CryptoSobStories - You could be a millionaire by now
You bought a Pizza for 10,000 BTC? You lost big in a collapsed exchange? You sold a shitcoin with loss to see how it exploded the next day? You missed 1000+1 occasions? You sold your retirement money for the biggest cryptoscam in history? You are not alone! Share your story and find relief from your fellow cryptosobbers! Found stories are also fine.
Hi all, Usually I use Cashapp to buy my Bitcoin (weekly, I DCA) and then I store in in Trustwallet, which is a mobile wallet owned by Binance. I noticed they added a "buy BTC" option directly in the TrustWallet app, so I gave it a shot. Unfortunately, they outsource the actual crypto buying process to a sketchy company, which uses misleading tactics. As you can see from this screenshot: https://i.imgur.com/AWjcnro.png US$5000 was to purchase 0.41635 BTC, an amount that I'm happy with. However, at checkout, they change the deal to this: https://i.imgur.com/AWjcnro.png In simple terms, they wanted to sell me 0.43092 BTC for $5000, and then added a $175 "processing" fee. That's more Bitcoin than I wanted to buy, more fiat than I wanted to spend, and it brings the base price of the bitcoin from $11,603, to $12,009, a far larger number. I would have no problem with this if they were upfront about the fees and what they are doing, but now I have sour taste in my mouth. I've been into crypto for a little while. Can you imagine how predatory this would seem to a new user who's going through their first buy? This is my first post, so I hope I did it properly.
I want to provide some context and an update. The above IS an issue. However, it is ONLY an issue if you use MOONPAY to buy crypto through Trust Wallet. The other payment providers do not perform a bait and switch, or perform deceptive techniques. Trust Wallet and Moonpay are still implicated, but Trust Wallet does have other payment providers in their "buy" function that DO NOT bait and switch you. Moonpay, however, does perform the bait and switch. I hope this clarifies things. It's still shame on you moonpay, and shame on you Trust Wallet.
Weekly update. 437 BTC were traded using LocalBitcoin last week,trading Bs. /BTC and BTC/Bs. (Bolivares, Venezuelan "official" currency, ISO VES). These 437 BTC were 1,852,000,000,000 Bs. One BTC is around 4,600,000,000 Bs. Monthly minimum wage is less 2 USD. PhD uni professor earns 4 USD monthly.
Ultimate glossary of crypto currency terms, acronyms and abbreviations
Hi everyone, this news on Strike was posted more than 2 weeks ago, but I’m afraid it didn’t get enough traction in my opinion. Original Post on Strike App Supporting On-Chain Txns Exchanges these days should be called what they are: shitcoin casinos. Gemini, Coinbase, Binance, Bittrex, and all the others that sell pump and dump shitcoins, are our enemies. There’s no two ways around it. Coinbase is running Public Relations in full force to make it seem like they support bitcoin development when they want to provide grants for core developers. In reality, they could care less about the development as long as they get their bottom line, which is to pull in suckers. Have you heard the phrase, “If you don’t know who the sucker in the room is, it’s you”? Well you are the sucker every single time if you are trying to trade bitcoin and shitcoins. It’s time to support bitcoin only companies. That means buying ColdCard hardware wallets that have bitcoin only firmware. That means buying from River Financial (will be largest brokerage in the future), Swan Bitcoin (auto DCA with withdrawals only), CashApp, and Fold (bitcoin back on gift card purchases). Anything less is you not supporting bitcoin adoption. I’d like to circle back to the point of this post: what Jack Maller’s Strike App has done is make exchanges completely irrelevant. Gone are the insane and wack percentage fees that cause you to miss out on hodling even more precious sats. Your bank checking account now literally speaks bitcoin. It’s not just a lightning network based app that allows you to pay only lightning network invoices. You can also just pay for the on-chain transaction fee to your legacy address (1), segwit address (3), or native segwit bech 32 address (bc1). So when you plan to stack sats in the United States, I highly recommend you skip the outrageous fees and send bitcoin instantaneously to your ColdCard or whatever hardware wallet you own with ease. Simply deposit the money within the Strike App from your bank checking account, and paste or scan your bitcoin address. Clarify the amount you want to send and tap confirm. I can’t stress this enough - the ONLY fee associated with the purchase is the on-chain transaction fee. I hope this post gets more traction and that word spreads to keep people from getting suckered.
I converted my moon to nano and I think I made a mistake 'AMA'
Because I am a degenerate gambler (who tries to quit) I transferred the nano almost immediately to binance and open a 125x position on bitcoin. I hope you will not ask if long or short because you know how bitcoin moved in the last days. It does not matter, I got liquidated. This is what most of the gamblers do with money that falls from the sky, they gamble it all and 90% of them also lose it all. Now, without any moon I think I missed the chance to be part of this very big movement, that is crypto currency. Because if crypto succeeds, as I think it will, this subreddit might be the main source of news for everyone and looking of how hard is to get some moons now, I really think I blew it. I love nano, and I bough back, but how do I get my moons back on reddit? I can buy them also but where do I store them securely outside of reddit? Also posts like this are making me think /cryptocurrency is heading the right way. So if you want 200 moons it seems you have to do a post at least as good as that. Damn.
I bought $1k of the Top Ten Cryptos on January 1st, 2018. Result? -74%
EXPERIMENT - Tracking Top 10 Cryptos of 2018 - Month 31 -74% See the full blog post with all the tableshere. tl;dr: purchased $100 of Top Ten Cryptos in Jan. 2018, haven't sold or traded, repeated in 2019 and 2020, update y'all monthly. July was very strong for crypto. For 2018 Top Ten: ADA finished the month on top. ETH and XRP also very strong. Overall, BTC still waaaay in the lead and is approaching break even point. Three cryptos (IOTA,NEM, DASH) have lost over 90% of value. Over three years, cryptos outperforming S&P if I'd taken a similar approach.
A) Bitcoin B) Ethereum C) Bitcoin Cash D) XRP Scroll down for the answer.
Ranking and July Winners and Losers
Not a ton of movement for the 2018 Top Ten group this month. Cardano and XRP both climbed one position while NEM gained two, clawing itself back into the Top Thirty. Dash headed in the other direction, dropping two places in the rankings. Considering all that has changed in the world of crypto since the beginning of 2018, it’s interesting to note that only four out of the ten cryptos that started 2018 in the Top Ten have dropped out. NEM, Dash, IOTA, and Stellar have been replaced by Binance Coin, Tether,BSV, and newcomer CRO. July Winners – It was a very strong month: all cryptos made significant gains in July. But for the third month in a row ADA outperformed the field, gaining +57% in July. ETH finished a close second, up +55% followed by XRP which gained +52%. July Losers – Even during a good month, NEM can’t catch a break. Its +23% gain made it the worst performer of the 2018 Top Ten. How has your favorite crypto fared over the first 31 months of the 2018 Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Experiment? Bitcoin still has the most monthly wins (7) but look at this: thanks to its strong 2020 including three straight monthly wins, Cardano is now right behind BTC with 6 monthly wins. Which project has the most monthly losses? NEM stands alone with 6. Every crypto has at least one monthly win and Bitcoin is unique as the only cryptocurrency that hasn’t lost a month. It came close this month, gaining “only” +26%.
