But before reaching Binance, your funds from the purported thief's wallet 36zzz7ZRmsp9v7WFBnFNuuYXMyzPZsTTyR actually passed through 1Q7nqUkXatf1sDZsaw6BPn9tyox524zC1Z first. Others, please correct me if I'm wrong, but this could mean the person who sent the funds to Binance is not anymore the thief or the same person who owns 36zzz7ZRmsp9v7WFBnFNuuYXMyzPZsTTyR, right?

As to successful stories, what exactly do you mean? That Binance would divulge to you certain personal information behind a particular address? I doubt it will. At the very least, it might require a court order. They certainly don't just dox anybody out of a simple request.

I guess it is premature to the huge majority of shops and stores to price their products and services in Bitcoin. There's too high a volatility for a business to peg prices in Bitcoin. Of course, there are others who prefer to earn in Bitcoin, but that's a special preference which probably goes beyond the fact that the price fluctuates too much. The reason might simply be to raise Bitcoin regardless if such would mean deficit.

Also, if a business has the ability to absorb Bitcoin's temporary price decrease and spend in fiat while hodling the income in Bitcoin until the price recovers and makes gain, that would be nice. There's profit in business as well as in Bitcoin's price increase.

With an ATH of $64,000 which was only reached just 3 months ago, I am likewise thinking we are near the bottom. I am merely speculating, but from $64,000 all the way to $29,000 in just a matter of 90 days, we must be near the bottom or else there might be worse days ahead, and it might take beyond 2021 for the price to recover even the ATH.

But I am still positive. I don't agree that there's a lot of bad news around. I'm seeing more good news than bad. And since we are still in the first month of the second half, a lot of things could happen. Bitcoin could still reach a new ATH by December.

The Rothschilds' less than $4 million exposure to Bitcoin is a small amount. Of course, we do not really know how much they truly have, but at least as the data suggests, that's loose change for the family. Something tells me, therefore, the family's investment firm has not yet fully considered Bitcoin as an investment asset worth risking too much. This must be the necessary risk management to an investment experiment of an emerging asset. But this also signifies the potential of Bitcoin. 

Such a very interesting discussion. However, I do not believe that China is enough to be a model for countries to take on totalitarianism as the best way forward. China's totalitarian approach may have lead the country into abundance. However, history does not lack of totalitarian rulers and states which have instead lead the people into perdition. You can put China's case on one scale of the balance, but on the other scale you can put a lot of failed totalitarian regimes. Surely, the latter would outweigh China.

China's case could be a special one. It's success could be a combination of culture, extreme poverty, abundance of untapped labor, unempowered citizenry, and so on. Countries inclined to emulate that of China's ruling approach should closely study their own distinctive characteristics. After all, what may apply to the Chinese people may not apply to others.

I doubt if Paxful will allow you to withdraw your funds without doing KYC. After all, as a user of their platform, you are bound to abide with their updated policies. You cannot simply insist on doing something on the platform based on an outdated policy, one which is already replaced.

There are so many complaints against Paxful all over the internet. People are even calling the site scam.

Incidentally, I suddenly remembered this thread by cabalism13: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5320332.0. I'm not sure if it's still working but you might want to check it out and try.

I guess this will never end. People falling victims to a scam must be as old as civilization itself. Bitcoin does not fix this. Bitcoin actually makes it a little bit worse, in fact, with its irreversibility feature. People must be more cautious now than ever before. They are facing someone they do not even know and whose location they have no idea about.

I wonder how greedy or clueless the victim is for risking 1.16BTC for a mere giveaway.

I haven't read YoBit's terms and conditions but it is most likely that the exchange does not own responsibility over their users' fault in sending coins or tokens to the wrong blockchain.

While it could be recovered, it probably falls on the platform's sole discretion whether to attempt to recover it or not.

10 ETH is a significant amount but I guess it is not worthy to start a costly legal process considering, first and foremost, that the fault itself is coming from the user. So I guess OP should just continue communicating with the site but expect less.

Bitcoin, as a protocol, is public. Owning Bitcoin, the native currency of the network, is private ownership. Bitcoin as a private property is indeed superior than others. You may own a piece of land, a savings account in a bank, an apartment, and so on; the sense of ownership of all of this is inferior compared to owning Bitcoin.

However, as regards price value, it is beyond the control of any individual since the public aspect of Bitcoin comes in. The price value is always determined by the general public. No single entity like a central bank or a government determines or dictates its price. Since Bitcoin has no owner or issuer, its value under no one's control, everything depends on the public. As such, it is susceptible to the ills of the old system. But what else could we do? That's the price of freedom. That's the compromise Bitcoin has to take for being truly public.

