ViaBTC don't want people exploiting them by setting zero fees and then pushing all their transactions through them.  Offering a free service like that is pretty expensive and it's out of their own pockets.  You'll have to use a paid service, otherwise you're just exploiting people.  Use a proper fee next time.

Depends on where you are in Asia, but in most places, especially China where exchanges haven't been allowed to process withdrawals for months.

Your best bet is probably to trade on LocalBitcoins, which has a growing volume.  Don't use PayPal though.

Transactions are only publicly available as pseudonyms called addresses.  If you use a different address to receive from each new person (which Blockchain does for you if that's what you're intending to use) then your privacy is very safe unless someone is doing some kind of full-on police work to find you.

If there are more crypto chains, that isn't always a good thing.  People need long-term speculation and the security of knowing that if they leave their money in a currency, it'll stay for a long time.

Bitcoin is the master chain.  The reason that not everyone through their money into DASH or something is because they know that the price is pretty unstable and it might go down in the long term.  People hold their money in fiat, and even though they know the value will go down a little bit because of inflation, they feel like they have enough security and they know where it's going to go.  Hundreds of chains isn't going to help more money go into cryptocurrency, if the lines are too blurred there won't be much money in crypto at all.

I don't know what you're doing but the "real link" you're providing here sends me to the Chrome privacy error page that it sends you to when you accidentally click on a potentially malicious link.

Are you sure you haven't got the two mixed up?  Or maybe you're actually doing an elaborate malware infection attempt (seems unlikely since you're a senior member and it's probably not worth it)?

It's a pretty bad domain really.  There are a lot of domains that are vaguely similar to Bitcoin or Bitcoins, and the OP, who is probably actually the owner of the domain and is trying to get people to buy it, can't expect to get a lot of money from the bad domain.

It's just a typo error.  It's the sort of thing that you would put a scam site on, like a slight variation of a known domain that someone would put in as a typo.

It's not good enough to get traffic just for existing, and it doesn't look professional, so there's really no reason to have the domain.

Actually, he can.  The $20 billion is only for Bitcoin, while the market cap of all cryptocurrencies put together is about $30 billion, and he was clearly referring to that ("the year of crypto" not "the year of Bitcoin").

I disagree.  There are any number of different factors that can cause the price to go up or down.

The scaling solution debate has been going on for over a year already, and it'll be going on for longer and longer.  If we keep on waiting, we might be waiting until we're on our death bed and we give up.

Scaling in this scenario is just for small payments.  A huge amount of the money in Bitcoin is just a speculative investment, and that's always applied even before the debate started.

Very soon my Bitcoin will be lovely and safe in my TREZOR, which I'm getting delivered now.  Currently I'm having to trust Blockchain with the small amount of Bitcoin that I have, which isn't ideal for me as I like to be more secure.

In the event that a fork happened, it might be a high consensus fork, in which case the BU coin will be doing better and we'd feel more secure because you know that most spending would be on the new chain.  But it seems unlikely that it would happen and a real hard fork would be really messy, so it's important to keep the Bitcoin offline and know when to sell or buy one of the chains depending on which looks like it's dominating the network.

Mining profit margins for Jihan Wu will be a lot higher than that, because BITMAIN's mining facilities are based in China with very low electricity costs and a high profit margin anyway.  It wouldn't actually be that extreme, although you do have a point that it's not just 20% for practical purposes.

OP, let's review your recent scaling-related posts before this thread:








And finally, the most ironic of all:



I'm not here to use any ad hominems against you or personally insult you, but it seems like you haven't actually argued anywhere at all in favour of Core or against BU.  You have only relentlessly called everyone else a shill, over and over, again and again, hour after hour, day after day, on and on and on...

It really is getting a bit boring.  I was quite in favour of Core and still am but I don't let my own biases portray everyone else as evil or view myself as the great saviour of Bitcoin or something.

