techsyncx wrote:I don't have a deep understanding of technical issues, but why has the price of Bitcoin continued to rise in the recent period?
Oh, I forgot to say, welcome to TLF.
Thanks to gvonge,Shelford,GrahamPlatt,gpadsa,Steffers0, for Donating to support the site
techsyncx wrote:I don't have a deep understanding of technical issues, but why has the price of Bitcoin continued to rise in the recent period?
techsyncx wrote:I don't have a deep understanding of technical issues, but why has the price of Bitcoin continued to rise in the recent period?
1nvest wrote:Best IMO to keep like with like, invest some of your virtual savings into a virtual currency and you might accumulate enough to buy a virtual house, spend it on a virtual holiday/break, or buy a virtual painting. For your real hard earned savings hold a real currency, backed by the state, and buy real assets, or spend some on a real holiday.
Crypto is still its infancy, once established and proven secure its transaction methodology will be adopted by the banks/state, as part of that they'll kill off virtual currencies that otherwise compete with the states currency.
Liu says he was one of scores of prisoners forced to play online games to build up credits that prison guards would then trade for real money. The 54-year-old, a former prison guard who was jailed for three years in 2004 for "illegally petitioning" the central government about corruption in his hometown, reckons the operation was even more lucrative than the physical labour that prisoners were also forced to do.
ursaminortaur wrote:Shouldn't this thread be on the "Crypto and NFTs" board which was split off this board sometime ago ?
GeoffF100 wrote:Crypto has no intrinsic value is very volatile, which would be enough to put me off. Worse perhaps, the banks do not like it. If they allow crypto at all (Starling Bank does not) they often impose restrictions. There are stories on Money Saving Expert where a bank has sniffed crypto and taken draconian action against a customer who dared dabble with it.
CliffEdge wrote:GeoffF100 wrote:Crypto has no intrinsic value is very volatile, which would be enough to put me off. Worse perhaps, the banks do not like it. If they allow crypto at all (Starling Bank does not) they often impose restrictions. There are stories on Money Saving Expert where a bank has sniffed crypto and taken draconian action against a customer who dared dabble with it.
I think banks sniff the possibility of them being forced to compensate those who lose money investing in what they thought were Bitcoin purchases. I wonder why the banks fear such a possibility.
and other companies that, while operating legally, were said to be at a high risk for fraud and money laundering.
This operation, disclosed in an August 2013 Wall Street Journal story,[2] was officially ended in August 2017,[3] and the FDIC settled multiple lawsuits by promising to Congress additional training for its examiners and to cease issuing "informal" and "unwritten suggestions" to banks.
Strahl shared Brianne's story as concerns grow that scores of ordinary people will no longer be able to pay for food and basics after their accounts were frozen for donating to a group of protesters.
“Please accept our sincere apologies for the frustration and inconvenience this situation may have caused and .....
Urbandreamer wrote:. Crypto/bitcoin has no intrinsic value, but then neither does ANY fiat currency. You could make arguments that fiat has value because it is trusted as a medium of exchange etc, but NOT while you use unsound arguments about intrinsic value. Doing so you inherently argue that fiat, as in the £, lacking intrinsic value, is worthless.
MuddyBoots wrote:Thanks Urbandreamer. As a novice to this, the whole thing looks very speculative and gambly to me. Presumably when you hold crypto in an online account it doesn't pay you interest like a savings account? It looks similar to foreign currency trading, hoping that the exchange rate moves in your favour. I think some people do that but it's a risky business.
Urbandreamer wrote:Banks and institutions like Northern Rock lend money for mortgages etc.
ignotus20 wrote:Urbandreamer wrote:Banks and institutions like Northern Rock lend money for mortgages etc.
Why use Northern Rock as an example, why not Lloyds, Barclays, HSBC, Nationwide etc.? Did any depositors lose money from the closure of Northern Rock? What about the bondholders?
biztime wrote:yes very good if you have idea on it, if not, please learn it first before investing wisely and probably not all the savings.
Urbandreamer wrote:I see that this thread has been moved to the right board.
I had decided to ignore posts upon it, while it was on the wrong board.
Ok dealing with them.
Crypto/bitcoin has no intrinsic value, but then neither does ANY fiat currency. You could make arguments that fiat has value because it is trusted as a medium of exchange etc, but NOT while you use unsound arguments about intrinsic value. Doing so you inherently argue that fiat, as in the £, lacking intrinsic value, is worthless.
Banks don't like it because they might be forced to compensate account holders for their own actions. Come on! We regularly hear of people NOT being compensated for push payment fraud that doesn't involve crypto. There is almost certainly a different reason. I personally suspect that they are under pressure from the FCA, who are not happy that Mr Sunak wanted to encourage crypto firms to the UK while a chancellor. (try a web search)
Banks don't like it because they can't trace it.
NO. Banks have for a long time offered services to people of dubious morals. An entire off shore banking industry use to exist to cater for such. It still exists, provided by banks, using shell corporations. What you meant is that governments seek to censor transactions. In your example, money laundering. In other examples, attempts by governments to enforce their wishes without needing that pesky business of their actions being legal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Pointand other companies that, while operating legally, were said to be at a high risk for fraud and money laundering.
This operation, disclosed in an August 2013 Wall Street Journal story,[2] was officially ended in August 2017,[3] and the FDIC settled multiple lawsuits by promising to Congress additional training for its examiners and to cease issuing "informal" and "unwritten suggestions" to banks.
In Canada the government froze the bank accounts of people on strike. I'm sure that had everything to do with "money laundering". Oh it was quite "legal", because they made it so. They are still trying to justify the hardship done to the children of such people. Apparently that wasn't their intent!
bank account of a single mom with a minimum wage job has been frozenStrahl shared Brianne's story as concerns grow that scores of ordinary people will no longer be able to pay for food and basics after their accounts were frozen for donating to a group of protesters.
Major Canadian bank apologizes to trucker convoy for freezing accounts“Please accept our sincere apologies for the frustration and inconvenience this situation may have caused and .....
However nobody is forcing anyone to buy or use crypto/bitcoin. Use it or ignore it. Up to you.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests