Regulators are already shutting down ICOs. The government says it is doing so to protect marginal investors from getting cheated. Whatever their true intentions, in the end the government makes the law.
This happens to be case in China, but anywhere else in the world you can still get your ICO going as far as I know. Even if all major countries banned the issue of liquidity via ICO, there would always be ways to circumvent these limitations if the investor was really interested in a project. I think the ICO model has been demonized beyond belief due the massive amount of scams happening under it, but is it unfortunate that some of the projects, which are legitimate and bring value to the table, get trapped in this situation of being rejected at sight only because it was issued as an ICO. We should find some common ground. Legitimate projects tat use the ICO model cannot be suffering from being lack of liquidity. So we either let everyone have their ICO, or have some sort of regulatory mechanism, but in general I don't like anyone else choosing for me, I want to be able to choose what is or isn't an scam. If i like the idea, I will invest on the ICO, and I don't want someone to tell me not to. Im not an expert of anything that has to do with economics and so on, but it would suck if a good project gets banned in my country and I can't invest on it only because someone else decided for me. |
|
|
|
if your Bitcoin account has already hacked by hacker the question is, can you get justice for this against hacker? but how, I think Bitcoin in not recognized by law
What do you mean by Bitcoin account? A Bitcoin online wallet? your computer which contains a wallet.dat file or any other sort of private keys? your BitcoinTalk account? It's not clear to me what you are talking about. Actually even if Bitcoin is not backed by the government, you could still file a police report on a possession being stolen from you. Of course, im not sure if that will turn out ok. If the hacker uses Tor, VPN and so on, you are most likely never going to see your Bitcoin ever again, and that is even if they bother to make a case out of it. The best defense is good prevention, don't get hacked. |
|
|
|
|
It depends on what you are holding. Bancor for example was an absolute disaster. If you bought the ICO, it would have been a short period of time to dump to make profit.
ICOs are a double edged sword. A lot of the coins are going to keep stagnating into the crypto-cementery, but a few can be long term holds.
If you just want to speculate with a project, anything above %10 gains is a good time to dump, but if you want to get rich you need to take higher risks. Doubling your money with an ICO would definitely be a success and I would jump ship at that point, but the few that go %1000 would be missed.
|
|
|
|
|
I just wonder how the hashrate would look like when we have a lottery of different hashing algorithms changing in random times (or isn't the time random and fixed?)
Anyway I would like to see some simulation models of that before we go with it. It's clear that sooner or later we may need to do something like this, but it's not clear to me how it would turn out.
I predict for every type of hashing algo someone would be specialized and would have a monopoly for that period of time. Wouldn't that be a problem? What if someone has 51%+ of hashrate for a particular algo?
|
|
|
|
Hashrate follows price, in theory
Right. When mining is (or projected to be) highly profitable, miners buy more hardware thus increasing the hashrate. When mining is approximately profitable, they maintain the status quo. When mining is highly unprofitable, they drop turn off miners thus lowering the hashrate. Yes, but like I said, fundamental matters. Even if everything points to it being more profitable by you pointing your hashrate on there in paper, if you are mining what is essentially a shitcoin, you are going to be mining something that has no solid dev team, no realistic long term projection, and basically anything that makes a coin worth one's hashrate. There are a lot of shitcoins out there that would be profitable to mine, but they aren't really safe bets long term. This is why I think sooner or later BCash is going to collapse upon itself. The fundamentals just aren't there. No amount of Roger Ver propaganda can change facts. |
|
|
|
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/paypal-ceo-expensive-poor-221202508.html
PayPal CEO Dan Schulman wants to make it easier for people, including those who live outside the financial system, to manage and move their money. “There’s a saying that it’s expensive to be poor,” Schulman told Yahoo Finance in a recent interview at PayPal’s San Jose, California headquarters. “You want to cash a check, send money to a loved one, get credit, even pay your bills. For those who are outside the financial system — and there are over 70 million adults in the U.S. and over 2 billion people in the world — those basic consumer transactions can be incredibly time-consuming — you stand in line for 30 to 45 minutes — and very expensive.”
While the dollar costs of executing a financial transaction may seem reasonable for most, they can be quite high for those with very little income.
