Dommage que le sondage comportait seulement ~150 350 participants, j'aurais été curieux de voir si la tendance aurait été la même sur une plus grande échelle.
Ce que tu dis ne m'etonne pas du tout. Vu que la question etait la "majorite" des coins, j'aurais repondu hardware wallet. Mais j'ai un software sur mon tel, un sur mon pc, un paper wallet, et aussi un ou deux onlinewallet. Je pense que les gens qui ont repondu au sondage sont dans le decile le plus faible en matiere de "holding". Si tu fais un sondage sur 1000 personnes qui ont plus de 150k euros en crypto, je pense que tu vais avoir une ecrasante majorite de hardwallet, beaucoup de software wallet (QT, electrum ...) Si tu fais le meme sondage avec ders gens qui ont moins de 200 euros de crypto, tu aura beaucoup beaucoup plus de gens qui auront des online wallet vu que a moment ou un autre ils ont eu des crypto gratos (coinbase earn par exemple, ou blockchain.com ) Et finalement, si tu fais un sondage avec un pannel complet ( de 1 euros a 1 millions), je pense que que 80% des reponse viendront de personnes avec de faible somme. Source : mon petit doigh qui me l'a dis. ( non serieusement, sur les groupes BTC australiens par exemple, il y a 50 000 membres, et je suis persuade que plus de 45 000 d'entre eux n'ont meme pas $500 en crypto. A chaque fois qu'un membre racontre qu'il s'est fait hack genre $2000, tu vera le nombre de troll qui disent que c'est une somme enorme, que jamais personne ne devrais investir "plus qu'ils ne peuvent perdre". Sinon, aussi tu Twitter, le nombre de gens qui ont moins de 0.1btc depasse largement ceux qui ont plus de 5 btc).
|
|
|
Oui en France le prix des médicaments est régulé. Ce n'est pas le cas dans tous les pays, loin de là. Je suppose donc que tu peux vite mettre la main sur des sources, hun sur Google? Ou t'en as déjà https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Shkreli Martin Shkreli (/ˈʃkrɛli/; born March 17, 1983) is an American founder and former CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals. Shkreli is the former CEO of start-up software company Gödel Systems, which he founded in August 2016.[10]
In September 2015, Shkreli received widespread criticism when Turing obtained the manufacturing license for the antiparasitic drug Daraprim and raised its price by a factor of 56 (from US$13.5 to $750 per pill), leading him to be referred to by the media as "the most hated man in America" and "Pharma Bro".[11][12][13] The drug's most prominent use as of late 2015 was as an anti-malarial[58] and an antiparasitic, in conjunction with leucovorin and sulfadiazine,[59] to treat patients with both AIDS-related and AIDS-unrelated toxoplasmosis. Mais bon c'est pas un si mauvais bougre que ca, il a une bonne explication : In a September 2015 interview with Bloomberg Markets, Shkreli claimed that despite the price increase, patient co-pays would actually be lower, that many patients would get the drug at no cost, that Turing had expanded its free drug program, and that it sold half of its drugs for one dollar.[72] He defended the price hike by saying, "If there was a company that was selling an Aston Martin at the price of a bicycle, and we buy that company and we ask to charge Toyota prices, I don't think that that should be a crime."
|
|
|
Honnêtement, vaut mieux ne pas vendre de merits. Interdit ou pas, c’est déconseillé de vendre/acheter du merit.
Putain la lose ! c'est mon 2000 eme message et c'est un message tout naze ! Mince alors !
|
|
|
Again: this is huge.
no it isn't Yes it is take the Mt Gox case, the Japanese law firm who are handling that case simply cannot hope to refund all of the 650,000 BTC that was stolen/embezzled. Yes you are right. However, in the case of cryptopia. Some assets were stolen (but not all), for Mt gox, there was only one asset listed. 1) People type#1 with stolen assets become unsecured creditors, they are owed their property. Maybe that the next judgment will say that, because it is a property and not an IOU, they are becoming "secured creditor" jumping the queue to be paid before some service providers and randoms. 2) people type#2 that have coins that were not stolen by the thieves are entitled to recover their coins, their properties cannot be sold to pay for the liquidation and the secured creditor. On the bad side, they are only entitled to get their property back, not the fiat value of it at the time of the hack (if you had 10 coins at $10 each, you get your 10 coins, even if those coins are now $0.1 each). I am in the case #2, I had some Stakenet (XSN). Their wallet wasn't emptied, so I will get my coins back. No one is allowed to sell them.
