|
I kind of disagree. Don't get me wrong, Bitcoin is still king, but the race to being the "next Bitcoin" could bring about something worthwhile. Competition drives progress after all. The problem is that some alts are marketed that way just to make money lol.
Alt trading is risky, yeah, and more people have probably racked up losses from it than earnings, but if you can play the market, why not? I personally don't think that people should be supporting shitcoins at all but I have no problems with people who do; Bitcoin is all about financial freedom after all.
|
|
|
|
This is an interesting post, and some digging has led me to fierce online debates about the security of laptop wallets compared to mobile wallets. I have come to the conclusion that they are both vulnerable - or more so than my own liking - so I take the position that hardware wallets are the best option right now for savings. Now, for spending small amounts, I think a mobile wallet is fine, and I think its security may improve as the industry matures. Lots of people are using mobile wallets for making purchases without any issues.
Well to be fair, there's really no question at all that the only way to truly protect your money is by using a cold wallet. What people mostly argue about is the threshold at which it is necessary -- how much coins should I be holding for it to be worth it, etc. The answer to that, unfortunately, is very subjective, like pretty much every response here demonstrates. OP has deemed his coins to be not worth stealing, and that tells me that medium security wallets like desktop/mobile wallets would suffice for his requirements. Not worth stealing translates to don't mind losing for majority of the population after all. |
|
|
|
It's not like I got a lot of Bitcoin anyway for someone to target Me but I assume an online Desktop Wallet that is on a Computer connected to the internet and it's still technically a hot wallet but it should be more secure than online hot wallets correct?
Yes, the major difference being a wallet being hosted on a website has more attack vectors than a regular desktop wallet (ex. seed + login credentials vs. just the seed). I don't have enough Bitcoin or even use it often enough to justify purchasing a U.S.B. Wallet like the Ledger Nano S or Trezor. I plan to use Electrum as I read it is the most popular Desktop Wallet and the easiest to use that is what I want a desktop wallet and I assume the most secure Desktop Wallet is any one you choose to use as a true Cold Wallet with A Ledger Nano S for example to transfer the funds from the Computer without an Internet Connection at least from what I have read about all of this.
You actually still need an internet connection. Hardware wallets are classified as cold wallets only because they're designed in such a way that private keys are never exposed online. I could use a Cold Wallet on another cheap computer I could easily just purchase and use for this purpose but then again like I said I don't even have that much Bitcoin to even tempt someone to go through the effort however much effort it would take to steal my Bitcoins from my Desktop Wallet if I were to use it anyways.
Hacks are rarely directed at anyone in particular, so you could still just as easily fall under attack as anyone else. But yeah, if you don't have much at stake and you know how to protect yourself, a desktop wallet should be good enough. Once you build up a portfolio though, a hardware wallet or any cold wallet would be mandatory. |
|
|
|
|
I don't see why it won't be legal, as you're only hiring a third party to order products for you. It's not much different from a standard concierge service, or even apps like honestbee.
If it's illegal to buy Bitcoin in your jurisdiction though, having someone buy them for you is still most likely illegal. It's like how ordering a hit on someone could still also net you a murder charge.
|
|
|
|
-snip-
Even while they have to deal with compliance, I still leaning towards them being scared of crypto thus their negative reaction to it. They may be corporate giants but crypto may still be a threat to them. Surely they're not stupid and can see the potential of crypto technology. That is why they have created their own coin despite being against crypto. As said in the article: BANKS ARE TERRIFIED (AND CLUELESS) ABOUT BITCOIN
Wall Street continues to blame “money-laundering” on its refusal to bank crypto businesses.
This is rich considering Wall Street launders more drug money than bitcoin. JP Morgan was fined $1.6 million for its failure to stamp out money laundering. And Deutsche Bank was recently complicit in $10 billion worth of money-laundering. Looks like they've been trying to divert attention by espousing negativity on crypto so they may redirect the blame. Yeah it's really just a matter of opinion. They could definitely be scared on some level, but at the scale crypto currently is now, I don't see them actively going out of their way to not earn money. The only conclusion I can think of, therefore, is that there's not much money to be made off crypto clients. I also get the money laundering angle, but the way I see it, they need to put on a front for regulators. No matter what shady things they are doing behind the scenes, they still have to implement AML procedures for their clients (or most of them anyway lol). Think of it this way: if they do money laundering themselves, they earn money despite the risks. If one of their clients do money laundering, they get investigated and penalized. It's only natural for them to not want clients to launder money. |
|
|
|
It seems that he trying to get a freedom, but it's mean that he also not protected by any law and obtaining necessity stuffs will be hard too. I think it will be better if he buy more property so he can get passive income by renting it, If I am him then that is what would I do.
