From the link you posted it is clear that this tenth add slot is actually Factoid slots that cannot be rented. Therefore, it is possible to sell/rent only 9 add slots, so I do not see any mystery here.

You haven't been on the forum for a long time to know that this exchange has always been pretty curious about things that others weren’t looking for at the time. Some would say that they even tried to be ahead of the law, in the sense that they wanted to show how legitimate and transparent they are in everything.

There will always be those who will obey every request, but also those who will not agree to such rules of the game - and perhaps because of such rules this crypto exchange is not as popular as some others that emerged years after them (2011).

You can find some interesting information in these two threads :

Is Bitstamp still a good exchange for trading?
If you're using Bitstamp, now might be a good time to ditch it.

---

I think this topic would be more suitable for Exchanges board

I have had a Trust wallet for several months now because I needed it for some testing, but since it is a mobile crypto wallet it is not necessary to enter any personal information, including e-mail, this phishing mail should not be connected in any way with the fact that I am a user of that wallet. Given that this is an e-mail that is publicly available (for those who know how to find it), and that it is one of those that are part of the Ledger leak, I can assume that someone is using that database.


It would be nice to have a warning on their homepage, but it’s buried pretty deep on this link. If every prospective user were forced to read these warnings before creating a wallet, I believe many would be able to avoid phishing scam.

The last time the member was online was almost a month ago, and since most of the cards came from Russian and Belarusian banks, it is not difficult to conclude what is happening. It is not true that these are some anonymous cards because it is about people buying cards that are linked to real accounts of people who open them in banks - in other words, you buy a card issued in the name of some poor man who sells his identity for a few hundred euros per year.

If you don't know how things work, why don't you read the thread that explains everything?

And it's not even a paid ad that mostly tricks many people, but a very skillful manipulation to remove a legitimate page from search results, and to have a fake service at the top. However, the second search result in my case is the ChipMixer signature campaign thread, and it would be logical for me to look for any information about a service I would like to use.

Next time you will surely be more careful because it is best to learn from your own mistakes. Also don't let that discourage you, it can happen to any beginner, even to the more experienced.

I absolutely agree that the average person cares very little about their financial privacy because they think that the authorities know everything anyway and that there is nothing to hide. Therefore, most people don't care whether they use stable coins or CBDC, it is important that the transaction is fast and cheap. As I already wrote, if you have to choose between two evils, it is logical to choose the one that has more legitimacy, and the CBDC of a stable country is probably less evil (risk) than some company that prints tokens as needed without being backed with anything.

Speaking of USDT, some speculate that they have already bought their own state (El Salvador), so I would not be surprised if they move their headquarters in that direction

It's not one year, but 7 years of this way of life - how else could he save so much money to pay a student loan debt and buy a house in Los Angeles where real estate is extremely expensive. Yet man needs to be acknowledged for his perseverance in reaching his goal, for persisting in such an intention for so many years is by no means an easy task.

Imagine if he knew about Bitcoin at the time, a man would surely be a real rich man today

As soon as I read the title, I thought about it, because no matter what someone thinks they have found a way to play the system, all that cheap (free meal) will still be paid dearly, and in this particular case fast food is bad for everyone's health. I remember watching some documentary about someone who did an experiment on what happened after eating only junk food for 1 month, and the results were not pleasant at all.

However, I must admit that I did not know that such services exist, and for someone who would, say, eat one such meal every week, it is really more than a good offer. Many must have been angry when the theme parks canceled such an offer, and all because of one man - he certainly no longer visits theme parks after all

Since this is a very popular mobile crypto wallet used by many beginners, I want to warn everyone who uses this wallet or will use it in the future that there is no verification and do not fall for this cheap trick that scammers have been using for a long time.

A new phishing campaign is currently underway, so if your email leaked somewhere you can expect to receive a message identical to the one I personally received. If you get it in your inbox, report it as spam, and in no case click on the link in the message - it may just be a classic seed stealer, but it is possible that at the other end you will find malware/virus.

Why are you surprised if I showed you an example in which one member of the forum also got a replacement in the same way? Personally, I was more surprised that you want to repair a device that is under warranty, but considering what @SFR10 wrote, if you are in one of the banned countries, you will have a problem with delivery.

A possible solution is to send the new device to someone who is not in the banned country (friend, relative), and then they send it to your address.

If he really helped terrorists, then he really received too little punishment, considering how the USA treated terrorists until it declared the Taliban good guys. Maybe such punishment is somewhere on the trail of a softer policy towards such things, because there are fewer and fewer terrorists, and the machinery to fight them is massive.

Besides, by what definition is North Korea a terrorist country, because that’s what the mighty US says? Each country has the right to develop its own defense mechanisms that guarantee its security, otherwise it will be attacked and occupied.

