What Is Bitcoin: Explanation for Beginners in Simple Terms ...

James Altucher referring to himself in the third person in every paid content ad definitely makes bitcoin look super legit and not like a ponzi scheme.

James Altucher referring to himself in the third person in every paid content ad definitely makes bitcoin look super legit and not like a ponzi scheme. submitted by jnshhh to EnoughLibertarianSpam [link] [comments]

Bitcoin mentioned around Reddit: James Altucher referring to himself in the third person in every paid content ad definitely makes bitcoin look super legit and not like a ponzi scheme. /r/EnoughLibertarianSpam

Bitcoin mentioned around Reddit: James Altucher referring to himself in the third person in every paid content ad definitely makes bitcoin look super legit and not like a ponzi scheme. /EnoughLibertarianSpam submitted by SimilarAdvantage to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme was for $65 Billion. I think Bitcoin and alt's are just starting, BUT definitely not a ponzi scheme. Bernie didn't have a blockchain to verify everything!

Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme was for $65 Billion. I think Bitcoin and alt's are just starting, BUT definitely not a ponzi scheme. Bernie didn't have a blockchain to verify everything! submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

BTC Global – A Huge Ponzi Scheme

Oh No! Another Cryptocurrency Scam

Since Bitcoin was created back in 2008, there have been numerous shady individuals and companies for that matter that have used the hype to their advantage to facilitate cryptocurrency scams. These shrewd schemes conned thousands upon thousands of people who knew virtually nothing about cryptocurrency but wanted to invest in this alluring venture. 2018 is underway but here is this year’s top cryptocurrency scam thus far:

BTC Global

Just a little over two weeks ago BTC Global collapsed and Broker Complaint Registry has received numerous complaints pertaining to this fraudulent broker. The company claimed to be an exclusive platform providing unparalleled earnings through valid binary trading services, but that was unfortunately not the case. Here are excerpts from there website:
“We are backed by our founding trader at Steven Twain.”
This “Steven Twain” character is not a real individual.
“Steven has 6 years of experience trading binary options with consistent success, over the last 3 years he has started providing trading services for other large account holders ($10,000+ only).”
I have not come across any trading history pertaining to Steven Twain.
“Through our partnership with Steven, BTC Global have secured access to guaranteed 14% WEEKLY returns from as little as $1,000 in your account. We have also secured extra returns to pay out as referral commissions should you decide to share this opportunity with others! There are very few legitimate opportunities to get the kind of returns on investment BTC Global is offering so we encourage you to get involved as soon as possible to avoid disappointment.”
How can a legitimate company guarantee any sort of returns?
In BTC Global there were two ways one could earn:

  1. Return on investment, which was 14% of the dollar amount that was invested, paid weekly in BTC.
  2. Team shares or commissions on the people that the investor recruited or referred (think of a pyramid scheme).

BTC Global – a textbook Ponzi scheme.

The definition of a Ponzi scheme is as follows:
A deceitful investing scam guaranteeing high rates of return with little to no risk to investors. The Ponzi scheme produces returns for earlier investors by procuring new investors. BTC Global certainly fits the bill
Investment values generally go up and down over a duration of time, especially the ones that offer potentially high yields. If an investment consistently generates the same returns despite the market conditions or guarantees these high returns that is cause for pause.
Additionally, Ponzi schemes usually involve investments that have not been registered with the SEC, FSB or any other regulatory agency. Obviously, registration is pivotal as enables investors to access pivotal information pertaining to the firm’s management, services, products and most importantly finances.
Lastly and most importantly if you do not receive a “scheduled” payment or incur difficulty when trying to cash out your investment that is the biggest red flag. Those who promote Ponzi schemes regularly ask investors to “roll over” investments and often promise returns in excess of the amount that was rolled over.

How to protect yourself from a cryptocurrency scam

Although we have just talked about the BTC Global scam, this is not the only one. The very best way to ensure your funds are safe is to know how to identify and avoid ponzi schemes like BTC Global.
Stay far away from ICOs, unidentified companies and companies that do not provide suitable information. Be sure that creator’s names and all team members are publicly listed and verified and, if reviews give consistent negative feedback it best to avoid that cryptocurrency broker.
If you have fallen victim to a cryptocurrency scam, send a complaint to at [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]), and we will do our very best to get into contact with you as soon as we can to initiate your funds recovery process. Visit www.fundsrecovery247.com for more information or Contact - [email protected] com.
submitted by dskhan34 to u/dskhan34 [link] [comments]

Don't blindly follow a narrative, its bad for you and its bad for crypto in general

I mostly lurk around here but I see a pattern repeating over and over again here and in multiple communities so I have to post. I'm just posting this here because I appreciate the fact that this sub is a place of free speech and maybe something productive can come out from this post, while bitcoin is just fucking censorship, memes and moon/lambo posts. If you don't agree, write in the comments why, instead of downvoting. You don't have to upvote either, but when you downvote you are killing the opportunity to have discussion. If you downvote or comment that I'm wrong without providing any counterpoints you are no better than the BTC maxis you despise.
In various communities I see a narrative being used to bring people in and making them follow something without thinking for themselves. In crypto I see this mostly in BTC vs BCH tribalistic arguments:
- BTC community: "Everything that is not BTC is shitcoin." or more recently as stated by adam on twitter, "Everything that is not BTC is a ponzi scheme, even ETH.", "what is ETH supply?", and even that they are doing this for "altruistic" reasons, to "protect" the newcomers. Very convenient for them that they are protecting the newcomers by having them buy their bags
- BCH community: "BTC maxis are dumb", "just increase block size and you will have truly p2p electronic cash", "It is just that simple, there are no trade offs", "if you don't agree with me you are a BTC maxi", "BCH is satoshi's vision for p2p electronic cash"
It is not exclusive to crypto but also politics, and you see this over and over again on twitter and on reddit.
My point is, that narratives are created so people don't have to think, they just choose a narrative that is easy to follow and makes sense for them, and stick with it. And people keep repeating these narratives to bring other people in, maybe by ignorance, because they truly believe it without questioning, or maybe by self interest, because they want to shill you their bags.
Because this is BCH community, and because bitcoin is censored, so I can't post there about the problems in the BTC narrative (some of which are IMO correctly identified by BCH community), I will stick with the narrative I see in the BCH community.
The culprit of this post was firstly this post by user u/scotty321 "The BTC Paradox: “A 1 MB blocksize enables poor people to run their own node!” “Okay, then what?” “Poor people won’t be able to use the network!”". You will see many posts of this kind being made by u/Egon_1 also. Then you have also this comment in that thread by u/fuck_____________1 saying that people that want to run their own nodes are retarded and that there is no reason to want to do that. "Just trust block explorer websites". And the post and comment were highly upvoted. Really? You really think that there is no problem in having just a few nodes on the network? And that the only thing that secures the network are miners?
As stated by user u/co1nsurf3r in that thread:
While I don't think that everybody needs to run a node, a full node does publish blocks it considers valid to other nodes. This does not amount to much if you only consider a single node in the network, but many "honest" full nodes in the network will reduce the probability of a valid block being withheld from the network by a collusion of "hostile" node operators.
But surely this will not get attention here, and will be downvoted by those people that promote the narrative that there is no trade off in increasing the blocksize and the people that don't see it are retarded or are btc maxis.
The only narrative I stick to and have been for many years now is that cryptocurrency takes power from the government and gives power to the individual, so you are not restricted to your economy as you can participate in the global economy. There is also the narrative of banking the bankless, which I hope will come true, but it is not a use case we are seeing right now.
Some people would argue that removing power from gov's is a bad thing, but you can't deny the fact that gov's can't control crypto (at least we would want them not to).
But, if you really want the individuals to remain in control of their money and transact with anyone in the world, the network needs to be very resistant to any kind of attacks. How can you have p2p electronic cash if your network just has a handful couple of nodes and the chinese gov can locate them and just block communication to them? I'm not saying that this is BCH case, I'm just refuting the fact that there is no value in running your own node. If you are relying on block explorers, the gov can just block the communication to the block explorer websites. Then what? Who will you trust to get chain information? The nodes needs to be decentralized so if you take one node down, many more can appear so it is hard to censor and you don't have few points of failure.
Right now BTC is focusing on that use case of being difficult to censor. But with that comes the problem that is very expensive to transact on the network, which breaks the purpose of anyone being able to participate. Obviously I do think that is also a major problem, and lightning network is awful right now and probably still years away of being usable, if it ever will. The best solution is up for debate, but thinking that you just have to increase the blocksize and there is no trade off is just naive or misleading. BCH is doing a good thing in trying to come with a solution that is inclusive and promotes cheap and fast transactions, but also don't forget centralization is a major concern and nothing to just shrug off.
Saying that "a 1 MB blocksize enables poor people to run their own" and that because of that "Poor people won’t be able to use the network" is a misrepresentation designed to promote a narrative. Because 1MB is not to allow "poor" people to run their node, it is to facilitate as many people to run a node to promote decentralization and avoid censorship.
Also an elephant in the room that you will not see being discussed in either BTC or BCH communities is that mining pools are heavily centralized. And I'm not talking about miners being mostly in china, but also that big pools control a lot of hashing power both in BTC and BCH, and that is terrible for the purpose of crypto.
Other projects are trying to solve that. Will they be successful? I don't know, I hope so, because I don't buy into any narrative. There are many challenges and I want to see crypto succeed as a whole. As always guys, DYOR and always question if you are not blindly following a narrative. I'm sure I will be called BTC maxi but maybe some people will find value in this. Don't trust guys that are always posting silly "gocha's" against the other "tribe".
EDIT: User u/ShadowOfHarbringer has pointed me to some threads that this has been discussed in the past and I will just put my take on them here for visibility, as I will be using this thread as a reference in future discussions I engage:
When there was only 2 nodes in the network, adding a third node increased redundancy and resiliency of the network as a whole in a significant way. When there is thousands of nodes in the network, adding yet another node only marginally increase the redundancy and resiliency of the network. So the question then becomes a matter of personal judgement of how much that added redundancy and resiliency is worth. For the absolutist, it is absolutely worth it and everyone on this planet should do their part.
What is the magical number of nodes that makes it counterproductive to add new nodes? Did he do any math? Does BCH achieve this holy grail safe number of nodes? Guess what, nobody knows at what number of nodes is starts to be marginally irrelevant to add new nodes. Even BTC today could still not have enough nodes to be safe. If you can't know for sure that you are safe, it is better to try to be safer than sorry. Thousands of nodes is still not enough, as I said, it is much cheaper to run a full node as it is to mine. If it costs millions in hash power to do a 51% attack on the block generation it means nothing if it costs less than $10k to run more nodes than there are in total in the network and cause havoc and slowing people from using the network. Or using bot farms to DDoS the 1000s of nodes in the network. Not all attacks are monetarily motivated. When you have governments with billions of dollars at their disposal and something that could threat their power they could do anything they could to stop people from using it, and the cheapest it is to do so the better
You should run a full node if you're a big business with e.g. >$100k/month in volume, or if you run a service that requires high fraud resistance and validation certainty for payments sent your way (e.g. an exchange). For most other users of Bitcoin, there's no good reason to run a full node unless you reel like it.
Shouldn't individuals benefit from fraud resistance too? Why just businesses?
Personally, I think it's a good idea to make sure that people can easily run a full node because they feel like it, and that it's desirable to keep full node resource requirements reasonable for an enthusiast/hobbyist whenever possible. This might seem to be at odds with the concept of making a worldwide digital cash system in which all transactions are validated by everybody, but after having done the math and some of the code myself, I believe that we should be able to have our cake and eat it too.
This is recurrent argument, but also no math provided, "just trust me I did the math"
The biggest reason individuals may want to run their own node is to increase their privacy. SPV wallets rely on others (nodes or ElectronX servers) who may learn their addresses.
It is a reason and valid one but not the biggest reason
If you do it for fun and experimental it good. If you do it for extra privacy it's ok. If you do it to help the network don't. You are just slowing down miners and exchanges.
Yes it will slow down the network, but that shows how people just don't get the the trade off they are doing
I will just copy/paste what Satoshi Nakamoto said in his own words. "The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server."
Another "it is all or nothing argument" and quoting satoshi to try and prove their point. Just because every user doesn't need to be also a full node doesn't mean that there aren't serious risks for having few nodes
For this to have any importance in practice, all of the miners, all of the exchanges, all of the explorers and all of the economic nodes should go rogue all at once. Collude to change consensus. If you have a node you can detect this. It doesn't do much, because such a scenario is impossible in practice.
Not true because as I said, you can DDoS the current nodes or run more malicious nodes than that there currently are, because is cheap to do so
Non-mining nodes don't contribute to adding data to the blockchain ledger, but they do play a part in propagating transactions that aren't yet in blocks (the mempool). Bitcoin client implementations can have different validations for transactions they see outside of blocks and transactions they see inside of blocks; this allows for "soft forks" to add new types of transactions without completely breaking older clients (while a transaction is in the mempool, a node receiving a transaction that's a new/unknown type could drop it as not a valid transaction (not propagate it to its peers), but if that same transaction ends up in a block and that node receives the block, they accept the block (and the transaction in it) as valid (and therefore don't get left behind on the blockchain and become a fork). The participation in the mempool is a sort of "herd immunity" protection for the network, and it was a key talking point for the "User Activated Soft Fork" (UASF) around the time the Segregated Witness feature was trying to be added in. If a certain percentage of nodes updated their software to not propagate certain types of transactions (or not communicate with certain types of nodes), then they can control what gets into a block (someone wanting to get that sort of transaction into a block would need to communicate directly to a mining node, or communicate only through nodes that weren't blocking that sort of transaction) if a certain threshold of nodes adheres to those same validation rules. It's less specific than the influence on the blockchain data that mining nodes have, but it's definitely not nothing.
The first reasonable comment in that thread but is deep down there with only 1 upvote
The addition of non-mining nodes does not add to the efficiency of the network, but actually takes away from it because of the latency issue.
That is true and is actually a trade off you are making, sacrificing security to have scalability
The addition of non-mining nodes has little to no effect on security, since you only need to destroy mining ones to take down the network
It is true that if you destroy mining nodes you take down the network from producing new blocks (temporarily), even if you have a lot of non mining nodes. But, it still better than if you take down the mining nodes who are also the only full nodes. If the miners are not the only full nodes, at least you still have full nodes with the blockchain data so new miners can download it and join. If all the miners are also the full nodes and you take them down, where will you get all the past blockchain data to start mining again? Just pray that the miners that were taken down come back online at some point in the future?
The real limiting factor is ISP's: Imagine a situation where one service provider defrauds 4000 different nodes. Did the excessive amount of nodes help at all, when they have all been defrauded by the same service provider? If there are only 30 ISP's in the world, how many nodes do we REALLY need?
You cant defraud if the connection is encrypted. Use TOR for example, it is hard for ISP's to know what you are doing.
Satoshi specifically said in the white paper that after a certain point, number of nodes needed plateaus, meaning after a certain point, adding more nodes is actually counterintuitive, which we also demonstrated. (the latency issue). So, we have adequately demonstrated why running non-mining nodes does not add additional value or security to the network.
Again, what is the number of nodes that makes it counterproductive? Did he do any math?
There's also the matter of economically significant nodes and the role they play in consensus. Sure, nobody cares about your average joe's "full node" where he is "keeping his own ledger to keep the miners honest", as it has no significance to the economy and the miners couldn't give a damn about it. However, if say some major exchanges got together to protest a miner activated fork, they would have some protest power against that fork because many people use their service. Of course, there still needs to be miners running on said "protest fork" to keep the chain running, but miners do follow the money and if they got caught mining a fork that none of the major exchanges were trading, they could be coaxed over to said "protest fork".
In consensus, what matters about nodes is only the number, economical power of the node doesn't mean nothing, the protocol doesn't see the net worth of the individual or organization running that node.
Running a full node that is not mining and not involved is spending or receiving payments is of very little use. It helps to make sure network traffic is broadcast, and is another copy of the blockchain, but that is all (and is probably not needed in a healthy coin with many other nodes)
He gets it right (broadcasting transaction and keeping a copy of the blockchain) but he dismisses the importance of it
submitted by r0bo7 to btc [link] [comments]

