I see many people asking for opinions about ICO investments, if they are good, profitable or not and I see many people replying it can be good or not, you must have knowledge to choose a legit ICO, to find out who are the developers...
But I would like to hear successful stories about people who invested in ICOs and made profit. Please, tell what ICOs you invested and how much profit you made, if you liked it and if you still look for this kind of investment.
Here's an interesting news article on Floyd Mayweather's endorsement of centra ICO. It covers some of the history of centra ICO as well as inconsistencies and lies centra have been caught in. Technically it is a success story. They have a lot of money and a celebrity endorsing them. Whether or not they'll ever deliver their product and follow through on their promises remains a question mark, however. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/technology/how-floyd-mayweather-helped-two-young-guys-from-miami-get-rich.html |
|
|
|
Update (4:20 pm ET): David R. McAtee II, Senior Executive Vice President and General Counsel at AT&T, has released a statement responding to reports DOJ plans to sue to block its purchase of Time Warner. In the statement, McAtee says he's "confident" the courts will side with AT&T.. "Today's DOJ lawsuit is a radical and inexplicable departure from decades of antitrust precedent. Vertical mergers like this one are routinely approved because they benefit consumers without removing any competitor from the market. We see no legitimate reason for our merger to be treated differently. "Our merger combines Time Warner's content and talent with AT&T's TV, wireless and broadband distribution platforms. The result will help make television more affordable, innovative, interactive and mobile. Fortunately, the Department of Justice doesn't have the final say in this matter. Rather, it bears the burden of proving to the U.S. District Court that the transaction violates the law. We are confident that the Court will reject the Government's claims and permit this merger under longstanding legal precedent." The DOJ Is expected to make a "major statement" about an anti-trust action within the hour. It's been widely reported that the AT&T-Time Warner merger will be the subject of the statement. AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson recently said he was never told that selling CNN would be a condition of getting the deal done. But he said that the company was prepared to fight in court to save the deal, if necessary, according to the Financial Times. “Since the day we announced this we’ve been preparing to litigate this deal,” he said. “We are prepared to litigate now," Stephenson said. * * * Just minutes after the DOJ announced that it would be unveiling a major anti-trust action late Monday, Bloomberg reported that AT&T will be the target of said action (as Amazon sneaks by one more day). Late last year, AT&T announced that it had agreed to buy Time Warner in another controversial merger of content creators and distributors. The news hammered shares of Time Warner, which dropped nearly 2% as investors realized that the White House is preparing to act on President Donald Trump’s campaign-season threat to block the $85.4 billion merger. Meanwhile, shares of AT&T climbed. The reports are the culmination of more than a week of sparring over the deal and dealing a major blow to the carrier’s bid to create a media and telecommunications empire, Bloomberg reported. NBC also confirmed the news. The challenge would derail a deal that had appeared to be sailing toward approval as recently as a month ago. That was before the new US antitrust chief Makan Delrahim took up his position and took over the investigation. During negotiations he pushed for the companies to sell the Turner broadcasting unit or DirecTV, a request that AT&T rejected. Last week, reports emerged that the DOJ had asked Time Warner to sell its Turner Broadcasting unit, which includes cable news network CNN. Later, the DOJ said AT&T and Time Warner had offered to sell CNN if that would cause DOJ to drop its opposition to the deal. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-20/time-warner-shares-drop-reports-doj-plans-block-att-deal.... This is an interesting case which could be worth watching. AT&T is attempting to buy Time Warner which would further centralize news media and internet providers under a single corporate entity. This could reduce industry wide competition which in turn produces stagnation, lack of innovation and progress. In theory, this may be correlated with lower quality products, higher cost and fees and introduction of predatory/exploitive business practices. If the deal goes through and bad consequences arise as a result, we could have a real life example of how centralization & monopolies can be bad precedents. There isn't a lot of real world application to the centralization versus decentralization debate sometimes. Perhaps there can be some value in this. |
|
|
|
|
This is very funny and all. Does anyone get an impression segwit was deliberately written to crash in cases where block sizes were not larger than 1MB to make bitcoin look bad?
All over the news and media there are stories of millions of credit cards numbers being stolen. There were hacks of equifax and the SEC. There's news about JP Morgan recently being charged with money laundering.
Could the error have been deliberately included to generate bad press on bitcoin/crypto?
|
|
|
|
|
Its a great idea for anyone willing to do research and try a lot of different supplements to find out which ones work. Perhaps great for someone with land and time to grow their own organic supplements. There's a lot of new and emerging information on health, fitness and nutrition being discovered. People are more health conscious and trying things like juice cleanses and detox programs in addition to organic foods and veganism being on the rise.
