|
This is the perfect time to use the phrase "same shit, different smell".
I wonder if someone set up this scam, where the payment option was in Paypal, or via your credit card, and it went as "Send us 1,000 dollars, we'll send you back 10,000 dollars in an hour".
People are really stupid when it comes to cryptocurrencies, this and ICO's are a prime example of how the media and public opinion of cryptocurrencies is that it is just a get rich option.
Crowdfunding was nothing new, but how come ICO's raised millions, and scammed millions? Same shit, different smell.
This view needs to be changed.
|
|
|
|
Cryptocurrency volatility can kill your pocket and rapidly reduce all your hard-earned investments.
This is really the main problem when you invested in cryptocurrency. I invested on bitcoin way back mid 2016 and I've seen it's price rise very quickly and go down as well. I regretted many times as when I should sell because many people says a single amount of bitcoin will make you rich in the future. I don't know if that will really happen and nkbody knows if it will. I still hold my bitcoin and when it reached new ATH I might sell all of it then find some other investments that is less risky. As much as we would all like that to be the only big problem with crypto-currencies, wouldn't we? Unfortunately, I don't think this is actually as big of a problem as it was a fews years back, the market has sorta of settled itself down, and I don't think we'll see any big changes in the market (nothing like the 20k runs). I reckon the biggest problem for investors nowadays would be hacks nowadays. We've already seen how many exchanges and wallets have been hacked, and even though people should be using their own wallets, a lot of investors still hold money on exchanges. |
|
|
|
It has a positive and negative impact on the market.
Negative effect
* it makes altcoins become undervalued and it causes more altcoins to be totally dead as investors are usually get attracted into Bitcoin alone.
Positive impact
*More investors and user keep coming as it helps to promote crypto
*increase in market demand and to move the market price of Bitcoin
Depends - having a big amount of bitcoin dominance in the market isn't bad, or good really. It means that the altcoins will 100 percent follow the movements of BTC, and they aren't really undervalued - just that they don't really have control over themselves due to the dominance. I'd also prefer more BTC dominance in the market - I think the recent changes to the market are pretty good, and I think the biggest problem we need to get over right now would be BTC adoption - more countries need to get in here. |
|
|
|
Stable coin got more trading volume than bitcoin means it was the preferred coin for trading not for holding then how it could be a dominant crypto in the future.?
Maybe OP were confused in some things in Trading. According to his picture, tether made it to the top but it was not even worth it for me to invest my money in, what's happening in the market now is my chance to buy more Bitcoin as an investment. Bitcoin gives me more assurance than the other coins when it comes on earning profits in the process, it is all putting your faith in a certain coin that puts you where you are now. Stable coins where likely most popular investment option during the bear market, where bitcoin and other altcoins where super unstable, most investors that wanted to be secured started to look towards safer options like tether and other stablecoins backed by fiat currencies. Bitcoin definitely has better the better technology behind it, but I don't think it'll be stable enough to be a good option long term. Much prefer stablecoins for day to day transactions. I'd hedge my bets on goverments adopting their own crypto-currencies in the future and then those currencies being used as the main payment source. |
|
|
|
I'm really not sure why such an article specifically for ICOs is actually necessary because people who start cryptocurrency projects should already know how to create documentations and thesis papers in the first place, but whatever. This is for the people who want to make money from creating unnecessary cryptocurrencies and ICOs I guess.
It's not always needed, but during the ICO phase, most popular and successful ICO's had whitepapers or other documents that described what their project was about, and what a timeline would look like. If you compare it to traditional investments, it would be a business plan that the company would show possible investors. I personally still don't think they are very needed, I'd much prefer an MVP (minimum viable product), other then just some random 20 page document. |
|
|
|
Take a look at daily spending habits of people and this gives you an idea. I use bitcoin to pay for food delivery every week at least once. Granted, this is a Bitpay 3rd-party merchant... so it's not like I'm exactly paying a pizza shop bitcoin. But I think it's a start and when shops do see their bitcoin orders go up, they might one day want to take it themselves (and who knows their own lightning shop so they don't bother with Bitpay's ridiculous confirmation setup). Shopping is a bit more problematic, but I'm not really an online shopper. I know some people who do tiny buys every now and then that adds up in a month! Make-up, clothes, accessories especially. Honestly, I've been living off crypto since late 2017.. sure, seen a few ups and downs but I'm exchanging crypto on a daily basis through p2p connections / localbitcoin / localethereum and using it as my main income.
