I put my savings into bitcoin in May 2017
My portfolio got hit hard over 2018
I don't remember the exact numbers, but I'm pretty sure Bitcoin at any point in 2018 still had a higher price than Bitcoin in May 2017. Bitcoin didn't even hit $5k until like the last quarter of that year. Either way, like most of the other posters, I don't buy into the theory that Bitcoin prices are dictated by mining costs. If miners could dictate prices, they'd almost literally be printing money. |
|
|
|
Don't know what's terms included on the law declaring bitcoin or any other crypto as illegal there but any form of an advertisement on such illegal things is punishable by law at most of the cases. I just wondered how come the owner can freely operate his business? Or maybe like a form of a small protest or rally as part of freedom of speech?
Bitcoin itself isn't banned, you just can't use any foreign currency, and I suppose they put Bitcoin under that umbrella: The ban comes as an enforcement of sections 4,5 and 8 of the 1947 law that regulate trading in foreign currency without authorization or general permission from the central bank. Section 5 severely restricts payments done outside Bangladesh, which definitely affect bitcoin payments. You can probably also get away with USD and EUR cafes, except they'll need a special permit to actually accept those for payment lol. |
|
|
|
|
Are you sure it's not some sort of honeypot designed by authorities to identify crypto enthusiasts? Lol.
Either way, it won't do much in the way of promotion if the subject is banned in the country in the first place. It's pretty interesting in that it shows Bitcoin has embedded itself in pop culture, but not much else.
|
|
|
|
Lol I wish them luck in implementing it. They're definitely going to be cracking down on centralized exchanges, but decentralized exchanges or not, there are still ways to cover your tracks with Bitcoin. The very people they're trying to target are going to be privy in these ways, and it's likely going to hurt the regular joe more. I don't think those 6/4 countries will let this other countries bully then whe obviously their crypto industry works well with their system.
All I really see them doing is heightening the level of implementation of existing KYC rules. This doesn't necessarily mean that the crypto industry will stop performing well, just that compliance is going to be more troublesome than it already is. There's no bullying happening, or at least among the states involved. |
|
|
|
|
Are there actually any people on here who defend KYC? For the most part, it's usually just people tolerating it because it's almost an inevitable price to pay for convenience. I don't think I've ever seen anyone who's not blatantly trolling say that KYC is good for the cryptospace lol.
But yeah, this is a good read for those people who don't mind because they feel like they have nothing to hide. If you're going to share your info, make sure you at least know the risks associated with it.
|
|
|
|
Let's pretend that I have a great idea to sell as a service. It is a crypto-related service.
What if I found an angel investor who believes in my project? and I hit the jackpot. They just gave me $1MM. What is next?
Ideally, you set up shop in a jurisdiction that would be friendly toward crypto businesses. There should be a list with pros and cons out there somewhere. They should assist you on how to get started, as the process is different for every country. You should be able to proceed with offering your service after that. The process shouldn't be too different from setting up a typical business. If you're looking for specifics, there are lots of businesses here to learn from. They create announcement threads, set up a website and maybe a white paper, possibly advertise, etc. Just be careful in picking one to emulate, since not all of them are set up to make an honest living. |
|
|
|
I've never heard of this person, does anyone know who he is?
lately too many experts are talking about bitcoin. they have their own views on prices and marketcaps. but when bitcoin fell yesterday none of them said that bitcoin was good or otherwise. so forget what they say. they only want to make a profit when prices are rising.
Here's a page of him describing himself. It looks like he's a permabull, so it's likely he's not just feeding into the hype. Either way, it's very middle of the road as far as predictions go, and articles like this indicate that he's not one of those mouthpieces who disparage Bitcoin when it's convenient. |
|
|
|
I’ve never seen a fake wallet in the Apple Store. Meanwhile, I can remember at least 4 only this year at the play store. No one here is asking for automation or 100% detect rate. We are asking for some basic background check before allowing apps in the store
It isn’t either 0% or 100%.