Summary of Tau-Chain Monthly Video Update - July 2020

Karim
Agoras Live: Five functionalities complete: 1. Registration 2. Login 3. User Profile Page 4. Calendar 5. Categories List 6. Wallet Screen Payments: Decided that implementing lightning would be too complex. Instead, we decided to implement our own micropayment mechanism using the native BTC multisig addresses. We are going to use the Omni wallet for payments. TML: Continued debugging, getting a TML demo and test cases ready. Hiring: More hiring efforts to increase team size. Timelines: Committing ourselves to a release of Agoras Live and a basic version of discussions in TML in 2020.
Umar: Been working on making improvements to the context free grammar parsing. We now are able to add constraints to productions in the grammar, allowing us to recognize grammars that are context sensitive. Developed test cases for that, too.
Tomas: Fixed issues in TML and ran several steps in a TML program. Now adding more tests to make sure everything is stable and won’t break. Also been working on a TML tutorial, a recorded script based on the intro to TML which was contained in the TML Playground. Also new features are going to be covered such as arithmetics.
Kilian: More outreach & follow-ups to potential partner universities. Positive response by a professor based in Toronto, presented to him our project. Also, response by KULeuven, Belgium, who unfortunately don’t see a good fit in our project. We’ve had one applicant for the IDNI Grant program and currently are evaluating his proposal. Also, we’ve had an applicant from Bangalore, India for the IDNI Ambassador program and we also have been discussing his proposal. Translation Bounties: We’ve had the blog post “The New Tau” translated to Chinese and have been reviewing the translation. We are going to publish the translation on our website and on the Bitcointalk Chinese forum section. Still to be claimed: German translation of “The New Tau”. Done more effort on reach out to potential tribe channels: Research groups, LinkedIn groups, Facebook groups. Most represented keywords: Complex Adaptive Systems, NLP, Computational Linguistics. Usual feedback: Likes but no further interaction. Created an FAQ answering all possible questions surrounding IDNI, Tau & Agoras Idea: Hosting a virtual panel to spread the word about our project among the scientific community, as well as to create some visual content for our community. Two professors are interested in participating, one from Argentina with a focus in semantic parsing, the other one from the University of Washington with a focus on human-computer interaction and social computing. First step: organizing a pre-panel discussion where in 1on1 calls with the professors we get an opinion of them about what we are doing.
Andrei: Agoras Live: Implemented mail system so users now get their mails (e.g. registration email). Improved UX together with Mo’az, e.g. user profiles. Token creation for accessing calls to identify and charge users. Customized Jitsi interface to suit our needs: E.g. display of how much time passed in a call and how much it costs. Next up: Further improve UX; make sure everything works as intended.
Mo’az: Almost finished the IDNI website. Added two more pages: Events & Bounties in collaboration with Fola & Kilian. Agoras Live: Finetuned all the website’s components in collaboration with Andrei.
Juan: Continued working on the payments system for Agoras Live. Had some delays due to the complexity of debugging such applications. Still, we made significant progress and got the funding transactions implemented over the Lightning network through the Omni layer. Spent time analyzing the minimum amount of BTC to pay for the fees associated to the Omni transactions. We aren’t using segregated witness native addresses and instead are using embedded segregated witness. So transaction sizes are enlarged and transaction fees are a bit higher. So there is a bit of finetuning analysis needed in order to enable the multisig address to pay for the closing & refund transactions. So to provide payment channels over the Omni layer, the main remaining technical detail we have to solve at this point is the closing transaction & the refund transaction.
Fola: Have been continuing to look for great talent in different areas. Continued working on website with Mo’az and Kilian. Been working on the branding for Tau & Agoras. Been getting external support to make sure the branding for Tau & Agoras will be as professional as it can be. Working on marketing efforts needed for the release of Agoras Live to get the media pack for marketing ready. Working together with external people to put a plan together for listing the Agoras token on more prominent exchanges as we get closer to release of Agoras Live.
Ohad: Continued working on restricted versions of second-order logic to understand how to implement them. There is a translation in the literature about how to convert second-order logic by Horn into Datalog. Also, I have been revisiting papers that deal with descriptive complexity of higher-order logic. They mention that they have a translation from second-order logic to QBF. I wasn’t able to find where they explain this translation but I wrote one of them and he said he will send me the paper. If so, that will be very good because we already have a QBF solver. Any binary decision diagram is already a QBF solver, so we can just translate arbitrary second-order logic formulas into QBF. This will be very helpful for us to implement second-order logic. Also, those papers mention several aspects that are relevant for self-interpretation, the laws of laws. Apparently, they suggest that certain fragments of higher-order logic may also support the laws of laws. But this is part of the papers that I didn’t have access to, so I have to wait to get further clarification. I also pushed the whitepaper significantly this month and hope we will be finishing it soon. Also, I was thinking about some optimizations for the parser and also was looking into the Lightning network. It was my mistake that I haven’t done so beforehand and if I had done it beforehand, I would have understood earlier, that Lightning is too much. It is too drastic of a change to how traditional payments work and there apparently is no reason to believe that it is secure. So I’m glad I discovered better now than later that it’s not something we’d like to rely on, although we can have it as an optional feature.
Q&A:
Q: With the project development taking longer than other projects such as Tezos, when can AGRS holders expect something to be released and, how can you reassure us that we made the right decision?
A: With regards to when we see some releases, it seems that we will see some releases in 2020. For comparing to Ethereum and Tezos: Let’s first talk about funding. Both projects had a lot of money. For Ethereum, the reason for is that it has probably done one of the most aggressive marketing campaigns in history. It was completely lacking any kind of honesty. It was simply aggressive. None of Ethereum’s visions and promises became true. It simply became an insecure platform for scams. None of their vision of creating a world computer, of creating a better society, a better currency, became true. Because of this aggressive marketing, they not only raised a lot of money, they also took the price to be so high in the market. If you remember the campaign of the flipping, they did a whole campaign on how they would overtake the marketcap of Bitcoin. For Tezos, they made maybe the largest ICO in history in terms of money, mainly because they came at the right time, at the top of the bubble in 2017, and also their promises for better coordination didn’t come true. Their solution is based on voting and based on Turing completeness and the only reason why they managed to gain such a market cap as of today, is not because they offer better currency, better society, better anything. It basically is a Ponzi-scheme because they offer very high interest rate by very high inflation (5,51%). The only reason why people buy Tezos is to get into this Ponzi-scheme. Because both Tezos and Ethereum lack any true economical or technological substance, their value will not sustain and this is true for almost all projects in the cryptocurrency world. In the software, high-tech market, if you come up with good tech and you do all the right things, you succeed big time. But if you don’t have it and you are purely relying on brainwashing people, it will not sustain. Of course, our solution is so disruptive and sustainable. We offer to do advancements for humanity and for economy.
Q: What three subjects would you first like to see discussed on Tau?
A: Of course, picking three subjects now is a bit speculative, but the first thing that comes to mind is the definitions of what good and bad means and what better and worse means. The second subject is the governance model over Tau. The third one is the specification of Tau itself and how to make it grow and evolve even more to suit wider audiences. The whole point of Tau is people collaborating in order to define Tau itself and to improve it over time, so it will improve up to infinity. This is the main thing, especially initially, that the Tau developers (or rather users) advance the platform more and more.
Q: What is stopping programmers using TML right now? If nothing, what is your opinion on why they aren’t?
A: There is nothing essentially missing in TML in order to let it release. And in fact, we are now working towards packaging it and bringing it towards a release level. For things like documentation, bug fixes, minor features, minor optimizations. We indeed actively work towards releasing TML 1.0 and then we can publish it in e.g. developers channels for them to use it.
submitted by m4nki to tauchain [link] [comments]

A Real Crypto Hedge Fund With a DeFi Token

A Real Crypto Hedge Fund With a DeFi Token
Hello Redditors,
my name is Alex Gutmann, I am the CEO of Bitrockxa Capital and today I present you my DeFi Token Rockxa.finance. The Bitrockxa Capital Lending Fund is a modern, highly automated and profitable crypto hedge fund and the first Bitcoin lending fund of its kind. 20 years of market experience paired with the most modern trading and lending engines generate an average return of over 14% per year.
After joining the crypto universe six years ago and hearing many unfortunate stories from people who lost everything to make up for their losses by trading alts while all they had to do was hold bitcoin, I came across one solution. An interest based crypto fund.
I want to expand my company further by creating the DeFi Token Rockxa.Finance. DeFi is a very interesting concept and it certainly has enormous potential for the future. So far it seems to me that it is definitely a zero-sum game at the moment. The high returns are only bearable as long as other people fill the "Ponzi" scheme. This is usually always the case with new emerging markets. Therefore, I designed the Rockxa Finance Token so that it is fully update capable in order to update future developments that will offer the best possible return and / or function. I don't want to set up a pump and dump scheme, but rather offer an opportunity to participate in the new DeFi market at an early stage. The income from the presale will be used to expand rockxa finance and Bitrockxa Capital. 25% of the income will be invested in the lendings funds at Bitrockxa capital, and the income is used to support the Rockxa Finance network. 25% go back to DeFi pools as liquidity and the remaining 50% will be used for the further development of Bitrockxa and Rockxa. The aim is to get a hedge fund with a license on the US stock exchange.
The main goal behind Bitrockxa and Rockxa Finance is to give the rest of the world access to attractive returns and investment opportunities. Not everyone is lucky enough to live in a country that allows free access to the financial markets.
Now a few facts about Rockxa.Finance
total supply 4,200,000 tokens presale: 1,300,000 tokens website and presale: rockxa.finance price $ 1.50 per Rockxa / 210 Rockxa per ETH Presale is open!
Coming updates: staking, farming, lending, burning
Also AMA
Regards Alex Gutmann CEO Bitrockxa Capital
submitted by RockxaFinance to defi [link] [comments]

My collection of amazing early Bitcoin comments, right here from Reddit:

