...If you take certain precautions and pay the right price (pay for mixing services) then you can stay anonymous with bitcoin.
Since 2010 there have been dozens (perhaps hundreds, or even thousands) of media articles that call Bitcoin "anonymous", so many people believe that even though it is not true. If you use Tor, bitcoin fog, and wifi hot spots then you could effectively use bitcoin and be anonymous. In reality, unless you are dealing with a lot of money (at least 6 figures, as measured in US Dollar equivalent) then most likely, no one will be able/bother to discover your identity. |
|
|
|
It looks like they are in a mixer.
All he is doing is breaking them down into multiple multiple smaller amounts with a script (which seems to break every so often, as we are up to 10 confirmations on the 400BTC and 210BTC). The origins of the coins are still clear, so no mixing is happening. He may not be confident to use a mixer, as he may not sure if the mixing service will freeze his funds (obviously stolen funds). Have BITMIXER.IO made any comment on whether they are happy to mix obviously stolen coins? ... It would be very irresponsible to not mix stolen funds like that. It would put into question the fungibility of bitcoin. With that being said they very well could keep logs of the transactions of the thief and disclose what the ultimate output address is. |
|
|
|
|
As of ~a week ago I would have told you to put it in a casino (invest in their bankroll) however with the closing of JD, I don't think this would be a viable option anymore. If PD would allow investors to invest in their bankroll then I would def recommend them.
|
|
|
|
That is crazy. Why would they stop accepting bitcoin? They probably just wanted to get the free publicity. |
|
|
|
I don't think many/any sellers on LBC will accept paypal. There are just too many ways to get scammed.
I'm one of those sellers, sorry i don't want to accept payment that can be reversed, it's just stupid risking for nothing. If you have Paypal money, send it to your account and withdraw on ATM and give me the money in hand, simple. Doing this can take time, which people presumably do not want to spend. Some people also presumably have their bank account overdrawn or otherwise cannot use their bank account. I certainly do not fault you for not accepting paypal. |
|
|
|
Wow look at the blocks with the highest fees on that site...200btc fee? Does that mean that miners have made 250 coins on that single block? It looks like that someone make a very big mistake when making a TX. EDIT: Yes, the miner made 200 BTC in TX fees, and received a 25 BTC block subsidy so they earned 225 BTC as the block subsidy had halved by then |
|
|
|
I think the FED uses the term "sequestered". They are expanding the money supply, but basically only banks get access to it.
The banks get the expanded money supply that is supplied by the Fed. The hope is that banks will increase lending so that more people will borrow money, stimulating the economy. Sounds good in theory but nobody wants to borrow in a recession There is often a elevated demand for borrowing in a recession as people lose their jobs and need to continue to pay their living expenses. The problem with this borrowing is that these borrowers are way more risky then what banks typically lend to |
|
|
|
I agree with the sentiment stated so far in this thread. Although it's a nice sentiment, the domain name won't even come close to $750K. That particular name doesn't have any marketably unique draw to it in terms of a media location. And secondly, there are already multiple locations that serve as a hub in regards to bitcoin.
[As an example point of emphasis: if someone wants to look up bitcoins, he/she will more likely input the term into a search engine than type in bitcoin.com. So what would bitcoin.com offer that is worth $750K?]
bitcoin.com is worth way over 1million usd, as is bitcoin.org. bitcoins.com probably 500-600k If you knew anything about how the domain market works, you'd know that one word, generic, domain names are worth incredible amounts of money. Yes, quite a few people use search engines for domain names etc. But Most people still simply type the domain name into the url bar. Think about it this way, would you rather go on a search engine to visit a website, or simply type that websites name into the url bar? Exactly, you would do the latter(type the websites name into the url bar) because it's way easier than having to go on google everytime you want to visit the website. That's what makes one word, generic, domain domain names like bitcoin.com/bitcoins.com Extremely valuable.its possibly a type of asset that could go into an investor fund for the creditors instead of being flogged off at the lowest price which is wat i can see happening here I don't think an investment fund would have much use for a domain name as the domain would have little way to generate revenue. |
|
|
|
I think the other charges are questionable since AFAIK he did not actually sell any of the drugs, but rather ran the website. I think the charges are similar to bringing charges against this forums mods for scams done by other users.
Agreed. With that being said the muder for hire accusations are very troubling and I am very curious as to why he was not charged with these crimes, even though the murders were apparently not carried out (he could be charged with solicitation of trying to hire a hitman, or whatever the appropriate name of the charge would be).