In addition to all this, there are supplements which work. Some foods and supplements are said to do things such as boost the immune system, bind to toxins which makes it easier for the body to remove them. Its may only be a matter of going through them one by one and trying them consistently to figure out which are good and which don't work.
Last I heard a lot of darknet crypto sites like alpha bay and silk road 2.0 were shut down. Going legit may be the way to do things now. Not 100% certain on that.
Also people should know some supplements contain things other than what they're advertised to contain.
|
|
|
|
|
Tax cuts could have significantly greater economic growth potential than the tiny rate changes central banks utilize in an effort to lure investors into spending.
In terms of history, north american economic growth was as high as 10% prior to 1913 when the income tax was legislated. After 1913 when the rich paid a 6% income tax (everyone else paid 1%) there could be a strong correlation between higher taxes and decreased growth of economy.
These days, the media only looks at income taxes. The real tax rate, what average percentage of income goes towards road taxes, gas taxes, alcohol excise taxes, telecommunications taxes and the massive assortment of "death by a thousand cuts" taxes which were introduced over the years. That could be an issue that could be addressed with the long term effect of boosting economic growth, creating jobs and doing other things politicians promise to do, but for whatever reason end up doing the opposite.
|
|
|
|
In the span of just a few months in 2000 the internet bubble burst and 280 companies lost 1.7 trillion USD in value. That is 13 times more than the entire market cap of Bitcoin (!). 13 times all of bitcoin in the world lost for comparison.
Almost a third of them lost more than 90% of their valuation. That means Bitcoin can easily go from 7700 USD now to 770 USD very quickly. The dot com bubble burst due to growth in that sector not keeping pace with the monetary investment being poured into it. AFAIK bitcoin is growing at a steady pace with its user base doubling every 12 months. Some of the price growth could be attributed to bitcoin being undervalued over 1-2 years before the last 16 months. Investment being poured into bitcoin is different from the dot com bubble in key ways. First investments in bitcoin are more level headed. There aren't a ton of people throwing their money at bitcoin, expecting everything to turn into gold like there was with dot com. Unlike the dot com bubble there aren't a lot of start ups involved with blockchain. Many blockchain projects are run by established institutions like microsoft, walmart, maersk. There won't be a huge number of failing business ventures involving bitcoin to drag the price down like there was with dot com. Comparing dot com to bitcoin is a bad comparison. There are few if any parallels between the two. None of which are relevent. |
|
|
|
|
Economic theory has to be at an all time low in quality of pop culture views on the topic and flawed frameworks like trickle down economics having mainstream acceptance. The concept of interest rates having a powerful affect on economies is a view which caters exclusively to corporations and one percenters if even that. Consumerism, corporatism and profiteering drive the majority of economic analysis.
There isn't much objective or independent analysis. There's a tendency for anyone who speaks the truth or who tries to think for themselves being branded conspiracy theorists and ignored. Can bitcoin make a difference? In the united states, polls say 2% of americans have used crypto. I think crypto would need a higher percentage of users worldwide to have an affect.
|
|
|
|
|
I can't say I've tried this or that I'm endorsing this. To give people yet another option: converting to usd/paypal & using paypals debit card could be cheaper and more affordable than either crypto debit cards or bitcoin atm's. Both of which seem to utilize massive price mark ups as standard fare.
Services which convert crypto to physical gift cards may be yet another method.
|
|
|
|
|
It sounds like you're describing the transition from a paper (previously: papayrus or rock tablet) based civilization, to digitized data formats which can conveniently be transmitted over long distances near instantaneously.
The "paperless office" was one promised byproduct of this transformation. Although some claim digital offices now produce more paper than ever. The paradigm shift appears to be away from offices and physical presences towards business models which utilized fewer square feet of real estate. Amazon and bitcoin could be two of the most known examples of this.
Will this trend continue and what impact could it have upon society? Especially with human populations doubling every few decades per land mass regularly. There may be some serious questions here.
|
|
|
|
 Link to tweet: https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/931547098625052672  Scrolling through the thread, there is a lot of good info. Topics such as block size and centralization crop up. Definitely recommended content. I never got involved with the specifics of segwit2x to know how good or bad it is. Awhile ago there was a bug in Bitcoin Unlimited that killed nodes which seems to parallel this bug in segwit. History is repeating itself. A precedent may be forming where those involved with bitcoin unlimited, segwit2x and perhaps bitcoin cash are prone towards doing these types of things. |
|
|
|
Global credit card giant Visa has rolled out the first, pilot phase of its blockchain-based business-to-business payments service, B2B Connect.
