Latest posts of: timerland

1. I'd recommend Wordpress, for a blog type of site. I've seen a lot of journalists/people running blogs use WordPress templates. They are quite easy to use, and very cheap as well, if you want to keep things very professional though, I'd recommend hiring a couple of web developers to make everything off scratch, you'll have way more control over everything.

2. Anything cheap will work. A couple of friends use hostgator, so I'd recommend that, but it isn't the cheapest hosting service out there.

3. Yes, 100 percent yes! You'll have more control and it'll be much more professional.

4. I'd say 1000 USD for the website, maybe 100 USD per month for hosting, emails, and everything.

Blockchain technology isn't really applicable to social media platforms. I've seen some projects add the blockchain to social media platforms (steemit for example), but the blockchain is really only used to be able to facilate fast, and easy transactions for users to profit off content (think steem, and the rewards you get from making content on steem).

Social media platforms is a place where content is produced and shared, and blockchain isn't really popular for doing that sort of thing - it's mostly used for transactions.

A lot of the people I know that where into bitcoin didn't really care about bitcoin cash, and instantly sold how much they got from the airdrops, and continued to buy more BTC and hold. I believe that with the launch off bitcoin cash, some focus was taken away from bitcoin and into bitcoincash.

I think it would be fair to assume that the price of bitcoin would be higher by 100-200 USD if bitcoin cash didn't exist.

I guess you'll just be selling the infrastructure or the code of the website since you aren't making any profit?

The domain is nice, but you've put in no marketing, and have no frequent users, which means no guaranteed profits.

You might just want to sell the code, or package the sale as selling code for sites that would like to do what your doing, as well with adding extra code/options for sites that want to add on to your code.

Best exchanges/platforms for IEOs are probably any of the top 10 exchanges.

Binance launchpad is great, the new Kucoin platform is also great (but is fairly new and only has 1 project, multivac, I think) as well as a couple other launchpads from other well known exchanges (Bittrex, Bitmax).

Even though the Latoken platform/launchpad is quite popular, I'd stay away from it. Most projects there are often ditched and not cared for after the money is raised, usually by the latoken staff, and they go around a lot of ICO's pitching offers, spamming groups and everything.

Binance is probably #1, most projects raise millions and perform great.

1. Fee per transaction - this would be difficult because you'll need to decide who takes the fee from who. If you take this from your customers, they would hate the payment service and try to use fiat or other easier methods, and if you try to charge a big fee on your clients, they'll use bitpay or other products since the market is quite saturated.

2. Does this mean you charge a fee for when your clients/companys want to withdraw the BTC/fiat to your own accounts? This isn't a bad idea, as long as you charge no fees for transactions within your own ecosystem.

Perhaps they should relocate and dissociate with the Indian market, because regulations there doesn't seem very bright at all. Or perhaps incorporate more p2p transactions into their model.

You've got the central bank of India essentially coming out and making it clear that they're not interested in regulating bitcoin businesses whatsoever, and they'd rather just ban the whole thing. And even though there were several scheduled reviews for regulations, they've all been postponed or delayed.

It's a rushed and badly thought out decision on the regulator's parts in India, but as an exchange, there is nothing you can do about it in terms of the domestic markets especially when you know the direction which the regulations are heading in. Even if an outright ban is not there yet, I wouldn't be surprised if some form of it comes in the future.

Quote

This happened to me recently. A user named Zai21 on LuckyFish casino messaged me saying "hi". I responded with "sup", and he said:

"ok listen im from China and i have money on one site but i cant withdraw it because my region ban let me send you this money and you withdraw it and send me you can keep 0.1 btc for help"

I suspected an obvious scam, but I generally like to try to appear to be an easy target and follow through with scam attempts, if only to gain additional information about what methods scammers use to deceive unsuspecting victims. I would post screenshots of the exchange, but my account status is still Newbie so I'll just copy/paste and summarize.

Good job.

There is no reason for any stranger to trust you with such high amounts of money if they were actually legit about it. As long as you know that the funds you receive on a site that you have never heard of before in your life holds absolutely no real value, you should be able to avoid all scams of this nature.

You'll also find that this type of scam will run on multiple sites/domain names, but the structure remains the same each time, which makes it fairly easy to spot.

