not sure if you guys already heard, but poloniex will require personal info and introduces new stricter withdrawal limits from 20th may onwards. (they also introduced margin trading today)
I wonder how this will influence the price/liquidity short term.
that would totally defeat the purpose of monero, wouldn't it? |
|
|
|
|
Question is, are we moving up or down?
|
|
|
|
nothing stops you using any ingame currency.. EG many games have their pretend currency as "dollars" and governments dont shout out that its counterfeit or money transfer..
.. but just be sure to subtly make your users aware that its fake "credits" called bitcoin and not actual bitcoin. otherwise many people will complain that your scamming them because they thought they were playing with/earning real bitcoins.
That. It will DEFINITELY happen. I can't understand how stupid some people in the world are, but they're everywhere. You'll have your hands full with all the complaints that will come, even if you say "This is a game currency, not the "real" bitcoin" somewhere on every page. But then, because of this, you'll get "players" that you would not have gotten otherwise, since they think they can earn real bitcoins. |
|
|
|
|
Doge is dead. So is LTC.
So that leaves BTC.
But since you're looking for 3, then I'll top it off with DASH and XMR.
I don't expect both to succeed. But it's possible one of them might succeed. All the other coins seem very unlikely to go mainstream.
|
|
|
|
A successful coin will emerge, but it will be one which doesn't need a fair launch.
I agree that a coin doesn't necessarily have to have a "fair launch" to be successful. But I don't agree with everything else you said. The thing is, what's the incentive for people to use your coin? There is none. Remember, liberatarians are a very, very small part of the population. The rest of the people enter for 2 reasons: 1. To make money 2. When a coin becomes THE way to pay for everything, they kind of are forced to adapt. With your coin, there is no incentive to join the network for the first movers, so there is never enough network effects for the people who enter for reason 2. The "cost" for using any cryptocoin is near 0. You still keep the purchasing value of your fiat when you use fiat to buy the coin. For example, if I bought $100 dollars worth of bitcoins when they were $10 each, I'd get 10 bitcoins, which would buy me $100 worth of stuff. If I buy $100 dollars worth of bitcoins now, I can still use it to buy $100 dollars worth of stuff. The cost is nothing. That's why people still can switch, even if they're very late. There are no penalties*. But early movers get an advantage to use it, so there is an incentive to enter before it's too late. *Most people don't consider the opportunity cost. Such is the world. |
|
|
|
are they even safe, their site doesn't have the certificate, it look not a bit incompetent to me
there aren't better bank account for uk? you should try deutesch bank instead, they have zero fee on everything
for okcoin it's better to ask their support for those kind of thing
Who's they? HSBC or OKcoin? HSBC is like one of the biggest banks in the world. And I'm not in the UK, I'm in Canada. I happen to have money on an HSBC account, I'd rather just directly wire it, but if it's too risky, I might have to go through the trouble of doing a bunch of things to get it somewhere else. Not a lot of options in Canada, at least ones that I'm aware of. And pretty much all the canadian exchanges are dead. |
|
|
|
|
I am so worried that for some reason Americanpegasus seems to think just like I do. I hope that doesn't mean I'm crazy beyond rehabilitation.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry if this is the wrong section. I was wondering, is HSBC okay with bitcoin?
In particular, I want to make a wire transfer from HSBC to OKcoin. Will they give me a lot of trouble? Or will it be smooth? Thanks in advance, guys.
|
|
|
|
The rich are certainly getting richer, but the poor aren't getting poorer. Who in the 1000s got government assistance, handouts and food stamps? The vast majority of people probably had to work for 6-7 days a week, and for more hours than they currently do. And which king in 1500 had a computer? Or a cell phone? Or a TV? All of that is value.
You obviously do not understand what I said/you're saying. Let's say we have person A who has $10M and person B who has $10K. If person A gets richer and now has $15M, person B is automatically poorer in comparison to him. At first person B had 0.1% wealth that person A had. Later he has 0.066% wealth that person A has. That is the Win-Lose mentality, which is unhealthy. Why do you care if someone else has more money than you*? To say everyone has to be either the same as you or worse off is incredibly selfish. *This is assuming that the 5M person A gained is NEWLY CREATED WEALTH, not some sort of currency inflation that devalues person B's holdings. |
|
|
|
i think your post makes less sense actually
but we really need those stuff you mentioned for survive, those stuff are mandatory they should give us for free, so we can use money for something else, something that will bring us happiness
If the necessities of life are provided for free, then money would be less significant because there are only "wants" that we can buy. I hope that the necessities in life be given for free, but I think that would be too far fetched. Money changed everything since it was used by our ancestors. Why? Because ever since money was used, the concept of evil began to take form. For you to get by every damn day, you will need to have some money on your pocket just to eat and pay for utilities and whatnot. Even if the necessities are given for free, for example produced by autonomous machines, people will still need and use money to buy luxurious goods and services. Imagine a world where you get most things for free. There will always be some rare things like art pieces that people won't give for free. I am imagining a world so advanced that we've been able to get free pretty much everything for millions of years. Mankind has devised ways to bypass physical laws or discovered new ones that allows us to travel faster than light. Or if not, then we would've explored every single solar system can ever reach, based on the laws of physics. I am imagining that people will get so greedy, and want more than what they have, that they'll have to fight for resources again, since there are a finite number of atoms and energy in the universe. Perhaps, only a single being will survive, hogging all the available resources in the universe. Of course this being might occasionally create subservient creatures to keep it entertained and stuff. If humans don't kill each other over trivial matters, and a huge natural disaster (supernovas, sun exploding, black hole nearby, etc) doesn't completely destroy the solar system before we become a type II species, I think that is the future we're looking at. |
|
|
|
The system just can't work without an universal value. Do you want people to revert to trading item for items (which severely limits diversity)?