Overall update – BTC approaching break even point, second place ETH in the lonely middle, NEM still worst performing.
Although it wasn’t able to keep pace with its peers in July, BTC continues to slowly but surely approach its break even point. It is down about $1,500 (-12%) since my purchase in January 2018. My initial investment of $100 thirty-one months ago is now worth about $88. Even though Ethereum has lost half of its value since the experiment began, it is all alone in second place: no other crypto is close. NEM seems comfortable in its usual place, down at the bottom. It has lost -94% over the life of the experiment. That initial $100 investment in NEM is now worth $5.78. Dash and IOTA join NEM as the only three cryptos in the Top Ten that have lost at least -90% of their value since January 2018.
Total Market Cap for the entire cryptocurrency sector:
Total market cap since Jan 2018 The crypto market added about $82B in July, making up a ton of ground. The last time we saw a similar level in terms of overall crypto market cap was way back in the fifth month of the 2018 Top Ten Experiment: May 2018.
Le Bitdom since January 2018 Since Bitcoin receives much of the attention in the press, it may surprise the casual observer to learn that Bitcoin Dominance dropped quite a bit in July, especially considering BitDom had been stuck at roughly the same level for most of 2020. This signals an interest in altcoins and a willingness to buy into riskier cryptos. Some context: since the beginning of the experiment, the range of Bitcoin dominance has been quite wide: we saw a high of 70% BitDom in September 2019 and a low of 33% BitDom in February 2018.
Overall return on investment since January 1st, 2018:
The 2018 Top Ten Portfolio gained over $70 in July 2020. If I cashed out today, my $1000 initial investment would return about $260, down -74% from January 2018. This sounds horrible but don’t hang yourself with a celibate rope: the 2018 return on investment is back where it was about a year ago. Take a look at the ROI over the life of the experiment, month by month, for some context: Yes, you may notice that the 2018 Top Ten portfolio has finished over half of the first thirty one months down at least -80%, but it’s nice to see the low -70s for a change. So the Top Ten Cryptos of 2018 are down -74%. What about the 2019 and 2020 Top Tens? Let’s take a look:
So overall? Taking the three portfolios together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line: After a $3000 investment in the 2018, 2019, and 2020 Top Ten Cryptocurrencies, my combined portfolios are worth $3,6965 ($260+ $1,722 +$1,713). That’s up about +23% for the three combined portfolios, compared to -10% last month. It also marks the highest ROI of the three combined portfolios since I added this metric this year. The previous high was +13% back in January 2020. Having trouble visualizing? Don’t worry, I got what you need: Combined ROI So, a +23% gain by dropping $1k on whichever cryptos were in the Top Ten on January 1st for three straight years, fine. But what if I’d done the same with just one crypto? Bitcoin always wins, right? Thanks to Reddit user u/sebikun for the idea for a new metric and let’s take a look: 3-year club ROI As you can see, only five cryptos have remained in the Top Ten for all three years: BTC, ETH, XRP, BCH, and LTC. Best one to have gone all in on at this point in the Experiment? Ethereum, which would have nearly doubled. Worst choice? If I went with XRP, I would have been down -23%.
Comparison to S&P 500:
I’m also tracking the S&P 500 as part of the experiment to have a comparison point with other popular investments options. The US economy continued to recover in July: the S&P 500 is back up to pre-COVID levels. The initial $1k investment into crypto on January 1st, 2018 would have been worth about $220 had it been redirected to the S&P. But what if I took the same invest-$1,000-on-January-1st-of-each-year approach with the S&P 500 that I’ve been documenting through the Top Ten Crypto Experiments? Here are the numbers:
$1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2018: +$220
$1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2019: +$310
$1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2020: +$10
Taken together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line for a similar approach with the S&P: After three $1,000 investments into an S&P 500 index fund in January 2018, 2019, and 2020, my portfolio would be worth $3,540. That is up over+18%since January 2018, compared to a +23% gain of the combined Top Ten Crypto Experiment Portfolios. That’s a 5% swing in favor of theTop Ten Crypto Portfolios! As you’ll see in the table below, this is the first time since I started recording this metric that crypto has outperformed the S&P had I taken a similar investment approach. This is a big turnaround from the 22% difference in favor of the S&P just last month. 3 x $1k crypto vs. S&P
The 2018 Top Ten Cryptos have consistently under-performed when compared to the overall crypto market. This month, for example, the total market cap is down -29% from January 2018 compared to the -74% loss for the cryptos that began 2018 in the Top Ten. At no point in the first 31 months of the Experiment has this investment strategy been successful: the 2018 Top Ten as a group have under-performed the overall market every single month. This of course suggests that I would have done a bit better if I’d picked every crypto, or different cryptos: throwing that $1k on January 1st, 2018 to Bitcoin, for example, would have lost me -12% instead of -74%. On the other hand, this bit of diversification has served me well compared to going all in on NEM, Dash, or IOTA, all of which are down at least -90%. The follow-on Top Ten experiments in 2019 and 2020 have seen similar, but not identical, results. There have been a few examples of the Top Ten approach outperforming the overall market in the first 19 months of the parallel 2019 Top Ten Crypto Experiment. And up until the last few months of the most recent 2020 Top Ten Index Fund group of cryptocurrencies, this approach had outperformed the overall market 100% of the time.
Crypto had an undoubtedly strong month in July, green across the board. Was this just a happy blip, are we in for some consolidation, or are we on the way up? Stay tuned. Final words: take care of each other, wear your mask, wash your hands. Thanks for reading and for supporting the experiment. I hope you’ve found it helpful. I continue to be committed to seeing this process through and reporting along the way. Feel free to reach out with any questions and stay tuned for progress reports. Keep an eye out for my parallel projects where I repeat the experiment twice, purchasing another $1000 ($100 each) of two new sets of Top Ten cryptos as of January 1st, 2019 then again on January 1st, 2020.
