Just wanted to update this thread since the EU GDPR is applicable since yesterday. As of now, you will be able to rely on the rights stated above.
I have already noticed that a lot of service providers like banks etc. have sent me new forms so that I can give my express consent to what they are doing with my data. I am wondering if any ICOs will follow.
That's great. I really hope this becomes a standard in terms of data protection. Data use and consent are covered by those long agreements that no one reads for the most part, but it's still great that there are very specific rules now. The right to be forgotten is especially attractive considering how pretty much everyone can be Googled at this point. ICOs are going to be tricky because most are built to raise money and bail anyway, but I'm sure the legitimate ones would abide by this for extra legitimacy even if they're not required. This could very well be a new factor in figuring out which projects are legit. |
|
|
|
IMHO, We can see it if ever new advance technology for mining rig are introduced which focuses on increasing the hash power for computation. BTC halving is always happened every 4 years and if ever the miner hash power tremendously increase then the extraction of BTC from the last satoshi will be more faster. Take note that our technology was innovative and people wants a fast result so I believe that we can all see it.
Wait what? No, this can never happen. It doesn't matter how much hashpower is generated for mining. The difficulty will simply adjust, and we'll be right back towards the 2140 track. But yeah, regarding the topic, who knows if that will even happen. I doubt Bitcoin could survive for a century if scalability isn't achieved lol. Even then, better options might pop out. 100+ years is a very long time. |
|
|
|
There's a common misunderstanding when it's about governments (or the central banks) and the national cryptos. Countries are not going to release a new kind of cryptocurrency for themselves. All they want to do is to change the backend of the current 'digital fiat' in order to cut the costs of the current systems, which requires a lot of manual interventions and checks. If they can upgrade their current system to a blockchain-like system (more or less automated system) they will have some great improvements, compared to the current systems. This means they will be able to track the transactions more easily and they will need less staff who manages the system (less headcount, less cost).
The governments won't create anything decentralized or anonymous, that's not their interest...
That was initially my understanding as well, but then Petro came along, which was completely discrete from the Bolivar. I realize it may be a special case, but it's the only case we have at the moment. -snip-
The point the section you quoted was trying to make is that it would make no sense for banks to create their own cryptocurrency. - 1st statement: The counterparty risks mentioned refers to risks banks would have to take should they create their own cryptocurrency. It has nothing to do with users and adoption.
- 2nd statement: I would use the word "issue" over "infuse" because banks issuing cryptocurrencies is what this section is about.
- 3rd statement: It basically highlights central banks' need for centralization. If they were to make one, they would have to remove the decentralized aspect. If that happens, then it really wouldn't be cryptocurrency anymore. It's not saying every crypto should be centralized, it's saying bank-controlled ones should be.
In the end, they concluded that anonymous cryptocurrencies protect citizens from bad governments, and they welcome it for that. I would personally cheer for that. |
|
|
|
I take it this is still current? Any thoughts about running a "faucet-like-service" in California vs New York?
According to this link: Learning from New York’s BitLicense example, California is seeking to impose a bitcoin-focused business license that would require any business seeking to sell or transmit fiat currency by bitcoin to apply for a license and pay a licensure fee. This rule, however, has yet to be enacted. The information on the page was updated on 2017. If nothing else, it looks like it will be safer on California than in New York. This is only if faucets are considered money transmitters though, which I doubt. I can't find any concrete information on the subject. There's a guide to setting up faucets here though. I don't know if the author is based in the US, but if you've hit a dead end, why not try to ask them about the legal aspects of running one? |
|
|
|
The two best solutions would be to always check the SSL certificate right before the URL or by always running the wallet locally from the source code.
To be fair, there was apparently a security warning, and users ignored it. Few people seem to be aware of what SSL certificates are for, sadly. But yeah, for newbies, the internet is a very dangerous place, and you should never ignore warnings even if you're absolutely sure you're on the correct URL. It was a DNS poisoning attack, which could happen to any site. If there's a certificate problem and you don't know how to deal with it, walk away. |
|
|
|
Lmfao that's disgusting. They're free to fight for their ideologies on which should be which, but they can't ignore or change the fact that BTC = Bitcoin and BCH = Bitcoin Cash. If OP wanted to buy Bitcoin and got Bitcoin Cash instead, he could probably take legal action. I would never touch Bitcoin.com so I wouldn't know how purchases there work, but that may explain why he didn't get credited. |
|
|
|
It seemed to me like the only problem they have with Bitcoin in the first place, is that it could easily be used for criminal activities.
It's not only the problem they have with bitcoin. Governments also doesn't like it's decentralization which they cannot fully control(which is the case for most countries). Although that is the case, I think those governments who are starting to legalize it(cryptocurrency in general) has the intent to study blockchain tech itself(Australia included) to use it in other fields as well and to not be left behind by others. I would argue that they have enough control though. Look at how China has crippled it. They didn't even need an outright ban. There's no way to control it completely, but most people will stop using it if under the threat of penalties. I simply don't think control is that big a problem at this point. I would also argue that they don't need to legalize crypto to study blockchain technology itself. Crypto is just one of many applications. If anything, they probably want to study crypto itself. |
|
|
|
However, Australia's experience shows that the process of legalizing and defining the status of cryptography is far more beneficial to the state than to the users, since for the first it creates additional control and profit opportunities, and for other participants only imposes additional restrictions.