On buying (or not) a gaming rig to mine Bitcoin:
With the difficulty skyrocketing and exchange rates sitting stagnant at $5~8 for the last week or so, you pretty much missed the boat to buy dedicated mining hardware, IMHO. If you already have the hardware, or are looking for an excuse to buy a couple bitchin' new graphics cards for a gaming rig, there's definitely money to be made mining when you're not using it.
But I don't think I'd drop $1k into a rig that's only to mine with unless it was $1k I'd blow on something even more retarded. I certainly wouldn't sink next month's rent into it.
https://reddit.com/AskReddit/comments/hnp7f/_/c1wuv1b/?context=1
On easily cashing out Bitcoin using mtgox:
I think getting money is not that difficult. The daily volume on mtgox is over $100K, so I think anyone can currently sell Bitcoins for USD without problems.
https://reddit.com/AskReddit/comments/hnp7f/_/c1wuhjh/?context=1
On it being $10:
Is Bitcoin 10 usd yet?
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hpq6c/is_bitcoin_10_usd_yet/
Bonus: Snapshot of the isbitcoin10usdyet website from 2011: https://web.archive.org/web/20110606125320/http://www.isbitcoin10usdyet.com/
Mtgox might disappear:
400K bitcoins is $4M dollars. Given all risks and uncertainties around bitcoins, no wonder some of the early founders exit their investments. Tomorrow mtgox or dwolla may disappear. It is the matter of one government intervention.
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hq1wj/_/c1xgesq/?context=1
Bitcoin is terrible at friendly front-end:
This is a dangerous point-of-view. The entire bitcoin ecosystem is ugly, confusing, and deeply unusable. Really think about the questions posed in the article. The client works, as in, it creates a functional front-end for some bitcoin-related tasks, but it isn't at all designed for how humans would want to interact with the currency. The point of the article isn't that the client is hard, it's that the client works pretty well for obsessive nerds (present company included), but if bitcoin is really going to succeed at the goals it sets out to accomplish, it needs to not only be usable by normal people, it needs to be exceptional. If you think it's reasonably usable, you're welcome to that opinion, but please understand that you're the exact sort of person Mr. Falkvinge was referring to. Great with complex logic, terrible at friendly front-end.
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hrqpm/_/c1xtfuy/?context=1
On wallets going out of sync:
One thing that I think is lacking is the ability to functionally use wallets on different machines as they will tend to get out of sync. This might be able to be overcome if new addresses were deterministically created from a seed contained in the wallet, but there are probably better ways.
Also, the UI for the official client is kind of a bone.
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hrqpm/_/c1y730k/?context=1
On Bitcoin’s ease of use:
In fact, BTC is in such an infant state right now only enthusiasts investors, and geeks who can actually grasp how the system truly works, are using it for real.
The usability issues raised by the article are real. No grandma, or any well respected enterprise for that matter, would accept working with this type of GUI. If anything, a REAL enterprise backend still needs to be developed to handle the BTC's ungly guts, with all transactions details, hashes, mining, wallets, proxy connections, peer discovery via IRC channels... I mean... this is all too RAW for the end user. I can see a near future where startups will begin to offer user friendly GUIs, online access, maybe even online banking for your bitcoin accounts, automated backups and safety mechanisms to protect your coins in case of theft.
All of us geeks will end up supporting the bootstrap of this network so that, later on, your grandma will be able to use this just as she would use a credit card today.
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hrqpm/_/c1xungz/?context=1
rBitcoin is not a sub for memes:
This isnt a subreddit for memes. Take it back to pics
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/i7z0v/_/c21m3ld/?context=1
I think I’ll keep my money elsewhere:
This further reinforces BC's image as nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. When the distribution is skewed that heavily towards early adopters, they will have almost total control over the market. Those 32 could manipulate to their hearts content. I think I'll keep my money elsewhere....
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/ifl26/_/c23e3ei/?context=1
Tulip mania:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
https://www.reddit.com/AskReddit/comments/hnp7f/i_just_invested_half_of_my_next_months_rent_in/c1wuhkt/
submitted by wisequote to btc [link] [comments]

A brief about how the current bailouts are illegally violating the constitution.

https://www.hussmanfunds.com/comment/mc200420/ BITCOIN This is an explanation why the Feds recent actions are illegal. Its from John Hussman's new post which also talks about the spread of SARS-COV-2 and stock market valuations and internals.
Both the Federal Reserve Act and the recent CARES Act places very clear restrictions on the types of assets that the Federal Reserve can purchase, and the conditions that must be satisfied in order to purchase them. Congress went so far as to include a section in CARES to emphasize these requirements “for the avoidance of doubt.”
Put simply, Fed purchases under the Federal Reserve Act are restricted to assets that are explicitly guaranteed as to interest and principal by the U.S. government, or that has a claim to sufficient collateral to avoid losses to the public.
The securities that the Federal Reserve is legally allowed to purchase are:
a) Section 14 open market purchases of securities that are fully guaranteed as to interest and principal by the U.S. government or a foreign government;
b) Section 14 purchases of “commercial bills of exchange” arising out of commercial transactions. What are those? See the definition in Section 13(2), which defines commercial bills of exchange exactly as they’re commonly understood: arising out of commercial transactions, secured by agricultural products, goods, or merchandise, with a maturity of less than 90 days, and specifically prohibited from “covering merely investments, or issued or drawn for the purpose of carrying or trading stocks, bonds, or other investment securities, except bonds and notes of the government of the United States.”
c) Section 13(2) discounting (i.e. prepayment) of commercial, agricultural, and industrial paper (again, bills of exchange);
d) Section 13(3) emergency lending to individuals, partnerships, and corporations, restricted to discounting notes, drafts and bills of exchange, and contingent on collateral (“security”). Section 13(3) also requires that these activities must be for “the purpose of providing liquidity to the financial system, and not to aid a failing financial company, and that the security for emergency loans is sufficient to protect taxpayers from losses.”
e) Section 13(4) and 13(6) lending for payment of sight drafts for agricultural transactions, and bankers acceptances which typically arise out of merchandise transactions.
That’s it. The menu is very specific: either government securities, or those that are backed by a pledge of collateral “sufficient to protect taxpayers from losses.” This principle is consistent with the U.S. Constitution: only Congress has fiscal authority. The Federal Reserve does not. If this is not taken seriously, the Fed could purchase whatever security it wished, at whatever valuation it might choose, and the American public would be on the hook for any losses.
On April 9, the Federal Reserve announced the creation of the “Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility” (SMCCF), that would leverage $75 billion of CARES funding from the U.S. Treasury to buy as much as $750 billion of corporate debt and ETFs.
The initial allocation from the Treasury covers $50 billion for “primary” lending (directly to companies), and $25 billion for “secondary market purchases” of outstanding corporate bonds from investors. That Treasury funding is fine. Congress allocated the $75 billion in Treasury funds as part of the CARES Act. Every dollar provided by the Treasury acts as a Federal guarantee for the equivalent amount of corporate obligations that the Federal Reserve purchases.
The problem is that the Fed intends to leverage these funds 10-to-1 without taking actual collateral pledges from the underlying companies. This exposes the public to outright losses in the event that declining market prices or corporate defaults reduce the value of these bonds by even 10%.
As a result, the newly created SMCCF is either a Ponzi scheme at public expense (if the Fed plans to allow portfolio losses to exceed 10%) or a 1987-style portfolio insurance scheme (if the Fed plans to liquidate securities into a falling market in order to cap its losses at 10%). Section 13(3) requires updates every 30 days on the “value of collateral” – that’s going to be an interesting dance if we break the March lows. In any event, even here, the SMCCF is already illegal.
Uncollateralized junk bonds are being treated as their own collateral.
What makes this so brazen is that when Congress approved the CARES Act, it wrote the terms and conditions section like a children’s book, “for the avoidance of doubt” – to prevent exactly this sort of abuse of public funds. Specifically, here is section 4003(c)(3)(B), which limits how the $500 billion of 4003(b)(4) funding provided for businesses, states, and municipalities may be used:
4003(c)(3)(B) FEDERAL RESERVE ACT TAXPAYER PROTECTIONS AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS APPLY. – For the avoidance of doubt, any applicable requirements under section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, including requirements relating to loan collateralization, taxpayer protection, and borrower solvency, shall apply with respect to any program or facility described in subsection (b)(4).
CARES Act Section 4003 and Federal Reserve restrictions (violated)
Has the Federal Reserve taken collateral pledges from the companies underlying these “loans”? Has the Federal Reserve ensured that “the security for emergency loans is sufficient to protect taxpayers from losses”? Nope.
Instead, what’s going on here is that the Fed is treating the SMCCF as if it is a “business” in itself. It is then treating the corporate bonds and ETFs purchased by that vehicle as if those unsecured bonds are the “collateral.”
Yes, that’s right. Uncollateralized junk bonds are being treated as their own collateral.
Of course, that’s also why Section 13(2) of the Federal Reserve Act was written to prevent this sort of thing, prohibiting discounting of corporate securities “covering merely investments, or issued or drawn for the purpose of carrying or trading stocks, bonds, or other investment securities, except bonds and notes of the government of the United States.”
The whole operation is a hand-waving attempt to the purchase of assets that are wholly rejected by the provisions of 13(3), and may ultimately be impossible to close without a loss to the Fed, which is a loss to the public, which is fiscal policy, which belongs to Congress, not the Fed.
Again, it’s fine for the Federal Reserve to use the $75 billion of Treasury funding as “collateral“ that confers a federal guarantee on $75 billion of corporate loans and security purchases. Those funds are part of the amount that Congress, in its singular constitutional role, has allocated for public support for corporate lending.
In contrast, additional purchases to “leverage” that funding are neither secured by non-financial collateral, nor have security sufficient to protect taxpayers from losses. They are illegal, both under Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, and under Section 4003(c)(3)(B) of the CARES act, which “for the avoidance of doubt” specifically invokes 13(3) “requirements relating to loan collateralization, taxpayer protection, and borrower solvency.”
The newly created SMCCF is either a Ponzi scheme at public expense (if the Fed plans to allow potential portfolio losses to exceed 10%) or a 1987-style portfolio insurance scheme (if the Fed plans to liquidate securities into a falling market in order to cap its losses at 10%).
submitted by MakeTotalDestr0i to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The LIES of Chris Rabalais and AllSportsMarket

https://i.imgur.com/oucavJo.jpg
A) This is a work in progress. (trying to make this neater and add things that people post) These things have been collected from forums / posts in various places (official forums, reddit groups etc)..and are here to be sifted through and examined to see which are true and which are not. Anyone is welcome to comment both agreement or disagreement.
B) ANY CORRECTIONS please send a message and reference the lie number *** I want to remove false info ASAP*** Or make a post in this thread. If there is anything in this list that shouldn't be here, it will be removed.
C) If you'd like me to add a lie, PLEASE make a post in this thread! Include something like ADD THIS LIE and make a short description
d) ASM /Allsportsmarket / the company means any or all of the proxies and identities of CWH , NSEI, Sportshares.net etc
------------------------------------
A while back, Chris claimed people on reddit were "lying" and that he would respond "point by point" to any "lies" told by redditors. I have begun to compile a list of all of Chris' lies from various sources.

To Chris Rabalais / Allsportsmarket.com : You are more than welcome to respond "point by point". Please include a lie number...and respond and explain how it isn't a lie....