“On average, an underserved consumer spends 10% of their disposable income on unnecessary fees and interest rates,” he added. “So democratizing financial service is basically saying the following: We want managing and moving your money to be a right for all citizens, not just the privileged, or the affluent.[/b]” Sound familiar?  There's no competition until we have lightning networks. Until then, you cant sell bitcoin as a solution for poor people to send and recieve money in a decentralized way, because (unlike what scammers such as Roger Ver and anyone supporting BCash will tell you) a decentralized blockchain is a finite and scarce resource, therefore it's not cheap, this is why we need second layers like LN to really take over the entire planet. Then we will outcompete everyone else and PayPal will either join BTC or go bankrupt because no one is going to be paying any fees to send money anywhere. Paypal is a scam because it's tied to the legacy banking system, yet they market themselves as "internet payments". This was never true, it was never true anywhere until Bitcoin was invented. |
|
|
|
Hashrate follows price, in theory, but with Bitcoin Cash we've seen miners going back and forth because it was more profitable to mine BCash for a while, but ultimately we are seeing that even if it's more profitable to mine BCash, they are losing hashrate and miners are going back to the real Bitcoin: fork.lolBCash is going to be a mess because they are going to have a halving 1 year before the real BTC at this rate. |
|
|
|
As We All Know DGB is Monster ( Currently Sleeping). Their is 2 Big News Coming For DGB in Next Week 1: DigiByte (DGB) - Releasing new website: https://twitter.com/DigiByteCoin/status/910498664887443456 (1st October) 2: DigiByte (DGB) - CitiBank calling a winner (2nd October) ( News Not Confirm Yet) I M Sure If 2nd News Was Confirmed By CitiBank Then Price Can Touch New High.. So What You Think About DGB? Sleeping Monster Wake up or not?   It looks like Digibite bottomed and it's now starting to go back up. It's too early to call it a trend reversal, but we've had a few good weeks. The last pump was so high that it doesn't look like much is happening if you zoom out to an all time graph, but if you focus on the last weeks, you will see that we bottomed. Let's hope that was indeed the bottom, but I don't see it going much lower, it would sort of stagnate until DGB manages to do something to keep the interest going. |
|
|
|
I would not consider Trezor safe after it was revealed that trezord.exe phoned home https://www.reddit.com/r/TREZOR/comments/6yti7p/trezor_bridge_trezordexe_calling_home/Why would you trust anything with electronics on it when you can get a paper wallet, wrap it in plastic of special material that will survive fire and water and in general the pass of time, and put it somewhere at home in a safe? even if they stole it, they couldn't open it because BIP38 allows encryption in paper wallets. You can also deposit copies on other places if you have a couple of properties. So how can it get any better than this? |
|
|
|
Maybe the algorithms could be changed regularly to newer ones, that would dis-incentive ASIC development.
And maybe the interval between the changing of the hash series could be randomised. Keep thinking though. Randomized algo changes seems like the way to go. I've seen this mentioned before and considered by reputable devs. If there is ever a bitcoin hardfork (a proper one, not one driven by scammers like Jeff Garzik) I would like to see that. It seems like the only way to avoid massive monopolies. One would need to invest so much money on research and stacking of every single algo to keep being the leader ever under several different algos, that i think it's unlikely the same player would always have the advantage. |
|
|
|
Well for starters, Core don't have the "authority to rule BTC". It's almost a given that users would be open to a change in algorithm if the alternative was having stuck transactions due to an overall hashrate too low for the current difficulty. Users would therefore be happy to run the new code, so it's not a case of the Devs ruling over anything and the decision would be equally influenced by Devs and Users. And the very notion of a change of algorithm wouldn't be on the table unless it was absolutely necessary. Developers wouldn't be pushing it on an unwilling community just for the sake of it.
I think it's safe to say that the entire idea behind the change in algorithm is to deter ASICs and render them useless. It's very much a 'nuclear option' and last resort. But that's just indicative of how far things have escalated in this dispute.
//EDIT: I realise I've probably misinterpreted that first part. You meant the miners' supposed ability to rule over BTC. But I'd argue equally with that stance too. Miners, Users and Devs all generally have an equal share in the balance of power in that one can't accomplish much alone without the others.
//
If it were implemented early enough, it would indeed drive a firm wedge between the two chains and provide inherent replay protection, but it remains to be seen how quickly the change of algorithm would be activated. I think everyone will want to tread carefully considering the magnitude of the change.
