maybe for their law this market is not unregulated? maybe it was just under the radar.
I guess that's quite possible. But stock market players are readily identifiable. How do you go about finding someone via an alt exchange? imho they only can sue their own people. and i know nothing about their possibilities except that they have pretty good internet over there  but i dont see this as a bad thing. if some state puts up some kind of a "bad / scammy" - altcoin index: this could attract investors outside cryptoland and get new people to look into alts. lets wait and see...atm its just very interesting news |
|
|
|
I wonder if they have laws applying to pump and dumps. Ponzis are straightforward fraud. I don't see how they can nail people for pump and dumps in an unregulated market. You'd have to prove intent plus they gotta find them first.
maybe for their law this market is not unregulated? maybe it was just under the radar. |
|
|
|
the new thread title sounds like a threat.
or maybe it's just my imagination.
same feeling here... |
|
|
|
You would probably need to not have anything electrical
This. NSA has a copy of EVERYTHING that's happening on your computer, TOR browser, mesh network, or otherwise. Their grip has run deeper than anyone here could possibly imagine Bullshit. They cant spy mesh nets. The "superpowers" of NSA is propaganda. why not? - they just need to infiltrate the nodes - or attack the routing - or attack the sender/receivers pc - or just sniff the traffic - or do something which i cant imagine after only 5minutes of thinking about it in a world where viruses can be placed in your bios or hdd firmware you cant be safe with electronics |
|
|
|
Did you got dream that today QS going to remove from Default trust so you must come and give negative feedback again him. No I read about it on this forum. Why did not you gave negative feedback to QS he misused his position and escrowing his sock puppet account.
You came today and read everything what is going on and decided to leave negative feedback.
It's clearly correlated this situation. There is something fishy here surely. I know you were very active on trading before but you suddenly disappeared and again came back just for this situation.
I even don't deny there is chances that may be who is using account now not first owner of this account. Because of buying/selling account. Oh my god I didn't just show up a minute ago. This dispute between QS and tspacepilot has been going on since April, before I took a temporary break. I still read the forum while i was away too, you don't need to be logged in to read threads you know... you should read your signature and act accordingly |
|
|
|
imho defaultrust needs a timeout...
if someone hasnt logged in for a month(?) he should be removed (regardless of DT level) automatically
Some DT users go on vacation. It happens; you can't stop it. a month is a long time and most people i know do have internet on holiday. if its really a problem for someone he could just ask to be put back on the list again as soon as he gets home IMHO that would be pointless. Even if an account became unactive and then got sold to a new owner, the new owner could just ask to be placed back on DT. You're essentially just adding one more step to it. right, and if someone bought a dt account he could simply make a post every month... luckily this time it was very easy to catch.. i wonder why? maybe QS is really a person with really bad anger management or he wanted to show us his dt-accounts. i dont think he/she/it is dumb |
|
|
|
imho defaultrust needs a timeout...
if someone hasnt logged in for a month(?) he should be removed (regardless of DT level) automatically
Some DT users go on vacation. It happens; you can't stop it. a month is a long time and most people i know do have internet on holiday. if its really a problem for someone he could just ask to be put back on the list again as soon as he gets home |
|
|
|
|
imho defaultrust needs a timeout...
if someone hasnt logged in for a month(?) he should be removed (regardless of DT level) automatically
|
|
|
|
Ja, das dauert immer ein bisschen und ist auch nicht wirklich liebevoll verpackt.  was heisst "nicht liebevoll" wie siehts mit kühlwaren aus? ist glas bruchsicher eingepackt? ^ würde mir reichen |
|
|
|
escrowing for himself, but he didnt rip anyone off right?
