Doubt it'll be anything beneficial for the community. It'll just be a poorly coded exchange that'll try to trick their customers into buying more BCASH instead of BTC. I'm personally really curious to see some stats behind Roger's first trick ( https://buy.bitcoin.com/) about how many people bought BCH compared to BTC, and how many people got tricked. I'm also curious as to who in their right mind would trust Roger Ver with all their KYC information or to hold their coins for them.
Probably the same people who now think BCH is better and popular then BTC after Roger. I personally wouldn't touch the exchange with a 5-foot pole. Since the exchange will operate within the bitcoin dot com portal, I'm pretty sure that we can expect Bitcoin to be referred to as Bitcoin Core. Another thing is that he will pair BCH to other coins and ignore the BTC pairs.
This is another thing that I was thinking about. I would reckon that Roger would pair alts to BCH, not BTC, and treat BTC as an alt, whilst treating BCH as the mainstream crypto. I think Blockchain.com is trying to bring in more revenues. Despite being used by tens of millions of cryptocurrency users, Blockchain.com is not a profit making venture. Their wallet business doesn't bring in any revenues. So they may be trying to capitalize on the user-base to get some cash. But opening an exchange is not child's play, especially after so many exchange hacks.
This is bitcoin.com. Not blockchain.info. |
|
|
|
|
I'd probably move this to the press section. Not really bitcoin discussion, as it's more talking about crypto news.
China's always been fast to adapt to their own variations of things. You can compare their current payment processors (Alipay and Wepay to Apple and Google pay) as an example of their ways of adaption.
It's pretty good that even though China has banned decentralized coins that include blockchain technology, they still understand that blockchain technology is crucial for the future and they are trying to take advantage of it.
I'm not so sure about the government controlling all of this though. I'd much rather prefer the companies like Wechat and Alipay to control these new payment options and then be able to directly implement these new payment systems into the country.
|
|
|
|
This is an interesting read. I'll quote what is probably the most important part of the piece A new reserve currency?
Given the growing doubts over the need for and advisability of a fiat-based, single-issuer global reserve currency, you can see why the bitcoin narrative would pop up. Surely a sovereign-free, algorithm-based alternative would be more stable and trustworthy?
Perhaps, but it won’t be bitcoin*.
First, a global currency needs to have a flexible supply. The limits on the amount of gold banks could hold was one of the main reasons the gold standard didn’t work – economic growth outstripped the supply of gold-backed money, and the inevitable scramble to overcome this limitation led to destabilization.
Second, bitcoin will not become a universal settlement token for trading contracts. It’s too volatile. While this should soften in line with greater liquidity, it’s unlikely that businesses and sovereign powers will give up their preference for fiat, which they have some control over.
So, if not bitcoin, then what? What could an international trading currency that embodies both trustworthiness and flexibility look like? The biggest question of the article - will BTC be enough to be a reserve currency? Flexible supply, BTC has one! Problem is, once again it's instability of price. It's very hard for governments to control the prices of BTC or other decentralized cryptos, whilst other fiat currencies are easy to control for the government. Still wondering if it'll be possible for a centralized crypto-currencies to make it as a reserve currency. We'd see a lot of real movement in blockchain technology, even if it isn't decentralized. I was thinking about this a few days ago, if BTC will continue for years or if it's just the pioneer to open the door for another cryptocurrency
There's probably no way BTC would lose dominance. It's the biggest and most adopted cryptocurrency and won't lose a lot of supporters in coming years, and therefore won't really be able to lose dominance in the market. |
|
|
|
Yes, please read them a lot clearer. I took the time to check out 3 of them and I'll summarise what was the case with them. Do NOT trust payments with https://www.coinpayments.net/ - The seller was a scammer and coinpayments was used as a payment processor but did not offer a refund to the buyer after he was scammed. Not a fault on the payment's processor's side, they don't, and shouldn't take responsibility for the seller scamming. Coinpayments.net scam - Seems like a random person complaining about the removal of a coin from the platform, even after a fair warning was given. Coinpayments.net.... complete scam artists (complaint withdrawn) - Solved by their support and the customer. Bit of fault on both sides. Blocknomics isn't bad either. They instantly withdraw to your personal wallet, but Coinpayments have been along longer and I'd say are more trusted. Do your research before finding out which one you want to go with. |
|
|
|
It's great to see more, pretty influential people interested in crypto. Always a good thing to see. I don't know a lot about the person, but from the little research I did on him, he seems fairly big and agrees with a lot of views I have. His company and he are also invested in crypto, so it isn't all talk - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/technology/steve-bannon-bitcoin.html“The central banks and actually the banking community want to get in and regulate crypto. They want to still stick to fiat currency,” he said on CNBC’s Squawk Box. This is fairly well known most people in crypto I reckon. I am estimating a lot of banks and governments look to "centralize" Bitcoin - which is possible if they own enough and then where able to control price plummets and climbs. It's not really regulation at that point, it's killing the coin of it's unique features, and using the technology and platform it's based on to create a new payment system. Banks want everything to be centralized and fiat-based. The best way to make this happen is if BTC became very stable or became centralized and able to control. |
