Jednak potencjal leżący przed "dziećmi" btc jest na tyle duzy (m.in rozwiązanie problemow o ktorych wspominasz @vjudeu) , ze warto przeznaczyć na nie choć czesc srodkow  Popularność, m.in. dzięki której Bitcoin ma tak wysoki poziom bezpieczeństwo sieci jest też jednocześnie hamulcem przeciwko wprowadzaniu dużych zmian, do stracenia jest bardzo dużo gdyby coś poszło nie tak, więc podejście do zmian jest bardzo konserwatywne. |
|
|
|
|
OK. Myślałem, że edycje posta też podbijają, nie pamiętam już, widocznie nie. Miejsca znikają tak szybko, że często nawet nie zdąże dopisać, a już nabór skończony.
|
|
|
|
Personally, I can't understand the one thing: There is BitPay and there is BTCPay with zero fees. Why would someone use BitPay over BTCPay? I think BitPay also knows that BTCPay exists, so there is higher competition for them but instead of making things easier, they are making everything very hard and crypto unfriendly. Logically, this should destroy their business. Asking KYC for transactions is very unethical and disgusting. BitPay has first mover's advantage and they make it easier (in theory) to accept fiat. In reality the users transfers the risk of freezing funds from an exchange to BitPay. Relevant links: https://github.com/btcpayserver/btcTransmuterhttps://medium.com/@prayankgahlot/instant-fiat-conversion-with-btcpay-1d2f3dd57352Isn't it my right to protect my privacy? Statists' aspirations ≫ privacy for the individual |
|
|
|
It was known this was coming (travel rule) and I recall at least one other exchange doing something similar. "You have to withdraw crypto from Bitstamp to your own wallet first if you want to send it to any third parties" really shows how out of touch these regulators are. Of course, the next step is banning users who later send the funds to a non-whitelisted address, wouldn't be surprised if major exchanges and perhaps even gambling sites one day all cooperated on this matter (much more closely than now). What does it take exactly to whitelist a bitcoin address? Am I reading this blurb from Bitstamp the same way you are? It doesn't appear on its surface to require any KYC info from its users (though I suppose that could be built into whatever the whitelisting process is). KYC = Know Your Customer That includes snooping on or restricting their spending habits. |
|
|
|
The number you are looking is not bitcoin's "dominance", it is simply a ratio of bitcoin's market capitalization and the total market capitalization of thousands of shitcoins.
Since market cap is calculated simply by multiply supply by price and shitcoins can easily create any supply value they want and they have done that, the total supply (hence the total market cap, ie the denominator) is gigantic hence the ratio is close to 70%.
As new shitcoins are created (like the ICO mania of 2017) or the existing shitcoins have or create large amounts of supply (like the 72 million premine of ETH, or the out of thin air issuance of XRP) the denominator grows and the ratio goes down. But as these shitcoins inevitably get dumped their price*supply aka market cap goes down and the ratio goes back up again.
Coinmarketcap does a pretty good job at separating circulating supply from total supple to arrive at the true/real/effective market capitalization. https://support.coinmarketcap.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043396252-Supply-Circulating-Total-Max-#circulating_supply |
|
|
|
|
I have similar experiences, although I never tried convincing anyone. Still, most of the interest, questions and calls I receive are due to the rise in price every time there's a bubble, i.e. strictly profit-driven, so that has always been a bit disappointing.
|
|
|
|
Since the other topic about the dedicated Auctions board has been unpinned, the new topic should also mention that board and its benefits (the OP and posts within the topic in that section cannot be modified or deleted). |
|
|
|
Edit: Just want to ask can they provide this without any problem or no wallet.aes.json file ?
They do or they used to, I got mine a couple years ago, but some time ago some people started reporting about being ghosted. Can't hurt to try. Also remember to check your email accounts to see if none of them have emails with the file as bc.i used to send them after every transaction, IIRC. |
|
|
|
I think they're being overly cautious, though, small transactions up to 150 EUR/month should be excluded, and there are ways of avoiding even that for businesses like Bitpay in some circumstances, unless the Netherlands, where Bitpay's EU HQ are located, has decided to implement the directive more stringently. |
|
|
|
So is it your contention that investors didn't care that Silk Road got taken down, because it was so small and nobody cared about it?
Or are you suggesting that nobody cared that Bitcoin's image was being cleaned up, including all the illegal activity being FUD'd about in the media? It was irrelevant to the bubble?
At the time, American Congresspeople were demanding a crackdown on Bitcoin and the Silk Road.
