As some people have said in this thread, be careful about transferring coins from a gambling site to a US exchange. Most of them contract Chainalysis to spot transactions from known illegal (in the US) sites and addresses.

As a matter of a fact I know someone who had their Coinbase account banned because they transferred BTC from an online poker site to Coinbase, even using a tumbler.

That being said, gambling and illegal coins notwithstanding, I would recommend either Coinbase or Gemini (both are FDIC-insured).

Lol. Crypto shill is more like it.

See above

Yeah good luck with that. I'd already set the table if I were him.

I second this. I personally use LastPass, but they are both really good password manager solutions.

This is my main account and I said what I had to say. Feel free to address my points or stop trolling.

This is exactly the kind of behavior that has turned the bitcoin community into a toxic environment, and why I haven't participated into other discussions before. I feel the scaling situation is reaching a tipping point and wanted to add my voice to the chorus, however insignificant you think it is.

The community can't reach consensus if there is no respectful communication between the opposing parties to begin with. Unfortunately I feel that we are past that point, and that both sides are to blame for the current deadlock situation.

Thanks for proving my point.

Long term holder and lurker here. Been in BTC since 2011 and I have been following the scaling debate closely for the past year.

All I can say is that the misinformation and FUD is really strong on both sides of the debate.

When I started reading about the scaling debate I naturally sided with Core because of their legacy, and the community sentiment (r/bitcoin specifically) overwhelmingly favored Core.

However upon doing my due diligence and spending a few months reading the lf core mailing list, github discussions and dissenting opinions, I came to the conclusion that it is impossible for someone who doesn't follow these discussions on a daily basis to discern the truth from the FUD. And that applies to both sides of the debate.

I also realized that some of the Core devs weren't as trustworthy as I thought they were, and that some of them became so entrenched in their position that they failed to see the bigger picture and refused to even consider a compromise.

The discussions around Segwit2x especially have been an eye-opener for me, as well as luke-jr's push for BIP148. He can be so disingenuous in his comments, such as saying that no matter what happens BIP148 will be the legacy chain (the real "bitcoin"), that it made me realize how big of an ego he has. Either that or he has a specific agenda.

Bitcoin is not owned or dictated by a single entity. Despite Core's long-standing reputation, bitcoin is a decentralized network and as such need majority consensus to successfully implement a protocol change. This is why i also oppose any unilateral action from the miners' side.

There is also one thing that a lot of people seem to overlook: Exchanges. Exchange have a lot of power in the bitcoin ecosystem, even if they remain silent most of the time. It is my opinion that exchanges will ultimately decide the fate of Bitcoin post August 1st if there is no compromise between miners and users. Users will end up following the longest chain and the economic majority which is currently heavily skewed toward exchanges.

That is not to say I favor bitmain over core. I try to remain neutral and understand both sides, with only one goal in mind which is the long-term success of bitcoin. But what I have seen lately is one side trying to compromise while the other side is doing everything they can to sabotage that effort. I will let you guess who's who.

The best thing that could happen to bitcoin IMO is an abundance of client implementations and less centralized mining. If Core wasn't the main bitcoin client (mostly due to first-mover advantage), I think we would have a very different picture of the scaling debate and much more fruitful discussions that wouldn't resolve around the same argument for years.

No I have not. I am using all default setting with trade enabled only.

Thanks for the quick response, I will adjust the limit manually.

Hello,

I am also testing this service, so far so good.

I have a question regarding the NXC trade from today. I had the same issue that other people mentioned here where it did not fill the sell order:

ERROR Not enough NXC. SELL order sent  BTC_NXC at price  0.00011299 
SUCCESS 34096xxxx BUY order sent  BTC_NXC at price  0.00005585 

So I entered it manually but the target price is different between the dashboard and the sell order that didn't go through: 0.00006338 vs 0.00011299.

Which one should I use?