I don't think any centralized exchange in operation right now can absolutely guarantee to their clients that in no time in the future will they ever ask for a KYC. After all, they are all registered centralized exchanges running within the bounds of regulatory policies. They cannot but comply to what is required by the state's authorities.

Anyway, you might want to check out KuCoin. KYC is not required for users. But there's a withdrawal limit of 5BTC every 24 hours for unverified users. They also have a mobile trading app.

It should be emphasized to newbies that the seed phrase is something that shouldn't be shared to anybody whatever the case is, not to friends, even to family members, and especially not to strangers online. Well, in case of death or permanent mental incapacity, let the family discover it.


I don't think this particular policy update is also directed at the services offered in Google play store. It is specifically addressed to advertisers.

Widely distributing miners all over the world is unnecessary. However, it is also a risk if all the miners are operating within a single town where electricity is dirt cheap. That might become a single point of failure. But that's not what is happening right now. So I guess there's nothing to worry really. As a matter of fact, even if the Chinese government would declare once and for all that all mining operations within the country should stop and leave immediately, Bitcoin would still be very much alive.

To a campaign that is planning to just run for about a week or two or perhaps a month, that might be less effective. They badly want to be seen and therefore promoted within a shorter period of time.

There are many campaigns that will test the waters first. They will run for a couple of weeks, make an assessment of the effectivity of the campaign, and then decide whether to continue or not. A Chipmixer approach may not be the best kind in this case.


I guess the campaign manager does not have the sole say as to how the campaign would run. The manager would probably lay all the options and perhaps discuss with the company how they would go about the campaign.

I think a wider visibility is a consideration. In which case, 25 posts might be preferred more than 10. That's simply maximizing the cost and the limited time.

Is there even such a thing as a risk-free fight? I mean, both fighters are going to meet each other because they are still a match regardless of the fact that one of them is a favorite and the other underdog.

I do decide on which of the two is probably going to win, but that is not saying the one I picked for my money is going to be the sure winner. The risk of losing is always there.

1.50 is not even the lowest of odds. It is not the most lop-sided of matches.

For as long as the two fighters have complete hands and feet, anybody could turn out the winner.

In a way, yes. I was thinking, if you are always counting your weekly posts, and you either make more posts or cease from posting based on your count, that could mean you are only doing something in compliance of a certain rule or for the sake of meeting a certain target. There's a world of difference between making a post because you have something important to say and making a post because you need to say something.

It always amazes me how certain members of the most prestigious campaign here on the forum do not even make effort to meet a quarter of the number of weekly paid posts. I mean, apparently they just participate in the discussions unmindful of the price value of each of their posts.

Or are we just reacting too much? I mean, it is a very simple error which could be corrected very quickly. It is not as if our missing one single letter of the man's name is intentional or malicious. Neither is it dishonoring what he's done in the past.

How about it is very disgraceful and abominable to me if the first letter of my first name, which is apparently a proper noun, is not capitalized? That feels like you are reducing my being a human person.

There were centralized services. And they're bad. Financial censorship is a very real issue. Such is the reason why Bitcoin is so important. And then what followed were centralized exchanges, custodial wallets, KYC, and so on forth. It makes me wonder whether we really wanted to do away with those centralized services in the first place. Or are we still at the mercy of central authorities? Or perhaps most of us are still indifferent to it for as long as it is not affecting us? You are censored, I'm not, no problem at all.

I wouldn't call it an outright Ponzi scheme. Certainly, there have been bad reviews about the platform but, well, each and every DeFi exchange that is gaining momentum right now has its own fair share of negative reviews. But overall, it seems to me that there is indeed passive income from this.

There is actually a very tight competition in the DeFi market right now. Uniswap, as we all know, has made incredible amount of success when it entered the market. Liquidity providers are enjoying high rewards. But it was even topped by PancakeSwap.

I'd say there's probably no other asset which offers that kind of APY or APR level.

I cannot go through all the platforms listed by the OP but, yes, they're currently being offered. Take PancakeSwap, for example. Here's a screenshot of what the platform is offering in its farms right at this very moment. You may notice that there is even an APR of more than 862%. That's the QuarkChain Token (QKC) and BUSD pair. If I'm not mistaken, there was even a time when APR could reach as high as 1,000%.


https://pancakeswap.finance/farms

At least to me, it appears as if Saylor is creating hype around Bitcoin rather than promoting Bitcoin as it is. It is actually more of shilling Bitcoin as if it is the answer to everything rather than arguing the hard on-the-ground reasons why Bitcoin is the best alternative we have. The exaggeration is really cringeworthy. It adds to the cultish characteristic of Bitcoin espoused by the maxis.

