https://www.humblebundle.com/books/bitcoin-cryptocurrency-books
it is hard and not necessary to read them all. but hope you could find useful content and  like the post.

But what has the issue of Catalonia to do with the price of bitcoin? I am always surprised at the ease that the supposed analysts take any pretext to justify a market movement without a logical explanation. In any case, the Brexit should have generated a greater volatility in the bitcoin price and it did not happen.

World currencies are tanking on Brexit, but bitcoin is surging

Global currency markets are a sea of red in the wake of this morning’s shock Brexit news. The pound is down 6.44% against the euro and weakened 10% against the dollar. But one currency–or more accurately, cryptocurrency–is surging: Bitcoin is up 7% in the last seven hours of trading, adding gains to a rally that started as the UK went to the polls yesterday (June 23).



Bitcoin was actually slumping after a bull run that started in mid-May and had put the digital currency at a two-year high. That changed around 3pm UK time on the day of the referendum. Bitcoin has gained 20% in value over the last 24 hours of trading.

https://qz.com/715681/world-currencies-are-tanking-on-brexit-but-bitcoin-is-surging/

I prefer to buy ETF of the various mentioned commodities if its for investment.

Bitcoin began accelerating ahead of Catalan leader Puigdemont's initial speech time, but after his delayed start, the crypto currency accelerated higher...



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-10/bitcoin-surges-above-4900-amid-catalan-independence-declaration

How? If the banks start opening up to the cannabis and medical marijuana industry then users can buy them legally with fiat and credit cards. Thats where BTC and other cryptocurrencies lose their notoriety as the preferred medium to use for buying and selling illegal drugs.

Regulations and restrictions give more value to BTC than we know.

Everything makes sense if David Kleiman was Satoshi Nakamoto. Here’s why

There is so much about Craig Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto that does not add up.

It all started back in December when he was ‘outed’. The problem is all the evidence back then pointed to an elaborate fraud, orchestrated by Wright himself.

Why would Craig Wright want people to believe he is Satoshi Nakamoto? Well, he’s under investigation from the Australian Tax authorities who gave his company a $54m tax refund for spending on R&D, spending it looks possible was never was actually spent, since the manufacturer denied ever selling the supercomputer this research was supposed to be carried out on. If he could persuade them he was Satoshi Nakamoto it would certainly help him convince them of his legitimacy, and make it easier to attract additional investment. The motive here is obvious.

David Kleiman was an expert in Computer security. He was paralyzed from the chest down after a motorcycle accident in 1995 and became a reclusive computer forensics obsessive. In late 2010 he was hospitalised where he would remain until discharging himself a few months before his death from MRSA complications in April 2013. He died broke and in squalor.

In December 2015, following the ‘leaked’ documents, Gizomodo ran with the headline “This Australian Says He and His Dead Friend Invented Bitcoin”, and Wired said:

Another leaked email from Wright to computer forensics analyst David Kleiman, a close friend and confidant, just before bitcoin’s January 2009 launch discusses a paper they’d been working on together.
From the leaked documents, it seems the tone was that Kleiman and Wright worked on Bitcoin together.

Fast forward to the BBC interview and Wright says that while there were others involved, he [Wright] “was the main part of it”.

If the leak was the result of a genuine hack on Wright, then the documents that were leaked should be considered more accurate than anything Wright is saying now, since everything he is saying now he will be shaped to serve his own self interest.

If the leak was made by Wright, as seems likely, perhaps the change of tone reflects a change in strategy. Maybe ‘sharing’ credit for somebody else’s work feels more acceptable, but you get to a certain point where you’ve sunk so deep into the deceit and you might as well go all the way.

It gets even more interesting, according to the Gizmodo article Wright made contact with some of Kleiman’s business partners in February 2014 to inform them they’d been working on a project together and that Kleiman had mined an enormous amount of Bitcoins, and he requested they check his old computers for wallet files.

Kleiman’s business partner, Patrick Paige, called to ask for more information and was told by Wright that Kleiman was the creator of Bitcoin, before he later backpedaled and said Bitcoin was invented by a group of people which included Kleiman.

