|
Good to see some of the regulars get back for a hello!
|
|
|
|
do you see the door? use it to protect yourself from old, rusty pipes #meet_me_at_the_ RPT Dang now I have that song stuck in my head again. 라파트 라파트 라파트 라파트 Red pipes, red pipes That's what I'm on, yeah Come give me somethin' I can feel Oh oh oh I don't get this. Can you elaborate? |
|
|
|
|
19 - d_eddie
Failing that, I'll take 77.
Thanks cygan!
|
|
|
|
do you see the door?
use it to protect yourself
from old, rusty pipes
Great metaphor. Old and rusty pipes perfectly capture the creaky legacy financial system. I think you are missing the point. |
|
|
|
A little TA
Chasing stops really happens
OK have some fun
#haiku
Friend is this your worst?
Of all time W O Haiku?
Maybe, maybe not.  Hahaha, I can take a little criticism. I agree it's low on poetry. It was meant more like a warning for exuberant traders - in verse. This Federal Reserve thing will bring a lot of choppy action, one way or another. |
|
|
|
|
A little TA
Chasing stops really happens
OK have some fun
#haiku
|
|
|
|
This sure looks shady Please sir, get out of the car Keep your hands in sight #haiku |
|
|
|
I've read an interesting piece about a possible "up before down" gesture. Time horizon: up to the 1st or 2week of October. It makes sense to me. https://www.newsbtc.com/bitcoin-news/bitcoin-short-squeeze-long-trap-october/If she follows liquidity (as she does more often than not), the juiciest path is to eat the high shorts first (up, right now), and go for the late longs as a dessert after that. I emphasize "late longs", straying into gambling: heavy and high. It's not like the whales, whoever that might be, can necessarily push the number below 0.080 - but if 0.095 means annihilation, even on a wick, that's too much leverage at too high a price. Keep it safe. (Numbers are in M$ because reasons. Basically, it's quite cool IMO.) |
|
|
|
|
Aha, I guess it's not BIP-39 compatible then.
|
|
|
|
|
Significant volume spike on Bitstamp. Price didn't move as much though. What's going on? Silent massive accumulation without making waves in the market?
|
|
|
|
Not that I ever did that, but I think that when you recover a wallet by a BIP-39 seed you need no passphrase, at least with some wallet software. Maybe it's worth checking if this is the case.
Using a Trezor which will need both the seed and passphrase to gain access the hidden wallet. My point was: if it's BIP-39, and BIP-39 recovery needs no passphrase, and if a bad guy gets the seed, you might be in trouble even if they don't know the passphrase. Two big IFs. Maybe trezor doesn't use BIP-39 seeds, though? |
|
|
|
Removed all my mother's personal belongings from her home.
It's an emotional rolercoaster from tears to laughs, so many happy and warm memories.
Thankfully, i finally found the BTC seed backup hidden in a small space behind the wall that was not easy to find together with €5000 cash. Gave the money to my sister straight away without a second thought.
Of course those wallets are protected with a passphrase if the seed obtained by thieves, which is also hidden on another location in form of an birthdaycard with text is also in my possession again.
Not that I ever did that, but I think that when you recover a wallet by a BIP-39 seed you need no passphrase, at least with some wallet software. Maybe it's worth checking if this is the case. |
|
|
|
|
No need to weave it
Shot, but in the name of god?
The irony is there
#haiku
|
|
|
|
|
With all the JS shenanigans, I wouldn't move any coin right now.
|
|
|
|
|
Ledger have already proved their clownmanship, but this is preposterous. Don't they checksum the libraries? Can just anyone push bogus stuff on github or wherever it is that the code is kept? I think there's something I'm missing.
|
|
|
|
Disclaimer: I've never used coinbase, so I'm just speculating.
As I understand it, if your order is out of the money and isn't matching a standing orderbook entry (so it doesn't get filled), it goes on top of some existing (maker) order to increase the amount available at that price. So the pre-existing amount goes first, then yours. With maker fees.
all i know is when i put in an order within 1% of the spot price (higher or lower than the current spot), it still showed me the fee corresponding to "taker", not "maker". Maybe it is because they have "standing book entries" stretching up and down from the current spot price (with no gaps?). Maybe they have such a massive spread that +/- 1% is still within it? At any rate, can you see the actual order book in their interface? That would answer the question, and hint at a price level that isn't too crowded yet. In the end all I know is I am currently paying up to triple of the fees comparing to a few months before (used to be 30/40, now 60/120 aka 0.3%/0.4% vs 0.6%/1.2% now).
This is a fact.
I see only one way to solve the issue at present. Stop using Coinbase. Getting your funds out of there (dollars and bitcoin) quickly sends a clear message. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Mining Difficulty Hits New Record As Miner Revenues Fall
Bitcoin’s network difficulty has surged to a record high above 136 trillion, creating tougher conditions for miners already dealing with shrinking revenues.
The adjustment, logged at block height 913,248, marked a 4% rise from 129.6 trillion and extended a run of five consecutive increases since June, according to figures from Mempool.
Antminer "duly testing" their new miners before shipping, so the customers don't run into unexpected troubles?  |
|
|
|
CEX shenanigans: Coinbase has 0.6% maker/1.2% taker fees on "Advanced", however it is IMPOSSIBLE to be a maker because there are no price spots available in the order book within a few %...i guess Coinbase traders fill them all and then say: "see, your order was a taker"..and zap you with a 1.2% fee.
If, alternatively, you try Coinbase one, which allegedly has no fees, then they claim that they still charge a spread fee, but then they say that the spread is much bigger than on advance (you can't use coinbase One on Advanced)...and your fee is STILL above 1%, effectively.
What a racket!
Disclaimer: I've never used coinbase, so I'm just speculating. As I understand it, if your order is out of the money and isn't matching a standing orderbook entry (so it doesn't get filled), it goes on top of some existing (maker) order to increase the amount available at that price. So the pre-existing amount goes first, then yours. With maker fees. Or do they have fixed slots with a maximum amount per slot? This doesn't seem reasonable. Coinbase has post-only. Select post only so your order doesn't get snatched up. Post only means maker only. But typically, if the order price is such as to cause immediate execution, the order gets canceled immediately. That is: maker only, otherwise cancel. |
|
|
|
CEX shenanigans: Coinbase has 0.6% maker/1.2% taker fees on "Advanced", however it is IMPOSSIBLE to be a maker because there are no price spots available in the order book within a few %...i guess Coinbase traders fill them all and then say: "see, your order was a taker"..and zap you with a 1.2% fee.
If, alternatively, you try Coinbase one, which allegedly has no fees, then they claim that they still charge a spread fee, but then they say that the spread is much bigger than on advance (you can't use coinbase One on Advanced)...and your fee is STILL above 1%, effectively.
What a racket!
Disclaimer: I've never used coinbase, so I'm just speculating. As I understand it, if your order is out of the money and isn't matching a standing orderbook entry (so it doesn't get filled), it goes on top of some existing (maker) order to increase the amount available at that price. So the pre-existing amount goes first, then yours. With maker fees. Or do they have fixed slots with a maximum amount per slot? This doesn't seem reasonable. |
|
|
|
the US employment numbers are rising, quite a lot, actually.
You mean UNemployment or am I misunderstanding? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