Weekly update. 437 BTC were traded using LocalBitcoin last week,trading Bs. /BTC and BTC/Bs. (Bolivares, Venezuelan "official" currency, ISO VES). These 437 BTC were 1,852,000,000,000 Bs. One BTC is around 4,600,000,000 Bs. Monthly minimum wage is less 2 USD. PhD uni professor earns 4 USD monthly.
In response to the post about merchandise pinned here , I was wondering would it be possible to create a custom cryptocurrency version of Monopoly called (of course) Moonopoly! Christmas is just around the corner and it would make a great gift to a fellow crypto enthusiast, or could even be given out as prizes! Anyway, regardless of whether or not this is a good idea that can be taken seriously, or something completely ridiculous, I figured we could have some fun now deciding how this game would hypothetically be played and allocating the squares for the board. Here are my ideas: It would work just like normal Monopoly which we're all familiar with. But instead of being handed out a set amount of $ or whatever, the currency for Moonopoly could be Dai/Satoshis...or even Moons! Instead of the 28 properties we could have 28 cryptos. (Just like in standard monopoly, their value doesn't have to be exact to real life.) Bitcoin and Etherum are the equivalent of the premium properties (Mayfair and Park Lane on UK Monopoly). Perhaps nano could be the cheap Old Kent Road (Don't hate me nano fans, I love nano really. In fact nano could be the Free Parking square!) So let's say you land on the Bitcoin (Mayfair) square and want to buy it. That will cost you 0.1 BTC. If someone lands on it, they have to give you 0.01 BTC. Instead of building houses and hotels, you can add more Bitcoins/Eth etc, which would then increase the amount someone would have to pay when they land on your crypto. The 4 railroads could be exchanges (Binance, Coinbase etc.) and perhaps the two utilities could be something deFi like Uniswap and Honeyswap. We could have a lot of fun with the Chance and Community Chest cards. Here are some ideas: -You entered your seed in a phishing site. Pay 0.3 BTC. -You've received an airdrop. Collect 0.2 BTC. -Binance has been hacked. Pay 0.5 BTC. -Bullrun confirmed! Collect 0.4 BTC. -The ICO you invested in has exit scammed. Pay 0.2 BTC. -You didn't file your crypto taxes. Go to jail. Don't pass Go. Don't collect 0.1 BTC... For the pieces (i.e. the dog, the boot, the hat..) we could have: -Doge -Carlos Matos -Bogdanoff -Victor Cobra? Alright, it might sound a bit silly. I mean who are we going to play this with? But let's not worry about that. I want to know, what would you have on your Moonopoly board?
PSA: scammers on Tinder and possibly other dating apps
I want to warn you all of scammers on Tinder. There are profiles of Asian women looking somewhere mid tweenties on tinder that after a brief convo on tinder itself give you a (in most cases) UK phone number to continue chatting in WhatsApp. Sometime during the chatting they mention a new "investment possibility" in a new crypto coin "Huawei 5g joint Bluesky Biomedical defence" or short "HWS". If you don't bite at first, they ask you every at least once if you want to join and get more insisted every time. They lure you on to binance.com (which is a legit site) to buy bitcoin, 5000$ at first to get a "beta membership. Which you then transfer to a site hwsex.org and exchange for HWS chips. When you ask if or when you can exchange back to bitcoin and transfer back to binance, they tell you you have to" invest" at least 2 bitcoin to get a "full membership" with which you could then do that (which you can't obviously). Before anyone asks, yes I was dumb enough to fall for it (not for the full 2 btc but I burnt 0.5btc on it) Pleas everyone be careful if someone from tinder (could also be male scammers out there) talks about crypto and some new investment. Here the link to the crypto scam subreddit https://www.reddit.com/cryptocurrencyscams/comments/huj8li/beware_of_cryptocurrency_scam_wwwblueskybtctop/?sort=new
It started with sending $20 worth of BTC from Binance to Munn wallet. Got my first confirmation in less than 5 minutes which made it spendable. From there, I topped up my phone with Bitrefill, fed some chickens on https://pollofeed.com/, You can still see seeds in the ground, they're probably sleeping right now:). Then played some Lightning-roulette.com, started with 50c, got it quadrupled then lost it all. After that and while surfing Reddit, saw a post of this guy who newly invested in crypto so I threw him a Silver Award from Bitrefill again. Then I wanted to buy some BTC merch from https://cryptoshirt.io but was expensive, so I used https://fixedfloat.com/ to convert my Sats to ETH to buy a blockchain domain :) FLICKING POWERFUL. Not a single transaction failed or took more than 2 seconds.
11-08 20:35 - 'How is anybody going to regret selling it? if you're at all aware of how you trade Bitcoin you can buy and sell every second of every day, the concept is very simple and if you've been trading long enough you can s...' by /u/billionaireastronaut removed from /r/Bitcoin within 14-24min
''' How is anybody going to regret selling it? if you're at all aware of how you trade Bitcoin you can buy and sell every second of every day, the concept is very simple and if you've been trading long enough you can see the signals a mile away, you buy dips, buy low sell high, it's not brain surgery, that's how people with the most Bitcoin continue to have the most Bitcoin... depends on what your ultimate goal is but even if your ultimate goal is to just have more Bitcoin you can trade it on a daily basis and do that there are bots that will do it for you now. The concept is simple you have two Bitcoin. You sell one at $21,000 you put in $20,000 of that tether or whatever you traded it for, in for a limit by and then you made $1,000 profit right there and you have your two Bitcoin back. Or you buy $21,000 of Bitcoin at $20,000 so you are buying back 1.05 Bitcoin, and now you have 05 more than you started with take the decimal place and move it in whatever direction you need to to suit your financial status. you can buy as little as 10 bucks worth of bitcoin on binance, so like I said add some zeros or subtract them, and that's how you make money with Bitcoin on a daily basis. Saying to converting is stupid or you're going to regret it is some purist statement... And the person who made it probably isn't really holding any Bitcoin at all I would assume. I believe in the philosophy behind Bitcoin, a decentralized digital value storage system is a brilliant concept, you can send money anywhere in the world at any time of day and not have a bank overseeing your transaction or a government. But it sends me into another planet when people are saying you never cash it... then what do you do with it? you just sit there and stare at it? people who are saying that either are don't have any Bitcoin and just are commenting on something they're not familiar enough with to speak about, or they have so much of it they just don't know what to do with it, and if that's the case you can send some my way, here's a wallet address I just generated. I promise you the funds will go towards something awesome like a rocket ship. bc1qdqvxph06hpzpkl8ycqh7sgwhhg3ddhky7757jm ''' Context Link Go1dfish undelete link unreddit undelete link Author: billionaireastronaut
Summary: Everyone knows that when you give your assets to someone else, they always keep them safe. If this is true for individuals, it is certainly true for businesses. Custodians always tell the truth and manage funds properly. They won't have any interest in taking the assets as an exchange operator would. Auditors tell the truth and can't be misled. That's because organizations that are regulated are incapable of lying and don't make mistakes. First, some background. Here is a summary of how custodians make us more secure: Previously, we might give Alice our crypto assets to hold. There were risks:
Alice might take the assets and disappear.
