-snip-
I guess this falls to personification labeled by the OP, and phishing. If OP can add fake giveaways it will fall the same category too. It does in most cases, but I do think it's worth specifically mentioning in these kinds of threads because actual legitimate entities can easily get compromised and put up a similar scam. We don't even need to look that far back for a high-profile one considering what happened to bitcoin.org. |
|
|
|
-snip-
I would like to point out that inflation fell to 5.3% this August...which isn't much better, but could be a sign that things aren't as gloomy and doomy as one would think. I do agree that the aggressive fiat printing plays a part, but it feels like it's more of a byproduct of people being able to go out and spend again, with supply still lagging behind. Things are expected to go back to normal as unemployment goes back to normal (which in turn lets supply chains go back to normal capacity), and while that may take a good while I honestly don't believe that the US is in any risk of going into hyperinflation. The money printing is likely a different issue altogether, and we'll probably feel that in a different way down the road. But yeah, regardless of which side of the fence you're on, diversifying is never a bad thing, and Bitcoin has proven to be a strong option. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin would make it (a lot) easier for people to move money out of the country, so while this move does make sense as a hedge vs. their currency's decline, there's no way the Taliban is going to let this happen. Even firms like Western Union that have resumed services there recently has currently stopped outgoing services. For the common people though, sure, as Bitcoin has proven to be resilient despite unstable regimes, but I imagine majority of them have more pressing issues right now. |
|
|
|
They obviously hit it big in hindsight, but would you have called that move smart when you've heard it then? Also... In 2017, CNBC spoke to the Dutch family of five when they were in the process of liquidating their assets — from a profitable business and 2,500-square-foot house, to their shoes — and trading it all in for the popular cryptocurrency and a life on the road.
Nearly four years and 40 countries later, Taihuttu and his family still don’t have bank accounts, a house, or all that much by way of personal possessions. All of the family’s savings remain tied up in highly volatile cryptocurrencies. I don't think there's a lot of people who would be into that lifestyle, or would be willing to drop their entire lives for that matter. If you ask me, this probably had a lot to do with wanting to live life on the road, and not just trust in Bitcoin. It's fun to think about, and I'm glad it worked for them, but I imagine they're in a miniscule minority. |
|
|
|
I'm sure that the senators will remove this mistake.Politicians are usually ignorant,when it comes to new technology and innovation,but they aren't that dumb.
It's off the senators' hands now, the bill is headed to congress. The article that OP shared is all about optimism despite defeat because people actually got some of the senators off their asses, which was definitely surprising. It was never inside the U.S.
U.S. has always simply been a (small) part of it.
I personally interpreted that as concern about the US falling behind as other countries embrace more welcoming regulations (i.e. the industry leaders that were speaking could relocate themselves), not necessarily that it's been within the US all along. |
|
|
|
I mean, it's not about building a Bitcoin economy, it's about operating an unlicensed money transmitting business. Regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, trying this is the US is risky at best, and outright stupid at worst. I also found this about their indictment, which just paints a worse picture for them: According to the indictment, some defendants then engaged in substantial efforts to evade detection of their unlawful virtual currency exchange scheme by avoiding answering financial institutions’ questions about the nature of the business and misleading financial institutions into believing their unlawful virtual currency exchange business was instead a religious organization receiving charitable contributions. All that being said, the use of force certainly seemed excessive; I hope that no one was hurt. It seems he has since been placed under house arrest though, so that's a bit better for him at least. |
|
|
|
Good luck enforcing that one.  Yeah, it seems like they're mixing up wallets with crypto service providers. Providers will need collect cryptocurrency holders' name, address, official personal document number, customer ID number or date and place of birth.
"At present, only certain categories of crypto-asset service providers are included in the scope of EU AML/CFT rules," the EC said in a statement.
"The proposed reform will extend these rules to the entire crypto sector, obliging all service providers to conduct due diligence on their customers."
The cryptocurrency proposal outlines future obligations on all Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) "to collect and make accessible data concerning the originators and beneficiaries of the transfers of virtual or crypto assets they operate."
The EC is concerned that differences in AML/CFT laws among EU member nations is exploited by organized crime for money laundering and terrorism financing.
"Transfers of virtual assets fall today outside of the scope of Union legislation on financial services," the proposal stated. "The lack of such rules leaves holders of crypto-assets exposed to money laundering and financing of terrorism risk."
It's looking like they're just enhancing existing KYC regulations. Every entity handling crypto within their jurisdiction will have to collect their users' data now. Regulators probably know that there's no reasonable way of regulating non-custodial wallets. |
|
|
|
An introduction by a newbie to the community is highly acceptable. It is always a good way to inform the community your intention for being on the forum.
