Hardware Wallets (Risk level: Very Low)
Hardware wallets are wallets whereas your private keys are only safely stored on the device itself. Hence, even if transacting on a malware-infected computer, the chances of hackers gaining access to your private keys are pretty much almost next to zero.
Hardware wallets might be a bit expensive for most people(Ledger Nano S is around $95 and Trezor is around $105), but if you're holding at least worth $1000+ in funds, getting a hardware wallet should be one of your priorities. Better to spend a hundred dollars on a hardware wallet than to risk your funds from getting hacked.
Just to add to this, you can create your own de facto hardware wallet by turning Electrum/Bitcoin Core into an air-gapped wallet. All you really need is a "persistent" Linux installer flash drive that will never be connected to the internet again after the wallet installation, or an actual air-gapped PC. It's not as convenient as dedicated hardware wallets are, but not as inconvenient as paper wallets either. |
|
|
|
|
Is there such a site? They'd be lucky enough to land on an exchange anyway, so I don't think there are exchanges that race to list them. It likely depends on the coin/token itself. I'm going to assume decentralized exchanges don't count.
If you just want to check which exchanges they're listed on, you can try coinmarketcap.com. Find the token you want info on, then press Markets. They list exchanges by trading volume.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think it's the safest way of storing wealth considering its volatility. Buying up foreign currency and/or gold may still be the safest. Venezuela, for example, has a very active black market for USD and other foreign currencies. If Bitcoin was the number one option, and is also completely legal to boot, there should be no need to go underground, right?
That being said, I'm not at all surprised that lots of people consider it as an option. It's ridiculously easy to buy, sell, move, and store, so much so that all of that could be done using a single cellphone with an internet connection. It's starting to develop a reputation to shield against domestic instability too, as evidenced by Iranians buying up in anticipation of an economic collapse. It's not the safest, but it's pretty damn safe.
|
|
|
|
I read it and for me this is just a hype at this point.
Also, I didn't see any great impact over price last year when the future contract was added to the market. Crypto-currencies are not-so compatible with the regular trading tools and approaches to the market.
You may be right, but I'm sure Bitcoin futures was only hype at some point in the past as well, and here we are now. To be fair, CBOE launched their Bitcoin futures on December 10, which coincided with the furious December rally. No one knows for sure what spurred that on, but it's very possible that futures was a significant factor. Either way, the more accessible Bitcoin is for more people, the better. If nothing else, major market players opening exchanges help on that front. |
|
|
|
|
There's no reason why they wouldn't be allowed to use a government-backed cryptocurrency, given that the reason they're opposed in the first place, is that they cannot be controlled. If China comes up with some kind of digital money, you just know it's going to be heavily used in surveillance and is going to be heavily controlled. They might prefer that WeChat users (or all their citizens, really) use such a currency, even, because that's only going to make things easier for them.
China has gone so deep in surveillance, that the moment they introduce their own digital currency is probably the moment when privacy completely dies for its citizens.
|
|
|
|
|
It seems like the general sentiment around here is that they're too old and out of the loop to appreciate Bitcoin. That's certainly possible, but I think the far more likely scenario is that they don't care for it. Neither really cares enough about the subject to actually study it in-depth; it just sounds like they're only running off of preconceived notions.
It must also be noted that the most recent criticisms refer to Bitcoin's speculative nature. They're not really talking about its technological aspects, but rather all of the speculative investing that's going on around it. It's entirely a matter of opinion, so it's not even worth contesting. If Bill Gates wants to go short, you can prove him wrong by going long. That's just about as simple as it gets.
|
|
|
|
|
How exactly does it destroy Bitcoin? I look at it as dipping one's toes into the market. It's also a fairly common sentiment that futures trading legitimizes Bitcoin in a sense. Some banks are even talking about opening up trading desks, which would be the natural next step.