Alice might spend the assets and pretend that she still has them (fractional model).
Alice might store the assets insecurely and they'll get stolen.
Alice might give the assets to someone else by mistake or by force.
Alice might lose access to the assets.
But "no worries", Alice has a custodian named Bob. Bob is dressed in a nice suit. He knows some politicians. And he drives a Porsche. "So you have nothing to worry about!". And look at all the benefits we get:
Alice can't take the assets and disappear (unless she asks Bob or never gives them to Bob).
Alice can't spend the assets and pretend that she still has them. (Unless she didn't give them to Bob or asks him for them.)
Alice can't store the assets insecurely so they get stolen. (After all - she doesn't have any control over the withdrawal process from any of Bob's systems, right?)
Alice can't give the assets to someone else by mistake or by force. (Bob will stop her, right Bob?)
Alice can't lose access to the funds. (She'll always be present, sane, and remember all secrets, right?)
See - all problems are solved! All we have to worry about now is:
Bob might take the assets and disappear.
Bob might spend the assets and pretend that he still has them (fractional model).
Bob might store the assets insecurely and they'll get stolen.
Bob might give the assets to someone else by mistake or by force.
Bob might lose access to the assets.
It's pretty simple. Before we had to trust Alice. Now we only have to trust Alice, Bob, and all the ways in which they communicate. Just think of how much more secure we are! "On top of that", Bob assures us, "we're using a special wallet structure". Bob shows Alice a diagram. "We've broken the balance up and store it in lots of smaller wallets. That way", he assures her, "a thief can't take it all at once". And he points to a historic case where a large sum was taken "because it was stored in a single wallet... how stupid". "Very early on, we used to have all the crypto in one wallet", he said, "and then one Christmas a hacker came and took it all. We call him the Grinch. Now we individually wrap each crypto and stick it under a binary search tree. The Grinch has never been back since." "As well", Bob continues, "even if someone were to get in, we've got insurance. It covers all thefts and even coercion, collusion, and misplaced keys - only subject to the policy terms and conditions." And with that, he pulls out a phone-book sized contract and slams it on the desk with a thud. "Yep", he continues, "we're paying top dollar for one of the best policies in the country!" "Can I read it?' Alice asks. "Sure," Bob says, "just as soon as our legal team is done with it. They're almost through the first chapter." He pauses, then continues. "And can you believe that sales guy Mike? He has the same year Porsche as me. I mean, what are the odds?" "Do you use multi-sig?", Alice asks. "Absolutely!" Bob replies. "All our engineers are fully trained in multi-sig. Whenever we want to set up a new wallet, we generate 2 separate keys in an air-gapped process and store them in this proprietary system here. Look, it even requires the biometric signature from one of our team members to initiate any withdrawal." He demonstrates by pressing his thumb into the display. "We use a third-party cloud validation API to match the thumbprint and authorize each withdrawal. The keys are also backed up daily to an off-site third-party." "Wow that's really impressive," Alice says, "but what if we need access for a withdrawal outside of office hours?" "Well that's no issue", Bob says, "just send us an email, call, or text message and we always have someone on staff to help out. Just another part of our strong commitment to all our customers!" "What about Proof of Reserve?", Alice asks. "Of course", Bob replies, "though rather than publish any blockchain addresses or signed transaction, for privacy we just do a SHA256 refactoring of the inverse hash modulus for each UTXO nonce and combine the smart contract coefficient consensus in our hyperledger lightning node. But it's really simple to use." He pushes a button and a large green checkmark appears on a screen. "See - the algorithm ran through and reserves are proven." "Wow", Alice says, "you really know your stuff! And that is easy to use! What about fiat balances?" "Yeah, we have an auditor too", Bob replies, "Been using him for a long time so we have quite a strong relationship going! We have special books we give him every year and he's very efficient! Checks the fiat, crypto, and everything all at once!" "We used to have a nice offline multi-sig setup we've been using without issue for the past 5 years, but I think we'll move all our funds over to your facility," Alice says. "Awesome", Bob replies, "Thanks so much! This is perfect timing too - my Porsche got a dent on it this morning. We have the paperwork right over here." "Great!", Alice replies. And with that, Alice gets out her pen and Bob gets the contract. "Don't worry", he says, "you can take your crypto-assets back anytime you like - just subject to our cancellation policy. Our annual management fees are also super low and we don't adjust them often". How many holes have to exist for your funds to get stolen? Just one. Why are we taking a powerful offline multi-sig setup, widely used globally in hundreds of different/lacking regulatory environments with 0 breaches to date, and circumventing it by a demonstrably weak third party layer? And paying a great expense to do so? If you go through the list of breaches in the past 2 years to highly credible organizations, you go through the list of major corporate frauds (only the ones we know about), you go through the list of all the times platforms have lost funds, you go through the list of times and ways that people have lost their crypto from identity theft, hot wallet exploits, extortion, etc... and then you go through this custodian with a fine-tooth comb and truly believe they have value to add far beyond what you could, sticking your funds in a wallet (or set of wallets) they control exclusively is the absolute worst possible way to take advantage of that security. The best way to add security for crypto-assets is to make a stronger multi-sig. With one custodian, what you are doing is giving them your cryptocurrency and hoping they're honest, competent, and flawlessly secure. It's no different than storing it on a really secure exchange. Maybe the insurance will cover you. Didn't work for Bitpay in 2015. Didn't work for Yapizon in 2017. Insurance has never paid a claim in the entire history of cryptocurrency. But maybe you'll get lucky. Maybe your exact scenario will buck the trend and be what they're willing to cover. After the large deductible and hopefully without a long and expensive court battle. And you want to advertise this increase in risk, the lapse of judgement, an accident waiting to happen, as though it's some kind of benefit to customers ("Free institutional-grade storage for your digital assets.")? And then some people are writing to the OSC that custodians should be mandatory for all funds on every exchange platform? That this somehow will make Canadians as a whole more secure or better protected compared with standard air-gapped multi-sig? On what planet? Most of the problems in Canada stemmed from one thing - a lack of transparency. If Canadians had known what a joke Quadriga was - it wouldn't have grown to lose $400m from hard-working Canadians from coast to coast to coast. And Gerald Cotten would be in jail, not wherever he is now (at best, rotting peacefully). EZ-BTC and mister Dave Smilie would have been a tiny little scam to his friends, not a multi-million dollar fraud. Einstein would have got their act together or been shut down BEFORE losing millions and millions more in people's funds generously donated to criminals. MapleChange wouldn't have even been a thing. And maybe we'd know a little more about CoinTradeNewNote - like how much was lost in there. Almost all of the major losses with cryptocurrency exchanges involve deception with unbacked funds. So it's great to see transparency reports from BitBuy and ShakePay where someone independently verified the backing. The only thing we don't have is:
ANY CERTAINTY BALANCES WEREN'T EXCLUDED. Quadriga's largest account was $70m. 80% of funds are in 20% of accounts (Pareto principle). All it takes is excluding a few really large accounts - and nobody's the wiser. A fractional platform can easily pass any audit this way.
