The recent price drop eth-wise is potentially linked to the adjustment of targets and how they are shaping up compared to how they projected a year ago. To me the adjustments of the targets are a good and a bad thing, the need to adjust is not great as it shows inital forecasts were not accurate however the fact they are able to identify and accept they were wrong and post more reasonable expectations shows insight that is not always visible in the crypto space. Also they have been operating in a bear market and still producing dividends (even if not life changing numbers). I have been accumulating SXDT and look forward to the future dividend potential.

Price movements recently, and pretty much all year, have been nothing to do with what is going on at populous. They haven't had any major developments to trigger bullish sentiment but there hasn't really been anything bearish since the stuff about the CEO came out. Look at an Eth chart and then almost any ERC-20 token chart. They are almost identical, with possible exaggeration in movements in tokens. Don't buy into the hype or fear until there is something to be hyped or fearful of. I'm waiting for an Eth bottom to get more tokens across my portfolio, including populous because nothing has really moved independently for the past few months.

Semiserious, I cant understand why you constantly post on this thread. Your only posts are here and you are the exact kind of person that most bitcointalk users want to disappear.
If you want to help people from getting into or staying in something that you believe is a scam or vapourwear then you have made your point, clearly anyone that is still here and still in PPT is 'beyond saving'.
If your just being a dick then that's just disappointing and surely there is another thread that will get people riled up when you cry scam...idk go for tron or something like that.

The biggest problem is that because their services are pegged to fiat amounts instead of h20 token numbers people are not able to redeem their tokens for the gains that were proposed at the ico. If someone got $500 worth of tokens they would be lucky to receive $500 worth of eth in 2 years time. They should really have pegged the mining contracts to h20 amounts to ensure that token holders got what they were promised. Very poor IMO.

Bitcoin developed a bubble in late 2017 but i think to say that bitcoin has been in a bigger longer term bubble is just dismissing emerging technology. There was such a parabolic rise at the end of 2017 based on nothing really which was concerning. This was taken advantage of and that why regulators around the world are stepping in to make sure that ill-informed people are not ruined by others in the future.
If you ignore the ridiculous bump from November then bitcoin is still doing quite well. I havent read anything seriously bad in a while but have seen some positive notes on adoption and acceptance.
I look forward to 2020. 

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=170305&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=604646: This case suggests that (so long as European law applies to your state) VAT is not added on bitcoin transactions.

Have you considered filing an application in dispute tribunal/small claims court/justice of the peace court or what ever it is called in your area? They usually deal with disputes up to a certain value and do not generally require legal representation for. This kind of action may spur Poloniex into repaying the funds you deposited with them.

The only real correlation I've seen between a holiday and btc/usd is Chinese new year, but there wasn't a massive pump after that this year like expected. People seem to keep pointing to different events and news when BTC takes a drop and dont consider the TA. Why would price pick up immediately after a bunch of people take money out? Taking that would have a knock on effect to a greater population than the people that initally sold and thats may be whats happened a few times this year.

Firstly I personally wouldn't recommending buying BTC on credit, especially given the current bear trends that are popping up atm.
Negative Nancying out of the way, I've previously used Cubits - https://cubits.com/. I believe they are a German exchange and they allow you to buy straight from a credit card in USD.
They do require KYC and its a bit more in depth than other places (you have a skype-ish chat with someone who verifies your identity and documents) but it is really quick and easy.
There is a bit of a fee for purchasing off a CC (but i think you should expect that given the ease for users) although its no where near $300 flat fee.

Looking at its chart, i would think that bitcoin fell because it wasnt able to stay within or break upwards from a triangle that had formed with higher lows and lower highs. Price just stagnated until it was outside the bottom of the range and then fell off. News may have contributed (it usually does) but i think there is a lot of expectation out there that bitcoin and other cryptos will explode off into space again and they keep disappointing people with those views, which brings disillusion for some holders who just get out.

I think this is one of the first posts that actually contains some good news concerning a future perspective for cryptos. Most people make vague and uninteresting statements that do not commit themselves to a certain stance or course of action however here we have a statement that pushes for crypto and has a very disappointed tone towards any country that has banned or heavily restricted its use.

Hi, I understood your complaint and i apologise if my response was too compact and open to interpretation. I was stating that they are not extorting anything because they are not asking for your property they are asking for your personal information (which is not your property) or a waiver of contractual remedy. As noted they are looking to change the contractual relationship between yourself and them and this cannot be done unilaterally and you have the right to refuse and enforce the contract to receive the money you have deposited with them (which is THEIR property at this point). They are not required to continue to provide the same services however and so you cant enforce continuation of trading with previous terms.

