I don't think buying crypto related stocks is a good idea. Unless you're well diversified investments, you might be investing in a company with a stronger risk tolerance than you and you'll definitely be investing in a stock with investors that have higher risk tolerances too (so they'll bump the value up already).

The lowest risk way to invest in crypto would by to save money in a bank account and invest the ~4% you make a year. Slightly more risky goes towards buying index funds and stocks and using your investment growth to buy bitcoin. The next risky is probably just buying bitcoin.

I recommend deciding if there's something you can market in exchange for crypto though as that can produce higher returns at lower risks than everything listed above.

This might be a case where social and economic outset changes things a bit.

Generally, younger people can afford to take more risks as someone older than them will probably bail them out. Older people still take quite a lot of risks but their risk tolerance generally relates to how many responsibilities they have (someone with more possessions/family members will take less risks than someone without). This is true for where in from where most things seem quite affordable and disposable income is high, I assume this changes even within this country..


30% isn't too hard to get back with a decently managed stock investment (such as buying something diversified after it's fallen - such as indices or some companies).

Also 30% seems like an affordable loss to me to still be able to do something on the site afterwards (assuming that's why you made the initial deposit anyway). It opens up the opportunity to double your affordable losses and likely give you something you can spend on other things (a holiday, a day trip, a few trips to the theatre/other activities).

Don't hold too much crypto, especially on online wallets.

It's fast and easy to replenish stock, there's not a great need to keep buying more of you don't have the finances for it until your initial has dropped by quite a bit.

Otc is over the counter trading (ie getting an entity to trade with you at a set price rather than doing a market buy). It just means don't buy off exchanges, find other sources as they should be more reliable (especially if you have multiple).

Bear markets are a harder trade due to higher spreads and lower liquidity. It's not enough to say "go short and stay short for a bit" because if there's no one providing liquidity to help you exit, you're stuck with an open position until there is.

That might not happen as much since this bear market has a lot of volume but it's not a low risk trade.

I did not spend long researching this but I found an ASCII art generator from text:
https://patorjk.com/software/taag/#p=testall&f=Standard&t=C

Crazy and doh look similar to the signatures I've seen on here (perhaps with some changes - like using blocks - I'm on mobile but it's alt 219 if you're on Windows or you can search it).

Converting something like the output above into something bbcode recognises is a very simple few minute task to program.

I'm not sure what you mean by the character count thing but "unlimited" is 4000 bytes afaik.
I don't know why signatures never got their own text editor in profiles.

Also I'm of the assumption you can download a validator from the signature edit page? That seems like a good idea to go as it'll cut down server load if it's done on the client end first (bitcointalk I mean).

They're derivatives of the original assets which means they represent the asset but are traded independently (which is why the prices often deviate).

If people are bullish, the instrument/derivative will rise at a faster rate than bitcoin, if people are bearish, it'll fall at a faster rate. The two prices generally converge towards the end of the contract (the expiry date).

You can have settlements before the expiry date either because you've liquidated (you took leverage/a loan to invest more) or you've enacted one (sold the contract yourself, had a take profit or stop loss triggered).

I may be confusing this with something else but I thought these were popular a few months ago

The security of the wallet/system using the nfc chip will determine how secure it is. If you have to do a gesture for example (tracked by a smart watch) or actually touch a button/screen to confirm.a transaction, it becomes a lot more secure and harder to crack.

I don't think there are many ways these could be used with something like a private key on the nfc chip that gets scanned by the merchant and not something that communicates with a phone to confirm the transaction and send it - I think this is mostly what's mentioned.

It seems like the signal might get interrupted when a device moves too quickly too.(ie if you're walking it might be harder for the initial signal to hit the nfc tag that'd normally be the thing requesting information or providing a charge).

An exchange with your seed phrase sounds like it could be scammy a lot of attacks could take place on that as have been listed above. Remote attacks from a rogue employee on your servers could also happen.

Exchanges are prone to being hacked because they're good targets. You've left out many important details in determining if your idea is secure or not: like where are the exchanges keys stored for sending funds, where are email addresses stored to prevent against phishing, where are IDs, usernames and emails stored to prevent against user doxxing, impersonation

I think this'll be how the most used exchange represents bitcoin in the future. If it's so big that it makes sense to use satoshi (to them) to quote figures, then it'll either be considered less scarce or (and I think this one is more likely) much more affordable. "a bitcoin is $10M i can't afford that, but a satoshi is 10 cents and I can get a lot of those" - hypothetical economics student 2050.


It understands it as well as whole bitcoins . The ln system on that does feel broken though.

I think there's a chance we'll have 128 bit processors before the issue of what we break down sats into becomes a problem though (once the current computer clocks have done too much ticking). Sounds like a natural new gimmick for Intel.

Bech32 is native segwit and is the cheapest mainstream on chain way to spend funds (iirc). Those addresses begin with bc1.

Nested segwit is the next cheapest and old systems have to support it because it's in the style of multisig addresses.

