In the first case, I guess CMC wasn't really at fault. And the support was able to provide a more or less sufficient response.

The second case was about a minor bug, probably never caused any harm to anybody.

In the third case, it is most likely that there was a really tight competition in the access of the reward and that even if you were there attempting to have one right from the start, it wasn't a guarantee that you would be successful. There were probably hundreds of thousands of users competing over merely 3,500 NFTs. So you would understand that you could end up with nothing.


You're now being delusional.


As opposed to the Midas touch which turns everything into gold, CZ touch turns everything into trash. LOL!

Kidding aside, coinmarketcap had already shown some shadiness even before it shifted hands. Before CZ bought CMC, there were already issues. They were indiscriminate in accepting ads. They wouldn't mind displaying scam projects, HYIP, and the likes even on their banner.

But I guess it didn't really improve even after it changed ownership.

First, we have this one:


https://twitter.com/BTC_Archive/status/1462071760766001152

This is the reality that amidst its volatility, Bitcoin's price is actually going up higher and higher if you look at it from a couple of steps back. If you zoom in, there's really a wild price fluctuation. If you zoom out, you will feel really comfortable about HODLing, because there is an obvious price appreciation.

Second, you mentioned about the possibility of getting rekt when the analysis goes wrong or if you got trapped in a whale's decision. In your own words, crypto is just too risky. But what does that really mean? It means Bitcoin's price could rise and fall big time any minute of the day and that it is unpredictable. It is, therefore, very risky to play with its short-term price. But such risk is virtually non-existent if you widen your time frame, say, 5 years or a decade. Which leads me to ask, why should you court risk when there is a much safer and even sure way of making money without really doing anything.

So far, generally, I consider KuCoin as less a scam than not. As with all exchanges, glitches are unavoidable. I don't think there is a single centralized exchange where there is not a single user fund that is stuck.

User u/BCHcain has all the reason to make noise because of the amount involved as well as the period of time the funds are stuck. He/she deserves a better explanation for it. But I don't think KuCoin is going to scam him/her of that amount.

However, I guess responses to troubled users should perhaps show a little commiseration and urgency in their tune. KuCoin, especially the CEO, may find user complaints and the amounts involved insignificant but they could mean everything to them.

The problem, on the other hand, is that almost every single user who is not attended to immediately by the support could easily exclaim scam. Every single day their funds are not yet released is a day of branding the exchange scam.

You know what, I don't agree. The rule is actually simple; you buy Bitcoin and keep it safe. That's all there is to it. What's not easy with that?

The thing is that people are complicated. We want to trade. We want to analyze charts, develop patterns, make strategies on the best entry and exit points, and so on. We want to invest in altcoins for better opportunities. We get into ICOs, IDOs, DeFi, staking, and so forth. And we are emotional, too.

But what is there in the entire history of Bitcoin that says mere HODLing is not the best thing to do?

It may not be as complicated as you think. You don't even have to be that intelligent. As a matter of fact, those who believe they are intelligent and endeavored to do beyond simply the HODLing boring thing are more prone to failure and loss.

I guess it has been proven time and again that the most profitable people in the history of Bitcoin are the HODLers. They're probably not the traders, crypto investors, and those who are too focused on the tiny details, created strategies, analyzed the perfect timing, and so on.

The keywords are Bitcoin, now, and HODL. Those are enough.

If we talk of the general civilization, I don't think it will ever go back to the barter system. That would be several steps backward in terms of progress as a society. But if we consider the wildest of possibilities, if ever an apocalyptic age indeed arrives, the barter system must be the most effective. It could naturally become the only means of trade.

But I'd like to point out that the barter system is still existing until now. Especially in rural areas and other geographically isolated villages, the barter system is still very much alive.


I agree.

During the height of the pandemic, the barter system somehow became a thing here in my city. Jobs were lost, businesses closed, movements were severely limited resulting to the lack of livelihood opportunities. In other words, cash became more precious, if not unavailable to many.