That depends. Taking money for the express purpose of protecting goods, and then offering no protection at all could be considered ripping people off. Why was that extra money paid if it wasn't needed? I agree with this. If someone uses their alt, no protection is offered. Same as sending first, right? If they wanted to send first or trusted the buyer or seller they would have just done so and no escrow would have been needed. sending first with an additional escrow-fee just removed tomatocage from my trustlist because of this: I don't see how escrowing for himself would be a scam [...]
in case someones interested my new trust list looks like this: jgarzik Pieter Wuille Luke-Jr gmaxwell smooth TECSHARE -ck ~smoothie Vod John (John K.) ~Tomatocage DeathAndTaxes BadBear Blazr DannyHamilton rpietila ~nubbins fluffypony DefaultTrust tspacepilot ~Quickseller (yes i know it contains DefaultTrust. I am using Level 1 and it is by intent) which displays QS as: Trust: 0: -1 / +13 |
|
|
|
Is this a somewhat large seller playing it slow to keep his price on target?
volume is very low atm. so the answer is: no EDIT: atm we seem to have some kind of a deadlock, because of huge bitcoin price swings (and its price uncertainty). xmr uptrend is broken and everybody just sits on the sideline and wait to see what will happen. IMHO: whoever makes a bigger move (be it up or down) decides the new trend. but i go with TC's statement: if there wont happen anything soon it will be a slow and painful decline. what is a little frustrating (and what i dont really understand) is that i think the xmr market does not have many participants (this does not contradict rptilia's user-extrapolation, just does we dont have many active traders) |
|
|
|
|
Für mich klingt das ganze erstmal so als wollten Sie Two-Factor für alle Arten von Zahlungen einführen...
Ich hoffe mal das es nicht auch für Bitcoin gilt; aber mal sehen was denen einfällt. Sobald Sie merken das viele Händler zu Paypal, Bitcoin u.a. getrieben werden geh ich fast davon aus, das die nachregulieren.
Meine Horrorvorstellung ist es ja nach wie vor das man erst seinen Ausweis in den Rechner schieben muss bevor man überhaupt ins Netz darf: IMHO wieder ein (kleiner) Schritt in diese Richtung.
|
|
|
|
Ich bin der Ansicht, dass es als nächsten Schritt ein "umgekehrtes Bitpay" braucht.
letztlich ist doch litebit.eu sowas wie ein umgekehrtes bitpay? Kannte ich bisher noch nicht. Funktioniert das gut? was fehlt dir noch?
imho brauchen wir einfach mehr stellen wo man bitcoins ausgeben kann. jetzt wo ich keine pizza mehr bestellen kann nutze ich sie eigtl nur noch zum spekulieren - dabei sind btc eigtl. vielviel mehr als das.
Naja, ein einzelnes umgekehrtes Bitpay alleine wird natürlich nicht den Durchbruch bringen. Früher oder später müssen solche Schnittstellen in gängige Apps eingebaut werden können, dann wird sich Bitcoin im Laufe der Zeit vermutlich als Schnittstelle zwischen den untereinander inkompatiblen, zentralen Zahlungssystemen etablieren. So paradox das klingt, wird der Umweg über zweimalige Konversion von Fiat in Bitcoin und Bitcoin in Fiat durch Wettbewerbseffekte insgesamt kostengünstiger sein als rein zentralisierte Systeme. Das kann alles noch ein paar Jahre dauern, aber ich gehe davon aus, dass dieser Weg fast zwangsläufig vorgezeichnet ist. Predige ich nun schon seit Jahren, aber wir brauchen halt Geduld  ich bin mit litebit zufrieden und nutze die exklusiv zum bitcoin kauf... ich mag das konzept, weil man dort kein eigenes wallet haben kann. da fühl ich mich gleich viel sicherer bitcoin als schnittstelle sieht man jetzt schon teilweise. ob das günstiger ist kann ich schwer beurteilen. ich würde bitcoin gern im alltag einsetzen können und halte sie auch dafür: ich verkauf keine btc sondern gebe sie nur aus. |
|
|
|
Ja, das kann gut sein. Es braucht mehr Nutzer, nicht unbedingt mehr Anbieter zur Zeit. Die kommen dann von allein.