They seem to be hardcore libertarian, so staying away from laws, for better or worse, is probably a huge factor in this decision. They don't seem to be after any financial incentives from this either, so people can't really knock on them for not making "wiser" choices. They just want to live life on their terms, which Bitcoin encourages. People seem to be pointing out a lot of problems but I think it's fine overall. Such is life for any pioneer. They could very well pave the way for the practice to be a lot more commonplace. |
|
|
|
Would they be able to support millions of people withdrawing hundreds of thousands of dollars? Crypto seems fairly liquid but again if it shoots to the moon, how liquid will it really be?
I personally wouldn't worry about it. Everyone has different moons and people tend to be greedy. There's no way everyone will simultaneously call jackpot and cash out everything; people will always want more. Heck, this scenario is far more likely to happen in the event of a huge crash or a massive FUD wave. You'd also have a lot more of a reason to worry about exchanges being liquid if the assets they're holding are bleeding. |
|
|
|
Well the coin they're creating is hardly a cryptocurrency. It's going to be controlled and centralized, so this isn't very hypocritical on their part. They basically want all the perceived benefits while still being in control. As for being terrified, I find it more likely that they're terrified of the overhead, which this guy concurs with: “It’s not illegal for big banks to bank the crypto industry, but it’s a massive compliance headache that they don’t want to put the resources in to solve.’’ – Sam Bankman-Fried, CEO of Alameda Research. Either way, let them lose out on business if they want. Lots of people here seem to hate banks and at the same time want them to give in to their whims lol. |
|
|
|
If they don't take kyc then they cannot be trusted. You can convert it to ethereum instead and use myetherwallet to convert to fiat without kyc, but bitcoin will probably be preferred over eth
Wait what? I don't think requiring (or not) of KYC is a good benchmark for trustworthiness. Custodial services typically require this, while standalone software wallets don't. That being said, everyone must be wary about sharing their personal data. |
|
|
|
Sounds interesting.
Do you know any cases when users could get their money back after being hacked?
I feel like funds are secured in case someone hacks coinbase, not a user. That's a bit different kind of security.
Yeah, it only kicks in if they themselves get hacked, not individual user accounts: Please note that the insurance policy covers any losses resulting from a breach of Coinbase’s physical security, cyber security, or by employee theft. This insurance policy does not cover any losses resulting from the compromise of your individual Coinbase account. It is your responsibility to use a strong password and maintain control of all login credentials you use to access Coinbase.
There seems to be at least one documented case of a Coinbase refund: It was 10.6 bitcoins held in the wallet service Coinbase, the most well-funded and widely implemented service on the market. Jeff, who asked that we not use his last name, got the news of the transaction as soon as it happened, and after going back and forth with a customer-service representative, he had his money refunded. Exactly one month later, it happened again. But yeah "compromise of your account" could be spun into different ways. Insurance is nice, but I still wouldn't rely on it. |
|
|
|
What is the general sentiment regarding custodial services for people's bitcoin so they don't have to be concerned about storing it them selves?
Are there any examples of companies already successfully doing this?
People generally hate it because it kind of defeats the purpose, and it gives custodial companies power similar to what banks have now. They exist mostly for large institutions. One example is Coinbase Custody. Another reason people tend to open bank accounts rather than store money themselves is that they can get their money back in the event of being scammed
(a sense of security really). So is there any examples of companies providing insurance for people's bitcoin?