---

Lies of Chris Rabalais

1)This is and was an investment
He has always claimed this was an investment, and still does. He claims you will get a return...yet from the other side of his mouth, he makes sure to mention that this is a "donation." Not one of us would have donated to him without the chance of a return / profit. None of us. This was a donation....to Chris Rabalais...NOT an investment. Still to this day when askign for money he makes suree to put in DONATION but then out of the other side of his mouth he claims you will get a return..or profit..and says you are an investor / insider etc.....This is NOT an investment. This is a DONATION to a very inefficient "charity" claiming you will someday see a "return" on it.
2) Investors into ASM would get a return on their investment -- profit from it
He is still promising people a return...many people show a 'profit' on their account statement but are unable to cash out. Unable to withdraw etc...Chances are, If you have made a "profit" from this on paper, you cannot withdraw it.
3) He was in the process of registering the company shares with the SEC
The SEC has stated point blank he has taken NO STEPS to register the company shares. It is in the complaint.
4) The company shares were ABOUT to be registered, and once they did...they would have even more value and we would miss out unless we bought in
Not only did he say it was in process, he claimed many times they were very close to getting the shares registered and when they did, they would have more value..and investors would be sorry if we didn't jump in on this "rocketship".
5) Chris knows how to get the shares registered with the SEC or has any clue what he is doing in terms of registering the shares
According to the SEC , Chris Rabalais has no idea HOW to even get the shares registered...and that is in their complaint as well. Meanwhile for years Chris was claiming he knew what do do to get the shares registered.
6) "This may be the last chance to jump on this great opportunity"
How many times have we all heard this lie? This or that program is ending....you'll never get another chance at giving money to Chris Rabalais again...but then shockingly...there's another even better offer in a couple days/weeks...
7) If you don't give X amount of money right now , the lights might suddenly go out on ASM..and you'll lose your "investment"
Another lie they tell is that if you don't give money, they will go out of business and you will "lose your investment". Bullcrap , they're not shutting off their free money machine....until someone MAKES them. Oh and you have no investment. Two lies for the price of one.
8) This is not a ponzi scheme
Chris has addressed the ponzi issue only VERY briefly over the years. He recently claimed it isn't a ponzi because the "last guy in can still make money" but that would require MONEY coming in from others...so he gets around the truth by omitting that its not the "guy" its the "last money in " which is nearly the same thing... the people who put their money in last will lose....that is a ponzi. The Judge in the Seth Leon case said so...and I hope another judge says so soon. (See here: https://www.reddit.com/ASMEunfiltered/comments/e61nya/summary_of_the_seth_leon_case_with_update/ )
9) The sports shares have value
Chris claims they have value because they area "claim on future dividends" which is a lie. That is not any definition of real or intrinsic value...and even if it was (it isn't, IMO) the claim on future dividends is a LIE because every penny of that future dividend money relies on new money coming into the market...which is a ponzi...which is valueless
10) You would be able to cash out (sell your holdings, pay off your bonus margin and keep your profits)
He changed the rules when the market started imploding. For years he promised investors they could sell their shares, pay off our margin and take our profits. No one would've bought in if they thought they could never do this. Even after he froze people's ability to cash out...he kept claiming that we would be able to soon...and urged people to buy more margin because all of the profits would be able to be kept.
11) Chris would stop selling margin
Recently, there was a conference call where key members of the team called for an end to the margin offers..NOT because they were a scam (they are) but because it was no longer possible to ignore the implosion of the pilot market and the collapse was being blamed on margin....Chris agreed to end margin and made announcements to this end. In a short time, he realized that promising people money on margin profit was his only revenue...so he HAD to start selling margin again...He knows it is worthless, promised to stop selling it....and lied.
12) Different celebrities, politicians, business people were about to come on board and help us
XFL (paul has contacts with them!!), PHIL COLLINS' WIFE!, Mark Cuban, Jon Bon FUCKING Jovi, Roger Goddell, Snoop Dogg, Brian Austin Green, Trump (speaker at zero club), Labron James, meetings with MLB people, Jack MA / Alibaba.......god knows how many other names this guy drops as potential people who are going to help or who we are 'reaching out' to in order to get them to help us. (help me add to this list)
13) ASM would have a "liquidity event" and be able to make money off of our company shares
There was going to be some liquidity event where we could sell our company shares to other investors...of course it never happened.
14) The new york times ad was going to be about ASM or helping our investment
There was NO MENTION of ASM or AllSportsMarket in the new york times ad and it didn't do a single thing to help ASM become a legitimate company. The only thing it did (from memory) was bash gambling.
15) The trips to Israel, funded by the investors, were something worthy of doing with the money...
Chris bragged and posted pictures of his trips to Israel...but what did they have to do with ASM? How was spending "donations" (investments) for him to go to Israel supposed to help the company? Clearly this was a waste.
16) the Hero club events he goes to (more travel) help ASM in any way whatsoever
I have never seen any evidence that spending who knows how much of the investors' money has been wasted on this,yet chris continues to act as if his membership in the Hero Club is a wise way to spend money...I have seen no evidence that the Hero club has done anything bust waste money.
17) donating to ASM is helping anyone or doing anything other than putting money in HIS pocket...
Quite simply, Chris "donates" 10% of the money given him, if we are to believe that. So He has given (according to him) 150k+ to a hunger charity. They have (according to Chris) matched this 7x, so the 150k donation has turned into a millionish dollars worth of charity. Sounds good right? Well in doing so, Chris has just wasted 90% of the money. Instead of 150k, had we all simply given our 1.5 million to this same charity....and they matched it 7x...we would have turned our money into 10+ million dollars for charity. So essentially, even by Chris' own numbers...we have wasted 9 million dollars of potential charity....by paying Chris's rent..cars etc.. all so that he can take 90% and give 10% to charity....to me, this is wasteful and we would be better donationg directly to the 7x charity the entire 100% rather than wasting the 90%.
18) The ASM 'real market' was a real money market
Chris started the real market to fool us into thinking it was actual money. He later then changed the name to "pilot market" after taking people's REAL money..so he could have the excuse "HEY this is a PILOT market!!!" when you cant withdraw...otherwise why call this a "real" market then suddenly change the name to "pilot"?
19) the ASM pilot market was going to transition with your holdings to a 'regulated' or 'exempt market' and you would be able to keep your profit from the pilot market
So it has been promised to us that the pilot (which was the real market) market will transition to another market..where.....where you'll STILL be able to keep your profits...so..guys..KEEP BUYING BONUS MARGIN lol....
20) If there is a good enough plan, Chris will happily step down in January 2020 and let someone else change the direction of the "company"
Chris claims "give him till December" and if no one is happy he will step aside if that's what everyone wants...IF there is a plan he likes..LOL..we will see...but I am guessing he will not.
21) The pilot market is working
He has claimed the pilot market is working and proves that ASM is functional...yet the market has collapsed and he has frozen everyone's accounts from withdrawing..or paying off margin..etc...but the real/pilot market has been a disaster. Here is him contradicting himself and admitting that the pilot market does NOT work : https://vocaroo.com/bsbcnHWDF8z . This is an admission thatthe pilot market as it is now is busted and will never work without being completely re-designed (revenue sharing etc). The worst part of this is he KNOWS the pilot market is not working yet he is still selling margin to buy stocks on this market.....that to me is criminal. How can he do this?
22) The learning market is working and proves that the math and numbers are correct and functional
Claims have been made the learning market is working..LOL...anyone who has touched the learning market knows it is completely dysfunctional...and not any kind of advertisement or positive experience...
23) Bonus margin has some sort of value other than to put money in his pocket
He claims bonus margin has value. It doesn't. Its worthless. If he tries to deny this..ask him why he is selling it if it has no value? Ask him how he plans on turning something with 0 value into something with value. This is the core of his scam right now..selling WORTHLESS bonus margin with no value for real money...which he donates 10% of and the rest goes to expenses...and his salary & rent etc...
24) Chris "had alper" double check the math in 2009 , and the market math is fine..
Oh god...so in one of the videos, Chris claims he had Alper check the math in 2009 and alper told him the numbers work. This is such utter horseshit, and mainly designed to deflect responsibility for the failure of the market..so he can blame it on Alper. Chris knows the math doesn't work. Alper knows the math doesn't work..and Alper & Chris know that margin is worthless...and they know the market is a failure...they have to know this...
25) special clubs like "ASM Black", "Insider programs", "Advisory Councils" etc etc are anything other than him trying to get even more money out of your pocket
All of these programs are just designed to get you to give them more money..there is no real benefit to being a member in them. The insider program just basically stopped people from being able to withdraw sooner....who knows what ASM black was..and this advisory council...what was that? Give Chris 100$ to listen to more youtube rants? Ok...whatever new club or council they will come up with next is a bunch of crap designed to make you feel special as you give them your hard earned money.
26) The NDA he sent via email before spamming you with more ads is legally binding
We all know the NDA he sent via e-mail was worthless..it was hilarious.....and unenforceable....
27) They would provide investors with financial documents / audit / detailed information at the end of October 2019
Yeah so will we ever get to see the "audit" ? Doubt it...they are not transparent with any pertinent info. Who is paid what? Who holds what shares? What shares have been granted to who? What money was paid by NSEI to who , and for what? "Seal of transparency" my ass.
28) The SEC filing suit against him could be viewed as a positive in some ways
I forget how he worded it but he basically claimed the SEC suit was some sort of opportunity for something positive for him. The one positive thing I can think of is it stopped him from getting more money from suckers...
29) He didn't "really" lose the case against Seth Leon
He made all kinds of excuses and claims the only reason he lost against Seth Leon is because Seth Leon sent the papers to an old address....LOL (see here: https://www.reddit.com/ASMEunfiltered/comments/e61nya/summary_of_the_seth_leon_case_with_update/ ) Make NO mistake..Chris LOST the case. The court found "AMPLE EVIDENCE" of fraud by Chris Rabalais.
30) It was Trump's fault (Govt shutdown) that he didn't get paperwork done with the SEC
LOL...I hope this is what he tells the Judge
31) It was Jason's fault that "a letter" wasn't sent to the SEC regarding the NRHL
Blame it on a guy who doesn't work for the company any more...
32) It is alper's fault the math/numbers don't work because Chris asked alper to "check the numbers" in 2009
Blame this on Alper.....when he has known for YEARS the numbers do not work
33) there were "saboteurs" who tried to wreck the "deal" with NRHL, who came from reddit..*but luckily they saved the deal!
Remember the saboteurs? remember how they "saved" the deal with the NRHL? Remember how the NRHL was going to be huge for ASM? Yeah none of these things were true....MAYBE a guy (gregson?) tried to contact the NRHL to find out if they were even real.. but NO ONE thought the NRHL was going to be a good thing..and NO ONE wanted to transition their money to a market led by roller derby..because it was and is a stupid idea.
34) There were lawyers (zero club? friends?) who were going to help with the SEC defense for free
Chris had an army of lawyers, some of the best in the country and who had never lost...but yet he had to beg the court for a free lawyer because he can't get a lawyer to represent him...LOL
35) "secured by blockchain" - Chris claims this tech is in use now but what is it exactly other than bullshit?
On one of his latest videos he claims the blockchain technology is protecting the ASM market right now...BS. There is no technology that I have seen. There hasn't been anything said about what this even is or does. Ace hasn't even been heard from since around August has he? They can't even get an android app...the blockchain bullshit is just more jargon and buzzwords...trying to get you to give them money...there is nothing behind this "secured by blockchain" trademark...other than words...otherwise why not explain exactly what it is, and how it works ..etc...
36) Chris is going to counter sue the SEC and prove that he is a legitimate business
LOL.. with his free lawyer?
37) All cryptocurrencies are a SCAM
Notice he screams and cries FRAUD at many things, but he is a fraud himself. Typical tactic...accuse others of what you are doing. Also, there is some real value in some cryptos, like bitcoin...unlike a sports share on ASM. Its called 'proof of work' ...that has real value that can even be measured..by electricity use, processing power etc...I am not arguing it has a lot of value, or even that it is as valuable as the price....but it is above zero, unlike a share in a sports team on ASM. I'm also not an expert nor to I condone investing in crypto...
38) Gambling is more of a problem than ASM / NSEI
Again, he screams and cries about how dirty Gambling is...but at least legal gambling is regulated, and you have a chance to win. Unlike ASM...
39) They were working on an Android app , and needed donations for it
One of the reasons I donated early on was because of seeing the IOS app, and the promises of making an android app.In fairness this might not have been a lie....but if theyre not going to make an android app , then say so.
41) They lied by omission and did not tell investors about the SEC suit until August 2019
So someone else came and announced the SEC lawsuit on the reddit forum in August 2019. There is some strong evidence that Chris knew about this in April 2019 or even earlier like maybe Oct 2018...and if he knew about it before it was announced , then he witheld this information from all of us..
42) The NFL / MLS "Deals"
We very nearly had a deal with the NFL and MLS...or have / had a chance to make deals with them...its all bullshit. The guy cant even make a deal with roller derby leagues...and we are expected to believe he is making deals with major leagues?
43) Wefunder / Crowd Funding
We started the process to sell shares through we-funder....but they turned us down. Guess what Chris "forgot" to tell us all? THE REASON they turned us down...because ASM / CWH doesn't pass the "smell test"? What was the reason? It seems like maybe the reason was the UNREGISTERED SECURITIES? I mean there had to be a reason..what was it?
44) Share Buyback
They were going to buy back company shares from investors....and at times stated the shares were so valuable they would gladly buy them back for X amount because they were sure to go up in price...but when push comes to shove they NEVER will buy this worthless junk back......even for 1 penny. A lot of the 'tyes men' have stated they would also buy shares back from unhappy investors but of course they never do this in reality.
45) Telling the truth, even if it is harmful to Chris / ASM is some type of Slander or Libel
Chris would like you to think that calling him out on fraud and lies is some type of "libel" or "slander" but as anyone knows...telling the truth is not slander or libel. He is trying to scare people from telling the truth. Blowing the whistle on his fraud is NOT slander or libel. Period. He is the CEO of a company that he sold shares of stock in, fraudulently. He must and will be held accountable.
46) The market cap number is a legitimate indicator of the validity of ASM
Chris love to throw around market capitalization numbers (4 Billion LOL) as if they mean anything at all or indicate that this market is healthy. They include the learning market (fake money) and the margin (also fake money). If you subtract the learning market, the bonus margin, and the money "used" by chris for data, rent, cars etc...you have pretty much zero market cap in reality.
47) ASM has a way of checking if an investor is accredited: See here: https://www.reddit.com/ASMEunfiltered/comments/eacs69/new_lies_regarding_searching_for_for_accredited/ . In my understanding , one of the ways (in some cases) un-registered securities can be sold is if it is to an "accredited" investor. The SEC has said Chris has no means of checking this. I would personally believe the SEC at this point....and I will count this as a lie until it is proven that Chris / ASM actually does have a way of legitimately checking accreditation.
48) The reason Chris withheld the fact the SEC was investigating him and suing him was because the SEC told him he couldnt tell us.
BULLSHIT. In the audio Chris makes absurd claims that he couldnt tell "investors" of his problems with the SEC because they told him not to talk about it. Yet meanwhile he kept taking money from investors as if everything was fine..KNOWING that trouble was brewing and KNOWING that the shit was going to hit the fan. Show me a letter by the SEC that says he can't warn his investors of an impending action by them SHOW IT TO US. If you show this to us, I'll remove this lie. It doesnt make any sense because the SEC exists to protect us from predators like Chris , so why would they tell him he cannot warn us of problems with the SEC????? MAKES ZERO SENSE. Does not pass the smell test. This is a lie by omission..taking our money , pretending things are fine....but KNOWING problems are coming. The bottom line: Chris didnt say SHIT about this anywhere that I know of until AFTER it was posted publicly that the lawsuit was filed...I heard about this online before it was ever mentioned by chris in any conference call or statement by him.
49) Not sure if this is technically a "lie" or not but the guy / ASM has at least 10 twitter accounts...here are a few of them: 1) https://twitter.com/AllSportsMarket 2) https://twitter.com/rabalais_cva 3) https://twitter.com/asmclients 4) https://twitter.com/thesportsvote 5) https://twitter.com/SportsFolios 6) https://twitter.com/MySportsWiki 7) https://twitter.com/chrisrabalais 8) https://twitter.com/NuSportsEconomy 9) https://twitter.com/ASMFreeApp 10) https://twitter.com/ASM_Advisor (not 100% on this one but it looks fake) ..etc..... It looks as if this one: https://twitter.com/ASMFreeApp has a bunch of bots or paid 'farm' followers. So, while not a 'lie' exactly...very odd and shady behavior.
50) In the "Investors Q& A" found here: https://tinyurl.com/spbznmf They failed to disclose the Seth Leon case, the failed attempt at bankruptcy discharge of the fraud debt, and failed to disclose the debt owed to Seth Leon. So they lied in the sections about Legal Problems and they Lied in the sections about Debt. This is in a Q&A involving potential ionvestors so they are lying to potential investors about the risks.

51) Chris will "fact check" and respond to every accusation made against him and prove that these things are lies told by "known liars"
https://i.imgur.com/HaGfekN.jpg
So a couple of weeks ago, Chris said he would fact check all of the "lies" told about him...so I thought I would do him a big favor and make a huge list. His claim was that everyone saying all of these things are "known liars" and none of these things is true. He says they are all bogus "claims" made by "liars." He said he would refute these"claims." Well guess what asshole? Every songle person reading this is probably a victim of yours, and they KNOW all of these things aren't "claims" ... they are facts. I have done my best here to stick to things that are universal..that we have all witnessed as investors.
Now (shockingly) chris refuses to "fact check" any of these "lies." He says he will respond only if you sign your name and send him a private e-mail or make a post on his censored and controlled website where he has to approve any post before it is seen by the public... So I will add this as yet another lie. He will never refute SHIT. He is a thief and a liar. and a con man....and CAN"T refute anything said above. Period. More than likely if anyone posted this list on his forums, he would NEVER allow it to stand....so how is anyone supposed to get this list "fact checked"? The only Known liar here..well..I think we all know who that is...
You would think he might want to address these things publicly instead of making people ask via e-mail and leaving a cloud of suspicion for potential investors to see..and maybe he would rather answer one time,rather than a bunch of separate e-mails......but I guess when there are literally no answers to any of these things, the only solution is to try and hide it more...
submitted by 707NorCaL707 to ASMEunfiltered [link] [comments]

Cluey Learning is a ponzi scheme - Australian investors and parents stay away!