Sure, but this comes with an important caveat: Introductory threads: If you feel the need to post an introduction thread please take the effort to write something substantial or don't bother at all. Threads and post that contain only one word/sentence such as "hello & welcome to the forum" will be removed without warning as it causes unnecessary clutter.
People normally wouldn't care who you are or what your background is, especially in this community where privacy and anonymity are emphasized. It's probably only truly acceptable if it's mentioned in passing along with actual questions/topics you want to discuss. Everyone already knows you're a newbie at a glance from your post count/forum rank. |
|
|
|
And yeah, I start to believe that somebody is just using his name there, I've seen no reference about this "wonder" token on his twitter.
It's been on CNBC, so it should be safe to say that he at least consents to the use of his name: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/04/apple-co-founder-steve-wozniak-is-starting-a-second-company-efforce.htmlWhat I found funny with that article is, Bitcoin was mentioned, praised, and then it went on with the story that he launched a new “cryptocurrency company” called “xxx”. I went to the website, it shills a “xxx” token.
It's not funny, it's a way to promote something of your own, but to attract an audience you have to tell them first what they want to hear, and when the co-founder of Apple says Bitcoin is "the most amazing mathematical miracle", people are thrilled and sure will take a look at his project. In other words, " Bitcoin is a miracle, but I have something even better." By the way, Steve Wozniak has become known to the crypto community in 2018 when he fell for a cheap trick and lost as many as 7 BTC, which does not really portray him as an intelligent man - because if he had the attitude he has today, he would certainly have acted differently. To be completely fair, I can't find any reference of him talking about his token on that event. The article OP shared just decided to promote that on their own -- other sources like CoinTelegraph doesn't mention it at all. Woz is probably being genuine here. But yeah, I'd say it's likely that Efforce is just using him as a figurehead. It's not much better than active involvement, but that's something at least. |
|
|
|
Your ip address is like a business card. If it is based in El Salvador it is as if it is saying "We love bitcoin".
Let's pump it.
I don't think this is a bad idea, and I'm sure there's no harm in doing it, but how effective is this really going to be? We currently have no idea how much usage will actually increase, or even if they can roll it out successfully. It's also worth noting that USD is also legal tender there, so touting their IP could just as easily say "We love USD." I'm personally not convinced this can move the needle in a meaningful way, but hey, there should be no harm in going for it. |
|
|
|
He saw this coming since last year blames the US government for his death, this legendary was strangled to death by corrupt US officials, he never committed suicide, he never regretted anything till his last breath. rest in power.
I wouldn't be so quick to jump to this conclusion. This tweet was from June 9th: I have a million followers but I'd be surprised if even 1% bother to read my tweets.
Ramblings of an old man lost in a near infinite Twitter verse - like tears in rain.
As you may guess I'm having a down day. A quick look at his Twitter feed also seem to suggest that he's been pretty down as of late. There was even this tweet from May 27th: Today a man facing a difficult situation asked if I knew of painless ways to kill himself. Having little experience in such, I was of not much help.
The amazing thing is that the tone of the discussion was like discussing the weather.
Prison is a strange environment. I think it's perfectly plausible that he got depressed. Do note that this happened on the same day Spain ruled he could be extradited -- it may have been too much for him. There's no sense for the US to do this (even if they did have reasons to off him) on foreign soil when he was going to be shipped home either. Either way, rest in peace McAfee. I'm sure there are people who wouldn't have gotten into crypto without him. |
|
|
|
The big question is WHEN you buy. If you buy in the middle of a bull run, fail to sell at the top, then the price crashes below your buy price and you're still holding, then you're missing out on the gains that you could have made if you bought later. You'd still be making profits in very long run, most likely, but it shouldn't be that hard to find the bottom or close to the bottom of a cycle. Consider this a slightly advanced for of "buy and hodl".
This is absolutely correct, but if the bolded part is truly "not that hard", no one would lose money on Bitcoin. You may want to elaborate a bit. Personally, I feel like beginners should just dip their toe in, especially if they're in it for the long run; trying to catch dips without experience would simply contribute to decision paralysis. Also, I share this on threads like this all the time, but statistically, lump sum is statistically better than dollar-cost averaging. Both have their advantages, but it's always good to have more info before making a decision. |
|
|
|
Does the future of Bitcoin depend on how banks will position themselves against cryptocurrencies? Like many others, I do not like the fact that banks will come into a legal position to offer all these services and that in the end we have a paradoxical situation in which people use banks to buy and store cryptocurrencies in their custodial service. Maybe that makes sense with most centralized cryptocurrencies, but I would never trust a bank to be my crypto wallet, especially with Bitcoin.
