And who the **** is selling this cheap then?!

Also the founder got detained: https://www.btctimes.com/news/not-your-keys-not-your-bitcoin-okex-freezes-withdrawals

[Rhetorical] Why do people still keep massive funds at exchanges?!

Over-quoting is bad, it decreases the "value" of a post, let's say.
See the rules:

I guess that we may be arguing in the choice of words? I don't know.
In my head if institutions continue to buy massively no matter what (and of course that's not possible because the market regulates itself and they'll run out of money), the price will simply rise, more sellers will be available and there will be still no actual shortage.

But maybe I am missing something.
"Shortage" sounds as panicking and imho it's not the case. As I said, it may be the way we see the meaning of the words we choose.

Basically you want people do your homework; so let's drop at least the prediction about price recovering, that's your job in order to decide if you should invest or not.

Now, Binance is again a "strange" choice. A coin that has reached such a big exchange may be considered (it's not necessary true, obviously) to be successful or has been in the past. For "gems" smaller exchanges can be also a place to take a look.

Now about the coins.
* There are the stable "coins" tied to fiat currencies which won't fluctuate in theory.
* There are the investment stable "coins", like GOLD, which go with the price of other goods and will not care what recovers when in the crypto space, they go on with the tied goods. These could be less fluctuating than even Bitcoin.
* Actual coins are fluctuating a lot. Bitcoin is still considered by traditional trading as high risk because of this. Altcoins fluctuate even more.

The price is an interesting point and not necessarily valid. You can buy small sub-units of a coin, but it may not worth to withdraw under certain amounts because of exchange's withdrawal fee or tx fees. So I'd advise you drop this requirement because it would make your life unnecessarily more difficult.


I know I didn't really give you choices of coins (well, I gave you one), but you should really find for yourself the ones that suit you best.
You can go to altcoin subforum and ask people to start shilling their favorites, or just search for such threads, but I don't find them that much useful.

If Grayscale buys 900+ and the price still doesn't grow steadily, I guess that there are still enough traders happy to sell at current price.
I am aware that overall the price grows a little, but that's imho far from what we'd see if there would be indeed shortage.
Imho shortage translates to "prohibitive price". Right now it's some sort of balance between how much big companies are willing to pay for Bitcoin and the availability. And this could translate into Grayscale actually buying less than 900 Bitcoin in many days. (Just my opinion, and I may be wrong, I'm not claiming to know everything.)

At the rate of 900+ Bitcoins mined daily I would not really call it "shortage". But yes, everybody expects the price to get higher. And at a higher price more traders will probably also sell.
On the other hand, people discuss (in vain?) about "moon" since the halving.
Sooner or later it'll happen, but it's still not easy to say when.

The last one from the list may be because over-quoting, but for most of them I can't help, I have no clue.

Asta ai punctat-o intr-adevar extraordinar de bine.


Si s-ar putea sa nici nu poti. Sau cel putin nu usor.


"Denial". Negationismul este o trasatura a psihicului uman. Omului trebuie sa-i demonstrazi punctual ca nu are dreptate (si uneori nici atunci nu te crede).
Si spiritul de turma primeaza. Daca cunoscutii/apropiatii nu au patit nimic, atunci problema nu exista.


Aici dam in alte directii. Eu cred ca e marketing. 7 camere "da bine" si "arata profi". Producatorul nu e in stare sa faca mai bun (am aparat vechi care la 3 MP face poze mai clare decat unul nou la 12 MP) si atunci creste megapixelii si numarul de camere ca alea se vad (vizual sau in specificatii) si omul cumpara.


Din nou foarte corect.
Eu personal nu ma feresc foarte tare de cei pe care ii consider inofensivi, desi cand am ocazia pun nume si adrese inventate, iar guerrila mail "is my friend". Poate sunt prea lax si o sa o patesc. Poate sunt in limitele turmei. Viitorul o va spune.

Chiar imi pare rau ca am 0 sMerit, asta (a ta) e o postare de nota 10+.

I don't agree with this. Of course this also doesn't mean that you are wrong and I am right, I may easily be also wrong.

[1] I think that the target market is anybody who cares more than the average people on their privacy (and still use Bitcoin instead of Monero, but that's another story). So not necessary only scammers/hackers/wrongdoers.
[2] I think that most of them don't care. Money is money. And the part getting to the mixer is only the fee, since the bulk of the money will reach other customers' wallets.

I'll also add a [3] There might be (not sure though) mixers that will not mix coins 100% known to come from known hacks and actually give them back to exchanges or authorities. This is possible and if I'd have a mixer doing this I'd surely not make too much noise (honeypot?). Of course, this (point 3) is more a wild theory than the actual reality.