While I'm not a lawyer in the land of freedom (US of A), but I am qualified in my country of residence (therefore am not able to give this as legal advice so please note this is not that, just my quick thoughts). I've had a quick look and I wouldn't classify this as extortion. They are not asking for your property (the closest possible ground) they are asking for your personal information. This is really just a breach of contract issue. When you deposit money to Poloniex is is similar to depositing it with a bank, the money is no longer yours but the property of the bank. They essentially become a debtor to you and are answerable to repay the money.

So in short this is not criminal behavior, it is a civil dispute. You may be able to file for breach of contract in your state of residence but i would recommend reading over Poloniex's terms on conditions (always a good idea when someone is being a pain) to see if they have contractually set the state of contract as their home state, which i believe is Delaware.

Another thing to look at could be around any fair trading/consumer guarantees legislation and regulatory bodies that could slap them over the wrist.

Agreed on the agree to disagree. But I feel i should note that Korea has civil system not a common law, so their laws are all codified and there is no 'precedent' per se in any decision of a court. In a given case a higher court overrules a lower one however in a future case no consideration is REQUIRED to be given to previous decisions so a flip flop could happen (although this is pretty unlikely because of decision is sound).

As for the previous decisions there was not really a debate as to whether bitcoin was an asset as such is was more around whether the state was legally entitled to seize bitcoin as its intangible (just numbers on a screen). The ratio decidendi was that the tangibility of an asset is not relevant to its seizure.

Is there an official date at which sentiments given for any specific month is recorded? I've heard that is is around the 4th or 5th of a month. Also is there going be a data point shown on screen indicating how many sentiments you have given for the month, and your monthly performance. TBH i forget what i said at the time and i'd love to be able to audit my thoughts.

This idea is really just a push in trickling down merits that is equally solved by adding merit sources. This second layer of trust where allocations are not defined and at times could mean that the second tier get tier 1 allocation if tier 1 don't use theirs is just complicating a system unnecessarily. Sure there have been stats put out that suggest that merit is not being awarded at the rate that it once was but an easier solution to that is just adding more sources with a wider sphere of influence.

The proof is really in the fact that it is still happening. Mining must still be financially viable or else people would pull the plug because otherwise they are acting irrationally (or derive benefit from continuing the bitcoin fight at their own detriment, but that is hard to quantify). Maybe for small scale home miners you are priced out of the market.

In terms of sustainability and electricity prices there are numerous operations that are springing up in locations where they are able to minimise their overheads or costs (such as on cooling or actually powering the miners). Places in the swis alps are cold and therefore cooling can be reducing saving money and places near power plants are cheaper meaning your operating expenses are lower.

The courts are part of the judiciary not the government though. The government makes the laws and policy etc and the judiciary applies those rules. The ruling didn't add anything because bitcoin obviously has value and accepting that doesnt show an acceptance of bitcoin as a currency or transactional vessel and it was just applying the previous rule to the current situation. The statement in response to that ruling was essentially pointing that out.

Sure i guess any statement that isn't closing doors on bitcoin is a benefit and could be considered good news, but this is far from acknowledgement from the government. I'm not going to hold my breath on anything exciting coming out of Korea until they get on the same train as Japan and make Asia a crypto stronghold.

This has been the reason the whole time, you are correct. That is because they said it at the start so that everyone the got tokens would have complete (or relatively complete) information before making any purchases. I understood the undertaking that they were making and respect their decision to play the safest game long term to ensure that their product is viable long term.

The people that are constantly yelling 'when moon' and 'lambo' are literally just gambling on coins and throwing money at something. Dont be one of those people.
1 Year to make a fully operational platform that has the potential to disrupt accounting and factoring services in one swift move is not a long time. This is something that is genuinely worth being patient for.

The change that the SEC and other appropriate authorities are taking more of an active interest in ICOs and TGE(if you want to add another layer of bullshit to try escape their reach) is a positive sign. Regulators are not going out and flexing their arms for no reason, they are making sure that people are playing by established rules that are there for consumer protection. ICOs that have turned around and ceased operations are only showing that they know they are not up to scratch and this can only be seen as a positive. Those centra lads were insane and raised a stupid amount of money on bullshit claims. I'm glad that people like this cant continue to operate. This stance will help to ensure that the public can trust ICO operators.