It's easy. Check whether the order books really match what the current trades are and/or check whether there's really activity within those exchanges by looking at the recent trades. At this point in time, a lot of exchanges are doing this in order to attract potential customers because they have the liquidity that a lot of people are looking for.


These websites do not really check whether exchanges post the true volume on their platforms or not. They are just displaying what these exchanges are relaying them, no further scrutiny or investigation as to whether the exchanges are faking these volumes or not.

Points taken. There really is no greater intelligence involved in creating another coin that will ask for investors' money only to be dumped @ people's faces. Sure there may be a lot of fancy new features included in every coin and a change in 'security' but really, we don't need that many coins with different variations, let alone a thousand of them with the majority being trashed into obscurity after the devs have made their fortunes.



Then again, only those with a lot of coins on hand will have the greater control and net-production of coins, which could therefore affect the market pretty hard. Not that I'm discrediting your argument of master nodes and PoS, but looking at other things apart from being a masternode, it poses more risks than actual rewards.



This will be impossible, given that not everyone will really obey the system and this is yet another centralized, controlled system we have created with the involvement of KYC. Cryptocurrency's main takeaway is being decentralized and anonymous (to a certain extent), so this purposely defeats what crypto stands for. Also, this is not philanthropy and no one is obligated to give even a cent of their holdings to someone just to 'even out' the scale.


How so if the merchants themselves don't feel like getting into the economy and accepting crypto payments? A secure chain with a lot of masternodes doesn't necessarily attract a lot of merchants to sell their goods and services.

Blockchain can easily be integrated into other forms of systems and whatnot, whereas bitcoin is a completely different system of its own with blockchain already integrated, and to be frank not all people feel the need to use nor associate themselves with bitcoin seeing that fiat and other forms of digital payments are still doing them something good. Also, with the ridiculously low number of merchants hanging around the cryptocurrency ecosystem, I don't think people would ever be interested nor enticed to use bitcoin without any places to spend it. Not everyone is also confident on investing in bitcoins with the current market conditions; people only come when there is an obvious profit into something, and that is during the bull runs wherein people think they can score easy profits on a highly unstable price rise.

Seeing how previous Brexit decisions panned out, I don't think there'd be a significant impact on cryptocurrency whatever the decision is from the regulators and from the people involved. Not all bitcoin traders react to the said news, although some people would certainly love to make a fuss about it and try to use it as a trading signal for sure. I'm more concerned on what will happen to the Pound Sterling after all of this has come to end, though the recent rejection of Theresa May's deal didn't cause quite a spur.

Bitcoin and crypto would be free from any influence the Brexit might struck, that's for sure.

Oh boy, he can potentially create any crypto service he likes now given that he is already acquitted most of the charges and have his time served on detention centers and prison. For starters, this is just his reputation 'cleansed,' but I think many would still not believe or trust this guy given the severity of the Mt. Gox hack. There should be some sort of ruling where Karpeles wouldn't be allowed to involve himself on creating such services centered on cryptocurrencies for X amount of years--at least to ensure that he would not misappropriate any funds again. But then again, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Ahh, acting as if any regulated trading platform of today is not associated with any form of manipulation and dirty trade tactics from traders and institutional investors. While I partly agree with the sentiment, I somehow don't agree with the way they are holding up ETFs for different reasons just to make themselves look like the good guys trying to uphold fair and just trading for people. Their reasons of not approving one for the last 2 years or so have been pretty much revolving in the same circles yet they don't really do something about it, or the ETF presenters are really not stepping up their game at all, but I'm inclined to believe on the former.

Agreed, services and companies built around cryptocurrency should be regulated in order to enforce consumer protection and to make sure that no company will have the guts to trip themselves over with their own wires and screw with their peers and consumers because no law will ever held them accountable for their mistakes and shortcomings. Bitcoin and crypto per se is already fine without regulations, and I'm pretty sure most people who are handling cryptocurrencies know how to discern a shady transaction from a legitimate one by now. Government interference should only be focused on companies dealing with crypto and trying to make profits off of it and leave the open-source cryptocurrencies as it is as they literally have no control over it, no matter how much grip they think they have on the said currency.

The key takeaway of bitcoin is enabling people to be their own bank, so creating a bitcoin bank solely for keeping other people's assets in hopes of a few % interest per annum is already killing the idea. Also, the ethos of bitcoin and cryptocurrencies is revolving in being trust-less and decentralized, and again, having a bank defeats that. Why would anyone who can already keep their own assets safe wish to have another party hold the assets for them? Entrusting it to some other people heightens the risk of their assets being lost in the void, and in order to avoid such scenarios, better keep your assets yourself and just be extra careful handling it.

Never compare profits and think one is better than the other. Currency markets (forex) might give returns larger than bitcoin or crypto, but the question is how experienced are you in handling your investments than them? Sometimes it boils down to the experience level of the trader and not the market they are trading per se. I'm pretty sure that you have some good days and they had their bad ones, and it's normal.

I can see people shifting from banks to cryptocurrencies in terms of investments, accruing interest with their money over time and money transfers that is cheap, fast and secure, but I guess the banks' strong and safe side that crypto can't match is its ability to lend people some money for their ventures and earn interest off of that. Another thing is that banks are somewhat tied with the government in controlling the economy in which cryptos could not take aid into given its nature. The banks are now coming into their senses that crypto is no longer the tool used for Darkweb purchases and money laundering now that people have realized that it is actually more than that.

