2017 was only a temporary rise in fees. That's what markets do -- they temporarily rise and fall. 2017 is indicative of what happens when there is strong demand for Bitcoin transactions. You think they won't rise again? If long term adoption is growing, fees should rise over the long term too. I am speculating on fees that are permanently high because 20 years from now the mining rewards will be very low for miners to support themselves. Miners might leave or users might be required to pay high fees.
Can bitcoin sustain itself on fees alone? The mining subsidy will be very low. What makes you think the total mining rewards would also be very low? Because you assume adoption/usage is slowing down or dropping? Nobody knows for sure if the zero inflation model will work, but it's the way Satoshi designed things. We'll have to wait and see.  |
|
|
|
We don't need an ETF. I said it before and I'll say it again. People are trying to make us think that ETF would start a rally but we had a rally to 20000 dollars without it and even better we had it in time when the first ETF was rejected and they reapplied and got rejected again. During that second rejection Bitcoin was worth twice more than it is now so let's stop pretending like the ETF has any impact on price.
Maybe you should rethink what you said many times. The $20k value of btc was heavily manipulated thanks to the hardforks for free money, million tether printed and fake volumes. You don't have any proof of that. The BCH hard fork happened 4 months before the peak, and the last significant hard fork (BTG) happened 2 months before the peak. There were obviously other forces causing the rise to $20,000. The "Tether printing" allegations have never been proven by anyone. Either way, real people were trading on real exchanges at those prices in 2017. It doesn't matter if there were attempts to "manipulate." What matters is the price people were willing to pay. None of those can happen anymore because of the strict regulations around.
Which regulations were those? |
|
|
|
I've never really understood the ATM idea myself.
So many of them either have ludicrous KYC or the fees rape you. I don't see why anyone would use one more than once, or even the first time. If you're in the market for BTC you're already going to be internet savvy enough to shop there for it too. There are/were ATMs that required no KYC or at most, just cell phone verification. You could use a burner for that. The old Lamassu machines don't even have cameras. I can see some appeal if you can avoid KYC. Other machines with their palm and fingerprint scanning are really over the top. I wouldn't go near those things. The fees are crazy, comparable or higher than credit card buys through Coinbase or Bitstamp. During bubbles, people expect > 10% gains so they don't care, plus the ATMs get them their coins much faster -- no holds or reversals. But the rest of the time? It doesn't make sense. |
|
|
|
This crypto-Rial thing is still ambiguous with its 1:1 to Rial. How it will be distributed? Other countries will exchange Euro with crypto-Rial? Iran will pay others with its new cryptocurrency?
I really don't get it. How is it any different than just using the Rial? The non-Iranian counterparty can't pay their supply chain with Iranian currency. They need to use banks to exchange the Rial or crypto-Rial back to a usable currency like Euros. These banks will be subject to sanctions and blocked by SWIFT, same as now. It doesn't solve anything. |
|
|
|
Now I can't smell that this issue had cause more trouble on the current price of BTC, yet I think this will cause to spike since that lost BTC will remain lost forever and has an impact to the circulating supply.
Compared to the broader market, QuadrigaCX was quite small. I'm not surprised the bankruptcy didn't affect the price much. As far as lost coins, you're right. Just like Satoshi said, they're a donation to holders because taking coins out of circulation drives prices up. I think all exchange hacks cause the same effect because even if hackers steal coins, they aren't very fungible afterwards. |
|
|
|
'Bitcoin’s blockchain is constructed by 19 mining entities'
How can someone be asked their opinion on this when they don't even know what a mining pool is? There are definitely incentives against egregious majority miner attacks by pools, but it still represents a nonzero threat. Let's not forget that in its heyday, the operators of GHash.IO engaged in double spending attacks. Here is one such example. The less hash rate in the hands of any individual operator, the better. |
|
|
|
Nice news. More and more states are looking to make their own stable coin. Will Tether dominance died after this?
Seems like US influence will slowly fade from the market, as people can use blockchain and crypto to outclass the US.
I wouldn't risk touching the "IranCoin" or "Crypto-Rial." Doing so could get you implicated in violating US sanctions, even as a non-US resident. Who wants to take that risk? I still don't really understand how this works. Most Iranian trade is done in Euros and they need a replacement for SWIFT for interbank transfers. How does a state-backed cryptocurrency solve this problem? |
|
|
|
Why are you using those weasel words in your headline? No one other than Bcash whack jobs call Bitcoin Bitcoin Core.
If you want to build cred your phraseology counts.
