Same question had been asked for a million times already, and I can say that it's only the people who chose not to invest no matter the price are the ones missing out the potential profits waiting for them. I don't think anyone is ever late. The real question is: were they even ready to take the risks in the first place? It's easy to average buys in bitcoin and crypto, really, but people don't seem to understand how to do such.

It's quite fascinating that a telecoms giany who could easily provide their own payment method uses bitcoin as one for their checkout pages. AT&T accepting bitcoins is news, and a big one at that considering that it's the first telecoms company to accept the said cryptocurrency as a form of payment (albeit using BitPay). I'm pretty sure others would follow suit knowing that this brings hype to the media, the people and potential customers.

I wonder how much sales would AT&T generate after this news comes out to the wider audience or whether it would be of greater impact to the company at all.

Well for someone whose best interest resided tthat on a massive statue instead of addressing the nation's issue, I don't think any form of reconsideration regarding crypto ban will occur. Also, even if the ruling party was overthrown, for sure some of the constituents will still vie for the past administrations platforms and implement it as best as they can. Perhaps the Indian crypto community would have to wait for yet another term before having their wishes granted and trade on Indian soil without hesitations and fear.

About time, I suppose. We still have a lot of people coming in to this forum asking for legal assistance on how would they go about filing and paying their taxes. The guidelines they have set since 2014 is still commendable and can be a great basis upon starters. Since the cryptocurrency economy has already evolved, perhaps we will be seeing clearer and more up-to-date guidelines that will accompany traders that are also taxpayers into getting their taxes filed right, without the fear of getting hunted by the feds and the IRS should they fail to comply.

This is not new. With the advent of stablecoins, people are just using those instead of real dollars in trading. Also, exchanges have this habit of faking the volume that goes within their platform to lure more customers and traders in. However I'm not sure whether keeping most of the volumes in stablecoins is a good idea considering that the issue of these currencies being backed by real assets/dollars is still somewhat questionable at best.


One can only hope that they really are backed by something that can really hold value as what Tether introduced them to be.

Quite a bit late to the craze of the hack, but props to Binance for the oversight and anticipation of the said event knowing that the scene is plagued with hackers and nefarious people. If most exchanges do this as well, then perhaps we can prevent Gox 2.0 from happening and users being robbed off of their money that exchanges should be safeguarding in the first place. Hacks are becoming more and more common now that almost each month we hear an exchange getting hacked.

With all the negative implications of the US Copyright Office's decision, it's actually a good thing for them to clear out all the doubts casted by those who feared CSW taking over anything with bitcoin's name on it. If anything, the Copyright Office gained a couple dollars from CSW by filing that paper and making himself look like a clown for the crypto community. What antics and facepalm moments would this guy serve next for our plates, I wonder.

I don't think core devs would even contest this. It would only make it look political and that's the last thing they wanted to avoid. Let CSW do things that would also be his own demise. Like highschool textbooks, he might be written as the founder of bitcoin and be regarded as an intellectual but to us who know the story very well, he's just someone who wanted money, power and tax privlieges (LMAO). He cannot alter bitcoin in any way even though he was granted copyrights so who cares.

Coins are irretrievable when it was sent to the wrong address, or to an address not compatible to the official network. Testnets are basically 'testing networks' wherein changes are implemented and tested to see any irregularities within the next implementation or to observe what happenes if x implementation is deployed to the network. This seemed to be an error on your end, and perhaps lack of oversight from Shift on making their wallet lead to testnet on default.

Check block explorers. The withdraw page should have a transaction ID associated with your eithdrawal. Also, try to sync your wallets and check whether it comes up or not. Normally they flag withdrawals as complete even though the transaction didn't receive enough confirmations within the network. End result: you don't see your coins come in your wallet. If the said method failed, contact Bittrex support.

Not entirely sure what made their platform the hot target for FIOD, but for sure this has something to do with money laundering in large amounts. If the primary objective of the seizure and closure of the said platform is due to basic mixing, then I don't think mixers would be a thing of the future and a lot of governments would be against its idea.

As for the commotion happening around in this thread, @CryptoReggae, if you think mixing coins is a way to help criminals further their nefarious doings, tell that to the Swiss bank accounts and other offshore bank accounts used by crimelords, corrupt and narcopoliticians to hide their precious ill-gotten wealth. Every system has its dark, flawed and dirty side. This ain't utopia you're living at, so expect something rotten and dirty.