|
|
|
Honnêtement, vaut mieux ne pas vendre de merits. Interdit ou pas, c’est déconseillé de vendre/acheter du merit.
|
|
|
Pick your cards :
* an accounting service * ATM management * brick and mortar boutique to sell ledgers/trezor, mining gear, * same as above but online based * set up a business that "settle" btc payment for small business, promote your services. ( ie, organise a plug-in for payement terminal) that liquidate BTC into your currencies, go and talk to coffee shops, barbers, auto repairs ... * become a bitcoin "teacher", do seminars, coach people (maybe not from a financial point of view, just do it from a technological point of view) * become an importer of BTC related products (Ballet wallet ? coldkey ?) * become a broker
Sky is the limit
|
|
|
Loaning money to invest in a speculative and volatile assets is a bad idea in general. Yes, I'm bullish on bitcoin just as everyone else here is, but let's be honest: bitcoin isn't guaranteed to go up in the future, even in the long term. Borrowing money and putting it on bitcoin could put you into deep deep shit if bitcoin for some unforeseen reason drops in price in the mid-long term.
You are 100 right, however, a one size fits all answer may not be the option. Like for example, many people recommend newbies to DAC (dollar average Cost) their BTC purchases. I like this solution as it allows people to buy consistently, with money coming from your main income surplus into crypto. So, if they had a budget of $100 usd a week, it would take them 52 weeks to buy $5.2k worth of coins with "surplus" money that they are cool to part with. But what if, they see a great opportunity (a dump below $8k, before a massive rally and new ATH) and want to sink-in the remaining of their yearly $5.2k fiat ? Maybe, a quick loan for $3k is a solution to buy the dip, and then they use the $100 allocated money to reimburse the loan. Potentially making a better ROI than the $100 weekly buy of crypto. So, taking a loan to buy crypto: no Adapting ones buying strategy when an opportunity arises (without sinking more funds than the yearly allocation) : yes, if the risk-reward if favorable.
|
|
|
Perso je fais bien livrer chez moi, mais tout ce qui rentre dans la boite aux lettres je met un faux nom. Pour le reste je fais des "fautes de frappe" à mon nom/prénom Je fais pareil, mais vivant a l'etranger c'est plus facile. Si je m'appelle Jean, je me fais livrer au nom de John. Et si on me dis que ca ne correspond pas a mon premis de conduire, j'ai juste a dire que c'est la version anglaise de mon nom FR.
|
|
|
I have just seen this thread and discovered Bruno is alive and kicking.
What evidence have you that Bruno is indeed alive and that it is not merely the case the Phinnaeus Gage account has been hacked? Does it change anything ? The flags are against the "account ID". Even if the man is really dead (RIP), and his accounts have been hacked, A flag of some sort is still valid, no ? Or does it just warry a neg trust feedback ?
|
|
|
I will support these flags as I have given some funds (not a lot, but it is the principle). I have also worn the signature asking for more donations. What a waste! hopefully someone finds the truth.
|
|
|
Les derniers messages postés dans la section, dans l'ordre antichronologique https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=recent;boards=183,208,47,48,187,49,209,210,211,188,54,186,184,50,149,258,13J'ai mis ca en "bookmark" ca me fais gagner en temps fou a lire les derniers posts ! Avec le http://loyce.club/notifications (que j'utilise depuis plusieurs mois) mon experience du forum a vraiment change pour le mieux.