That I can agree with. I wasn't saying it needed to be 100%, I was saying that because nothing is 100% effective (or guaranteed for that matter), Google isn't necessarily liable in court. Again, my original response was under the context of taking Google to court. As far as fake wallets in iOS goes, here's at least one instance, and there are a couple more. We can all try to hold these companies to a higher standard, but the fact of the matter is that we can't rely on them to protect us. |
|
|
|
They can be sued, but whether or not that will be successful is an entirely different discussion. They didn't develop or run the app, and malicious apps aren't allowed in the Play Store in the first place. Checking all apps with 100% accuracy is a literal impossibility as well, so you can't really hold that against them.
Apple does that. And not only check for “malwares”, but also see if the app matches their guidelines. Are you saying that an company worth ~$766 billions (Alphabet) can’t create a system and hire people to check their apps? I'm saying you cannot realistically expect any automated system to be 100% accurate in detection of malicious activity. Apple is famous for their walled garden approach, but even they suffer occasional breaches. Android does say they check all apps being published according to this page, but that doesn't mean a couple (or a thousand) won't slip through the cracks, especially because of their more open approach. You could argue that they're being negligent, which they easily could be, but that's ultimately up to the courts to decide. Meanwhile, all users could really do is either GTFO or practice due diligence. To be clear, I'm not defending Google, just saying that litigation would be a weak option given the specified circumstances. |
|
|
|
I searched for this topic but couldn't find anything related on google nor on the forums.
Here's a good detailed read for you: There are two problems with anti-ASIC hard forks. The first is with ASIC resistance itself; in recent work actually analyzing the dollar cost to attack both Ethereum and Bitcoin, it’s quite apparent that ASICs are actually a good thing for the security of a cryptocurrency system (extended abstract / full paper). General purpose computer-secured systems are quite cheaper to attack than specialized systems, as general purpose hardware can be rented and resold after an attack to substantially subsidize attack cost. Worse still, an attacker can use general purpose hardware advantages to overwhelm any cryptocurrency seeking to avoid specialization by carrying attacks across PoW changing / defensive forks, a feature which is not possible with ASICs, where the community has a “nuclear option” available to disable miners at any time if objectively malicious behavior is detected. These two factors combined severely cripple the economic security of networks secured by general purpose hardware.
The second problem with anti-ASIC hard forks is in the culture established itself; discouraging capital investment in the short term, and a governance process of repeated change create potent vectors for disruption, attack, and takeover, without accomplishing the stated goals of preserving decentralization in the long term. In my opinion this will eventually lead to more centralization, as only the most sophisticated and dedicated companies are able to ride the waves of change and extract profits at scale.
Wherever you may stand on the matter though, it should generally be agreed upon that "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" is a good saying to stand upon, especially on matters of massive scale like Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I think it isn't right on the part of Google. They should be definitely checking the apps they are selling. Can't they be sued for the sale of malicious equipment/software?
They can be sued, but whether or not that will be successful is an entirely different discussion. They didn't develop or run the app, and malicious apps aren't allowed in the Play Store in the first place. Checking all apps with 100% accuracy is a literal impossibility as well, so you can't really hold that against them. For reference, a class action lawsuit has been filed in California over similar concerns, and it was dismissed. |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, most people don't care about decentralization and all possible traits (freedom, privacy, uncensorable, etc.) comes from decentralized system or simply prefer convenience.
This. People routinely pay for convenience, and this case is no different. I'm sure there will always be a market for decentralized exchanges, but until they're better in every way than their centralized counterparts, they will never get the lion's share. If the mainstream cared about that much about decentralization, privacy, etc., they'd be hopping on the Bitcoin train by now. The harsh reality is that not many see the importance behind them. |
|
|
|
These laws can't do much against bitcoin, but cryptocurrencies like Libra, Ripple, Ethereum, which has a company behind them, must obey those laws or the companies will be shut down. There is nothing to shut down in btc., As there is no company
While that's true, they can crack down on entities that facilitate Bitcoin trading, like exchanges. This is specifically what OP was upset about, considering he referenced Deribit. Anyway, are they only banning cash payments of more than 3000 Euros, or transfers in general? The latter seems overly restrictive, and it would make much more sense if they flagged them like the (well, most of the) rest of the world. |
|
|
|
It's also worth noting that Bitcoin Core does not have a mobile version. Anything that claims to be is fake, and will almost certainly steal your coins and/or infect you with something. If you're in the market for a mobile wallet, you may as well go for established ones, or at the very least take the time to research more obscure ones. |
|
|
|
I'm not quite sure that these financial groups are aiming to help bitcoin grow in any way; the growth of bitcoin if anything hurts the influence these institutions have. If anything, they'll try to manipulate the price and seek to have their own trading bots go at it. seeing as how bitcoin is fairly more volatile as an asset compared to most stocks, they stand to make a pretty large amount if they are able to assert any control over the price.