ANY VISIBILITY WHATSOEVER INTO THE CUSTODIANS. BitBuy put out their report before moving all the funds to their custodian and ShakePay apparently can't even tell us who the custodian is. That's pretty important considering that basically all of the funds are now stored there.
ANY IDEA ABOUT THE OTHER EXCHANGES. In order for this to be effective, it has to be the norm. It needs to be "unusual" not to know. If obscurity is the norm, then it's super easy for people like Gerald Cotten and Dave Smilie to blend right in.
It's not complicated to validate cryptocurrency assets. They need to exist, they need to be spendable, and they need to cover the total balances. There are plenty of credible people and firms across the country that have the capacity to reasonably perform this validation. Having more frequent checks by different, independent, parties who publish transparent reports is far more valuable than an annual check by a single "more credible/official" party who does the exact same basic checks and may or may not publish anything. Here's an example set of requirements that could be mandated:
First report within 1 month of launching, another within 3 months, and further reports at minimum every 6 months thereafter.
No auditor can be repeated within a 12 month period.
All reports must be public, identifying the auditor and the full methodology used.
All auditors must be independent of the firm being audited with no conflict of interest.
Reports must include the percentage of each asset backed, and how it's backed.
The auditor publishes a hash list, which lists a hash of each customer's information and balances that were included. Hash is one-way encryption so privacy is fully preserved. Every customer can use this to have 100% confidence they were included.
If we want more extensive requirements on audits, these should scale upward based on the total assets at risk on the platform, and whether the platform has loaned their assets out.
There are ways to structure audits such that neither crypto assets nor customer information are ever put at risk, and both can still be properly validated and publicly verifiable. There are also ways to structure audits such that they are completely reasonable for small platforms and don't inhibit innovation in any way. By making the process as reasonable as possible, we can completely eliminate any reason/excuse that an honest platform would have for not being audited. That is arguable far more important than any incremental improvement we might get from mandating "the best of the best" accountants. Right now we have nothing mandated and tons of Canadians using offshore exchanges with no oversight whatsoever. Transparency does not prove crypto assets are safe. CoinTradeNewNote, Flexcoin ($600k), and Canadian Bitcoins ($100k) are examples where crypto-assets were breached from platforms in Canada. All of them were online wallets and used no multi-sig as far as any records show. This is consistent with what we see globally - air-gapped multi-sig wallets have an impeccable record, while other schemes tend to suffer breach after breach. We don't actually know how much CoinTrader lost because there was no visibility. Rather than publishing details of what happened, the co-founder of CoinTrader silently moved on to found another platform - the "most trusted way to buy and sell crypto" - a site that has no information whatsoever (that I could find) on the storage practices and a FAQ advising that “[t]rading cryptocurrency is completely safe” and that having your own wallet is “entirely up to you! You can certainly keep cryptocurrency, or fiat, or both, on the app.” Doesn't sound like much was learned here, which is really sad to see. It's not that complicated or unreasonable to set up a proper hardware wallet. Multi-sig can be learned in a single course. Something the equivalent complexity of a driver's license test could prevent all the cold storage exploits we've seen to date - even globally. Platform operators have a key advantage in detecting and preventing fraud - they know their customers far better than any custodian ever would. The best job that custodians can do is to find high integrity individuals and train them to form even better wallet signatories. Rather than mandating that all platforms expose themselves to arbitrary third party risks, regulations should center around ensuring that all signatories are background-checked, properly trained, and using proper procedures. We also need to make sure that signatories are empowered with rights and responsibilities to reject and report fraud. They need to know that they can safely challenge and delay a transaction - even if it turns out they made a mistake. We need to have an environment where mistakes are brought to the surface and dealt with. Not one where firms and people feel the need to hide what happened. In addition to a knowledge-based test, an auditor can privately interview each signatory to make sure they're not in coercive situations, and we should make sure they can freely and anonymously report any issues without threat of retaliation. A proper multi-sig has each signature held by a separate person and is governed by policies and mutual decisions instead of a hierarchy. It includes at least one redundant signature. For best results, 3of4, 3of5, 3of6, 4of5, 4of6, 4of7, 5of6, or 5of7. History has demonstrated over and over again the risk of hot wallets even to highly credible organizations. Nonetheless, many platforms have hot wallets for convenience. While such losses are generally compensated by platforms without issue (for example Poloniex, Bitstamp, Bitfinex, Gatecoin, Coincheck, Bithumb, Zaif, CoinBene, Binance, Bitrue, Bitpoint, Upbit, VinDAX, and now KuCoin), the public tends to focus more on cases that didn't end well. Regardless of what systems are employed, there is always some level of risk. For that reason, most members of the public would prefer to see third party insurance. Rather than trying to convince third party profit-seekers to provide comprehensive insurance and then relying on an expensive and slow legal system to enforce against whatever legal loopholes they manage to find each and every time something goes wrong, insurance could be run through multiple exchange operators and regulators, with the shared interest of having a reputable industry, keeping costs down, and taking care of Canadians. For example, a 4 of 7 multi-sig insurance fund held between 5 independent exchange operators and 2 regulatory bodies. All Canadian exchanges could pay premiums at a set rate based on their needed coverage, with a higher price paid for hot wallet coverage (anything not an air-gapped multi-sig cold wallet). Such a model would be much cheaper to manage, offer better coverage, and be much more reliable to payout when needed. The kind of coverage you could have under this model is unheard of. You could even create something like the CDIC to protect Canadians who get their trading accounts hacked if they can sufficiently prove the loss is legitimate. In cases of fraud, gross negligence, or insolvency, the fund can be used to pay affected users directly (utilizing the last transparent balance report in the worst case), something which private insurance would never touch. While it's recommended to have official policies for coverage, a model where members vote would fully cover edge cases. (Could be similar to the Supreme Court where justices vote based on case law.) Such a model could fully protect all Canadians across all platforms. You can have a fiat coverage governed by legal agreements, and crypto-asset coverage governed by both multi-sig and legal agreements. It could be practical, affordable, and inclusive. Now, we are at a crossroads. We can happily give up our freedom, our innovation, and our money. We can pay hefty expenses to auditors, lawyers, and regulators year after year (and make no mistake - this cost will grow to many millions or even billions as the industry grows - and it will be borne by all Canadians on every platform because platforms are not going to eat up