This is infuriating. Legal action must be taken in order for them to at least give a definite statement as to why they blocked your account. If they are inconsistent on their updates, something must be wrong on their side and not yours. For as long as you haven't done anything legal or breaking their terms of service, you're good, but then again we're talking about 1200 BTCs in here and that's not a small amount to not be worried about.

And on a quick note, try to save a copy of their terms of services too, just in case.


One can never be sure these days, knowing that several 'reputable' exchanges have done exactly the same to their customers (Mintpal, anyone?).

--

One more thing, this should go to Service Discussion for appropriateness and more visibility towards service-related issues and concerns.

We have reached $3600 and have tested the waters several times in the past few days and we held strong on that region. As of now, I'd say that we have a strong footing on where we're at right now but something can go wrong and we can see ourselves below $3000, reasons to which would be unknown as there are no events which could promote the price to slide below $3000. Right now we're back at $4000 levels and slowly climbing back up to $4200 at the time of this writing, though I hope that this isn't some sort of a bull trap as what have happened in the past few days as well.

Ahhh, so what's your point here then? What exactly is the reason why ICOs are cancers of the digital currency industry? I agree to a certain extent that useless ICOs have no place in the cryptocurrency ecosystem, but we have seen several great projects from ICOs as well as some promising technology too, so that deserves credit somehow. I myself have never bought into loads of ICOs as I know some of them are just money-grab projects made by developers, though right now most countries are getting stricter day-by-day on ICOs popping here and there, so that would somehow solve the issue.

Sadly though these things would have gone overlooked by panic sellers considering how deep it declined in just a span of a few weeks. Most people nowadays won't look for answers in the past and are just confined by the information that they reading in the now. While I like your optimism regarding the current state of bitcoin, most people don't share our sentiment and tend to just sell since they think that this is already the end (which is not, clearly.) With all the good news springing on every corner, starting from Starbucks being convinced by Bakkt's CEO to accept bitcoin to NYSE and NASDAQ looking to set up their own futures, why should I worry if these big guys aren't worried of bitcoin tanking atm?

You can say that in a way, though it hasn't been proven since the crashes that we have had in the stock market lately aren't that great and the damage inflicted among investors are very minimal to cause them to transfer assets over a new asset class. There's also uncertainty about cryptocurrencies and the lack of platform to which there's a 'safety net' in case all hell break loose on cryptomarkets, resulting to them not touching cryptos any further. However should a global financial crisis arise, bitcoin is a great contender to hedge assets from the stock market and other traditional markets existing right now, alongside with gold--though I'm not betting on it, knowing that there are other assets capable of staying afloat amid such storm.

Perhaps a few closed-door meetings of NASDAQ and SEC officials would do the trick to get ETFs approved, knowing that the big names have already shown some genuine interest over the field. With that being said, I expect ETFs to be approved as the situation had been already conditioned by NASDAQ, though there's still a slim chance that the officials of SEC would still be asses for not approving ETFs due to it being a hub for "money laundering." Also, Bakkt had been making moves and would come around 4th week of January, and the series of positive events will go on from there.

Hopefully though this comes to fruition, as a boost is much needed to an already failing market.

Institutional investors are on to something else and not directly bitcoin: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-27/nasdaq-is-said-to-pursue-bitcoin-futures-despite-plunging-prices?utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=crypto

While I still believe that they will play a major role in the next bull run, I am not expecting them to be full-blown cryptoheads in the short-term future. Most of them are just wanting to stay on the sidelines and not get their feet wet by looking into the futures market and just stay there. It'll take a while before they go on and disturb the actual market, but for now, establishing platforms for futures is what they're busy doing atm.

That's how the market works, unfortunately. Buy the rumor, sell the news, and their shitting contest is all over the place, so we can't do much about that now. The bears have already capitalized on that particular news and have been doing bull traps all over the place to keep on profiting. Even the weak hands--understandably--are already letting go of their prized coins just because they're scared of bitcoin's value going nil (which isn't going to happen anyway). It's just crazy how a fork of a fork affect the entirety of the cryptomarket, and the pissing contest between these two crazy guys are changing the tides of the market without them even lifting a finger.

What 'uses' of the blockchain tech would you relate to being bad? Those that you have enumerated weren't even powered by blockchain to begin with, and most usage of blockchains today are still confined on cryptocurrencies and running it. Banks aren't even deploying their own versions of the blockchain and are only on their development phases, so it's pretty hard to know what's 'good' and 'bad' usage of the blockchain is right now.

Oh and also, the gambling industry is also a billion-dollar industry, and it create jobs for people too. I'm not saying that it is good all in all but there's still some credit to be given on the said industry.

