it as currency, but as this is giving a good return now, it's best for them. Why man? Why don't we look into a decentralized coin? Why do we only take it as investment? Did Satoshi ever take it as investment? Or he invented Bitcoin for borderless payment and solution to the intermediaries problem?
You're absolutely correct. Coins like BSV have no real use but speculation. People see that it's currently extremely volatile which means that they can take advantage of the price movements through leveraged positions, which they can get in and out of very quickly without even ever holding BSV in their wallets. It's part of the reason why I think that BSV has no long term future to speak of. But adoption will come, don't worry about it. We just need more merchant integration for that to happen. Replacing fiat currencies is a bit of a stretch, but coexisting is not an issue for sure. |
|
|
|
|
It'll be interesting to see how Alipay and Wechat responds to this.
Right now, these two e-payment giants are dominating China's remittance market and I think it'll be very difficult to get citizens to adopt another national cryptocurrency even from a central bank point of view, simply because people are accustomed to dealing with the two companies aforementioned and cash usage is at an all time low.
Perhaps Tencent and Alibaba will be called to cooperate on the matter. Who knows.
|
|
|
|
Hi All,
This is not about scam projects. This is about the projects which fail to raise enough funds due to what so ever reasons. When bounty hunters work for weeks and at the last moment project announces that they can no longer run it due to insufficient funds raised, its nothing but a waste of time and energy for us.
In my opinion, should project teams have enough fundings before they look for investors? What is called MVP is very important for the users to check for before investing.
MVP will ensure that even if funds are not raised as expected, it can be delayed but not dead.
From your point of view, what other points are there which projects and investors both look for?
Your post is kind of self contradictory. The whole point of an ICO is to raise funding for development. There is no surebet on whether or not an ICO can raise enough funds for their development, and if they had funding to begin with then theoretically, they would never have to go public with their tokens anyhow. But yes, I agree with the bounty statement. I think that teams have the obligation to compensate the bounty hunters fairly, even if their projects may fail. |
|
|
|
Nothing has changed until now, And I think the manipulation is even worse now.
Especially those tokens that are not really useful here in the market, and are still listed on the exchange to victimize newcomers and even pump and dump participants in the TG group.
I wouldn't say that it's necessarily getting worse, but it's definitely still a problem that is present. I remember back in the day there were a lot more of these active TG groups pumping and dumping coins on a daily basis. I actually see a lot less of these happenings these days. Perhaps I'm out of the loop, but it's difficult to manipulate the market in a bear market since there isn't a lot of movement to play around with for the manipulators. Pump and dump groups are only one way of manipulation though. There could be institutional manipulation as well, although I doubt that's going to be a huge problem given that BTC is decentralized and there isn't a whole lot of institutional players in the scene yet. |
|
|
|
|
I mean, it's not just BNB either. I've seen other prominent bitcoin figures on twitter asking for donations in BTC as well as even forum members holding charity raffles.
If this can catch on publicly, then it won't just be something that will be beneficial to Binance's PR and public image, it will be a good look for crypto overall.
This is essentially using cryptos for exactly what they're designed for - to facilitate cheap, worldwide transactions with little to no cost regardless of where in the world you're situated in. It can really bring people together in these rough times.
|
|
|
|
But it would be better to provide exchanges that do not require KYC process because most of the exchanges require to verify identity to start trading and this is against Monero idea right?
Absolutely, which is why I think exchanges like Shapeshift which now require KYC before you trade any amount on their platform should be removed from this list. I think that anonymous coins such as XMR face a very difficult predicament at the moment because of the fact that exchanges are looking to delist a lot of these anonymous coins for the purposes of either complying to regulation or responding to existing pressures from the government/securities regulators. This makes me think that potentially in the future, these anonymous coins could be the real drivers of adoption for decentralized exchanges. |
|
|
|
|
I don't think that it'll be a blow to XRP whatsoever.
The volumes generated by Bitbox is sizable but nowhere near enough to have a long term impact on XRP's future. With XRP having so many liquid markets everywhere it would take a lot of delistings to have any tangible effect, which won't happen due to the profitability of these markets to most exchanges.
It's odd for any exchange to be delisting ripple though, when it could be one of the premier coins of 2020.
|
|
|
|
|
It's hard to say. One could argue that we were never in a bear market to begin with since the downfall from $14k+ was simply a correction that was imminent due to the fact that the markets go so overheated and such. It was completely unexpected and the sentiment of the market hasn't really changed too much for the worse.
But 2020 is certainly a much more bullish year in general compared to 2019.
Given all the hype around the halving, I think that at the very least, it could become a self fulfilling prophecy. Of course the scarcity of new mined coins will also rise, but the most immediate impact will be a surge in bullishness because of the fact that people expect a bull market to occur.
|
|
|
|
|
Not necessarily a fresh bull market.
