Does this apply to global exchanges that have european customers? Or only to European exchanges that are based and registered in Europe?
EU/EEA (so not the whole Europe) based exchanges, and maybe other exchanges supporting SEPA bank transfers. |
|
|
|
How come hardware wallets like Trezor and Ledger are not recommended? they are making some desktop/mobile wallets look like a better option. Also not sure what do they mean when they say that Trezor has bad privacy? as it's always possible to run Blockbook and connect the wallet to your own node. They're describing Trezor Wallet which isn't great, not the Trezor hardware wallet itself which can be used with other wallets. |
|
|
|
No właśnie, podają żeby się do nich zgłaszać indywidualnie. Więc jeśli chodziłoby tylko o opłacalność, to dlaczego nie wezmą się za namierzenie czegoś grubaśnego - na przykład hack na Cryptopii. Jeśli odzyskają cokolwiek - ogłosić to, skontaktować się z syndykiem i poprosić klientów żeby się zgłaszali po odbiór odzyskanych środków pomniejszonych o prowizję.. Chyba, że po odzyskaniu byliby zobligowani do oddania wszystkiego bezwarunkowo..  Chyba tak. Lepiej uzyskać zgodę zawczasu na własnych warunkach, niż potem prosić o jakąś prowizję bez żadnych gwarancji. |
|
|
|
Ale podliczając te wszystkie dziury, to jednak łącznie wydajność procesora po wszystkich patchach umie spaść o nawet 25% - co w efekcie działa tak jak update sterowników na starszych GPU Nvidii  Tak, a w niektórych przypadkach nawet więcej. Najbardziej tu chyba są stratne wszystkie firmy, które włożyły dużo kasy w sprzęt czy to dla siebie, czy to dla klientów i nagle zmienia im się profil ryzyka przy wirtualizacji. I teraz co będą szukali sami nielegalnych transakcji ze starych haków, czy też poszkodowani muszą się do nich najpierw zgłosić, żeby otrzymać pomoc?
Z tego co rozumiem to mają już jakieś poszlaki i kilka scamów do wyboru tam jest, pewnie będą skupiać się na tym, co im się będzie najbardziej opłacać/co będzie dawało największe szanse na odzyskanie chociaż części środków. |
|
|
|
Could I please have your opinion, thanks.
Doesn't even look NSFW to me but some other mod must have thought otherwise... Post it again and add "NSFW" before the non-hotlinked imgur image.
IMO, this one crossed the line between "Adult" (NSFW) and "Pornography".
Based on experience w/ flagged artworks, arts that include grabbing the genitals or bust in a provocative way (even clothed) were considered as porn.
In your case, I'd say it's way beyond NSFW that's why it was deleted.
It's more erotica than pornography, not like the latter should be a problem if it's properly marked. |
|
|
|
Not surprising, because as far as I know Russian hackers are among the most "talented" and many of them work for the FSB.
This is more about strong-arming someone than hacking them. Most people's requirements for an exchange is to have it be easy to access, and have a lot of shitcoins listed to trade. In both cases yobit and similar crappy exchanges check these boxes. On top of that, we have enough historical evidence of failed and "hacked" exchanges to know that people do not learn from what happened in the past. In fact, people still use Bitfinex while they know how shady that exchange is, and the same applies to usdt people do not trust but use anyway. People are literally begging to lose their coins. It's one thing to be ignorant and make mistakes, but it's completely different when you know how shady a certain exchange is but use it anyway. If people use them, it typically means there isn't anything as good on the market that will suit their needs. BTC-e/wex were one of the oldest exchanges and they always managed to figure out a way to solve any problems they faced until last year. Whoever lost money will certainly be more careful the next time they decide to keep coins on some exchange (at least that's my hope). |
|
|
|
*zależy od procesora i zadań, często jest to <10% I nie da się ich do końca 'naprawić', zwłaszcza Spectre, na które podane są/mogą być też procesory AMD i ARM  |
|
|
|
as you can see in the screenshot below that the max bet right now at bustabit is 97.09 so if bet that amount you need to reach 1.66x to make the game instant stop because it reaches the max profit Yes, but we were talking about a scenario when 50 people are max betting during the same round. What is the most percentage-wise that the bankroll has been paid out on a single bet and on one particular crash to winners accumulatively? Does anybody know?