Nobody is saying that the system isn't flawed. It is what it is. The rich are getting richer, the poor poorer.
The rich are certainly getting richer, but the poor aren't getting poorer. Who in the 1000s got government assistance, handouts and food stamps? The vast majority of people probably had to work for 6-7 days a week, and for more hours than they currently do. And which king in 1500 had a computer? Or a cell phone? Or a TV? All of that is value. |
|
|
|
Goldman Sachs predicts 1,2 bilions USD in bitcoin market . It is 50 000 USD for 1 BTC in future  1.2 billion would be about a third of the marketcap today... |
|
|
|
|
You can't have a payment system without a currency... That's like cooking without food. Or swimming without water.
I would say that it's because bitcoin is a payment system and a currency, an investment and a store of value, it is more than all of the "traditional" ways of categorizing things. It belongs in a new category.
Just as the internet isn't merely a communication system. Is the internet more like a newspaper or a fax machine? Neither. It created a whole new category.
I think that's why bitcoin has potential. It's not because some anti-government kids in that rebellious youth stage trying to rebel against everything that it's valuable.
|
|
|
|
I haven't invested anywhere the amount that I would be considered the "wealthy elite". A guy can still dream I guess.  Maybe quite a few on this forum have enough BTC where this would be true. I think the idea is that you can invest a modest amount of BTC, wait a while for the world to realize the benefits of the technology, and then become part of the wealthy elite since the value of your stash of coins would have grown by then. It worked for the first generation of Bitcoiners, and it could work for us. Say if someone had invested just $3,000 into BTC in October 2011 when they were going for $3 per coin. $3,000 isn't enough for someone to be considered part of the wealthy elite. But if they held onto their coins and sold when they were worth $1,000 each, he would have $1 million and therefore become part of the new wealthy elite. 1M isn't enough to be considered wealthy. By some definitions, 1M British pounds is the bare minimum for "comfortably poor". So 1M USD isn't even comfortably poor, lol. Even in the most optimistic scenarios, bitcoin cannot increase by more than a few thousand-fold. So it would take quite a bit even now if you were to become the wealthy elite. Say 30M as the bar for "wealthy", and bitcoin will increase ~1000x to 250k/per. You would need to invest $30k. Again, this is under the most optimistic scenarios. |
|
|
|
|
scarcity is useless without desirability. But if bitcoin could become desirable enough for the masses, then there's a huge upside.
|
|
|
|
^You betcha! So basically you are telling me to get rid of my scarce money (bitcoin) to some funny unscarce money (fiat). Have you heard about my shitcoin? Unlike Bitcoin, only 18million will ever be mined. Are you selling off your not-so-scarce bicoin and buying my way scarcer shitcoin? Bonus: My shitcoin hasn't lost more than 75% of its value over the past year and a half  Thing is, your shitcoin is useless while I can use my scarce bitcoin everywhere. Can you use it at walmart? Macdonalds? KFC? Burger King? Obviously I agree with your point, but bitcoin is far from being able to be used everywhere. It's usable in *some* places. |
|
|
|
|
Wow my eyesight is bad. I thought those were pepporonis.
|
|
|
|
Is it one of those - the next 24 hours will be critical - things?
No. This time it is for real. Maybe it takes more than 24 hours. Can't you feel the love? are we dropping to $100? ಊ(╰◣▂ ◢╯)Ψ |
|
|
|
Yea but now you are confusing traders with investors.
A trader will have no impact on the price's highness itself, a trader only tightens the spread and ads liquidity to it. Some will win and some will lose but its a zero sum game.
An investor will need rational requirements for to invest in bitcoin, but since it's established, sometimes a low price is enough. Perhaps a few good news.
Okay, I don't see how that invalidates my argument/post. Any intelligent investor knows to cut their losses. They're not going to keep throwing more money down the drain if they think the investment failed. |
|
|
|
If you have enough money that $1k bitcoins will afford you a luxury home, you won't be that excited.
I still can't understand how bad at math some people are. They think that a 4-5x increase will solve all their problems when they probably have less than 10k invested.
The poster might live in Lesotho for all we know. I know sod all about Lesotho but I guess their house prices and definition of luxury might be rather different from your average white devil. I'm embarassed to say this is the first time I heard of that country. Still, given you *probably* don't have all your networth in bitcoin (if you're sane), a 4-5x increase isn't all that much. Unless you're already extremely rich, in which case your probably more long-term thinking. I won't do anything at 1k unless it's an obvious pump and dump. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