|
|
|
petite update. Il y a eu un jugement le 8 avril. Il dit "les crypto sont des proprietes, et meme si cryptopia a les priv key, les crypto demeurent la propriete des clients"Ce qui est "enorme" ce qui veut dire que, si vous aviez un coin qui n'a pas ete hacke, alors le liquidateur ne peut pas prendre une partie pour payer ceux qui se sont fait hack. Aussi, le liquidateur ne peut pas utiliser notre "propriete" pour se payer les frais. Donc, ca va prendre du temps, mais ceux qui sont le cul entre deux chaises, a avoir des coins sur cryptopia (non hack) mais qui ne peuvent pas retirer, auront leur coins restitues a la fin de la procedure ... c'est du holding force sur plusieurs annees. Voici le jugement : CIV-2019-409-000544 [2020] NZHC 728Je vous met (en anglais) la definition de "crypto" selon la "hight court of NZ" (il n'y a pas plus haut que la high court). (b) What is cryptocurrency? [21] At the outset it is useful to provide a definition of cryptocurrency generally. Counsel seem to accept that a most helpful description is found in a British report of the “UK Jurisdiction Taskforce” entitled Legal Statement on Cryptoassets and Smart Contracts. 2 The report was authored by four barristers, experts in this field and considers broadly the legal status of cryptoassets and, in particular, whether the law treats them as property. In the report, the authors provide what is a useful and nontechnical summary of cryptoassets or cryptocurrency. This definition follows the heading in the report “What is a Cryptoasset?” It explains: 24. In October 2008, the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto published his now-famous paper Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Observing that commerce on the Internet relied almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties, Nakamoto proposed a new electronic payment system “based on cryptographic proof instead of trust”, with digital tokens – bitcoins – taking the place of traditional currency. The first bitcoin came into existence in January 2009, not coincidentally at the height of the global banking crisis. 25. Many other systems have been developed since then to implement commercial applications using cryptographic techniques. The market continues to expand as new applications and new techniques are explored. 26. Most applications involve dealings in assets of some kind, which therefore have to be represented digitally within the system. We use the term cryptoasset to refer generally to such a representation. However, that should not be understood as a term of art. Because of the great variety of systems in use and kinds of assets represented (ranging from purely notional payment tokens such as bitcoins to real-
2 UK Jurisdiction Taskforce Legal Statement on Cryptoassets and Smart Contracts (The LawTech Delivery Panel, November 2019) [Legal Statement on Cryptoassets and Smart Contracts] < https://technation.io/news/uk-takes-significant-step-in-legal-certainty-for-smart-contracts-andcryptocurrencies/>. world tangible objects) it is difficult to formulate a precise definition of a cryptoasset and, given the rapid development of the technology, that would not be a useful exercise. Indeed, there is no consistency even in the nomenclature, with virtual and digital also widely used to describe the kinds of things with which we are concerned. 27. Instead, we have set out to identify and describe, in general terms, the features of cryptoassets that may be regarded as genuinely novel or distinctive, as compared with conventional assets, so that we can then consider whether and how those features might be relevant to issues of legal and proprietary status. 28. A cryptoasset is ultimately defined by reference to the rules of the system in which it exists. Functionally, it is typically represented by a pair of data parameters, one public (in that it is disclosed to all participants in the system or to the world at large) and one private. The public parameter contains or references encoded information about the asset, such as its ownership, value and transaction history. The private parameter – the private key – permits transfers or other dealings in the cryptoasset to be cryptographically authenticated by digital signature. Knowledge of the private key confers practical control over the asset; it should therefore be kept secret by the holder. More complex cryptoassets may operate with multiple private keys (multisig), with control of the asset shared or divided between the holders. 29. Dealings in a cryptoasset are broadcast to a network of participants and, once confirmed as valid, added to a digital ledger. The main function of the ledger is to keep a reliable history of transactions and so prevent double-spending, i.e. inconsistent transfers of the same cryptoasset to different recipients. The ledger may be distributed and decentralised, that is, shared over the network with no one person having a responsibility for maintaining it, or any right to do so. A common type of distributed ledger uses a blockchain, which comprises blocks of transactions linked together sequentially, but other models are also in use. 30. An important feature of some systems is that the rules governing dealings are established by the informal consensus of participants, rather than by contract or in some other legally binding way. Consensus rules (employing methods such as proof-of-work or proofof-stake) may also determine which version of the distributed ledger is definitive. The rules are self-enforcing in practice, even if not enforceable in law, because only transactions made in compliance with them and duly entered in the ledger will be accepted by participants as valid. 