201–210 of 747 posts
As far as the fees being so cheap, and every one else guessing about how expensive it would be to do it in a normal banking situation, F. Scott Fitzgerald is relevant: "Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft where we are hard, and cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This post appears to me like two paragraphs of correct and important information, cut in two by a seemingly unrelated quote that summarizes to nothing more than "rich people are evil". People with greater wealth having access to certain services and procedures that normal people don't is unrelated to all rich people supposedly looking down on everyone else.
> a ... quote that summarizes to nothing more than "rich people are evil" But that isn't at all what the quote says, that's what you attributed to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Anti-money laundering processes cost money and many of the crypto-currencies ignore this for now / pass the problem to the fiat ⇆ crypto exchange operators. As I understood, traceability is included by-design in Bitcoin. Maybe you didn't see the other comments, but all the bitcoins of this wallet can be traced back to one or several entities. All history of all transactions is available to everyone, so could you ex…
Not if they used a tumbler for years to accrue that sum
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If these were Satoshi coins that would be a huge story since Satoshi’s private keys are presumed lost.
I don't think those private keys are presumed lost. Those Satoshi coins are being kept there deliberately.
As far as I've heard there is quite literally not a shred of supporting evidence.
Many analysts suspect it's associated with Bakkt, the new yet to launch cryptocurrency exchange created by the NYSE parent.
I can count maybe 5 people in the crypto space that would have that much BTC, but none of them would be dumb enough to put it all in one wallet. Most likely some large institutional investor decided to re-key their cold storage wallet.
This is the part which confuses me about Bitcoin the most. It's meant to be anonymous, yet with some diligent data mining, it can become pretty clear who's who from their spending patterns by observing the ledger. How is that remotely anonymous?
Monero, and to a lesser extent, Zcash are coins that were designed to be anonymous (Although Zcash has opt-in privacy, whereas Monero is default)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the part which confuses me about Bitcoin the most. It's meant to be anonymous, yet with some diligent data mining, it can become pretty clear who's who from their spending patterns by observing the ledger. How is that remotely anonymous?
The ledger does not record in person transactions. Theoretically, I can hand you a USB stick containing BTC and no one would know until it is sent to another wallet.
The person "Paying" the other person could have backed up the private key and simply recovered it at a later date to send to another wallet.
Bitcoin is not gold, so don't think of it like gold.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not? Are you implying that it would technically break some sort of system or something like that? If I legally own a billion dollars in a Swiss bank, and I want to move it to a Cayman Islands bank, there is certainly a room full of well-paid men in fancy suits that will gladly accommodate that. Or, perhaps more similar to the topic, if I wanted to move a billion dollars from one UBS account to a new UBS account,…
Not technical obstacles, more like regulatory or legal obstacles. I imagine there is a lot of paperwork and legwork involved in moving 1B fiat