Same here, I wouldn't exactly calling it living off crypto, though. That's for someone who bought all his coins years ago and living on it. I've been earning only in crypto since late 2017/early 2018. Up until Q1 2016, I was 100% earning in fiat. In fact, if you discount the few clients who insisted paying me through paypal, I was actually earning in crypto since end of 2016. My trading (selling, 90% of the time) takes place about every week, and with a bigger or more frequent one times around 3rd week of month to pay off bills. P2P most of my trades too. I think I'm pretty unique in my BTC spending, well at least compared to the other people around here - I've only ever used BTC for fairly small transactions, as well as some places that accept it when I am online shopping. Recently used the Moon app (this is a browser extension which basically allows you to spend your money on sites like Amazon) to go on a huge shopping spree for a laptop, and some other tech stuff. Was pretty crazy I could use BTC to pay for it, even if spreads where a bit high. |
|
|
|
|
I'm not very knowledgeable about the other 2 payment options, but from personal experience I've just found that when you use PayPal, you just need to avoid mentioning anything related to cryptocurrencies, and just send all payments as friends or family - this sucks because if you get scammed, there's no real way for you to get your money back (because if you mention cryptocurrency, they will basically just ignore your claim). There's also limits to size of transactions which may cause your account to be limited, personally, I cap myself at 500 USD per paypal transaction, and I've never had issues.
For skrill and neteller, from the look of this thread, I wouldn't recommend. Paypal definitely seems to be the popular option here.
|
|
|
|
Great news. Goverments are benefiting a lot from adopting new technologies fast, and the more countries that are adopting BTC, the more other countries will be pressured to adopt the new currencies. When there are new people taking power, they always want to improve on what their predecessors did, so you often see laws changing when there are a change in the government leadership. Take Donald Trump for instance, in his election campaign it looked like he was Bitcoin friendly, because he surrounded him with pro-Bitcoin supporters, but when he got into power... the opposite happened.  The government of the Ukraine first exempted Crypto currency transactions from taxes and then they realized that they created a loophole for people not to pay taxes and now they are reversing that decision.  Politicians are like that. They try and manipulate the crowds as they see please, for as much power and money as possible - and they often then change their views back. I want to see how they go with this, could this just be a ploy? |
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't put any money into altcoins right now, unless you are very sure about them. Bitcoin dominance has been extremely high these past couple of days and we've seen a lot large companies start investing into it.
Look at the recent news, even countries like China (who have been extremely reluctant against cryptocurrencies) are starting to make their own and want to get back into the game.
Take this time to enjoy some cheap BTC, and hold for the future. That's definetly what I am doing.
|
|
|
|
|
Looks decent mate, I've had a look at it and some of the basic code, and the UI looks really good mate.
Seems like a cool little version of BTC prices, that almost anyone can use, and help code out. I might even had a look at it later, but I'm too used to preev :/.
How long did this take? I'm assuming 5-10 hours of work, seems like the hardest section was making it look serviceable and attractive.
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't this just an idea of one big exchange that completely centralizes everything, and basically will have no competition due to it being one centralised entity.
No offence, but it seems like one of the worst ideas that I've ever heard, and it goes against the concept of crypto and decentralisation, which is to make sure that no one has too much power and control.
There's really no point for this right now, having a lot of competing exchanges is great for the ecosystem, and means they will constantly be pushed to improve their services, and the price the consumers have to pay (transaction fees when moving coins from an exchange to another) is very little compared to the rewards.
