Am I talking about taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor? No, I'm just saying that the poor must have a real opportunity to mine the cryptocurrency. That's a nice idea, but it clashes with basic economics and the incentives underlying Bitcoin. The fundamental premise of proof-of-work mining is that miners engage in a costly and time-consuming process which can be easily verified. The whole point is that it's expensive for miners to produce POW but nearly free for users to verify. Take that model to its natural conclusion. Increased competition leads to lower margins and higher costs, as difficulty rises. This forces smaller, "poorer" miners who cannot scale up their operations out of the market. Let thousands of computers buy and mine a lot of coins. But let the poor have the opportunity to mine at least what a single computer or smartphone that a poor person, or a poor family, can buy. It's not up to us. It's a market mechanism. Miners are driving the hash rate up because buyers are bidding up the price of bitcoins. If demand for bitcoins keeps rising, so too will mining expenditures. You wanted to say that it contradicts the capitalist economy, in which all interests are concentrated on the needs of the rich? Yes!  You wanted to say that it violates the incentives of Bitcoin? No! You do not understand the reasons why Bitcoin was created. This is the philosophy of crypto-anarchists, not bankers and merchants. explains why Bitcoin was created: A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending. We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network. Bitcoin was created to cut third parties (like banks) out of financial transactions. Miners are just a means to that end. Satoshi might have hoped for an ecosystem where mining was less concentrated, but Bitcoin's design doesn't lend itself to that. |
|
|
|
|
The potential is there. Slick interface, futures market integration without a separate account/signup, a BNB-like token linked to their growth as an exchange. Perhaps most importantly, they allow US customers and they allow non-KYC accounts that can withdraw 2 BTC/day just like Binance -- those are major markets to tap.
I've got no interest in altcoin trading right now, but when the market finally heats up again, KuCoin seems like a pretty good option.
|
|
|
|
The company has been split. Part of it will be renamed Polo Digital Assets for US customers, and it's still owned by Circle, while another part, the part which deals with non-US customers has been bought by Justin Sun, which then bought Tron Network’s Biggest Non-Custodial Exchange. That new company will give service under the name of PoloniDex (if I've understood it right).
I don't know who is that Justin Sun guy, but if he's honest, the first thing on his agenda should be to correct Poloniex's image problem, which is down the hole since the company stole its customers.
Mr Sun, do you hear me?
Thanks for the reminder. I was completely fooled when he initially denied being involved in the Poloniex buyout. I missed the subsequent headline: Despite Denials, Tron Founder Confirms Investment in Poloniex Crypto ExchangeHe's obviously trying to distance himself from their managerial decisions. He tweeted this a few days ago: Poloniex's decisions are made by the team independently. As a humble investor of Poloniex, I respect and support their decision. It doesn't sound like appealing to him will go very far. |
|
|
|
Swiss financial startup Amun has won an approval from the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority (SFSA) to widen its offering of crypto-based financial products to retail investors in the European Union.
How it will effect crypto community, what do you guys think? It's difficult to say. Approval to sell cryptocurrency ETPs basically to all European retail investors sounds great, but the devil is in the details. Based on their prospectus, it looks to me like Amun's products are open-ended and operate similar to ETFs. That means that if there is significant demand for the ETPs on the Swiss SIX and Boerse Stuttgart exchanges, that demand could spill over into the overall market, driving prices higher. I suppose that's a big if, though. There's no telling how much interest there is in these products yet. |
|
|
|
I just wanted to ask what you think we as a community achieved in 2019.
