Wash trading in crypto has been around for the longest of time. It's so common that a lot of people don't really care about such activities from happening, although in recent times wash trading in bitcoin has been frowned upon and may even lead to sanctions given how huge the effect of such activity in the market. There are still lots of small exchanges doing this up to now, and you'll notice that even the obscurest of coins have the largest of volumes when compared to the top coins on their platform.

I think that the report has some elements of exaggeration in them. If top exchanges do this today, they'd be in hot water and will immediately be questioned for their actions. But perhaps those exchanges at the top of the ladder do this still, although in ways that one cannot easily notice.

I don't know why people are expecting bitcoin to pump continuously and indefinitely. We have months of continuous rise and it's just normal for the price to come down when there aren't any buyers willing to buy at that price, and only the sellers are left in the market. This time, the selling pressure prevailed, hence why the price climbed back down to sub-$60k. Not really worried one bit about the price though, as I believe that whatever price range we are in, it is justified and we're still really in safe territories right now.

It depends, mainly.

You also have to consider the exchange that you want to deposit into, as this will be an important factor in deciding whether or not you'll even get the funds that you intended to use to buy in to a relatively new project. Personally, I would try to risk just a small amount to make sure it's safe, and if ever I got the first few transactions smoothly, then I'll go ahead and deposit a larger sum, then immediately take out the funds once I got what I need—that is if I really wanted to get in on a certain project so bad.

It wouldn't surprise me if these 'hospitality' rules were being used to buy people with positions their say and judgment on anything. Of course, they will feel indebted to those who gave them 'hospitality' and they will, most certainly, try and align what those people want on them making decisions. It already is corruption when you used monetary 'gifts' to influence officers' decisions, even if gifts are allowed by the law. That's a lot of money, and compared with their wages, it's a no-brainer to sell your dignity and decisions at the right price.

Heard some of the people there aren't really fond of the name change, and I understand the sentiment considering that the name stands as it was for long and all of a sudden, its name is changed into something else. Then again, it's just a name change, and people can still keep calling it whatever they want. Crypto.com would probably be receiving a lot of page views and will be the talk of the town for some time before the hype dies down. I wonder if this might even cause people to search cryptocurrencies yet again due to their curiosity, and fuel another pump in the near future.

Sometimes, exchanges themselves are the ones who give hints on an upcoming listing within their platform. Sometimes, its the team of the project/coin that announces it. Apart from that, you either have to be an insider to know all of these movements, or you're a part of the exchange that handles newly listed coins. Most coin devs/teams and exchanges keep their mouth shut on this matter until the coin goes live on the platform, unless if the coin already has an established community, and the hype surrounding that coin is already through the roof.

Not anymore, no.

It takes up a lot of time to research about new coins coming in to the market, and it's better to invest on a coin with an already established record with some known backers, so in that way I already know if the project is up to no good or something worth considering.

Also, there's a lot of risk on investing on new coins compared to those who are already listed on the market. They can easily do a rugpull or exit scam if they like, and the chances of you getting something out of it is nil.

If they are promoting the use of renewables for a better and sustainable future, why then would the need to propose a ban for bitcoin mining? I just don't see the connection at all. If they want to size down our carbon footprint, they would also pull the trigger on other industries' direction that consume just as much (or even more) energy with the bitcoin network.

With regards to moving to a new ASIC-resistant algorithm, that area is being worked on, and some proof-of-concepts were already established, and the results are not very pretty.

I do not have a credit card, nor have I ever accepted any offers my bank is sending my way in order to get one. But I am not fully against it, as long as people understand the risks and that they have the capability to pay for whatever they used. It's a better system than what loan sharks offer, and you are entitled to rewards whenever you hit a certain spending threshold which is okay-ish but not totally removing the fact that they impose exorbitant fees and high interest per month.

If you can, stay away from credit cards. But if you are the type of person that have lots of money and doesn't bring cash, use it. Otherwise, just live by your means and save for whatever you need or want.

It will depend entirely on the recommendations by your local authorities and the guidelines you need to follow that they impose before you can file a complaint against gambling fraud. Most of us here do not fall under the same jurisdiction, and do not live in the same country hence why our approaches will differ from one another.

But the basics of handling gambling fraud is simple: inform the local authorities, gather as much information and evidence as you can, and file a complaint with the help of your lawyer.