DEX's would be good for the scene, but I'm not sure how'd they all fit in place with the number of regulations being forced onto us now.
|
|
|
|
This is outrageous... Whoever organized this mining operation is really stupid, and really don't care for their lives. We've all seen stories of people stealing electricity from offices, workplaces, and even public places, but this takes it to another level. To be fair though, these freak accidents are hard to prevent, who would have thought that guards would try and utilize nuclear power to earn a couple of dollars worth of BTC. It's not very recyclable energy and is definitely too much power for mining BTC. The idea of using nuclear power for crypto mining is not new, Belarus president is have plan to build mining farms near a nuclear power plant and use surplus energy for mining Bitcoins.
Quite certain I read in 2017 also of several new nuclear plants in the Russian Federation that was going to power a couple of blockchain hubs, including crypto mining. I even remember that it wasn't all going to be Bitcoin (this was when BTC was really heating up in price). I suppose if you have surplus energy, which you will if you have a modern nuke generating it, then mining all those low value coins in the hope of them rising in the future's a low-risk strategy (since it's surplus). In any case, will be interesting to see impacts. If it's the surplus energy, it's not as bad, but I think it's a bit of an overkill using such a dangerous energy source to power BTC mining. |
|
|
|
If it were me I would've gone and got some real backing like a real business. It's not pie in the sky crypto bullshit. It's the type of thing that can make plenty of income immediately.
I'd agree, I'd much prefer getting institutional funding via the regular routes, over crowdfunding and running an ICO and going for a lot of retail investors, it's much less scummy and crowdfunding was pretty easy back then, basically, any project with a whitepaper and decent team was able to raise millions. ICOs have wound up making most of these people look like dicks. Easy to say in retrospect but I'm pretty sure I would've felt that way at the time. An ICO piles on pressure and expectations.
Agreed, it's harder to please your entire community of investors, then your institutional partners and any small problem instantly becomes gigantic and heavily publicized. AFAIK, the MCO(crypto.com) debit cards are the best in the market considering their worldwide offers, small withdrawal fees and quality of the service. I have never heard of this site, I have two questions: - Are their cards sent to every country in the world? - How long do they take to approve people's documents? They don't have worldwide shipping, only Singapore and USA are eligible to use their app which is used for ordering the card. Verification progress can take from a few hours to a couple of business days. No chance for other countries due to strict verification. I understand, when I used the wegecan card, they would send the card to any country in the world and their service was always very good, unfortunately I lost the mastercard card. Now that wegecan is no longer offering plastic cards, they give us the option to use this company: https://luxpin.co ( https://luxpin.co send cards to any country in the world) Has anyone here used this company " https://luxpin.co "? I don't trust the site, they have no information about their team, communities, or anything. |
|
|
|
The article is very different to what your title states, and your discussing 2 different things. Regarding if funds should be returned to their owner, yes, of course. That was your money that was stolen, and you deserve it back, not in the hands of the government, or the hacker/thief. Is this viable though is the real question, and that is a definite no. Think of the number of resources that would be required to do such a thing, and it's near impossible to get funds returned correctly, and the government would never do such a thing if they caught the thieves. Another big issue, how would you prove that funds were stolen? A transaction going out of your wallet isn't really enough, and BTC offers way less information compared to fiat money, so it'll be much harder to prove such things. I never think such morality exist by now. They steal our funds in a certain purposes and not by returning it over.
I mean, I'm not defending thieves(fuck them), but it would be really unrealistic to expect thieves to return stolen money. I think we are assuming that the thieves are caught, and the government or another entity holds the funds. |
|
|
|
-snip-
This actually makes a lot of sense, I remember thinking something like this when I was looking at large TX's that had many outputs and thought it was something like this. The transactions you listed are from the same wallet, and then going back into the same wallet - could transactions like these be removed from the total volume, and we'd get a more accurate figure, or would it be too hard to do? It's pretty amazing how much growth we've seen even with the bear market for quite a long time, looks like more investments are getting in the scene and people are moving their money around. Love it. |
|
|
|
|
Here are a couple of reasons why.