Half of the "New Labour" MPs seem to just want the Tories to win.  It's just a self-fulfilling prophecy - they say that Labour is unelectable and then basically argue that they shouldn't be elected because they're unelectable, and in turn that stops them getting elected.  Very confusing.

Oh no, someone can't read numbers right.  I think you'll find it's 29.5 billion, not 29.5 million.

Bitcoin's market cap being worth less than 100 million dollars would mean it was practically worthless on a global level, which it's not.  You should check your own maths very carefully before you get too arrogant.

If you're managing to send it to these wallets surely you must have it stored somewhere already?  Where's that?  If you keep sending it from Electrum or something to online wallets maybe you're going the wrong way around.

If it doesn't work this time, you should check the transaction ID of the other transaction as well.  If you're sending to the same address both times, you've probably been the victim of a phishing scam, in which case your computer has a virus and when you paste an address it'll be the address of a scammer instead (so it's not going to the wallet at all).

The "real process" is, a manager decides they want to run an advertising campaign to get their signature across the forum.  If they have someone that just makes crap one-line posts on threads with millions of spammers posting the same thing over and over again.

So the managers go through the process of filtering the trash themselves.  You won't get accepted if they see that you haven't made any posts or your posts are meaningless and you're just desperate to spam your way to a full-time job.

Shapeshift are usually very fast.  That's why they are used by so many people.  It's inevitable that occasionally there will be an error that causes this, and even on Poloniex there are problems occasionally and could be with any exchange at any time.

It's nice to hear some negative experiences for once, but it doesn't mean that you should suggest avoiding them until you've considered all available information.  People who join Ponzi schemes and get payouts think it's going well, but it doesn't stop it being a scam, and in this case it's legit and you having a bad experience doesn't stop it being legit.

The Blockchain wallet's fee estimation is terrible, but it is making normal transactions for you (unlike Coinbase or Xapo, where you can't actually customise your fees because they're not charging you the same that they're paying for the transaction).  You can set whatever fee you want.

You should measure it in satoshi/byte though rather than price.  If Blockchain recommends a fee that high it's probably because your transaction is insanely large for some reason.  Maybe you built up the Bitcoin with hundreds of tiny dust inputs instead of accepting large transactions yourself?

This kind of super-basic price speculation isn't really getting Bitcoin anywhere.  It wasn't actually designed to rise, it was designed to be scarce.  There's a key distinction, which is that it'll only keep rising as long as people have confidence in it and in reality Bitcoin still has a natural inflation rate because of the new Bitcoin being introduced from mining.

Maybe people are thinking that there should be some kind of panic due to the fact that scaling doesn't seem to be going anywhere, but the reason it's not is because alts have just soared much more than any natural amount and that's resulted in big corrections (and in DASH's case, a dump), which is resulting in people storing money in Bitcoin.

The rise is temporary due to the Bitfinex and USDT problems, which will cause a dump back into alts in a month or two unless Bitfinex handles fiat again.

Alts will never rise too much further though, because Bitcoin will just be a place for people to relax as they know that their money is safe, whereas holding it in most other coins it isn't (even in USDT, as we're about to find out), and people will use it as a "digital gold" style storage solution.

The amount of actual cryptocurrency arbitrage bots isn't very high.  In fact, I couldn't name any right now, only trading bots.

Arbitrage, especially with multiple exchanges, needs at least a little bit of a human touch and people with experience.  If there are bots that exist, they'll be mostly in private and hard to get just because of how many things that could go wrong that could damage the coder's reputation.

To some extent Bitcoin needs to be both.  I think that it was only a payment system due to the influx of new money and the high supply of new Bitcoin in the early days.  As time goes on, Bitcoin will require more and more money to be put in for it to be practical, but it will still be practical if you do put that much money in and people will do it so it'll be more like gold.

To some extent, Bitcoin needs the element of digital currency in order to act like gold, because people still need to pass gold between different parties.  Online wallets should be viewed like Goldmoney or something that holds your gold for you because you don't feel like you can handle it yourself.