I write this as a concerned investor who recently was approached to consider an investment in Cluey Learning. Cluey Learning is selling a dream equivalent to a Bitcoin Scam. I wrote this to ensure that Australian investors do their proper research before losing more money in this venture.
If you want a copy of their investor presentation email us at [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) and we will send you a copy.
https://www.clueylearningscam.com/post/cutting-costs-maximizing-results
Recently, Cluey Learning has been trying to raise capital at an approximately $45 million valuation with less than $1 million Aud in sales. This translates to a 45x sales multiple which is as high as companies like Zoom which are already profitable, at massive scale, with a disruptive technology advantage (the world’s number 1 beneficiary of the Coronavirus disruptions arguably).
For some context, Kip McGrath has a valuation of $40 million and was founded 44 years ago and has revenue of $18 MM with $2.5 MM profit. Cluey Learning has been raising capital largely because of a lack of education technology expertise in the Australia market. This article should help to summarize why Cluey is a dangerous, speculative investment that will lose investors significant amount of money by only talking about their revenue and brushing over their growing operating losses.
There are a number of fundamental issues with the Cluey Learning business that are not being accurately described to prospective investors.
More info: https://www.clueylearningscam.com/post/cutting-costs-maximizing-results
  1. Smart Investors Don’t Believe in Pure Tutoring Marketplaces: Tutoring marketplaces are poor businesses which sophisticated investors have largely stayed away from. People have tried and failed to monetize purely 1-1 online tutoring like tutor.com and tutorspree which have all stopped operating. Companies like Eurekely in New Zealand have also tried and failed to monetize and have been unable to raise any external financing. Varsity Tutors, after raising much money, continues to be unprofitable with slowing growth rates and declines in investor confidence.
  2. Tutoring Marketplaces Haven’t Been Profitable: There are no large, profitable 1-1 tutoring marketplace businesses in the world. The world’s profitable, successful education companies include New Oriental, Tal Education Group and Benesse rely on large class sizes and premium brands which enable them to avoid the business of just matching students and tutors up and trying to capture a spread between them. Fast growing education technology companies such as Byjus monetize video content which has limited direct service costs. VIPKids has burnt through hundreds of millions of dollars of venture capital financing and is still not profitable and has had large issues fundraising in recent rounds despite the substantially more attractive backdrop of China which has more students with a higher willingness to pay and a much larger population and deeper adoption of tutoring and online learning offerings.
  3. Commonly Cited Examples of Success in Tutoring Are Misrepresentations: Chegg, a Silicon Valley company, talks a lot about its tutoring business but it does no paid acquisition marketing because it knows this is unprofitable and upsells tutoring to its database of leads that use its subscription homework services and subscription textbook services.
  4. Competition For Online Real Estate from Offline Players: Cluey Learning will, unless they dramatically change their advertised business, continue to lose money and lose progressively more money because the margin they can make from a student will continue to be less than they spend to acquire customers. Being online doesn’t give you any advantage acquiring students. KipMcGrath and other strong competitors continue to bid online for the same keywords that Cluey Learning is burning investor money on except Cluey has a far less economical business.
  5. Unprofitable Unit Economics: KipMcGrath charges students approximately 55/hour for a class of 4 students and pays the teacher around 25/hour. This gives a revenue of 220 and a cost of 25 with a margin of 89%. Cluey Learning may charge around $50 and pay the tutors $30 and take a <50% gross margin which is virtually impossible to make any profits once you pay acquisition costs of customers (ignoring even the cost of salaries)
  6. Huge Cashburn: Cluey Learning claims more than 160 employees on LinkedIn. If one assumes only 75 are full-time with an average salary of 100,000 the business is burning half a million or more a month. While Cluey can show more revenue by burning more money, this revenue is ultimately only being achieved by an unsustainable cash burn that the management team knows cannot easily change.
  7. Dramatically Overestimated Target Market: Cluey, despite a focus on Australia, is already claiming a massive valuation citing a huge tutoring market. This market simply doesn’t exist anywhere like the scale being asserted. If you add up the tutoring revenue of major players across Kip McGrath, Matrix Education, NumberWorks, Dux College and private tutoring the market probably is $50 million or less per year annually across all of Australia. Players like Kip McGrath have been in the market for 40+ years and have had to leave Australia and go to the UK and NZ to find more growth because of caps in the domestic market. Cluey is talking to investors about a 1 billion+ market which overestimates the market size by 20x or more.
  8. Cluey’s segment is particularly not growing fast: The highest spenders of tutoring tend to be from the Chinese-Australian community in Sydney at the competitive private schools. These students make up a significant amount of total revenue (Matrix alone is estimated to do $20 MM Aud of the revenue). These students prefer offline tutoring-in-general with highly specialized tutors. Cluey’s family centred, fun approach to learning targets a totally different demographic that is more akin to the students of Kip McGrath. As such they do miss and will continue to miss, the main segment of tutoring spending that is actually growing.
  9. The macroeconomic environment for fundraising is collapsing: A business that is structurally unprofitable and relies on more and more rounds of funding burning cash to acquire revenue will not be able to continue indefinitely. Softbank’s portfolio of struggling companies like Oyo and WeWork show this clearly.
More info: https://www.clueylearningscam.com/post/cutting-costs-maximizing-results
Overall, Cluey Learning is not a fraudulent business by the definition of law. They can unknowingly make inaccurate claims about the market size. They can unknowingly have overly optimistic claims about their unit economics. Given the experience of the team at Cluey, it is unlikely they are unaware of how inaccurate some of these claims are but we can give them the benefit of the doubt.
The key message for investors is beware. Cluey is charging 45x their revenue last year for a business with a small target market size that isn’t growing very quickly, with a structurally unprofitable business model that has failed in far more attractive geographies and depending on investors who haven’t done proper research into their model to write the cheques to fund their multi-million dollar cash burn.
Investors beware.
It doesn't take any skill to spend your hard earned $1 to buy $0.50 cents of revenue, show all the fast revenue growth to the next investors to keep the ponzi scheme going. Ask to see their profits, their unit economics, their operating expenses and the truth will be blindingly obvious.
More info: https://www.clueylearningscam.com/post/cutting-costs-maximizing-results
submitted by clueyscam to investing_discussion [link] [comments]

9 Rules of Crypto Trading That Helped One Trader Go from $1k to $46k in Less Than a Year

No, the successful trader is not me. I’ve gotten lucky a few times and I’m still refining and trying out strategies; on the other hand, I’m part of communities of people who trade on a daily basis to grow their portfolios, and while some of the results can be attributed to luck, a majority of it is based on fundamentals, good habits, and experience.
The Result of Good Habits
Miles is the co-founder of Pure Investments. In May 2017, he started off by playing with $1,000, which he accumulated through saving 10% of his paychecks for a while. Today, he is at $46,000; i.e., he grew his portfolio by 46x in less than a year. Similarly, after starting Pure Investments back in September 2017, Miles got one of his first community members, who goes by the pseudonym SP on the Discord channel. When SP started, he put in $40,000. By January 2018, he had over $1 million (today it’s ~$800k due to the recent Bitcoin crash). While markets like cryptocurrency are extremely volatile and all investors are subject to its price fluctuation including Miles, SP, myself, and you, good habits will help mitigate the losses and maximize profits. Nine Rules of Crypto Trading
Please note that none of this is investment advice. Invest at your own risk!
  1. Only invest what you can lose. During the recent crash in January 2018, hobby-investors got burned. Reports of frustration and losses came at the cost of broken monitors, smashed laptops, and heavy monetary losses. While the rules are in more particular order of importance, it’s safe to assume that this is the most important rule, the rule to rule the rules. As soon as your money is converted into cryptocurrency, consider it lost forever. There is absolutely no guarantee you can get it back. Losses don’t simply come from dips in the market; extraordinary factors such as hacks, bugs, and government regulation can mean you’ll never see any of your money again. If you are investing money you can’t afford to lose, you need to take a step back and re-evaluate your current financial situation, because what you’re about to do is an act of desperation. This includes: using credit cards, taking out mortgages, applying for loans, or selling everything and traveling the world (as glamorous as that sounds).
  2. Always pay attention to Bitcoin. Most altcoins (every cryptocurrency except Bitcoin) are pegged more closely to Bitcoin than Asian currencies were to the USD during the Asian Financial Crisis. If Bitcoin price pump drastically, altcoins price can go down as people try to exit altcoins to ride the BTC profits; inversely, if Bitcoin prices dump drastically, altcoin prices can go down, too, as people exit altcoins to exchange back into fiat. The best times for altcoin growth appear when Bitcoin shows organic growth or decline, or remains stagnant in price.
  3. Never put all your eggs in one basket. Diversify. While the potential to earn more is increased with the amount of money you invest into a coin, the potential to lose more is also magnified. Another way to think about it is to look at the cryptocurrency market as a whole; if you believe that this is just the beginning, then more than likely the entire market cap of cryptocurrencies will increase. What are the chances that this market cap increase will be entirely driven by one coin vs. being driven by many coins? The best way to safely capture the overall growth of cryptocurrency is to diversify and reap the benefits of growth from multiple coins. Also, fun fact — Between January 2016 and January 2018, Corgicoin has increased by 60,000x, and Verge has increased by 13,000x. During the same period, Bitcoin has increased by 34x. While you would have gotten impressive gains from Bitcoin, expanding into other coins could have landed you potentially larger ones.
  4. Don’t be greedy. No one ever lost money taking a profit. As a coin begins to grow, the greed inside us grows along with it. If a coin increases by 30%, why not consider taking profit? Even if goals are set to 40% or 50%, you should at least pull out some of the profit on the way up in case a coin doesn’t reach the goal. If you wait too long or try to get out at a higher point, you risk losing profit you already earned or even turning that profit into a loss. Get into the habit of taking profits and scouting for re-entry if you want to continue reaping potential profits.
  5. Don’t invest blindy. There are people in this world who would sell a blind person a pair of glasses if they could make money. Those same people play in the cryptocurrency markets and use every opportunity to exploit less-informed investors. They’ll tell you what to buy or claim certain coins will moon, just to increase the prices so they can exit. Due to the highly speculative nature of the cryptocurrency markets today, a good investor will always do his or her own research in order to take full responsibility for the potential investment outcome. Information coming from even the best investor is, at best, great information, but never a promise, so you can still get burned.
  6. Don’t FOMO. This is a spot that people most frequently lose money on. A dash of manipulation, two tablespoons of media hype, a cup of CME and CBOE announcements, and a generous handful of FOMO drove Bitcoin prices from $10,000 to $20,000 in December. Since that time, Bitcoin fell to a low of $9,000 and is currently sitting at around $11,000. It’s easy to look back and say, “if only I waited one month, then I could’ve bought at $9,000 instead of waiting for Bitcoin to hit $20,000 again for me to break even.” But the reality is, the combination of 1) being greedy, 2) investing blindly, and 3) FOMO were likely large contributors to the purchase at an all-time-high. Even in the crazy world of cryptocurrency, if a coin pumps that quickly, it will correct — it’s a matter of time. Speculative pumps are almost always followed by dips. While trying to jump onto a train going full speed sounds like something straight out of a James Bond movie, I’m sure most of us can agree we would probably save some limbs if we just waited for it at the next stop.
  7. Categorize your investments and look at the long picture. In the process of your research, you’ll eventually realize you’re coming across a few different categories of coins. For some of them, you believe they have good teams, great vision, amazing publicity and a track record for successful execution. Great! Put these into medium or long-term holds and let them marinate into a delicious tenderloin. When the price dips, don’t even consider panic selling because anything in your medium or long-term portfolio should remain untouched for a set amount of time. BNB is a good example of a coin Miles considers a long hold. Recently, it dipped 20% for a while, and within our community, we witnessed some sell-offs to preserve investments. A week later, it jumped up almost 3x for a period of time.
  8. Always learn from your mistakes. Never accept a total loss. Always evaluate the situation and try to figure out why it happened. Take that experience as an asset for your next move, which will be better because you are know more now than you knew before. We all start off as amateurs, and we have all lost money throughout out trading experience. In his first month of trading, Miles went from $1,000 to $300. I’ve lost a lot by selling at losses inspired by fear. No one is perfect, no one wins every single trade. Don’t let the losses discourage you, because the reality is they’re making you better trader if you choose to learn from them.
  9. If you are doing any active trading, set stop losses. For any coins not in your medium or long-term holds, always set stop losses. This is important for several reasons — the most obvious is mitigating your losses. But more importantly, you force yourself to decide on a point of acceptable loss, and because you now have a reference point, you are able to measure your effectiveness to keep or adjust for future trades. Sometimes, during a market dip, altcoins can plummet, and stop losses can lead to profitability by automatically selling for fiat that you can use to re-enter at lower prices.
  10. 10 Bonus — always check the ticker symbol. Ticker symbols are not universal, and may vary from exchange to exchange in rare cases. Those cases, though, can come back to bite you. For example, Bitcoin Cash trades on some exchanges as BCH, while it trades on others as BCC. BCC is also the ticker symbol for BitConnect, which was recently outted as a Ponzi Scheme. If you bought BCC under the impression was Bitcoin Cash, you would’ve lost a lot of money.