Just don't believe that someone you don't know is going to give you funds for free when they can literally use a VPN at a fraction of a cost. That's common sense.

Quote

Did the dollar and other state currencies retain their values in gold or silver? No.

Did the bankers and politicians create lots of money and debt under the standards? Yes.

Did the gold and silver standards suppress the currency price of precious metals temporarily? Yes, by definition, the currency price of gold/silver was fixed.

A lot of people talk about reverting to the gold standard or whatnot. I say that it is intrinsically flawed.

Why? Because you are relying on a central bank to keep enough reserves (certainly not full reserve) of a precious metal so that the bearer can actually redeem their notes on demand. That in itself has never been fulfilled as demonstrated by the debasement of currency under the gold standard time and time again.

After all, it's just a promissory note that the central bank is issuing under the gold standard. Not gold itself. Even though technically they are bound to pay you in gold/silver, but can you redeem a silver certificate of the past for actual silver now? Obviously not.

With bitcoin you don't need this central organization to keep their reserves, and issue gold/silver certificates that acts as currency. BTC is already on chain and can be transacted with, with ease. There is no worries about fractional reserve, no worries about changing policies. None of that.

I honestly don't think that it's as big a deal as it seems.

It's not unprecedented, as China has done it already, and yet it still has a strong influence over the market. China doesn't even have centralized exchanges operating in its borders anymore, but trading activity still goes on through p2p means.

Why? Because bitcoin is intrinsically decentralized, and you can only do so much to stop the flow of internet traffic. You can't just pinpoint bitcoin transactions and block them.

I think if this was ever implemented, the most effect will be felt by third party services that offer their product to Russian users, because their sites would be blocked off. But even then, there will be alternatives for Russians popping up real quick, because the bitcoin blockchain itself is still accessible nonetheless.

Quote

I typed [banned mixer] into Google and clicked the first link (not realising it was an ad link) - I clicked fast without looking properly as I was in a hurry.

Sent coins without verifying the letter of guarantee as was in a hurry and I've used [banned mixer] loads of times without any problems from many, many mixes. Clicked off and several hours later wondered where the fuck my coins were. Spent two hours trying to figure it out, then when retracing my steps on how I got to the URL, I realised it was a fucking phishing link.

Christ, that's a big loss.

Most phishing scams from experience spread through the google ads platform, because they don't seem to review any websites at all for potentially malicious content, and they are strategically placed on the top of the page to mislead people into thinking that it's the top result. I'd say that the majority of the time when you search for a mixer on google, the ads direct you to phishing sites.

It's really a feature of Google that is severely flawed, but heck, they make big bucks out of this so they could care less. I find that nowadays it's completely necessary to verify the website you are visiting with official channels like the ANN thread on bitcointalk, before you transact with it. Bookmarking as you mentioned is a good practice, but for new sites, you still need to be extremely cautious and check on social platforms, as you don't have a bookmark beforehand.

I've never heard of anyone pay a fine and just walk away with fraud, if they were charged with it.

But no, I don't think that anyone has paid their victims back. There are a bunch of them including Craig Grant, Trevon James etc. among others that have deleted their bitconnect content altogether, probably meaning that they are concerned at least to a degree about this ongoing lawsuit.

But some of them are still active on Youtube, posting new vids or whatnot, with no signs that they've been ordered to pay anything. I remember Trevon even continuing to shill for the scam even after they collapsed.

I think it's still a grey area given that they are only affiliates, and not running the scheme. But the lawsuit should be interesting as it unfolds, perhaps some of their assets will be seized to reimburse investors, but that would be the best case scenario and imo, quite unlikely.

On top of what others are saying, I think that another viable option would be to open another escrow for $10k with an advertisement by the same seller.

Since that would again put funds in escrow, it means that even if he is unwilling to release the funds to you, at least you have a shot at resolving the issue through a mediator of LBC. But this will only work if he still has an active advertisement running, and that he has at least that amount of funds in his account.

Otherwise, your chances of recovering your funds are slim. Cash deposits aren't easily refunded or reversed by banks, when compared to debit card payments or transfers.