While I am merely speculating, I would _hope_ the reason he was not so charged was that any discovery process on the part of a competent defense team would uncover evidence of entrapment. Well if he was entrapped into soliciting these murders then I would think that the fact that he allegedly solicited these murders would not be able to be used against him either in trying to show probably cause for his case, for his bail hearings, or in his trial. I might speculate that the government chose not to charge him with these crimes in case he was found not guilty in the crimes he is being charged with now. |
|
|
|
It's already inflationary Controlled supply until 2100 + so you don't really need to worry about it being deflationary in our lifetime  But Danny has a point it depends how people will perceive a decreasing Bitcoin supply Yeah, and no matter the amount of bitcoins created everyday, it doesnt affect the price, there you can know how stable bitcoin price is. The amount of bitcoins created does affect the price, it is that there is demand for the additional coins that are created. |
|
|
|
What I personally do : I own about 30 btc, and I let them sit on Kraken.
I keep them there for several reasons :
- I dont trust myself to keep a paper wallet safe for a long time.
- I mostly trust Kraken, in particular because they have automated audits.
- I want to be ready to sell quickly in case of a huge crash.
Just wow... you are gonna get a BIG lesson in counter-party risk someday. It would probably be a better idea to have 12 BTC at an exchange that allows 2.5x leverage and simply sell bitcoin short in the event that you wish to sell all of your bitcoin. You could keep the rest in a blockchain wallet for example. Another option would be to use the second market bitcoin fund. You would need to pay some fees but the counterparty risk would be much less. |
|
|
|
The key is mobile phones. Mobile phones with cellular coverage and internet are more and more common in developing economies and are a lot more simple to use and affordable than home computers. Even without cellular coverage or service it is still a matter of just scanning QR codes until you do have service (of course this implies a certain level of trust with no confirmations). In the Infinitecoin project this is one of the areas we are trying to focus on. As a large cap altcoin, each coin is more numerous and affordable, and there is a new block about every 30 seconds so confirmations are fast. If you want to check it out Infinitecoin has an android mobile wallet in the Google play store. If you send me a PM I will give you a few so you can try it (please no addresses posted here it is against forum rules, and I will not pay anything to them). https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=de.schildbach.wallet.infinitecoinUltimately a system that could reach developing economies could make strong independent cells of local barter economies that can still connect with the global economic system with ease. To country's with no banking system to speak of, this is a big opportunity to have access to the world economy. Building a cell network is much less expensive than a copper or fiber optic network. Cell phone use is increasing dramatically in 2nd and 3rd world countries. With a trusted wallet a good portion of the developing world can all ready use bit coin. The biggest issue is educating them about it. This will likely (IMO) be how the internet will reach much of the world in the future. This would also be how bitcoin must be used if it will ever be used in day-to-day transactions as many purchases are impulse buys when shopping. |
|
|
|
As described that has absolutely zero chance of being approved by the SEC. Bearer shares and notes are explicitly unlawful under federal law. They are unlawful for expressly that reason. It isn't just a US thing, bearer shares have been outlawed most places on the planet.
Are you sure that bearer bonds is the right comparison? The article says that they are seeking "money transmitting licenses in states that require them", so in practice RealCoin may be more a competitor to PayPal, not a security; and in that case it may not fall under the SECś jurisdiction, but of some other regulating agency (the Fed?). The fed does not have authority over any entity that does not accept deposits for account holders. This kind of setup would likely be very similar to bitcoin except the underlying coins would be backed by physical assets (dollars). |
|
|
|
I told Bank of America that I couldn't wait until bitcoin put them out of business...
and thats the fastest way to get your account closed. i done the opposite and my bank loves me and for 2 years+ of being into bitcoin, i have had no issues at all.... if your going to talk badly to them, be prepared for them to think badly of you. yea, i dont like the banking system, but you gotta learn the game if you want to win You really cannot tell a bank something like this, you simply don't have anyone to say it to. You can say it to one of their employees, but they are simply doing their job when they interact with you. |
|
|
|
I really don't see credit card processors using crypto currencies ever. Bitcoin was designed to make it cheaper then using something like a credit card. If someone were to use a credit card to transact with bitcoin then they would lose the advantages of using bitcoin in the first place.
They might, if we ever get to the point (many years into the future) where fiat becomes obsolete. The advantage of credit cards is, at least in part, for people living paycheck to paycheck, they can spend money that they don't have yet and pay the bill later when they've been paid. But I agree with your overall point, it does seem rather counter-intuitive that someone would use both a credit card and bitcoins at the same time. Debit cards would make more sense, though. Debit cards would make even less sense then credit cards as they have the same costs as credit cards but would not have your counter point as above. I doubt that any crypto would ever be so widely used that fiat would become obsolete as it is near impossible to garnish bitcoin from someone. Today for example if you were to spend $5,000 with your credit card, then simply don't pay your credit card bill despite having the ability to do so and have say $10,000 in your bank account then the credit card company can get a judgment against you and the court can order your bank to give the credit card company the $5,000 that you owe out of your account via a garnishment. This would simply not be possible with bitcoin. |
|
|
|
If you have "a" Bitcoin address, then you are doing it wrong. The recommended way to operate is to create a separate address for use in each incoming transaction. This increases your potential anonymity (or pseudonymity if you prefer), and also adds security by allowing you to spend a portion of your holdings without exposing your public key.
