If I'm remembering correctly, Poloniex still has a withdrawal fee of 0.0001.

Still, I wouldn't trust them to send a transaction in a timely fashion at all considering all the complaints of delays recently.

---

I say just suck it up and use Bittrex.  Their fee is 0.001, and it's not too bad when you're using normal amounts.

Market cap = price x total coins in circulation.

Volume = the amount the coin has been traded in a set time frame (for cryptocurrencies, typically 24 hours).

The market cap can be misleading, as the amount of coins that are actually being traded may vary relative to the amount of coins that have been created and are theoretically in circulation.  It's hard to say how accurately the market cap reflects the value of the coin, but it's usually not well.

BIT.AC is an absolute bloodbath...

There's this thread about potential bankruptcy, this thread arguing that it was an inside job and this thread questioning its legitimacy.

It's an online wallet, meaning that you never controlled your funds but they controlled it for you.  I believe they had an affiliate program, meaning that their costs could have exceeded what they earn from using the service, in which case they could have gone bankrupt or had some other issues.  Because these wallets are not properly regulated, anything is possible and likely.

I don't think that matters if the thing you're spending is valuable.

If we had 0.042 BTC to spend on the Lightning Network, we'd be talking about about $100 now (and probably more by the time it's implemented).

On Litecoin it'll be much less, but that's fine because the LN is primarily for microtransactions anyway.  Onchain transactions will always be necessary but if we're talking about >0.042 BTC for example, the fees won't be too high.

It really is hilarious how most people on the Internet just get so caught up with their preconceptions that they just make loud assumptions without backing them up with anything meaningful whatsoever.  You've assumed that more people support one side than the other just because of what you think, rather than from any meaningful evidence, because you've separated "real people" from "those other people".

If it doesn't hold the longest chain, it's a BITMAIN-dominated chain and it's an outrage to decentralisation - if it does hold the longest chain eventually that would be interesting to me, but it doesn't seem likely at this point.

IMO this is a similar mentality that leads people to supporting BIP 148 even though the main justification that they gave for avoiding a hard fork was that it would cause a chain split.

They have a thread here.  You can probably contact them, but they haven't been active since last month.

Their whois information shows that they're somewhat new - this doesn't mean that they're illegitimate necessarily but it does mean they have less of a standing in the community.  They also don't have any substantial announcements that I can find.

They're not suspicious particularly but they wouldn't be my first choice.

True.  Coinbase is not seizing accounts, nor is it doing anything particularly malicious.

However, you have to wonder what exactly happens to those coins that aren't claimed within the required period.  When people hold Bitcoin, they don't have to actively monitor it all the time - while I realise that Coinbase had little choice but to suspend Hawaiian accounts, I cringe a little to think they could be gaining a lot of money from people who didn't claim in time.  Bitcoin holders like to feel safe that they can forget for a year or two and their coins would be safe.
It's nothing like that.  A comparison that I would actually make is putting money in a bank - the intermediary is trusted more than random people on the street, but Bitcoin is supposed to get rid of these intermediaries, so I'd call it a middle ground between terrible and normal Bitcoin.

Immutable cryptocurrencies can be easily developed which are not Bitcoin.  It's true that Bitcoin has a "brand" and public standing, but this is not necessarily sustainable.

New tech being developed does compromise immutability/stability, but:

1.  You only have to know that the currency you're using for the payment is safe for the amount of time you spend doing the transaction.
2.  Bitcoin is not 100% immutable, hence UASF/UAHF/BU/SegWit etc.
3.  Any other cryptocurrency could reach that standing while not being limited in the same way that Bitcoin is, or be exactly the same as Bitcoin and just be used because it has no/low fees at the time of use.
Yeah, I pretty much agree with this.  ETH have got something but it's been overplayed.  ETC makes more sense.

I disagree.  Who runs the code is completely relevant if that group has a lot of power.

The difference is that Core's power is to propose code, while BITMAIN's power is to signal for it.

If BITMAIN, a private mining company, decides to go off and propose their own code, it means that they have control over their new chain unless enough other miners signal for their code to negate their power.  For now, this is basically manipulation of the new chain since they have the power for 51% attacks, potentially for a long time considering that the market won't support their chain for a while, and the power to create changes in the code without consulting miners which are supposed to be independent from developers.

True.  But an important point is that the exchange does not give you keys to your house periodically to let you enter - it comes over and puts the keys in the door themselves.  This is the "key" difference here.

There's also a final scenario, which is that someone steals the keys to your house from you (hacks your computer or something, depending on how you secure your coins).  Then they can take everything inside.

---

There are three problems with storing your keys/coins with an exchange:

1.  If the exchange wants to throw away the keys, or keep them and access your house without your consent, or lie and pretend that your keys were stolen, they can.  If the exchange are monitored by the police it's harder for them to do this, but still possible.

