|
I'm not surprised that PayPal doesn't even hold any Bitcoin, at this age everyone tries to outsource as much as possible, like in the past the website owners owned actual server machines, but nowadays you just buy a hosting service. And managing Bitcoin wallets is not an easy task, countless hacking incidents are a proof to that, so most of the traditional companies that will try to get into Bitcoin will be using custodial services.
|
|
|
|
So what exactly can you do with those bitcoins except sell them back to PayPal at some point? You can't move them, right?
If you could send these PP Bitcoins to other users, it would have made this whole thing much better, because the next day we would have people exchanging PP Bitcoin <-> real Bitcoin, which overall means more liquidity to the Bitcoin ecosystem. At the current state PayPal just acts as a broker, where you can get exposure to crypto investment and nothing more. |
|
|
|
The Malabar exercise incited WW3 fear as Australia joins the naval exercise which is a clear indicator that India is fighting back the aggression by China because in the past they never asked for Australia as
Remember how millennials and zoomers were spamming WW3 memes when there was tension between the US and Iran? This is even worse, because this is just a military exercise, they are conducted all the time, and they often look very provocative, like when they happen right next to someone's borders, because that's partially the point of a military exercise - to demonstrate your strength to your opponent. We are more like to see Bitcoin reach $1 billion than seeing a WW3 in the closest time. |
|
|
|
But in my opinion, this is better than using a third-party P2P platform
But P2P trades are still a minority of Bitcoin's volume so you should compare PayPal's new service to centralized exchanges, and in this case PayPal loses, because it has all of their negatives, like KYC and not your keys not your coins, but on top of that you can't actually withdraw your coins to mitigate those flaws. I personally would use every last alternative, before buying PayPal's "Bitcoin" that you never really own. |
|
|
|
ripple is the future of cryptocurrency irrespective of it centralization. As a ripple holder from inception
You have typical bagholder mentality, where you can no longer view your investment objectively and believe that it can only go up no matter what. Ripple has always been bad, a completely centralized cryptocurrency is worthless, the goal of crypto is to remove centralization in money. It's good that PayPal didn't decide to work with them, and it's clear why - Ripple, as a centralized payment company, is PayPal's direct competitor. Why should they help them? |
|
|
|
|
In theory crypto is a threat to banking, on practice it's so small that they don't even notice it. It's even worth with DeFi - there's absolutely zero non-speculative adoption of it, all the DeFi users are just crypto investors who want to multiply their crypto. No one is interested in using DeFi as a replacement for traditional financial services. We've already seen it with ICO, how it was hyped as a killer of traditional investment, and where it is now? There's a very high chance that the same will happen to DeFi.
|
|
|
|
|
I think this is all fairly obvious to anyone who believes in Bitcoin's core values, rather than viewing it as just an investment. The big question is, would PayPal do more harm or good to Bitcoin ecosystem? On one hand it's another centralized gateway, even worse than the current exchanges, because you can't get your coins, on the other hand it gives exposure to Bitcoin to hundreds of millions of people, many of whom otherwise could never try it. Some of those people would eventually graduate to buying Bitcoin on other platforms.
But let's not forget that if not a lot of people would be using this new PayPal's feature, then it will be just irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
You are not buying BTC on PayPal, you are buying a virtual BTC that you can only hodl or sell on their platform. The answer is easily no, I would rather use a proper exchange, especially since I have access to non-KYC exchanges, and withdraw coins to my wallet asap and be safe. Maybe this opportunity from PayPal will be more interesting for complete beginners or people who haven't tried crypto yet.
|
|
|
|
lets say usa dollar and all currencies will be highly devalued .....then how we know the btc value??
Theoretically, Bitcoin should immediately rise, because it's not correlated with the US dollar and it has fixed supply, but on practice it might be delayed - maybe Bitcoin will be low on investor's priority list if a huge currency devaluation will happen. most traders use USDT so if something happens with usa dollar is my USDT Will be worthless over night?
Yes, USDT will be as worthless as the US dollar, that's the point of a stablecoin, it's pegged to its currency. |
|
|
|
|
Remember how people were asking "will there be Bitcoin banks"? This is pretty close to it, you will own a digital "Bitcoin banknote" in PayPal's system, with no way to redeem it for actual Bitcoin. And this sounds bad to any experienced bitcoiner, but maybe it will have some positive effects, like bringing more people to crypto who were otherwise scared to try it before. To me the most disappointing part is that they choose to add bcash to the list of their coins, it will only cause confusion since newcomers will see two "bitcoins".