|
|
|
That's pretty unfortunate. Your customers are definitely not obliged to a refund, but this is also partially your fault. Popular BTC ATMs that I've personally used to test out will always tell you if an address is invalid. If you have a multi-crypto machine, that should be a must thing for you to do, especially when this seems like a big issue. A couple of simple lines of code checking their validity isn't hard for a BTC ATM owner. ~snip~
I think you are right mate. Update is needed for that machine to identify compatible addresses in sending funds because we already know that cryptocurrency transactions are irreversible. A lot of people are doing this thing everyday most especially newcomers. I even have a friend that has the same issue she accidentally sent Litecoins intoa Bitcoin address and now hoping to get it back if there is another way to recover it. Because speaking plainly here cryptotrade78u's crypto atm business is at fault here, they know themselves that they will be getting a lot of inexperience customers buying cryptocurrencies in their atm yet they have a interface that doesn't detect or at least warn you that you are giving out the wrong wallet address for the cryptocurrency you are buying. Customer's who lost money in the process are of course have grounds to push for damages as them being first time buyers should have a sufficient guide and step by step process to successfully buy the cryptocurrency they wanted, they probably don't even know what "Litecoins" are in the first place. Not really. The customer selected Litecoin whilst they inserted an incompatible BTC address which they don't know how to alter so they can get their litecoin back. It's like buying an AMD motherboard and then buying an intel CPU. Not the store's fault they sold you the products. Let's stop being mean to OP - but there are no ways for you to get user coins back. If you can afford to send out transactions, it should be pretty easy to reimburse those people who placed large orders, shouldn't it be? |
|
|
|
I don't even want to ask how you managed to do that?
What cpu did you kill?
Was swapping motherboards and I guess it broke when I pulled it out of the socket. Cooler might have put too much pressure as well (accidently made it way too tight). Fortunately it's only a Ryzen 5 1600 so not too bad. Might end up as an excuse to upgrade to third gen Ryzen but I'd still rather fix it if possible. Go get a new-gen ryzen. Great value for money! |
|
|
|
The best thing that we can do is always be careful when we want to invest in one or more project, only use the money you can afford, and don't use too big money if you are not sure, or you are sure that the project will be successful because you never know if that will happen or not. Always search for more information about the project so you can get additional information which will help you to decide. All in all, your tips will help people to choose, and they can know what they need to do before they invest.
There is no way to know the chance of a project surviving or not even when they look very good and done some hype about it. It all depends on the strength of the team and also depends on how far they are willing to go and never to get discourage about the project no matter the storm that they face through it. So the best way is to test them first by using the money that will not make us hypertensive, ten after we have tested the project, then we can gradually add more money to it. When I first got to know about bitcoin, I just put some money in for and waited to monitor the development of the project, it was until I became sure of my capital being safe in bitcoin that I started putting more money into the market. So like you said, one of the best ways to protect the capital is just to ensure it is in the market of a strong crypto. This depends a lot to be honest. There are a lot of projects that have a good roadmap, plans, a reputable team and are still unable to make it big in the crypto market. No project, no matter how many funds they raise, how many team members they have, is to be a confirmed success. Before investing, I personally make sure they are as little red lights and as big of a chance of the project succeeding as possible, but the best advice I can give anyone else is just - don't invest money you aren't willing to lose. Regarding ICO's, the market is in a bit of a weird state right now. It's died off from last year, which is good and bad. It's good because there are now fewer scams and the industry is a lot more tight night, as well as there is now a lot more smarter investors and scam/bad icos are getting a lot less attention. The bad part is now there is less variety in investment options, and a lot fewer ICO's in general. I wouldn't recommend throwing money in ICO's right now. Probably some stable altcoins are the way to go rn. |
|
|
|
Please change your title. It's very misleading and isn't good for bustabit, which has been a trusted company in BTC gambling for several years now. Something like "I was scammed by a user of Bustabit" is way more accurate. This is by far the worst thing that has happened to me all my life, losing $500. I need to know how this guy pulled it off because I don't know how he did it on discord. I didn't click any links or downloaded anything suspicious.