Tommy Lee's prediction is already out IMO. It will require a huge amount of money poured into the market in a short span of time in order to realize the price, and I don't think we have that amount ready to be injected into bitcoin in 2 months. Tim Draper and the twins made somewhat safe and 'realistic' predictions, although those predictions also tread on a narrow bridge with a huge chance to fail since the market seems to be slowing down and just wants to go sideways for the meantime. With all these predictions, one is bound to eventually come true, although for these three, I don't think one will hit the jackpot this time around.

I know for a fact that the funds were already approved by the creditors, but I haven't came across some news stating that it will be released this month. Any news sources or links to confirm the veracity of this statement would be helpful.

As for the $10 billion, I expect some of those will enter the market and some will be dumped in order for the victims to get done with the stress thr Mt. Gox event has caused them. With the recent price of bitcoin, there will surely be lots of people who will be tempted to liquidate immediately, and it will definitely have an impact on the market.

Shifting to renewable energy sources may not be an easy task, but it is doable IMO. There only needs to be commitment on the miners' side of things in order to make this a reality. Then again, organizations and companies providing such energy services are still few and far between, and are mostly situated on remote areas. Miners can relocate and pursue their mining operations on such places and effectively reduce their dependency on electricity from fossil fuels, but other industries should also do their part. The banking industry still uses tons of energy that I think can still be reduced if they wanted to, but of course why would they?

If we are just basing everything on trends and previous market movements, we can infer that there'd be no crash nor any change of pace on most cryptocurrencies. At most, it can just be a sideways movement until the end of this year, and most change of pace might happen near the end of Q1 2022 or start of Q2 2022. Then again, all of these are just guesses based from charts and previous market movements. Charts never lie, but sometimes they make us think too far away from what's really is happening.

Ahhh no. I'd rather lose my crypto funds due to my own fault than to let others do it, and have this feeling and expectation that they will reimburse me in the event that they got hacked or they mess up. Not your keys, not your coin. And not entrusting your coins to a third-party is not really being paranoid but rather just eliminating the possibility of letting others mess up your funds.

There are tons of cold storage options nowadays wherein the user doesn't have to be tech savvy at all. I'd rather get one of those than to let an exchange handle my funds for the long term. They can simply freeze my account and state some crazy things that I did not do and bam, I got my funds lost forever. One simple change on their ToS and I'm powerless over my own money.

It would be nice if you would address some of the concerns and questions raised here by other forum members, most especially on the subject of KYC and the no-wagering deposit bonus. You're definitely going to run out of bankroll at an accelerated rate if you do not impose some kind of system to protect your bonus from being gamed on.

Most of the terms on your T&C are extremely vague, that it'll be hard for new users to actually know whether they're being scammed or not.

Sans the obvious promotion embedded within this post, staking IMO is good only for those who have lots of idle coins to spare. At an economical and practicality standpoint, it is, by far, the most generous algorithm for minting new coins IMO. You just have to buy coins, leave it as it is, and it will earn more over time just by doing that. Though at a technical and security standpoint, staking is quite tricky since you only need one entity to buy lots and lots of coins for themselves in order to control the whole market. It has its ups and downs, but if you just want to earn something without really caring about the security of the coin that you're staking, then perhaps it's the trading strategy for you.

Given how many people on Twitter are engaged in cryptocurrencies, this might be a good way to spread the word of crypto even further than its current reach. Also, one can now support the cause of a personality that they follow without having to visit external links for donations. It is, for the most part, only rewarding public figures and personalities as of the moment, but over time, its effect on crypto will be seen once it gained traction.

And here I am thinking that this has already been done on twitter before. Perhaps I was thinking of reddit and kinda mixed up the two in my head.

ETH already cemented its status as second best, just behind bitcoin. IMO, low network fees and faster transaction times are not ADA and SOL needs to overcome. It is the framework and the working ecosystem built around
ETH that they need to tackle and address if they want to take that number 2 spot. That is a pretty daunting task, and I'm not sure if ADA nor SOL are ripe enough to go head-on against ethereum at this point. Then again, many surprises happen in the crypto market, and it's quite possible that ETH loses its charm if it doesn't address its problems

It is namecoin, although that coin is pretty much dead right now. The oldest surviving altcoin currently belongs to litecoin, a supposedly 'lite' version of bitcoin that provided faster transactions and generally lighter software. It was quite interesting that namecoin, although being the first altcoin created, didn't get much traction during its creation, and that litecoin managed to stay up there with bitcoin during bitcoin's many bull runs and downtrends.