No. The exchange software is not setting anything, it's merely matching buyers and sellers. The price you see on the ticker is where the highest bid of a buyer meets the lowest ask of a seller, ie. the price at which a sale takes place.

I feel like that's an aspect that is often overlooked when it comes to the "Bitcoin funds terrorism" narrative. Unless the Taliban is running a mining operation or doing bounties / sig campaigns on Bitcointalk, Bitcoin isn't used to fund anything.

Generally I find it weird to put the onus on a currency. If the problem is terrorists buying weapons, maybe prevent the inflow of weapons. I find it hard to believe that the flow of weapons is harder to control than the flow of currency. Unless, of course, there's a conflict of interest involved.

Are you asking about how to get started with daytrading or how to get started with investing?

If you want to get started with daytrading, know that you probably shouldn't. It's a great way to lose money. In a bull market you'll feel like a genius but are very likely to perform worse than the rest of the market, even ignoring fees. In a bear market you're likely to get rekt either way. If you're adamant about getting into daytrading, start by googling for trading strategies and start reading from there. Just be aware that a lot of technical indicators are about as reliable as Astrology.

If you're asking about how to start investing in cryptocurrencies you should really start with learning how to use wallets and keep your coins safe first. This will make you familiar with the technology and more importantly, this will enable you to safeguard your coins yourself once you've taken the leap.

The exchange rate of fiat currencies is not centrally defined either. Yes, some fiat currencies are pegged to another, giving a fixed predefined exchange rate. But that also only lasts until the peg is lifted. Some currencies may even have an "official" exchange rate and a black market exchange rate. However for the most part even the value of governmental fiat currencies are just free-floating relative to one another, depending on market forces which can only be indirectly influenced by governments (e.g. by printing more money or the buying / selling of foreign currency reserves). Then of course, there's factors such as goverment stability and wars, as mentioned by dkbit98.



The availability of fiat on and off-ramps also seems to play a role. Exchanges that offer limited or no options for direct fiat withdrawal usually have a slightly higher exchange rate than those that make it easier to withdraw fiat.

username: HeRetiK

Thanks!

69 - HeRetiK

Let's see if the lucky number strikes again

Thanks for another raffle, Ratimov!

w00t!

Thank you so much for the raffle Ratimov, it's been fun!

PM has been sent

Edit: Winnings received, thanks again!

A few days ago Binance announced that they are going to tighten their KYC requirements:
https://www.binance.com/en/blog/421499824684902585/ecosystem/binance-expands-global-kyc-requirements-to-further-user-protection

I believe that's Binance trying to regain a better foothold with regulators. Keep in mind that Binance's trouble with the FCA also caused them to get disconnected from the European banking system so it's not only their UK business that is affected.

The benefits for the (digital) art scene are pretty straightforward: Traditional artists -- i.e. the ones creating physical paintings, sculptures, etc -- usually make their living by selling their works, at least when they are successful enough. This income venue was closed off to digital artists, since their works are, well, digital. So now NFTs come along and now digital artists can "sell" originals just like traditional artists do, including all the renown that comes with it. Keep in mind that digital artists were more or less second class citizens in the art world for lacking the ability to sell their works at high class auctions until NFTs came along.

What you get as a buyer of an art NFT, however, is beyond me. I get paying money for original paintings. I also get paying money for digital goods or game cosmetics, to some extend. But I fail to see anything else but digital trading cards in the NFT art market. But maybe that's all it needs to be.



Same here, but seeing how NFTs have been around for almost a decade and still never went beyond what is now a modern version of Rare Pepes I'm not so sure anymore.

At this point the main question is whether we're looking at baseball cards or beanie babies.

Danke fürs Gewinnspiel sam00!

Kopf - HeRetiK

VISA is also the provider -- at least indirectly -- for the debit card offerings of Binance and other exchanges, so they have pretty much embraced cryptocurrencies at this point. However this doesn't necessarily mean they are especially committed to it since VISA only provides the payment network -- most of the responsibilities and risks still lie with the exchanges.



I think there's really not much more to it other than what they stated in their Tweet: To add something contemporary to their collection of historic commerce artifacts. Keep in mind that USD 150k,- is spare change for VISA so buying an NFT for one of their pet projects does not seem especially out of the ordinary.