Slightly off-topic, but this is partially your fault. If this money is so important to you, what are you doing, gambling it? I understand you might be in a bit of a pickle, but sometimes you have to tough it through instead of risking all your money. I hope you take this as a good lesson, never gamble money you can't afford to lose. You definitely won't get your money back, because this is your own issue, not bustabit's. Don't trust anyone with anything related to money if you don't know them for a long time. The person likely saw your username and was able to guess your password, or you made him an account w the same password. |
|
|
|
|
Is that statistic accurate? Seems crazy to me that 1,7000 Billion in fiat cash is faked a year. That's 6 times what apple makes a year, and is around the revenue of the richest 6 companies in the world. If that statistic is true, I don't know what to say except wow...
Now, BTC can't be faked because the coin is impossible to re-create and you can't send coins to another person BTC address using faked BTC. Fiat can be faked because it's a physical thing that has no technology behind it, and you can fairly easily reprint it and use it for transactions.
If you could implement technology behind the basic banknote it could work. It'll require a lot of money to implement it on every banknote, but definitely possible. Is it worth it though? No. It'll take way too much time to add and more time to start integrating new banknotes into the system.
|
|
|
|
The exchange has few pairs, with these few pairs will not attract many customers, they could have worked harder so that they could offer services that other exchanges cannot yet offer, for example:
Yeah, the new exchange just seems like another attempt to capitalize off their existing userbase and attempt to profit more. There are a lot of places restricted, with half the US states not being allowed to use the platform, and with nothing new, I doubt the exchange will go anywhere, except profiting off their current userbase. Am guessing the airdrop they had going for a couple of months was more of a marketing strategy to get more people hooked to its current and future services...
I'm not sure if it was related to this event specifically, but with how stupidly greedy people are here, giving away $20 worth of shitcoins is an easy way to turn a lot of non paying users into potentially paying users. They conveniently made it so that you have to do KYC in order to claim the shitcoins. They said it was to prevent people from claiming the airdrop twice, which to a lower level might be true, but the main reason is to build up a fully verified user base that has done the KYC part and can buy crypto without problems and thus generate revenue. Smart business move. Pretty smart from Coinbase. Definitely worth the 20 dollars per customer they are paying - having a verified customer on your platform who might be interested in spending more money is worth a lot more than the 20 dollar airdrop. Blockchain wallets are throwaway. I'm sure certain people have gotten through tens or hundreds especially when they were single address. The Coinbase figure depends on whether that's all verified accounts which they've always seemed to be weirdly coy about. A more accurate measure would be comparing the verified accounts on both sides. I'd only count users who've fully completed their KYC on each side, and if possible, I would single out any users from blockchain.info that have verified their account just for the 20 dollar airdrop, and then compare statistics. 50 Mil to 40 Mil users isn't a very accurate consensus. |
|
|
|
I don't think that'll be possible, even if you check every 1 in 5 posts, because they'd be low content posts getting through. It'll be very hard to manage a campaign, even with automation, because you'd need to read every single posts, which I'd reckon would be over 20,000 posts a week, all read and counted in a single day. It's crazy.