these costs at a loss). We can make it nearly impossible for any new platform to enter the marketplace, forcing Canadians to use the same stagnant platforms year after year. We can centralize and consolidate the entire industry into 2 or 3 big players and have everyone else fail (possibly to heavy losses of users of those platforms). And when a flawed security model doesn't work and gets breached, we can make it even more complicated with even more people in suits making big money doing the job that blockchain was supposed to do in the first place. We can build a system which is so intertwined and dependent on big government, traditional finance, and central bankers that it's future depends entirely on that of the fiat system, of fractional banking, and of government bail-outs. If we choose this path, as history has shown us over and over again, we can not go back, save for revolution. Our children and grandchildren will still be paying the consequences of what we decided today. Or, we can find solutions that work. We can maintain an open and innovative environment while making the adjustments we need to make to fully protect Canadian investors and cryptocurrency users, giving easy and affordable access to cryptocurrency for all Canadians on the platform of their choice, and creating an environment in which entrepreneurs and problem solvers can bring those solutions forward easily. None of the above precludes innovation in any way, or adds any unreasonable cost - and these three policies would demonstrably eliminate or resolve all 109 historic cases as studied here - that's every single case researched so far going back to 2011. It includes every loss that was studied so far not just in Canada but globally as well. Unfortunately, finding answers is the least challenging part. Far more challenging is to get platform operators and regulators to agree on anything. My last post got no response whatsoever, and while the OSC has told me they're happy for industry feedback, I believe my opinion alone is fairly meaningless. This takes the whole community working together to solve. So please let me know your thoughts. Please take the time to upvote and share this with people. Please - let's get this solved and not leave it up to other people to do. Facts/background/sources (skip if you like):
The inspiration for the paragraph about splitting wallets was an actual quote from a Canadian company providing custodial services in response to the OSC consultation paper: "We believe that it will be in the in best interests of investors to prohibit pooled crypto assets or ‘floats’. Most Platforms pool assets, citing reasons of practicality and expense. The recent hack of the world’s largest Platform – Binance – demonstrates the vulnerability of participants’ assets when such concessions are made. In this instance, the Platform’s entire hot wallet of Bitcoins, worth over $40 million, was stolen, facilitated in part by the pooling of client crypto assets." "the maintenance of participants (and Platform) crypto assets across multiple wallets distributes the related risk and responsibility of security - reducing the amount of insurance coverage required and making insurance coverage more readily obtainable". For the record, their reply also said nothing whatsoever about multi-sig or offline storage.
In addition to the fact that the $40m hack represented only one "hot wallet" of Binance, and they actually had the vast majority of assets in other wallets (including mostly cold wallets), multiple real cases have clearly demonstrated that risk is still present with multiple wallets. Bitfinex, VinDAX, Bithumb, Altsbit, BitPoint, Cryptopia, and just recently KuCoin all had multiple wallets breached all at the same time, and may represent a significantly larger impact on customers than the Binance breach which was fully covered by Binance. To represent that simply having multiple separate wallets under the same security scheme is a comprehensive way to reduce risk is just not true.
Private insurance has historically never covered a single loss in the cryptocurrency space (at least, not one that I was able to find), and there are notable cases where massive losses were not covered by insurance. Bitpay in 2015 and Yapizon in 2017 both had insurance policies that didn't pay out during the breach, even after a lengthly court process. The same insurance that ShakePay is presently using (and announced to much fanfare) was describe by their CEO himself as covering “physical theft of the media where the private keys are held,” which is something that has never historically happened. As was said with regard to the same policy in 2018 - “I don’t find it surprising that Lloyd’s is in this space,” said Johnson, adding that to his mind the challenge for everybody is figuring out how to structure these policies so that they are actually protective. “You can create an insurance policy that protects no one – you know there are so many caveats to the policy that it’s not super protective.”
The most profitable policy for a private insurance company is one with the most expensive premiums that they never have to pay a claim on. They have no inherent incentive to take care of people who lost funds. It's "cheaper" to take the reputational hit and fight the claim in court. The more money at stake, the more the insurance provider is incentivized to avoid payout. They're not going to insure the assets unless they have reasonable certainty to make a profit by doing so, and they're not going to pay out a massive sum unless it's legally forced. Private insurance is always structured to be maximally profitable to the insurance provider.
The circumvention of multi-sig was a key factor in the massive Bitfinex hack of over $60m of bitcoin, which today still sits being slowly used and is worth over $3b. While Bitfinex used a qualified custodian Bitgo, which was and still is active and one of the industry leaders of custodians, and they set up 2 of 3 multi-sig wallets, the entire system was routed through Bitfinex, such that Bitfinex customers could initiate the withdrawals in a "hot" fashion. This feature was also a hit with the hacker. The multi-sig was fully circumvented.
Bitpay in 2015 was another example of a breach that stole 5,000 bitcoins. This happened not through the exploit of any system in Bitpay, but because the CEO of a company they worked with got their computer hacked and the hackers were able to request multiple bitcoin purchases, which Bitpay honoured because they came from the customer's computer legitimately. Impersonation is a very common tactic used by fraudsters, and methods get more extreme all the time.
A notable case in Canada was the Canadian Bitcoins exploit. Funds were stored on a server in a Rogers Data Center, and the attendee was successfully convinced to reboot the server "in safe mode" with a simple phone call, thus bypassing the extensive security and enabling the theft.
The very nature of custodians circumvents multi-sig. This is because custodians are not just having to secure the assets against some sort of physical breach but against any form of social engineering, modification of orders, fraudulent withdrawal attempts, etc... If the security practices of signatories in a multi-sig arrangement are such that the breach risk of one signatory is 1 in 100, the requirement of 3 independent signatures makes the risk of theft 1 in 1,000,000. Since hackers tend to exploit the weakest link, a comparable custodian has to make the entry and exit points of their platform 10,000 times more secure than one of those signatories to provide equivalent protection. And if the signatories beef up their security by only 10x, the risk is now 1 in 1,000,000,000. The custodian has to be 1,000,000 times more secure. The larger and more complex a system is, the more potential vulnerabilities exist in it, and the fewer people can understand how the system works when performing upgrades. Even if a system is completely secure today, one has to also consider how that system might evolve over time or work with different members.