Quote from: LeGaulois on April 16, 2019, 12:01:52 PM

Why didn't you buy from several sellers instead or at least by doing several trades with this person? Better to make 10 purchases worth $1,000 than 1 single one of $10,000, especially online with unknown persons. I hope you can do something, think about doing what others advise you to do.

That's true. But I don't think that's the main problem here. Main problem is that OP was apparently lured into cancelling the escrow process. If he didn't do that, then he would still be able to dispute the transaction even if the seller goes rogue.

Quote from: pushups44 on April 14, 2019, 11:08:23 PM

I'm not sure if this is a realistic figure, but it seems to be one of the most bullish calls in some time.

I personally don't like these kinds of predictions for two reasons.

One is that they rely on the premise of bitcoin "succeeding", but yet, what is the criteria for bitcoin to succeed? If it's solely to fulfill its monetary function, hasn't bitcoin already succeeded, or at least partly so? Or is success measured by adoption, or prices?

Secondly, these speculative predictions are usually baseless. It doesn't matter whether or not the person speaking is a Paypal executive or not, I personally think that the 250x growth figure is simply an arbitrary number that he had thought up.

I don't think that this kind of growth is impossible in the future, if we do have mass adoption of BTC and inflation of fiat, essentially increasing the nominal value of BTC even if adoption doesn't increase. But it's definitely unlikely.

Quote

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) last year ordered financial institutions to stop processing cryptocurrency business, and the ban will take effect on July 5. Since then, the government and the Supreme Court of India have been arguing over whether the ban is appropriate. They plan to hold hearings, but the key decisions are delayed.

At the request of the government lawyer, the Supreme Court of India postponed the hearing last Friday. The court was scheduled to hear about the country’s cryptocurrency regulation last week before proceeding with the central bank’s bank ban. However, this matter has now been postponed.

From what I've heard, this has been the already nth time that a decision on actual regulation of bitcoin has been postponed or delayed, ever since the RBI issued the restrictions which essentially made it completely unfeasible for crypto business to exist.

It could be a deliberate thing as much as we could tell - to give off the facade that they're thinking about regulation, when in fact the agenda was always to ban, and the current RBI restrictions are sufficiently strict that as time goes on more and more businesses will leave by themselves.

To be honest, I don't understand the logic of not trying to actively regulate a market that has shown itself to hold a lot of potential in terms of the Fintech industry in particular, but rather pushing out all trading activities from a country altogether, essentially eliminating India's influence in crypto/blockchain markets in the future as well.

Quote from: Jansenist on April 12, 2019, 01:55:20 PM

Beginning with the fact that cryptocurrency was originally built in some sort as a mean to avoid banks and the bureacracy related to those kind of thing, is there any use for bank to launch their crypto, why would people who are searching for a non-centralized way to manage their asset to join centralization expert like JPM or other

They're likely not targeting the people who actually care about decentralization anyways.

What bank-backed cryptocurrencies are in essence are just an easier way to account for the liabilities of a bank. Moving these accounts off a centralized database and onto the blockchain could result in benefits like security and reduced costs for the bank, not to mention that they can take advantage of the buzz around crypto.

Also, it's very likely that in the future banks will increasingly be utilizing blockchain technology in a centralized manner, especially in the case of backed tokens that only have their value derived from a bank's assets. These should co-exist alongside bitcoin, and have differing usage cases that don't necessarily have to conflict.

Quote from: Dcspride on April 15, 2019, 09:56:29 PM

I currently have dispute going on with the seller. i purchased $100 worth of bitcoin. I paid via zelle andd everything was fine. Later that night, I was going to purchase again through different seller via zelle. When I logged into my account, previous transaction was pending and says I have to verify myself. So I clicked the button and bank sent me a 6 digit text msg and I put that number to verify myself. Once verification went through, zelle decided to send another payment of $100 to seller I purchased from earlier. So I quickly message the seller and he advice me to deal with the bank. Long story short, bank can not help me since zelle is third party app and seller does not refund me the $100. I contacted paxful and they asked me to open another trade with seller and mark it paid and ask seller to pay me with coin. if seller refused to release the coin, I can dispute the transaction and moderator will help me. Well, it's been 5 freaking days and moderator messaged me three times and that's it. Last thing they asked me was to put picture of my bank statement showing two $100 transaction. how much longer is this going to take?? I send them message again and no response... I think this will be my last time using paxul... takes way to long to get in touch with them..

