I was quite surprised to read this news because we all know that the Chinese has made its U-turn against Bitcoin since last year. So its interesting if one of their courts rule in favor of bitcoin. But I still have mix emotions though, we all know that the Chinese governments is hostile towards crypto so I don't think that this will set any precedence in Chinese court though. Pressure will be put on the courts to go against crypto, that's for sure.
They've actually been fairly consistent in that they simply wanted to prevent capital flight. Now that that's closed off, they're simply being rational with what's left. I guess this really is a good thing though, because you'd think the authoritarian Chinese Communist Party, which wants complete control of everything they can have their hands on, would be against immutable irreversible financial transactions. Maybe they're fine with it because they can keep watch of the blockchain records anyway? I'm probably just overthinking it. Not sure how much of a positive effect this will do. Cryptocurrencies are not banned in China. They have banned their citizens from participating in ICOs and they have banned offshore trading for Chinese residents but Bitcoin is not illegal.
The article also states that the Chinese are interested in the Blockchain technology.
Yeah, this won't affect the price at all. The stance clarity could lead to more Chinese crypto businesses popping up though, and that's always good for the community. |
|
|
|
What news? Tame developments haven't really had any effect on the market recently. The last time I saw news move the market were news saying that a Bicoin ETF was very likely. As soon as it was proven wrong, gains were pretty much instantly reversed and no amount of succeeding hype was able to replicate it. I don't think the price chart represents the opposite of good news. I mean, it's $200. Bitcoin can and has moved much more in a single day. I'd chalk it up to normal market fluctuations. Seems like Coinbase has had it good recently. I don't think any news centered around them can really move the market though, unless it has something to do with a hacking. |
|
|
|
It is a form of US concern about Bitcoin which is dominated by China.
I don't think the US is concerned with this at all. This piece is just propaganda to make Bitcoin look like a villain and Ripple a hero. Anyone who knows how Bitcoin works know that majority being behind the great firewall doesn't mean that China controls it. It's a nuisance because China could cause miners a serious headache, but it's very fixable, and miners are making it even more fixable by distributing their farms elsewhere. Overall, there is some cause of concern, but any problems that may arise from it are short-term and doesn't threaten Bitcoin's well-being at all. |
|
|
|
This finally brings us to bitcoin and the following question. When investors transfer their utilizable resources like money, goods or services into bitcoin do they end up with another utilizable resource, i.e. a resource which can be utilized by some final user? Well, the obvious answer is: no, they do not. Instead, they end up only with a record in a table(blockchain) or in other words, only with a number associated with their bitcoin address. Since this number cannot be practically utilized like food or dollar, that means that investors engaged in a one-way transaction. Now the second question. Once investors engaged in such transaction, how can they retrieve utilizable type of resources back? Well, you guessed it right. The same as in a classical Ponzi scheme or any other fraudulent investment business - new investors must step in and engage in a one-way transaction like they did.
Therefore, bitcoin is neither money nor asset nor payments system. Money and assets are utilizable resources, while payment system is means to transfer such resources from one party to another. Bitcoin on the other hand is a mere record of the fact that investors handed out their utilizable resources for free, just like in a classical Ponzi scheme.
Umm...what? You do not just get a record, you actually get spendable coins, which is a utilizable resource on its own. Everything is a series of one-way transactions, even traditional cash payments (you give them money, they give you what you pay for), so why are transactions in Bitcoin any different? The way you're trying to tie it up neatly to a bow as a ponzi is a reach, too. Ponzis lure investors, and use the new investors' money to pay out old investors. Bitcoin has no payouts whatsoever -- it utilizes the simple concept of supply and demand to gain value. It has nothing to do with handing out utilizable recources, for free or otherwise. |
|
|
|
|
Everyone pretty much covered everything, but honestly, if you're just holding and the only thing you want is not to lose money, you may as well hold your fiat instead. You don't lose, but you don't gain either. This is also infinitely better than holding stablecoins that are just a disaster waiting to happen. Traders only really "hold" stablecoins because they're easier to trade than fiat -- it's not fit for long-term storage.
I would have to agree that Bitcoin is the best. It's by far the safest cryptocurrency and the market generally follows its movements. This doesn't mean you can't lose money, of course, but that means every other alternative is likely to lose more. Holding it can lose you money, but it can earn you money as well. It's guaranteed to grow as the crypto market grows. It's also the most liquid crypto, being accepted everywhere crypto is accepted.