I think that 2019, overall was quite bullish if you looked at the fact that we soared from the $3-4k lows to over $13k, which was obviously quite rushed and unsustainable for the time being because of the fact that market sentiment at the time was still quite subdued.
I think that 2020 will simply be a continuation of the middle part of 2019, where price action was substantial and a level of optimism and even FOMO will come back into the market.
|
|
|
|
|
The institutional demand news is very interesting. The rest of them I'm not too sure about.
The thing is that the next bull run will certainly be driven by institutional investors, as a lot of forum members have echoed the same sentiment. Perhaps it won't be JPMorgan per se but they have certainly had a complete 180 in their attitude towards bitcoin over the past few years, coming from Jamie Dimon publicly denouncing BTC to launching their own bitcoin related services.
Even if they may not contribute much to BTC in the long term, in the short run they will provide a spark in the market, especially for coins with existing liquidity.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, unfortunately people still fall for these.
Just make sure that you use your common sense. If anyone asks for your private key, 99% of the time they're not doing it out of good faith. Private keys aren't needed in order to send/receive transactions and anyone that is trying to mislead you into believing otherwise is definitely not a legitimate character.
This does not just apply for ETC either, it's for all altcoins.
|
|
|
|
|
I think that in the short run the halving certainly has significance, especially on the price and affecting the market sentiment positively.
However, in the long run, obviously it doesn't affect the fundamentals much. In order for BTC to thrive in the long run its fundamentals need to improve at the end of the day, and that means greater adoption, greater real life usage, as well as a better network in general.
So no, I don't think that people are mistaking halving as long term progress, and it certainly contributes to improving short term market sentiment.
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely.
And what is meant by 'in your hands' is that you need to hold the damn private keys. So many people think that withdrawing your coin holdings from an exchange to a hosted wallet is enough. No. A hosted wallet service can do the exact same thing to you - freeze your account without any chance of recourse from your part.
Do you really want to have to deal with all the KYC/AML procedures that are completely over the top and draconian as a regular user, once your account gets frozen? And even if you do, there is a chance that you won't ever get your funds back.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think that it has much of a long term potential.
The prices right now are peanuts compared to what we've seen from the initial pump of EDC, which saw prices at over 3 BTC per EDC. After that, the price of this coin significantly tapered off, which is what you expect out of a coin that doesn't really have strong (or any fundamentals for that argument).
Don't believe blindly in other people's predictions as they are mostly profit driven.
|
|
|
|
|
Stablecoins are not a solution. They are a hedge.
Those are two entirely different things. Stablecoins' existence don't guarantee that bear markets won't happen anymore. In fact, it may actually be the opposite as it becomes easier for people to short BTC in a sense.
Instead, stablecoins offer investors a way to keep their fiat currency holdings in a crypto form so that it can be quickly exchanged for and against BTC in times of volatility.
|
|
|
|
|
Well said.
A pump in price doesn't mean that all of a sudden, this project is legitimate. It is not, and it will never be. Just because there are some apparent 'legal development' in the tulip fund doesn't mean that it's legit. People are way too gullible. Until we see legitimate proof beyond reasonable doubt, he is not satoshi.
And even if the real satoshi is found it shouldn't matter much to the market from a rational point of view. It makes no sense to rely on a central figure when the BTC network is designed and has been functioning in a decentralized manner.
|
|
|
|
|
Looking at the long term charts it does seem like that XVG gets pumped hard whenever there is a bull market.
So if you think that a bull market is incoming, which is very likely, I think that you should definitely look into investing in these small cap, more volatile coins which are capable of returning ROI in the hundreds of percents in the short term (MONA is another coin that comes into mind, as well as DOGE) from any rally.
Just make sure that you diversify your portfolio. XVG and other such coins shouldn't take up the majority of your long term portfolio.
|
|
|
|
I'm in the more bearish camp. I don't think that NEO has put out anything interesting ever since it got evolved from Antshares. And interest in the project has been diverted away into other PoS coins in recent years as well given that so many of them have popped up with significant staking rewards in their respective cryptocurrencies as well. Perhaps I am biased because I missed out on the ANS sale initially, though  |
|
|
|
|
No. Whether or not satoshi is found or not is completely irrelevant.
The team working on bitcoin has had no affiliation with satoshi anyway for the past decade or so, and there has been no issues in the regard of keeping the network flowing smoothly. After all, it's a decentralized protocol that is designed to function with or without a leader anyway.
I see your concern in regards to the centralization that a known satoshi could generate, but I believe that in this more mature stage, the influence he pertains won't pose much of a risk to the wider markets.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