Custodial services are most likely insured because that's kind of the point. Other than that, I know Coinbase actually insures customer funds, albeit conditionally. There could be other exchanges that do this but I don't know of any other example. I feel like I should point out that I don't shill for Coinbase lmao. I just happen to be more familiar with them than other major exchanges. |
|
|
|
that is not called "bear market irrationality", that my friend is a clear case of FUD from people who want to either short bitcoin right now or have some open low bid orders that they are getting desperate to fill. drawing some meaningless lines on a chart doesn't make it any better either. unfortunately they benefit from the fact that most people don't even know what TA is and when they see lines on a chart think that is it  Could be, but the account has like 2k followers lmao. I find it more likely that he just wants more attention towards himself. Looks like he achieved it too, though I have no idea why crypto news outlets would want to pick up predictions from a basically unkown entity. Must be a slow news day just like it has been for the past couple of months lol. |
|
|
|
One of the responding tweets sum up exactly what I feel about this: You decreased by the same amount not a proportional amount. This isn't a mirrored price action. I don't think $800 could be ruled out considering the market's unpredictability, but I don't think there has been any indication that such a hefty drop would be likely. He probably just wanted to grab some attention, which he was able to do. |
|
|
|
Thats nice, keep in mind that Kaspersky software was in past associated with russian spy agency KGB so watch out because in one way you are protecting your Bitcoins from viruses/trojan horses but in another way you are allowing 3rd party to your PC.
Microsoft windows 10 is alone one big trojan horse itself.
Yeah, the entire situation is pretty fucked up: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/09/26/nsa_worker_jailed/I suppose it could be normal for antiviruses to take samples of suspicious code, but for them to find out that it's valuable is very concerning to say the least. Not to mention it later ended up on the hands of the Kremlin lmao. Who knows what else they could be taking samples of. If you're handling crypto, this should be a massive red flag. Still, you should do your own research about the situation and weigh your options yourself. As for alternatives, Windows Defender is actually pretty good: https://www.safetydetective.com/blog/windows-defender-vs-antiviruses-is-defender-enough-for-you/I mean, if you're handing data to Microsoft by using Windows anyway, you might as well refrain from adding a second company into the equation lol. Using it in conjunction with Malwarebytes is recommended. |
|
|
|
-snip-
it is partly that but also it is about all the illegal activity that took place thanks to altcoins last two years. you see all these ICOs and think they are just scamming a bunch of newbies but many of them were actually laundering money through fake ICO front and cleaned their money by simply running it through that fund raising crap and dumping it on exchanges. Yeah, I'm sure that's a massive factor. Even without that though, there's this: Anti-money laundering rules typically require banks to know the identity and aims of their clients and often be able to trace the source of their customers’ cash. Building a compliance and monitoring system is expensive and some banks conclude the costs just aren’t worth it. People can hate on banks all they want, but the blame isn't squarely on them. |
|
|
|
Would you care to provide us with a source of this statement?
Here you go: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/25/warren-buffett-says-bitcoin-is-a-delusion.htmlHe loved the technology but never loved the mainstream manifestation of the Blockchain, who cares?
To be fair, this isn't unique to him, and I think it's a perfectly valid position to take. It's like saying you like the Internet but hate Google or something along those lines. |
|
|
|
As of now the the way I see it this might be another "Indian Government situation" where nothing really happens in their legal framework in the country.
What do you mean by nothing really happens? Weren't banks prohibited from dealing with any entity that has any relation to crypto? That's pretty high on the bad regulation spectrum IMO, and I certainly hope Russia doesn't end up the same way. Also, isn't Russia actually fond of crypto? They can be used to sidestep sanctions, which can't be a bad thing for them. There are a lot of rumors surrounding that subject, even. Or does that love only apply to their government and not their citizens? Lol. |
|
|
|
...yet for every one of those, there are plenty of others trying to scam the public, launder money or evade taxes.”
It is not surprising that this above is one major reason that icos won't get financial support from banks. It's not even just ICOs being given the cold shoulder though, as even Kraken got the axe. It's pretty sad that banks are necessary for increased adoption. One would think that banks are doing this out of spite, and maybe on some level they are, but it kind of makes sense why they're turning away crypto businesses. |
|
|
|
Thanks for sharing.. but the fact remains that not all scan ICOs would be posted in that section because some look so legit in the beginning.
That's true and it should be highlighted that not finding dirt on something doesn't automatically mean it's legit, but people should still search all the same. Not all scams are easy to detect, but some precaution is better than no precaution at all. If you fail to find info on something, it'll be up to your better judgement to determine whether it will be worthwhile or not. Is it too good to be true? Is it even viable? Sometimes you have to reach your own conclusion because everyone else could be blinded by promised returns. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
