|
Some dealers will indeed get caught.
Some of them will have clever systems of sending from different addresses, as well as accepting Bitcoin payment and mixing their holdings. Some of them will even disguise what they do with the post - I've seen stories of dealers hiding drugs inside varying and real-looking mail like leaflets, for example.
They won't all do the same thing, but trust me, they're pretty good at covering their tracks if they do it regularly.
|
|
|
|
Crypto InvestmentLink: http://cryptoinvestment.cf/Investment Plans: 4% daily for 30 days, 150% after 60 days. Min Spend $50 Referral Commission 2%
Withdrawal Type Manual About us
I don't want to write here these bullshits like other scammers site does.
We will be trading with some of the invested cash (will send proofs) and we will be investing them in good prospering programs like ours
Every plan is clearly calculated and referral commission is set up to stay alive for about 5-6 months.
If there will be any problem with hosting, we can still make payment, because they are manual. Plans Details:
4% Daily* Deposit included * For 30 days * Total ROI 120% 150% After 60 days* Deposit return * After 60 days * Total ROI 150% 4% a day, is 1200% a year. If anyone still thinks this is an investment program, you're horribly wrong. This is another obvious ponzi, with an admin behind which just wants to make some quick bucks. No no no, you need to calculate compound interest. If it was actually a trustworthy investment scheme (which it's not), people would keep their Bitcoin in and hold it there while it grows. Compounding it, an "investment" of 1 Bitcoin would be worth BTC129,911 in one year, or BTC17,431,955,607.29 in two years. Now you can see how ridiculous it is. |
|
|
|
|
Here's exactly why people need to get their funds out of online wallets to private/personal wallets straight away. Any information which governments could use to find your identity will be exploited and sooner or later you'll end up paying some big taxes.
|
|
|
|
The only way to get a reasonable hard fork, is if it's not rushed (4 months is rushed) and if it includes more technological innovations than a mere 2MB increase. There are lots of cool things we could add in a proper hard fork.
I don't know about that. I'm sure that there are plenty of technological innovations to include, but some are already included in SegWit and four months is just an addition to the well over a year that the debate has already been happening for. I agree that it shouldn't be completely new code in just four months (that is rushed), but that's basically a temporary proposal that will die down. This is all about Jihad Wu's ego. He just wants to get something out of this.
Now we're getting into tin foil hat territory. The only thing that we can judge from an objective standpoint are his economic incentives, which are broadly to let Bitcoin scale as soon as he feels altcoins are becoming a threat. |
|
|
|
probably not your retirement fund manager or even wall street traders so why should this man from Greece where economic turmoil is persistent in the economy be able to do it?
From Bulgaria. Retirement fund managers and wall street traders deal with large amounts of money and safe investments. Everyone was aware that this was high-risk, but the OP provided enough details for us to assume that he was doing what he said he was and that it could work in the short term with low amounts. And we're not talking about the odd $200 reselling, that's easy, i can get $40 from anywhere as well. But the fact that he was invested over $10,000 in funds meant that there was no sustainable way - and no he definitely couldn't resell anything to gain that, unless he is selling drugs which he appeared to not be.
At each point in earnings he would give new details as to what he claimed to be doing, such as buying iphones and reselling them after unlocking them. He also said that he would not take investments larger than 5 Bitcoin as he "didn't have use for them right now". At least I don't think that he should keep the money. JackpotRacer is supporting scammers and spreading malicious sentiment. |
|
|
|
Everyone is talking about correction. Yeah there is going to be one, no doubt about it.
But whatever you feel like it's not going back to 1500$. So is it really worth to risk everything by trying to "see" a correction right now? :p
Just take a cocktail and ejoy the cool train to 4k$
Significant corrections are barely happening. At nearly every point I've thought there's going to be a correction but I've been too skeptical.
However, the tiny corrections of $50-100 that we've been seeing along the way and the sideways movements are solid. It shows that we're not drifting into bubble territory (yet). |
|
|
|
Hello. Could anybody provide me information about BTC exchange services where I can choose some highest fees for quick transaction? Such as bitsler. Many thanks!
BTC exchange service is where you go to trade bitcoin! fees you pay for transactions are for on-chain transactions and has nothing to do with that! bitsler is a gambling site which has nothing to do with anything you said so far! so would you mind rephrasing your question and asking what you really are really trying to do?! I think he's trying to put his money into a third party and use it as a "wallet" while they pay the fees for him (like exchanges do). Gambling sites often do this. Personally, I definitely wouldn't recommend it. You'll likely get caught for suspicious activity, and your funds could actually be suspended as these services are very shady and can withhold your Bitcoin under many circumstances. Furthermore, fewer and fewer of these exchanges/gambling sites are covering the fees for you, especially if you're only doing small transactions which is the only case in which you should need to do this. Really, you should just take it to a personal wallet and pay yourself. |
|
|
|
Okay, well I’m very glad to hear that. We really need for these scaling wars to end, so the potential for SegWit to be activated is really nice. Perhaps soon we can say goodbye to 2$ 5 hour transaction fees  I think this is why bigger companies like Xapo are supporting this. They want to move forward, but the scaling issues are holding them back. It is too early in the game to say if this is good or bad, but I think any type of scaling will be better than none at all. I will listen to arguments from both sides and make up my mind based logic reasoning. I am also happy this scaling thing is going forward... we have stalled too long... 2MB is coming, if we want it or not.  Some of these companies will just be appeasing the group of miners who support BU. I would argue that BitPay still supports SegWit to some degree. Perhaps their dramatic turn in opinion was actually because they expected that a shady compromise like this one would actually push a legitimate solution further? |
|
|
|
So is it an attempt to stop the User activated fork getting traction ?
