if you want to trade on BitMEX: they don't like small boys.
OohKaaay... Why TF would anyone want to trade on bitmex? |
|
|
|
Well we've got our differences, goose. But I respect you. You and cryptoqueen. Happity Birfday. |
|
|
|
@jbreher (or anyone): what happened to the dragon logo it had at one point?
No idea. |
|
|
|
Its over. The debate is finished.
Ummm... what 'debate'? |
|
|
|
Has anyone else noticed the severe drop in liquidity on coinbase pro for BTC/USD?? Order book averaged about $50 million+ in buys all the way down to $2200 up until yesterday. Within the last 24 hours it dropped from $50 million down to barely over $10 million. What happened here?
Coinbase revamped its fee structure. Again. In the process, it nuked all standing orders made under the old fee structure. PITA to set up all the ladders again, but whaddayagonnado? bittrex, that's what I'm gonnado Seems to me that Bittrerx has rather anemic withdrawal limits, but I may be misrememberating. Yeah, there just aren't any good exchanges any more. But if Coinbase thinks they can just keep jerking me around they got another thing coming. Yeah, well Coinbase's recent changes were a wash for me, so... |
|
|
|
Then you are obviously posting in the wrong thread  I thought we were discussing Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
You forgot the bit where the big blockers try to fool newbies into thinking Bcash lol and BSV are Bitcoin.
It appears that you have no inkling of IP law. What makes you think BTC has exclusive claim on public domain art? That's exactly the kind of slippery, "formally correct" argument that gives you a bad name, jbreher. You speak of dishonorable paths and then defend conman moves such as appropriating an already established logo because you have an "inkling of IP law". If the nutjobs(TM) were selling drinks, or toys, or other unrelated items, that would have been fine and no one would've called anyone out. The point is, the scamming shitcoiners are in the very same business (tokens, cryptocurrencies or what you call this Internet magic money). This is outright brand stealing. Not from the brand owner, but from the collective of stakeholders (bitcoiners). The fact that there's no opponent who can sue for damage is comfortable eh? I will grant that that logo has some aspect of 'bitcoin-ness' to it. I will not grant that BTC has any higher claim upon that 'bitcoin-ness' than does BCH, let alone BSV. |
|
|
|
Seeing as you are playing dumb: What is the difference between the two logos and how is not deliberately misleading / confusing to newbies ? A practice which you have just said is dishonest. However, there indeed was a question in my reply. Which you conveniently ignored.
Distraction technique. Duck, weave, obfuscate. So fucking weak. Tell me... Exactly what is the authoritative organization that has deemed the presented artwork as the official BTC logo? Hmmmm? |
|
|
|
You forgot the bit where the big blockers try to fool newbies into thinking Bcash lol and BSV are Bitcoin.
Quite a different proposition than trying to fool newbies into thinking BCH or BSV are BTC. But nobody is doing that. That would be dishonest. How about addressing the substance of my post which you have selectively cut off? Your entire value proposition is based on fraud. One of these logos is a BSV logo. One of these logos is a Bitcoin logo. I can’t tell the difference so I can’t see how a newbie could. This is plainly fraudulent passing off.   It is more than dishonest. It is fraudulent. It appears that you have no inkling of IP law. What makes you think BTC has exclusive claim on public domain art? Fabulous, completely irrelevant reply. Nice duck. How about you address the substance of the question ? Or are you going to pretend you don’t understand the question ? Well, there was no explicit question in the quote of your post. So you’ll have to tell me what question it is you want me to address. However, there indeed was a question in my reply. Which you conveniently ignored. We big blockers by and large believe that BTC is not rightfully Bitcoin, and that it will likely implode from incapacity at perhaps the next FOMO spike. Seeing as all BTC has in claim to the name Bitcoin is it is currently the most popular fork of the Satoshi Bitcoin, it has no more claim to the logo than does any other Bitcoin. If one of the other Bitcoins does indeed capture more market cap than BTC in the future, will you concede that that other fork will indeed be Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
You forgot the bit where the big blockers try to fool newbies into thinking Bcash lol and BSV are Bitcoin.
Quite a different proposition than trying to fool newbies into thinking BCH or BSV are BTC. But nobody is doing that. That would be dishonest. How about addressing the substance of my post which you have selectively cut off? Your entire value proposition is based on fraud. One of these logos is a BSV logo. One of these logos is a Bitcoin logo. I can’t tell the difference so I can’t see how a newbie could. This is plainly fraudulent passing off. It is more than dishonest. It is fraudulent. It appears that you have no inkling of IP law. What makes you think BTC has exclusive claim on public domain art? |
|
|
|
Has anyone else noticed the severe drop in liquidity on coinbase pro for BTC/USD?? Order book averaged about $50 million+ in buys all the way down to $2200 up until yesterday. Within the last 24 hours it dropped from $50 million down to barely over $10 million. What happened here?