Well for starters, you are assuming a lot of things that "users" would want. Would users want a centralized network due big blocks? don't think so. In any case, do users have big blocks already? Yes, they have BCash. Are users moving from BTC to BCash? Nope, no one uses that shit, even if the transactions are very cheap, it's not worth it because the developers are retards and all the smart people are working in Core, and when it comes to money, you want the smartest people to be developing the software that is the backbone for the network you are depositing your money at, not to mention BTC is now very cheap to transact with segwit and no Roger and Jihad spam. And if there's a way to test what users want, is to see if they want the big blocker fork and they do not, so stop assuming everyone using Coinbase or whatever are supporting the segwit2x scam when they don't even know about it. Let's see if they like how the segwit2x scammers crash the market in November due causing yet another unnecessary fork as holders suffer from it. |
|
|
|
Happy with the bitcoin price that rise, I never worry and panic about bitcoin prices because the price will keep going up, the price drop is only temporary and will not be continuous, and now the price reach $3800 and will reach $4000 tomorrow.
We are making solid progress. Im not sure what has triggered the current bull run, but ultimately, bitcoin is a limited offer of 21 millions. Sometimes people get caught in trying to find and explanation for every bullish candle and I think is missing the big picture, the big picture being that the amount of BTC is ultimately limited, and as long as there is waves of demand, there are going to be waves where the price goes up to find new heights, which will trigger FOMO on these on the fence. |
|
|
|
Well China might not be banning mining, but they are banning ICO's - so all those tips of yours for China based ICOs are poor.
How can anyone recommend purchasing a Chinese based ICO like Neo with a straight face?
Well, I just warned people to not buy NEO a couple post above, but im looking at the charts right now and it seems like the price is going up pretty nicely. Who knows if it will test $40 again, without the help of the Chinese market? And who knows if a ton of Chinese people haven't found workarounds for the ban? We may be overplaying the importance of the Chinese ban on Chinese projects. If anyone has enough money to buy crypto and knows how to do it, he should know how get an VPN and circumvent any bans and keep buying anything they want, so let's not get ahead of ourselves here because Chinese projects may still rise under the ban, but im rather cautious there so im not going to buy for the time being. |
|
|
|
I think regulations will not make much difference to ICO
They will, and I would wait for China to decide what they will do with ICO's before investing on any of the major Chinese hosted ICO's that are depending on liquidity on these markets. I wouldn't expect a project like NEO to tribe properly if their main niche (China) is blocking it. As far as other ICO's hosted all over the world, it's not a problem really. If they think that they can stop ICO's, they are wrong. People wanting to host an ICO will always have some fringe way to surpass laws and get the ICO going, just host it in any ICO friendly country. |
|
|
|
I don't believe the mining ban will happen. I also don't believe they need legislation to do it, they can find existing rules or just express their displeasure.
Only suicidal idiots would carry on.
I also don't see how some guy who works in finance has the slightest clue about the internal workings of the chinese government.
Because of the way Chinese government works, these back and forths are perfectly possible. I don't discard a ban on chinese hosted mining, with (along with the exchange ban) a back pedaling that will consist mostly on issuing licenses and legislation where the Chinese State can get their cut. So what im saying is, I predict there will be a ban, and then both exchanges and mining will come back, all heavily monitored by Chinese government and all under strict licenses and paying a fee on everything. All they want is to milk Bitcoin and make money doing so, I don't think the Chinese are strategically stupid enough to ostracize themselves into irrelevancy in the most relevant active that any nation should be aspiring to accumulate above gold for the first time in history. |
|
|
|
Lost a lot recently.
I thought bitcoin will go up and will go way up high until 5000 dollars but I did it wrong.
Maybe I should be waiting for the price to calm down for 3-5 days until it goes high.
For now, I wont be moving my bitcoins until it goes to the price that I want.
What might be happening with bitcoin I still dont know.
