There are a perfect method to reduce your losses. DO NOT put your eggs in one basket, test more gambling sites and see if you get the same kind of returns from them, like you get from Bitcasino. I also played at Bitcasino for a while, but my win ratio was a lot higher with some other casinos, so I stopped playing there. <They have some VERY good Slots, but they pay very little>  I do not want to tell you where to gamble, if you want to gamble, because I do not want to encourage your gambling habits... but I would rather enjoy my gambling by doing it with a site with a lower house edge. <The definition of insanity.... doing things over and over and expecting a different outcome.. will not work with Bitcasino.>  |
|
|
|
I feel the best option to yo store the BTC in various storage device. You can't be too careful so as to lose all your assets through a mistake that can never be reverse. But having it on various storage devices give an assurance that sould hin case a device was compromise, another is there to sustain one.
The question is : Are you less likely to lose coins, if you use one storage method or are you more prone to losses if you use multiple methods.  We frequently hear about some service finding some kind of exploit in their code or some human error, causing people to lose coins. Would you rather risk losing all your coins by storing everything with one method or would you distribute the risk by using multiple methods and continuously losing small amounts of coins? I think avoiding 3rd party services, decrease your chances of losing coins.  |
|
|
|
In our last Bitcoin meetup we discussed this as one of the proposed topics. Would you risk losing all your coins by storing it in one storage method or would you risk losing less coins more frequently by storing it in multiple methods. I think it is not wise storing coins with 3rd party services, so I avoid them at all cost. Some scenarios like buying and selling coins on an exchange, would necessitate a scenario where you have to leave coins on their platform to execute a buy or sell order, so it is unavoidable. <I usually avoid selling large amounts of coins on exchanges> I would rather split my storage into long-term and short-term storage and store large amount of coins in hardware wallets and paper wallets for the long-term and then having small amounts of coins stored on online wallets or exchanges for daily use. How are you spreading your coins to reduce the risk of losing coins and still being able to use it daily? |
|
|
|
|
You know one thing I have noticed is that China would always go against whatever the "West" is doing. We have lately seen some push back from Donald Trump against Bitcoin and now suddenly China is more positive about Bitcoin. <Do you see the pattern?>
We know the financial outlook for the US and some Europe countries are bleak and China have picked up on that. <Buying more Gold is a good sign in times like this and China is buying a bunch of Gold>
Why do you think Donald Trump are fighting so hard to rebuild the US economy with all these trade wars?
|
|
|
|
Truth be told, these guys do not need to FUD to get a reaction from the market. In the bigger picture, the Bitcoin market is just a blimp on the radar and they have enough Fiat reserves to manipulate a market like this, without breaking a sweat. The thing that gets under their skin is the fact that more and more people are investing in their competition and that is the main reason why they are talking trash about it. If everyone on this planet used Bitcoin, nobody would have any need for Banks. Always look for motive.  |
|
|
|
Large Monopolies are just part of a healthy open economy, it becomes unhealthy when these Monopolies dominate the market. There are still good competition for Disney and also Facebook and you have large communication companies in other countries that are doing very well in their own respective countries. <Examples : WeChat / Weibo etc.> I think the healthiest environment occur when you have a situation like Crypto currencies, where you have 1000s of Alt coins that are competing for the same market without the restriction from large conglomerates killing or buying out the competition. |
|
|
|
Huawei are already under suspicion for the manufacturing of hardware with backdoors in their networking hardware <switches etc.> and it is already banned in the US and the UK. Would you trust a company with your wealth that are doing things like that? When centralized entities like this control their own currency and they are backed by a government that does mass surveillance on their own citizens, then it should raise the red flags. Libra vs ChinaCoin would be an interesting matchup, but China will react in the same way as the US regulators, by banning the technology. They will want to protect their local reserve currencies. |
|
|
|
Back then remote management software like VNC/PcAnyware and Teamviewer was just starting to go mainstream and I doubt if people like Satoshi would have trusted proprietary software that might have contained backdoors in their code. He specifically created Bitcoin on a OpenSource environment to make sure the public could participate in a transparent project. He might have spoofed his IP address or used some early VPNs back then, so a IP address is not a good indicator of where he might have been working from. <He was quite paranoid, so he would have used some method to hide his real location> |
|
|
|
