What you are claiming is probably your personal guess only. Surely, you do not have anything to put on the table to prove it? But I suppose ever since signature and bounty campaigns are offered in this forum, there must have been a good number of users who are only earning and not buying Bitcoin. But they are not the only Bitcoiners who did not directly buy Bitcoin. There are probably miners who never ever bought a single Satoshi.

Anyway, I am not one of them.

I hope I don't sound weird on this but it is interesting how Jack Dorsey explained his resignation from the company he co-founded in 2006. He sounded so Bitcoinish. Apologies for the word. There's just no better way of putting it. Dorsey seems to be doing a Satoshi in saying that Twitter being headed and led by its founder is "severely limiting" and has "a single point of failure." He further said that he had "worked hard to ensure this company can break away from its founding and founders.”^[1] That's what Satoshi did, who also made a somewhat similar pronouncement before leaving for good. And to think that Dorsey is probably leaving Twitter to give more focus on his Bitcoin-related endeavors. The man looks so Bitcoin-inspired.

---

[1] https://labusinessjournal.com/news/2021/dec/06/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-steps-down/

They indeed denied and called it a lie at first. Earlier, people from BitMart itself declared the large withdrawals from their hot wallets as part of their exchange's normal operation. They even declared the hack as fake news. This was when PeckShield, a security firm, first raised the alarm. But then BitMart's CEO itself later on admitted that it was indeed a hack.

This is the same old story. A centralized exchange gets hacked, locks platform's functions and accounts, staff issues denial, reassures users of funds safety, and so on and so forth only to end up admitting it.

As to how the security breach became possible, your guess is as good as mine. As for the money, that was rather huge. Users should be hoping against hope.

I guess the answer is found right there in the question itself. It is probably because it is centralized. There is a single point of attack. That $100 million was stored in a single hot wallet, the other $96 million in another. We do not know what the specific security flaw is but the point is that the hacker knows the target. He/she is only left with the how.

Hack incidents involving centralized exchanges are more or less a common occurrence in crypto's history. And it still makes me wonder until today why the top exchanges are still the centralized ones.

I would rather do it once a week. A daily $200 purchase would not be cost-beneficial. Buying on a daily basis, as others have already pointed out, also means paying fees on a daily basis. That would not be the best way to go. That's wasting some precious Bitcoin.

Also, a weekly purchase would somehow provide you ample amount of leeway in choosing your best entry price. Of course, it doesn't matter much to DCA but, you know, a lot could happen in 7 days. A dip or correction could happen within a week. That's a good entry point.

The problem with Bitcoin trading and investment is that you don't have that regular income to support your day-to-day existence. So while it indeed empowers you economically, it might actually be helpful that you should also have another source of income aside from those.

Trading does not guarantee you profit every single day. Investment, on the other hand, will sometimes take time before bearing fruits. You might be required to wait for a while before the ROI comes in. So however crippled your economy is you've still got to find ways and means to squeeze something from it.

The gold standard of Bitcoin in crypto is not based on the market cap I suppose. Bitcoin is crypto's gold because of its features and not because of its price. In the same manner that gold is the standard even if it is not the most expensive, the most rare, the most coveted, and so on of all precious metals and stones.

Ethereum may overtake Bitcoin's market cap in the future but it can never ever replace Bitcoin's features. At the end of the day, Ethereum is just another creation inspired by Satoshi's Bitcoin.

Yes, it is. It is always fine, in fact, admirable, to only have as much as you can afford. That means a whole lot of things. That means Bitcoin is available in any amount. Many are saying they have come to know Bitcoin too late as it is already very expensive. Well, Bitcoin is so divisible. That also means you are only buying what you can. That's in contrast to others who took loans, sold properties, postponed bills payments, and so on just to buy more Bitcoin. That would be imprudent. That also means you are buying regardless of how much you have at the moment. Others are putting off buying because they're still saving for a much bigger purchase. I don't think it's necessary. Time is running.

Yes, they widely vary. Bitcoin_Arena has already provided a sufficient explanation. Basically, fees in different wallets are either flat, categorized, or personalized. Flat fees are fixed fees. They're either USD or Bitcoin based. Wallets with categorized fees provide options like fast, medium, or slow. Personalized fees are fees which you alone determine. You have the full freedom to pay whatever amount you prefer.

Who's to be blamed, the one who set the trap or the one who fell victim to it? I'm not saying Uganda is 100% clean and innocent in this case but surely I wouldn't put the entire blame on them for not scrutinizing and signing a contract full of unfair clauses.


Trying to keep silent against injustices committed by a powerful institution, country, ethnicity, religion, and so on is so 18th century. Nothing is demonized here except the demon.

I'm excited to take a look at your paintings.

