...they bail a couple months before the next bubble like last time?

seems unlikely this time. this is a big undertaking. i don't think this acquisition was taken lightly given their plans:


if they're smart, they'll follow through with their business plan and take from each side of the spread, making a killing as exchanges have already been doing for years. even if we go into hibernation for 2-3 years, so what?

i suppose amazon could come back with an even more restrictive policy that cuts off corporate/retail entities from gift cards entirely. right now they're still allowed to buy gift cards from amazon as

maybe the eGifter swap trick is too convoluted to give rise to volume that would get amazon's attention, and that's why they're doing it.


nope. you buy a gift card for someone and he receives it in his email or whatever. then he needs to go to eGifter to claim it. instead of claiming the gift card and revealing the code, he clicks on the "exchange gift" button and swaps it out. it only works for eGifter-issued cards. so it seems like you can make two accounts, buy a gift card for "someone else" and swap it that way. i can't confirm it works though.

more info here: https://support.egifter.com/hc/en-us/articles/360002604633-Questions-about-Amazon-com-Answers-here-

P2P is great for privacy reasons. after the IRS/coinbase case, i'm sure anyone being less than honest on their taxes in past years was happy to have used localbitcoins instead of coinbase. they definitely have a target on their back regarding tax compliance, given how big they are.


the big trouble with P2P platforms is you can't really trust the reputation systems; they can be gamed for relatively low cost. i've only ever used them for setting up in-person cash deals. i'm too wary of chargebacks with other payment methods.

not a bad call, considering we dumped like 70% from the top in Q1 2018. he certainly knew not to buy the top.


nope. for example, you don't need bitcoin collateral to trade the regulated CBOE and CME futures markets. it's all cash-settled. any instrument offered on traditional brokers will be that way (at least for now). it'll be the same for ETFs if we get them.


that's because it's non-news. the articles just say they may trade digital currencies and they haven't done anything yet. the news doesn't necessarily imply investment (buying) of crypto. that might be true, but he could also be playing the short side.

muahahaha, i love when it pumps on FUD. cha-ching.


it's some tasty FUD tho. western media hasn't picked it up, but the polish media is running with it:


then there's this...

i guess, but why would you use them instead of GDAX at this point? 1% maker fee on gemini? that's pretty embarrassing for them. you can get 0% maker fees on GDAX. same fast and free ACH transfer and cheap wires, and free BTC withdrawals.

i really don't see what gemini is doing here. they need more volume and liquidity. this will only hurt them. and they didn't do anything to incentivize market makers to bring bigger liquidity either.

i wonder what the hell is going on over there....

better the polish government than the US government. when it's the US government, everyone gets fucked.

another article released today in the polish media---this one mentions bitfinex specifically: https://www.spidersweb.pl/2018/04/zbigniew-ziobro-bitfinex-prokuratura.html

from the google translate:

from another reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8ad509/polish_authorities_has_seized_almost_400_mln_eur/

how much of a threat is the polish government to bitfinex (how much fiat money was stored in polish banks)? how much of the 400M EUR belonged to them? stay tuned....

damn it. i was about to post that i couldn't find anything to corroborate this, and how it's weird that no one's talking about it.

but then i went on eGifter. they shut down amazon too!

however, it seems like eGifter left a loophole (in the US only). they say you can still buy amazon gift cards using "an 'eGifter swap' performed by a gift recipient." here's how that works:


i haven't tried it, but it looks like you can still buy most gift cards with bitcoin, then "gift it to yourself" (different account) and then swap it. my friend swears by eGifter and has put thousands through it, so i might try this out next time i need one.

it's painful to watch. i'm nervously bullish but i've been waiting for the bottom to fall out for quite a while. bears had momentum and time, but price is so tight now and volume never came in.

a little FUD bomb: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3272133.0

i'm not sure about the veracity of this commentary or the details of the article, but this was apparently published by polish government-owned media, so i won't immediately dismiss it as FUD. but it could be FUD.

the connections to bitfinex are unconfirmed as yet. however, the circumstances (like polish shell companies) and the dollar value of funds seized point to bitfinex more than any other exchange. the article clearly states that the shell companies are associated with a cryptocurrency exchange.

original article
google translate
some discussion/commentary

according to NullZeroX:
about crypto sp.zoo:


from the article:




.......good news for bitcoin?

that's actually one of the definitions of authority. a tagged account---for many folks---will carry the same weight as a ban because you're probably better off creating a new account. the fact that theymos centrally dictates who has these powers (and who doesn't) makes the social relationships pretty clear. unequal power distribution is the basis of authority. positive and negative trust have a massive impact on anyone's ability to do business on the forum, so let's not act like the ability to leave feedback is meaningless. if it didn't matter, nobody would care. clearly, people care.