You Don’t Have to Go At It Alone While these rules are by no means the only lessons you need, they’re definitely a great starting point. Sometimes, though, things are easier said than done, such as watching your portfolio value plummet and still having the iron willpower of resisting the sell button. One of the best solutions I’ve found to this was to join a community of like-minded cryptocurrency investors. Educated and smart crypto-traders, as well as the community members, will all be there to support your efforts and will be holding with you in the rough times.
On top of that, the cryptocurrency market travels at lightspeed compared to other markets. New coins enter the market on a daily basis (in 2016, there were about 550 different coins, today there are about 1,500), and each one has news every day. I’m not doubting your ability to consume and analyze news, but that level of information bombardment will always be more effectively consumed as a group. In these communities, you’ll see members link news and relevant articles about coins you’ve invested in and coins you’ve never heard of. The community will definitely expand your knowledge much faster than doing it all yourself.
The Pure Investments community, as well as many other communities out there, have a free and paid membership. The paid membership is similar to the free one in that each one can access the community, but the paid one has more hands-on guidance from the analysts, and you can learn more through the education sections.
submitted by FmzQuant to CryptoCurrencyTrading [link] [comments]

Debunking Cryptocurrency Myths

Debunking Cryptocurrency Myths

https://preview.redd.it/bly69bsxwu051.jpg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4ddf296c34fc92b73ef0655d05e7d689909fa161
Now that we almost familiarized ourselves with the basics of cryptocurrency, the Swipe team would like to shed light on the most common misconceptions about it.
In this article, we aim to discuss the reasons why these myths exist and correct the common tales behind them.
1. Cryptocurrency is A SCAM
NOT. We have to set this record straight once and for all. Cryptocurrencies are the digital counterpart of physical currencies. The only difference is this kind is purely virtual, meaning it doesn’t physically exist. Instead of going through any central authority (bank), it runs in a blockchain, a digital ledger that lets users safely and easily transact and store cryptocurrencies.
So why do people think that it is a scam? It is because of the bad players who try to take advantage of this new technology. A lot of new and naïve crypto investors fall into Ponzi-type schemes that promise huge investment returns at a little or no risk at all.
Scammers will also try to lure people in making them believe they offer related services in return for crypto payment. The concept of cryptocurrency is to make the current financial transactions easier, which is why some fall for this bait. These types of investments and services should be viewed skeptically. If there are people who are trying to scam you of your money, there will also be people who will try to scam you of your cryptocurrencies. But this doesn’t mean that money and cryptocurrencies are a scam.
In cryptocurrency, there is no central authority to re-check the user’s transactions. In cryptocurrency, there is no central authority to re-check the user’s transactions. Users must be responsible enough when managing their crypto assets and activities.
2. It is NOT SAFE
AGAIN WRONG. Cryptocurrencies are safe unless people expose themselves to illicit transactions. Remember, even the most successful businesses get highjacked, so what is the possibility that cryptocurrencies will be immune to it?
Most of the cryptocurrency transactions run in a blockchain, a digital ledger that uses cryptographic measures to process and transactions, making it more likely impossible to be compromised. However, this doesn’t mean that your cryptocurrencies are totally immune to hacking and phishing.
Some users choose to manage their cryptocurrencies themselves, but there is also a number who rely on exchanges or digital wallets run by different parties. When using devices and software such as mobile applications to manage crypto funds, one must make sure that their device is free from any malware and viruses and that they set strong passwords for wallets and accounts that deal with their cryptocurrency funds. Remember, cryptocurrency transactions are irreversible, so one must make sure that their devices and applications are virus-free and secured.
But how can the users prevent this from happening? Prior to purchasing cryptocurrency, do proper research on which exchange and digital wallets are perfect for their lifestyle. Check if the company is properly regulated and compliant with the existing laws.
Swipe Wallet carries numerous licenses around the world. At present, it has a Virtual Currency Wallet License, and Virtual Currency to Fiat Exchange License issued both in Estonia covering the European Economic Area.
Aside from this, setting up a strong password and enabling two-factor authentication (if applicable) are strongly recommended. This adds an extra layer of security to your software, making it less prone to any cyberattacks.
3. It DOESN’T HAVE A VALUE
THERE IS. In fact, as of writing, one Bitcoin is priced at $9,096.37, which you can spend and convert any time through the use of your digital wallets. Cryptocurrencies offer a faster way of receiving and sending money through the use of blockchain technology, a better alternative to the usual bank remittances people do. It actually works like fiat currencies, only that cryptocurrencies are decentralized and not run by any central or governing authority.
Skeptics don’t believe in cryptocurrency because they think it doesn’t have any intrinsic value just because of its digital nature, and it is not backed up or supported by anything (government or central authority).
So, why the prices go high even if some people say it doesn’t have any value? Simple explanation: though cryptocurrencies are prone to volatility, remember it has a finite supply. As more demand for crypto supply increases, its prices go higher. This shows that cryptocurrency users have trust in the system, giving it more value. Proving that you always don’t need to see it physically in order to believe in it.
A good cryptocurrency user must realize that due to the relatively new concept or market of cryptocurrency, it is prone to a lot of constant gains and losses. When acquiring these, one must have an open mind that the prices may increase and decrease anytime. Having a diverse investment portfolio (not just in cryptocurrency) helps to reduce the risk of huge losses.
4. Cryptocurrency SUPPORTS Illegal Activities
DEFINITELY WRONG. This is one of the biggest myths that surround the cryptocurrency industry. The reason behind this is the misconception that cryptocurrency transactions are entirely anonymous, making people believe that it was made for illicit activities.
Most cryptocurrency transactions are traceable through the public address shown in the blockchain. However, it is only limited to the amount and address, not the identity of the sender. This concept made bad entities try to abuse the latest technology discovery. But this doesn’t mean that tracking their details is a difficult task.
Bitcoin, Ethereum and other digital currencies, and wallets implement their own ways to track transactions through a KYC or Know Your Customer service without asking too much of personal information than most of the normal banks do.
5. Funds are EASILY STOLEN
YES and NO. How so? There is a big possibility of funds getting stolen if the users will not practice precautionary measures when managing their cryptocurrencies. Even in fiat currencies, if people will just leave their money somewhere unsafe or in shady institutions, it will be prone to theft.
As a general rule, having tight security measures on a chosen crypto trading platform and wallet will help lessen any tendency of experiencing unfortunate events. Users have to make sure they are only dealing with reputable trading platforms and wallets. There are a lot of users who fell victim to fake wallets. To avoid making this big mistake, ALWAYS do a background check and don’t just trust what search engines show right away.
People who are not careful enough to make security actions and discern any fraudulent sites will be prone to having their cryptocurrencies stolen. Cryptocurrency transactions are irreversible, and if you fell into these traps, your money will be long gone for good. Remember: everything is digital in Bitcoin. People must be extra cautious in making transactions as there are a lot of bad people who are evil enough that will try to steal your hard-earned money.
Wherever people go, there will always be bad players who will try to find ways to outsmart people. These myths sprouted because there are people who are victimized by scammers. It is important to stay vigilant and do proper research before making necessary transactions to avoid fraud. There are no shortcuts to success. No matter how advanced the technology is, nothing beats the decisions made by a responsible and critical consumer.
---
This blog article is also posted at: https://sw.pe/blogcryptomyths
submitted by SwipeWallet to Swipe_io [link] [comments]

I quit btc.

TL&DR Basically rant why I don’t want to face bitcoin core supporters constant lies and I don’t want to have anything to do with bitcoin core (btc) anymore.
Bitcoin was always about sending safely digital money to anybody, anywhere and without need of central authority. It was very clearly stated in first discussions and first promoting materials, that whole idea is for it to work instantly with no fees, or very little fees and it is for everybody equally and anonymously.
Nobody was ever suggesting that bitcoin is finished product. Probably it is fair to say everybody were expecting some kind of problems and different and unforeseen circumstances that could potentially kill the project any minute and instantly. Many of users could also see potential new use cases and phenomenal possibilities for the future. Bitcoin got quickly recognised as very risky but very promising technology that could change the world. Things like that don’t happened every day.
Evolution of bitcoin was inevitable. Every aspect of bitcoin needed protection and improvement to face problems.
Oh boy, but how I’m surprised what way it all went.
Maximum blocksize was introduce by bitcoin creator as a temporary measure to mitigate problems bitcoin was vulnerable at the time. It was always suppose to be increased when needed and Bitcoin creator (Satoshi Nakamoto) even said how to do it effortlessly. That max block size was trivial temporary fix that not many at the time realised how big obstacle for bitcoin it will become. Unfortunately for all of us, Satoshi left the project, before sorting it out.
Instant transactions were removed when “replace by fee” feature and increasing transaction waiting time in mempool from, I think 3 days to 14 days, were introduced. It was done to allegedly make it easier to estimate correct fee needed to pay to get to next block. In effect though, it enabled race to the top of the fees where in order to keep up with increasing volume, it was better to increase fee above everybody else or face staying in limbo of unconfirmed transaction for two weeks or more in case some party chooses to rebroadcast transaction. What is more terrifying, transactions couldn’t be safely used as instant anymore, as a sender could potentially double spend transaction with sending funds to different than original address with higher fee and more chance to not get rejected. Instant transaction was basically killed. Now we all had to wait for confirmations, preferably 6 of them. Originally, that was only advised as extra safety measure for bigger purchases, but now thanks to rbf, it is a must. Plus fees were encouraged to go up.
Foundations for high fees were set by rbf and 1mb block size. When volume came with increasing adoption and interest from new users, fees skyrocketed to above 1000sat/byte. You could send with lower fees and get lucky, but basically fees were extremely high. Also, not every transaction is simple. This 1000sat/byte could easily result in fee on 100gbp for transaction if you were using many unspent outputs.
That killed adoption. Period. You can’t use bitcoin to send money if you have to pay transaction bigger than often value of transaction itself. Low fee or no fee aspect was killed and even vanished for a while from bitcoin.org site.
Important part is, that all of that above could have been justified. As I mentioned before, bitcoin is not finished and it is vulnerable so any changes should be tested, not rushed. I can understand that. What is more, I can not demand from bitcoin developers changes. I can propose changes myself and even show how to do it though.
But here is the tricky part. Bitcoin core developers killed all progress by censoring every discussion that was not in line with central party rhetoric. You want to talk about big blocks? Ban. You want to ask about why not? Ban. But, but… Ban. So changes can not be proposed anymore and discussed. It was possible to get ban even when taking part in discussion elsewhere or agree to something core didn’t approve and “obviously” being not in line.
Well done guys, you just created central authority that stand against everything that bitcoin was for.
How big fees were justified?
By pushing blame on users. It must be stupid to use bitcoin they said. When you using it you are taking precious resources. You are bad for bitcoin. Bitcoin is not money, it is store of value!!!
Just buy and hold. Sorry. Just buy and “hodl”. Be stupid meme reader. Than tell others to buy and hold. Create perfect ponzi. This is what bitcoin core is now being used mostly for.
Solutions proposed and introduced.
Segwit or Segregated Witness. (didn’t help)
Reorganisation of transaction record that changes the way transaction size is being counted and also fixes malleability issue. At the time of introduction it was being compared to approximately equal to increase to 1.7 mb block size. Now opinions and calculations are vary. Some give it more, but most are very confusing anyway. As misinformation is very common in bitcoin world, I leave it for everybody to check it themselves.
Segwit was mostly needed to introduce Lightning Network that required transaction malleability to be fixed. In normal bitcoin use, it wasn’t really big problem, but lightning apparently had to have it sorted this way.
Lightning network
Fascinating concept really I must admit. It is different layer working on top of bitcoin block chain. Instead of sending every transaction on chain, users were encouraged to use this so called settlement layer, where only final balancing is written on chain. In theory, when network will be big enough and everybody will connect, closing final balances will never be required or for very long time plus when something goes wrong. Lightning network is in even bigger beta than I thought and I don’t think I can say more about its technical side, but already I think it might be very interesting someday. It should not stop on chain scaling though.
My problem with Lightning network is more on idealogical level. It to much looks like trying to replicate existing banking system (I might be totally wrong on this) and there was LIE spread before introducing LN that everybody needs to run full node. It is a lie. Obvious lie.
First of all, the definition of full node has been changed. Originally full node was node that was doing all functions of node and that includes mining. Mining is now highly centralised and it has very big entry price, so normal user rather can’t run full node efficiently.
Definition has changed to call non mining nodes a full node. That implies they are important to bitcoin network. They are not. They are important for Lightning network though, as user has to be connected to it all the time via they're own node.
Not only Lightning Network is build on bitcoin chain but also on the lie and misinformation. That is very bad. Any discussion to put things straight as they are result in ban in every communication channel controlled by central authority of core devs.
Every day I come to reddit or any other social media, I see plenty of lies, usually from people that do not lie, and I am sick of it. Bitcoin is evil, bitcoin is broken, bitcoin is taken over by malicious group, that luckily forked away in August last year and is marked as btc.
Bch chain restored the original value of Bitcoin. Central authority is gone. If it happens again, we will fork away again. It is low fee or no fee system for everybody.
It is fascinating again. There is new development. Look on memo and blockpress. If you can’t see implications of this, I don’t know what to say.
Now is the time people have to choose though. Bitcoin cash has low volume. It is possible people don’t want uncensored money, social network, or network in general. Maybe they need Lambo dream and ponzi scheme? Maybe. I don’t know. But I’m off from btc and I am not coming back.
submitted by MarchewkaCzerwona to btc [link] [comments]

Bitconnect (BCC) Is A Zombie Shitcoin, Since It Still Exists After Epic USD 2.7 Billion Collapse