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think it's a binary question, some part of the mainstream finance could adopt Bitcoin, we already see the first companies starting to use it as a reserve asset, maybe in the future some will start using it as a method of transacting money. At the same time there can be an alternative Bitcoin economy growing, where there's small companies that only deal with Bitcoin and might even operate without abiding to regulations. These things aren't mutually exclusive, Bitcoin gives the freedom to use it both ways.
|
|
|
|
This is strange, if hackers actually wanted to donate those money, they would have kept it secret. It's clear that they had some ulterior motive - maybe they wanted to boost their own reputation or maybe they wanted to harm Bitcoin's reputation, or maybe the charities were the actual target? Children International replied that they will not be keeping received Bitcoin if it is connected to hackers. What are they going to do? Send them Bitcoin back or what send it to police  They'll probably give the coins to the police, who will try to investigate from whom these coins were stolen, and if that won't work, they'll probably auction the coins. |
|
|
|
|
The idea that so-called banksters are behind any negative news is as old as Bitcoin, since it comes from the narrative that Bitcoin is the revolution against bankers and soon the whole world will use it instead of fiat money. But I'm pretty sure that bankers actually don't care that much about Bitcoin, in the current state it's absolutely not a threat to them, adoption is low, scalability is bad, value is unstable - so what if 0.00001% of their customers leave them for Bitcoin? There's no point in paying for negative press, and they might even view Bitcoin as another opportunity for making money, if they offer Bitcoin-related services to their clients.
|
|
|
|
|
I would never ever send such huge amounts of money in one single transaction, that's a recipe for disaster. Even when I send or withdraw moderate amounts of crypto from services, I'll often do it in 2-3 transactions, even if it means paying more in fees, though generally I look for times when fees are low. If you're splitting your transactions, at worst you will lose only a part of your value to mistakes rather than all of it. "Don't put all your eggs in one basket" is a wisdom as old as the world.
|
|
|
|
A bitcoin bookmaker was limiting me because I was winning, so I want to be able to open a new account and deposit money. But if I just transfer from the wallet I used for the first account, they will easily be able to see that it's the same person and probably limit me quickly again.
Here's a very simple public chainanalysis tool - walletexplorer.com Take the address that you used to send coins to that service in the past, and take the address that you are going to use to send coins now. Paste them in the walletexplorer to see if they look like they belong to the same wallet. If not, you will probably not get banned, if they don't identify you through other means of course - cookies, IP address, device fingerprinting, etc. This is assuming you are sending coins from your own wallet, and not from your exchange account. If you're sending from an exchange, the exchange will use some random addresses from their hot wallets, so it would be hard for them to identify you, unless they contact exchange and request this information. But sending directly from exchange is risky, because they could freeze your account for gambling-related transactions. |
|
|
|
|
This looks like and important event in short term, but it's a bit too early to announce that the correlation is over, it could easily return again, especially if something major happens. Just like how all markets reacted to covid-19, it's possible that all markets will again move together in response to some major event, it could even be the coronavirus once again.
|
|
|
|
|
What's going to happen if Bitcoin will get privacy updates and will essentially become one big mixer? Are these authorities going to ban Bitcoin? Or pressure developers, many of whom are public figures, to install backdoors or revert the updates, even under threat of imprisonment?
|
|
|
|
|
How to send fake Bitcoin? Just send them some BCH or BSV, since those shitcoins are the definition of "fake Bitcoin", as both call themselves "Bitcoin" without being it. On Bitcoin network there's no such thing as fake Bitcoin or fake transaction, either transaction is valid or not, either its confirmed or not. There is double spending, where you send a transaction but then make another transaction with the same coin and try to get it confirmed instead, which is why no one should trust unconfirmed transactions.
|
|
|
|
Well the altcoin explanation was used to stressed my point. The fact is the exchanges can manipulate the market by creating either bullish or bearish scenarios although that's not a regular occurrence. Few days back, OKEx exchange suspended crypto withdrawal as one of the key holders was missing which was later discovered that Star Xu got taken by the police. Bitcoin saw a flash panic sell that dipped the price from $11.5k to $11.2k although some recovery has occured. Exchanges can easily cause panic in the market and this isn't the first such scenario has be observed. Few years back, Bitcoin suffers wild weekend after yet another Tether scandal. There are many more events like this that the market has experience some downtrend as a result of a particular exchange. The bitcoin market though is getting nature as not all exchange related event have an impact on the market that easily but their influence can still be felt. These 2-3% drops are irrelevant in the long run, and even in a few weeks everyone will forget about OKEx. Even if exchanges contribute to some price movements, like doing manipulation or just because of their influence, they still aren't the only factor that makes Bitcoin volatile, and it's probably one of the least common reasons why BTC price goes up or down. So, they don't prevent mass adoption by causing volatility, like OP says. |
|
|
|
|
Sure, Bitcoin is thousands times easier to "smuggle", but in the future there might be regulations where you have to declare your Bitcoin holdings, and if you try to spend your coins legally, like sending them to a new exchange in new country, or even use services that report to authorities, you will be spotted. It's not about controlling Bitcoin itself, it's about controlling the companies that deal with Bitcoin, cause they can't afford to hide it like regular people can.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