Ratimov verlost USD 50,- in BTC zur Feier des Tages das Bitcoin wieder die 50k durchbrochen hat!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5356076

Hat gerade frisch gestarted, sind also derzeit noch genügend Plätze frei!

69 please.

(hehehe)

Thanks for the raffle, Ratimov

Being accused of money laundering and tax fraud is not the same as being guilty of. Sure, there might be some additional paperwork, but in the end you'll worst case have to switch banks and maybe pay more taxes than you need to since the cost basis and therefore the taxable profits are not fully clear. But unless you've burned every wallet backup you ever had proving the time and therefore roughly the price of your initial purchase shouldn't be a problem. It's all verifiable, public data after all.



Seems like a bit of a contrived use case, no? Why would you want to withdraw $1M, in cash, all at once? Not even regular bank ATMs hold close that much of an amount.



Agreed, but the EU proposal you're referring to does not say what the article implies. The proposed regulation applies to Crypto Asset Service Providers which refers to centralized platforms such as exchanges, payment gateways and custodial wallets. Person-to-person transactions are explicitely excempt and non-custodial wallets are not even in the scope of the proposal so I'm not sure where the news agencies are pulling that from.

Now I'm not saying that they won't try to regulate non-custodial wallets and person-to-person transactions further down the road, but as is it stands those articles don't seem properly researched.

Yes, I also think that at least in theory even non-KYC Bitcoin shouldn't cause much troubles further down the road, as long as the fiat amounts involved can be explained through your income. Having bought 10 BTC for cash in 2012 is simply not the same as having bought 10 BTC for cash in 2020.

With banks I'm not so sure though. They are generally more wary about cryptocurrencies, so cash-bought Bitcoins may raise some eyebrows there, regardless of the amounts involved. Still, it's not like buying (or selling) Bitcoin is illegal (except for the places where it is, of course) so at worst they can quit their business relations with you.



Precisely this. Just because Bitcoin has allowed people to make gains that seem too good to be true to be legitimate doesn't make it criminal.

The parties that are involved with USDC are a bit more transparent and have less of a history of running into trouble with regulators, so I'd also say it's slightly more trustworthy than USDT.

As far as lending is concerned: If you already got money on an exchange for trading purposes I don't see anything wrong with lending it for additional income. But moving money into a stablecoin and then onto a lending platform for the sole purpose of getting better APY than with classical means... hard to say. Even ignoring that there's plenty of scams out there. Maybe with money I could afford to lose but beyond that I'm not fully convinced it's worth the risk. The yield may be more stable compared to, say, index funds (if we're sticking with fiat-denominated investments), but whereas with index funds you're widely diversified across multiple companies, with crypto lending you're not only exposed to a single point of failure, but to two risk factors on top of each other (ie. the stablecoin issuer and the lending platform).

Now maybe those risks are neglibile enough to make it worth the extra gain in yield, but that's up to everyones own personal risk assessment. Let's just say you're right to be wary.

Wenn der Automat wirklich gut geht würd ich aber nicht davon ausgehen das der nach 1-2 Tagen noch dort steht, selbst Bankomaten und Ticketautomaten werden gerne mal freigesprengt und im Ganzen mitgenommen

Blind people use screen readers, so it's mostly a matter of making Bitcoin wallets screen reader accessible. At least on desktop this seems to be already at least partially the case:

https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues/4637
https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues/4637

I'm not sure what the state on mobile is, but it doesn't seem to be an insurmountable problem, rather just one that needs to be tackled and improved upon.




Yes, but for the future elderly Bitcoin will not be some weird new concept like in the worry stated by OP.

@OP: I also would not worry about Bitcoin replacing Fiat currencies fast enough as to confuse our current elderly generation. Everything else is mostly a matter of keeping software accessible, and that's a general problem that doesn't only affect Bitcoin.

I cringe at how plausible and easily imaginable this scenario is, but it also would be pretty damn hilarious.

It's quite interesting that despite everything BSV's price is still holding up and pretty much in lockstep with the rest of the market. Pretty telling really about how little fundamentals matter when it comes to altcoins.

To be fair, this loop hole would be mitigated by the current dust limit of 546 satoshis. However I'm not entirely sure whether the dust limit is wallet dependent or actually part of the protocol consensus?

Great catch though! Without a dust limit, given this fee system one would be able to DDoS Bitcoin for free.