But, of course, we have to give Saylor the credit he deserves. He's indeed a very strong marketer of Bitcoin. He's definitely convinced people toward Bitcoin.

LOL. I'm pretty sure affandi meant something else, probably daily yield on a 600% to 700% annual rate. After all, APR means Annual Percentage Rate. The annual rate could be true, 600% to 700%. That indeed exists, some even higher than that, as far as I can remember. But definitely those rates are not the daily yield. There's a daily return on the basis of that annual rate.

Anyway, OP, you're one hell of a man/woman. I cannot imagine myself getting into all those investments in different platforms. If I were in your place, I'm sure I was already biting off more than I could chew. I guess that would take all of my precious free time, probably even deprive me of a good night's sleep.

He's neither trying to get into the professional scene nor trying to prove his boxing prowess. Neither of them. He's simply trying to become more popular, become a star in whatever way, however cheap it may be, and definitely amass wealth in the process.

This is plain entertainment. Well, they're still into the sports of boxing. But this is not the kind of boxing where you can see dedication, focus, determination, and the will to excel. I guess we cannot see real fighting here. There'd probably still be a KO but it is only because both of them don't have the real training process that a professional boxer has to go through before every fight.

Is it to the question of whether you'd prefer to get back your funds in BTC/BCH or in the form of Yen using the exchange rate 8 years ago? If this is the question, there's definitely a landslide vote on the crypto rather than on Yen.

But it seems it would still take at least a year before things would even start to materialize. The deadline after all would still be in October. There's probably even an extension after which. But I hope there's a concrete step toward refund after this rehabilitation plan. This case badly needs a closure.

Anyway, if things would go as planned, the market will have to brace for hundreds of thousands of BTC flowing into the market.

I'm sure I've heard of some banks that entered into the use of blockchain technology for more efficiency. I know, for example, that Ripple has partnered with certain banks such as Bank of America. But these are all centralized systems. Although some banks have already made use of the latest technologies such as blockchain, they remain 100% centralized. Even the decentralized in DeFi is questionable.

Anyway, when it comes to loan default, the traditional banking systems have more or less perfected their approach to it. As a matter of fact, loan defaults are probably more wanted than on-time payments, unless it is a massive loan default in times of recession or crisis. At least, that's what I've noticed locally. So I don't know how blockchain would lower down the rate of loan default, if at all banks really care about it. As a database though, it's probably more efficient to use than their old systems.

A site to scam devalued coins? What would they gain from having stacked coins without value?

OP is not giving us actual details of how the site would actually scam the coin holders. But if it is only by getting those worthless shitcoins and withholding payment in the end, I don't think I'd be crying over it. In the first place, those are devalued coins. Secondly, if there is someone interested to buy them, the price would definitely be very low. After all, what is being bought is a coin of no value. So if they are trying to scam me with $1 or $2, I'd give it to them. In fact, if somebody would ask for more old worthless shitcoins, I'd probably give them more.

But, as Pmalek surmised, there might be other motives aside from scamming devalued coins.

At first, the term crash also sounded too exaggerated for me to just refer to a correction or even a normal price decrease, only a little bit worse than other days. Crash kind of sends a feeling that the market or Bitcoin has already crumbled down, which is really not the case in reality. Such description tends to create a FUD.

However, isn't it interesting that Bitcoin is already crashing at $35,000 or $40,000? That's a sweet crash. Perhaps the Bitcoin market has somehow redefined the meaning.

Well, once the withdrawal is given the green light and has been confirmed, the funds is already beyond the control of PayPal. It is irreversible. However, every transaction is monitored. The moment they suspect something is against whatever rule they have, they might do something not with the withdrawn funds, which is beyond their control, but your account and the balance it has in the wallet.

Anyway, I don't think the government has something to do with the newly announced Bitcoin Mining Council.

It may or may not happen, but definitely not now nor the next year or two. The crypto market is still a small market. Considering that it is global in scope and that it is made up of thousands of different projects, a trillion market cap is still considered low. Who are the players in the Bitcoin market, for example? There are a few institutions, huge names in finance, some in technology, and the rest are retail investors. I don't know how it could trigger a financial crisis. Perhaps in the decades to come when the market cap is already reaching hundreds of trillions.

By third-party wallets, PayPal must be referring to wallets other than PayPal, "to the destination of their choice," as their executive, Jose Fernandez da Ponte, said.

I am also hoping that there will be no discrimination of crypto funds on the basis of where it is coming from, unless there is enough reason to flag it. Currently, my local wallet implements a policy of not allowing deposits and withdrawals involving gambling sites. It's a huge hassle for someone who gambles like me. But then, I guess it's about legal requirements as opposed to wallet preference.