yes, because the period from august 2017 to november 2017 is the enforced period for Segwit ... not the LOCK period. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawikiso Segwit2Mb is a trap. they want introduce the 2Mb before SegWit LOCK. So the folks who want 2Mb don't trust the SegWit people not to break away after SegWit is locked and block a later block size increase? Sounds understandable given the emotionalism on this issue. It would be very disruptive to activate SegWit and then deactivate it before LOCK. Seems unlikely the miners would do this. It seems far more likely that the SegWit folks would increase their opposition to a block size increase to 2 Mb once they already have what they want. I am not understanding why this is not a reasonable roadmap forward. Any block size increase is not a reasonable roadmap forward. It solves nothing! It just postpones the inevitable next block size increase - 4mb, 8mb, 16mb... until full centralization. Big blocktards will accept anything just to follow this roadmap. This solution is basically just trying to retaliate against UASF by pushing through something suspicious much earlier, but a block size increase with SegWit is not necessarily a bad way forward. Since Bitcoin started in 2009, the amount of storage which people typically have has much more than doubled. Now it's fairly normal to have 2 terabyte hard drives like one of my computers does, while in 2009 it was very new for that to be conventional. It's OK for the block size to rise if the average amount of capacity people's computers have raises faster than the size of the blockchain. What's important is that the block size is not flexible and it can't just rise often like it could if BU went through. |
|
|
|
The core Devs were too late to act...
ASIC Mining = Centralized business
...
There seems to be a confused irony in your statements. It seems that you think that a decentralized Bitcoin should remain centralized around the devs of a specific wallet. Or am I reading that all wrong? What is it you don't understand? Devs set the rules. If the rules are broken, the whole system becomes broken. This system is broken for what it is and devs should fix it. Everything has a starting point. Satoshi created bitcoin and he was in the center of the bitcoin's blockchain system for a while. Means bitcoin was centralized around Satoshi but he didn't like it so he tried to make it decentralized with the support of the people, us.  ASIC companies hacked the code, he failed. Now the core devs can accomplish what satoshi couldn't. They can set new rules and save bitcoin from being centralized. ...No. If devs could just change anything that they wanted to, they could completely destroy Bitcoin at any point. That's the whole reason that we have consensus systems like hashrate. |
|
|
|
Thanks for all the great comments. My belief that blockchain technology will save humanity is reinforced. Note: the amount of power dedicated to the network is not about how much is needed or how many transactions are sent, it's about how much profit miners can get from the block reward and from transaction fees. Therefore the power used could actually go down in the long term. |
|
|
|
Nobody can quickly add a few changes as it suites them and I doubt if the same can be said about Ethereum.  I think more people would regard that a bonus than they're willing to admit. It's cool to say you love decentralisation until it starts to impact on you, then you'll fall into the arms of the nearest smooth talker who'll slide your panties off and centralise you before you can hit your rape alarm. Decentralisation is an inconvenience, commitment and long game that eventually pays off in spades when you sit back and think about it. Most people aren't strategic or disciplined enough to realise that. Anything of which the rules can be modified, is by definition centralized because a central entity could decide upon the modification, and could get the collusion of a majority over it. I disagree. A decentralised system like Bitcoin is similar to a democracy in that users can signal support for any changes that they want. You could look at it like proportional representation except each "party" is a mining pool, and the mining pool have a naturally created threshold for being relevant which is a high enough percentage of the hashrate for people to mine there. Even in most major PR-based democracies, the country ends up being a collection of just a few different parties with different proposals, often claiming to have the same goals while having different ways to get there. Eventually either a majority Parliament is formed in these democracies, or there are problems which eventually have to result in a coalition (a compromise or a chain split in Bitcoin's case). Bitcoin is very comparable to these democracies and can therefore change while still, in theory, being decentralised. |
|
|
|
Many skeptics say that after reaching the barrier in 2000 dollars, the price will begin to fall. This is due to the fact that many are willing to sell at a price of $ 2,000. I also have doubts that the price will go up
$2000 is a psychological barrier, which indeed might be a target people will cash out at, but at this point there is a good level of coin scarcity across all exchanges. I don't know about that. Current 24 hour trading volume is well over a billion dollars according to coinmarketcap. Overall due to arbitrage between the Western exchanges, the coins aren't actually that scarce even though the smaller price fluctuations can be triggered by a small amount. |
|
|
|
You know, you have a lot of capitals and LELs without a lot of actual points. BTCForJoe got it just right: From an outside perspective (and I know you're probably going to pick apart this post and have a reply for everything, based on your past posts), you're nit-picky attitude isn't helping any situation; it's just a self-entitled form of gloating that you somehow got the upper hand in this situation.