It depends on how carefully you select your members in the first place. If you have a bunch of old hands that you're familiar with it's very unlikely they're all going to have a funny turn and start posting risible junk. It's a different matter if it's something like a Yobit campaign of course. The more effort you put into initial selection I presume the easier actually running it is. Rather them than me all the same. Ah, I can agree with that. What could be a possible new way for signature management would be getting all the interested users to sign up via the web application (similar to bitmixer's one), and then for the manager to selectively accept and decline users via the application. Alerted users would be automatically PMed and they would be able to utilize the portal throughout the week to check how many of their posts are qualified from a basic standpoint (above certain characters, in a certain section). I could see this working, and then the manager only checking posts ever so often. For example, a lot of high paying campaigns probably do not need a manager due to their post quality and how used they are to doing everything correctly. |
|
|
|
I don't think bots will ever replace managers in this industry though. Bots are unable to check post quality.
I've seen several campaigns using automation - Yobit,Bitmixer, Coinroll as far as i remember but they do still add up managers on it. Yep. Bitmixer is a good example when they tried to be fully automated, it was a massive mess and any regular shitposter was able to run rampant and spam posts and get paid. When Lauda came in and helped out with management, all of the shitposters were booted, even with their bot being able to detect the characters and what sections the posts were made in. If it were largely automated you could still dip into every few posts manually to make sure they weren't posting complete and utter bilge.
I don't think that'll be possible, even if you check every 1 in 5 posts, because they'd be low content posts getting through. It'll be very hard to manage a campaign, even with automation, because you'd need to read every single posts, which I'd reckon would be over 20,000 posts a week, all read and counted in a single day. It's crazy. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin has no team or owner for a good reason. It's meant to be a decentralized coin that goes against the banks and government's way of thinking and if there was someone who owned and was able to control the technology, it'll be no longer be decentralized. There are multiple core BTC developers though that work on Bitcoin Core, and they help implement new technology and ideas into the system, with the latest change being the lightning network. I don't see bitcoin merging with an alternative coin but as they will improve their blockchain to make it faster and consume less energy
Yes. I agree. BTC will never merge or form with another coin, especially if it is a centralized coin because a lot of the developers won't agree and implement the new technology. |
|
|
|
There is only a single reason why volume is manipulated on exchanges. The exchange or coin's company want's to showcase they have a lot of supporters (if the price is growing and there are a lot of users buying and selling their tokens, it looks like these fake people are interested in buying their coins). Usually, it the company of the coin that wants their coin to be washed, and therefore pay a specific fee to the exchange for them to fake the volume - this is usually only possible on smaller exchanges, but there are a lot of large Asian exchanges that also perform in faking trade volumes/market making. This is a very good explanation of how faking volume usually works. You see that A buys at 3.2, B selles at 3.201 C buys at 3.2 again, but in reality, the actual legit orders which are placed at 3.19 and 3.21 never get executed. Or far easier they execute with high priority some trades at the same prices when the spread is big enough to not touch the real walls.
Of course, exchanges that have a history of faking volumes have more an more advanced scripts but the basics are still the same.
|
|
|
|
I also created wallets when it was still Blockchain.info.  I even recommended it as my first choice online wallet provider, because it was user-friendly and it did not require all those KYC nonsense. Now, they are trying to legitimize their service and they are implementing full KYC requirements and they are launching a 100% KYC compliant Crypto exchange. I loved blockchain.info because they had a block explorer I'd always use and you'd actually have control of your private keys, unlike other online wallets. Pretty crazy to see them move away from the user-friendly mindset they have had since the start of crypto and become much more greedy and profit-based. I would say with certainty that if Blockchain didn't want to make an exchange to generate them more profits, they would have kept their old wallets and not enforced KYC. This is becoming a new trend now, because we also saw how https://localbitcoins.com/ changed their service to become 100% KYC/AML Compliant. Yep, and they also removed cash trades to enforce it even harder. They are no longer as decentralized and trusted as before and that's one of the reasons why I've moved over to localethereum for some of my trades. |
|
|
|
Blockchain.com have been behaving quite strangely for the past few months and users need to be careful about them. When I created my first wallet with them in 2012 (back then it was Blockchain.info), they had the option of exporting the private key. They have disabled this option for the newer version of the wallets. Also, back then all you needed was an email address, if you wanted to create a wallet. They are slowly making KYC mandatory now (yet to be implemented). As of now, they are trying the carrot and stick approach. They were offering $25 worth of XLM to anyone who would undergo the KYC. Their plan flopped because very few of the users fell in to this trap.