It's easy to erase this stuff in hindsight, but Silk Road was a very big deal at the time. You can say it was only 5% of transactions, but that's a big deal, honestly. The media will peddle whatever brings in clicks, FUD or not. The kind of entities that would stay away from Bitcoin due to its potential use for DNMs stay away to this day. Whatever institutions that are investing nowadays aren't investing because Silk Road got taken down but because it's easier, and most importantly because the entire ecosystem is significantly larger. To give a sense of perspective, in late 2011 a $20k buy or sell was enough to move the market by 10% on Mt. Gox, the biggest exchange. Grossly overstated is what I'm saying, 5% estimate is a far cry from saying Bitcoin was only used for drugs, there were thousands of places already (mostly small online businesses) accepting Bitcoin by the time of SR's seizure, and its major usage wasn't too far off from today, namely speculation. Now you're shifting the goal posts. Wasn't your claim that Tether being taken down will cause a bear market?  I'm not outright saying it will, only that it may. |
|
|
|
This is almost certainly not the case. Either they have KYC information, or they don't. It is possible their software is not properly written to request KYC for customers when their policy says it should. Given how some services only ask for KYC if there's something they don't like, such as, but not limited to, IP address provenance, or blockchain activity, it wouldn't at all surprise me. Of course I'm still talking about transactions below a certain threshold. |
|
|
|
that seems rather doubtful. i've never used bitpay to pay a service where i've KYC'd, and i really don't think browser/IP/blockchain analysis is a functional replacement for a KYC program that demands official photo ID. i don't think a legal compliance-minded company like bitpay would operate that way, but i could be wrong. Some people report having to undergo KYC, some don't, perhaps what's happening is they demand KYC of people whose activity they deem "suspicious" and leave others alone (below certain transaction thresholds), or vice versa, they treat everyone with suspicion, except those who would have unmasked themselves in some way (again, only for smaller transactions). we'll probably know a lot more in a couple weeks as more reports come out.
Yes, more data points should give a clearer picture. |
|
|
|
i just bought a $100 amazon gift card through the bitpay wallet a few moments ago. no KYC required. also bought $500 in gift cards ~12 hours ago on egifter through bitpay---same.
Do you think Bitpay could have found enough information about you through one of the many possible channels such that they decided not to bother to ask you for KYC? |
|
|
|
What are the statistics, now vs. 2013 when Silk Road was taken down? At the time, there weren't that many services and as I recall SR was considered a very important part of the economy. Then (2012): https://www.cylab.cmu.edu/_files/pdfs/tech_reports/CMUCyLab12018.pdfSilk Road transactions correspond to about 4.5% of all transactions occurring in exchanges Now: https://blog.chainalysis.com/reports/darknet-markets-cryptocurrency-2019The percentages are even lower but they were never high to begin with.  Narrative wise, I believe the government shutting down Silk Road gave Bitcoin the sort of legitimacy that began getting the attention of serious investors and even hedge funds. It was no longer just a currency for drug traffic. That was the narrative anyway. Bitcoin was on its way to a 2nd bull run that year after the previous bubble collapsed a couple months earlier. Seizure of SR may have contributed to the rise in price, but there were other factors: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.180643#d3e1959See articles 3.1 & 3.2. Ignoring short term effects, I believe the same dynamic would play out if the ecosystem's shadier elements (like Tether) were shut down. The SEC implied as much in their commentary on why ETFs were rejected in the past. I don't know if the death of Tether alone would have been enough, but it certainly looks like a major impediment... Not sure I follow, but I don't mean to say there wouldn't be demand for no-KYC secondary markets. I'm just saying the SEC has complained they are an avenue for market manipulation, money laundering, etc. and this is an impediment to an ETF approval. Banking problems and regulations most exchanges have problems dealing with is the only reason something like Tether came to fruition. It wouldn't have been created if there was no demand for it. If there had been no demand, the price, global interest, etc. would have been so low no one would be thinking about any Bitcoin ETFs. |
|
|
|
And... something should be done about the off-site links in the Marketplace sections.
