I have not encountered any problem with it as well, so far at least. But if the point is privacy and completely staying away from KYC, I'm afraid this kind of transaction isn't an option. Even if you choose P2P all the time, if you're receiving or sending money through banks whenever you sell or buy Bitcoin, respectively, your identity is still known and you can easily be traced. That's why I'm seeing it as somehow pointless. A third party is still involved and that party has your complete personal information.

Whether it's a scam or not, does it matter? It's pretty much unknown. There's no record of it on either Coingecko or Coinmarketcap. And since you've also done a little research on it and found no information even on Twitter or Facebook, what reason is left then for you to further inquire about it?

Wherever you found it doesn't matter. I wonder what made you curious about this unheard-of exchange. Do they offer something enticing? I think the rule of thumb when it comes to security is to avoid anything which you cannot verify.

But can the IRS be trusted that it won't share sensitive information with its fellow government agencies? And should we decide that we won't be declaring any Bitcoin holdings, which I am doing right now, and trade exclusively peer-to-peer, are we then limited to the option of transacting face to face and on cold cash basis? Because peer-to-peer transactions which involve the likes of PayPal, bank transfers, and the rest of online payment options are almost pointless because they always ask for personal information.

The trader in a liquidation process doesn't just lose a % of his/her money, he/she loses it all. The platforms or exchanges don't just get a certain % in profit, the trader's money will go to them. And this isn't about the bounce after the crash or vice versa, this is about losing your position or your margin.


I think OP is referring more to forced liquidations rather than an intentional trader's decision to either stop-loss or take-profit. The latter may not even be liquidation in its strict sense. I think liquidation news aren't talking about amounts which are closed because the traders decided so. These news are referring to amounts forcedly liquidated by exchanges. Meaning, these are amounts lost because of the traders' wrong predictions or positions. If they short Bitcoin and the price rises, they're wrong and they lose their money.

Both have their unique advantages, yes, but how can we say that Tether's potentials are endless? In the first place, it simply represents the US dollar. Secondly, it is centralized. Which leads us to my third point, that it is able to enforce censorship. This goes on and on. We can deduce a number of conclusions from the mere fact that it is centralized. For example, that Tether has the ability to freeze funds. And if they can do that, they can also seize them. USDT doesn't share Bitcoin's revolutionary features.

I have started this a number of times in the past and ended up failing to keep it updated every time. Just months ago, I have once again began to do this. It's a lot easier now that I'm gambling not that much anymore. Aside from small sports bets online every now and then and going to cockfights once in a while, there's nothing more. I no longer play casino games even. No more dice and slots and roulettes and even blackjack for me.

What's a career for you, by the way? Your career gives you regular income. Bitcoin doesn't. On that basis alone, Bitcoin can't be made into a career. Bitcoin may be an investment; investment cannot be made a career, however. Bitcoin may give you money, but it doesn't mean it's already a career. A career is like an occupation. Bitcoin cannot be like that.

Your brother made a good amount of money from Bitcoin within 6 months. But it could also happen that your Bitcoin investment won't give you a positive return for years.

There's a reason why Bitcoin is considered a long-term investment.

Too worried should be what everybody feels when their substantial funds are in the hands of somebody else. But I kind of get your point, who's not facing a lawsuit anyway? That's very common among top crypto exchanges. Gemini is facing one, so you want to move to another. Where, Binance? It's also facing a lawsuit. CZ himself is facing a lawsuit. So, Coinbase? The same. Kraken? Probably not sued in the US but investigated, fined, and so on, and its operator in Australia is facing a lawsuit as well.

So, if you want to let go of this unnecessary worry, withdraw your funds. You can probably get comfortable with your cold wallet in less than an hour.

No, this isn't accurate, but I don't think such data provided by bots are acceptable in courts to either indict individuals or acquit them.

What I find extremely unfair and troubling though is when centralized exchanges lock accounts, disable functions, or freeze funds citing AML reasons but not providing details because of confidentiality of information. These are automated actions triggered by whatever is detected by these unreliable bots.

This is wrong. OP is asking about liquidations which happen whenever the price of Bitcoin rallies.

This refers to margin or leverage trading. Liquidation means the platform or exchange you are using closes your position and takes your money away because you are already losing the margin. Meaning to say, you don't have money anymore to support your position.

In simple terms, if you predict that Bitcoin goes down and Bitcoin went up, you lost. Liquidation could happen, depending of course on your leverage. Thus, when there's a huge movement of Bitcoin whether up or down, there are ensuing news of liquidations.

I don't normally bet on sports that I don't know. Whenever I bet on NBA games, for example, I have sufficient knowledge to be somehow assured that my bet is reasonable and has a good chance of winning. Of course, this includes opinions of others especially experts. Having said this, I rely on whatever analysis I come up.

But sometimes I have my own analysis that I don't care what the experts are saying. Watching a DOTA II game, for example, you may hear commentators speak of how one team's picks seem stronger than their opponent's. After consideration, if this still goes against my own way of looking at it, I stick to my decision.