I'd add to @mocacinno pretty good list:
* [very important] support top hardware wallets (at least Ledger and Trezor)
* [important] the seed should work with other wallets too
* [important] it should be SPV since most users don't have the patience to download the blockchain
* [less important] allow RBF easily
* [less important] show the amount also in fiat (at least USD) <- I find this very useful for newbies that could get confused about how much money they send

The discussion on UI can be wide, but I don't want to write so much. I'd modify this on that on Electrum's UI and behavior (I'd go back to the old handling of SpendFrom, I'd default to BTC not mBTC, ...) and I'd add an option for simpler view for newbies.
All in all I do like Electrum for PC, but mostly the older version. So I'd start with that, I'd change a little here and there and I'll try to find ways to make it less confusing for starters.

Bun, aici cred ca exagerezi un pic. Majoritatea oamenilor vor da usor ceva ce (cred ei ca) nu le este necesar daca primesc ceva ce le este necesar. Si in cazul spus, teoretic, nu pierd nimic. Daca Lidl da spam, pot fi blocati sau oprita inscrierea - asta in caz ca oamenii aia chiar isi folosesc mailul (si crede-ma, stiu ca spun).
Problema reala este ce date sunt cerute in aplicatie si unde ajung datele alea. Daca este doar o adresa de mail, nu conteaza, daca sunt date amanuntite, .. datele alea pot fi folosite mult mai mult (si mai nasol) decat doar marketing, depinde pe mana cui ajung (mai ales ca lumea nici nu se gandeste ca intr-un formular nu este neaparat necesar sa pui datele reale).
Daca Lidl are grija 100% si le foloseste doar pentru marketing, nu e asa o problema.

Some do love it to be boring. Not everybody can stand the days when a simple look at the market does more than drinking one RedBull.  
Bitcoin-as-investment, however wonderfully goes to the sky sometimes, is clearly not for everybody.

Statul este incapabil sa gaseasca metode functionale pentru a limita "afacerile" ilegale. Asemenea treaba necesita minte si bani, in cantitati mari (ambele).
Si atunci ce fac? Se ascund dupa vorbe (politicieni, nu?) si ingradesc drepturi. Si urmaresc cash-flow-ul, mana in mana cu bancile si cu cine reusesc deal-uri (mai ales ca unii se arunca sa faca orice li se zice ca sa li se dea voie sa isi deschida afacerea).


As zice ca nu orice patron de exchange vinde aceste date oricarui fisc. Unii le dau gratis, altii nu le dau deloc, si altii undeva la mijloc.
Dar intr-adevar, sa te arunci sa iti dai datele personale este o problema nasoala. Si din ce in ce mai genralizata.

mempool.space e super fain pentru estimat tx fee-ul, de exemplu. Dar ca block explorer ii lipseste (ca de fapt multora din lista) capabilitatea sa urmareasca exact inputurile la fiecare tranzactie, ca si tranzactie sursa.
Intr-adevar, nu e ceva ce are nevoie omul in fiecare zi, dar mi-a prins bine de cateva ori (mai ales la sfarsitul lui 2017 cand a fost gatuirea maxima) sa inteleg ce se intampla. Si de atunci cand imi aleg block explorer-ul ma uit sa am asta la indemana.

(Stiu ca suna cam romgleza ce am scris, dar unele nume imi suna mai bine in engleza, original, decat in romana.)

Based on the amount of work all this implies for you, I do hope you'll actually fill all the slots. But I've got the feeling in the last round that this is extremely difficult to achieve.
Good luck to everybody, including you (!).

Indeed, most won't be accepted, but there's a chance (max) 4 could get in though...
Although if the criteria didn't change, the actual number could be 0 o maybe 1 
Time will tell...

For Bitcoin and Litecoin at least btcrecover (https://github.com/gurnec/btcrecover) may be an option for you. But keep in mind that usually the longer the password and less you know about it, less chance to find the private key(s) during your lifetime.

This can be legit, or can be a strategy to gather information about crypto owners - from e-mail to... whatever the user gives.
With no more info about OP I find all this rather shady.

And.. OP, what would be the credibility of such list of .. "mishaps" if it's anonymous? What stops users send you "science fiction" just for the fun of it?
Also Topic is misleading. Bitcoin Cash is an altcoin (and the way many newbies are lured to buy it is very close to fraud).

Sounds good, just may be good to write this (near the graph?) somewhere so people don't get surprised 


I think that's the min value accepted by newer Bitcoin Core, however iirc really old ones were able to do even 0-fee.
It's clearly not feasible and the network will most certainly reject it today it if one builds such a transaction, still the UI should not accept it since some will enter such values. It may worth mentioning that in my case the box was completely empty (I just deleted an old value) when I've seen the error. So minimum 1 may not be enough, invalid values should be also made become 1.