It would be nice if Mr. Mars hasn't created all that confusion among people with his tweets about various things when it comes to cryptocurrencies, which he himself admits he doesn't know much about. To say that it would be good for Twitter advertisers to be able to pay in Bitcoin, and at the same time to say that his company will not accept that same Bitcoin as a means of payment is not only hypocritical but also completely stupid behavior.

Even if such an option appears, as others have already shown in the examples, the average person who owns Bitcoin is not inclined to use it as a currency, but as an investment.

Since the price was below $40k at one point, the buyer could have had an even better purchase if he had followed the market a little better. But in the long run this is very likely to be a very profitable investment.


DEX or CEX, fees cannot be avoided because everyone wants to make money, and after all, intermediaries are not charities. The only way for people to avoid such high fees is to trade in person, but it always carries certain risks. Fortunately, as I have already written, the person who bought the BTC and paid that fee probably knows that it is a small price considering how much potential there is in the purchased BTC.

I share your opinion, because if I’ve learned anything through all these years, it’s that I don’t use the term “never” when it comes to Bitcoin. However, the probability that the DJ will collapse by as much as 80% is something that is hard for me to imagine, just as the price of 1 BTC could fall below $10 000.

The latter would very likely happen in the event that the most powerful countries in the world take coordinated action with the aim of shutting down all centralized crypto exchanges and putting Bitcoin on the black list. But then we’re talking about an open war against Bitcoin, and that would be like a fight between David and Goliath - given the tools possessed by powerful states, let everyone judge who would be who in that story.

Here we can talk about a lot of people thinking that there is too little Bitcoin (max supply only 21 million) for someone to allow that after someone’s death it happens that his BTC practically goes to the grave with him. The OP says it would be mandatory to avoid this in some way, but fortunately there is no law to regulate that problem in crypto, even when it comes to assets in banks to which no one is entitled. In Germany alone, it is estimated that there are between 2 billion and as much as 9 billion EUR in such bank accounts, with the difference that sooner or later the money will go to the state if no one responds and claims their inheritance rights.


This has become quite common, so sometimes we can say that it is better for family members not to be familiar with some things, because a lot of money means a lot of discord, quarrels, and even violence.

China is a specific country where the government does not ask people if they want something or not, but simply puts them in a situation where they have to use something. Their CBDC is just a continuation of what has long been popular in China, such as WeChat Pay, which they say has about 800 million users, which means that people are already very familiar with digital payments.


Central banks have not recently started using blockchain, but have been doing so for years because they have realized that the potential is huge and the whole thing is completely free. There is information that China entered such research in 2014, and thanks to that, they already have a functional CBDC that is used by almost 300 million people.



I don't have a very good opinion of stablecoins, but I'm not too thrilled to replace them with CBDC - because the question is which is less evil than the two, shady private companies or corrupt governments and their centralized anti-private digital fiat. I agree that this would simplify the matter, but at what cost when it comes to privacy?

If you have a bank account and you have a certain amount of money in that account, in case someone robs the bank, or steals your bank card and steals money that way, the bank will reimburse you in full. From this point of view, the bank looks like a pretty safe place if we would make a comparison with any non-custodial crypto wallet where each user has their own bank.

The key question here is how well the average individual is able to protect their bank from theft/hacking, especially if we consider that in the event that someone steals digital assets from a non-custodial crypto wallet, the chances of recovering such stolen funds are minimal.
 

If the crypto wallet is open source and the code can be checked, and if the user knows what he is doing - then we can say that the security is quite high. If someone doesn’t understand how things work, then hackers happen to have a very profitable business as was the case with Electrum a few years ago when a vulnerability in that wallet was exploited to trick users into downloading a fake wallet and thus losing their BTC.

@Oluwa-btc, how about discussing one topic in one thread?

No matter how excited some are that one city has introduced Bitcoin as a legal tender, we should not exaggerate with enthusiasm and stop reading the forum in order not to open duplicate threads.

Madeira and Prospera "adopting bitcoin"

And I really thought there were intelligent people when it came to Mozilla, but it seems easier to move a thirsty man across the river without him drink water, than to explain to those in the delusion that Bitcoin POW is no disadvantage, quite the opposite.

---

I'm not surprised, Bitcoin is often used as bait, and when you bite, instead of the taste of freedom you feel the bitter taste of CBDC.

Given that life is unpredictable, and that almost always happens something that seemed least likely, in case I do something like that - my wife would get involved with my lawyer, and a lawyer's cousin would work in a bank where I opened the safe deposit box. By the time I realized what was going on, my BTC would have disappeared, along with my wife and lawyer - and they would have set me up for the murder of the banker who was involved in everything

Of course, I'm kidding a bit, but when it comes to Bitcoin, I don't share private keys with anyone, no matter how much someone says it's maybe selfish.