1. No altcoin that wanted to replace bitcoin, has been around for as long as BTC has.
2. No altcoin has received so much media attention, mainstream adoption, and has almost become mainstream.
3. No altcoin has BTC's market dominance or as much institutional and retail investments BTC has.
4. There is nothing wrong with BTC currently, so there is no need to change.
5. Altcoins have very little use compared to BTC.
And the most important one: BTC started the wave of decentralization that we know, and no other coin has been able to replicate the BTC blockchain and rally support from BTC users.
|
|
|
|
That's a good news for the cryptocurrency users of Austria. Telecommunications is a big industry which carryout each and every data transmitted through different pathways. One of the much known telecommunications service render accepting bitcoin will widen the market for bitcoin as it has got its services in different countries.
Same as this there is some good news from Japan as well, Rakuten - which is termed to be the Amazon of Japan have started its cryptocurrency exchange services. It was an crypto friendly venture since 2014 and understanding the need now they've come up with the app which helps in all means of cryptocurrency transaction for bitcoin, BCH and ethereum.
I agree it's definitely a great industry for them to set foot in and showcases more mainstream adoption of BTC, which is great, no matter what happens next. I don't think it is fully developed though and is as easy to the point where you can purchase a new phone bill and pay it in BTC, and we have no idea of spreads, but it's a good move for BTC adoption. These are positive signals for the crypto market. Giants are starting to care more about crypto. American telecom giant Verizon was reported to be seeking blockchain talent, including five blockchain developers in an apparent attempt to set up a distributed network
I don't think they "care" about crypto. What those companies do is that it could help them and their customers to be aware of crypto, hence it's a win-win situation for both parties. So this is a significant move from them. They are somewhat bridging the gap and who knows maybe others will follow as well. So it's a game changer is Austria, free advertisement for crypto enthusiast. Austria is actually one of the most crypto-friendly countries in Malta, and I don't think a mainstream company would suddenly add a new payment option and a lot of hassle for a PR move, I'm pretty sure they'll be accepting BTC for a long time to come. I don't think they'd bother with the lightning network, I doubt a lot of people there (except the enthusiasts) know about the lightning network there.
My thought as well. I like what LN aims to do and use it myself from time to time, but the network is so small and largely still unknown, that I don't see how it would benefit those who hold Bitcoin but don't know what LN is. In order to utilize the LN, they have to fund a channel which requires a regular transaction fee. If you just use Bitcoin to pay for things once or twice a month, you don't need the advantages that LN offers. To add, a lot of payment gateways for convenience sake accept lower value zero confirmation transactions if the transaction has a sufficient fee included. In other words, your transaction is mostly accepted near instantly. Perfectly said, for now, it's mostly useless for a lot of customers, but maybe in the future when microtransactions are more common, we'll see an increase in usage of the LN. |
|
|
|
Ah, I didn't know this at all. Mona.co does sound familiar, I remember seeing it as another debit card option, but it definitely didn't look as big as it is now, so it's come a long way. Look like the domain was sold for 12 million dollars according to this article, and the ICO raised 25 million. A pretty hefty price to pay. Any card company that has an ICO is automatically suspect in my opinion. You should be capable of making more than enough from fees without having to con innocent crypto virgins. Wirex's shit token downgraded my opinion of them significantly. Monaco have been making noise for several years and have not delivered a great deal. I don't see how issuing a card takes that long or costs so much. Either you can do it or you can't. If you can't - bugger off and don't take my money upfront for the honour of being a damp squib. Depends to be honest. I see 2 sides to this. A situation where the company doesn't have enough capital to fund upfront costs (marketing, development) and therefore requires investments to start off. Look at Monaco as a good example, there's no way they would have enough thought about buying the crypto.com domain if they didn't raise 25mil via their ICO. Another situation where companies shouldn't rely on constant investments to start their company, instead grow their company the old fashioned way, not by "spamming" marketing. Which I do prefer, it seems like the better way to do things. I put some more research into Monaco, and it seems like what you've said is true, they've been alive for 3-4 years, and have only just opened up their cards to the US, whilst numerous other companies already do it. |