I completely understand what you're saying, but if adoption is the goal, it's better to have Bitcoin within reach of more people. People using custodial services when it's completely unnecessary certainly is a cause of concern, but I feel like this is an easier problem to solve than lack of adoption. I see it as kind of like how people are much more aware of what to put and not to put on social media nowadays vs. a decade ago -- people are going to start talking about it, and at least a decent portion will listen. I dislike that banks will be in a position of power in this scenario, but since it's always been open for use to everyone, it's not like we can stop them if they want to get involved anyway. All we can really do is speak with our own wallets and encourage other people to do the same. Either way, I personally believe getting more people involved = better. |
|
|
|
|
In unregulated environments, sure. I mean, Bitcoin did spawn things like Monero and Ethereum, among other popular crypto that aren't just clones. The competition aspect is more tech than finance though, so there's that.
Once something tries to kill fiat in a survival of the fittest scenario, governments are essentially judge, jury, and executioner. Competitors are even dead right out the gate in some territories, where their official currency is the only legal tender by law. It's also why companies like Paypal are competing for a way to make spending fiat easier, because they can't touch fiat itself (remember Libra? lol).
I guess fiat vs. fiat is also a thing, and China has been trying to beat the USD as a reserve currency, but nobody but the countries involved themselves actually benefit from that, so maybe the general answer is no?
|
|
|
|
Because I have also heard that each address should not be used more than once.
Where did you hear this from? Personally, I think it's safer to use the same address more than once, since you already know that you can successfully deposit it. By saying each address shouldn't be used more than once, it actually means if you're spending from an address, it's good practice to empty that address and never use it again. Receiving multiple transactions with one address is fine until you spend with it. This used to be more common advice, but like what other people already said, it's not very relevant if you don't care much about privacy (which you probably don't have if you use centralized exchanges). One more somewhat minor reason why address reuse can be considered bad practice is that future quantum computers can possibly hack into addresses that have already been spent from because their public key has been exposed. Not very important, but probably worth keeping in mind. |
|
|
|
I find this new action of Wells Fargo bank suspicious. Is this just a whale manipulation? Just after a massive dip, a famous US bank decides to changes their opinion about Bitcoin and only makes provision for the rich to buy. JP Morgan and others have been proved to be hypocrites after calling bitcoin a fraud, they later go ahead to embrace crypto.
I mean, less than rich people would probably just buy crypto directly if they wanted to invest anyway. That's not strange to me at all. A lot of banks have already flip-flopped, so this isn't strange either -- I'm sure they're feeling demand from their clients after seeing institutions get in on the action. Banks will go where the money is, and crypto is profitable at the moment. They're hypocrites for sure, but I don't think that's surprising. It is a bit strange that it was announced after the dip, but it's possible that they've been planning this for a while. It's also worth noting that Bitcoin is still in a very good spot; even Tesla, which contributed to the drop, is still holding their stash, and you just know Elon will want to try to pump it eventually lol. |
|
|
|
|
Wait, people are actually surprised about this? Lol. I'm guessing the Bitcoin community wasn't as accommodating to him as the Dogecoin community, which has basically hailed him as their overlord. Either way, Bitcoin has never needed him or Tesla; I just hope he keeps Bitcoin out of his ego trips from now on.
But hey, the good news is it seems like he's prepared to go all out on pumping Dogecoin, so people who want to make a quick profit can probably jump on that (until he inevitably turns heel again) lol.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for those helpful answers. Unfortunately, Blockchair could not read my qr code via the inbuilt cam. Are there any other site where I can scan the code via the cam to check the balance?
I don't think this has anything to do with the service itself; any QR reader should be able to extract the text from your QR Code. Maybe your camera is the problem? Are you using a webcam? Anyway, I'm assuming your QR Code contains your Bitcoin address, in which case, you only need to scan it with your phone (which is way easier than using a webcam assuming you're using one), copy the text, then paste it to your preferred block explorer like https://www.blockchain.com/explorer. |
|
|
|
Funny how he recognizes this but is unable to see that Bitcoin is the best protection for the coming hyperinflation, but hey, as I have said in other posts about him and Munger, he got rich in another era, he has one foot in the grave and Bitcoin is not needed for him to get rich, far from it.
I would like to point out that the 'very substantial inflation' Warren Buffett is talking about is vastly different from literal hyperinflation -- see Venezuela. I can see why people would find the current state of affairs alarming, but I seriously doubt the US will experience anything remotely apocalyptic (in the foreseeable future at least), especially given their power and global influence. It is interesting how every potential cause of inflation is mentioned here. EXCEPT for Biden and the fed printing increasing piles of fiat to fund their aggressive stimulus plans and COVID lockdowns.
That would be because printing massive amounts of money doesn't necessarily lead to massive inflation -- it didn't in 2008 (granted, the scale was smaller then, but it also sparked hyperinflation fears), and it likely won't now either. Here's a short read why that may be the case. All that being said though, the system is rotten, and this is why we need Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