Seriously, there's no reason to post clickbait articles from Coinidol -- they love to perpetuate that kind of garbage. BitPay put out a press release on their site. Obviously, there was no mention of "Bitcoin Core."  I don't get the reason why BCH was accepted. They said it was because their donors were interested in different cryptos, but why BCH?
I'm not sure. They may have just wanted to change payment processors and landed on BitPay, who supports only BTC and BCH. To be honest, I didn't know they previously accepted Bitcoin donations. I still don't see it on their donation page. |
|
|
|
Again, I don't think that the bitcoin ETF is actually as relevant as what people make it out to be.
Sure, an approval would mean a short term pump in prices, but apart from that fact, what else does it actually bring tangibly to help the bitcoin ecosystem? In my opinion, pretty much nothing. The physically backed ETFs were open-ended, so they could lead the market upwards (because of arbitrage) if there was significant demand for ETF shares. I'm not sure that "helps" the ecosystem, but it could mean more than a short term pump. It depends what kind of demand there is for regulated Bitcoin-backed securities. And there are also concerns of furthering market manipulation if bitcoin ETFs were to be approved, though that can't be stopped if it does happen. With physically backed, non-leveraged ETFs, I don't think that's a major concern. I could see it being a worry with inverse and leveraged ETFs like the applications from Direxion, though. |
|
|
|
It's a zero fee trading exchange but when you try to withdraw your funds look at how much they charge you. It is significantly more than all the other exchanges. It's a good place for day traders who leave their coins there, but not ones that withdraw daily
Last I checked, you can't deposit or withdraw coins on Robinhood at all. It works like a bucket shop. You deposit dollars, you can buy and sell within the app, and you can withdraw dollars. Their fees for transferring funds are pretty much in line with competitors, though. They have free bank transfers for US users, $25 domestic wires and $50 international wires. |
|
|
|
Here are a few simple facts.
1. Approx 90% of bitcoins mined are sold to pay for the electric.
2. That equates to $5 million a day on electric costs, sure some might be green, but some of that that electricity could be used by someone else that subsequently didn't have the green electric. Miners aren't generating the electricity. They're consuming it. This is an important distinction to make. To prevent an unreliable power grid, power plants generate electricity above and beyond demand. Miners can actually make power generation less wasteful through load balancing agreements with power plants. We should be asking not only what percentage of mining is green, but how much miners are increasing electricity demand beyond what is already generated. Where miners are causing utility districts and power companies to purchase electricity beyond normal capacity, that's relevant. The sum total of all mining inputs is not relevant. So basically bitcoin must be wasting $2 Billion a year that is in effect environmental damage. If you actually account for the above, it's probably far less. Miners have incentive to operate where there is excess capacity because electricity costs will be cheaper. You should also consider what Bitcoin might be replacing. The gold mining and banking industries require huge amounts of energy too, much of which is not green. |
|
|
|
Bitmain has controlled up to 50% of the mining (across multiple pools), makes 80% of the ASICs, and already messed with the BTC hash rate in late 2017. It's not this simple. Bitmain operates a lot of hardware on behalf of clients, who can pull the plug at any time. The Bitcoin Cash war showed they have far less mining resources than previously thought. Miners have incentive to leave their pools if they're threatening the protocol. Competition in the ASIC manufacturing sector would be welcome, though. What's the breakdown on those numbers? Bitfury is still relevant, right? I know GMO was a major disappointment and I've heard nothing good about Ebang. Who else is there? Any news on that horizon? |
|
|
|
I have been following this forum for a long time now. And have learnt so much, so Thank you.
As of today I own 1 full bitcoin!
This has been a long term accumulation project for me (bought 0.1 a month for the last 10 months). The bear market has helped me achieve my goal of owning 1 full BTC.
Congrats. Very few people will ever be able to own a full bitcoin. In several more years, it might be impossible for new investors to accomplish that. Keep it in cold storage and hold on tight! One thing about this thread. Call me paranoid, but I never tell people how much bitcoin I own. It can put a target on your back. It may not matter today at $3,000 per coin, but at higher prices it certainly might. Just something to think about.  |
|
|
|
talking about a "bear cycle"
is so damn naive, you want to talk into reality an alternative reality,
you can't accept that its simply a potential support loss, instead you lie to yourself that it is a "bear cycle"
this will fundamentally keep you in a situtation of "surprises" and you will end up with a different reality that you try to market to everyone.
