Coinbase is a giant scam. Please do not do business with them. I just tried to buy .5 BTC and they au tomatically cancelled the buy and sent this stupid e-mail explaining that it was a "high risk" transaction and that they "decided" not to send me any BTC and that they would refund me in 3 or 4 business days. They basically just stole my money for 3 or 4 days. COMPLETE scam.
what makes it worse is that I reached out to customer support who assured me they had fixed my account and that I could go ahead and try the purchase again.... guess what? they cancelled it again! Now they have over $1,000 of my money for 3 or 4 days and I get nothing... This is criminal and they should be shut down for pulling crap like this.
They are taking on a extreme amount of risk as generally speaking you can reverse ACH and credit card transactions while you cannot reverse bitcoin transactions. Coinbase needs to carefully screen it's customers when they buy from them as they likely get scammed often |
|
|
|
The US has Coinbase so it is very easy to turn USD into Bitcoin for about 1% in fees. If Cambodia gets a similar service, then you will be able to send money to Cambodia for 2% and maybe even cheaper if the fees lower.
It might not be possible to send money right now, but in the future almost all countries will have big Coinbase like companies. Lots of money to be made there.
I think in three years bitcoin becomes faster and easier and cheaper than banks, PayPal, or Western Union to just about any major country in the world.
There are bitcoin traders all over the world. The OP should check the marketplace section of these forums for potential ways to sell bitcoin for fiat (and/or goods/services) in Cambodia |
|
|
|
Problem is, there are those who will fall for the scam................................. This is not technically a scam. Companies' reputations are one of it's most valuable assets and it makes sense to pay to have their reputations protected when there is a legitimate dispute. What these people are doing is very illegal, and is certainly extortion. I would consider a scam to be when someone tricks others into sending them money under false pretenses. IMO this is not what this is. IDK if the purps will follow through on their threats of trying to damage their reputations. |
|
|
|
Does CoinBase and or BitPay handle the British Pound?  I think the reason is both legal and the ability to convert the currency to the company's country fiat. Make no mistake these companies accepting BTC are not holding BTC. This. Although there are a bunch of exchanges that let you use a wide variety of currencies, there aren't many (if any) mature payment processors that convert to something other than USD. There needs to be a pound/euro/etc payment processor that plugs in just like visa/mastercard/paypal that is mature enough for a big company to trust. It would not be difficult for a european merchant to convert their dollars to euros if they were to utilize coinbase for bitcoin payment processing. Even if they were not able to do so, there are many international companies that have a legitimate need for dollars. |
|
|
|
I would doubt this would ever happen. The reason oil is traded in dollars is because the dollar is so widely traded and the dollar market is so liquid.
There is more oil traded in a day (in terms of market price) then the market cap of bitcoin is. This would result in constant huge swings in price of bitcoin as people try to move in and out of oil.
These factors will change. The dollar will loose liquidity and bitcoin will gain liquidity (massively). Of course this will not happen overnight. Step by step "apostate" countries will leave the dollar sphere, thereby decreasing the importance of USD as reserve currency. You're reversing cause and effect in your argument: The USD is widely traded and liquid, because oil is traded in dollars. Not the other way around. The amount of money that is traded in oil is small compared to total trade based in dollars. There is no way that oil causes trillions of dollars of trade per day when only ~$9 billion worth of oil is consumed (and traded) per day (based on oil trading @ $100/barrel) The dollar is heavily traded and liquid because it is backed by the US economy and the US economy is very big. |
|
|
|
|
Can't pretty much anyone update/change a wikipedia article to anything they want it to say?
|
|
|
|
probably just FUD. it's easy to "leak" some sources just to stoke the crowd into a bitcoin buying frenzy.
I would agree. The OP is almost certainly FUD, however one bidder did buy all of the coins so the price may have been close to the market price. |
|
|
|
The odd thing is that 2.28533471 BTC were sent as change. Why did the FBI only sell 29656 of the 29658 BTC?
That's the amount they received as spam. Just look at the incoming transactions of the FBI adress  LOL they received $1,400 worth of spam beggers! |
|
|
|
|
This is very interesting. I am curious to know the price levels that the other bids were placed at.
From the looks of it, a large institution is trying to purchase a lot of bitcoin
|
|
|
|
|
I would doubt this would ever happen. The reason oil is traded in dollars is because the dollar is so widely traded and the dollar market is so liquid.