Bitconnect (BCC) Is A Zombie Shitcoin, Since It Still Exists After Epic USD 2.7 Billion Collapse

https://preview.redd.it/g0ky0k0lhb321.png?width=540&format=png&auto=webp&s=bc5c3b2e431e9511fb1dca1f9779b284890c2bff
http://genesisblocknews.com/bitconnect-bcc-is-a-zombie-shitcoin-since-it-still-exists-after-epic-usd-2-7-billion-collapse/
After intense scientific research, the experts at GenesisBlockNews have discovered a new type of shitcoin: the zombie shitcoin. The definition of a zombie shitcoin is a shitcoin that already totally died, but somehow continues to have trading activity and a value. Bitconnect (BCC) is the first identified zombie shitcoin.
Bitconnect was a typical ponzi scheme where people thought they were getting profits by holding its native token, BCC, but really they were just being paid with the money from new investors. Once the cryptocurrency market began to decline in December 2017 and January 2018, and new investments dried up, Bitconnect imploded like the infamous Chernobyl nuclear reactor. The market cap of BCC declined from USD 2.77 billion to USD 20 million within a month.
It is important to note that USD 2.77 billion would place Bitconnect in #4 today, ahead of Stellar, Bitcoin Cash, EOS, Litecoin, Tether, etc. The fact that the native cryptocurrency of a ponzi scheme was able to gain such a high market cap is illustrative of how naive, and honestly outright stupid, the crypto space got. People were dumping truck loads of money into the pockets of the Bitconnect scammers, since they thought they could get quick profits, instead of doing research and investing in cryptocurrencies that have real potential. This same story has been repeated for thousands of ICO scams, but perhaps Bitconnect is the most obvious example.
Currently BCC has a price of USD 0.68 and a market cap of USD 7.4 million. Not only that, but CoinMarketCap indicates that BCC has daily volume of USD 10,000 on average, and there was a 100+% rally in August 2018. This firmly indicates that BCC is indeed a zombie shitcoin. People are still paying actual money for a cryptocurrency which totally died an entire year ago.
The only advice we have, after watching zombie movies, is to shoot BCC straight in the head. Bitconnect already died in the crypto equivalent of a nuclear meltdown, and now it walks the Earth as an undead cryptocurrency.
submitted by turtlecane to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

BTC is now 100% a ponzi scheme

I was talking with a friend who isn't in the space and was just flippantly saying Bitcoin was just a Ponzi scheme. I looked up Wikipedia to refute him with the definition and it hit me that BTC in its current form IS a Ponzi scheme by definition.
"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator generates returns for older investors through revenue paid by new investors, rather than from legitimate business activities or profit of financial trading." (BTC doesn't actually do anything of value now)
"Often, high returns encourage investors to leave their money within the scheme, so the operator does not actually have to pay very much to investors." (just HODL?)
"Since the scheme requires a continual stream of investments to fund higher returns, once investment slows down, the scheme collapses as the promoter starts having problems paying the promised returns (the higher the returns, the greater the risk of the Ponzi scheme collapsing). Such liquidity crises often trigger panics, as more people start asking for their money, similar to a bank run."
I've been a HODL'er since 2013 but can't defend BTC to anyone anymore. It doesn't actually DO anything now. A store of value is a terrible model IMO. You're just hoping new people put money in so it grows. There is no actual product now. I feel like the smart money got into BTC in the early days who saw the vision, now the smart money is getting out seeing the writing on the wall.
submitted by mrdevnull00 to btc [link] [comments]

CRYPTOCURRENCY BITCOIN

CRYPTOCURRENCY BITCOIN
Bitcoin Table of contents expand: 1. What is Bitcoin? 2. Understanding Bitcoin 3. How Bitcoin Works 4. What's a Bitcoin Worth? 5. How Bitcoin Began 6. Who Invented Bitcoin? 7. Before Satoshi 8. Why Is Satoshi Anonymous? 9. The Suspects 10. Can Satoshi's Identity Be Proven? 11. Receiving Bitcoins As Payment 12. Working For Bitcoins 13. Bitcoin From Interest Payments 14. Bitcoins From Gambling 15. Investing in Bitcoins 16. Risks of Bitcoin Investing 17. Bitcoin Regulatory Risk 18. Security Risk of Bitcoins 19. Insurance Risk 20. Risk of Bitcoin Fraud 21. Market Risk 22. Bitcoin's Tax Risk What is Bitcoin?
Bitcoin is a digital currency created in January 2009. It follows the ideas set out in a white paper by the mysterious Satoshi Nakamoto, whose true identity is yet to be verified. Bitcoin offers the promise of lower transaction fees than traditional online payment mechanisms and is operated by a decentralized authority, unlike government-issued currencies.
There are no physical bitcoins, only balances kept on a public ledger in the cloud, that – along with all Bitcoin transactions – is verified by a massive amount of computing power. Bitcoins are not issued or backed by any banks or governments, nor are individual bitcoins valuable as a commodity. Despite it not being legal tender, Bitcoin charts high on popularity, and has triggered the launch of other virtual currencies collectively referred to as Altcoins.
Understanding Bitcoin Bitcoin is a type of cryptocurrency: Balances are kept using public and private "keys," which are long strings of numbers and letters linked through the mathematical encryption algorithm that was used to create them. The public key (comparable to a bank account number) serves as the address which is published to the world and to which others may send bitcoins. The private key (comparable to an ATM PIN) is meant to be a guarded secret and only used to authorize Bitcoin transmissions. Style notes: According to the official Bitcoin Foundation, the word "Bitcoin" is capitalized in the context of referring to the entity or concept, whereas "bitcoin" is written in the lower case when referring to a quantity of the currency (e.g. "I traded 20 bitcoin") or the units themselves. The plural form can be either "bitcoin" or "bitcoins."
How Bitcoin Works Bitcoin is one of the first digital currencies to use peer-to-peer technology to facilitate instant payments. The independent individuals and companies who own the governing computing power and participate in the Bitcoin network, also known as "miners," are motivated by rewards (the release of new bitcoin) and transaction fees paid in bitcoin. These miners can be thought of as the decentralized authority enforcing the credibility of the Bitcoin network. New bitcoin is being released to the miners at a fixed, but periodically declining rate, such that the total supply of bitcoins approaches 21 million. One bitcoin is divisible to eight decimal places (100 millionths of one bitcoin), and this smallest unit is referred to as a Satoshi. If necessary, and if the participating miners accept the change, Bitcoin could eventually be made divisible to even more decimal places. Bitcoin mining is the process through which bitcoins are released to come into circulation. Basically, it involves solving a computationally difficult puzzle to discover a new block, which is added to the blockchain and receiving a reward in the form of a few bitcoins. The block reward was 50 new bitcoins in 2009; it decreases every four years. As more and more bitcoins are created, the difficulty of the mining process – that is, the amount of computing power involved – increases. The mining difficulty began at 1.0 with Bitcoin's debut back in 2009; at the end of the year, it was only 1.18. As of February 2019, the mining difficulty is over 6.06 billion. Once, an ordinary desktop computer sufficed for the mining process; now, to combat the difficulty level, miners must use faster hardware like Application-Specific Integrated Circuits (ASIC), more advanced processing units like Graphic Processing Units (GPUs), etc.
What's a Bitcoin Worth? In 2017 alone, the price of Bitcoin rose from a little under $1,000 at the beginning of the year to close to $19,000, ending the year more than 1,400% higher. Bitcoin's price is also quite dependent on the size of its mining network since the larger the network is, the more difficult – and thus more costly – it is to produce new bitcoins. As a result, the price of bitcoin has to increase as its cost of production also rises. The Bitcoin mining network's aggregate power has more than tripled over the past twelve months.
How Bitcoin Began
Aug. 18, 2008: The domain name bitcoin.org is registered. Today, at least, this domain is "WhoisGuard Protected," meaning the identity of the person who registered it is not public information.
Oct. 31, 2008: Someone using the name Satoshi Nakamoto makes an announcement on The Cryptography Mailing list at metzdowd.com: "I've been working on a new electronic cash system that's fully peer-to-peer, with no trusted third party. The paper is available at http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf." This link leads to the now-famous white paper published on bitcoin.org entitled "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System." This paper would become the Magna Carta for how Bitcoin operates today.
Jan. 3, 2009: The first Bitcoin block is mined, Block 0. This is also known as the "genesis block" and contains the text: "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks," perhaps as proof that the block was mined on or after that date, and perhaps also as relevant political commentary.
Jan. 8, 2009: The first version of the Bitcoin software is announced on The Cryptography Mailing list.
Jan. 9, 2009: Block 1 is mined, and Bitcoin mining commences in earnest.
Who Invented Bitcoin?
No one knows. Not conclusively, at any rate. Satoshi Nakamoto is the name associated with the person or group of people who released the original Bitcoin white paper in 2008 and worked on the original Bitcoin software that was released in 2009. The Bitcoin protocol requires users to enter a birthday upon signup, and we know that an individual named Satoshi Nakamoto registered and put down April 5 as a birth date. And that's about it.
Before Satoshi
Though it is tempting to believe the media's spin that Satoshi Nakamoto is a solitary, quixotic genius who created Bitcoin out of thin air, such innovations do not happen in a vacuum. All major scientific discoveries, no matter how original-seeming, were built on previously existing research. There are precursors to Bitcoin: Adam Back’s Hashcash, invented in 1997, and subsequently Wei Dai’s b-money, Nick Szabo’s bit gold and Hal Finney’s Reusable Proof of Work. The Bitcoin white paper itself cites Hashcash and b-money, as well as various other works spanning several research fields.
Why Is Satoshi Anonymous?
There are two primary motivations for keeping Bitcoin's inventor keeping his or her or their identity secret. One is privacy. As Bitcoin has gained in popularity – becoming something of a worldwide phenomenon – Satoshi Nakamoto would likely garner a lot of attention from the media and from governments.
The other reason is safety. Looking at 2009 alone, 32,489 blocks were mined; at the then-reward rate of 50 BTC per block, the total payout in 2009 was 1,624,500 BTC, which at today’s prices is over $900 million. One may conclude that only Satoshi and perhaps a few other people were mining through 2009 and that they possess a majority of that $900 million worth of BTC. Someone in possession of that much BTC could become a target of criminals, especially since bitcoins are less like stocks and more like cash, where the private keys needed to authorize spending could be printed out and literally kept under a mattress. While it's likely the inventor of Bitcoin would take precautions to make any extortion-induced transfers traceable, remaining anonymous is a good way for Satoshi to limit exposure.
The Suspects
Numerous people have been suggested as possible Satoshi Nakamoto by major media outlets. Oct. 10, 2011, The New Yorker published an article speculating that Nakamoto might be Irish cryptography student Michael Clear or economic sociologist Vili Lehdonvirta. A day later, Fast Company suggested that Nakamoto could be a group of three people – Neal King, Vladimir Oksman and Charles Bry – who together appear on a patent related to secure communications that were filed two months before bitcoin.org was registered. A Vice article published in May 2013 added more suspects to the list, including Gavin Andresen, the Bitcoin project’s lead developer; Jed McCaleb, co-founder of now-defunct Bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox; and famed Japanese mathematician Shinichi Mochizuki.
In December 2013, Techcrunch published an interview with researcher Skye Grey who claimed textual analysis of published writings shows a link between Satoshi and bit-gold creator Nick Szabo. And perhaps most famously, in March 2014, Newsweek ran a cover article claiming that Satoshi is actually an individual named Satoshi Nakamoto – a 64-year-old Japanese-American engineer living in California. The list of suspects is long, and all the individuals deny being Satoshi.
Can Satoshi's Identity Be Proven?
It would seem even early collaborators on the project don’t have verifiable proof of Satoshi’s identity. To reveal conclusively who Satoshi Nakamoto is, a definitive link would need to be made between his/her activity with Bitcoin and his/her identity. That could come in the form of linking the party behind the domain registration of bitcoin.org, email and forum accounts used by Satoshi Nakamoto, or ownership of some portion of the earliest mined bitcoins. Even though the bitcoins Satoshi likely possesses are traceable on the blockchain, it seems he/she has yet to cash them out in a way that reveals his/her identity. If Satoshi were to move his/her bitcoins to an exchange today, this might attract attention, but it seems unlikely that a well-funded and successful exchange would betray a customer's privacy.
Receiving Bitcoins As Payment
Bitcoins can be accepted as a means of payment for products sold or services provided. If you have a brick and mortar store, just display a sign saying “Bitcoin Accepted Here” and many of your customers may well take you up on it; the transactions can be handled with the requisite hardware terminal or wallet address through QR codes and touch screen apps. An online business can easily accept bitcoins by just adding this payment option to the others it offers, like credit cards, PayPal, etc. Online payments will require a Bitcoin merchant tool (an external processor like Coinbase or BitPay).
Working For Bitcoins
Those who are self-employed can get paid for a job in bitcoins. There are several websites/job boards which are dedicated to the digital currency:
Work For Bitcoin brings together work seekers and prospective employers through its websiteCoinality features jobs – freelance, part-time and full-time – that offer payment in bitcoins, as well as Dogecoin and LitecoinJobs4Bitcoins, part of reddit.comBitGigs
Bitcoin From Interest Payments
Another interesting way (literally) to earn bitcoins is by lending them out and being repaid in the currency. Lending can take three forms – direct lending to someone you know; through a website which facilitates peer-to-peer transactions, pairing borrowers and lenders; or depositing bitcoins in a virtual bank that offers a certain interest rate for Bitcoin accounts. Some such sites are Bitbond, BitLendingClub, and BTCjam. Obviously, you should do due diligence on any third-party site.
Bitcoins From Gambling
It’s possible to play at casinos that cater to Bitcoin aficionados, with options like online lotteries, jackpots, spread betting, and other games. Of course, the pros and cons and risks that apply to any sort of gambling and betting endeavors are in force here too.
Investing in Bitcoins
There are many Bitcoin supporters who believe that digital currency is the future. Those who endorse it are of the view that it facilitates a much faster, no-fee payment system for transactions across the globe. Although it is not itself any backed by any government or central bank, bitcoin can be exchanged for traditional currencies; in fact, its exchange rate against the dollar attracts potential investors and traders interested in currency plays. Indeed, one of the primary reasons for the growth of digital currencies like Bitcoin is that they can act as an alternative to national fiat money and traditional commodities like gold.
In March 2014, the IRS stated that all virtual currencies, including bitcoins, would be taxed as property rather than currency. Gains or losses from bitcoins held as capital will be realized as capital gains or losses, while bitcoins held as inventory will incur ordinary gains or losses.
Like any other asset, the principle of buying low and selling high applies to bitcoins. The most popular way of amassing the currency is through buying on a Bitcoin exchange, but there are many other ways to earn and own bitcoins. Here are a few options which Bitcoin enthusiasts can explore.
Risks of Bitcoin Investing
Though Bitcoin was not designed as a normal equity investment (no shares have been issued), some speculative investors were drawn to the digital money after it appreciated rapidly in May 2011 and again in November 2013. Thus, many people purchase bitcoin for its investment value rather than as a medium of exchange.
However, their lack of guaranteed value and digital nature means the purchase and use of bitcoins carries several inherent risks. Many investor alerts have been issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and other agencies.
The concept of a virtual currency is still novel and, compared to traditional investments, Bitcoin doesn't have much of a long-term track record or history of credibility to back it. With their increasing use, bitcoins are becoming less experimental every day, of course; still, after eight years, they (like all digital currencies) remain in a development phase, still evolving. "It is pretty much the highest-risk, highest-return investment that you can possibly make,” says Barry Silbert, CEO of Digital Currency Group, which builds and invests in Bitcoin and blockchain companies.
Bitcoin Regulatory Risk
Investing money into Bitcoin in any of its many guises is not for the risk-averse. Bitcoins are a rival to government currency and may be used for black market transactions, money laundering, illegal activities or tax evasion. As a result, governments may seek to regulate, restrict or ban the use and sale of bitcoins, and some already have. Others are coming up with various rules. For example, in 2015, the New York State Department of Financial Services finalized regulations that would require companies dealing with the buy, sell, transfer or storage of bitcoins to record the identity of customers, have a compliance officer and maintain capital reserves. The transactions worth $10,000 or more will have to be recorded and reported.
Although more agencies will follow suit, issuing rules and guidelines, the lack of uniform regulations about bitcoins (and other virtual currency) raises questions over their longevity, liquidity, and universality.
Security Risk of Bitcoins
Bitcoin exchanges are entirely digital and, as with any virtual system, are at risk from hackers, malware and operational glitches. If a thief gains access to a Bitcoin owner's computer hard drive and steals his private encryption key, he could transfer the stolen Bitcoins to another account. (Users can prevent this only if bitcoins are stored on a computer which is not connected to the internet, or else by choosing to use a paper wallet – printing out the Bitcoin private keys and addresses, and not keeping them on a computer at all.) Hackers can also target Bitcoin exchanges, gaining access to thousands of accounts and digital wallets where bitcoins are stored. One especially notorious hacking incident took place in 2014, when Mt. Gox, a Bitcoin exchange in Japan, was forced to close down after millions of dollars worth of bitcoins were stolen.
This is particularly problematic once you remember that all Bitcoin transactions are permanent and irreversible. It's like dealing with cash: Any transaction carried out with bitcoins can only be reversed if the person who has received them refunds them. There is no third party or a payment processor, as in the case of a debit or credit card – hence, no source of protection or appeal if there is a problem.
Insurance Risk
Some investments are insured through the Securities Investor Protection Corporation. Normal bank accounts are insured through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) up to a certain amount depending on the jurisdiction. Bitcoin exchanges and Bitcoin accounts are not insured by any type of federal or government program.
Risk of Bitcoin Fraud
While Bitcoin uses private key encryption to verify owners and register transactions, fraudsters and scammers may attempt to sell false bitcoins. For instance, in July 2013, the SEC brought legal action against an operator of a Bitcoin-related Ponzi scheme.
Market Risk
Like with any investment, Bitcoin values can fluctuate. Indeed, the value of the currency has seen wild swings in price over its short existence. Subject to high volume buying and selling on exchanges, it has a high sensitivity to “news." According to the CFPB, the price of bitcoins fell by 61% in a single day in 2013, while the one-day price drop in 2014 has been as big as 80%.
If fewer people begin to accept Bitcoin as a currency, these digital units may lose value and could become worthless. There is already plenty of competition, and though Bitcoin has a huge lead over the other 100-odd digital currencies that have sprung up, thanks to its brand recognition and venture capital money, a technological break-through in the form of a better virtual coin is always a threat.
Bitcoin's Tax Risk
As bitcoin is ineligible to be included in any tax-advantaged retirement accounts, there are no good, legal options to shield investments from taxation.
SPONSORED
Start with ¥3000 trading bonus
Trade forex and CFDs on stock indices, commodities, metals and energies with alicensed and regulated broker. For all clients who open their first real account, XM offers a¥3000 trading bonus to test the XM products and services without any initial deposit needed. Learn more about how you can trade from your PC and Mac, or from a variety of mobile devices.
Compare Investment Accounts
Advertiser Disclosure
Related Terms
Satoshi
The satoshi is the smallest unit of the bitcoin cryptocurrency. It is named after Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of the protocol used in block chains and the bitcoin cryptocurrency.
Chartalism Chartalism is a non-mainstream theory of money that emphasizes the impact of government policies and activities on the value of money.
Satoshi Nakamoto The name used by the unknown creator of the protocol used in the bitcoin cryptocurrency. Satoshi Nakamoto is closely-associated with blockchain technology.
Bitcoin Mining, Explained Breaking down everything you need to know about Bitcoin Mining, from Blockchain and Block Rewards to Proof-of-Work and Mining Pools.
Understanding Bitcoin Unlimited Bitcoin Unlimited is a proposed upgrade to Bitcoin Core that allows larger block sizes. The upgrade is designed to improve transaction speed through scale.
Blockchain Explained
A guide to help you understand what blockchain is and how it can be used by industries. You've probably encountered a definition like this: “blockchain is a distributed, decentralized, public ledger." But blockchain is easier to understand than it sounds.
Top 6 Books to Learn About Bitcoin About UsAdvertiseContactPrivacy PolicyTerms of UseCareers Investopedia is part of the Dotdash publishing family.The Balance Lifewire TripSavvy The Spruceand more
By Satoshi Nakamoto
Read it once, go read other crypto stuff, read it again… keep doing this until the whole document makes sense. It’ll take a while, but you’ll get there. This is the original whitepaper introducing and explaining Bitcoin, and there’s really nothing better out there to understand on the subject.
“What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party

