Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 992 results by Bitcoins101
⭐ Merited by vapourminer (1)
If scam victims are withdrawing money from a bank to deposit into a Bitcoin ATM, perhaps more scrutiny should be placed on the bank for allowing the withdrawal.
so, the bank wont give someone their own money on demand??
sounds like something bitcoin can fix!
oh, wait...
look you cant fix stupid
Sure, they should be given their money in a perfect world, but we do live in a world where financial institutions are required to take steps to protect elderly customers.
The real issue here is that any sort of age-related "discrimination" isn't allowed. All you would have to do to solve these problems is just force stricter requirements on elderly people, but that's not acceptable, so instead they'll restrict a 30 year old's ability to use a Bitcoin ATM because 80 year old ladies are getting scammed.
If they wanted to protect people from BTC ATM/virtual currency kiosks scams, then they would have done it differently and not in this way. What they have done in this case is ban BTM's in the state and force operators to move elsewhere. There is no way a BTM company can operate with this new law, a fee of $5 or 3% is just ridiculous and no operator can run their service on that.
I wonder how people even fall for this BTM scams, how can you receive a call to withdraw funds from your bank account and go deposit it into a specific BTM. Sounds crazy to me and i don't think anyone should be falling for this.
I wonder how people even fall for this BTM scams, how can you receive a call to withdraw funds from your bank account and go deposit it into a specific BTM. Sounds crazy to me and i don't think anyone should be falling for this.
If scam victims are withdrawing money from a bank to deposit into a Bitcoin ATM, perhaps more scrutiny should be placed on the bank for allowing the withdrawal. Likewise, phone companies should face greater scrutiny for allowing these scam calls through. Singling out Bitcoin ATMs is wrong.
The article, according to the link, does not discuss Bitcoin ATMs, but rather check cashers, cash machines, and virtual currency kiosks.
Therefore, I do not expect the ban to relate to Bitcoin ATMs.
Quote
Be enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:
Sec. 1. 32 MRSA c. 80, headnote is amended to read:
CHAPTER 80
CHECK CASHERS AND, CASH-DISPENSING MACHINES AND VIRTUAL
CURRENCY KIOSKS
I think that virtual currency kiosks are different from Bitcoin ATMs because the article discusses fraud cases that users, especially the elderly, have been exposed to at virtual currency kiosks. Their operation differs from that of Bitcoin ATMs, which operate automatically.Sec. 1. 32 MRSA c. 80, headnote is amended to read:
CHAPTER 80
CHECK CASHERS AND, CASH-DISPENSING MACHINES AND VIRTUAL
CURRENCY KIOSKS
Quote
Whereas, a recent report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation states, in 2024, that
there were 2,137 complaints related to cryptocurrency fraud in Maine resulting in more
than $31 million in losses; and
Whereas, this legislation regulates virtual currency kiosks, which have been
identified by state regulators as a tool used to perpetrate scams against Maine consumers,
especially Maine's senior residents; and
Whereas, this legislation must take effect immediately to protect Maine consumers
from cryptocurrency fraud
there were 2,137 complaints related to cryptocurrency fraud in Maine resulting in more
than $31 million in losses; and
Whereas, this legislation regulates virtual currency kiosks, which have been
identified by state regulators as a tool used to perpetrate scams against Maine consumers,
especially Maine's senior residents; and
Whereas, this legislation must take effect immediately to protect Maine consumers
from cryptocurrency fraud
Therefore, I do not expect the ban to relate to Bitcoin ATMs.
Generally speaking, and for the purpose of this legislation, Bitcoin ATM = virtual currency kiosk.
⭐ Merited by vapourminer (2)
https://legislature.maine.gov/legis/bills/getPDF.asp?paper=SP0553&item=3&snum=132
Bitcoin ATMs are now effectively banned in Maine. This new law includes:
The transaction size and fee caps reflect a misunderstanding of how Bitcoin ATMs actually operate, assuming they function like traditional fiat ATMs. In reality, most Bitcoin ATM operators pay over 3% for cash processing and the purchase of the bitcoin itself. How can they be expected to sell it to customers at that price while also covering high overhead costs like monthly rent and the machines themselves?