You'll have to weigh the options on your own and find out where your priorities lie. For what it's worth, majority of holders choose to hold Bitcoin as their primary coin.
|
|
|
|
Blockchain is the main key for the revolution now a days.
I dont think its blockchain that is revolution, bitcoin is. Without bitcoin blockchain is almost useless because who would put up database (blockchain) with need of securing it with computing power worth tens of millions of dollars at first to actually semi secure'ly use it? Noone. To be fair, plenty of companies seem to see the blockchain's potential. I mean, it's probably not as good as most people here say, and it definitely doesn't solve anything like ICOs would have you believe, but it has niche applications that are unique to it. We haven't really seen any of it in practice yet though, so I guess it's alright to be skeptic. |
|
|
|
Hmmm, more like a token bank which will use its own token. And the fees...god !!!!!...the feees !!!! https://eqibank.com/fees/Annual Fee: Accounts <€5M Maintenance € 1’000
Wire Transfer Fee: € 100
I hope there are quite a few of extra zeros in that table or it's some sort of Aprils Fools Halloween joke ! Lol yeah what are the tokens for if they already keep your cash and crypto for you? It makes much more sense to use those for whatever you might need. The memberships also feel like they just want you to buy tokens. But yeah, the concept might be intriguing, but I can take care of my crypto myself so I probably won't be in the market for this kind of banking anytime soon. I can see this being quite polarizing. |
|
|
|
|
Jesus dude, you've been transferring 20k Euros a month? How many months were you even able to get away with this? Either way, if you're handling this much money, your best bet would be to hire a lawyer.
You mentioned payslips and I hope you're earning more than 20k a month. Just out of curiosity, what actually is your source of funds? Have you simply been trading crypto, etc.? Exchanges have a trail, and if you could get that, it might help you get off the hook.
|
|
|
|
Regarding that, I read this:
Mr. Buffett declined to comment on the Stone deal. “It’s entirely Todd’s,” said Debbie Bosanek, Mr. Buffett’s assistant, in an email. “He never comments on anything that Todd or Ted do. They have total autonomy.” Maybe he himself isn't as open. Either way, just because they started investing at fintech doesn't mean they'll jump right into crypto. Fintech is already risky by their standards, it would seem, so I would expect them to only take one step at a time. Either way, crypto doesn't need Warren Buffett's approval. |
|
|
|
I read and quoted several economic sites.Kompas said that every 1 hour the price of virtual currencies fell sharply. Please translate, I forgot to add the next site. That kind of movement is expected in the crypto market. They don't really have any real reasons behind them either. People move coins for one reason or another, and those movements affect the market. It's the same with stocks and forex, except crypto is usually more volatile. It also has to be noted that you can't usually pinpoint the reason for drops, which is why different people have different answers. Everyone's simply speculating. |
|
|
|
|
While it's true that most only issue warnings to their citizens, there actually are countries that have branded Bitcoin illegal. A quick look at Wikipedia should give you an overview, and you can do more research from there.
If you have doubts about your country's stand, I encourage you to do research to make sure you know what you're getting into. It's easy to say that you didn't know, but ignorance is never an excuse.
|
|
|
|
One is digital, the other is physical. They're literally incomparable
Digital vs. physical does not equal "incomparable". Most gold owned is owned "digitally". People don't actually have gold bars in their home. That's all well and dandy but you cut out my reasoning behind their incomparability: units. There's really no standard way of measuring their rarity because there is no equivalence on their units of measure. It's going to be completely arbitrary, which some the other posters pointed out. Alternatively, you can measure value, but that also accounts for other variables like utility which has nothing to do with rarity. People should really stop comparing Bitcoin to gold in my opinion. They have similarities, but Bitcoin is an entirely new asset class. Comparisons like this are why critics are saying that people are only into crypto for the money.
Actually, they should continue to compare bitcoin to gold because they are both asset classes. They are competitors for the same euro to be invested. A euro invested in gold cannot be invested in bitcoin. We can agree to disagree. I'm fine with people investing in Bitcoin but I personally don't treat it as an investment. |
|
|
|
|
Let's clear things up: back in this context means support. I don't see any country backing Bitcoin because there's no way to control it anyway. Some people love throwing in China numbers, but a quick research would tell you that taking control is far more complicated than that.
Ripple could absolutely be backed though, considering they're a central entity. This article is a reach though lmfao. It just assumes that China is in control of Bitcoin and that the US can counteract that by supporting Ripple. Garbage lmao.
|
|
|
|
Im curious as to why many people "hope" for a bull run? How is this bull run gunna happen if everyone is hoping for a bull run.