So I guess that makes me a bottom-up bettor.

Is this somehow expected, that at some point this would come? As the adoption or exploitation of Bitcoin grows, so will the enmity between the technology and the government?

Just a couple of weeks ago, in his Bitcoin Amsterdam speech, Snowden mentioned how he used Bitcoin to pay for the servers that would host the classified information that he shared with certain people.

I can also remember Andreas Antonopoulos mentioning how the efficiency of Bitcoin as money makes it desirable by both upright and crooked men.

And so as the volume of transactions grow and the number of users increase which, of course, include bad actors, the approach of the government against it also grows in severity.

I'm curious now, will you, then, encourage that people don't declare their Bitcoin holdings? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seemed to have advised people quite a while ago to just declare what they have to avoid possible troubles with the IRS.

I always prefer to stick with those less materialistic ways of defining richness. I'm a hypocrite if I don't admit that I'm running after money in one way or another, but I'm still convinced that beyond material possessions, it should be the genuine feeling of comfort and satisfaction that count more.

Of course, a man who has $1 million is richer than one who only has $1,000, I admit that, but that's definitely not everything there is to it. A man who lives in a mansion, has a private jet, a yacht, and so on but whose mind is constantly occupied with thoughts of how to make more money because he badly needs to buy that resort in the Bahamas or that island in the Carribean, or that latest private jet in the market, and so on could be living a harder life than one who is living simply in the farm and who cannot anymore think of anything that he needs.

I know of individuals who have much more money that many others but who cannot seem to stay at ease because they've got so much expenses and so much to buy. It seems they're living a poorer life than those who don't have much beyond their simple yet decent living but who are very much satisfied and can sleep soundly seconds after lying down.

Same here, that particular feature isn't also part of my current setting. I assume many of us are not really changing much of the default settings. Even the time format, I kept it as is. So there's going to be a real time and a forum time. 

I remember I was already ranked hero or even legendary when I learned that I can actually change the settings so that the signatures and/or avatars of users won't show, or that users can reply to threads while changing the title/subject, like what I'm doing right now.

It's fun to discover old features on this forum after many years of being active.

They didn't know it was false. Had they known, they wouldn't have posted that message. Nobody's expecting so much from Cointelegraph, but it was a simple case of write first confirm later, something not completely uncommon even in mainstream media They probably wanted to be the first to break the news to everybody. And they did it even if they only got the rumor from an unreliable source. Later on, and after confirming from BlackRock itself, they issued an apology that what they earlier posted was fake news.

Did you send him that message?

This is why people here are advising you to relax and wait. You reach out to them complete with all the proofs and then wait for their response. If you're constantly bugging them with repeated messages, you become annoying and you might end up ignored. And, worse, you'd become a target for scammers.

Freebitco.in has been operating for 10 years already, if I'm not mistaken. They wouldn't waste their reputation and track record by not giving the prize to a winner. So, if you won it fair and square and you have all the proofs, then nothing to worry about.

Don't beg over and over again, that you don't have money, you are in need of money, and so on. You're gambling, in the first place. Those have nothing to do with this. You're just claiming your prize. That's it.

Unfortunately, this kind of oppressive setup is rampant where I'm from. And rather than complaining and be furious about it, workers have grown accustomed to it. That's, after all, the setup everywhere. And so it has become common and acceptable.

As a matter of fact, what OP has shared is a toned down version of the, shall we say, inhumane situation here. A store, for example, pays below the minimum wage. A worker, say, a cashier, will have to be there at least 30 minutes to an hour earlier. The store closes at 5 in the afternoon, but the worker will spend another hour or two doing all kinds of works in the store.

Add to this the severe traffic congestion in many cities here as well as the poor public transportation. Everything considered, the worker will have to wake up as early as 4 in the morning and could go home as late as 12 midnight.

And this is openly allowed by our inutile government.

This is the kind of definition that renders Bitcoin a religion or, more aptly, a cult. Although this is of a higher degree because it is already compared to a certain religious figure, this isn't completely different from other definitions which make it appear as if Bitcoin is the panacea for all ills of the world, a silver bullet that would address inequality, violence, poverty, and so on.

I observe that there is already this growing mentality among strong advocates of Bitcoin. A war arises and they quickly promote Bitcoin because it could have avoided that war. Bitcoin fixes everything. That's not true. Bitcoin isn't heaven sent. Bitcoin is simply another one of those amazing technologies.

I guess the point of Wikipedia is that illicit gambling is one of those activities from which the money made will have to go through the process of laundering to make it appear as if it's made legitimately.

That's not saying that gambling itself is illicit. That's simply saying there's illicit gambling, which we all know, and whatever money that comes out of it, just like money coming out from other crimes like drug trafficking, corruption, and so on, needs to be processed to make it clean.

There's illicit gambling everywhere and then there's legal, licensed gambling.

11- Darker45

Please and thank you, krog!

Anyway, I can see that there's no more crash, no more correction, no more bear market. But your generosity continues!