if you haven't noticed, i very much enjoy arguing. when i came in here, i was just laying out a generic negative opinion about how the system is used. i wasn't really all that interested until the personal attacks and contradictions and fallacies came forth in response.


already happened many times before. what exactly do you think i'm trying to accomplish here? lol. i'm much more interested in getting one or two people to escape the groupthink than to accomplish any actual change. nothing's going to change.

the debate won't ever get resolved. in fact, a debate can't resolve anything. theymos just needs to decide to make changes, or not. around the time i joined the forum, the trust system was his brand new invention. this is his show, we're just in the audience. i guess DT are like the ushers or some shit.

dang, there goes suchmoon twisting words again. i might respond later after a few drinks. or not.

i didn't say that. that's a straw man.

the above said, "get his drinking buddies off the hook when they break the law." it didn't say, "anyone who got off the hook is the cop's drinking buddy." words matter.

i'm referring to cases where a DT member affirmatively knows about two cases of ostensibly tag-worthy behavior, yet only tags one of the offenders. eg if a DT member posts in this thread, it's reasonable to assume they are aware of the cases being discussed. the question then becomes, what are their standards per their sent feedback? if their standards are inconsistent, can we at least form some community standards instead of just perpetual hand-waving? to outsiders, the message is "only those get tagged need to answer for anything; those who who do the tagging are always in the right." this is why i talk about authority. that's the same logic that people apply to cops who beat up, rape and murder people, then protect each other from prosecution. you apparently prefer to give cops, DT members and other authorities the benefit of the doubt 100% of the time. i don't.

for example, if account selling was perfectly trustworthy on date x and scam tag-worthy on date y, can we establish a standard? how about trust farming---how far back is long enough to let bygones be bygones? if there is a time aspect, can users who got tagged get rehabilitated or let off for "rookie mistakes" after a certain period of time, or does this logic only get applied to a limited group of people (who might also now happen to occupy DT)? what about "lying" and "slander?" when does "lying" warrant negative trust?

if you don't hold anyone to any standards, then these threads won't go away. and more bandwidth will be wasted yet.


conflicts of interest don't require collusion. they just confer personal benefit.

and there should be a general expectation that people in positions of authority are supposed to self-police. this is why government agencies have ethical codes that lay out precise standards and define what is and isn't a conflict of interest, with emphasis on preventing them. this isn't a court of law and rarely will anyone have all the facts. you're using that as a basis to say DT members don't use their position for personal benefit. i just disagree.


nobody is saying everyone is in cahoots. that's another a straw man:


you point out how few DT members there are. yet a comparison to "all speeding drivers in the world" is applicable? you're conflating well-known DT members with newbie throwaway accounts to bolster the idea that all conflicts of interest are just based on ignorance or nonchalance, because there's oh so many people in the world, can't tag them all! but actually, we're talking about a pretty small group of people.

anyway, just talking about how social authority works in general. i've already said too much here---already got that bootlicking toady digaran lobbing ad hominem attacks and claiming merit abuse because i expressed a general opinion about the trust system. pfff and you guys wonder why people post in meta/reputation from alt accounts? lesson learned: i'll use an alt next time i post an opinion that isn't just parroting groupthink. already half-expecting my opinions to be construed as "lying" or generic "untrustworthy" behavior or "slander" and red tagged anyway.

that's a straw man. no one expects that. the OP gave specific examples; there's no need to go digging for every untrustworthy action that has ever been done before.

the question is what happens when a DT member (or someone close to DT members) gets outed for behavior that the community has deemed untrustworthy. if you regularly tag account sellers, but refuse in these cases, it's reasonable to assume there is a conflict. a conflict of interest can be as small as giving one person consideration (or retribution) where they otherwise wouldn't. eg hooking your friends up with the perks and favors from your government position while the public at large gets nothing. that's not the worst thing in the world, but let's just be honest about it. that's the definition of a conflict. that's how positions of authority work. anyone who works in government law or ethics will tell you the same.

that means the cop in your example isn't supposed to get his drinking buddies off the hook when they break the law. or let hot women off with a warning when they're caught speeding while ticketing everyone else. but what do you think actually happens in practice? use your head.

this thread was about conflicts of interest, not pontificating hypothetical situations where it's unreasonable to expect anything from DT members. if the latter is the position we're supposed to take, DT absolutely shouldn't exist.

what, exactly, was contradictory?


wtf? so now shitposting everyday every week to outpace the "activity" count is a prerequisite for not being labelled an alt? you forum police are taking this shit too far.