By contrast, offline multi-signature solutions have an extremely solid record, and in the entire history of cryptocurrency exchange incidents which I've studied (listed here), there has only been one incident (796 exchange in 2015) involving an offline multi-signature wallet. It happened because the customer's bitcoin address was modified by hackers, and the amount that was stolen ($230k) was immediately covered by the exchange operators. Basically, the platform operators were tricked into sending a legitimate withdrawal request to the wrong address because hackers exploited their platform to change that address. Such an issue would not be prevented in any way by the use of a custodian, as that custodian has no oversight whatsoever to the exchange platform. It's practical for all exchange operators to test large withdrawal transactions as a general policy, regardless of what model is used, and general best practice is to diagnose and fix such an exploit as soon as it occurs.
False promises on the backing of funds played a huge role in the downfall of Quadriga, and it's been exposed over and over again (MyCoin, PlusToken, Bitsane, Bitmarket, EZBTC, IDAX). Even today, customers have extremely limited certainty on whether their funds in exchanges are actually being backed or how they're being backed. While this issue is not unique to cryptocurrency exchanges, the complexity of the technology and the lack of any regulation or standards makes problems more widespread, and there is no "central bank" to come to the rescue as in the 2008 financial crisis or during the great depression when "9,000 banks failed".
In addition to fraudulent operations, the industry is full of cases where operators have suffered breaches and not reported them. Most recently, Einstein was the largest case in Canada, where ongoing breaches and fraud were perpetrated against the platform for multiple years and nobody found out until the platform collapsed completely. While fraud and breaches suck to deal with, they suck even more when not dealt with. Lack of visibility played a role in the largest downfalls of Mt. Gox, Cryptsy, and Bitgrail. In some cases, platforms are alleged to have suffered a hack and keep operating without admitting it at all, such as CoinBene.
It surprises some to learn that a cryptographic solution has already existed since 2013, and gained widespread support in 2014 after Mt. Gox. Proof of Reserves is a full cryptographic proof that allows any customer using an exchange to have complete certainty that their crypto-assets are fully backed by the platform in real-time. This is accomplished by proving that assets exist on the blockchain, are spendable, and fully cover customer deposits. It does not prove safety of assets or backing of fiat assets.
If we didn't care about privacy at all, a platform could publish their wallet addresses, sign a partial transaction, and put the full list of customer information and balances out publicly. Customers can each check that they are on the list, that the balances are accurate, that the total adds up, and that it's backed and spendable on the blockchain. Platforms who exclude any customer take a risk because that customer can easily check and see they were excluded. So together with all customers checking, this forms a full proof of backing of all crypto assets.
However, obviously customers care about their private information being published. Therefore, a hash of the information can be provided instead. Hash is one-way encryption. The hash allows the customer to validate inclusion (by hashing their own known information), while anyone looking at the list of hashes cannot determine the private information of any other user. All other parts of the scheme remain fully intact. A model like this is in use on the exchange CoinFloor in the UK.
A Merkle tree can provide even greater privacy. Instead of a list of balances, the balances are arranged into a binary tree. A customer starts from their node, and works their way to the top of the tree. For example, they know they have 5 BTC, they plus 1 other customer hold 7 BTC, they plus 2-3 other customers hold 17 BTC, etc... until they reach the root where all the BTC are represented. Thus, there is no way to find the balances of other individual customers aside from one unidentified customer in this case.
Proposals such as this had the backing of leaders in the community including Nic Carter, Greg Maxwell, and Zak Wilcox. Substantial and significant effort started back in 2013, with massive popularity in 2014. But what became of that effort? Very little. Exchange operators continue to refuse to give visibility. Despite the fact this information can often be obtained through trivial blockchain analysis, no Canadian platform has ever provided any wallet addresses publicly. As described by the CEO of Newton "For us to implement some kind of realtime Proof of Reserves solution, which I'm not opposed to, it would have to ... Preserve our users' privacy, as well as our own. Some kind of zero-knowledge proof". Kraken describes here in more detail why they haven't implemented such a scheme. According to professor Eli Ben-Sasson, when he spoke with exchanges, none were interested in implementing Proof of Reserves.
And yet, Kraken's places their reasoning on a page called "Proof of Reserves". More recently, both BitBuy and ShakePay have released reports titled "Proof of Reserves and Security Audit". Both reports contain disclaimers against being audits. Both reports trust the customer list provided by the platform, leaving the open possibility that multiple large accounts could have been excluded from the process. Proof of Reserves is a blockchain validation where customers see the wallets on the blockchain. The report from Kraken is 5 years old, but they leave it described as though it was just done a few weeks ago. And look at what they expect customers to do for validation. When firms represent something being "Proof of Reserve" when it's not, this is like a farmer growing fruit with pesticides and selling it in a farmers market as organic produce - except that these are people's hard-earned life savings at risk here. Platforms are misrepresenting the level of visibility in place and deceiving the public by their misuse of this term. They haven't proven anything.
Fraud isn't a problem that is unique to cryptocurrency. Fraud happens all the time. Enron, WorldCom, Nortel, Bear Stearns, Wells Fargo, Moser Baer, Wirecard, Bre-X, and Nicola are just some of the cases where frauds became large enough to become a big deal (and there are so many countless others). These all happened on 100% reversible assets despite regulations being in place. In many of these cases, the problems happened due to the over-complexity of the financial instruments. For example, Enron had "complex financial statements [which] were confusing to shareholders and analysts", creating "off-balance-sheet vehicles, complex financing structures, and deals so bewildering that few people could understand them". In cryptocurrency, we are often combining complex financial products with complex technologies and verification processes. We are naïve if we think problems like this won't happen. It is awkward and uncomfortable for many people to admit that they don't know how something works. If we want "money of the people" to work, the solutions have to be simple enough that "the people" can understand them, not so confusing that financial professionals and technology experts struggle to use or understand them.
For those who question the extent to which an organization can fool their way into a security consultancy role, HB Gary should be a great example to look at. Prior to trying to out anonymous, HB Gary was being actively hired by multiple US government agencies and others in the private sector (with glowing testimonials). The published articles and hosted professional security conferences. One should also look at this list of data breaches from the past 2 years. Many of them are large corporations, government entities, and technology companies. These are the ones we know about. Undoubtedly, there are many more that we do not know about. If HB Gary hadn't been "outted" by anonymous, would we have known they were insecure? If the same breach had happened outside of the public spotlight, would it even have been reported? Or would HB Gary have just deleted the Twitter posts, brought their site back up, done a couple patches, and kept on operating as though nothing had happened?