And I am not very sure about this proposed exchange. Even earlier Blockchain.com had this option of converting your BTC to ETH/XLM or USDPAX (and vice versa). I was never able to use this service because I refused to undergo KYC.
Oh wow. I forgot all about that previously, because I do remember being able to export my private keys from their wallets and then move it onto other wallets(I used their wallet for a bit before exporting the keys to electrum and a mobile wallet). It does seem they are moving away from decentralization as they implement other polices like KYC, etc. I did some more research and it looks like there are only 2 options for verification and they work differently for their exchange: Their first verification tier - Silver requires these details and you'll only be able to trade $1,000 worth of crypto on Swap. I personally feel like this is useless and Country of residence
First name, last name, and date of birth
Residential address Their second tier makes a lot more sense - Gold level verification means you can trade up to $25,000 a day on Swap and also join their airdrop. Upload identity document
Take a picture/video of yourself So basically - it's impossible for you to use blockchain.com without doing KYC now due to these restrictions. |
|
|
|
To be honest - not exactly sure what to think about this one. I've never really thought about the use of blockchain technology for the military and defense forces, what does everyone else think?
I guess one big advantage of blockchain technology in military and defense force is having a secure data. We all know that military decisions on based on accurate data they have in hand in real-time. So if having taken advantage of this technology to help them make critical decisions, specially in life and death situation. So perhaps the government is also taking steps to protect critical nuclear US defense system. So its possible that they are looking at blockchain technology to closes those gaps as well. That's around the lines of what I was thinking as well, but the real question would be how would blockchain technology actually be used to secure data? I've heard and seen messengers work with blockchain technology, so it could mean more secure and accurate data transfers, but what about other features, or it just that? I also don't think messages would be able to replace current technology, like encrypted radios, especially in life and death situations where the person doesn't have enough time to check their messages. Blockchain technology being used to secure nuclear weapons could be interesting though. I'm picturing something that involves multi-sig, and there are several people who need to agree with it before they can activate something. |
|
|
|
|
Very well said advice. The biggest and best advice is about being diligent, and also being cautious about any new investments. We've seen how scammy and shady things could get a year or 2 back when the scene was littered with scam ICO projects. If you are unable to research these projects effectively and are still unsure about new investments into these projects, just say no. You should be going into investments with not a single ounce of doubt, and if you can't do that, I'd recommend you to avoid investing in that industry or investing altogether.
The best portfolio is one that is diverse. Not just in crypto, one should also have traditional investments outside of crypto so it covers all of their bases.
Also, one thing that people don't seem to understand is that leverage and margin trading is a double edged sword - you can flourish by it but a sudden move in the market while you're leveraged all the way up can leave you exposed.
|
|
|
|
Not sure how accurate that survey is. Previous surveys have showcased that 10 percent of the US people have BTC, which seems a bit farfetched. Could be possible, but 1/10 people owning BTC sounds almost impossible to me, especially the number of crypto companies that restrict US users from using them. That sounds kind of low. I wonder what the reason for the 64% not wanting to invest is.
Probably a lot of people that aren't technologically advanced and are not interested in learning about new online investment options and would rather stick to traditional investments like gold, stocks or bonds. United states citizens are actually one of the many country’s citizens that fully understand the technology of bitcoin perfectly well and it really suits their situation more, because when it comes to Americans, they pay task a lot, and with bitcoin payment system, this would be limited to zero completely. I think trump must have seen the adoption rate coming so high which is why he quickly ushered in those negative words about bitcoin, but it is already too late because many countries are now becoming very friendly with the technology of cryptocurrency.
I am sure that in near future, the percentage of adopters from US will be higher than every other countries and I don’t know why Binance is making such mistake of getting the US citizens out of their exchange when it is now that they will be more useful to them. Well, they have coinbase.
I wouldn't say that the US people understand BTC and how decentralization works due to the large numbers of people who support companies like Coinbase (which literally goes against what BTC was made to do). Although, I do see a lot of updates and changes to the regulations of crypto-currencies and this is good for the scene on the whole. I'd like to see a future where most online stores based in the US accept BTC, and people support the technology behind BTC, and don't just see as an investment option. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