Going back to $3000 is somewhat a daring move for the bulls should this be the next target before massive pushes happen. By then, many people would surely lose interest, and any increases following the plunge would only be regarded as a dead cat bounce (just like what happened a few years back). Anyway, $6000 is a likely and easy target for a retrace before ahooting higher scores. Halving is just a few months from now and I'm pretty sure we're set to cover good gains by then.

Possible. We saw a lot of manufacturers and giant companies side on the tail of US in the trade war following the Huawei ban for Google services. It only starts from there and I think a larger effect will be seen once other aspects of the trade ban start materializing. I for one believe that China is somewhat caught between a rock and a hard place here, and can only do things on their own which, I think some Chinese people wouldn't fancy in any way. Assuming that this trade war gets even nastier, people will soon see bitcoin as a way to escape the devaluing Yuan, and boy it will be quite a spectacle for the rest of the world to see (not that I want China to lose its economic strength but oh well.)

If I made a huge profit off of bitcoin and bitcoin trading, I would expect myself to be taxed especially once the banks raise the red flags on my account. I'm pretty sure here in this country, the central bank alongside the tax dept are looking at bitcoin as a currency more than an asset, which makes my profits fall under income tax. Anyway, the reason for bitcoin falling under capital gains tax, as was pointed by gentlemand, is rather silly and not a good basis of classification. Any other currency can be replaced, too, so shouldn't they fall on the same category as where bitcoin is if we are to use the judge's reasoning?

No, as bitcoin mining was not designed to work like that. Over time, bitcoin adjusts its difficulty depending on the number of miners, and it's designed to go up or down to maintain a 10-minute block time on average. Perhaps if a lot of people were to shut down their miners, you'll have a chance at hashing it out and making bitcoin, but until then difficulty will stay as it is and the competition will be stiffer, tighter and cut-throat to get a single block.

If that was too easy then I guess most would just be mining bitcoin and not do anything else to earn money.

Being 'early' in the game doesn't secure you a spot in the circles of Hal Finney and Satoshi. Also, he may be literate in the field of Computer Science but even Andreas Antonopoulos doubted his capabilities in understanding the intricate technicalities of bitcoin and blockchain during the BCH forks. He's just a con artist at best, and is only doing all of these in order to gain privileges for himself and also profit purposes, obviously.

Copyright or not, bitcoin will never be controlled by a single entity, and if comes up to that, another hardfork might come and therefore render CSW's patent useless. $35 fee for the copyrights is too small a price for a multi-billion dollar industry. Idk what the US had in mind when they approved the application, but I can see that they can use CSW in what ever purpose they may see him fit in the future (hint: a puppet).

Print more money, what could go wrong? The current generation and older ones wouldn't be able to live long enough to see the blunders of their past come out and get them. The band-aid solution offered by quantitative easing has always been the go-to of people who are actually not looking deeper into the problem and see a genuine solution. Also, the 'freedom' offered by fiat is also what makes these regulators get the hang of just printing money to soften the economy for a short while, and if that freedom isn't present, I don't think QE would even be a thing.

Not sure what you are really asking as the words seem vague, but all I know is that all you gave to pay for is capital gains/income tax in the event of a profit. If not, then tax is basically nil for you (at least here in my country). At best, you can consult the ToS and Legal page of Bittrex. I know for certain that the fees they ask already covers what you are asking, and as for domestic taxes, you need to file it yourself as capital gains/income tax and the rest is pretty much straightforward from there.

That's why one should never do monetary favors for other people, especially if include a high amount of money being handled by someone in assumption of getting the principal some profits over time. If Patel was a registered broker/trader, he can do that without any complications and legal issues should the money be lost, but no. They did this with no clear terms leading to the two brothers asking for a ridiculous amount of sum in return. It was the man's fault all along, and if he knows that he can't repay it, might as well not take it.

They wouldn't have done that and instead just let crypto prosper in order to reap the benefits later on. Also, I doubt that there were any plans to take over bitcoin back then as it's still relatively unknown, and even now, too, given that the size of bitcoin compared to USD and fiat is ridiculously small. The government can focus their attention and energy elsewhere and not on bitcoin's creator. They have larger things at hand and rhe awarding of copyright to CSW perhaps is just a decoy to divert media attention (lol @ my conspiracy theory).

Anyway, I like what you're smoking. Pass it on.