You may be right, but just keep in mind that your rationale applied after similar past crashes. When prices were crashing in 2011 or in 2014, people said the same thing as you. As it turned out, they were very wrong. What makes you think it's different this time? The truth is, we don't know whether the cycles will keep repeating or not. We can only guess, based on whether it seems like adoption and utility are growing. |
|
|
|
Official From QuadrigaCx Website
Message from QuadrigaCX Board of Directors
January 31, 2019
Dear Customers,
An application for creditor protection in accordance with the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) was filed today in the Nova Scotia Supreme Court to allow us the opportunity to address the significant financial issues that have affected our ability to serve our customers. The Court is being asked at a preliminary hearing on Tuesday February 5 to appoint a monitor, Ernst & Young Inc., as an independent third party to oversee these proceedings.
For the past weeks, we have worked extensively to address our liquidity issues, which include attempting to locate and secure our very significant cryptocurrency reserves held in cold wallets, and that are required to satisfy customer cryptocurrency balances on deposit, as well as sourcing a financial institution to accept the bank drafts that are to be transferred to us. Unfortunately, these efforts have not been successful. Further updates will be issued after the hearing. Whoa, it's much worse than I thought.  I thought the owner had just misstructured the company so that when he died, the bank accounts were legally in limbo. Instead, it seems like Quadriga was either already a fractional reserve exchange, or the cold storage wallets went to the grave with the owner. Good luck to the victims. Sounds like it could take years to claw a fraction of their money back, like Gox. |
|
|
|
You're right for The US but the reason I said this country is a special case is that is there another country acting similarly?. This country is always trying to impose its own laws on everyone all over the world.
Think about it from the point of view of an exchange platform and let's say you're one. Wouldn't you say to The US, who the fuck are you to give me directives while I'm not in your country? Go chasing your residents, not me. I totally agree, it's bullshit. I would just be careful to keep them off my site if I didn't want the FBI knocking at my door. Bitmex is shutting down the accounts of Americans (and also Quebec residents) because of government warnings about this. 1Broker took the position that it wasn't their responsibility -- the FBI seized their website for it.  Binance doesn't deal with fiat, correct? Because when an exchange does or doesn't transactions with fiat it's a lot different. They serve US residents, and on that front, it doesn't matter. That's 99% why they have the KYC policies they do. It's why they sometimes lock accounts and enforce KYC even if you keep under their 2 BTC limit. US law says exchanges doing altcoin trading are money transmitters, so they need to do KYC and file an SAR when they suspect money laundering. BTC-e but the only option to deal with fiat was via Perfect Money not via banks transactions. They did bank wires for years, but they stopped at some point, probably due to intermediary banking problems (like Bitfinex). Take a look at Europe, despite the evil KYC/AML, Europeans can still use an exchange without verification (i.e. with Kraken)
Don't they do direct SEPA transfers to/from customers? I thought EU regulations required KYC at €1,000. |
|
|
|
Wouldn't you need to actually trust BitGo though? If so, that's a big no for me dawg.
For now(as I haven't done ample research yet), though it's quite interesting, I think it's very pointless. The only possible use-case for WBTC that I could think of right now is for multi-collateral DAI on the MakerDAO platform; beyond that, I really don't know.
It's the only way so far to trade "Bitcoin" on a DEX. It allows you to trade Ethereum assets against tokenized BTC using smart contracts. Obviously, this isn't fully decentralized since it requires third party custody from Bitgo, but it offers a hybrid model that's less risky than trading on fully centralized exchanges like Binance. |
|
|
|
we dont need to stifle onchain scaling to push a fee war. fee's are not important for decades. What's your basis for saying that? If fees are supposed to replace the inflation subsidy, when is it going to happen? Nearly 85% of the entire supply has been mined already! If a fee market is inappropriate now, then when? |
|
|
|
As of right now I have been hodling few thousand worth bitcoin, I didnt cash it out. But because of price drop, I am in loss. How do I file this on tax return in US?
If you just bought and held BTC and have never sold it, no taxable event has occurred yet. Nothing is reportable on your taxes yet. Tax liability usually doesn't come into play until you've realized a capital gain or loss by selling. As mentioned above, a loan isn't reportable as income either. It sounds like you won't need to report anything Bitcoin-related on your 2018 tax return. I'm not a lawyer and you should probably ask a tax advisor just to be sure, though. |
|
|
|
#1 Should be getting a hardware wallet.
Regarding the MEW attack that happened a few months ago where the DNS was hijacked and many users who logged in lost their tokens. Those who had hardware wallets like a Nano S didn't. Because you need physical access to a hardware wallet in order to send funds from it. So a hacker can't do it without having your wallet in his hands + knowing your pin code.
Indeed, hardware wallet users don't reveal their private keys at any point in the process -- only signed transactions -- so they're usually safe from these kinds of phishing attacks. You can achieve the same thing by using MEW offline with cold storage instead of using the web wallet. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