It looks like the wait may be over. If we continue above $3400 for a couple more hours and manage to close above the 200 day moving average for the rest of the weekend we may gain traction to test a new pop all the way up to $4100. If we beat this resistance, I don't see how we aren't going to get past the last ATH. There isn't many relevant resistance points after $4100. If the Amazon news turn out to be real, that could change everything and we may not even take a stop at $4100 and we'll blast through $5000 on the first try. |
|
|
|
If true. I want it to be true! hmm, doesn't look confirmed to me. Keeping my skeptic hat on for this one I just want to remember you all how when steam was finally accepted, a lot of people didn't believe it due the pat few times that these news hit the media, it got confirmed as fake, but eventually it was real. Boy called wolf type of developments. It could very much be real, which is why it's reasonable to buy some now. If it's real, sky is the limit. The hype will be insane. I would be surprised to see it happen before lightning network tho, but the network is so cheap right now that with segwit we could deal with the increase of transactions. When Roger and Jihad aren't spamming, BTC is so fast and cheap. |
|
|
|
I just saw this. I will stay skeptic until confirmed news. I mean it's possible. Remember when the fake news about Steam accepting Bitcoins appeared? Nobody was believing that Steam was going to accept Bitcoin, then it got confirmed as fake, but eventually news arose again and guess what, everyone said it was fake news again, but it happened for real. So what this means is, don't think it's fake because it may actually be true and if it's true we are going $10,000 easy. |
|
|
|
@White sugar
I see the issue now, thanks. So perhaps by including the calculated value inside a block-chain (so centralized exchanges can't do anything else with it)... and/or having the de-centralized exchanges... Perhaps we are not there yet.
@svojoe
Yes, except that I want to have a constant positive slope, when compared to Teether.
This would be the current dollar model with deflation instead of inflation. Tough to pull off without government controls. BTW this model with negative inflation (i.e. deflation) is very harmful for business and economics from macroeconomics point of view. It would lead to unstability. That's why it won't be accepted by governments (as well as crypto at all, especially now). Deflation incentives smart spending, not mindless spending, like inflation does. Inflation doesn't make you value money enough. That is why with bitcoin (deflation) you only spend it if you really need it, because if you don't, you use the money you don't value as much (fiat) to buy groceries or whatever other things you may not even need. |
|
|
|
Jamie Dimon is now in trouble for his bitcoin comments: http://www.cityam.com/272451/jamie-dimon-faces-market-abuse-report-after-his-commentsBlockswater, an algorithmic liquidity provider, has filed a market abuse report against Jamie Dimon for "spreading false and misleading information" about bitcoin.
The firm filed the report with the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority against JP Morgan Chase and Dimon, the company's chief executive.
Blockswater said Dimon violated Article 12 of the European Union's Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) by declaring that cryptocurrency bitcoin was "a fraud".
The influential executive last week slammed cryptocurrencies, pushing the digital currency to a three-week low.
Dimon said he would fire an employee who traded in cryptocurrencies for being "stupid".
The complaint said Dimon's statement negatively impacted "the cryptocurrency's price and reputation". It also said Dimon "knew, or ought to have known, that the information he disseminated was false and misleading".
"Jamie Dimon's public assertions did not only affect the reputation of bitcoin, they harmed the interests of some of his own clients and many young businesses that are working hard to create a better financial system,” said Florian Schweitzer, managing partner at Blockswater.
Blockswater said JP Morgan traded bitcoin derivatives for their clients on Stockholm-based exchange Nasdaq Nordic before and after Dimon's statements, which Schweitzer said "smells like market manipulation". No he's not Remember how Dimon and his ilk launder money for their fellow criminals, and never get prosecuted? Remember how Dimon and his fellow cartel members created dangerous financial instruments that crashed the financial markets in 2008? Remember how they faced no consequences whatsoever? Remember how Dimon and his protection racket circle have been profiting from inflating asset prices (with an inflated money supply), the effects of which are yet to be felt in the wider economy, as the market price of the inflated assets hasn't yet corrected? (which won't happen before the money supply has stopped being inflated) Do you actually remember (or did you ever know) any of the various reasons for Bitcoin being created in the first place?  Sadly, you are right. I doubt a small fund of blockchain related stuff can put JP Morgan in trouble. Jamie Dimon is on record for billions worth of scamming people with fraudulent mortgages and more, and we've never seen him spend a day in jail. This will get nowhere, I doubt they even are able to put him in a position where he is forced to pay a fee. He will keep on rocking in the free world and come back to FUD bitcoin the next time it reaches an ATH. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
