There is nothing wrong in exchanging your real estate for bitcoin depending on how you feel its a good deal but the problem is striking a balance between the seller and the buyer to conclude that its a good deal. For example let's say you value the property to be $6000 which is equivalent to 1btx, how do you factor in the volatility that if bitcoin price falls to $5900 tomorrow, you are still protected. Sideways, to the buyer, how do you convince him to pay more than $6000 for you to hedge your own losses and he won't feel cheated or ask for refund should the price climb to $7000 by next week?

The one million users they are quoting is surely going to be the number of people registered on their site with lots of them moving to other things the moment you understand the way wallets work considering its a web wallet although with ability to export private keys compared to other web wallet services.

This their arrangement is what I don't see materialising without major challenges that they are not addressing and that is the KYC option. BitPay have KYC in place BTC.com don't have such option. Yet they want to collaborate to provide to customers who mostly would prefer the non-KYC option and the 1% they are proposing as fees is not anywhere feasible as the fees alone would discourage users from this arrangement.

As funny as that picture seems, its speaks volume and I can relate with it. I was asked to talk about recent technology and how it applies to my profession. The first thing that comes to mind was to talk about blockchain and its application. Then the question is how do I make a presentation? That was when it dawn on me that, I really don't have enough transferable information about this technology and a lot of people are equally in the same situation.

A lot of the market is focused on peripherals while the main thing that can push for the ultimate goal is being neglected. The onus is one everybody to change the narrative by focusing more blockchain to make it so understandable to everyone that come across the subject matter.

I see it as a good plan for the future because it shows that Binance are ready for that future. But rather than focusing on the benift it brings to the crypto market, we should also not be oblivious of the real issue here which is the dominance of Binance in the crypto market and the position they so much covert is the reason why they are making this move in that by the time the community moves to decentralized exchange platform, they are already there.

Unless they will have to restructure the company in such a way that the Decentralised section is standing on its own with its own team and CEO, there will be conflict in which they might not be able to handle in the long run.

Its happening eventually that everyone would be involved whether you want it or not. Addressing the general assembly is a brave one that should be commended because the PM saw an opportunity in front of the movers and shakers of the world and he took it to make it known to everybody that this is the future and they can only come with challenges but they won't be able to stop it as it would spread so fast to an unstoppable point. The most part that got me was emphasis that goes beyond just using it as a means of money to tackle the problem that have faced the world especially in the area of aid giving where individuals have used that as a means to enriched themselves.

The only major challenge I see is the people who will want to play religious card against the penetration knowing fully well the amount of importance that people attach to their beliefs.

When bitcoin is adopted, it does not just go hundred percent and every alternative means of payment goes obsolete. No. There are always phases of implementation to ensure a large percentage of the population are on board with such development and if its coming from government, several workshops, enlightenment, trainings, campaigns are carried out to ensure that huge percentage are carried along. Its just going to be the period of smart phones, it does not mean that the java phones are no longer working but its a gradual one that the illiterates who could not use a smart phone were developed in their own pace to now use it for basic function.

Exactly my concern in all this because I know that one of the advantages of bitcoin is that you are your own banker when you keep your private key you have nothing to worry about. The essence of having a crypto bank in itself is all confusing because there is no way its going to function as a traditional bank as we know it so its better they start looking for another name to call this project other than banks. I wonder what other mobile wallet services will be doing that is different from this.

From the look of this project even though I don't see them as being serious as you have raised capital before going to apply for license in October,what if the license was not eventually granted? You will then start distributing money to investors or you finance another project? This is more like a bridge platform to connect bank accounts to wallet just like we have mobile money platforms that connect banks accounts to your phone and nothing like 'crypto banks'.

Although you have a good argument for the negative trust to be removed and @Vod has showed an understanding by showing the same. The user has the right not to trust you because I might do the same. I didn't advertise to have a trade, you didn't even invite him for a trade after which he would express some willingness for negotiations to commence after which you agree on the amount that needs to be exchanged between each other but you just went ahead to negotiate and determine the amount he is willing to accept for the trade. That sounds suspicious on mere looking at it.

But I feel he will still review it but exercise patience not to spam his inbox or the thread. Eventually, he will come around and do justice to your account.

Well you have made some serious valid point that should be a point of reference to anybody who wants to make an informed investment decision when it comes to crypto. Putting all your life saving into crypto does not have to do with money alone as there are other angles to look at things. I have seen people on the forum ask question about quitting from their day job to focus on crypto and some would be willing to advice someone to take such decision. The point is there is no gain without gain. I have read about someone who invested his life savings during low price era in which at the time was referred to as a fool and witnessed some significant return on investment to the amazement of many who had mocked him. I have also read about someone on the forum here who suggested to his grandmother to invest in crypto but was disturbed because of the recurrent downward volatility. Eventually, it paid off.

In summary, you can eat your cake and still have it if you are smart about by take half of the cake and keeping the rest. It means while investing and dedicating to crypto, there is nothing wrong in having a backup plan.

The way the mixing service works, the new coin you have does not have any relationship with the old one because those chips are preloaded and the issue of taint analysis does not come in at all. Others can shed more light on how exactly it works.

And you think someone would fall for this your self review? Its a simple see through made believe that a reasonable individual can get.

@op If you are serious about running a business there is nothing wrong in doing it in the open and even you are not sure of the service you are offering because based on your post, you only receive payment "if" you were able to get access and what assurance do I get that the moment you get access, you will bolt considering you are already asking for the value of the coins in the wallet before commencing work.

In short if this should work, its an indictment on the security potency of blockchain.