Money, perhaps? Everyone has been talking about Bitcoin going to the moon for as long as I can remember, so this isn't exactly unique to our current circumstance. I essentially think the mega run was last year, why would any new money come into it after what happened last year? People saw the rise and the crazy fall and loss it does. No one is in it for technology its all about wanting to get rich. I don't see how people think a bull run is coming..
Care to help me understand how you think this?
Some people are in it for the technology, believe it or not. They're simply not as vocal as the price fanatics. I mean, there's very little to talk about otherwise, with few people actually being specialized enough to understand the technology side of things. A drastic change could cause a bull run to happen. The mainstream knows about Bitcoin, but a vast majority of them has no interest in it. If they develop an interest one way or the other, then there's massive potential for growth. All i see in crypto is PURE speculation and everyone will agree with ANYTHING that helps them secure there beliefs in there own investment.
That's not exactly a hot take with speculators making up majority of the market, but I like to think that most who are in this actually believe that Bitcoin will play a major role in society in the future. Everyone can count their money in the meantime. |
|
|
|
|
One is digital, the other is physical. They're literally incomparable because they have no comparable units. We also have no idea exactly how much gold there is left to mine -- a mother lode could be discovered somewhere new tomorrow for all we know. It's an entirely pointless comparison.
People should really stop comparing Bitcoin to gold in my opinion. They have similarities, but Bitcoin is an entirely new asset class. Comparisons like this are why critics are saying that people are only into crypto for the money.
|
|
|
|
So if the whitepaper is a constitution, it cannot be changed or amended? Is that a good thing? Someone enlighten me please…
Well constitutions can be amended, but it's not a straightforward task. I don't see any reason why the white paper should be changed. It's okay that it's a little outdated. It's not a blueprint, and we already have road maps anyway. There's no good or bad here. The document has served its purpose is all. Some people simply put value into following it closely more than others, and that's not necessarily a good thing or a bad thing either. |
|
|
|
precious metals are the most reliable way to invest, at least before the creation of cryptocurrency
Well if we're being honest, it still is now. Crypto's explosion has been massive and have proven plenty of critics wrong, but it's still way too early to believe that it has beaten other traditional investments reliability-wise. Scalability should be achieved, at the very least, before we even start comparing the two. In any case, they're not competitors anyway. You don't have to choose one or the other, and it would be foolish to do so. |
|
|
|
You're very correct,even though swgwit has made things a bit cheaper for us, not every exchange is incorporating such reduction in their transaction fees...
To be fair to them, switching to Segwit isn't as simple for them as it is for us. We just need to move our funds to a wallet that supports it and we're good. They have to change their entire system (and they'll be spending lot of money on this) without breaking anything. There's also an issue with compatibility, as people with old wallets won't be able to move their funds to a Segwit address. It sucks, but I kind of see why they're putting it off. Segwit is designed to be opt-in anyway, so they have the freedom to choose whether to adapt. But yeah, services like exchanges won't necessarily drop transaction fees if/when they switch to Segwit anyway, so if nothing else, it will be for the well being of the network. |
|
|
|
|
It's comparable to oil in such a way that it's the next big industry, but they're not comparable in the least otherwise. Data isn't scarce, for one, so it can't single-handedly make a country rich like oil has done. I'm not even comfortable comparing oil companies to data-specializing companies just because of how different the dynamics are.
I also don't think the blockchain can break these companies' grasp over data. I mean, how is it going to do that? There hasn't really been any issues about data ownership amidst all these scandals. Everything stems from sharing your own data -- whether that goes into a private database or a public blockchain is a moot point. They can be propagated and used maliciously either way.
|
|
|
|
To some extent, this is true, since the white paper of bitcoin is the first serious document in the field of ICO and it very detailed and clearly describes all the details of the work and what difficulties can be faced in the future. All other companies took it as an example for registration of the documents therefore to some extent it can be considered if not the Bible, then the Constitution precisely.
It actually has nothing to do with ICOs. Writing white papers isn't exactly a new concept, and Bitcoin has existed for years before the first ICO was even held. Not to mention that most of ICOs' white papers are just fluff pieces riddled with error, with some of them even being plagiarized outright. They're certainly different in that Bitcoin's white paper was written to propose a solution for a known problem, while most ICOs' white papers are simply marketing requirements. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