And you are doing it really wrong if you want that ONE Bitcoin address to be linked to you identity via an easy to remember moniker. This is not necessarily true if for example you are a street vendor that has a lot of repeat customers every day (for example a hot dog stand) as the customers could simply send the bitcoin to the same address every day while the vender is preparing the hotdog and could see that the TX has been propagated by the network prior to giving his customer his food. The vendor could use bitcoinfog for example to move his receipts to another address that he controls so he can pay bills, and otherwise spend his bitcoin with anonymity. Another example of when it would be good for an entity to use only one bitcoin address would be an entity that accepts donations, for example wiki leaks, the red cross, a church or other charitable cause. This would allow donors to see exactly how their donations are being used. |
|
|
|
Bring back property rights. Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.
This is the antithesis of property rights. There are many legit reasons for a person to need to own more then one home; successful children buy a home for their parents and their children, owning rental properties that allow other families to rent and live in that cannot afford to purchase a house, just to name a few. Property rights would be the protection of property that is owned, and limiting the number of houses that one can own would restrict what people can use their money (property) to purchase. First off most property owners have created their fortune from Capitalism. We lost capitalism. Now we deal with so many hoops and red tape that it becomes extremely difficult to start anything up. Government got too big and there are too many bureaucrats trying to justify their jobs that all they do all day is pass more laws. There are zero legit reasons for someone needing to own more then one house. If you buy your friends and family houses then you don't own more than one house. If you pass this law all families will be able to afford one house because owning will be cheaper then renting now. Your rent pays that landlords mortgage. If prices come down then the mortgage payment goes down. You aren't getting it... It's nobodies business how many houses I or anyone else owns... If I own too many houses that I can't keep up with them then they will likely be lost under adverse possession by squatters... Why must a person establish a "need" to buy something? Who holds that power over the head of a citizen in our Constitutional Republic? There are massive problems, but your proposed solution would make things much worse. Here is what I get. Allowing someone to own more the one house is slowly bringing us to Feudalism. Landlords with multiple homes hire property management companies to do the work for them, so that they don't have to take care of them. The reason why people "need" to buy a house is so that everyone has the opportunity to buy shelter. This makes things better not worse. People that own homes care a lot more about their property then renters. Most renters don't do renovations. What about the costs associated with selling your home? These costs are generally high and can easily reach the double digits in terms of the percentage of the sale price. When a person works in a industry (or has a career) that requires him to move around often from city to city then he would spend a lot of money selling his house every time he had to move. Allowing this person to rent his home rather then own it would save him a lot of money in both the short run and the long run. The same is true when someone wishes to move because of lack of job opportunities in the location that he lives in presently. If a person can move, say 500 miles away because there are job opportunities that do not exist where he lives then he would benefit if he did not have to bear the expense of selling his house. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the audio. You had an unthinking idiot as a teller. Did she "flag" your account in retribution since you got a little annoyed at her and asked her what *she* did with her money?
Such idiocy on their part. So rather than continuing to collect the interest and all that by upgrading you to a higher tier personal account (which are free like college checking accounts), they decide to just close you out completely?
Like a butcher asking you how you're going to cook the meat and refusing to sell it to you if you decline to answer. Okay, I'll take my business elsewhere then. Good day. Banks need to follow certain reporting and regulatory requirements in order for them to stay in business. If banks do business with someone whose account activity is shown as being high risk then the bank itself is taking on a regulatory risk if they do not document certain things about your transactions. |
|
|
|
But deposit accounts aren't necessary for bank to create credit. Savers aren't required for capital
Banks use the money that depositors have in their accounts to lend to borrowers. Banks need to keep a little bit of their own money (capital) on hand to protect their depositors in the event that they lose money on some of their loans. If banks solely used their capital to lend money then the amount they would earn would be small and not worth it for banks to lend (they need to use leverage in order for the loan to make sense to them). Banks needs both capital and money from depositors in order to lend money. |
|
|
|
This isn't FUD, I'm an old customer of Bitfinex and want to keep using them. I think any accusation of scam or similar against Bitfinex have no foundation whatsoever. But I'm also apprehensive with present levels of swaps taking in account the thin orderbook.
I'm in the exact same position. Longtime customer. Don't love them, but they've been good enough to keep my business. For now. But I've been watching this situation gradually spiral out of control and it really worries me. We can't assume that little/no swaps are being used to margin buy; that would be counter-intuitive. Swaps can't simply grow forever while the order book remains paper thin. That's just a liquidation cascade waiting to happen. I wouldn't mind as much if BFX honored lowball bids that execute, but they don't. I'd like to know the details behind their decision to remove Bitstamp liquidity when they did. As long as the average leverage ratio stays steady then there would not be a credit bubble growing. Any successful exchange that offers leverage would be expected to have credit balances grow as more customers deposit funds into the exchange looking to trade. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