First announced last year, Visa plans to use the platform to ease cross-border payments by facilitating direct payments between institutions, cutting out the middleman the industry currently relies on. The platform – developed with the assistance of blockchain startup Chain – is also designed to ensure secure, yet transparent payments between enterprises.
One under emphasized area of blockchain/bitcoin could be its tendency to make banking simple. Its like those "for dummies" books. In theory anyone could set one up and establish an international banking system. As bolded in the article above, this should eliminate middle men from the equation which might result in reduced cost of banking, more features and reliability. Some have noted how technology and the internet have produced some negative effects in society. Jobs have been automated or outsourced. Perhaps blockchain is an upside to technology and the internet in terms of bitcoin & crypto producing jobs, creating new industries, giving more options and financial power to the people where it may be needed most. |
|
|
|
|
Barack Obama initially had a website which tracked federal spending. Its one of the reasons behind the claim of his administration being one of the most open and transparent ever.
I think a publicly accessible ledger for government spending is a great idea. What is needed to bring deficits and debt down however is independent, fact driven, media. I've seen anonymous and other groups make efforts in this area only to be shut down. Another area which needs focus is the efficiency (or inefficiency) of government, state run, programs. Space X has achieved more than NASA with 100 times smaller budget. The cost of some state run, public schools, in the united states boast per student costs which rival the value of Harvard tuition. Government run systems are extremely broken and inefficient in many ways which drive up deficit and debt. The end result is reduced standard of living as excessive taxes strangle the economy while not producing cost effective solutions for citizens.
|
|
|
|
You're spreading rumors. I've read that post about a girl in Germany who was trading Bitcoin and got raided by the police. First of all it wasn't clear what she was doing apart from Bitcoin trading. There were voices that some illegal activity might have been on the line (drugs). Also the amounts she was selling were quite high. It's not some occasional €5k they were dealing with in there. In general the authorities in Europe are ok with Bitcoin. In Germany there's a number of functioning cryptocurrency exchanges and they have no Bitcoin tax and no VAT on transactions, which is great. If you read the post, you know the story. She wasn't raided. They tried to raid her and gave up. Applying deduction, we might conclude if she was guilty of selling drugs & they had evidence, they wouldn't have given up so easily. That gives me the impression that she is innocent. Also if someone is dealing drugs, I doubt they would post about being raided on a forum to draw attention to themselves. It would only give the police more evidence in court. The way law enforcement and intelligence works is, they focus on cases involving the most money first. It makes sense she might be targeted for transferring larger sums of crypto than average. Its worth repeating. Sometimes with financial policy its good to plan for worst case scenarios and know the worst possible cases for risk assessment. Senate Bill 1241 in the USA does explicitly contain references to law enforcement confiscating crypto with no due process or probable cause(if I'm remembering right). That part isn't a rumor at all. |
|
|
|
Score one for the poetic irony pages.
Two months after JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon lashed out at bitcoin, calling it a "fraud" which is "worse than tulip bulbs, warning it won't end well", will "blow up" and "someone is going to get killed" and threatened that "any trader trading bitcoin" will be "fired for being stupid" as it was merely a tool for money-laundering, today Swiss daily Handelszeitung reported that the Swiss subsidiary of JPMorgan was sanctioned by the Swiss regulator, FINMA, over money laundering and "seriously violating supervision laws."
As the newspaper adds, the Swiss sanctions relate to breaches of due diligence in connection with money laundering standards. In other words, JPMorgan was actively aiding and abeting criminal money laundering.
The report further notes, the Finma decision was issued on June 30 and should have been published the following week but JPMorganm tried to prevent the publication of the judgment. More recently, the Federal Administrative Court dismissed the appeal.
In response to money-laundering violation, JPM said that in support of safety and soundness of global monetary system, “we have made and continue to make significant enhancements to the firm’s AML program to ensure we are meeting regulatory expectations,” according to an emailed statement sent to Bloomberg.
Unfortunately, JPMorgan also said that it can’t, or rather won't, provide further details since the Finma resolution from June 2017 isn’t public.
This means that anyone wondering if Jamie Dimon's bank was using (and thus trading) bitcoin to circumvent Swiss anti-money laundering regulations, will just have to ask Jamie Dimon in person during his next public appearance. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-16/after-slamming-bitcoin-money-laundering-tool-jpmorgan-busted-money-laundering... This is interesting. I think everyone has a tendency to believe regulation prevents banks and other institutions from preventing drug cartels, terrorists and shady russians with monetary support in moving money across borders and laundering ill gotten gains. In reality, banks and governments laundering money for terrorists, drug cartels and other illicits could be a standard procedure with those found guilty in the past receiving "slap on the wrist" verdicts. In terms of evidence, there could be far more evidence for banks being guilty of laundering money for terrorists than there is for crypto or bitcoin ever being utilized to fulfill that role. |
|
|
|
|
Most analysts seem to compare bitcoin to the performance of stocks. The breakdown in their formula may be that: bitcoin is not a stock. A stock with bitcoin's growth may be a bubble, but bitcoin can't be classified as a stock. Apples and oranges.