This was how the barter system became an option. In exchange of something that you need, you will offer something you don't need or need much which others are looking for. But this is not limited to goods. Services are also allowed.

The platform used was simply the popular free social media like Facebook. Although it might be better if there is really a platform solely intended for it, the advantage of the common social media platforms is that almost everybody is there.

It is easy to follow that if your country or city is one of the most innovative countries or cities in the world that it is also a Bitcoin hotspot. If a country or city is very open to innovation, it is most likely that it has also embraced Bitcoin, one of the most popular rising innovations in finance for the past years.  

As to why these countries are top in terms of innovation, I cannot speak as if they all share similar characteristics. There must be a mixture of factors. Hydrogen mentions some of them.


Partly, it is about the government. After all, whether a country embraces a certain innovation or not largely depends on policies and regulations and whether or not they are tolerant and open. But there must be far deeper reasons why a certain country, people, culture, and so on are leaning toward adoption and not resistance to innovation.

And where would this online court be operating from? Who are the judges answerable to? Who will pay them? Who will select them? From which particular law does its existence spring forth?

This is a complicated matter because legal jurisdictions are limited. You cannot just create an all encompassing court which has the power to try all cases of gambling all over the world. Furthermore, gambling laws differ from one country to another. And if you set this kind of court, it will definitely need a huge manpower given that hundreds and hundreds of millions of gamblers are scattered all over the world.

Unfortunately, nowadays, it is hard to choose cryptocurrencies on these bases alone. I cannot name a specific coin, but the crypto market must have been a witness of how a very promising project with a great team and an equally great vision slowly dying into oblivion while a shabby project quickly copied from existing ones solely for the sake of making the most of a certain hype is hitting one success milestone after another.

I hope I'm wrong but with the market exploding, gone are the days when investors and supporters would first check at the whitepaper for what a specific project could offer and its feasibility. It seems a pragmatic team of developers would rather want to create hype around their project rather than disseminate their whitepaper to as wide audience as possible.

As they say, all's well that ends well.

It seems the issue between the two is through.


https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1463085111600205825

Indeed, CZ's reaction was brought about by Elon's wrong choice of word. Easily triggered like his birth country's CCP, CZ immediately got himself into a defensive stance rather than merely addressing the issue. Well, Elon's way of raising the issue itself had a little hint of accusation. Both have issues apparently.

Meanwhile, what's now left unresolved is the main issue. Doge holders are still waiting for their funds back.

Apparently, the implementation of their new policy is not made one-time. There are probably many old nonverified accounts until now that could still make deposits and create trade orders. OP will have to check it for himself/herself in his account's limits.

My Binance account still had the 2BTC limit way beyond the deadline indicated in their official announcement. It was only recently that they changed it to withdrawal only as I repeatedly rejected their emails requiring KYC verification.

Am I the only who thinks that this feeling of being overwhelmed in crypto is very much normal for a beginner? I mean, the crypto market is not your typical market. The moment you get yourself immersed in it, you will more or less be overwhelmed with it; the extreme price fluctuations, the hype, the FUD, the volatility, the crazy trends and fads, the pump and dump, the very sudden rise and fall of projects and tokens, and so on.

I don't know with others but when I got into crypto I was also overwhelmed. But this initial feeling will eventually die down. The wild wild west and strange characteristics of the market will gradually become normal to you. Sooner or later, you will enjoy it. So I guess it is all right if a newbie is overwhelmed at the start.

For now, I don't think there is already a clear guideline on what would certainly happen to Bitcoin should this bill passed into law. So I guess the various interpretations of the letters of the proposed law are making it more confusing. Interpretations are still very much open right now because the bill is vague to say the least. Should this bill become a law, there will certainly be specific implementing rules and regulations. Only then would things be clarified.

For now, there is really no certainty whether or not Bitcoin will be banned merely as a payment method and not as an asset class. But I don't think India will be implementing a blanket ban on crypto.