There is more oil traded in a day (in terms of market price) then the market cap of bitcoin is. This would result in constant huge swings in price of bitcoin as people try to move in and out of oil.
|
|
|
|
lawyers only care about getting paid..
the best solution is to get debt recovery companies involved first. then get lawyers.
the reason/logic:
going to court first, may prove that BFL owes funds, but then it gets passed onto debt recovery agencies, which BFL can then just avoid answering their office doors to.
but by going the debt recovery route first (its cheaper option too initially as no retainer is asked for upfront) and if BFL hide away from paying. this can then be used in the court as evidence that BFL will not pay. making the sentence more harsh and more actions instead of debt recovery would be given.
EG, prison time, seizure of assets/whole company, stiffer fines.. rather than just a set small fine, with low/slow re-payment schedule.
do you really want to waste court time where BFL show an empty FIAT bank account AFTER a court asks them to pay a fine? or do you want to pre-empt that defense by proving they wont pay. and then get some actual positive result
You realize what you said makes no sense right? Your argument, if I understand you correctly, is to NOT file a lawsuit, because if\when you win, BFL will just ignore the debt collectors you send to collect the debt. Instead you suggest they go straight to debt collection, so that BFL has to ignore them, which you can then use in court to get a judgement against them, which.....you just said 2 seconds ago BFL can just avoid answering the door when the debt collectors show up. Brilliant! If you win a lawsuit against someone you get a judgment against them. This judgment will allow you to attack a lien on any of their property that the court has jurisdiction over so you would be paid if the money is there (assuming they do not successfully appeal) |
|
|
|
As aggressive as it sounds, this is not as crazy as it would have sounded say a year ago. Best of luck.
It is possible to buy many things with bitcoin but for the most part it would really not be an option for someone to live long term on bitcoin. A lot of what people do when they "live on bitcoin" is they buy gift cards from gyft that are spent in dollars and use those gift cards at various stores. IMO this is not really "living on bitcoin" but rather using it as a more convenient payment method |
|
|
|
It's nice though that someone famous talks about bitcoin, I've seen his tweets retweeted about his bitcoin related tweets. So he has sparked some wondering of bitcoin to some of his fanbase.
Any celeb mentioning it is good and especially great exposure on Twitter and Facebook etc.Each time it's posted it has the potential to reach millions and will at least peak the interest of a lot of people at least. It really needs to be more then them just mentioning it. It needs to be more of an endorsement. The MSM has reported on bitcoin enough so that most people at least know somewhat about bitcoin or at least have heard of it, which is what a celb mentioning it would accomplish. |
|
|
|
hmm i see
so ideally average confirmation time is 10 minutes
and then we see 8 minutes average for now, it will make we need more time to get another confirmation, right?
Since the average confirmation time is less than 10 minutes that means the difficulty is too low. So what it means is that the difficulty will keep going up until the average confirmation time is 10 minutes. Enjoy the shorter 8 minute average confirmation times while you can Eventually the growth in the hashrate will level off and the average confirmation time will be adjusted to 10 minutes where it should be. The lower confirmation times mean that the EV of mining is increased above what the difficult would indicate until the difficulty changes again |
|
|
|
Great news, but we need more consumer adoption!! What good is it if we have merchants accepting bitcoin but nobody to spend the bitcoins?
Well i wouldn't say no one is spending their bitcoins as even the ones who hoard their coins(users on this forum) do actually spend them but in small amounts There are a lot of people who just purchase bitcoin as an investment hoping the value will rise in the future. There are many others who will use bitcoin to buy things as it is easier then other payment methods |
|
|
|
Hello everyone I was hoping that someone that is much smarter then me can answer what I've been pondering. I'm getting interested in Bitcoin ATM's its reported that there is one in Vancouver Canada that has processed up to $100000. Now I know it would help the Bitcoin market. Would it be a good idea to find investors purchase these machines and put them in major cities? Like say Mt View California, San Francisco, San Diego. This would help make it easier to buy and sell bitcoins at a moments notice.
There are HUGE regulation hurtles in the US...not really worth it unless you have a few hundred thousand lying around. As you need a license for each state and they are all different. about 1.5-2 million for all 48 states IMO regulations in the US are vastly slowing the pace of bitcoin adoption then we would otherwise have |
|
|
|
Problem with 401K is that it's not inflation proof. Your Grandmother, presumably if she's old enough, likely remembers when she only paid $0.05 for a Coca Cola in a restaurant; whereas today, a Coca Cola costs up to $2 (if not $3 in a bar). Coca Cola increased 40 to 60 times within generational memory. The samething will happen to your 401K - it'll decrease in value by 20 to 60 times by the time you collect.