I think bitcoin is in uncharted waters. Unknown territory. No one knows if bitcoin is a bubble or not. If they knew for certain they would invest money and profit from it. Whatever people say about bitcoin being a bubble, there aren't many who have the confidence in their prediction to bet on it with real money.
When Jamie Dimon invests $2 million of his own money to short the "bitcoin bubble", I might take notice. I wouldn't mind if every "bitcoin is a bubble" analyst shorted btc. That could be interesting.
|
|
|
|
There could be a 3rd option to the "fight crypto" or "integrate crypto" paradigm you mentioned. "Confiscate/steal crypto." This option was put on the table with the proposal of US senate bill 1241 earlier this year. New US Senate Bill Could be a Threat to Bitcoin InnovationOn May 25, Senator Chuck Grassley has introduced Senate Bill 1241 also known as “Combating Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing, and Counterfeiting Act of 2017". More limits than solutions Along with fellow Senators Dianne Feinstein, John Cornyn and Sheldon Whitehouse, the bill aimed at modernizing and strengthening criminal laws against money laundering which is a potent source of funding for terrorist organizations, drug cartels and other organized crime syndicates. Moreover, US Bill S.1241 also aimed at deterring individuals entering the United States borders from bringing with them undeclared assets in the form of Bitcoin or other digital currencies. It would allow for civil asset forfeitures of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, and require users to declare cryptocurrency assets exceeding $10,000 whenever they cross the US border. In separate statements, the four Senators pushing for the bill say it is crucial time for United States to address terrorist threats and other criminal activities by targeting the source of their funding, thus the need to recalibrate their anti-money laundering law to keep up with the digital age. Senator Chuck Grassley says: “Terrorist organizations, drug cartels, and other criminals are actively looking to exploit and harm Americans, whether by attacking our way of life, flooding our country with highly addictive drugs, or defrauding unknowing victims. The recent terrorist attack in the United Kingdom is the latest somber example of how real these threats are to our country and its allies. We must continue to fight them on every front, and that includes going after the profits of crime that are also used to fuel the ongoing activity of these diabolical enterprises. Our bill updates our money laundering laws for the 21st Century”. Senator Dianne Feinstein comments: “Terrorist groups like ISIL and other transnational criminal organizations wouldn’t be able to finance their activities without illegal funds. Blocking these funds is an effective way to disrupt these organizations and prevent crime and terrorism. Our bill adopts many of the recommendations made by the Justice Department to ensure that transnational criminal organizations, including terrorist groups, face consequences for laundering illicit funds, evading laws and promoting criminal activity”. Senator John Cornyn: “We’re living in a time where the threats from our enemies are constantly evolving and it’s not enough to fight terrorism and crime in a reactionary manner. To protect our country and Americans, we must aggressively and proactively go after their funding streams, and by strengthening our money laundering laws, we can help curb the illegal flow of money to terrorist organizations, drug cartels and crime organizations that fund their illicit activity”. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: “One of the best ways to track crime and serious threats to our country is to follow the money. That’s why we need to crack down on the range of tricks criminals and terrorists can use to launder their dirty money to sustain their illegal enterprises. I’m glad to join this bipartisan bill to bring our money laundering laws up to date”. Counterproductive bill While the bill was lauded for crossing party lines to address the nation's pressing problem, experts warned that the bill, once enacted, may actually stifle current innovations in the financial world. Center for New American Security (CNAS) report reveals: “There is no more than anecdotal evidence that terrorist groups have used virtual currencies to support themselves". Thus, questions of the bill’s necessity are becoming a concern to the Blockchain community. According to Jerry Brito, Executive Director of Coin Center, Blockchain technology which underpins Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, is somehow as important as the web. While like the web which also attracts illegal activities, fighting those illegal actors should be down by reducing and not adding regulatory burden on digital currency companies. "One particular challenge in this area is the requirement for a virtual currency firm to obtain licenses in all states in which it operates and maintain compliance consistent with both federal and applicable state standards where they are licensed to operate. With only a single federal registration for virtual currency firms, compliance costs would be more manageable for smaller firms, and regulators would be better able to oversee firms”. Expect some form of regulation Most government organizations are still exploring Blockchain and cryptocurrencies potential. Whether it be to