It's called fractional reserve and has been happening for years since we ever departed from a gold standard. Welcome to the post Nixon era Fractional reserve is also a thing of the past It is a very common and widespread misconception to think that banks are somehow limited by the deposits that they have received (what fractional reserve is essentially about). In the modern day money is created via credit (it is called credit money for a reason). Banks don't need to look back at how much they have in their vaults as they can create as much money as required to meet the demand for that money. And if you think of it, it actually makes perfect sense since this is a very effective mechanism to provide liquidity for the economy in case the latter needs it. In other words, there is no reason to limit credit via a metric which doesn't in the least reflect the actual demand for new money Agreed, but what difference is there between creating money from thin air by using Fractional reserve practices or by doing this by creating "fake" money via credit? Adding some numbers on an internal ledger to give more credit are exactly the same as adding additional money by lending money that you did not receive via deposits It is a difference that makes the difference (and vice versa) You seem to be looking at it from the wrong angle as you implicitly assume that credit money is inherently wrong or even evil. The money created via credit is not "thin" money, so to speak. It is still a collaterized form of money, i.e. money backed up by tangible assets (think of it as an extended and expanded variety of the gold standard). But with "classical" FRB you are limited by the deposits, while with purely credit money you are only limited by the demand for credit. So the second form of credit money is better for the economy because money gets created (and destroyed, for that matter) according to the needs of that economy. Simply put, it is a better device and more robust mechanism for providing liquidity to economic agents, i.e. those who need this money (businesses and individuals) You will never convince me that credit is "good" money creation. If people were able to pay the debt, it would have been acceptable, because it stimulates the economy, but most people default on their debt, because they should not have qualified for that debt or their circumstances change and then they cannot pay that debt anymore. The ridiculous interest on that debt also generate "new" money, which is also bad. The Bitcoin supply is fixed, so you cannot create tokens out of thin air. |
|
|
|
The main problem is that people are not used to a financial tool that gives them 100% financial freedom. One of the major advantages of using Bitcoin as a financial instrument is that you do not have to use a Broker to handle your finances, they just take a large portion of your profits and a lot of them are running off with people's money or they invest it in something where they can gain something. So, now you are left with a bunch of lazy people who does not do proper research and who are blinded by greed. A perfect recipe for scammers to enter as third parties to scam people out of their money. |
|
|
|
The almost 80%+ drop in the price since 2017, sunk a lot of promising ICOs and IPOs, because most of them calculated the future profit on a Bitcoin price that would grow and grow every year. I invested in some good ICOs that failed because of that, but that is the risk you take with high risk investment in Crypto currency projects. Nobody could ever anticipate what would happen with the price in the future and you prepare for some drop in the price with your projections, but never for a 80%+ drop in the price. Timing is everything, just imagine if it was launched prior to 2017 when we had the massive increase in the price.  |
|
|
|
It's called fractional reserve and has been happening for years since we ever departed from a gold standard. Welcome to the post Nixon era Fractional reserve is also a thing of the past It is a very common and widespread misconception to think that banks are somehow limited by the deposits that they have received (what fractional reserve is essentially about). In the modern day money is created via credit (it is called credit money for a reason). Banks don't need to look back at how much they have in their vaults as they can create as much money as required to meet the demand for that money. And if you think of it, it actually makes perfect sense since this is a very effective mechanism to provide liquidity for the economy in case the latter needs it. In other words, there is no reason to limit credit via a metric which doesn't in the least reflect the actual demand for new money Agreed, but what difference is there between creating money from thin air by using Fractional reserve practices or by doing this by creating "fake" money via credit? Adding some numbers on an internal ledger to give more credit are exactly the same as adding additional money by lending money that you did not receive via deposits. The Banks and the Reserve Banks are cooking the books to create money from thin air and that is the crux of the matter. Bitcoin are often criticized for creating "digital" money from thin air, but this is predetermined and fixed supply, not something that can be changed without majority consensus. < This is why BankCoins are so dangerous, because the Banks have control over the supply of these tokens. > |
|
|
|
In 1999 PayPal was invented. Until then there was no commerce, there was no goods production in the world. Immediately the world economy started to improve. People started to produce TVs, phones, clothes, homes. But there were no sufficient money to buy these goods.
Then in 2010 a very gentle person (a very good mathematician Satoshi Nakamoto) invented the bitcoin. Bitcoin was that money necessary for every person in this world to buy those goods.
Until 1999 I was earning approx 30 USD/month working 8 hours/day. Then in 2010 because Satoshi Nakamoto invented the bitcoin, my earnings started to improve. I have 7 phones, 7 TVs, etc (this is no joke).
