technically is it correct to say that should you have transferred your private key from cloud (exchange) to your hardware wallet, you would not need permission to withdrawal/transfer your coin?

Doesn't it sound like the ownership of the ether you bought is tided to exchange you bought it from, that you even need approval by them?

I guess we are back to storage security issue once again (it should be #1 concern) - online exchange vs hardware wallet

so hardware wallet surely more secure? (provided we fail safe our memory for keyword phrases)

Does private key changes during/after 'transfer' from online exchange to hardware wallet?

how does the 'transfer' take place?

If that's the analogy, then the online exchange is the bank then?

and the new bank is your hardware wallet when you 'transfer' it to hardware wallet?

If the above is true, then something is not adding up.

If they can generate unlimited public key to sell to you (from a single 1 private key?), and not regulated, and not even giving you the private key (is the real ownership as far as i see it), then you bear the risk of buying the "virtual of the virtual currency", that means they have the ability to oversell (unlimited supply) you more than what the exchange actually has.

Doesn't that ring a bell of similarity to subprime loan crisis where one loan pass from one bank to another endlessly (without the real backing of real credit assessments), that eventually caused the subprime bubble burst?

This post has been edited by lowya: May 21 2017, 11:06 AM

only once you complete buy and sell cycle that you able to pull the coins from exchange? am i right?

if yes, then the holding risk (as explained in my previous post) cannot be mitigated (even if you want to manage it), because the exchange simple don't give you the private key unless you sold it?

dudes, they are called market makers, you are not actually buying the real coin, you bought the derivatives from them, the form that promises you the private keys (asset title), like a futures contract, they probably hold a minimum required coins, but certainly they can sell you way more than they actually own.

Exchange risk are bigger to deal with. The reason the site frozen or unable to login during high volatility is simply they need to hedge their positions to ensure their profit is secured, all market marker profits when you lose. The technology is awesome, but the weakest link here is the broker (aka market maker / buckle shop / middle men / agent). This is the risk nature of non-centralized, non-regulated instruments.

In the end, banks and MNC will certainly benefited from this ETH technology and leverage on technology, the same can't be said for investors who buy coins from these exchanges, once these exchanges pull the plug off, you will be left without the public key. Imaging you are sold a house to stay but without it's title, would you say you truly own the coin you purchased?

This week is the biggest (probably) history weekly gain for ETH with 82% gain in 1 week.

like a mugshot ah?

so is it possible to buy and transfer coins from one exchange to any type of wallet(s) without going through these verification processes?

This post has been edited by lowya: May 22 2017, 04:08 PM

if these exchange sits on the Smart Contract of Eheruem itself, it would not do a 9 days transactions.

Why don't they use something (smart contracts) they sell (ether)?

This post has been edited by lowya: May 22 2017, 04:21 PM

banks ownership 70% of Ripple means high institution holding, hence lower upside potential, unless they decided to trade among themselves to move price.

cryptocoin paradox need solving: if coins has limited supply, how does block chain pays miners after it's 'fully mined'?

what i try to say is, due to it's limited supply, if say ETH is fully mined one day, would all miners stop mining as there are no more coins to mine, and that causes the ledgers be 'wiped out' when all the mining servers goes offline?

i want to see more of smart contract ethereum applications especially the popular ones being used that replaced old method of doing things that is cheaper/better/faster, show me a few examples please anyone?

not yet, not a single coin yet. but interested from technology point of view, will invest if there is a mass adoption. At this stage it's more like a pre-ipo conceptualization stage.

as a trader, there is not a need to feel rush to buy something, the true test is how ethereum performs in the real world , if it cannot/unable to replaces the old conventional method with better/cheaper/faster/easier, it will remain as proof of concept, investors don't buy into proof of concept, only speculators. Without mass adoption, it's will only remain as speculation, which i view it differently from investing, cause safety of fund is the #1 priority, not gain.

It's was just a conference, not mass adoption bro.

On safety, 50mil has be hacked from the old ETC (ethereum classic), and before the hacking, wasn't the distributed decentralized ecosystem supposed to provide a resilience system? Disclaimer: I have not read about how the hacking was done.

and i read many sources said that ether is supposed to be limited supply, but u said it's not, i am a little confused actually. Also, something of unlimited supply (if it's true) also tells you that it's not that precious.

if uptrend buy and mine. if downtrend mine only.

different risk profile.

totally valid question.

maybe blockchain is like a new type of 'land', a platform for dapp, currently speculative in nature as there are not yet many dapp that has YET to replaced that conventional systems that we all used to it. The 'land' can rise in value only there are many developers that build LIVABLE houses (app) on it. The potential only can grow when there are more and more disruptive dapp running on it, which is what i have been looking forward to see any evidence that point to that trend. If anyone spot it please share.

This post has been edited by lowya: Jun 1 2017, 12:16 PM

how come xbitasia.com is not listed as one of the exchange in coinmarketcap.com ?