This explanation is not too convincing. If there was risk of funds disappearing, Wavecrest wouldn't have been appointed in the first place, I suppose. I would really like to know which specific rules were disattended.
Wavecrest has its official HQ in Gibraltar.... so most probably it's a KYC/AML thing, which makes much more sense when you also add cryptocurrencies to the equation. Also take into account the EU regulation regarding prepaid/debit/gift cards of over 100€. I had a couple of those cards, and the KYC procedure was quite thorough in both cases. I'm afraid it's more of an AML thing, like Wavecrest refusing to provide the data to the "powers that be" without international court orders or similar compelling reasons. Unlike VISA, that chickens out at the mere lifting of an international eyebrow. Yes, most probably AML. I updated my previous post with a reference to banking secret that might apply here. Gibraltar has many similarities to Andorra. In fact it is currently a way better "tax-heaven" than Andorra. Barclays has some nice setups there for... stuff. Or so I have heard. Crypto (carding) is done.  |
|
|
|
This explanation is not too convincing. If there was risk of funds disappearing, Wavecrest wouldn't have been appointed in the first place, I suppose. I would really like to know which specific rules were disattended.
Wavecrest has its official HQ in Gibraltar.... so most probably it's a KYC/AML thing, which makes much more sense when you also add cryptocurrencies to the equation. Also take into account the EU regulation regarding prepaid/debit/gift cards of over 100€. I had a couple of those cards, and the KYC procedure was quite thorough in both cases. I'm afraid it's more of an AML thing, like Wavecrest refusing to provide the data to the "powers that be" without international court orders or similar compelling reasons. Unlike VISA, that chickens out at the mere lifting of an international eyebrow. |
|
|
|
This piece of news hasn't been discussed much here yet, so what do you think of the Wavecrest debit card shutdown? The official word from VISA is that Wavecrest didn't comply with VISA regulations - but there's no hint at which specific regulations were disattended.
To me, it smells like a few governments put some pressure on VISA to end that service. VISA have been swift to oblige, as they always are as soon as a big actor uses power voice mode. But I might just be a rookie conspiracy theorist...
No need for a conspiracy theory - it's the same as banks blocking transfers to bitcoin exchanges - or closing accounts associated with Bitcoin - or limiting or double checking transfers to exchanges etc. It's just normal risk management. Accounts get hacked every day and once the money is drained off into cryptoland the bank has no way to recover it.
This explanation is not too convincing. With the risk of funds disappearing, Wavecrest wouldn't have been appointed in the first place, I suppose. I would really like to know which specific rules were disattended. There are loads of other crypto/fiat debit cards that visa is still supporting. It's Wavecrest that visa is cracking down on, not crypto/fiat debit cards in general. It probably won't affect bitcoin's price anyway because most of the new buyers in the crypto ecosystem won't even know what a crypto/fiat debit card is yet.
Really? It would be nice, but I haven't been able to find "loads" of alternatives. Can you name a few, please? |
|
|
|
I do not consider increasing blocks a good solution. It does not scale while the negative consequences for decentralisation are unclear. Since Bitcoin’s only true value lies in ‘decentralisation’, I support not hastily moving away from this core concept just to solve a current - perceived as immediate - issue. There is too much at stake.
Maybe you are right, bigger blocks do not scale. But increasing the current size is a requirement for climbing. Check the LN white paper and note the block size needed so that each person can open and close a channel once a year using segwit. There are already 2 different solutions ready for implementation (they might be already in the test stage, for all I know) to bundle multiple channel opening transactions into a single blockchain event - similar to what CoinJoin does. The fee would get split among the openers. The more you're willing to wait for a larger pool of channel openers, the less you pay. The same mechanism can be used to fund channels with exhausted capacity. This seems an excellent way to go for the time being. I'm confident more sophisticated stuff will come along. Now what we should really do is force the big actors to embrace segwit, so LN can flourish. Like, some heavy user lobbying on Coinbase. Of course, more variety and competition in the exchange market can't hurt. |
|
|
|
He is trying to rename Bitcoin. Just keep ignoring him.
Could it be he's trying to get even for the cute Bcash nickname?  No way, Jose.... I mean eddie. You are giving jbreher.. way too much benefit of the doubt and trying to attribute some kind of justification for his passive-aggressive trolling attack on bitcoin propaganda. He is way more intentional than you seem to think. No kind justification, Juan. I was teasing. Names are important in an immature market filled with newbies. By calling Bitcoin as he does, he implies there are two bitcoins. One is cash (good), the other is ... some technical thing whatever about losing wits or something (bad). In this forum, most readers know what's what and the risk of confusion is minimal, shills and trolls aside.. However, I think it's better to stick to safe, clear names that don't contain "bitcoin" - such as Bcash - for forkcoins, reserving the name Bitcoin for the real thing. This has the added benefit of causing a few moments of comedy now and then, especially during interviews. |
|
|
|
He is trying to rename Bitcoin. Just keep ignoring him.
Could it be he's trying to get even for the cute Bcash nickname? |
|
|
|
|
This piece of news hasn't been discussed much here yet, so what do you think of the Wavecrest debit card shutdown? The official word from VISA is that Wavecrest didn't comply with VISA regulations - but there's no hint at which specific regulations were disattended.