Yes, especially if a country's laws are designed to do such in the event of misuse of funds or hints of fraudulent activities, or whatever reason they see fit. It's not surprising anymore if courts would order law enforcers to seize assets and digital wallets should the jury end up declaring that something has been breached in a country's law. In the end though, as long as something is unconstitutional, they have the 'right' to take these wallets forcibly, lol.

Hong Kong to be exact, and that is also their financial gateway towards the outside world as well.

Going back to the topic, I find it hard that the North Koreans will be holding a crypto summit, and an international at that one, for something they don't seem to be connected with (or at least we don't know). It's like the secretive nation of communists are trying to reach out in the outside world by staying hidden within the shadows (bitcoin). While this might not seem to be positive, the end result is that it's just the government who will benefit from this in the long run and not their citizens, sadly.

I'm interested as to how will things pan out.

What does a deity have to do with something devised by Man? If you even read the bible of your religion, Jesus poses some kind of hate towards men who has something to deal with money, and bitcoin clearly is money, so that alone doesn't make sense at all. Also, it's the 21st century already and everything is still connected to a supreme being, even a payment system that has its flaws and faults from time to time. Get a grip from reality, I guess.

Low price of bitcoin isn't a work of your god, but rather a manifestation of what the market feels like towards bitcoin and some sort of manipulation.

With the recent crashes that happened lately, I doubt that they still have that much control within the market. There's simply a lot of coins that were offloaded in the market recently and there doesn't seem to be any buying that has happened over the past few days. Whipe the topic of manipulation is always discussed here, it's also fair to say that when people dump, the control or grip also weakens, suggesting a more fluid and organic market movement at that short span of time. Long-term, with many more players involved in the market, manipulation would gradually fade, and big-time market players hopefully would be erased from the bitcoin market.

I never thought that I'd actually see this day; 3 yrs ago, we're just speculating about governments accepting bitcoin as a form of payment for taxes, and 3 years later Ohio is doing it, albeit the help of a 3rd party payment processor Bitpay. Overall this is a step towards a brighter future for bitcoin and its use-cases; awareness would also be raised since people would be curious on what is bitcoin and why can it be used for tax-related payments.

Every negative actions demand consequences in the end and its inevitable. Too bad though, this will be used against bitcoin once more even if the individual's action really has nothing to do with the cryptocurrency per se. Bomb threats are serious things that should not be taken lightly regardless of whether it's a prank or not, and it's surprising that some punks are being paid to do this. Imagine the trauma and stress this may have caused to people who may have been affected by the said threat. This issue is not regarding bitcoin IMO but an immoral act made by a desperate hooligan wanting to get some quick buck.

The term "cheap" is relative, and we're so fixated by the idea that "cheap" means anything with incredibly low value, while there are items worth thousands of dollars that are still considered cheap by a lot of buyers but are not appealing to some. From the cost of producing 1 bitcoin alone, I'd say <$4000 is dirt cheap and does not meet what the amount the miners need to take profit, let alone breakeven. As price rises, so does the competition to produce bitcoin, next is the amount of machines the miners need to source in order to stay afloat.

Well it happened in the past and that could be what's happening right now, although I think that this could be different this time seeing how the miners are in shambles after the sudden crash. I also wouldn't consider bitcoin as a safe asset class overall as it's still prone to these type of crashes without warning or signs.

I just hope your optimism would somehow turn into reality, and we've been into a lot of crashes before, so perhaps it's not bad if we look up in the brighter side.

Google trends statistics isn't an enough parameter to gauge the current interest of people in the market. For all we know this could be the same traders checking the price every so often just to make sure that the price isn't sliding deeper and deeper. Though it's somewhat strange that searches for bitcoin went up in the midst of a bear market since it hasn't happened in the past yet, I still think that it's just fear kicking in causing this surge in Google search. Also, 1-2 months isn't an ample amount of time for recovery IMO. It'll take a long while before a reverse in trend happens.

I don't see what hash power distribution has to do with value. The said setup/scenario actually ran for a couple of years with bitcoin's value not being affected too much. Traders control the market; the miners control the supply. Geographic location and hash power distribution doesn't dictate how often can miners offload their coins in the market. Also, miners being concentrated on China doesn't mean a single entity is controlling them. Mind you, there are loads of mining operators in China alone that control is hard to even be established by a single person.

The 'failure' you are looking at is too vague to address, IMO, and hard to really give comments on. In my POV, I can't see a single point of failure for a blockchain but perhaps due to bad coding or negligence from developers that will lead to it failing on the technical side is a more plausible scenario. As of now there are no better alternatives that can match the technicalities and qualities a blockchain can offer, and if ever there is one, I'm pretty sure it will be the same concept as a blockchain would be.