So technically, OTC doesn't alter or add up to the volume on the whole exchange as everything is done not on the platform itself, whereas hidden orders are basically orders not appearing on the orderbook but adds up to the overall volume of the platform should it get filled because it's done within the platform premises. The way I put it, people who place hidden orders have the intent to stimulate the market in some way by moving the volume all the while being hidden while OTC purchases don't and want to keep the markets as it is.

No matter how secure your passwords might be, if you are dumb enough to tell everyone that you're a bitcoin trader and holds a lot of coins, a pipe and anything blunt will be enough to crack that password open. For some reason, I'm inclined to think that the trader is living his life as an influencer of some sort, leading to this brutal action done by the suspects. Or it could be that some rogue employee on the platform he's trading on has gone mad and traced one of the rich clients in order to get something 'directly' from him. Well in any case, KYC data should be kept safe, somewhere secure and only a handful of personnel given access to, if not, more and more things like this will happen in the future. And for users, please embrace privacy as it will be the only thing keeping you from being clubbed and tortured like this guy had.

Coinbase might be having a lot of issues with their platform recently and the way they handle things are somewhat icky to be honest, but I don't think they need to close the doors fully, just reevaluate what are they doing and hopefully get their shits resolved. Acquiring a team that has notoriously been selling information and data of people and god-knows-what-info they sold doesn't help their current situation in any way; it's just making things worse for them.  I say restructure their organization and fix what needs to be fixed, and maybe, just maybe things will turn out good.

And this should be moved into Service Discussion, too.

While I personally don't like Diokno's past and his lack of attention to details when it comes to making the government a better organization than it once was, I applaud the man for looking into possibilities regarding blockchain and the development of the crypto scene in the Philippines. This just goes to show that the government is very supportive of the innovation that is already happening within the other parts of the world and looks to become one of the major hotspots in the SEA region for crypto developments. The growth of the scene here is very promising with a supportive government.

This is one thing that will never be a part of bitcoin for long. Due to the highly-fluctuating value of bitcoin every now and then, retailers and merchants are afraid to accept bitcoin as is and tend to use a third-party payment processor to ensure that they keep profits as is, and we all know that these payment processors also ask something from the services they work on. With bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general being used mostly on investment schemes and not really for payments, I think it will be long before we see a boost in usability for bitcoin in what it is really intended for: fast, secure and cheap payments.

That's not weird, and I guess that's just some crazy glitches happening on the side of CMC from time to time. This scenario occurred a lot of times already on their server, so when looking for prices within the last 24 hours, it's best to use multiple sources and not just CMC. Don't get me wrong, they are still a reliable source of information when it comes to some fast statistics for coins, but it's not a pain to check multiple sources for verification, too.

Except that in working a daytime job, you are still somewhat secured from getting fcked over and that they don't take something from you except your time and your effort, though it somewhat resembles a ponzi scheme in its level of organization. Also, working under a corporation, big business firm etc. is perfectly legal in any books, and that the workers are protected by a multitude of corporate laws in every government. MLM is an okay business model, only if the people running the operation really sells something that provides for their underlings, but if not, then there's really no point joining these schemes as 99% of the time they are scams.

But the thing is, without any of these prerequisites being submitted by us, the users, we won't be able to trade on their platforms. If they allow unverified accounts, it only has a certain amount of trading volume/amount specified for a given day, and those restrictions are certainly awful to say the least. Also, this is a requirement imposed by the government before allowing any trading platform to flourish, so I guess it will really be needed up until a fully-functioning DEX pops out with ample support from the government.

Maybe it's the exchanges' part of improving their systems and not really the KYC that's the problem after all. I'm also anti-KYC but we really can't move forward without it on our platforms, and it's a pain, really.

Different time zones, different participants and most especially, different platforms. Coinbase has been having a hard time lately from a lot of people who want to get rid of their services due to poor service and being an inferior platform having a lot of problems lately. They also received a flak of comments after acquiring Neutrino. Of course, who would want to work with people who are involved in shady activities prior to this acquisition, and letting the same freaks handle other people's money?

Seeing how vague cryptocurrency regulations are on some parts of the world, I can see this happening within a mile. Those crypto services that got lucky into securing a bank account and getting financial services for their companies are situated within regions wherein the idea of cryptocurrencies are not frowned upon. If cryptocurrencies gain full support from governments, I am quite sure that banks would follow where the money is. They are just scared of getting screwed up by hacks and loss of profit that's why they aren't taking a bite on cryptocurrency services just yet.