It's been another year of constant uptime for the Bitcoin network -- compare that to any bank. That's a huge achievement in and of itself. In terms of awareness, 89% of American adults have now heard of Bitcoin, according to a survey by The Harris Poll. The survey also revealed that 9% of the population owns some bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Don't run a botnet from a country (like Romania) that has an extradition treaty with the US. That seems to be the overall lesson here. How the authorities went about getting these guys to pay for their actions remains unknown
Presumably, they tracked the malware distribution to Romania and then worked with Romanian law enforcement to identify, arrest and extradite the offenders. |
|
|
|
We can tell institutions are trading the futures contracts, but how many of them are actually taking delivery in bitcoins? Does anyone know where we can find more detailed data about settlement, open interest and vault holdings? Usually, physically deliverable contracts allow for the option of cash settlement or rolling forward positions into the next monthly contract. It would be interesting to know what percentage of positions are being delivered in bitcoins, since that is more likely to indicate actual accumulation by institutions. |
|
|
|
Am I talking about taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor? No, I'm just saying that the poor must have a real opportunity to mine the cryptocurrency. That's a nice idea, but it clashes with basic economics and the incentives underlying Bitcoin. The fundamental premise of proof-of-work mining is that miners engage in a costly and time-consuming process which can be easily verified. The whole point is that it's expensive for miners to produce POW but nearly free for users to verify. Take that model to its natural conclusion. Increased competition leads to lower margins and higher costs, as difficulty rises. This forces smaller, "poorer" miners who cannot scale up their operations out of the market. Let thousands of computers buy and mine a lot of coins. But let the poor have the opportunity to mine at least what a single computer or smartphone that a poor person, or a poor family, can buy. It's not up to us. It's a market mechanism. Miners are driving the hash rate up because buyers are bidding up the price of bitcoins. If demand for bitcoins keeps rising, so too will mining expenditures. |
|
|
|
Those institutional investors are *not* buying bitcoin outright. They speculate on its price thru derivatives, ie, options and futures. That's 'paper bitcoin' and it doesn't affect the price at all apparently, so I'm not sure what was to be expected in the first place.
Not all derivatives are the same. The CME and Cboe futures markets don't affect the price because they have no direct relationship with real bitcoins, real supply and demand. Buyers and sellers are just betting against one another regarding the spot market price. Bakkt offers physically deliverable contracts which are very different. Bakkt holds custody of real bitcoins, which can actually be deposited and withdrawn by buyers and sellers. This means that if/once Bakkt has enough market liquidity, it could actually lead the spot market instead of just following like CME and Cboe. |
|
|
|
He now makes a risk-free 30%, while the bot-users risk their funds.
Well, he only gets commission if the users actually make a (monthly) profit... if it's a loss, he gets nothing. So, theoretically at least, it is in the bot creators best interests to make sure that the bot works and generates profits. The pricing model suggests that he expects short-term profitable periods that he can extract rent from, but that he isn't confident about long term profitability. If the bot were consistently profitable, he wouldn't want to give away 70% of the profits by licensing it out. He could get rich by compounding gains instead. |
|
|
|
Apparently you live in a very rich country and do not know how people live in those countries where the monthly income is $ 100. How many years will I have to starve to buy a miner? Count ... "One CPU one vote" just refers to voting on the current consensus, regarding the best blockchain. It's not a "vote" in a particularly meaningful or political sense. Miners are just abiding by the protocol, publishing blocks based on rational incentives. You would do exactly the same if you were a miner, so you're really not missing out on anything. The industrialization of mining just means that for most of us, directly buying bitcoins is usually a better way to invest. |
|
|
|
Why would 'institutional investors' pile in when no one else is interested?
There are much better avenues for them than ever before. They're not going to show up en masse until real people do as well. Isn't that what "smart money" supposedly does -- buy when there is blood in the streets and all that? It stands to reason that they might not wait for a bubble before dipping their toes in. Bakkt is doing thousands of BTC per day in volume now, despite the market lull. That seems to suggest that institutional interest isn't totally dead. |
|
|
|
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) believes that the case against the serial Ponzi scammer, Renwick Haddow, has yet to be properly solved.
It's been solved. He plead guilty to fraud-related charges and is awaiting sentencing in the Bar Works and Bitcoin Store Inc. cases. The SEC complaint is that the court still hasn't dealt with the associated monetary penalties. They want to levy civil fines and disgorgement, but that often doesn't happen until after criminal sentencing. |
|
|
|
And what will be the most approximate name for bitcoin? Digital currency?