Uploading your repo to GitHub would be the first obvious step of course, given the multitude of code geeks and friendly community members willing to help anyone in need of their expertise. This might be odd to say but there are some groups in reddit in which you can get some of the help you needed, as there are different subreddits dedicated to a certain niche. You just need to learn the best channels and media to post your question for something and eventually, people will help (as the internet is a truly odd and wonderful place.)


This is quite tedious, and I think people would be interested to help if there is some form of reward, though with the amount of work needed to complete your project, it'll be hard at first and you need to man all stations before someone else fills the job for you. $2-$3M USD is not something anyone can get off of their pockets easily.

I agree with o_e_l_e_o. Most users who have their threads removed aren't putting it back to whence it came. They simply just let it sit in there and hope that people would notice their thread/topic and start a discussion. Even spammers of wrong topics/links etc. aren't even bothering moving their topics on where they first posted it even if some of them have malicious content. Perhaps the forum systems could recognize that a topic has already been moved by a mod, and can therefore be not moved back by the OP as to prevent further push and pull issue between the members and the mod team. Besides, if the OP thinks that they have made a mistake, there's an option to lock a thread and create a new one on the appropriate board.

Knowing how much money these social media sites are getting, I don't think they (Facebook Inc.) will be hurt with that loss. The amount of money they are getting from their ads and other services is simply incomprehensible, so revenue-wise, they can 'shoulder' the loss and carry on. $90-M loss is just an estimate loss from the side of Facebook, though I believe many businesses and services have lost their fair share of their own revenues, too, so it really is catastrophic for the social media giant to be in a 14-hr blackout wherein a lot of businesses rely their connects, audience, shares and sales on.

As for the Facebook coin, I'm not quite sure what will it really do nor whether it will be available outside the Facebook platform. If it's just another form of 'FB Credits' thingy then IMO there's really no need for it to be transformed into a cryptocurrency.

This is nothing new for JP Morgan. If they can't ensure profit, or can't ensure that they'll be benefiting into supporting something or accepting something for their business, they won't do it no matter how negative their public image can get. Crypto services and institutions are among the most prone to hacks, thefts and other ill-fated events that can happen to a business, so I guess this is just somewhat protecting their own business from getting burned. Nevertheless, creating their own cryptocurrency while being hostile towards other crypto coins/services etc. just proves that they are hypocrites of the highest degree.

Yes, no external audit were done on Tether AFAIK so it's really hard to believe that they are true to their 1:1 conversion and that they really have USD reserves ready for every USDT available. I am inclined to believe that they didn't have the USD reserves in the first place, and only have assets that can be changed into USD in the event that they needed it, hence why they are constantly dodging audits and whatnot. Tether has never been so transparent to people, and that's where my fears and doubts are rested. All the people need to know is an external, reliable audit and that's it.

There are many 'high profile government in the West' but most seem to accept--if not acquiesce--the concept of crypto ruling within their countries. Also, what about NoKor owning some bitcoins? For all we know, they are also owning billions of dollars in USD and other currencies on their precious HK and offshore accounts, but why is the ban, or 'criminalization' of owning USD isn't being pushed when in fact, it contributed a whole lot more in terrorism and dirty money in general? Sorry, but the article lacked fair points to strengthen the claim.

There are a lot of OTC bitcoin brokers nowadays but the most trusted around is itBit and Circle (though I'm not sure with the latter if they are still offering such a service).


There aren't much significance in difference, but since I haven't used one yet (and don't have the reason to, as I have one local guy who does that for me without any headaches and tedious processes), I don't quite know how the flow really goes. But for one to consider OTC trading, they are willing to buy or sell in huge volumes that may potentially disrupt the natural rhythm of the market, so it's a huge sum.


OTC brokers are actually great if deep pockets want to buy or sell in huge volumes as they prevent the market from crashing or overshooting with just a single buy. However for the average Joe, OTCs are actually not that good of an option to buy and sell and exchanges/ATM is still the most efficient, fast and secure way to go, IMO.

I think he got off pretty lightly, or extremely lightly for that matter. He has been in solitary confinement for quite some time now though I don't think that justifies what happened to his supposed sentence. White-collar criminals seem to be getting off the hook pretty lightly compared to those below the ranks of hooligans and your average thief, and Karpeles is a prime example for that. This is just saddening but what else can we do if the verdict is already out there?

This just goes to show how easy it is for banking institutions to launder money without hitting some obvious red flags and still getting that great treatment from the government. I don't know why banks are only getting fined if they got caught facilitating money laundering and fraudulent schemes on their platforms, but when it comes to exchange operators and traders, it's almost immediate time behind bars and immediate closure and revocation of operating license in most countries. It should be the same for any institution that handles money!

About time to actually put Karpeles on where he should be and learn a very valuable lesson after all his exploits thinking that he could get out of the mess he put people on. I would be damned if the decision of the jury is not guilty, as he clearly broke a lot of laws and regulations upon the supposed hack of Mt. Gox. 10 years isn't enough for a sentence, knowing that he could also get paroled in his stay inside the prison. I'd say 15-20 years is good, just and fair for all as he took a lot of people's fortunes and money along the way.