What's for sure is that interest in Bitcoin is only growing, and I think that at the very least, Bitcoin futures help growth on that end.
|
|
|
|
Once Bitcoin has been mentioned in The Simpsons it will have finally become part of pop-culture. I really hope It'll appear in a Simpsons episode and that they mention it going to 100k, since a lot of predictions on the show tend to actually come true  Pretty sure it already is lol. It's already been mentioned in a bunch of shows, and even got a dedicated episode from John Oliver. Some portray it as scammy though, so it's not all good. I'd love it if it were portrayed being used as an actual currency though, a la Mr. Robot Season 2. If we're betting on a prediction, why stop at $100k? We might as well go full McAfee and wish for $1m lmao. I'm sure their portrayal of Trump as president years ago was equally absurd then anyway. |
|
|
|
|
Lmfao I read this and just thought it was completely absurd. He didn't explain his statement either. He just somehow equated Bitcoin with harvesting baby brains for some reason. He was obviously just exaggerating to make a point though. His view is probably the same as Bill Gates', in that Bitcoin helps proliferate crime.
But yeah, without knowing what made him say that, there is literally no argument here. It's not much more than just a blind claim by someone who feels that he knows better. Don't feed the trolls.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not a legit. It's a phishing site. Since you've failed to log in, you've already sent your account details to the malicious entity behind it. Change your credentials immediately or you're going to lose your account.
You may also want to change passwords to other accounts across different sites with similar usernames if you use the same password for them.
|
|
|
|
In my studies, I have discerned that Sound Money means all I have to do is save it and I gain, if I intelligently trade it I can win.
Because sound money is defined simply as stable, you're unlikely to gain just by saving because you normally have to account for inflation. "Healthy" inflation amounts to just about 2% annually, so you'll probably lose that much if you just hoard sound money. Bitcoin isn't sound money by definition, but it's awfully close to what you've described. Hold it and it grows in value, and if you can predict price movements and trade properly, you can make it grow even faster. |
|
|
|
Nope. That would be censorship. No one owns the Bitcoin brand, and the account was gotten legitimately.
I do agree that there shouldn't be censorship but although noone owns the brand it still may violate the terms of service. We reserve the right to remove Content that violates the User Agreement, including for example, copyright or trademark violations, impersonation, unlawful conduct, or harassment.
It comes down to whether using @Bitcoin is impersonating an authorised body that doesn't actually exist. Considering how many people hate it and actually advocate reporting it, I'm going to guess they don't view it as impersonation. Where do you draw that line anyway? Does the account holder need to be pro BTC for them to have the "right" to own the account? It was suspended and was rumored to have changed hands recently, but no one really knows what happened behind the scenes. Maybe Twitter really did rule it to be impersonating Bitcoin, but they reversed their decision anyway. It's going to take something big for them to shut it down. |
|
|
|
|
The thing he conveniently forgot to mention is that volatility works both ways. If you use fiat to buy Bitcoin, then it rallied, then your fiat gained value, did it not? Still, the core issue is that it's not stable, which makes it inherently risky. You can use it as money, but it's not too ideal, considering you could lose or gain money whenever you make a transaction.
Either way, Bitcoin's value is predicted to stabilize as adoption grows -- the larger the market, the harder it is to make waves. It's hardly perfect for purchases right now, but it should be in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
What could regulations actually do against fully anonymous cryptocurrencies though? If we assume that those who use it are criminals, they're already above breaking the law. They're also fairly safe from consequences, which is the number one crime deterrent, thanks to the coins' anonymity features. Regulators are already starting to ban exchanges from listing them, but criminals won't route them through exchanges anyway. Low price didn't really deter them from the past either, considering they used Bitcoin when it was fairly young.
I'm not saying there are no ways to stop their use in crime, but I honestly don't even know where to begin. I'm sure this will be a massive headache for the crypto market in the near future.
|
|
|
|
|
Nope. That would be censorship. No one owns the Bitcoin brand, and the account was gotten legitimately. For as long as it's not violating Twitter rules and aren't breaking any laws (determined by a court of law, at least), it has every right to stay on Twitter. I hate the propaganda as much as anyone else, but I also understand that Twitter accounts shouldn't be shut down just because people disagree with it.