Legacy is the least efficient way to send funds (addresses beginning with a 1) and those are the most expensive but are also the ones older companies got used to (if there's a company not using segwit, I'd advise against using them as they might be cutting other corners too - especially security wise).

A lot of attackers/hackers, especially notorious ones, seem to be found at some point so that might be one way you could go about recovering your funds - by waiting.

I think the obvious start would be to search up your wallet to see if the same thing has happend to other users, potentially report it to the police/online to flag the issue and see if there's anyone that can work out why that happened (and take advice from that). I think a lot of people, me included, would just move on from something like that and start to rebuild again (buy stocks instead to be safer or store your funds in multiple locations or with a multisig).

I think the answer changes a lot based on how the funds were taken though too if that got discovered.

If you had multiple people to send funds to then this makes sense (and withdrawing 4 equal sized smaller chips compared with 1 big chip is obviously going to do better to hide the trace between the funds you deposited and withdrew - especially if you withdraw at different times).

If you're paying for multiple things or multiple people, it might also be useful for hiding the link between you and them (especially if you're paying them different amounts for a similar service or something).


The general recommendation I've seen from research on this is 2-7 days normally delivers maximum privacy at hiding the link between your deposits and withdrawals.

I think there's likely a way to convert fiat to usdc but I don't think there's one where you can link a random user to an exchange without paying a fee (because they'd be providing the same service as you).

There's then the possibility of using systems already in defi like liquidity pools if your hypothetical exchange was considering allowing users to put up funds (on the chance the you didn't have the provisions for it). I'm assuming stripe has an api so you can confirm when a deposit has happened though.

I've been thinking about how an exchange could be made too and I don't think you'd need to "bulk" buy bitcoin necessarily as you could keep an amount of stock and provide for more later on when the initial has been taken - it generally fast to buy bitcoin either otc or via an exchange (otc is especially fast with cash deposits). 

I don't know if this is negative news because someone got caught trying to launder $15-$40Mln or if it's bad news because it shows how easy some transactions can be to spot (especially for exchanges). Or perhaps it's not bad news because of the uncertainty stated that they can't get an accurate figure for how much actually came from them.

For global drug ratios, this does seem small and for a gang that large too. I'd be more interested at seeing what other accounts the investigation finds that might've moved more money (perhaps banks or payment processors would turn a blind eye or hide information for an appropriate fee in a way bitcoin can't)...

I think in the past the support have been able to give people encrypted wallet files that they can then use their password on which could be a way you could go (they'll probably have guides on decoding it too).

Are you sure you're meant to be logging in with an email and password? I thought they used some sort of ID system over there (but I haven't used them in about 6 years so they might've updated their system since then).

Renewables needing to be stored and geographically diversified is something well known by most governments trying to invest in it. They're going to have to build the infrastructure for that anyway - most already know how to though from when it has been done with oil and coal (such as peak energy usage).

An international carbon tax targetting crypto sounds a lot like scapegoating though. Many other things release a lot more emissions for fewer people (such as private jets and the whole airline industry - the majority of commercial flights are filled more with frequent fliers for things like business than they are holidaygoers and that should be mostly considered unnecessary by now since the pandemic).

Such a tax would also have to provide exemptions for things like electric cars too and a lot of big battery production.

This looks like something that'll be really hard to verify from the other person's end that you're giving an honest representation of who's registering with you from them.

If you're serious, you'd be better off finding someone to manage your official socials and grow from there.

I you knew if was legit and on a site you regularly visit, I doubt anyone would be saying no.

If it were me, I'd consider anything up to a third of what you could afford to lose to be a reasonable bet for something like that - especially since you're not going to be able to do it again and have a chance to 2x or 1x your disposable funds. But I normally end up withdrawing from casinos while I still have a similar balance to what I've deposited so you might get a greater variety of answers below of people who may not.

It's an easy excuse for anyone - if it's decentralised it's much easier to verify the attack happened (but not if the attack was an inside job).

Many bug bounty hunters expect to be paid well, and for good reason. A lot of projects are fairly secure and a lot of devs underestimate how easy a vulnerability is to spot (generally, if one person can spot it, more likely will and some might be less forgiving). A lot of the time, pressure can be put on the dev team to fix something by giving them a limit for exposing the vulnerability publicly but you might be even less likely to receive a bounty then.

Most of these sorts of attacks do tend to be inside jobs though that are coordinated - there are some hacks that have looked more legit but in a deflationary economy, there's always a way an attack can benefit the exchange/service more than the individual (such as by paying fiat values)..

I don't think there's a lack of lithium, it's an element that's damaging to the environment to extract iirc and it's quite hard to extract too. Given the circumstances export bans aren't that unreasonable, I think there'll be a better battery that comes out that can be mass produced better than lithium can (and I think that's the hope as some cars are said to have to travel 250,000 miles to have the same emissions of an electric car battery, but once the lithium is extracted and made into a battery, it can likely be well recycled - with renewables too).

I think there should be a crackdown on countries using third countries to avoid taxes too to send from one to another (I think this is done a lot with electronics and pharmaceuticals at least).