Verifiable using multiple sources, through which some political influence wouldn't and couldn't be able to alter as it will surely create a domino effect on the integrity of data stored. Though centralized blockchains wouldn't have this feature for sure, it is one of the strengths of the blockchain as we know it, and it would be a bummer if companies that will use the said tech would be removing this very important feature on their ledger. Also, one thing would be the immutable nature of stored data within blocks. Once a block is stored, it cannot be changed no matter what happens.

This just shows that somehow, there is some form of acceleration going on within the interests of people in the said cryptocurrency. And it's a good thing seeing that we've got nothing but lows and lousy trading action for the past year. Also with an increased volume on exchanges and not that much push happening on the price, it could only mean that people are already accumulating a lot of coins in their arsenal, which could signify a push that is just around the corner. I'm eager to know how will things develop in the next coming weeks, assuming that this turns out to be a positive indicator for the market.

There will be no shortage in bitcoin no matter the situation is. Considering that bitcoin is divisible into lower units just like mjqlqw said, even if there's a handful of bitcoin left for the world to share, everyone can still receive their part of the pie. Also, nobody needs to have one whole bitcoin for them to be considered owners of bitcoin, even a handful of dust makes you one proud owner of a revolutionary cryptocurrency, so why think of shortage when it's entirely out of the question?

I don't usually use exchanges in processing bulk orders of cash outs. I have a contact who is willing to go 2-3% above market prices as an exclusive deal for me, and great below the market price whenever I want to purchase in bulk. For exchanges handling a lot of orders and processes a lot of trades, there is only a certain limit wherein their system could function, and it has been proven time and time again that their services can only hold so much up until it crashes (I'm looking at you, Coinbase.)

Every investment, no matter how poorly-thought it was is probably better than any other lottery games out there in terms of win probability and ROI. I myself am a fan of lottery for a decade now, and have won quite a sum already though the chances of winning is indeed infinitesimally small compared to investing in crypto. I can pretty much get my ROI within a month or two in crypto, no matter the amount with the right approach than keeping the same 6 numbers for a decade and winning it all.

This is not new as there are naysayers and doomsday predictors that linger around the crypto ecosystem even before the strings of bad luck happened to bitcoin. Sub-$1000 predictions had been around ever since the $19k ATH was broken, so I guess it will not be completely dissolved as long as we are still experiencing a bear market.

As if we're not already used to these kind of statements and analyses that pop every now and then? They are shilling for whatever motives they have and that's fine for me.

It's just a shame that we need financial institutions such as the banks to further our crypto-related services. Though funding may be done through startups and public offerings, along the way, these crypto-related services will need the help of banks for their financial needs. Thanks to the ICO surge of 2017, many lawmakers have been dedicated to ensure that these things will never get funding and have collaborated with financial institutions to not get the same scenario 2017 had ever again. Saddening but well, this is what happens when a lot of scammers and money launderers flocked to a honeypot.

Entries in the blockchain aren't verified by a single-pass verification system, so there are multitude of tests a single entry has to pass before it gets accepted in the chain. Surely, if the item inside the container is counterfeit and does not meet the standards imposed by the system, and does not match the qualifications and specifications of its predecessor, it would simply be rejected, and therefore be not included in the chain.


Blockchain is better since the data is easily verifiable from multiple sources and cannot easily be tampered with. Should the attackers successfully rewrote the contents of the database, something will happen on the chain causing the people and the data managers to prevent further attacks and preserve the integrity of the data. Sure, these things are already done by the most advanced computer systems, but then again they are too secured from the inside that once an attack vector is exploited by the attackers, they still aren't sure that someone is already stealing/tampering their data due to how their systems work.

This is how I view things so feel free to correct me to those with an extensive knowledge of how computer systems work.

Are you sure that you are not infected? Usually, these things are hidden within your file systems and your operating system. Do a deep scan and try again. It is possible that your clipboard is messed up by the malware that you "thought" you send to the right address when in reality, you didn't, and the next thing is we're having a discussion about it. Or just like what Kakmakr said, you may have installed a fake update on Electrum, but the exploit has since been patched so that may be ruled out.

Funds are lost forever. That sucks, but yeah, a lesson with some price on it.

The man believes what he wants to believes, so let him be. He's been pretty negative regarding bitcoin for the past couple of years so it's not surprising that he still hasn't changed his POV one bit. For him, blockchain technology has the capability to expand and processed even more for greater utility, whereas bitcoin is just bitcoin, a currency system which, like fiat, can fail at any given time. Most services and giant companies, too, believe that blockchain has the capability to turn the industry around by a huge margin, so let them believe what they want to believe. After all, bitcoin is not a business model that needs to succeed and produce profits.