According to the OP: All-in-all I think it is incorrect to call Bitcoin 'cryptocurrency', it should be 'cyptomoney'.
And in a technical sense, he might be correct that "cyptomoney" is more accurate, but it just sounds terrible. It'll never catch on. |
|
|
|
I think this information is not accurate or has been misinterpreted.
We must know the difference between cryptocurrencies and digital currencies, and the difference between Bitcoin and Blockchain.
They're definitely talking about cryptocurrencies, not just permissioned or centralized blockchains: Cryptocurrencies: the 21st century cash
Until now, cryptocurrencies have been additions, rather than substitutes, to the global inventory of money. Over the next decade, this may change. Overcoming regulatory hurdles will broaden their appeal and raise the potential to eventually replace cash. Cryptocurrencies need to overcome three main hurdles to become widespread. First, they must become legitimate in the eyes of governments and regulators. That means bringing stability to the price and bringing advantages to both merchants and consumers. They must also allow for global reach in the payment market. To do this, alliances must be forged with key stakeholders – mobile apps such as Apple Pay, Google Pay, card providers such as Visa and Mastercard, and retailers, such as Amazon and Walmart.
If these challenges can be overcome, the eventual future of cash is at risk. But the whole thing is riddled with "ifs" and "maybes." It's far from inevitable. It also isn't the opinion of Deutsche Bank, just one of their analysts. |
|
|
|
I've been annoyed by the application of the term 'cryptocurrency' to Bitcoin.
There is a distinct difference between Currency and Money and these terms are not interchangeable:
Currencies do not have intrinsic value (i.e. fiat paper money, promissory notes) and by extension, are poor stores of value.
Money on the other hand has intrinsic value (i.e. gold and silver coins), a gold coin from ancient Eygpt still retains the same purchasing power today.
All-in-all I think it is incorrect to call Bitcoin 'cryptocurrency', it should be 'cyptomoney'. Currency just implies medium of exchange, general acceptance. Money constitutes a larger umbrella term covering mediums of exchange, units of account, and stores of value. Bitcoin is (or at least could be) all three, so money is a better description for it. I agree with you there. You have to admit though, "cryptocurrency" has a certain ring to it that "cryptomoney" doesn't. The term "cryptocurrency" probably caught on because it's euphonious. It rolls off the tongue. |
|
|
|
But there is no federal law or statute that requires you to obey the tax code; or describes punishment for not paying federal income tax.
Full Stop.
That may be so. The important thing is that the IRS assessed 31 million civil penalties and got nearly 2,000 criminal convictions last year. 80% or more of convictions involve prison time. I'm all for avoiding taxes, but I would be careful about it for that reason. |
|
|
|
Today there are hundreds of Bitcoin exchanges in existence. But very few of them have real volume:  Personally, I use Coinbase and Paxful as my main exchanges as they are both user-friendly and hold a large stash of cryptocurrency in their vaults for the safety of their users.
For those of you around the globe, what is your favorite Bitcoin exchange?
I'm partial to Coinbase as a fiat onramp -- mainly because I've already KYC'd there and don't want to do it anywhere else. I use Binance for general trading. |
|
|
|
Are these news from China even true? That these exchanges are closing because of an anti-crypto government? If this is true why are the big exchanges in China like Huobi and OkEX are not having statements about this or at least looks to be affected on the government breathing under them. Not until we have some big names involve we cannot confirm these kinds of news.
Huobi will be part of a blockchain alliance that will be led by the government affiliated State Information Center in China. I reckon some Chinese exchange founders might be politically connected hehehe. Huobi seems friendly with the Chinese government, alright. They even established a local CCP branch at their Beijing subsidiary. If any exchange is going to get whitelisted by the government, it's them. |
|
|
|
They must really want to know who's invested in cryptocurrency. Nearly half the population files this schedule, and the question is really far reaching. "Receiving", "sending" or "acquiring any financial interest" in cryptocurrency doesn't even necessarily incur tax liability so it's pretty screwed up that buy-and-holders need to answer "yes" to this question. At least it's not a total surprise at this point. They published a revised draft a couple months ago that included this change. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