31. Although not all systems possess all of them, we can therefore identify the principal novel and characteristic features of cryptoassets as being: (a) intangibility; (b) cryptographic authentication; (c) use of a distributed transaction ledger; (d) decentralisation; and (e) ruled by consensus. 32. It is those features that have given rise to much of the debate about legal and proprietary status and on which we therefore focus our analysis. 33. Some cryptoassets are intended to represent or are linked to conventional assets external to the system, for example money or debt obligations, tangible goods or land, a share or unit in a company or fund, or a contractual right of some kind; those assets are sometimes referred to as tethered, exogenous or off-chain. Such an external asset is certainly property but what, if any, rights in it conferred on the holder of the corresponding cryptoasset will depend on the contractual structure or legal rules of the system. For the present, we are concerned only whether the cryptoasset itself (the native or on-chain asset) is property, as distinct from any other asset it might represent, although we return to the relationship between on-chain and off-chain assets below when we discuss whether cryptoassets can operate as assets of title. 34. Many dealings in cryptoassets involve intermediaries such as brokers or custodians; that is the case even in systems, such as Bitcoin, that are designed to avoid the need for intermediation. What personal and proprietary rights the principal may have against an intermediary will depend on established rules of contract, tort and agency. That is outside the scope of the present discussion. (emphasis original, footnotes omitted)
|
|
|
A ce sujet, et pour se premunir de " $5wrench attack" il pourrait etre judicieux lorsque l'on se fait livrer des bien "crypto" de se faire livrer en point relais. Comme ca pas d'addresse, email qui peut etre un email specifique pour le shopping en ligne, le telephone peut aussi etre un abonement free a 2 euros ...
|
|
|
Do we know if those 145 addresses are from the same miner than the one (from last week ?) that split a 50Btc block with 10Btc to go to coinbase.
Also, twitter seems to believe that those 145 addresses could be from Hal Finey, so possibly his family ? (i can't find the fuc*ing source anymore !).
I've prepared the popcorn for the next part of the Wright vs Klenmain court case where faketoshi has done perjury about the tulip's addresses.
|
|
|
@Halab @F2b Et aussi @toutlemonde On pourrait utiliser ce fil : Liste de posts "méritant" mais n'ayant pas eu leur heure de gloire (merit) Pour faire une liste des posts qui meriteraient du merit. Idealement, on ne nominerait que les posts des "autres" utilisateurs pour lesquels on a pas assez de merit pour faire sois meme (juste pour eviter de paraitre faire du merit begging). Quand a utilisation de tous les merits par les MS, Je suis sur a 100% que Theymos a ecris qu'il preferre que les MS utilisent toute leur allocation. D;ailleurs il y a plusieurs MS anglaise qui lorsqu'ils ont des merits qui vont expirer, il vont dans leur historique des 120 derniers jours. Et ils envoyent de nouveau des merits aux posts deja merites. Voila
|
|
|
Personnellement j'essaye de garder une centaine de merit en guise de matelas, mais sinon je dépense généralement tout ce que je reçois, mais chacun me semble libre de faire comme il le souhaite
Merit hoarder haha J’ai tout donné, il ne m’en reste que de 6 dispo.
|
|
|
It feels kind of weird that they're selling hardware wallets that helps us protect our crypto funds from hacking is also maintaining a data base of its customers to a centralized server that's also hackable.
To be fair, most ecommerce stores or even websites in general(even the giant ones) use third party data centers anyway(Amazon AWS/MSFT Azure/etc), hence there's almost always going to be a third party trust involved, unless they run their own data centers. I don't really use PO boxes as they are small and many businesses don't want to deliver parcels to them. But where i am, we have the choice to be delivered to nearby businesses, this can be a good option as the shipping address remains confidential to trezor/ledger (unless you are dumb and provide them a "billing address with your real DOX). One of the advantages is that said businesses (mainly groceries store) are open until 11pm every day. (unlike the post office that only do 9am to 4pm working days only). I wouldn't do that for an expensive package, but for everyday low-value parcels it working quite well. The $5 wrench attack is really hard to avoid, but every step that make it harder is a step in the right direction
|
|
|
|