It's technically not the seller's problem, because of the fact that he never forced you to send the funds twice.

But since Paxful's support has given you a way of recourse, and you have followed that, that's the best you can do. If the seller isn't responding or willing to release straight away, then there is nothing you can do but to wait for Paxful to intervene.

This process can take some time. I've heard people in the past have similar delays with Paxful's conflict resolution, so it's not a new issue. I'd still keep calm though because the funds are in escrow still, and Paxful is likely going to rule in your favour eventually if you've done precisely what they've asked you to do, which is to open a new trade.

Quote from: thecodebear on April 10, 2019, 11:54:54 PM

We had 4.5 months at the bottom in the $3000s. Smart money was filling up the bags. But I saw plenty of people on here adamant that it would continue crashing to 2000s or 1000s or some ever said it'd drop to like $800 haha. I remember arguing with someone that people need to be buying the bottom ($3000s) to get the best deal, and he was arguing that its better to buy higher later on once it has started going up (makes no sense to me!).

So to all you who refused to buy at the bottom, waiting for a price that now obviously won't ever come, are you buying now? Are you still hoping for a magical 50%+ drop from these prices? Will you wait for like $7000 or $8000 or $10,000 before you start buying? What is your strategy now that you watched the entire bottom go on by are missed it entirely?

I think the fact that the markets were moving sideways and consolidating for that period of time down at $3k-4k, as opposed to the volatility we saw earlier on during the bear market should have been an indication enough that the bear market was about to bottom.

This is why dollar cost averaging works, even if you don't know whether or not it's the bottom, you don't miss out on the opportunity to accumulate.

I still think that for long term investors, even this level is a viable accumulation point, because if you look in the market right now you'll still see a degree of irrational fear that BTC will somehow just collapse altogether, which is keeping prices down. And since the long term outlook now is quite bullish, I would continue to accumulate for the long run, until we see the first signs of over-excitement within the market.

Quote

I can only imagine how excited Jamie Dimon would be if all of this laundering had been done via bitcoin/crypto rather than our glorious and infallible banking institutions, which we all know are immune to money laundering due to them being "regulated".

If there's any contribution to society blockchain could make, it could be in the form of mandated public ledgers where all transactions are public knowledge and open to scrutiny. I have a faint feeling teenagers living in their parent's basements could do a better job identifying illicit transactions on a public ledger than federal regulators do with existing private databases.

Perhaps our next generation of payment processing software could link digital transactions to social media for purposes of comparison shopping on a public ledger utilizing a blockchain. That could raise the difficulty level for attempts at electronic money laundering. It could be an irrelevent point given how laundering may best be performed in a cash or precious metals format, leaving behind no paper or digital trail for investigators to follow.

You're spot on with this.

The fact is that there are certain people out there that are paranoid about bitcoin being used for illicit activities or whatnot, but in reality, you've got entire networks of rogue banks around the world that facilitate this on a scale that is simply incomparable. A part of this in my opinion is caused by the media attributing certain crimes/frauds onto bitcoin itself, which is simply a currency.

The best part of it all is that probably nothing will happen to these banks, because they most likely have huge amounts of influence over regulators and the government. Roll Eyes

Quote from: jjjfff on April 07, 2019, 05:05:10 PM

The point is: don't do business on telegram.

Use telegram to contact folks, then carry your business out in some external platform. Use escrow or localbitcoins or something that maintains records.

Telegram isn't a trade app, it's a chat app.

A chat is supposed to lead you to a deal but not represent the deal itself. In real life do we just do deals based on chats or do we have contracts and actual papers? Why would online deals be any different?

The thing is that a lot of the times, this isn't applicable.

It's not always feasible to use an escrow in certain transactions, like giving out loans or whatnot, because the whole transaction is based on the receiver being able to access the funds now so that they can repay later.

Whilst it is questionable that this is allowed to happen at all on Telegram, I wouldn't say that it necessarily means that you need to avoid telegram for business dealings, especially when your contacts may already be established on that platform. Just make sure that you ask for a signed message, whether that be bitcoin/PGP/etc. and verify that signature before you agree to any deals, so that you can at least hold the counter party accountable.