Ja, sehe ich mittlerweile auch so. Früher dachte ich, sobald die großen Shops Bitcoin akzeptieren, verstärkt sich das alles gegenseitig. Die Shops sind da, viel passiert aber nicht. Ich bin der Ansicht, dass es als nächsten Schritt ein "umgekehrtes Bitpay" braucht. Wo also der Endverbraucher zunächst keine Bitcoins besitzen muss, um Zahlungen in Bitcoin zu tätigen. Dann werden die Vorteile von Bitcoin für den Händler schnell dafür sorgen, dass andere Zahlungssysteme geschwächt werden. Die Frage ist, wie man ein solches umgekehrtes Bitcoin aufbauen kann... letztlich ist doch litebit.eu sowas wie ein umgekehrtes bitpay? man trägt einfach die bitcoin addresse des empfängers ein und überweist per sofort- sepaüberweisung o.ä. was fehlt dir noch? imho brauchen wir einfach mehr stellen wo man bitcoins ausgeben kann. jetzt wo ich keine pizza mehr bestellen kann nutze ich sie eigtl nur noch zum spekulieren - dabei sind btc eigtl. vielviel mehr als das. |
|
|
|
|
i'd love to see the bitcoin protocol to be fixated and with good documantation.
but i dont think this will ever happen - even http changes btw....
IMHO if we fixate bitcoin protocol in the long run this would hinder mass adoption. because if new requirements arise they cant be included and may force(!) users to altcoins. normal users wont accept a currency who they need to worry if its the right one or they have to constantly check if there is a need to move.
one solution may be sidechains. but i'd like to see them in practice before i can make some conclusions (afaik they need ugly addresses; but i hope there is a solution for that problem)
|
|
|
|
Hallo
ich bin nicht aufgeregt es ist nur bissel komplizierter
Es geht ja nicht um schlechtere kurse sondern das da orders doppelt ausgeführt wurden
die haben meinen short ja bei 8,3 automatisch geschlossen...trozdem wurde die gleiche order bei 6,19 wieder bedient obwohl der short ja schon geschlosssen wurde....muss ein system bug sein und Support antwortet nichts ^^
es klingt für mich so: - du hattest eine offene buy order UND eine short-position - deine short-pos hat einen margin call bekommen - anschliessend wurde deine buy order erfüllt klingt völlig normal? |
|
|
|
So the real issue is only whose boots are to be licked, Adam's or Mike's?
correct |
|
|
|
I prefer what i've called "BIP 104" in the french section : BIP 104why dont you talk to gmaxwell and get a real bip-number assigned? anything else is just confusing. |
|
|
|
Merchants tend to favor BIP101 and miners tend to favor BIP100.
BIP100 give too much power for miners while BIP101 hide many things from us But, BIP101 would fail if miners won't support BIP101 Maybe we should think about 8MB proposal from miners I think you confuse BIP101 and XT. Nonetheless both are open source so can’t really hide anything. that didnt stop XT from trying.  they must really suck at hiding if they use github and comment their commits and even make websites explaining what they do? ahh now i understand: YOU are the one hiding your agenda and trying to spread FUD they hoped it would go unnoticed, or that the NEED to change the limit would force poeple to use XT even tho they disagreed with IP blacklisting and the checkpoint thingy. lol.... there is no need to run xt if you want to vote for bip101. please show me code which does blacklist ip's. you cant... fudfudfud |
|
|
|
Merchants tend to favor BIP101 and miners tend to favor BIP100.
BIP100 give too much power for miners while BIP101 hide many things from us But, BIP101 would fail if miners won't support BIP101 Maybe we should think about 8MB proposal from miners I think you confuse BIP101 and XT. Nonetheless both are open source so can’t really hide anything. that didnt stop XT from trying. they must really suck at hiding if they use github and comment their commits and even make websites explaining what they do? ahh now i understand: YOU are the one hiding your agenda and trying to spread FUD |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