Nothing in the article quoted suggest this and even nothing close to it. What it does is just to make conjectures about recent happenings and what is expected to happen. The RBI wanted validation for their actions and that is why they have gone to the court to give them that because when decisions are made arbitrarily by a government organisation, the question that comes to mind is if they are legally empowered to make such decision and that is what the RBI is trying to do.

The final decision lies with the Supreme Court and I don't see an outright illegality pronouncement on the part of RBI coming from the court as it would mean a conflict between two government bodies that should provide support for each other especially if the case at hand can be argued to be a panacea to render every function of government irrelevant if not controlled and that is direction the argument will tilt towards. Of course policies change but government agencies would be able to make it function on their own terms.

This is misplaced priority and a dent on the entire crypto space. I cannot imagine a company whose entire wealth and relevance is tied to the crypto world is going to the stock market to raise fund and their entire goal is to get listed on the stock exchange market. The interpretation I can get from this is that they don't trust the crypto market for them to raise their funds from and equally contribute to the development of its market.

In the article, the part I was interested in is the part of what they intend to use the proposed funds raised for which is not clearly outlined. They are planning on expansion yet they are in China. The same China that has kept a tight leash on everything that concerns crypto and the moment every option they have considered fails, the next they want to stop is mining in which when that happens, companies like Bitmain would really be hit hard that would likely return them back to the position before the "Windfall" or stop existing all together. What then happens to the people that have purchased their shares?.

It seems you are only going through the implementation of KYCs just because others are doing same and not because you really need it. Believe me, the business that are implementing KYCs are doing it because they are being boxed to a corner and the need to continue their businesses while for the ICOs, its purely out of their own selfish needs and not in any way related to compliance. There is no doubt that the number of people visiting sites in that implements KYCs drops, but because they have a huge database, that is why they were still able to stay afloat. For your business which is fairly known, expect some outflow of clients with this new movement and now that you have announced it. My advice, I would suggest you shelve the idea for now, until it becomes absolutely necessary for you to run your business.

Also, if you desire to go ahead, its better you use a reputable platform that people have come to trust and be ready to pay for it such that in the case of compromise, it is the third party that is held responsible and nothing touches your business. Wishing you all the best in this.

Reading through the proposal, I think its a good step in the right direction and it practically covers all aspect that the blockchain can be utilized and also made it as a matter of importance the influence of the United States in projects like this and how it would like a beacon that would change the way things are being done just like the way they did with the internet in the early 2000s.

The only issue I have with it, is that the proposals seems vague. It has identified the need to take action but nothing is being said on how the action will be taken or implemented to the general public. It also did not put a timeline to the proposal. In summary, I would conclude that at the moment, its just one of those things we see on the forum that comes with so much hope without any backing of bringing it into reality. So instead of rejoicing, I would rather maintain my position and wait until something serious is coming up.

There is no doubt that SegWit is a great development that have brought sanity to the bitcoin space by reducing the transaction fees by a great length but for me, I don't think it worth the news about people should be coerced, begged or given some incentives in other to do the right thing. Its not that difficult. I have said it countless number of times, what most people are interested in is what would make more money in their wallet and not about the technicalities that surrounds SegWit itself. The time of high fees will still return just as being quoted in the open letter and when that happen, nobody would need to be encouraged to use SegWit. They will be forced to ask questions. I just hope that by that time, threads about discussion on transaction fees on the forum would be shredded immediately because there is time to be ready for the future now and only 40% are utilizing such opportunity.

Understating the value that these advertisement platforms brings to the crypto space will be shying away from the truth because they have proven to be a potent platform in which new funds come to the crypto space and getting the popularity to new grounds and it will not be out of place to conclude that the ban from all of these platforms have contributed in their own little ways to the downward trend that we have witnessed since the beginning the ban has cut across several social media platforms.

The issue of verification that can be avoided and to me, its meeting people at the middle. There was a time every advertisement concerning crypto I see on Facebook or Google by default have scam written all over it but if the ban could reduce that then its working and now they want to open it up , then it should be supported or else we stick to the status quo and be expecting miracle to happen without the massive people not coming into the market. Its actually the greedy people that have put the conglomerates in position of strength in determining what would happen in the crypto market.

This message is for people outside the forum for their various reasons they could come up with about security and they are right thanks to exchange platforms that won't ensure that their security apparatus is up to date to forestall any hacking and are quick to announce to the world anytime they are compromised and funds stolen forgetting the damage such is doing to the entire market.

Security is the least of peoples problem for investing in bitcoin. At least for the people on the forum which this message will be getting to. The concern for them is the value for their investment on how it won't be faced with uncertainties every day they take stock. Another concern for them is the regulation that is gradually creeping into the freedom they have come to enjoy ever since couple with those people flocking into the crypto space to make them lose their hard earned resources.

I would suggest you consider the "Identify Approval on Blockchain". The reason is that going for what Vod has suggested means that you would be researching what some other companies have gotten to the stage or deploying and not only IBM, I had read about LG planning something like that and for words to get out about it, they must have tested it and be sure its a workable solution at the minimum.

Identity verification of the other hand, seems a global problem that have not been solved yet despite the several verifications that have been put in place by various technologies that have come before now and you could be a front line that would be consulted for implementation considering the problem is being faced by both the private sector and public sectors.

When anything is about to be launched, the motivating factor matters. In your case, you have been taught a lesson because of the shit coins you were unfortunate to get involved in shit coins which is entirely your fault because in the midst of saturated market there are still some reasonable investment in coins.

If you are looking to creating an ICO, then I can boldly say you are not ready for that unless you might end up the way those coins you have invested in. ICO these days goes beyond your drive, it involves having a workable solution, a reasonable timeline, a focused team, amount dedicated for marketing if its going to have any chance of succeeding by any means.