and how---exactly---is any of this contradicting anything i said?


oh joy, the merit police have arrived!

dude, first of all, who gives a shit about merit? this is just pathetic.

second of all, since you're the merit police, let's have a gander. i received 15 merit total from 13 people. no one person gave me more than 2 merit. in your case, 30 of the 72 merit you received came from one person. that person also has two recent negative trusts for scamming. your alt account, i guess? or maybe just a friend, as you say?

see how fucking bullshit these baseless accusations are? you act like some tribunal member in some orwellian fiction. get over yourself.


first of all, please learn how to apply the english definition of "standards":

whether standards are consistently applied is a matter of objective fact.

i don't need to have been around for years or have consistent interaction with the community (whatever the fuck that means? explain) to talk about matters of objective fact. if someone posts examples of DT members applying inconsistent standards, anyone with a brain is capable of assessing that. this requires logic and reason, not a certain quota of forum posts per day. it's completely ridiculous---no, embarrassing---that this needs to be said.

second of all, i've been reading this forum for like 5+ years. who the fuck are you to say i'm audacious for expressing extremely general opinions about the shittiness of the centralized trust system? the fucked up trust system and the pro-doxxing (and surprisingly anti-libertarian) culture here is why i would never go near the marketplace with a 10-foot pole as a vendor.

and third, i spoke very generally about how authority and conflicts work, and thus why the trust system is doomed to failure. wtf are you on about with "a deep understanding about their friends" and other bullshit like that? you're just making even more shit up now.

you guys realize that the bubble chart only works in linear mode, right? turn on log, and you'll see that the prospects are a lot less scary. and even on linear, it doesn't work on bitcoin. the closest we ever came was in 2011, but price never reverted below the previous cycle's "bear trap."

anyway, i'm glad that i'm seeing more and more of these posts. at least now it seems like sentiment is no longer bullish and hopeful. rather, people have turned significantly more bearish. maybe it's getting to be time we squeezed shorts.

three people are not "hindering mass adoption." if they could, bitcoin is totally fucked and has no chance of mass adoption. let's be real. average joes don't know or care who roger or CSW are. mcafee was a beloved wingnut long before he got involved with crypto.

nothing is hindering adoption besides market cycles---hype took a dive, get-rich-quick top buyers need to be punished---and time. bitcoin is a brand new type of asset, still in beta, with pretty terrible UX for non-tech savvy people. expecting mass adoption in that context is just plain silly. rome wasn't built in a day....

don't use a brainwallet, and you won't get dictionary attacked. it's that simple. most people agree that brainwallets are insecure because humans generally won't choose a passphrase with enough entropy. your passphrase may seem random or hard-to-crack to you, but to a brute-forcing algorithm, it probably isn't.

use a wallet like bitcoin core, and this won't happen.

wow, i've never seen a reference to cube 2. definitely a nerdy movie. i remember not understanding how the 6:06:59 revelation made sense, because it seemed like time/space was completely distorted anyway. maybe it went over my head.

so anyway, what's the reference supposed to mean? are we all stuck in a tesseract?

when newbies request loans without collateral, do they always get a warning before getting tagged? how about when someone offers bitcointalk accounts for sale in digital goods?

i'm guessing not.

i can see where the OP is coming from. it seems like some people (whether because of default trust connections or just good old forum circle jerking) apparently deserve second chances, warnings, consideration of mitigating circumstances......and some people apparently don't.

this is, at the core, the problem with the centralized trust system. you can't expect DT members to use it completely objectively. to some degree (however small), people will always benefit themselves (or alts), help their friends/hurt their competition, or at least give one person consideration (or retribution) where they wouldn't give it to another. these are all conflicts of interest that derive from positions of authority.


not sure if trolling, but i actually think that's fair enough. if DT members clearly don't adhere to consistent standards---their own standards---it suggests there are indeed conflicts of interest.

otherwise, maybe the forum rules should be brought in line with the trust ratings. i don't particularly care either way, but the inconsistency does bother me for obvious reasons as laid out above. it seems typical for DT members to just hand-wave away the contradictions here. that's shitty.

but when have you ever seen a legit count where wave 2 = 1 years time and wave 4 = 1 weeks time? technically, wave 4 has no minimum time constraint (only maximum time constraint). but the proportions on that count were beyond atrocious.

this is not masterluc's chart, but he referenced it:


he---correctly, i believe---has labeled the 2017 blow-off as a primary wave 3. the potential wave 4 count above is still valid, although i'm skeptical given the price action over the past few weeks. mid-2013 fractal still feels right to me.