To me, it smells like a few governments put some pressure on VISA to end that service. VISA have been swift to oblige, as they always are as soon as a big actor uses power voice mode. But I might just be a rookie conspiracy theorist...
|
|
|
|
This description is the reality ... LN is the future and i think in june 18 ... btc reach 40k usd
Any reason for this particular date? |
|
|
|
Sweet, just ordered 2 more, Thanks just ordered one Lots of other people asking on this thread. GET AN OFFLINE WALLET to protect your coins, avoid exchanges & be your own bank. LIMITED TIME ONLY TREZOR WALLET is 20 Euros & 20 dollars off! 89 EUR / 99 USD You can't get this good a hardware wallet at this price anywhere -- not even on their own site today --without this promo code I got myself one, too  |
|
|
|
Who sold at the bottom?
(snubbing) Won't even reply to such questions until the proper moment. Tsk, I'm waiting for the officials. And I have a hunch they're too busy celebrating ATM!  HAPPY 2018 This will be THE year I think. |
|
|
|
Block #501853 A new one, but the "unknown" miner only sacrifices only the Tx fee this time. Number Of Transactions = 1 Transaction Fees 0 BTC https://blockchain.info/block-height/501853Viable attack to use when the blockchain is already backlogged with txs? Somebody needs to start working on a fix. Hoping it isn't a viable attack in the long term. Cant keep sacrificing 12.5 BTC unless there is a bigger end game. But can keep sacrificing fees for keeping the mining fee higher for longer. Have a bad feeling about this. Mostly the timing. Already a bit too down on price and might end up testing long term support levels .Hope its nothing.  This is just a standard empty block being mined. The block was mined in less than a minute after the last solved block. This is not an attack but pretty standard. Many pools mine empty blocks while they validate the last block. Before they can start including tx, they need to know which transactions in their mempool are already included in the last block. Rather than experience downtime, many pools elect to mine empty blocks during the validation period. Allright, this looks fairly normal - but what's your opinion on the block with the lost reward? |
|
|
|
I am completely serious.
Why are you bothering to engage this nothing? In the time you wrote that you could've saved a life or invented cold fusion. Ohh, yeah, I felt on the trap again. Sorry.  Don't worry. He needs some attention, too. It's New Year, let's be good. Besides, he's good against intruders (inJEWders?). Woof. Woof. |
|
|
|
There is a lot of FUD circulating around these days.
Business as usual, in other words. |
|
|
|
|
Except this block didn't include the 12.5 BTC mining reward. I wonder...
|
|
|
|
Of course, it is possible to have some small fraction of "play money" traded on margin
Speaking of which, today Bitmex awarded BTC to their customers based on a margin snapshot taken on August 1st at the time of the BCH fork. The ratio is 0.1707 BTC for each BTC (BCH) of margin held at that time. Over 17% return on play money. That's not shabby at all, is it? |
|
|
|
Even though a vast majority of us were predicting a kind of $20k to $24k range - which was at least 10% more than the then price, that does NOT mean that we changed our buy/sell (hodl) strategy in any kind of meaningful way. So in some sense many of us might make a prediction or have a hunch, but we may only play that hunch on the margins,
(snip)
Hodling and accumulating of BTC is likely to be the most profitable in the long run
The alternatives are either tricky/risky (timing the market with any reliability) or a bit more involved (laddered sell/buy on up/down ramps, à la JayJuanGee or jbreher). Of course, it is possible to have some small fraction of "play money" traded on margin just to see how it works out. It usually doesn't work out right, but it depends on more than one factor. |
|
|
|
Bitstamps pumped back up to $13000!
Maybe I missed my chance to panic sell at the bottom.
Is it time to ask who sold at the bottom yet?
Tsk tsk. Don't mess with the officials! It's not upon you - or me - to ask such questions. Tsk tsk, the disrespect! |
|
|
|
Interesting that the majority feels price will be at 20-22k by the 31st....
You can only vote once. I'm sure the sentiment has been revised in the meantime. Myself, I would have voted 22-24 if that option hadn't been left out. Short term timing is tricky. If we were right about that all the time, we would already be all millionaires. Which only 10-20% of us are, instead |
|
|
|
Why does nipple even need discussing.
Unfortunately it appears it doesn't. All the boob pics on ATHs are nippleless  |
|
|
|
The supply stands at 100 billion: more cannot be made. But the circulating supply increases, due to Ripple Inc holding on to about 60 billion XRP at this point (which are placed in escrow by the way, and only gets released in small batches). Ripple uses this 'war chest' of XRP to attract new partners, all of which that buy it are restricted it dumping it on the market as well.
Good. So it means we'll never see a massive XRP dump. Right? Then you can sleep at night. The big irony of some of you oldtime Bitcoiners is that you just cannot see what is unfolding in front of your very eyes, that being that BTC is actually at this point more centralized than Ripple.
Hello, Roach? Is that you? Ah, no. Uh, sorry. So please tell this guy that nothing like a decentralized digital asset can ever exist, so the point is moot. Besides, I'm sure he's a Jew. @ParabellumLite: Beware of the dogs. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