Based on your current attitude, you're probably going to insult him for using the wrong kind of "your" in the context of that sentence.
It's extremely suspicious how strongly you support scammers keeping their victims' money. Considering what your trust page is looking like, I can see why you'd think that way. |
|
|
|
In reality it's not very much, and it'll be even less for Ether when it's not even meant to be a currency in its own right.
Doesn't matter what it's intended to be. What matters is how people choose to use it. How people choose to use it is the same way that people have (mostly) chosen to use Bitcoin so far - as a speculative investment. This is obvious since Ether is more convenient for transactions right now but the Bitcoin market is much bigger and Bitcoin is used more. Bitcoin's tech is absolutely revolutionary and creates a new world for currency, while Ethereum's system is a great development for app technology, but this doesn't have to instantly translate into usage as this will take a long time. To pretend that Ether is naturally better as a currency wouldn't really be true, since as long as Bitcoin's fees are low relative to fiat (which they will be when SegWit happens) people will keep Ether to its real purpose. Ether shows a big development in decentralised applications and eventually it will be used mostly for that, in the same way that eventually Bitcoin will be used more as a currency. |
|
|
|
ETH is:
-Not supposed to be a currency
But darknet merchants have accepted ETH as a payment method starting this month I think. We all remember how price of Bitcoin was skyrocketed after it started to use at Silkroad market "Darknet merchants" (of which there are many who don't all do the same thing, by the way) can accept whatever coins they want, and can accept several different currencies at once provided that they don't think any of them will compromise their privacy. It's hard to underestimate how much of the Bitcoin and altcoin markets are actually made up of darknet markets. In reality it's not very much, and it'll be even less for Ether when it's not even meant to be a currency in its own right. |
|
|
|
We might cross $2100 soon.
GDAX topped $2102 not that long ago, while Bitfinex slightly topped $2099 as peak. Interesting will be how long we can maintain the $2000 level. I am still waiting for that correction to happen, but currently it looks like no one is really willing to contribute towards that correction. People are firmly holding their coins, which is something I haven't seen before in my time in Bitcoin (bought my first coin around $20 back in early 2013). In that regard, we can't really apply that what happened back in the days, to how things are right now. I expected the price to hover just under $2000 for a while considering how many people looked like they were going to sell at 2k. All that's important is that the Bitstamp price remains over 2000. Currently it still looks like it's wavering and it's not quite safely over that mental barrier. IMO it'll stay around here for a week or so before it starts going higher. It won't dip though. |
|
|
|
Why use a new virtual currency LGD?
These guys could just use bitcoin and be done with it. Having an other alt - Buying it in another exchange, storing it and using it at the strip clubs can be a headache. Things would be a lot smoother if they just used Bitcoin.
But remember, every activity, area or anything else needs a new currency, that's why we have Spaincoin and Concoin... I do sort of get the idea of paying with virtual currencies though, since they hold real fluctuating value. It would be interesting for everyone doing their amateur trading and everything. |
|
|
|
This is pathetic. You only posted your "due diligence" after he'd stopped paying. It's easy to say that something is a scam when they've already stopped paying, and all you did was Google a username.
Hey man, please give me some info: what other scammers use the same screen name for every forum they go on? The answer is, there aren't any. Google would have done nothing in any other circumstances, that's where probability comes in - hence why I called you a "lucky idiot".
Obviously ranlo is much better at doing due diligence than you, because he actually did it on the person and his intentions rather than doing something which people do to feel like they're special.
You're also insulting me for having a signature ad, which you have as well.
I don't need to answer your loaded, retrospect-based bullshit. You're in bed with scammers.
You're still heavily implying that you believe scammers deserve to keep their money and that they shouldn't be punished. If that's your way of thinking, why not go and run your own investment scam?
Nice "poll" there.
just do your DD and you will see that I warned before he stopped and maybe some saved some coins. Your first post was here. He stopped paying the day before that, which is why he was responding too slowly to the thread. Retrospect is a wonderful thing. yea and thx for showing your sig
You have a signature ad. Are you blind? |
|
|
|
|
This is pathetic. You only posted your "due diligence" after he'd stopped paying. It's easy to say that something is a scam when they've already stopped paying, and all you did was Google a username.
Hey man, please give me some info: what other scammers use the same screen name for every forum they go on? The answer is, there aren't any. Google would have done nothing in any other circumstances, that's where probability comes in - hence why I called you a "lucky idiot".
Obviously ranlo is much better at doing due diligence than you, because he actually did it on the person and his intentions rather than doing something which people do to feel like they're special.
You're also insulting me for having a signature ad, which you have as well.
I don't need to answer your loaded, retrospect-based bullshit. You're in bed with scammers.
You're still heavily implying that you believe scammers deserve to keep their money and that they shouldn't be punished. If that's your way of thinking, why not go and run your own investment scam?
Nice "poll" there.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