Coinbase revamped its fee structure. Again. In the process, it nuked all standing orders made under the old fee structure. PITA to set up all the ladders again, but whaddayagonnado? bittrex, that's what I'm gonnado Seems to me that Bittrerx has rather anemic withdrawal limits, but I may be misrememberating. |
|
|
|
In fact, what I did find was this: https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/products_services/socrates/liquidity-crisis/Take a look, it actually made me laugh. There is a picture of Socrates Verbal Inquiry Facility where MA appears to have typed in a misspelt question. Then Socrates - presumably using the now debunked claim that IBM Sequoia is crunching the numbers - spits out some inane statement that isn't even actionable. The system then appears to have three buttons, one of which is "execute". What does that do exactly? Print it out onto some paper?... SuluDudeOhMy.gif |
|
|
|
This is from their FAQ:
"When you receive cryptocurrency from an airdrop following a hard fork, you will have ordinary income equal to the fair market value of the new cryptocurrency when it is received, which is when the transaction is recorded on the distributed ledger, provided you have dominion and control over the cryptocurrency so that you can transfer, sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of the cryptocurrency."
If you never split the new coins from the base chain, there is no tx recorded on the distributed ledger. And therefore, by definition, those coins have not been received. Brilliant. However, the way they did it you would have income first (after performing the splitting txn) and then cap gains on the price difference when sell/exchange. Yes. But if you did not partake of Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Diamond, Bitcoin Tin, Bitcoin Zinc ... et al when they were birthed, then by their definition, you did not receive those forks, and therefore have not incurred the corresponding potential taxable event. Which is all we really feel dejected about, right? I mean, nobody really expects to get something for nothing, do they? IANAL. |
|
|
|
You forgot the bit where the big blockers try to fool newbies into thinking Bcash lol and BSV are Bitcoin.
Quite a different proposition than trying to fool newbies into thinking BCH or BSV are BTC. But nobody is doing that. That would be dishonest. |
|
|
|
Has anyone else noticed the severe drop in liquidity on coinbase pro for BTC/USD?? Order book averaged about $50 million+ in buys all the way down to $2200 up until yesterday. Within the last 24 hours it dropped from $50 million down to barely over $10 million. What happened here?
Coinbase revamped its fee structure. Again. In the process, it nuked all standing orders made under the old fee structure. PITA to set up all the ladders again, but whaddayagonnado? |
|
|
|
Vays is bitcoin's Robert Prechter.
Person 2: "WhoTF is Robert Prechter?" Person 1: "Exactly." |
|
|
|
This is from their FAQ:
"When you receive cryptocurrency from an airdrop following a hard fork, you will have ordinary income equal to the fair market value of the new cryptocurrency when it is received, which is when the transaction is recorded on the distributed ledger, provided you have dominion and control over the cryptocurrency so that you can transfer, sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of the cryptocurrency."
You bolded the wrong part, so I underlined it. If you never split the new coins from the base chain, there is no tx recorded on the distributed ledger. And therefore, by definition, those coins have not been received. |
|
|
|
And as far as BSV is concerned, well let's not. Its been proven an outright scam by this point and there's nothing left to be said.
Defend your statement. In what way is BSV -- the blockchain, the payment system, and the protocol -- a scam? Don't try to make this an argument of semantics when you know full well what I'm referring to. That's weak sauce. Get real. I am merely responding to your literal fucking words. If you don't mean to imply that BSV itself is a scam, then don't say "as far as BSV is concerned, well let's not. Its been proven an outright scam". Because that would be lying, you conniving bastard. And lying is scammy behavior. Should we all tag you now? Defend your statement. Or retract it. Any other path forward for you would be dishonorable. I am talking about the reason why BSV was born: it was born as a scam. Meaningless drivel. There was a split in the community as to the proper way forward. Small blockers thought the the big blockers' route would break Bitcoin. Big blockers thought the small blockers' route would break Bitcoin. That's not a scam, you nincompoop. That's an honeest disagreement about the properties of the protocol. You ignored my entire defense
What defense? If you want to counter something, counter the reasoning below:
I'd be happy to, if you had something to respond to other than 'a couple of the people who believe this is the route forward have engaged in behavior I consider unsavory'. But you don't. There is nothing to respond to.Again: Defend your statement. Or retract it. Any other path forward for you would be dishonorable. |
|
|
|
And as far as BSV is concerned, well let's not. Its been proven an outright scam by this point and there's nothing left to be said.
Defend your statement. In what way is BSV -- the blockchain, the payment system, and the protocol -- a scam? Don't try to make this an argument of semantics when you know full well what I'm referring to. That's weak sauce. Get real. I am merely responding to your literal fucking words. If you don't mean to imply that BSV itself is a scam, then don't say "as far as BSV is concerned, well let's not. Its been proven an outright scam". Because that would be lying, you conniving bastard. And lying is scammy behavior. Should we all tag you now? Defend your statement. Or retract it. Any other path forward for you would be dishonorable. They presented it too much as the true Bitcoin, creating confusion. Also people involved are generally shady with low ethics. 'They' is people. 'They' is not BSV. BSV is a coin, a blockchain, a payment system, and a protocol. There have been (and continue to be) innumerable scammers in BTC. Does that make BTC itself a scam? No. Is it too much to ask for equal application of standards? No. Incidentally, why you feel you need to gang in on nutildah's behalf is puzzling. Is he floundering too badly from a logic standpoint so as to threaten your comfortable religiousity? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