What do you mean specifically? Ebay links with no mention of accepting BTC? (dealt with when reported) Other marketplaces accepting Bitcoin which make transacting more convenient but attract scammers with their (often locked) self-moderated threads? (a warning bar will show up but people need to keep flagging these accounts) Something else? |
|
|
|
You think institutions give a shit about Tether going down? They'll be ecstatic! You realize what happened when Silk Road was taken down, right? Bitcoin was legitimized and then surged into the October/November 2013 bubble! DNM activity always contributed to a very small percentage of total transaction volume and the price was recovering weeks before the arrest. If Bitmex and Tether didn't exist, we'd probably have an ETF by now. If there was no demand for services like BitMEX and Tether (in the current regulatory landscape), it would mean interest in Bitcoin has dropped to levels too low to warrant the creation of an ETF. On top of that dynamic, the April 2017 experience (when Bitfinex and Tether lost banking capabilities) tells me the "panic buying out of USDT and into crypto" factor will skew the market bullish in spite of the negative sentiment arising from a Tether takedown. Short term, maybe, but medium-long term? |
|
|
|
teraz tez jeszcze polski rząd chce nam to wszystko utrudnić - tylko nbp nie zrozumiał jeszcze wartości BTC  Poseł Przemysław Koperski (Lewica) jeszcze w grudniu 2020 r. napisał interpelację poselską dot. rynku kryptowalut. Zadał w niej rządowi Polski kilka pytań dot. regulacji rynku cyfrowych walut czy akcji edukującej Polaków w temacie kryptoaktywów. Zapytał też NBP, czy te planuje zakup Bitcoinów. Właśnie otrzymał odpowiedź. https://bitcoin.pl/posel/http://orka2.sejm.gov.pl/INT9.nsf/klucz/ATTBX7K3D/%24FILE/i16629-o1.pdfZ jednej strony piszą: W omawianym kontekścienależytakżezauważyć,żeMinisterstwoFinansów oraz UKNFsązaangażowanew prace Zespołuroboczego ds. rozwoju innowacji finansowych, mającena celu eliminacjębarier w rozwoju innowacji finansowych w Polsce. A z drugiej piszą tak: Niezależnieod powyższego,warto równieżwskazaćna prowadzone przez UKNF, w ramach realizacji Cyfrowej Agendy Nadzoru2z grudnia 2019 r., prace nad propozycjązmian regulacyjnych, które pozwoląna wprowadzenie minimalnego poziomu ochrony klientów oraz rynku finansowego. Oczywiście wiadomo co będzie ważniejsze. Fajnie chociaż, że wreszcie określili swoje stanowisko co do tokenów, obrotu nimi itp. w zależności od rodzaju: https://www.knf.gov.pl/knf/pl/komponenty/img/Stanowisko_UKNF_ws_wydawania_i_obrotu_kryptoaktywami_71794.pdf |
|
|
|
I honestly can't wait for the day that tether is removed from the bitcoin/exchange ecosystem. The concept of stablecoins in general is toxic to the all of crypto.
When tether collapses, it will cause a short squeeze capital exit via altcoins, followed by full panic mode and crypto market crash. Only after that will we see true growth and long-term stability. Right now, bitcoin's true value is tainted by tether. I think we'd have a lot less volatility without tether and stablecoins. They have the opposite effect on crypto price stability as a whole. They suck the stability out of the market. I really hope it happens this year. It's also a necessary evil for many participants in the market when alternatives are lacking, mostly due to various regulations. January 15 is a key deadline in the NYAG case, so we'll see what happens pretty soon. Or maybe nothing will happen.
Even if that date proves to be prophetic, it will take longer until enough events unfold to affect Tether/Bitfinex/iFinex, and potentially the price of BTC. |
|
|
|
@ Harlot. It might only be a paid for advertisement from a new bitcoin payment processor called Strike hehe. This appears to be a new form of marketing tactic similar to reality TV became a new form of sitcom hehe.
It might very well be, but reputable websites have the decency to mark whether or not the content is sponsored, promotional, paid for, etc. This is surprising, because the article appeared on Fox News (I came across it for the first time last month) and I never thought that it was a promotional campaign. Anyways I was wondering why he is taking a huge risk in converting half of his salary to Bitcoin (the article claims that he made the request in 2019, when the Bitcoin exchange rates were quite suppressed).
It says right there: Okung, who is owed $13 million in 2020, will receive half of it in bitcoin as part of a partnership with a Bitcoin company. (emphasis mine) + his tweet I linked to above and you get the answer. But I like that he continues to post about Bitcoin: https://twitter.com/RussellOkung/status/1347951315306106881https://twitter.com/RussellOkung/status/1348085488591265792 |
|
|
|
Do you frequently open "All" pages? If so, that's the reason since AFAIK it's intentional configuration set by theymos. Still, it happens few times to me, but usually i just need to wait between 5 - 15 second.
I get that even without Tor, what seems to work for me is going back on to the previous page, clicking on one or two pages, and then clicking on the "All" page again. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