Pensions suffer the same issue too, I might add, unless you have an indexed pension like government workers. The reality is most of us will probably die from starvation in our old age due to not having any money, unless we manage to keep a job somehow.
That's the reality of inflation, folks. Back in the age of prosperity, when currencies did not inflate to the moon, it wasn't uncommon for people to retire in their 50s. It's a dystopian society if we are working people to death, especially when this is contrasted by all the Paris Hiltons and other capital owning parasites
The price of a soda varies very widely from restaurant to restaurant. The vast majority of restaurants also offer something called "free refills" today, while this was likely not the case when Coca Cola cost $0.05 (fountain drinks technology was not available at this time, and it was always sold in bottles), so when you pay "$2" at a restaurant you are really paying a total of $2 for as many Coca Colas as you drink while you are at the restaurant. The value of 401k's is based on the investments in the account. It is the goal of these investments to beat inflation. In 1914 the Dow Jones Industrial average (DJIA) was at ~71 (for rounding we can call it 100), as of yesterday the DJIA closed at 16851.84 (call it 16,000 for rounding). This is a return of 160x verses 60x for your soda example (from 5 cents to $3 at a bar). This raises an interesting dilemma... When you assume it's free refills and they double charge you, do you complain about the bill or let it slide?  What do you mean by double charge me? Do you mean that the restaurant charges more then they have to charge me? In other words they could charge me $1.50 but charge me $3.00 instead. If this is the case then no I would not say anything as this is their posted price and I have the right to not buy the product (soda in this case) if I so choose. If you mean that their price is $3.00 for one soda and the server put $6.00 on the bill, then yes I would absolutely say something. There is no reason to pay more for something that what I had agreed to pay. The server would likely be more then happy to remove the extra charge as if she wouldn't then the extra charge would likely come directly out of her tip. |
|
|
|
Then she cornered her in the corner of the seat and the wall and started hitting her. It was downright disgusting, I had to leave.
You're quite the stand up hero donkey... You really think someone who does that would change their ways just because I speak? You clearly don't. You have much to learn about how humans operate vod. No, you were a coward. I would have stepped in and stopped the assault, like I have done dozens of times. It is not always going to be safe to stop an assault |
|
|
|
That is biggest problem of BitCoin, people don't look at it as a money to use it, but as a treasury to keep for rainy days.
Since bitcoin is deflationary they use it as a speculative tool to increasing their wealth in terms of fiat. There is little way around this issue. Which is ok. If the value keep going up, it might be better used as a store of wealth rather than being money. in order for the price of bitcoin to go up over the long term it will have to be used as some form of money |
|
|
|
The researchers from the Carnegie Mellon University CyLab who carried out this work, tempted users into downloading and, in many cases, actually running a Windows application on their computer. After they had agreed to take part, they were told that it was for an academic study but were given very little other information about the application. The application pretended to run a series of computational tasks and paid those who installed it one cent for every hour it was left running.
If something is for "academic" use people are generally more trusting then they otherwise should be. The same goes for noble causes like the SETI project that lets people use their computer to look for possible signals from outer space. I think that the acceptance rate would be much lower if participants were told that the application was for "for-profit research" without a specific cause. What makes you think a criminal won't do the same thing? I can say I'm doing an academic study when I ask people to send me 5 BTC. I can bloody say I'm from NASA doing something. But am I? Nope. This what what people don't seem to get. Why in the world can a few words change everything. If it asks for something high-security, screw it! I won't touch that. I can dress up as a cop and tell people "I'm a cop" and be a criminal. Could you tell the difference between a guy in a seemingly authentic polic uniform with all the gear I bought down at the surplus store, and me being a hardened criminal posing as a polic officer? I'm going to leave it at that. EDIT: I'm not a criminal. I don't maliciously break laws, and I live a "normal" life. The scenario is an theoretical example. I am not saying that anything would stop a criminal from simply saying that they are doing the study for academic use. I am saying that the promise (real or not) of academic use is enough to convince a lot of people. I am not saying this is a good idea or not, but just explaining human behavior. Yeah, I think a lot of people will take much more liberty with what they are willing to commit when they hear that their actions will be used for an academic study. It's really a different type of motivation at that point. I would be interested to know how much evidence was used to show the users that it actually was for academic purposes. For example an ".edu" address would have given them legitimacy verses a ".com" or ".it" domain |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
