It depends on what their underlying intention is. It could also be an attempt to slow down the growth of the crypto ecosystem to catch up legally and financially.

I think it's just a matter of time before the us gets its shit together and finally open up more, mainly so now other large competing economies such as China are trying to gain an edge over the rest of the world by supporting the blockchain space, which literally came out of nowhere. Everyone was of believe that China withdrew itself completely, but it turned out to not be so at all.

In the end, everything comes down to timing. If we look at how the internet progressed back in the early days, it wasn't all that different. Skeptics have now become believers and I'm sure the same will happen with Bitcoin.

I prefer to see more Segwit adoption than less, and will try to point out the advantages of Segwit where possible, but I'm not going to threaten people I'm planning to conduct business with to forward me a bech32 address or else I'll pull out. That's just retarded. It doesn't even affect me at all since the fees will be high for the receiver using legacy address format when spending the coins.

That means they weren't seriously interested in the first place.

Bitcoin is all about freedom, so don't let anyone tell you what to do.

Touche. Pretty ironic isn't it? The cheater is being cheated on. Karma.

---

If yahoo was assigned to handle the job manually, he wouldn't allow there to be many more than 50 or so participants based on his previous and current campaigns under management. It would also solve the spamming problem largely as the participants selected are generally average or above, so not spammers.

It will give Yobit much more value for their money as well, because it means longer and higher quality exposure for less money spent. Considering that they keep adjusting their number of daily posts southwards, they'll either put a stop to the campaign soon or hand it over to yahoo entirely.

It's not fair to compare cryptotalk's semi no-rule signature campaign to those managed by proven campaign managers. In most pay-per-post campaigns managed by proven managers there are a bunch of participants who never reach any serious number of weekly posts. Simply for the fact that they don't have to post x number of times to claim payment.

Is there still an incentive to post for the sake of collecting payments? Surely is, but that's something you can't avoid and technically shouldn't be an issue as long as the posts are of decent enough quality to not conflict the manager's quality standards. If the posts seem forced and lose quality the manager will kick you out. It's a self regulating system that works well.

Recent? Like a month ago? The hashrate over a greater number of blocks hasn't gone under 90 eh/s.

The hashrate you are referring to is measured over a low number of blocks, which currently has jumped to 100 eh/s, so your 82 eh/s figure is not accurate anymore, just like how my 100 eh/s figure won't be accurate anymore in the forthcoming hours. That alone makes calculating the price versus the not accurate hashrate figure not a good foundation to build on to determine what a "fair" price is.

Did we forget what happened last year? People were so confident that miners needed the $6000 level to operate profitably, that they assumed $6000 was the bottom. It couldn't go below $6000. Well, it did and it went below $6000 a lot.

I don't think so. The block halving will play an important role mentally and psychologically when we are like a month or two seperated.

If there are people who buy in prior to the halving event, they have done it last year already and added to their position when we tanked from $6000 to $3000. On top of that, the hype on social media around the halving is kinda tame as well, which is indicative of the event being too far away from where we are today. It will pick up next year.

It no longer surprises me that after a drop people come out of their holes and claim that the market is being manipulated.

Fact is that this market is just as unpredictable as it has always been. This unpredictability makes manipulating the price for large parties extremely dangerous as there is always a larger party ready to undo whatever you tried to initiate, mainly so with how there are more institutions on board than ever before with incentives to protect.

If the price dumps and doesn't go back up, it's fair to say that there is no demand to push the price back up, because that would certainly happen if there was.

The more you look at your portfolio as a non trader, the more likely it is that you either sell at a loss in panic, or sell well below your initial target price because you are too tempted to secure the profits that you already realized.

If you don't trust yourself, you can time-lock your coins (requires some technical understanding) to a certain block hight to make sure you don't sell until 2020 or 2021. From what I have read on various social media platforms, it seems to be something people are doing more frequently nowadays. This is only something you should consider when you know for sure that you don't need the funds in the forthcoming years.

That's why it's so important to distribute your cold wallet holdings amongst multiple hardware/paper wallets. If you are forced to somehow hand over your wallet to the authorities or any other criminal, you can give them your least valuable one and not lose everything at once. Simple yet very effective measures.

I personally have 5 cold wallets currently while I used to have everything in one single wallet two years ago. I probably will distribute these coins amongst even more wallets in the future. The same trend of coin distribution can be noticed if you follow the Bitcoin rich list where the number of extremely rich addresses in number of coins are shrinking.

Bitcoin isn't depending on China, but people in China are depending on Bitcoin to escape from the capital controls and whatnot.

If we look at Tether's Alexa traffic page, a new name has entered in the top visiting countries, which is HongKong, accounting for 11.5% of Tether's traffic. That's an indication of increased demand from that region and also explains why so little USDT is taken out of circulation. Tether might be total pile of shite, but it's helping a lot of people to circumvent the controls put in place by their own country, which is amazing.

China's latest support for blockchain might not be related to Bitcoin directly, but it helps expanding Bitcoin's longer term userbase as in this space people one way or another always find their way to Bitcoin.

