|
I thought yesterday's dump was a major local top but bulls are showing some resilience. I guess this might just stay sideways for a couple days and keep pushing higher.
I'm still skeptical about these bubble projections though. I think the next year will look more like 2015-2016 than 2017. Too early....
|
|
|
|
As Bitcoin plunges, the U.S. Justice Department is investigating whether last year’s epic rally was fueled in part by manipulation, with traders driving it up with Tether -- a popular but controversial digital token.
While federal prosecutors opened a broad criminal probe into cryptocurrencies months ago, they’ve recently homed in on suspicions that a tangled web involving Bitcoin, Tether and crypto exchange Bitfinex might have been used to illegally move prices, said three people familiar with the matter. This doesn't sound good at all. I wonder if this news will exacerbate the price disparity between Bitfinex/Tether and the rest of the market. Storing money there sounds like risky business. The Justice Department doesn't mess around. I lost a lot of money last year when they took down BTC-E. |
|
|
|
Given the amount of complaints lately and the striking similarities with fiat withdrawals, it's probably not a far fetched idea to say that they are insolvent at all.
They would've made staggering amounts of money during the bubble and they really would've had to have worked exceedingly hard to lose it all. I would presume any USD delays are down to them changing banks. They recently hooked up with HSBC which is probably the end of a lengthy process of disruption. I saw the rumors about HSBC. I'll believe it when people stop complaining about this. It seems to be getting worse, not better. $80 premium between Stamp and Bitfinex so far. I imagine this is why. |
|
|
|
7457 jonoiv
Looks like this guy is in good shape, eh?  Rough day for BTC. But hey, at least we haven't broken down from this trading range yet. Ping pong, back and forth..... |
|
|
|
Ok, I'll give it a go: $13,052  |
|
|
|
.... Or maybe the rejection of all the ETFs, killing all the hype, could launch Bitcoin to $2K, $4K, $6K!  One thing I keep on reading about is, how institutional investors will be able to buy Bitcoin straight off the market, but really, even if these ETFs were backed by true Bitcoin (or actual Bitcoin or however they're being marketed), why couldn't these same guys simply just get it from an exchange? They can. The mindset of these "ETF dreamers" is irrational. Institutional investors who are serious about investing in Bitcoin need spot BTC + custody, not an ETF. ETFs are for speculative trading, like futures. I get that SEC would regulate these ETFs, is that the real reason? Or what am I missing out on all the hype?
It's just empty hype. The futures market makes clear that Wall Street isn't interested in speculating on BTC right now. Launching an ETF doesn't magically make Wall Street "long term BTC investors who want to buy ETF shares", which doesn't even make sense anyway...... |
|
|
|
It is not the cboe etf, this one has already been rejected before, and this was re evaluation of it. Real thing is in august, but i think it will also be rejected. One day it will be approved though They'll all be rejected for the foreseeable future. The SEC's objections to the Winklevoss ETF apply to all of them. There's no way we see an ETF this year or next. It'll take years. Just forget about it. |
|
|
|
devs what is the next step here from the roadmap?
I see people here talking only about airdrop and free coins.
Check the "Work in Progress" and "Planned" section of the OP: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1370307.msg13942630#msg13942630Most interesting features coming are Electrum wallet and atomic swaps. Apparently they are working on a governance system also (something like DASH I assume)... |
|
|
|
Masternodes climbing fast, 386 at the moment
where do they come from? there are no buys at the markets
Could be P2P buys or mined coins. Also, I noticed the masternode count dropped recently. Maybe an operator had some nodes knocked offline and just brought them back online. |
|
|
|
Hey community! Tell me please that coin have roadmap or some developers plan in future? how many total supply coins will be until the end of 2018?
Upgrade to Core 0.16, new difficulty algo, Electrum Wallet, and atomic cross-chain swaps are on the roadmap. |
|
|
|
|
This is some nasty whipsaw action. I got stopped out of my last long. Sitting on the sidelines now. I'm leaning sort of bullish still but I'm not gonna risk getting my stops run again until bulls are more decisive.
|
|
|
|
There was a double bottom at $6600, so the support at that level is real steady by the looks of it.