In addition, by the way, please include the medium as well as the dimensions of the paintings. And please take the best shot of your paintings. If possible, take one shot for the whole and another for a close up, showing details. After all, whether your story about your grandmother is true or not, you are selling a piece of art here. So I guess even those who are skeptical of your story might still find your works of art worth buying.

I'm also in favor of this advice. I guess minerjones is the man. Minerjones is the most most trusted person on the forum. He/she is both a re-shipper and an escrow. But my reservation is that OP will have to send the paintings to minerjones first before things could be set up. So, that will require OP to spend first before getting the funds that's needed for grandma's operation.


Forget about this as OP is trying to raise funds for his/her grandma's bone marrow transplant. He/she is definitely short of cash so I think he/she should be avoiding unnecessary expenses. I'm sure somebody who's got the rank would readily quote the image for him/her for everybody to easily view it.

Edit: OP has responded to this already.


Forget about the 30 activities.

Since you are in a really bad situation right now, just post the sale in the goods section, the price you're willing to sell it for, the place where you're shipping from, that you are willing to use an escrow for the transaction, and link of the image along with your username here and the present date.

Don't worry about the image not showing, I'm sure somebody would be willing to quote it for you so that everybody could see it. If none, just PM and I'll quote it for you.

Oh yeah, I understand. I forgot those who are trying to earn through bounty hunting. But doesn't it speak a lot of the quality of the project if they are listing their token on a scam exchange? Would our bounty hunters still find it worthy to pursue even if aside from having the token listed on a scam exchange, the exchange itself would ask personal information from them? Not to mention that the amount is probably small enough compared to the risks.

Anyway, let's forget about investors. Unlike bounty hunters, they have a choice. If the token they would like to buy is choosing a scam exchange over decent exchanges, there is no reason to buy it.

Don't you think you are generalizing too much? It's not as if these tax evaders are that clueless. You have to somehow have a front. You simply cannot just live on your Bitcoin alone without paying taxes and without a business, without a job, without anything and yet have everything in terms of lavish lifestyle. That would be suicide. That's like knocking on the tax bureau's door itself.

Banks won't disappear. This will never happen. It is not as if Bitcoin and banks are mutually exclusive. It does not mean that you cannot have both. It does not follow that because you are using certain banking products and services you cannot anymore participate in the promotion or adoption of Bitcoin.

I wonder how many people who have Bitcoin and are very actively and passionately arguing for Bitcoin also have bank accounts at the same time. I even think that many of the Bitcoin maxis also have bank accounts.

You said Bitcoin is seen as a risk on asset? Who sees it that way? Perhaps it's the same people who have yet to understand, much less embrace, Bitcoin as it really is.

But, be that as it may, Bitcoin is still very much at its infancy. Which means that while it has already proven something, it has not yet proven that it lasts and that it is consistent, things which gold could easily claim. In which respect, gold, which has been around as a precious asset since time immemorial and through the worst economic ups and downs, could easily beat Bitcoin, whose existence is but a little more than a decade, in terms of risk perception.

LOOOOOL!

And you didn't see it coming? Seriously? Talking about money with a chick over Tinder and you're expecting honest-to-goodness deals? Oh, man!

Anyway, there's your lesson. I hope that sizeable sum of money is not that big. If it is, well, what can you do? I just hope that between your two heads, the larger one, I mean the one on top of your body, should be the one to dictate on your decisions next time around, especially those relating to finance.

Sometimes it makes me wonder, are we running out of exchanges that people are still using the likes of P2PB2B?

Anyway, in addition to what Jawhead999 says, aside from waiting for days or even a week or two before finally getting fully verified, you should have been informed earlier that by using a centralized exchange you are accepting the possibility of being required to pass all these KYC hassles. Whether you are already verified or not, it does not take away the possibility that these centralized exchanges will ask more from you.


Does this still have a point? After all, whether P2PB2B provides more detail or not, OP is left with no choice but to comply for the sake of the funds.

What do you exactly mean by a retail vendor? That you will buy, say, Bitcoin in bulk and then sell them in smaller amounts for a certain amount of premium? Anyway, this is clearly not a passive income. This is unlike earning annual yield from staking or receiving dividends from investments.

By the way, when you say we still need more exchanges, it should be qualified. Apparently, we already have so many exchanges, only that they are centralized. What we need are truly decentralized exchanges. And also, it's not the exchanges that give crypto more boost. Without any practical function and utility, cryptocurrencies will remain to be merely speculative coins.  

Deposit bonuses are, of course, better than no deposit bonuses. Come on, don't be too salty that you don't get to have it absolutely for free!

Surely, you don't expect gambling sites to just give away money for free, do you? At the end of the day, they exist to make money and not to operate as a charitable institution, right?

As much as we don't like it, I guess it is not really unfair. These bonuses are actually part of the investment of the casino. They're giving them away with the hope that they'd get a much bigger amount in return.