In the case of Quadriga, the facts are clear. Despite past experience with platforms such as MapleChange in Canada and others around the world, no guidance or even the most basic of a framework was put in place by regulators. By not clarifying any sort of legal framework, regulators enabled a situation where a platform could be run by former criminal Mike Dhanini/Omar Patryn, and where funds could be held fully unchecked by one person. At the same time, the lack of regulation deterred legitimate entities from running competing platforms and Quadriga was granted a money services business license for multiple years of operation, which gave the firm the appearance of legitimacy. Regulators did little to protect Canadians despite Quadriga failing to file taxes from 2016 onward. The entire administrative team had resigned and this was public knowledge. Many people had suspicions of what was going on, including Ryan Mueller, who forwarded complaints to the authorities. These were ignored, giving Gerald Cotten the opportunity to escape without justice.
There are multiple issues with the SOC II model including the prohibitive cost (you have to find a third party accounting firm and the prices are not even listed publicly on any sites), the requirement of operating for a year (impossible for new platforms), and lack of any public visibility (SOC II are private reports that aren't shared outside the people in suits).
Securities frameworks are expensive. Sarbanes-Oxley is estimated to cost $5.1 million USD/yr for the average Fortune 500 company in the United States. Since "Fortune 500" represents the top 500 companies, that means well over $2.55 billion USD (~$3.4 billion CAD) is going to people in suits. Isn't the problem of trust and verification the exact problem that the blockchain is supposed to solve?
To use Quadriga as justification for why custodians or SOC II or other advanced schemes are needed for platforms is rather silly, when any framework or visibility at all, or even the most basic of storage policies, would have prevented the whole thing. It's just an embarrassment.
We are now seeing regulators take strong action. CoinSquare in Canada with multi-million dollar fines. BitMex from the US, criminal charges and arrests. OkEx, with full disregard of withdrawals and no communication. Who's next?
We have a unique window today where we can solve these problems, and not permanently destroy innovation with unreasonable expectations, but we need to act quickly. This is a unique historic time that will never come again.
r/binance: Binance is the world’s leading blockchain and cryptocurrency infrastructure provider with a financial product suite that includes the … Download Binance: Buy Bitcoin Securely App 2.20.2 for iPhone free online at AppPure. Get Binance: Buy Bitcoin Securely for iOS latest version. Welcome to the world’s #1 cryptocurrency exchange by trading volume, trusted by millions of users worldwide. It’s very hard to find anywhere to buy ICX with Fiat currencies at this stage. So our guide is going to show you how to trade Bitcoin, Ethereum, Binance Coin or Tether for ICX on one of the world’s largest exchanges, Binance. Some of the competitors that the digital currency currently has include Cardano (ADA) and Cosmos (ATOM). If you want ... You can they buy bitcoin on Coinbase Pro, or buy a stable coin like USDC and then transfer that to Binance, then buy BTC on Binance. Reason for this is that you don't pay fees to do bank transfer to Coinbase Pro (you do have to pay fees if you do wire transfer or pay with credit/debit card on Coinbase pro). Step 1: Register on Binance Fill the blanks with your details, and use the same to log in the account. Step 2: Access Binance Credit Card Page Head over to the Funds section on the Binance toolbar, and choose the Buy with Credit Card option. Select Bitcoin as the cryptocurrency you want to purchase, then enter your order amount. The second bar ... Binance provides easy and convenient ways for you to buy Bitcoin instantly, and we put our best efforts to fully inform our users about each and every cryptocurrency we offer on the exchange, but we are not responsible for the results that may arise from your Bitcoin purchase. This page and any information in it is not meant to be interpreted as an endorsement of any particular cryptocurrency ... Top Bitcoin exchanges with the lowest fees to buy and sell bitcoin. If you are looking for an exchange where you would like to buy or sell bitcoin at a low fee, your choice will depend on your preferred payment method. Nowadays when you buy bitcoin you have a myriad of payment methods you can choose from: you can pay with credit or debit card ... Note: You can buy a fraction of Bitcoin. For example, 0.1 BTC or 0.0023 BTC. You can Buy Bitcoin worth $100 or $10000. The detailed steps are outlined below which you can use right away to learn how to buy Bitcoin. How to buy Bitcoin on Binance exchange with a credit card. The first easy step is to register with Binance exchange; Fill all the details, your email, password, and signup for Binance exchange . The second step is to access the Binance exchange credit card page; Go to the “Funds” section of the Binance exchange toolbar and select the “Buy by credit card” option. Select Bitcoin as the ... Binance cryptocurrency exchange - We operate the worlds biggest bitcoin exchange and altcoin crypto exchange in the world by volume
How to Buy Crypto with Credit Card on Binance FAST ...
!!👨💻 SET UP A BINANCE US ACCOUNT 👩💻 !! https://www.binance.us/?ref=35000644 🔐 LEDGER NANO X 🔐 Order Here: https://www.ledgerwallet.com/r/6057 ... Shakepay Link: https://shakepay.me/r/Z3AUZHI Note the Shakepay funding address has changed! It's now [email protected] Binance Link: https://www.binance.co... Binance is also offering a reward of 20 EURO to the first 5000 users to register at www.binance.je.so go ahead guys and grab the opportunity to be in the first 5000 users but users has to complete ... Wondering how to buy Crypto with a credit card on Binance? Deposit bitcoin or another cryptocurrency in your account in less than 30 minutes. I show you how ... Use a Debit Card on Binance US to Buy Bitcoin! - Duration: 6:57. Rex Kneisley 6,324 views. 6:57. Shopify Tutorial For Beginners - How To Create A Shopify Store From Scratch - Duration: 1:42:54. ... How About Buying This GPU? https://geni.us/iBTw0 Other "CoinMarketCap" Alternatives! Messari - https://messari.io/ Coin360 - https://coin360.com/ CoinGecko -... How to buy and sell Cryptocurrencys on Binance. BitCoin and Ripple Binance https://goo.gl/AzWFhh Once you buy or sell $100 of digital currency or more will g... Get a lifetime 10% fee discount when trading crypto on Binance: https://www.binance.com/en/register?ref=FOC8JZJ8 How to Buy Bitcoin with Credit Card / Debit ... India's Best & Cheapest Crypto Exchange How to Buy Bitcoin in India - Duration: 6:56. Crypto India I क्रिप्टो इंडिया 5,690 views 6:56 **** Buy LITECOIN *** Link : https://www.binance.com/?ref=11252020 **** LEGIT PROGRAM *** - Bitconnect Link : https://bitconnect.co/?ref=hous123 If you have ...