There is a chance that we go lower than the bottom that we already saw, but I don't think that it's a big chance. And if it does happen, it's not going to drop too far below the $6k bottom. I think it's safe to say that we're already in recovery mode. I agree with the first part, disagree with the second. The support held really solid. But if we manage to get below $6000 at this point, it's bad news. There has been a shitload of volume exchanged, all above $6000. If we get below, that means a lot of new resistance that will smack down every bounce. However, you've just got to be prepared for everything. The bear market could return and take everyone by surprise again, and you don't want to be caught having a lot of BTC that you're not ready to hold for the long run. Just because the majority of institutional investors think that the bottom has already formed, doesn't mean that it's actually going to be the case.
Yup, I don't think this is a replay of 2014. But it could be!  |
|
|
|
Thanks Limx Dev and dishwara, from a longtime BitSend/Bitcore holder and supporter. I wonder, how is Bitsend on Bittrex when Bitcore isn't. How long has Bitsend been listed there?
Exchange listing politics. |
|
|
|
I'd like to discuss forum policy privately with a few senior members.
If it’s just about policy generally, why can’t you just come out with it?  Sounds like theymos is planning to replace the default trust system anyway, so changes may already be in the works... |
|
|
|
I’m ready for a little running of the bulls.
I was feeling bullish until we got hammered down at the head-and-shoulder neckline. I suspect I'll be closing the chart for a while, hodling strong through some carnage. Would love to be proven wrong..... |
|
|
|
Life of the party, this guy. I acquiesce that because of the financial incentive, this [rank] should be limited. However, that's an issue that campaign managers should take care of: they should punish poor posting quality. And if they allow spam to manifest on the forum, then they themselves should be punished.
Yes. Campaign managers (with a couple exceptions) are part of the problem. |
|
|
|
This system can be enforced at a later time (after fair warning is given) by having several DT users place a red tag on the profiles of signature campaign managers who do not adhere to this new policy. It can be removed at a later time, but it may be an easy way to identify which campaign managers obviously don't give a shit about the level of quality of the campaign's participants' posts.
Yes, this is a bit of work to enforce, but it's a hell of a lot less than trying to monitor URL types from any given user's signature.
The merit system already addresses the member incentives underlying signature spam. I think a bigger problem is the "minimum post" requirements that campaigns have. I think requiring a minimum of 25-30+ posts per week absolutely incentivizes spam. Managers like it because it makes post counting easier (no need to thoroughly check posts to determine exact number of qualifying posts). Advertisers like it because they are guaranteed a minimum number of spots that will likely be exceeded. But the forum staff should dislike it because it turns people into spammers. I see otherwise good posters padding their post counts to reach their minimums all the time. If it were me, and I already made 25 good posts but was 5 short of my minimum with a deadline approaching? I would churn out some crap to make sure I got paid. I wouldn't do that in a pay-per-post campaign because struggling to produce shitty content isn't worth upping my pay 17%. It is worth it if I lose 100% of my pay for not reaching the minimum. It creates a situation where the problem is not only spammers, but the fact that most campaign managers are exacerbating the problem rather than reigning it in. Props to Chipmixer, Coinroll, YOLOdice and others who aren't part of the problem. |
|
|
|
I reckon it's necessary that thread starting posts from newbies should include red warnings in them in any altcoin subforum.
Not the worst idea in the world, but sure sounds like an eyesore. How about Newbies can't post threads except for in Meta and beginners?
Sounds like Meta will become an eyesore too. Based on the new merit system, maybe newbie restrictions should extend to Jr. Members as well. So, you need a minimum amount of merit to escape newbie jail. How about Newbies can't post threads except for in Meta and beginners Newbie jail should come back. Why was it taken away to begin with? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