No idea, I'm curious myself. Wouldn't the max bet just result in auto cashout around ~1.5? (Due to max profit being hit)
If only a single person made a bet, and if they made a max bet, the game player would be auto-cashed before reaching 1.67x. |
|
|
|
How do calculate those sums? Do they pop in to your head or do you use a calculator? I thought I was fairly good at maths so would like to know the answer  1.5% of the total bankroll: 6438 and some change * 0.015 = 96.58 (50 * 96.58 * 1.02) — (50 * 96.58) = 96.58 If in such a scenario the game multiplier were to reach 1.03x, bustabit would be risking not 1.5% but 2.25% of the total bankroll. max bet has increased to 97.09 now but the principle remains the same |
|
|
|
There is a reason why there is a "max bet", that Is calculated for being a very minimum of what could be the max bankroll, so the max bet is not like 25% of all bankroll, it is quite small (I forgot what it was but it was something like 1% or something) and that Is why you can literally have 50 people all betting max (and most of the time there are not that many people with that much money who would be willing to bet that much let alone at the same time) and you would still have a good bankroll.
If you had 50 people max betting (96.58 BTC bets each as of now), the game would cash out at 1.02x, because that's when bustabit would be risking exactly 1.5% of its bankroll (onsite + offsite bankroll). What happens when the server forces people to cash out?
Under some circumstances, the server will force people to cash out.
The most common reason is that the game multiplier has gotten so large that we are risking too much of our bankroll (1.5%). If a player has won more than 1% of the bankroll, that player is also forced to cash out his winnings. Of course that's extremely unlikely as it's pretty rare to see even one person bet more than 1 BTC at a given time. |
|
|
|
|
If converting the game from flash to html5 is feasible in your case, please consider it. I think all major browsers have flash disabled by default in 2019.
|
|
|
|
Please comment if you have some news.
Or what can we do to escalate this?
I don't have much money locked in, but I read here that many people got a big deal of fiat locked.
It is odd that nothing new is going on and everybody stays in silence...
BTW, a couple of days ago I tried to connect to they site and the browser warned me that the site is unsafe. Did you experienced the same issue?
It will take a while for you to regain access to your money. Their money has been frozen by authorities in Poland, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States and because it's a criminal matter (drug money laundering), there's a chance you'll never get your money back, I'd consult with a lawyer if I were you. |
|
|
|
Hopefully my fiat currency (IDR) will added and it will be good for arbitrage alternative to local exchange and vice versa.
You probably aren't the only person thinking about this, so I wouldn't count on easy money to be made from arbitraging. |
|
|
|
I really can't see Binance offering trading pairs for 180 currencies. Volumes would be pitiful and unusable for almost all of them. Even EUR is pretty weedy compared to USD and that's only the currency of several hundred million of the world's richest populations.
It'll be interesting to see what solution they do come up with. I'll guess they'll have the option of converting to USDT or BTC when you deposit. That's if it isn't hideously expensive to get your local currency on and off there and there might be a spread too. Even if they manage to avoid running into certain problems such as capital controls (a lot of countries have them in various forms), they only way I can see this working is either the deposited currency would automatically be converted into a stablecoin or BTC like you're suggesting (or some major currency such as USD/EUR/GBP), OR what they have in mind here for these users paying in/depositing lesser known fiat curencies is a service closer to something like Coinbase. Then market depth when exchanging to/from exotic currencies wouldn't be limited to whatever a small pool of users can provide, but it would be limited to whatever's the market depth between these currencies and USD/EUR/etc. on international markets. |
|
|
|
|
It's more or less in line with what other international exchanges are charging. SEPA wire transfers are cheap, non-SEPA can get expensive with each intermediary bank charging a fee. Their fees are the least of their problems, really, plenty of people getting stuck in the KYC circle of hell.
|
|
|
|
Or the dog ate his homework.
Speaking of dogs and Calvins. https://i.imgur.com/kicFFgL.gifI don't know what game CSW's buddy is playing, other than probably trying to put on a brave face... |
|
|
|
Is this guy really interested, there is no follow up updates about the development of his project and besides the compensations is not that good enough, if you ask me, they should add monetary compensation because being ambassador you are vouching for the reputation of the exchange.
As an ambassador, you will have advantages (free fees on our exchange, affiliation link for trading fees, renumeration for certain events).
No fees doesn't mean much if an exchange is new and has little liquidity, IMHO they could offer to pay their ambassadors for making maker orders if they're essentially acting as un(der)paid market makers. Affiliate links could be nice depending on the terms. Remunerations are probably for running some local events to promote their exchange. |
|
|
|
I don't believe there has been any actual evidence or legislation that has been ruled for the EU community, the best thing I could find about their rules related to cryptos is this, which isn't much:
By January 2020 all countries should have amended their laws to comply with the AMLD V directive. The tl;dr is like all regulations affecting the cryptocurrency sphere, this one, too, will make it more expensive to do business/make it less attractive for customers (at least for some companies). People from outside the EEA might even find themselves blocked from using EU/EEA exchanges and looks like KYC is going to be mandatory at all times (so far some small(er) exchanges were able to avoid asking for KYC for smaller transactions/volumes). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