It's not exactly like how banks are manipulating gold/silver. But in terms of possibility, I guess it is possible. If they are really bent on doing it, it's just a matter of how much. While Bitcoin is publicly traded 24 hours globally, it only has less than $20 billion in 24-hour volume. If the banks are willing to shell out billions just to play with Bitcoin's price, they could do it. But it doesn't mean the little guys are always at the disadvantageous position. They could simply ride the wave.

Religious concepts shouldn't overlap with the likes of finance, economics, and so on. When one enters the realm of finance, one should leave his/her religious shoes outside. Having said this, I disagree with this Halal-certified crypto projects.

There is no such thing as Islamic finance. Finance is mathematics. Religion doesn't matter to numbers. Either it works or not.

We are in the modern era. Bitcoin or crypto is the future. Attaching Halal to it is pulling it backwards. 

Do we have a choice? Non-renewable energy sources are finite. They are not unlimited. Sooner or later they will be depleted. The world's population is rising. Along with that is the rise of energy demand. Urbanization is creeping quite fast. That also means energy demand. Technologies are sprouting everywhere. They also demand power. If we are to depend on non-renewable energy sources, what happens when they finally run out one day? That is why we need to tap renewable sources. They are indeed the future.

It is sad that you still haven't yet recovered your funds until now, but what is more sad is that you haven't yet moved on until now. If you were not able to get it back in 2017 and in 2018 and then in 2019 and 2020, there is almost no reason at all why you would get it back in 2021. That's YoBit you are dealing with. It's a scam.

But I am curious, does this involve a big amount of money? What have you done to try recover your funds these past few years? I'm afraid people here might have nothing to help you in this case.

Others may not find this very interesting. Bitcoin futures is not that attractive to me either. Also, this is only offered to selected clients. But more than all these particulars, this to me is a significant step toward the process of flipping. Banks are coming. They're already converted. Bitcoinization is happening. They used to brush off the Bitcoin idea, and then they began to criticize and try to destroy it, and then they eventually joined the community. They may be after the money. But the mere fact that they are offering products on Bitcoin is acknowledgement enough that Bitcoin is indeed inevitable.

The sexiest and the prettiest, are they not women?

I am not classifying them. I am not grouping them according to beauty or body shape or whatever. I am referring to them as women. That's regardless of physical qualities.

Why doesn't it concern the overall women community? Are the prettiest and sexiest not part of it? If those women we consider ugly are not accepted into jobs because of it, does that not concern the entire women community because only the ugly ones are being discriminated?

Do you have the figures as well as the sources of this information? Please check your facts. Otherwise, you might be relaying false information. The highest revenue in the Philippines is coming from taxes. Having said this, the largest revenue contribution is coming from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). The Bureau Of Customs (BOC) comes next. PAGCOR remits to the Bureau of Treasury (BTr). Definitely, BTr does not bring the highest revenue to the government, although PAGCOR's share of BTr's revenue is indeed significant.

You must naturally feel bitter regret when your creation which is intended to be a joke suddenly becomes something of questionable importance. When you create something you don't take seriously and expect others to treat it the same way as you do, and yet for some weird reasons it suddenly gains so much value, you'd probably also question why things are happening that way. It must be disappointing. What's worse is that you've got nothing to do with it anymore. You've already left it. And you're now seriously watching your own joke from the sidelines becoming a billion-dollar creation.

You may consider me a hypocrite but while I do not treat this as an urgent concern, I am still hoping that one day people would gamble because they discover the sheer fun of it and not because women's bodies are being used as sexual baits for their urges.

If this practice of stripping down women's clothes to the bare minimum so that gamblers would stay longer and spend more money becomes very widespread, I'm afraid this would only commodify women. And that doesn't sound right at all.

It was probably just a bug. I don't think it was a wrong buy order. A trader couldn't place a buy order if he/she doesn't have the right amount of funds to pay for it. In this case, it is a very huge amount. 31,502 ETH, at least at its current price, is already more than $61,000,000. I am not saying there is no trader who has that huge amount of funds stored on a platform, but I doubt they're a lot. I hope I'm not mistaken and that the order wasn't gone because it was quickly filled up. That would be a terribly expensive error.

Since you are talking of cryptocurrency exchangers, I would say yes.

If I were to paraphrase your question, supposing you save money in a bank and cryptocurrency in an exchange, which among the two has a higher risk? It's the latter. Which among the two savings is more likely to be robbed or stolen? It is still the latter. If in case both savings are stolen from you, which between the two would you more likely recover? It's the fiat in the bank.

So what could we deduce from this? It is that saving cryptocurrencies in exchanges is risky. So avoid it!

But you have to take note, first and foremost, that cryptocurrencies are not exchanges.