All we can do right now is fight the misinformation campaign it runs. I'd say it's working pretty well because just about everyone in the crypto scene knows it's a Bitcoin Cash account rather than a Bitcoin account lol.
|
|
|
|
|
Beyond Bitcoin, you don't really need to diversify. Altcoins still follow Bitcoin's growth for the most part, so diversifying with them doesn't really work. This, of course assumes that by diversification, you mean spreading assets around to mitigate risks. The way things are going, every altcoin will die before Bitcoin does, so "diversification" actually raises your risk.
If you want to grow your portfolio though, everything is off the table. As I've said, the markets generally follow Bitcoin's price movement, but a few coins here and there could do better than it in short bursts. Since you're essentially gambling at this point, there's no ideal number -- go for things that are doing well or are projected to do well, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Shitcoins are dying because people are starting to realize that they're shit. It's sad that people have to lose before they learn, but at least they learn.
In the end, I'd say less than 1% of current cryptocurrencies will survive. That's good for the bigger picture too, because money that would have gone and been lost on some shitcoin will be finding their way to Bitcoin or some other legitimate crypto instead. There will still be trading, there will just be a smaller pool of choices. It won't be much different from what's going on today either, because exchanges only list a limited number of coins anyway.
|
|
|
|
Have you tried getting into contact with support? You should probably try doing that before accusing them of scamming. Just to be clear, I'm not defending them, I just think you should try to work it out first. And well, if you've tried everything and they were of no help at all, you could also try asking for support in their official thread here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=378827They do seem to have plenty of scam accusations though. Maybe someone should try filing an official complaint to authorities. |
|
|
|
We have been hearing a lot about crypto regulations lately and people seems to fear it like the vampire would fear the garlic. But ask yourself. Will regulations really be that bad? And who has to fear them the most?
In my opinion regulations are not necessarily all that bad. They will bring some order and law to wild west world of cryptocurrencies. And it is about time to separate good coins/projects from the bad.
In the past I made some bad investment when I invested in the coin because it looked promising, had real world usage etc. But still, at some point often team did a little pump and dump, made some high flying promises or just promised to make some great announcement, which never came, and later on they disappeared. Probably with nice sum of money. So, you still think that regulations would be all that bad?
And to answer second question, who fears regulation the most? Investors? I do not think, because they will at some point protect the investors. So, if not investors, who would be hurt the most by regulations? If you said that people who now manipulate the market and teams which just want to make some big money in a shortest possible amount of time, with the least effort possible you were correct. So, they are the ones who should fear the regulations the most and usually do spread a lot of FUD about it. I completely agree that regulations, when applied correctly, is only going to help users and investors. There are non-criminals who don't like them though, and I understand their sentiments all the same. They mostly believe that the system is broken, and that Bitcoin could be part of the cure. Bitcoin was also built in such a way that it's essentially immutable and pseudonymus, so some people see it as a tool to sidestep governments' censorship and surveillance. If they believe that government intervention defeats the purpose, then it's only natural for them to oppose regulations. But yeah, good write up though! |
|
|
|
West was arrested last year on a train after a lengthy investigation by police authorities who were able to gain access to his bitcoin accounts as he was logged in at the time of his arrest.
...
USA Today has also reported that Investigators also gleaned encrypted access codes saved on West’s computer.
The police forces were very, very lucky! This will make me rethink my computer's security. I'm no hacker, and I'm no criminal, but I don't want anyone to be able to gain access to my wallets by seizing my computer. I'm quite confused as to what access codes they gleaned over when it was already stated that they were able to get access of his coins because he was logged in when he was arrested. As far as desktop wallets go, they shouldn't be able to get access to your coins just by seizing your computer unless you actually keep copies of your seeds or passwords on there, or if your wallet isn't protected by a strong password in the first place. Maybe he had a password manager or something? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