2.  Exchanges are a much bigger target for theft than you are.

3.  Bitcoin brings independence for money.  There's not much difference storing your Bitcoin in an exchange to storing fiat in your bank.

This is awfully misleading.  Almost no one gets back the money from a Bitcoin-related scam - that's exactly why scammers tend to operate with Bitcoin or between Bitcoin and another system (e.g. PayPal).

OP, you should report this user but they won't be banned - they'll just receive negative trust.

---

You need to understand that the trust system is very close to useless.  If you see that a user was inactive for a long time before that trade, they're probably a scammer.  If on their trust page it notes that their email or password was changed recently, they're probably a scammer.  If they're trading with PayPal, they're probably a scammer.  If they're obviously reluctant to use escrow, they're probably a scammer.

1.  Banking and ownership.

2.  Free payments and money transfers globally.

3.  International remittances.

4.  Cybersecurity.

5.  Academic records.

6.  Voting.

7.  IoT (e.g. IOTA).

8.  The music industry, and being fairer to artists in general.

9.  Prediction markets (e.g. Augur).

10.  The stock market, and decentralised exchanges like Waves.

11.  Real estate.

12.  Insurance (with oracles from cryptocurrencies like Byteball, using publicly available data).

13.  Cloud storage (e.g. MaidSafe, Storj).

14.  Supply chain management.

15.  Provably fair mechanisms in gambling and decentralised betting.

16.  Gift cards from small businesses.

17.  Gun tracking.

18.  Wills (feat. oracles and/or nLocktime transactions).

19.  Charities and their transparency.

20.  Ride sharing and Uber-like platforms.

Sources:  my brain and this article.

Money control like this doesn't work anyway.

It can stop the small criminals from buying Bitcoin, because they don't want to go through all the hassle just to get it.  Governments could even start banning sites like LocalBitcoins and ways for sellers to meet buyers for all we know.

But as long as Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies exist, there will be people buying them anonymously. 

Any criminal looking to launder >$1,000,000 worth of fiat money through Bitcoin - they'll do it.  It doesn't matter if exchanges implement KYC to match government regulations because that's not really their choice.

Dumb statement.  Bitstamp asking for documents (which would show they're not part of a country Bitstamp doesn't support), is nothing to do with this crazy questionnaire of KYC regulations.
It's only like that because it hasn't been adopted on the clearnet so much yet - this is blindingly obvious.  As a real transfer system used for payments it would not be the same at all.
Bitcoin's purpose is not anonymity, it's decentralisation.  The two are unrelated, and decentralisation =! anonymity.  Anyone who buys from Bitstamp can just move it back to their personal wallet, so I somewhat agree.
Correction:  every trustworthy exchange does this.  BTC-E doesn't, but I wouldn't trust them with 1 satoshi.

No online exchange is safe in the current situation, and you might find that your payment is delayed for a long time.  That said, I would feel safest buying at Bitstamp (or ideally, at LocalBitcoins).
You can buy some of them at Kraken.  If you're looking for additional coins which are less known, you can go on Bittrex.

I'm referring to any argument against what BITMAIN does.  You clearly recognise that these arguments exist since the title of your thread is "and they say Bitmain is the miner we should be worried about..."

My point is that you're starting a thread to deflect arguments onto another pool.

It would make logical sense if you'd started a thread saying "Bitfury has done/said X", but instead you've started a thread saying "look, BITMAIN isn't bad now! We have another mining pool to insult!"

I don't see why it would be split into lots.  It's not very much for a rich person.

---

The South Korean government has obviously known that Bitcoin has value for a long time.

They know that perfectly well because they know that these 216 bitcoins were used to pay for illegal activities, meaning that other groups accept that they have value.

What really matters is that the South Korean government has recognised that it can be used by legitimate civilians rather than just criminals by selling to what they hope are legitimate civilians.

Chipmixer is a new mixer.  They're trying to build a reputation.  I assume that they also don't have a very high volume yet.

I think support should answer very quickly, considering their activity on Bitcointalk and Reddit.  Even if they were scammers (unlikely), they would do it much later when they have many more users.

Your site design and layout is very similar.  I wouldn't call it "misleading" since you're both just independent businesses (and in epay.info's case, a scam now), but I can see how people would make that mistake.

You just need to add a clear disclaimer where you let people contact your support, clarifying that you're not the faucet cache epay.info.  Then you'll get less pressure from scammed epay.info users.

Factors:

-Other cryptocurrencies are mainly traded against Bitcoin, so the graphs run close to parallel (all the top charts are down by nearly the same amount).
-BITMAIN's UAHF means that now August 1st will get even messier.  Fear for the future.
-High fees for both Bitcoin and ETH leading to a decrease in confidence, as the price seems to be mostly speculation-based.