They probably aren't, but they probably realize it's inevitable anyway, which is why they're going to enter in the first place. Either way, the end result is the same: more money in the market, and a more bullish case for investors. |
|
|
|
Market manipulation and extreme volatility is the perfect recipe to enable all sort of government restrictions in the BTC market. I think crypto businesses need to be more professional and regulated before applying for derivatives/ETFs.
Would it really help for crypto businesses to be regulated? I mean, it's a global market, and the US can only control things within their jurisdiction. They could keep everybody on a tight leash and still be unable to stop shady dealings elsewhere (not even necessarily by businesses), which will potentially affect derivatives. Either way, I people who want to dip their toes in the Bitcoin market could and should just purchase Bitcoin directly anyway. Derivatives are good in a sense that they can bring money in, but it's not the right way to go about it IMO. |
|
|
|
I'd go with the latter. The Chinese govt doesn't strike me as a govt that would go back on its word and would suddenly start embracing Bitcoin when they've been so against it over the past few years. This whole media thing with Bitcoin sounds like a new tactic from the chinese to try to disturb the US amidst the trade war, it's all mind games...*proceeds to take off tin foil hat*
But with the hong kong protests and all the shitshow that's going down in China right now, I wouldn't be surprised if this was nothing more than lame propaganda to distract the citizens and the world.
Even if it's propaganda though, it still gives their citizens the green light to trade and own. I mean, these news are still targeted towards them, not westerners. They're keeping a close eye on whatever OTC exchanges remain running, so I don't think they're very threatened by a prospect of capital flight anymore. Bitcoin is uncensorable for sure, but it's highly trackable, which I'm sure the CCP loves. I feel like we can take this at face value, meaning they're not actively against Bitcoin at the moment. |
|
|
|
And what happens to Bitcoin prices if there's a Tether crackdown or if some other really bad news about Tether hits the newswires?
They got hit with quite a big regulatory mess just before the bull run started: https://fortune.com/2019/04/25/bitfinex-tether-bitcoin/That didn't affect Bitcoin prices much, if at all. That doesn't necessarily mean there's no connection though, and I think Tether completely crumbling down would affect the market quite significantly, whether or not there's manipulation behind the scenes. Only idiots buy and sell BTC/USDT or USDT/BTC, anyone with half the brain of a chicken would not be trading that binary.
As much as I agree, it can't be helped on most non-fiat exchanges. That's their claim to fame in the first place. |
|
|
|
They definitely should move to friendlier jurisdictions, but it would probably still be better if they're well distributed. If they all flocked to a country or two, a few unfavorable bills might be able to move the market on their own. Not a very ideal outcome. One disadvantage that I am seeing for users here - if all crypto exchanges will do this move, the proliferation of scam exchanges will increase in number. Since the regulation is not tight, every business can find a turn around to exit from their users. It is only a matter of time for them when to disappear from the trading market.
This has always been true though, and there will always be exchanges which prefer abiding by regulations as there are a lot of people in that market. Even exchanges which avoid regulations can be reputable, so there's no need for users to settle for no-name ones. |
|
|
|
-snip-
The first document says that there's around 1m BTC in a trust and that it will be turned over to CSW on Jan. 1, 2020. Did this change or was debunked at any point? Either way, I feel like his master plan is too optimistic. I don't doubt that dropping 1m coins in the market would impact prices negatively, but (correct me if I'm wrong) prices tanking has never really impacted the hashrate significantly enough to even remotely emulate his predicted scenario. He's also going to be hurting himself financially in the process, as this is no guarantee that Bitcoin SV will take off. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