Requiring operators to refund customers for up to 90 days of transactions if they fall victim to a scam is an absurd rule. It effectively allows customers to freeroll the operator, putting money into get-rich-quick schemes and demanding a full refund if things go south. It also opens the door for false scam claims. And how is an operator ever going to afford to refund customers when they're forced by the fee cap to sell bitcoins at below cost?
It appears that all known Bitcoin ATM operators have shut down their Maine operations.
Bitcoin ATMs are now effectively banned in Maine. This new law includes:
- A $5/3% max fee or markup
- $1,000 daily limit on both buys and sells
- The operator must provide a full refund for all transactions made within the first 90 days if the customer claims they were scammed
The transaction size and fee caps reflect a misunderstanding of how Bitcoin ATMs actually operate, assuming they function like traditional fiat ATMs. In reality, most Bitcoin ATM operators pay over 3% for cash processing and the purchase of the bitcoin itself. How can they be expected to sell it to customers at that price while also covering high overhead costs like monthly rent and the machines themselves?
Requiring operators to refund customers for up to 90 days of transactions if they fall victim to a scam is an absurd rule. It effectively allows customers to freeroll the operator, putting money into get-rich-quick schemes and demanding a full refund if things go south. It also opens the door for false scam claims. And how is an operator ever going to afford to refund customers when they're forced by the fee cap to sell bitcoins at below cost?
It appears that all known Bitcoin ATM operators have shut down their Maine operations.
I think USDC is controlled by Circle and Coinbase. I'm not sure what percentage Coinbase owns, but they are publicly traded, and the easiest way to participate in the potential upside of USDC.
Cryptocurrency.com? I doubt it bro
Lol, I'd love a price quote on this domain.
Also, I hope life is treating you well Bitcoins101! Long time, no see!
Hey! Same.
Probably best to post the Youtube link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bso9cgnLqvE
I'll give it a listen.
I'll give it a listen.
If it was a continuation of Satoshi's thoughts posted mistakenly using another account, then it would have been mere minutes apart, no?
This is just sloppy journalism. Sensationalism. Crafting narratives that lack any real evidence. It’s an attempt to draw connections where none exist, cobbling together theories from irrelevant details and presenting them as facts.
https://x.com/MartinShkreli/status/1843848001007300629
This is from defenders of Sam Bankman Fried actions who believed Roger Ver is Bitcoin Jesus yet got arrested in Spain for tax evasion in the States.
"Following Tuesday night's release, former Bitcoin Core developer Gregory Maxwell pointed out an overlooked detail undermining filmmaker Cullen Hoback's case that Bitcoin's pseudonymous creator is another early Bitcoin developer, Peter Todd."
source: https://www.theblock.co/post/320241/hbo-satoshi-nakamoto-bitcoin-peter-todd
Along with the narrative of Satoshi 'mistake of posting from PeterTodd's account' theory.
There was this cryptic message from Todd's chat log once decyphered with their writing styles to be similar can be evidence enough to deem them the same person? I would disagree.
https://x.com/Cointelegraph/status/1843910047103103388
With all due respect to Martin Shkreli, he doesn't have the slightest clue what he's talking about. He's had zero historical involvement with cryptocurrency.
The documentary falsely claims that Todd's reply regarding inputs and outputs matching is super technical—it's not. However, it is quite interesting that it's literally the second post by Todd on the forum, and it's phrased in an interesting manner.
Hmmm.
Hmmm.
⭐ Merited by condoras (1)
Im not sure Ledger support can help you here. It sounds like it was your fault (I dont mean to be judgmental). It is surprising to hear that someone with your experience could have fallen victim to a phishing scam.
Since it was from their app, it wasn't a phishing scam. For some reason, their app is connected to their scam page. And trust me, experience isn't the issue here. In the crypto space, you can easily get "hacked" from somebody/ something...
It sounds like it was from the blockchain, not the Ledger app. If someone sends you an NFT with a link to claim it....kind of suspicious, no? This happens a lot, sorry it happened to you. You probably authorized the webpage to take your coins.
I do not know who they will claim is Satoshi, but I do know that various media outlets have made claims over the years that they know the identity of Satoshi, and all of these claims have been hilariously and completely wrong. I have no expectation that this time will be any different.
I aggree with the 48-72 after last bid aucitons, however since the price of bitcoin changes a lot and some of those types of auctions can go on for weeks people might "cancel" their bids if there was a price spike. Maybe I will try it for an experiment here once.