That really just about sums it up perfectly. It seemed to me like the only problem they have with Bitcoin in the first place, is that it could easily be used for criminal activities. This is clearly not the case though, with blockchain analysis and whatnot, and some governments are starting to realize it. It's a low risk additional source of revenue. For as long as legalization is done right, it's a fair compromise in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Wow, this is so surprising I don't even know what to say lol. They basically acknowledged that Bitcoin is money and gold in a single package, and actually lauded decentralization. Very objective take on the subject in my opinion. The bank feels that it is naive to expect a central bank to issue a cryptocurrency given the logistical problems and unnecessary risks involved. Because of the option of complete anonymity, the bank would risk facilitating money laundering and other crimes which commercial banks are obligated by law to take measures against. The researchers acknowledge the benefits of allowing anonymous transactions in situations where a government is oppressing citizens, but feel that it is not appropriate for any government authority to actively facilitate anonymous transactions due to their obligation to collect tax and prevent money laundering.
This is what truly stood out to me though. This just seems to relevant because so many countries seem to want to release their own crypto lately. This, of course, is their own view of the matter, and others may have different opinions, but this tells us those who are interested in releasing their own aren't releasing true cryptos. They're not going to be anonymous, they're not going to be centralized, and they're going to be made not for the people, but for the government itself. One example is Petro, which is Venezuela's answer to sanctions. |
|
|
|
Please let me to know and if is possible, technical examples why can exists the possibility this happens. Or technically why this cannot happend.
It's possible, but probably not with our current technology. Simply put, Bitcoin's cryptographic protocols were built in such a way that it would be almost completely impossible to crack for current computers. The same goes for pretty much every secure system out there. That being said, the next generation of computers probably could. |
|
|
|
You still have a 3-month period to withdraw everything you have earned so far. The ban isn't imminent and every exchange is functional right now. You must have heard the recent news where a crypto exchange was robbed of almost 20 Crores. So unless you have an account on that exchange, you are in trouble, otherwise just take advantage of this green market and cash out. You cannot stop this ban and the only way to continue trading is to send money to a foreign account. Do you have a relative in any foreign bitcoin friendly country? If yes, it would be of great help to you right now.
The ban could be lifted before it even takes effect: https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/money-and-banking/delhi-high-court-issues-notice-to-rbi-centre-on-bitcoin-ban/article23638785.eceI know it hasn't been stopped yet, but in hindsight, they signed petitions, and Indian exchanges filed complaints to court. They did what people under a democracy should, in short, and it looks like it worked. |
|
|
|
|
Umm Bitcoin is (or at least it aims to be) a currency. How is it going to be more dynamic than Skype or Hotmail? They're barely even comparable lol. It's not comparable with the internet in this sense either, because the internet is basically a platform that Bitcoin runs on.
But yeah, while I can't wait for the time when I'll be able to use Bitcoin to buy whatever whenever, I don't buy the 5-year window. Too optimistic in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Would they be any more complicated that for a site like Pinecone Research that is probably paying out millions to fill out surveys? I guess my real question is: are there any additional legal complications to paying out in cryptocurrency vs paying out in paypal or other means? (maybe I should also research the legal implications of simply reimbursing people for filling out surveys via PayPal as opposed to with cryptocurrency)
Well, one key difference I can see is that Paypal complies with KYC/AML regulations. Whatever money they send out through Paypal will be completely verifiable and traceable to an identity. Things will be different with crypto because there's really no way to know where money is going. Authorities could easily accuse you of funneling money out to somewhere or something. That's just my two satoshis on your issue though. If this is a big operation, you should be getting a lawyer anyway. |
|
|
|
|
Another thing to note is while they could make the funds raised publicly available, they could easily fake the numbers. I'm not saying they all do it, but with the number of scammy ICOs, I'm sure some wouldn't be above using fraud to attract more investors.
|
|
|
|
I don't know how things work at https://buy.bitcoin.com/, but from my understanding, you bought Bitcoins, and had it sent to your address, which is 163UNyJnYuDw15PmYFMBkBKSsK5LbX43Yz? Is it also a Bitcoin.com wallet? How much did you send? If it has been 24 hours then something likely went wrong. |
|
|
|
I wonder if they'll ever attempt to restrict crypto trading to accredited investors on certain platforms so this can be controlled, but of course everyone else will ignore it and head to their fave bucket shop.
I could actually see that happening. It could be the next step after KYC and would certainly be a nightmare scenario. There are going to be a plethora of ways to go around it, of course, but hitting exchanges is a pretty heavy blow considering the state Bitcoin is currently in. This would also further cement the notion that Bitcoin is an investment rather than a serious currency and would hurt adoption in the long run. Let's hope it doesn't come to that. |
|
|
|
|
This...doesn't make any sense. Bitcoin isn't in telecommunications. I don't even think even at least a bit comparable with telecommunication technology, except in network topology, I guess? Still, I feel like it's absurd to apply such a rule to Bitcoin, considering it's not limited to peer-to-peer usage like telephones are.
I get how people want to know exactly what Bitcoin's true value is though. If they can use such models, then does this mean there's already a somewhat accurate measure of how many people are actually using Bitcoin? That's a pretty good starting point.
|
|
|
|
It really looks like it. The market as a whole seem to be doing really well, and it doesn't look like there will be any FUD-worthy events in the foreseeable future. Even traditional investors are seeing buy signals. We may actually be looking at a bull run. But yeah if there's one thing we know about Bitcoin, it's that things could change in a heartbeat. I've actually started to be optimistic about being out of the recent bear market, but you never really know. |
|
|
|
If you are a straight "HODLer" it's fine, but if you like to do some trading every now and then you have to really think about how much you want to balance secure storage with trade readiness.
Lol well to be fair, if you want to be ready for trading opportunities and you trade often, keeping coins in an online exchange is your best option. It's not as much a disadvantage of hardware wallets because it's pretty much on par with every other wallet as it is an advantage of online exchange wallets. But yeah, it is a bit more inconvenient to use than some other readily available options, I guess. If that's all the downsides users can say about them though, then they're fantastic devices. Let's just hope they maintain their reputation of being remotely invulnerable. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