Those money very necessary for the people to buy goods were created. Who could imagine that today I could send 10 dollars in 30 seconds to a person on the other side of the World?
Who could imagine that this 10 USD that i am sending can be used immediately to buy whatever the person that receives them has dreamed?
OP, you are exaggerating most of the statements that you are making. 1. "In 1999 PayPal was invented. Until then there was no commerce, there was no goods production in the world." Wow, I guess the people were living on farms and we had no imports and exports prior to 1999 and there was no credit card payment for eCommerce used on the internet? 2. "I could send 10 dollars in 30 seconds to a person on the other side of the World?" What Bitcoin are you using that confirms transactions in 30 seconds? Yes, the Lightning Network has near instant transactions, but it is not on-chain. Yes, Bitcoin has improved international remittance, but global payments with other methods are also done within a couple of seconds. <on the user side with PayPal and credit cards> |
|
|
|
100% Correct. We have seen how one of the biggest Ponzi schemes <MLM> started to use Bitcoin as a payment option and how that gave Bitcoin a bad name. Previously all kinds of payment options were used to fund these Ponzi schemes and the media did not blame the Banks or the credit card companies for this, but now that Bitcoin is used for the payment method, it is labeled as the culprit.  Bitcoin is a currency and economic crimes needs a currency to commit their crimes, so they use Bitcoin as a tool to commit these crimes. Is Bitcoin a better tool for these crimes.... well that is open for debate. |
|
|
|
I am seriously not finding anything wrong in this move of including two crypto businessmen in the task force. It could have been much more worse not to have these leaders in the task force. At least these people will ensure that things don't turn hostile for the crypto users in the state of NY. Agreed. From a regulatory standpoint, what's good for Ripple and Ethereum is also good for Bitcoin. I do not entirely agree with your statement that, " From a regulatory standpoint, what's good for Ripple and Ethereum is also good for Bitcoin. " The BitLicense was a blow to the NY Bitcoin operators, because it placed a complex and expensive barrier to entry for anyone that wanted to use Crypto currencies in NY. BitLicense was introduced in 2014 and was bad for all cryptocurrency services -- whether they served Bitcoin or altcoins. What does that have to do with Joseph Lubin and Ryan Zagone being appointed to the Digital Currency Taskforce two days ago? Ripple is also not a true Crypto currency and Ethereum is Bitcoin's strongest competition and having them getting a stronger foothold in the economic capital of one of the strongest economies in the world, is bad for Bitcoin. Could you give a concrete example of how this could hurt Bitcoin? Well, if you read my previous posts, you would have noticed that I also mentioned a controversial character, called Ben Lawsky, the architect of the BitLicense. He is now connected to the Ripple team and this guy only concentrate on his on financial interests and would disadvantages all other Crypto currencies to further his own interest. His influence and connections from being the former New York Superintendent of Financial Services, would help him to boost Ripple and also to make it difficult for the competition to compete on a level playing field. Let's just say, Bitcoin will definitely not flourish in any scenario where Ben Lawsky is involved.  |
|
|
|
I am seriously not finding anything wrong in this move of including two crypto businessmen in the task force. It could have been much more worse not to have these leaders in the task force. At least these people will ensure that things don't turn hostile for the crypto users in the state of NY. Agreed. From a regulatory standpoint, what's good for Ripple and Ethereum is also good for Bitcoin. The influence of Joseph Lubin of Ethereum and Ryan Zagone of Ripple will certainly corrupt the task force and make it move according to the advantage of their own platforms.
I don't see how they could do that. We should probably just be happy the task force isn't entirely composed of grumpy old career politicians. I do not entirely agree with your statement that, " From a regulatory standpoint, what's good for Ripple and Ethereum is also good for Bitcoin. " The BitLicense was a blow to the NY Bitcoin operators, because it placed a complex and expensive barrier to entry for anyone that wanted to use Crypto currencies in NY. Ripple is also not a true Crypto currency and Ethereum is Bitcoin's strongest competition and having them getting a stronger foothold in the economic capital of one of the strongest economies in the world, is bad for Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Ok, so the hidden agenda is this.... Ban the competition and create your own Digital currency that you can control. Did we expect anything else from a corrupt government like India? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index <India Ranked 78th> Most of the countries that are banning Bitcoin and Crypto currencies want to either protect the value of their own reserve currency or they want to implement their own restrictive centralized Crypto currency, like India is doing. Bitcoin is unstoppable and it presents the interest of the people and not the interest of corrupt governments. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