submitted by adrian_morrison to BlockchainNews [link] [comments]

Medium of exchange is the primary function, "store of value" is the secondary function. The "store of value" model alone can not be anything more than a greater fool scheme.

There is a very common misconception that Bitcoin's primary use case is as a store of value (which is being used to justify it not working well as a currency.) The truth is, Bitcoin's primary value proposition is that it is a functioning medium of exchange. The "store of value" aspect is secondary to that. There is no "store of value" if it is not also usable as a currency. BSCore says literally the opposite of this, making people believe store of value is the primary function, giving them an excuse/cover to erode Bitcoin's primary function, medium of exchange.
In the pure "store of value" model, Bitcoin is basically a Ponzi scheme since the end result can only be you selling it to someone else for a higher price. This is also called a "greater fool" scheme. Since it's not useful for anything, you hold it just to make profit from the price going up right? And for you to realize that profit, you have to sell it to someone for a higher price than you bought it for. Now that guy has to do the same thing. Everyone all the way down the line has to do the same thing, but this can not go on forever as eventually there will be no greater fool to sell to. The scheme implodes.
That is why the pure "Store of Value" model is flawed. The "Store of value" can only be secondary to it being used as a currency. People using Bitcoin as a currency is what truly drives demand, this is because in order for people to reap the financial benefits of using Bitcoin as a currency, they must first trade something of value for Bitcoin. This creates real, organic demand for Bitcoin, forcing the value of the tokens to rise, due to the limited supply.
Someone asked: "But what about Gold, Land, diamonds, etc. Aren't these a store of value?"
Again, these items not just a store of value since they have real life use cases, which makes them a store of value. Gold as a conductor is special because it does not tarnish meaning it has a long usable life in circuitry. Diamonds have unique physical properties that make them useful in specific applications like cutting things. Land has real life value for obvious reasons, say crop production for instance. So all of these assets are a store of value yes, but that is only because they have another useful, primary function, which is what makes them valuable, allowing them to store value.
So we can see that like the previously listed items that have a real value adding function, that allow them to act as a store of value, Bitcoin also has a primary function as a useful medium of exchange, allowing it to be a store of value.
If Bitcoin is only being sold as a store of value with NO use as a medium of exchange than it is the definition of a bubble.
Complimentary to this concept is understanding how the Velocity of Money and Metcalfe's Law force the value of the tokens in a limited supply system to rise exponentially. The forced rise in value is based on the number of transactions being performed, proving that being useful as a medium of exchange is important. Sharpen your understanding with this relevant reading from the Arsenal of Truth:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4dfb3bitcoin_has_its_own_e_mc2_law_market/
https://medium.com/@zeptochain/the-million-dollar-bitcoin-4c108f3706b
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/
submitted by poorbrokebastard to btc [link] [comments]

Notes from the Hearing Today

Apologies for typos and grammatical errors; wanted to get this out as soon as possible for those that weren't able to watch the live stream. Cleaned up formatting to make it more readable.

While this isn't a 100% word-for-word transcript, the overtone of the meeting should have been conveyed. SEC and CFTC want protections for consumers, but don't want to outright ban crypto. I was under the impression that both agencies were well-educated, but understaffed. They both want to introduce protections for customers and investors and go after scam artists, but don't want to impose any restrictions or regulations that would be bad for crypto as a whole (both from a security perspective, and a technological innovation perspective). Overall a huge positive.

Crapo
Brown
Clayton
Giancarlo
Crapo
Clayton
Giancarlo
Crapo
Clayton
Giancarlo
Crapo
Brown
Clayton
Brown
Clayton
Brown
Clayton
Brown
Clayton
Brown
Clayton
Brown
Clayton
Sen. Shelby
Clayton
Giancarlo
Sen. Shelby
Clayton
Sen. Shelby
Giancarlo
Clayton
Sen. Shelby
Sen Reed
Clayton
Giancarlo
Sen Reed
Giancarlo
Clayton
Sen Reed
Rounds
Clayton
Rounds
Giancarlo
Ms. Warren
Clayton
Ms. Warren
Clayton
Ms. Warren
Clayton
Ms. Warren
Clayton
Ms. Warren
Clayton
Ms. Warren
Perdue
Clayton
Perdue
Giancarlo
Perdue
Clayton
Giancarlo
Donnelly
Giancarlo
Clayton
Donnelly
Giancarlo
Donnelly
Giancarlo
Clayton
Donnelly
Giancarlo
Clayton
Sen. Kennedy
Giancarlo
Sen Kennedy
Giancarlo
Sen Kennedy
Giancarlo
Sen Kennedy
Clayton
Sen Kennedy
Warner
Clayton
Giancarlo
Warner
Clayton
Warner
Giancarlo
Clayton
Cotton
Giancarlo
Clayton
Cotton
Giancarlo
Clayton
Cotton
Clayton
Cotton
Menendez
Giancarlo
Menendez
Giancarlo
Menendez
Giancarlo
Menendez
Clayton
Menendez
Clayton
Moran
Ms. Masto
Clayton
Giancarlo
Ms. Masto
Clayton
Giancarlo
Ms. Masto
Sen Shelby
Clayton
Sen Shelby
Clayton
Giancarlo
Ms. Warren
Clayton
Ms. Warren
Clayton
Ms. Warren
Clayton
Crapo
submitted by cembry90 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Bitcoin is NOT a Ponzi scheme.  MaiView  20190719 Is Bitcoin a Pyramid or Ponzi Scheme? Is Bitcoin a Ponzi Scheme? Etherium and Bitcoin - Cryptocurency PONZI SCHEME? TBC is Not Ponzi Scheme? Scam? Who are they?

It is absurd to label bitcoin a Ponzi scheme. Yet that is what Jim Rickards says. Ironically, Bitcoin is an anti-Ponzi setup, regardless of what it is used for, regardless of whether or not it's ... Bitcoin is not a ponzi or pyramid scheme In summary, bitcoin fails to meet the requirements for being classified as a ponzi or a pyramid scheme. There are no promises made on the technology that can’t be transparently verified or understood, nor any reward incentives directly available for recruiting others to join. Bitcoin does not fit the original definition or the improved definition of a Ponzi Scheme. There is no central authority, there's no promise to receive funds in the future, and there's no mechanism whereby a "central authority" attempts to grow the money you paid them when you first acquired your Bitcoin. People may hope to make a profit from buying and selling Bitcoin, but hope is something ... Bitcoin does not fit the definition of Ponzi scheme for various reasons: There are no paid dividends to any investors. The purpose of using bitcoin isn’t to recruit new participants. There’s no centralized body that funnels money up to the top. Definition: A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent game plan where a schemer proposes a false investment proposal to the public, promising risk-free high returns on their investment value by pretending to pool the accumulated funds in profitable business ideas. In reality, the money is not invested anywhere, whereas the schemer redistributes the collected amount by paying the promised returns to the ...

[index] [45721] [46170] [1316] [47980] [4644] [20670] [44883] [45110] [33932] [25241]

Bitcoin is NOT a Ponzi scheme. MaiView 20190719

Nel corso del weekend appena trascorso, il quotidiano a tiratura nazionale "La Repubblica" ha pubblicato un articolo intitolato Lo schema Ponzi dei Bitcoin. Il pezzo, a cura di un professionista ... The only industry Bitcoin has disrupted is the ponzi scheme industry. [ 40:50 ] Questions why people want a currency so detached from the real world. [ 41:12 ] People who use Bitcoin want the ... In this video, I discuss whether or not Bitcoin is a Pyramid scheme or a Ponzi scheme. I conclude that it is neither, simply because: 1) Bitcoin is decentralized, not run by a corporation or ... MaiCoin Group - Taiwan's largest and longest running digital asset trading platform. MaiCoin _ https://www.maicoin.com MAX _ https://max.maicoin.com Register... Why Bitcoin Is a Ponzi Scheme with David Heinemeier Hansson - Duration: 52:52. Make More Marbles Recommended for you. 52:52. Bitcoin to $30k in 2018 After Crash - Duration: 9:25. ...

#