Personally, I think rather than the 48-72 hours 15 minutes is fine. It's called "extended bidding." As long as you placed a big during the regular auction time, you're allowed to place bids after the auction end time. Auction only ends after 15 minutes with no bids. This is how many collectible auction houses run auctions.It's not a good choice: the auction could end right after the first bid because most people might not even see the auction within 15 minutes.
15 minutes after the auction END TIME, not when the auction starts. So if the auction was stated to end on March 1 at 23:00 the auction is extended past that time if there has been a bid in the past 15 minutes.
This was a weird auction and its rules probably cost the owner a couple BTC. I guess the domain may not be worth the $120,000 or so 2 BTC is worth now (or is it worth that much?), but it was certainly worth 2 BTC at the time.
I'm in the US & I've bought a few things from AliExpress. Keep in mind, you're not buying a hardware wallet from AliExpress. You're buying a development board type device that can be programmed to do whatever you want. Krux turns it into a hardware wallet, but most people buy a Yahboom K210 to do DIY robotics. It's just a neat little gadget you can write your own code for to do whatever you want kind of like a Raspberry Pi. The Krux installer wipes it out entirely & installs Krux.
If you don't want to buy one on AliExpress, you can pay a bit more to buy one directly from Yahboom. If you click that link, you can also see a robot car using a Yahboom.
If you don't want to buy one on AliExpress, you can pay a bit more to buy one directly from Yahboom. If you click that link, you can also see a robot car using a Yahboom.
$56.99 even with free shipping. i can buy a ledger nano for less than that. hmm. this seems like something that would end up costing more than a real hardware wallet. does it need a TF card? then you have to buy that too.
Then buy a Ledger and risk exposing your coins to closed source code that contains key extraction firmware by a company that lies to you again and again and again. Even if you could get a Ledger for free, we'd warn you not to use it for anything more than a doorstop or a decoy.
As I explained, you can get a Yahboom K210 on AliExpress for around $45. Even less on sale. I got mine for $37 shipped. You don't need anything except the device and a USB cable to install Krux. Once you have Krux installed on it, you'll never need to plug it into a computer again (you can plug it into a USB wall plug like you'd get with a phone). The rest of the stuff you're seeing on that page is for using it to do robotics. You're not making a robot. You're wiping it out & installing hardware wallet software on it. Or not. If you'd rather trust Ledger, go for it. I have a buddy going through a nasty divorce. We told him before they even got engaged "She's lying to you and she's cheating on you." Sadly, some people need to get screwed over before they learn hard lessons. Ledger isn't trustworthy, but if you trust them anyway, that's your choice.
Open source is the way to secure Bitcoin. Krux. SeedSigner. Trezor. I'm of the opinion that open source and DIY, like Krux and SeedSigner, is the best option since it means you don't have to trust a company. I don't know about SeedSigner, but Krux is funded by grants from OpenSats. And Krux is far more advanced than a janky Ledger nano. Even NVK from CoinKite is recommending Krux. The Yahboom device gives Krux a large touchscreen that shows you full details. That cheap Nano has a microscopic screen that only shows you a few characters at a time and only has 2 flimsy buttons for navigation. Oh, and if you're using that Nano with Ledger Live, congrats! Ledger and everybody else has a billion trackers built into that thing. Who needs privacy, eh?
Seriously, don't trust Ledger. If we were talking about Trezor, I'd say Trezor is trustworthy but Krux is much more advanced (except it's Bitcoin only, but that also means better security). But Ledger? Oof.
Trezors are vulnerable to physical key extraction.
Look, Ledger isn't great, but it does the job.
Using civilian buildings like a hospital for military purposes is a war crime.
If Israel doesn't bomb these military installments it will simply encourage more war crimes by Hamas. Hiding behind innocent people cannot provide immunity because it just encourages more of it.
If Israel doesn't bomb these military installments it will simply encourage more war crimes by Hamas. Hiding behind innocent people cannot provide immunity because it just encourages more of it.
costs 3 percent in miami, 4-5 percent in new york, less on the west coast. not familiar with tulsa but you won't build out charging people 15 percent to convert their cash to coins. even in europe where aml is much more stringent, anyone with common sense wouldn't pay over 5-6 percent for cash to coins.
AML is more stringent in Europe? How many Europeans are there in prison for operating an unlicensed money service business?