At around this same time, on Feb 12th 2014, Kleiman’s then 92 year old father commented on a Techcrunch article about Bitcoin with the message “Please send information pertaining to David Kleiman’s participation in the development of Bitcoin”. Perhaps this was related to something Kleiman had told his father while still alive, or details of Wright’s phone call being passed on by Paige.

There is good reason to believe Kleiman and Wright knew each other well. Wright posted an emotional tribute to Kleiman on YouTube (since removed) upon learning of his death. It is entirely possible that Wright was a trusted friend and confidante of Kleiman’s, and this might have given him access to information that ‘only Satoshi could have known’ that would have been useful when Craig Wright convinced Gavin Andresen of his legitimacy.

What does not make any sense, if Wright is Satoshi, is for him to create a trust to prevent himself being able to access his own Bitcoins until 2020 – and leave this in the trust of a man in Florida.

Such a trust is detailed in the December 2015 leak and includes bizarre stipulations including that if Wright dies, all the Bitcoins would transfer to his wife, minus a deduction to show the “lies and fraud perpetrated by Adam Westwood of the Australian Tax Office against Dr Wright”. It would be interesting to know when the Australian Tax Office began their investigation. The trust is dated 9th June 2011, and values 1.1 million Bitcoins at $100,000 at a time when their actual value was closer to $30 million. The document is just odd and full of inconsistencies.

What seems more likely is that Kleiman possessed the Bitcoins, and Wright is trying to create a retrospective paper trail to enable him to make a legal claim for ownership of them in the event they ever become accessible. Perhaps Kleiman had made provisions that would enable his family to recover his Bitcoins at some future point in the event of his death, and that he had disclosed details of this to Wright.

Everything makes a lot more sense if David Kleiman was Satoshi Nakamoto and confided in Craig Wright. It explains why Wright would possess enough information to convince some people of his authenticity, but has been unable to provide any verifiable proof that he has access to any of Satoshi’s private keys. Craig Wright has gone to an extraordinary level of effort to convince people he is Satoshi Nakamoto. Given that 1.1 million Bitcoins are currently worth around $500m – it’s not hard to imagine why.

If Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto he could easily verify it cryptographically. The fact he has gone to such lengths without providing this proof suggests he simply doesn’t have it. What’s most likely to happen next? Well, if he’s been involved in Bitcoin since the early days he probably has some early coins – so he’ll probably move them as ‘proof’. Not early enough to be linked to Satoshi, but early enough for him to claim they are and make the circus drag on a little longer.

I believe the fact that he has gone to such lengths to link himself to 1.1 million Bitcoins held by Kleiman suggests he genuinely believes David Kleiman possessed that number of Bitcoins, and that he has a chance of being able to claim them for himself. This adds support to the idea that Kleiman, and possibly the also deceased Hal Finney, really were Satoshi Nakamoto.

It is also notable that Kleiman was hospitalised in late 2010. Gavin Andresen became lead developer of Bitcoin in December 2010 and Satoshi then disappeared.

Whatever is happening is fascinating, it’s a plot worthy of Hollywood. Sadly, this is the real world, and I can’t help but feel sadness for the family of David Kleiman who are possibly about to encounter tremendous invasions of their privacy as a consequence of Craig Wright’s actions.

Keiman was a security expert who practised what he preached. All his data was no doubt encrypted and any evidence of his being Satoshi likely died with him. It is possible this mystery will never be solved.

It is also possible that David Kleiman had nothing to do with Bitcoin at all.

I just know that if he was Satoshi, he seemed a modest man who died a pauper while likely sitting on a trove of millions and avoiding the abundance of recognition he deserved. Craig Wright on the other hand is an egotist who fakes having PhDs and drags out a bizarre media circus to reveal himself as Satoshi without providing simple evidence.

That is the thing that the entire participant I mean the members in his forum wants. I want to have a sound future in this forum and for that I need something different which will give me a huge amount of money. If such kind of projects has been started I will definitely be there with you along with all he members I think because no one will miss such a great opportunity for their bright future.

HSBC Helped Terrorists, Iran, Mexican Drug Cartels Launder Money, Senate Report Says

A Senate report released ahead of the embargo time revealed that HSBC’s lax anti-money laundering policies allowed Mexican drug money, Iranian terrorist money, and even suspicious Russian money to enter the U.S. and gain access to U.S. dollar liquidity over the last couple of years.

The report, released late on Monday despite a 10 PM embargo time, was prepared by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and counted with the support of Senators Carl Levin and Tom Coburn.

In a year-long investigation, the Subcommittee found that HSBC violated several rules, exposing the U.S. financial system to “a wide array of money laundering, drug trafficking, and terrorist financing.”  According to the report, HSBC’s Mexican affiliate channeled $7 billion into the U.S. between 2007 and 2008 which possibly included “proceeds from illegal drug sales in the United States.”

UPDATE: In a statement, HSBC acknowledged that "in the past, we have sometimes failed to meet the standards that regulators and customers expect."  Vowing to improve their oversight and compliance with the law, they committed to fixing what is wrong, taking the opportunity to learn from previous mistakes.

HSBC actively circumvented rules designed to “block transactions involving terrorists, drug lords, and rogue regimes.”  In one case, “two HSBC affiliates sent nearly 25,000 transactions involving $19.4 billion through their HBUS [HSBC’s U.S. affiliate] accounts over seven years without disclosing the transactions’ links to Iran.”

They provided U.S. dollar financing and services to banks in Saudi Arabia and Bangladesh that were tied to terrorist organizations, while also clearing $290 million in “obviously suspicious travelers cheques” that benefitted Russians “who claimed to be in the used car business.”

Furthermore, the investigation showed how the bank’s regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) failed to take a single enforcement action against HSBC despite numerous violations by the international bank.  Among them, failing to monitor $60 trillion in wire transfer and account activity, a backlog of 17,000 unreviewed account alerts regarding potentially suspicious activity, and a failure to conduct anti-money laundering due diligence before opening accounts for HSBC affiliates.

Senator Levin, whose scolding of Goldman Sachs’ Lloyd Blankfein during a hearing on collaterized debt obligations made him a well-known face in Wall Street, was hard on both HSBC and their regulator:

Due to poor AML [anti-money laundering] controls, HBUS exposed the United States to Mexican drug money, suspicious travelers cheques, bearer share corporations, and rogue jurisdictions.  The bank’s federal bank regulator, the OCC, tolerated HSBC’s weak AML system for years.  If an international bank won’t police its own affiliates to stop illicit money, the regulatory agencies should consider whether to revoke the charter of the U.S. bank being used to aid and abet that illicit money.

The Senate’s Subcommittee will reveal its findings on Tuesday during a Congressional hearing that will include testimony by HSBC officials and federal regulators.  This report is the latest in a string of embarrassments for the world’s major banks.  Only a few days ago, JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon finally revealed further details on the so-called London Whale trades (which reportedly cost the bank more than $5 billion), while the on-going Libor manipulation scandal sparked a series of lawsuits that could be difficult to swallow for Barclays and other institutions involved.

HSBC’s New York-traded shares fell in post-market trading, as the report was leaked.  After a 0.3% decline during the trading session, the stock dropped 2.5% to $42.50 by the end of aftermarket trading.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2012/07/16/hsbc-helped-terrorists-iran-mexican-drug-cartels-launder-money-senate-report-says/

Your ideas are great but it's not easy to do. For example the 6th idea, how can you find out the profile of scammers? When someone wanna scam your money you will never know their real profile such as HYIP sites, it's possible to find out the owner of any HYIP sites that why a lot of people can't take their money back when they got scammed by these website.

Why is it that governments aren't doing this job well?

Satoshi left a text message in the first mined Bitcoin block which reads 'The Times 3 January 2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks'. The text refers to a headline in The Times published on 3 January 2009.

What do you think this means and why was this done?