augment existing innovation plans such as the case for the state of Illinois or the US Navy improving the security of their manufacturing process. Truth is, different states have different stance on cryptocurrency. Lastly, it is only a matter of time until some sort of regulation is put in place for Bitcoin and ICOs as there’s still a growing interest in various government regulating bodies, especially the SEC and Senate. https://cointelegraph.com/news/new-senate-bill-could-be-a-threat-to-bitcoin-innovation The article may not mention it but the bill could give law enforcement the power to confiscate crypto without due process. This may already be occurring. There are posts on this forum made by people who claim police in germany (and wherever else) tried to confiscate their crypto. I can't verify any of it. But there are faint rumblings. ... I get the impression bitcoin consistently trends upwards at the end of the year, during the holidays. Investment at the beginning of the year could be a good strategy, particularly if there's a dip and expectations of good news for the calender year. That type of seasonal investment strategy could be viable if year end up trend remains consistent. Its been said that bitcoin's user base doubles in size every 12 months or so. This could make buy and hold strategies viable IF bitcoin/crypto doesn't reach a technical bottleneck based on its transaction performance, beyond which it can't support additional users. Arbitrage across exchanges can be profitable in some cases. If bitcoin is selling for $7,500 on one exchange and $7,000 on another with a 1% withdrawal fee and negligible additional costs, it can be worthwhile sometimes. |
|
|
|
Fabricio Werdum hit Colby Covington in the face with a boomerang. There's video of it everywhere. Hope Werdum isn't pulled from competing. Notes on this event. -This will be Bec Rawlings first fight @ 125 lbs. Previously she fought @ 115 lbs which might have been too much of a severe weight cut. -Tai Tuivasa spars & trains with Mark Hunt. I've never seen him fight but he has 5 wins with 5 KO's. Could be Mark Hunt 2.0. Here's a clip of Tuivasa's 4th fight last year against Brandon Sosoli: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oR7_EKvPKk (I haven't watched the clip, yet will see later) -Nadia Kassem has an impressive record but her opponents records combine for 0 wins and 10 losses. Oh, also there could be Bellator 188 tonight, nov 16th. |
|
|
|
|
This is an interesting topic.
Its difficult to answer due to the non-deterministic nature of markets. Its implausible to visit a parallel universe where bitcoin didn't fork to compare what the outcome would be to the current universe.
This could make it a theoretical topic with a few intangibles which could be difficult to quantify.
The answer may revolve around a basic question of: "would bitcoin be worth more if there had never been a fork". And "if the answer to that is: yes, then would that added value be worth more than whatever difficult to quantify positives which could arise as a result of forks".
I would guess there would be at least two separate sides to this debate. There would be a pro fork and perhaps an anti fork side to things as well.
|
|
|
|
|
AFAIK monetization sometimes emphasizes content.
Content may be driven by utility(real world application), need, originality, entertainment & similar traits. Then there may be other aspects to it such as advertising, word of mouth sharing on social media, marketing, etc.
I'll try to give you some content ideas, if that's ok.
1. Wallets(desktop, web based, hardware based).
2. How to pass crypto on to surviving family members. Is a will or safety deposit box a good method?
3. When is the best time of year to invest in bitcoin(looking at charts, btc may have a tendency to peak near the end of the year).
4. Is it best to copy and paste addresses or type them character by character?
5. Good methods to convert crypto to fiat, to paypal. Good methods to purchase from amazon and other retailers with crypto, etc
There are more controversial topics which may be covered. Controversy in itself can be a marketing tactic at times. Watching the media there seems to be an increasing tendency for journalists to steer clear of controversial issues & there could be a reason for that.
|
|
|
|
I get up and see this:  BCH has gone from around $10 billion market cap to $30 billion market cap in a couple of days. Who the hell has some spare $20 billion to pour into BCH? Buffet’s net worth is around $77 billion. I don’t think this can only be explained to Roger Ver and Jihan Wu going all in on BCH. They must have persuaded institutional investors to get into BCH. Apart from scared people exchanging BTC for BCH. I will HODL but this is serious. Market cap can be a misleading statistic. If bch was worth $1 and rose to $3 that would represent near to the amount of percentage growth of a $10 billion to $30 billion market cap increase. Depending of trading volume and pricing walls that might represent impressive growth. To represent true growth there would need to be a lot of buyers to maintain a consistent market cap without significant price devaluation as the number of buyers diminishes as often happens with many alts on dumps. That appears to be what happened with bitcoin cash. Its price peaked and value decreases as the number of buyers diminish and interest wanes. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
