Very true, but as those $2k-$2.5k levels are in talks, I only see a big dump incoming which would take it there and back up to $3k just to prove many of these predictions wrong and as well make a fortune for shorts who're into leveraging over this since $6k. I also see that the demand had surged down gradually after BTC reached these heartbroken levels and even though it's dirt cheap, nobody is interested in buying it. The volumes last year for buying were higher than now and this shows lack of interest and purchasing power of a common man to purchase this super risky asset. Probably, they're waiting for something we call "bottom" and accumulations will start once it reaches those levels in talks as fear has been spread a lot and everyone has been brainwashed about no chances of BTC going back up. It's the word of mouth mostly that gives value to almost anything, and due to having a very bitter experience with Bitcoins, many would just speak negative and othersher will remain quiet in the hope of getting their coins' value increased.

many people use trading bot and for that many people got ban from exchange. Also there is a chance to be scammed for using trading bot. So we should be alert while purchase a trading bot.

i am not used any bots  can we get profit using these bot any proof ?

Again, the government in haste enacts laws. How are they going to control it? Such an opportunity, as I understand it, no. Or will they force exchangers to cooperate?

Speculators (and their bots) will clearly have positions on the exchanges with the biggest volumes.
The centralized exchanges suits them best because of the off chain transactions, where they can buy and sell and buy again all day with much lower fees.

And most don't understand that exchanges have become the Banks of crypto, having so much money in their cold wallets (hopefully) that they can easily destabilize the market or use the real money for their own needs, since many don't really withdraw.

Proof of work was only ever a way to take central control out of the Bitcoin system. But decentralisation is hard – centralisation is always more efficient. So decentralisation failed by 2014, when mining had recentralised to a few large pools. Remember the 51% apocalypse in 2014?

Bitmain has controlled up to 50% of the mining (across multiple pools), makes 80% of the ASICs, and already messed with the BTC hash rate in late 2017. Nobody cared much at the time, because the crypto bubble was in the throes of full “number go up” on the exchanges.

The point of cryptocurrency was decentralisation. If you remove that, the only question left is “why on earth are you bothering with all of this.”

(There’s arguably a hypothetical use case for a centrally-administered blockchain-like currency, such as XRP, which then doesn’t have to bother with proof of work. In that case, we’re still waiting for non-hypothetical production systems that move beyond pilot stage.)

It turns out that crypto communities make a lot of noise about the value of decentralization, but when you look under the covers, the entire coin comes down to a very small number of participants. For instance, Bitcoin’s blockchain is constructed by 19 mining entities, that’s it. Ethereum’s blockchain is constructed by 11. These are tiny numbers. While it’s true that each and every one of these mining entities consists of multiple sub-players, the fact is that they have come together under a unified entity and are operating together as one big business unit. There is a narrative that mining pools are internally decentralized, that there is invisible decentralization in these systems.


That argument turns out to be complete bunk. It’s like the emperor’s new clothes: they claim that there is something there that no one can see or measure or touch. The bottom line is participants in a mining pool are typically in no position to question what a pool operator is doing. They are in no position to detect when a pool operator launches an attack. So this narrative that these entities are internally decentralized doesn’t hold water. They might not be incorporated, but they are very much one group of people operating for a common cause.

...Certainly, the Iranian economy will experience strong growth, infrastructure needs are high. But so are the legal and "reputational" risks for the investor in Iran...

...European and, in particular, French companies would be exposed to significant legal and reputational risk from Asian and US actors if they do not exercise their human rights due diligence responsibility before any commercial relationship in Iran....

Do you have some links for those GPT websites for surveys so i can add them?

Don't they do direct SEPA transfers to/from customers? I thought EU regulations required KYC at €1,000.

If there are multiple transactions of less than €1,000 which appear to be linked, you must check how much the linked transactions add up to. If they add up to €1,000 or more, you must verify the complete information of the payer or payee.

I'm so not going to read this. Didn't even read the full details of the hack a fortnight ago, because this name is now forever going to be associated with terminal mismanagement and negligence. How do the same hackers steal AGAIN in 2 weeks?

P.S. Isn't it New Zealand based and not Switzerland? I've always known them as a Kiwi exchange. I know last year they were bought over by new management but it still remained NZ, since it was providing support for that NZ stablecoin.

If bitcoin is banned in a country (X) for example, and you make an exchange, and somehow, people in that (X) country are interested in using your exchange, can that country somehow enforce you to give documents about these users?