|
|
|
I've always thought they'd be perfect fits for each other, but it's hard for other people to understand my views when there's been so much controversy in the gaming industry related to cryptocurrency. Take a look at a fairly old scandal where the popular gaming client ESEA (hosted professional lobbies for CSGO players) when they injected malware on thousands of PC's and secretly mined cryptocurrency for 48 hours. Link here - https://www.hltv.org/news/10629/esea-caught-in-bitcoin-scam. One of the best ways for the 2 industries to work together would be in marketplaces, and it makes me very happy to see companies like Opensea, Enjin, and others try and take advantage of these features. A good example to relate this to, would be the CSGO trading scene, which faced a range of issues and now have 7 day trade holds from a freshly traded item, if you could these items in a decentralized P2P network, which had items from other games, an instant-sale option, it'll be great. Sadly, companies like Opensea are unable to link together all the popular games, due to their restrictions and unwillingness of decentralization from big companies like Valve. There are not really many advancements one can make now, we need to wait for large developers to start incorporating blockchain technology in their games, sorta like banks currently. Ball's in their court. |
|
|
|
I tend to agree. Retail investors who got burned will probably only buy back when FOMO sets in above 20k. I think it's safe to say there's a pretty rocky path ahead for ICOs and altcoins as institutions focus on Bitcoin.
It's already become apparent with the amount of ICO's and IEO's occuring nowadays, compared to a year back. What saddens me, is that there are probably investors who became exposed to crypto via ICO's, lost money from the ICO's and likely exited crypto with a sour taste. It's not true that Bitcoin is drop from $20k to $5k in a month as you say, first time price is go so low was in November 2018, and from December 17 when we have ATH it is hold above $15k until January 7, 2018 so anyone who know anything about the crypto market had enough time to make a safe exit. I agree that big money was probably the cause of Bitcoin jump from $3000 to $14 000 in just few months, but it was some kind of test since they stop at one point. Even if they buying with help of OTC, when buying large quantities of something that has a limited supply, it must have an impact on the price. Maybe they change strategy, buying smaller quantities ensures a stable /lower price, and they have it now. Ah, gross exaggeration from my part, sorry. I think OTC has been even harder for people to execute over recent months (look at the recent case of localbitcoins deleting cash trades), but institutional investments have definitely been a big part of the price climb over recent months. Great article
At the contrary, I consider this article a bad one. Almost "Bitcoin.com" level  It parts from a Google Trends observation as an indicator for "retail interest", which is highly speculative. First, Google searches for Bitcoin are often related to speculation by Average Joes, not to cryptocurrency usage in the retail sector. They may however use the word "retail" in the sense of "small investors". But not even the Google Trends observation is really correct. As we can see in the chart displayed in the article, the interest in Bitcoin is growing, and at a pretty good pace (it has aproximately doubled in comparison to late 2018). In 2017, Bitcoin's bubble (and the subsequent crash) was in all the media, and that explains the very short (1-2 months) spike in the Google Trends chart. Most people probably didn't search for it because of genuine interest in investing or using it but instead simply because everybody was talking about it and they wanted to know what it was about. Then we have tweets about "institutional investors" as an indication for interest in Bitcoin. Well. Specialized Bitcoin "institutional" investors (like Grayscale) have existed since at least 2013. And their nice numbers, measured in US dollars, are mostly growing because the BTC prices are rising. The only item supporting their theory is the Bitcoin engagement by Fidelity, which was ... last year (as they also write, but it doesn't support their theory at all). As a conclusion, I think the connection they draw between "retail" and "institutional" investors is extremely speculative. I understand the point your making here, and I don't think using google trends is the best basis for a factual article, but taking it with a grain of salt, I'd still speculate that institutional investments have been crucial for BTC's recent price growth. It'll be way better if the article clarified "retail", and "institutional" investments, but it's still possible to draw a conclusion from blurry facts. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