The traffic rank itself isn't that good, but what I'm more surprised about is the time spent per user on the site;

https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/thecryptocoinconverter.com 4:12 minutes spent per day per user (and increasing)
https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/preev.com 1:55 minutes spent per day per user (and going down)

That to me indicates the demand for a site that allows you to convert a ton of shitcoins where preev is stuck just supporting a few. In the stats it's also visible that preev is losing popularity, which should ring some alarm bells to start listing shitcoins too, because the demand is there. If preev isn't following the demand, people will move away.

Seems you are familiar with the matter? That would make the most sense considering it possibly being a move to curb down on cheaters and whatnot now they're a hot target because of their signature campaign that's so loosely managed by their bot. They went from 20 posts a day to 10 posts, to 5 posts now. They don't care about the flood of spam, so it must be related to abuse.

Easy solution would be to hand over some coins to yahoo every week or month and let him do everything manually. Would have saved them a lot of money.

It boils down to how much economical value they can extract from adopting that currency. African countries have a long history of how they sell themselves short, that's not China's fault. African countries are currently subjected to 'enslavement' even of many western countries. In other words, they are no better than China when it comes to taking advantage of the weaker countries.

I'm personally not against fiat that's backed by Gold, but the problem has always been the greedy nature of the issuers of the fiat, and then I'm mainly referring to how easy it is to game the system by issuing billions or even trillions without backing them by Gold right off the bat. Inherently, countries have always first issued fiat, then bought Gold to hold in their reserves.

There is no truly independent entity to verify how much Gold they have in their reserves to back all the fiat they issued. I'm not even sure how that would be possible since countries tend to store their Gold geopgraphically for safer distribtion of reserves.

If people think Gold is a bubble that's bursting, they are highly mistaken. It takes a few seconds to pull out a Gold chart to point out that its price has been trending up slowly, exactly like how it should perform. It's not a get rich quick scheme like most shitcoins are. It's a serious asset for serious people.

Gold's bubble bursted back in 2011 after a bull run that left people in the financial world bewildered. It saw a correction of ~45% afterwards but that's perfectly normal considering the profit taking that has to happen. Speculation isn't any different within Bitcoin or within Gold. People are keen to buy things that go up and sell them the moment they go down.

No asset is a safe haven when people have bills to pay and investors have debt to pay off. 

It's impossible to not have people be too optimistic, mainly so with how crypto influencers on social media are bullish regardless of the price. It doesn't matter if the price is $9000 today and $1000 tomorrow, the same bullish predictions are made where these influencers pull out every possible metric to convince noobs of their research and whatnot.

Influencers notice from their statistics that a continuous bullish narrative generates far more views and clicks. People are generally long because they wait for $100,000 to become rich, which means that they have no interest in bearish content. It's even like that on Bitcointalk where a realistic not so bullish outlook will likely result in users to call you a troll or a fud spreader.

Ouch. It's not boding well for the short term price action as we are very near a bearish close below the 200MA on the daily. I really expected bullish continuation after the high volume 40% pump in 24 hours, but nope, down we go.

We were not far from having a very bullish cross of the 147EMA and the 21EMA on the daily, but today's plunge prevented the cross to perfection. It seems like a move driven by algorithms, which is possibly a sign that the accumulation stage of the big players has not finished yet. Good thing is that their accumulation stage can be your accumulation stage too.

OpenBazaar isn't a plain website natively. It requires you to download and install software in order to actually use it.

I'm pretty sure that even if people land on OpenBazaar's site (which is very doubtful to begin with as their SEO is piss poor), they will close the site because they have no interest in downloading and installing software. They might even think it's a fake site because who needs to download software to visit a market place site? 

It's sad to see how OpenBazaar doesn't get the credit it deserves, but there is no demand for it, nor do people understand the working of it.

People don't care about looking silly, they accept that the moment they claim to be the inventor of Bitcoin publicly. Every clown claiming to be satoshi is getting a shit ton of media attention, which is exactly what they are after.

Some days ago Andreas Antonopolous in a tweet warned his followers about how another faketoshi (going by the name Jorg Molt) pretends to be friends with him to gain trust. It's obviously a good thing that Andreas warns his followers, but he directly made sure that the dude got featured in dozens of articles because of that. He got the fame he was looking for, and that with little effort.

Craig Wright should sue the dude for impersonating him.

Ripple is smart. The gang behind it owns most of the coins in existence. All they did is create hype around their project where people now believe that institutions will use it as settlement layer. In the background, Ripple has sold billions of coins to otc buyers. If that isn't a smart way to unload your bags without immediately crashing the market like outright scams do, I don't know what is.

The scheme ends when all their reserves are sold out. Currently they have 50 billion to unload still.

It's technically not even the cost aspect that makes a 'super computer' not a good Bitcoin miner, it's more the task area it's supposed to be super good at. It might be a super computer in one area but a complete sucker in some other areas. This is also why students thinking to utilize their super computers within the university network to mine Bitcoin won't come far at all.

Mining is such a waste of time. It's much easier and rewarding for people to just buy Bitcoin and sit on it. No stress about difficulty increases which eat through your income, no stress about broken gear, no stress about sudden changes in power rates, etc. Too many factors that point out how people should mess around with mining.

If you want to support the network, run a full node or provide liquidity to Lightning with a small chunk of your freshly bought coins.