To be fair, I don't think this is the kind of tax haven that is being offered in countries like Panama, Switzerland, Virgin Islands, Luxembourg, and others. So if you are referring to these places, I don't agree with you. I haven't seen the details of this Bitcoin City but I suppose it is not built for the rich foreigners from other countries to shirk tax responsibilities in their home countries. This is Bitcoin City so I assume that this does not offer all those kinds of offshore banking services and products which tax haven countries are famous for.



On the contrary, it is my impression that there is indeed financial independence in a Bitcoin City or a Bitcoin country. Right now, solid Bitcoin advocates and supporters are flocking to El Salvador because of what they could offer. But I don't think decentralization is reduced in the process. It is always understandable that Bitcoin supporters would be attracted by Bitcoin-friendly places.

I am a fan of cockfighting. I enjoy this new online cockfighting. I was able to withdraw a number of times although I am still losing big. But I am attracted to this kind of gambling.

However, I also support 100% if this is completely abolished. This has indeed grown into the level of a pandemic in this country. This is slowly eating away the very foundations of individual and family values. I have seen first hand how a local policeman is losing big and becomes irritable, family broken, very young daughter left with separated parents, properties sold, savings exhausted, and so on because of this kind of gambling.

I like this online cockfighting but I've also seen how this is destroying lives. This is better stopped.

What I noticed more than any other detail about this news is the statement of Shaktikanta Das, India's central bank governor.

"When the central bank says that we have serious concerns from the point of view of macroeconomic and financial stability, there are far deeper issues involved."

“I’m yet to see serious, well-informed discussions in the public space on these issues.”

At the very least, the central bank's head seems objective, open-minded, or at least cognizant of the fact that issues involving crypto have yet to be deeply and thoroughly discussed or perhaps even understood.

I've heard irresponsible pronouncements coming from other central bank leaders who immediately jump the guns against crypto probably without understanding it first. Many fiat institution leaders immediately talked of risks, criminals, terrorism, money laundering, volatility, and so on and so forth in instantly dismissing Bitcoin and crypto presumably without even looking closely at the technology.

I sincerely hope you are wrong. At this point, quite frankly, it could go either way. It is, therefore, completely understandable and even not unexpected that there are skepticism developed within some people not just of the ability of the El Salvador government and its leadership to deliver but also of the real motives behind all this.

Personally, I better give El Salvador as well as Bukele the benefit of the doubt. I, of course, wish them success. The success of this undertaking is not just the success of El Salvador and those who made everything possible but also of Bitcoin itself and especially of the businesses and the people who will no longer pay income tax, capital gains, property tax, payroll tax, and municipal tax.

I'm not saying this is a fake review but I agree that this indeed the kind of review that is not needed. And not helpful, either.

If I really want to find out whether a certain platform is good or bad from the actual experiences of real users, I have to admit this is the kind of review I would immediately skip.

Words like user-friendly, more convenient, good experience, never ever went anything wrong, positive, and so on are too vague. They have to be qualified, specified. A user cannot make a good review with absolute terms.

A good review should answer, for example, questions like, why is it user-friendly, why do you find it more convenient, what makes your experience good, and so forth.

Yes, there is. Fractional reserve banking is a feature of the traditional banking system. If you strictly follow Bitcoin's revolutionary banking philosophy, this old feature will no longer work. Why? Simply because, with Bitcoin, your funds are under your sole control and ownership. You are your own bank with Bitcoin. No other person or institution has the access to your funds.

Fractional reserve banking is really a system which legally allows banking institutions to fool the people, to play with their money, and creates wealth out of it. If in the process they took too much risk and failed, they could simply declare bankruptcy and wait for the government to bail them out. The traditional banking system really sucks!

First and foremost, the year has not yet ended. There's still more than a month left. And as we all know with Bitcoin, it could surprise us anytime. The progress that you meant could arrive at the last minute.

Anyway, it is very reasonable to buy Bitcoin now. As I've always been saying, the perfect moment to buy Bitcoin is always now, whether Bitcoin is at $57,000 or $60,000 or even at its ATH. But of course it is sweeter to buy Bitcoin with a discount.