For discussion about Litecoin, the leading cryptocurrency derived from Bitcoin. Litecoin is developed with a focus on speed, efficiency, and wider initial coin distribution through the use of scrypt-based mining.
cheapest way to exchange crypto from / to monero without KYC procedure
Hello, My crypto assets are all monero. Sometimes, there is a need to exchange them for other crypto, mainly BTC. Thats because
Buying BTC in an OTC way is much easier then buying xmr with fiat
BTC is a wider accepted payment method
So, I am looking for the most cost-efficient way exchange both ways. I have used exodus just for exchanging, but their fees are a bit high. I am aware of bisq and other OTC exchanges, but they mostly lack sufficient offers. Any suggestions? Must be a services with no KYC. Thanks
Title says it all . Want to load up on btc . I want cheapest combination of transaction , deposit and withdrawal , trading fees and trust and reliability in Australia . Appreciate whoever has had experience and can help . I hope this is the appropriate subreddit .
Binance is a crypto only trading platform that offers one of the most competitive rates around. If you're looking to trade crypto to crypto only this is probably the easiest and cheapest way to go. The exchange accepts users from around the world and has received favorable
[QUESTION] Cheapest non-custodial exchange for crypto->XMR?
XMR.to is a godsend, all praises due to our Binary Fate. But such a route (non-custodial1,no/very low commission and transaction fee) in the opposite direction (crypto->XMR) is missing. In your experience, what comes the closest to it? (I know I could just go to a regular exchange and enjoy their liquidity. But I won't.) . 1 I don't mean it in a literal sense, so read "non-custodial" = "instant"/"exchange holds the funds for only a minimal time span".
I want to convert some USD to crypto (BTC, ETH, LTC, I don't care), but Coinbase wants a buttload of fees for the privilege. Certainly there's a way to exchange for cheaper! Where are you folks obtaining your crypto assets these days?
Awesome people making crypto projects: a project request — I want to transfer crypto from [exchange A] to [exchange B]. What's the cheapest way to do that?
A great example. Kucoin's having a little sale, so I thought I'd move some gains from Cryptopia there. What's the cheapest way to do that? Picture a Google Maps for moving crypto around Well, I could study their fee schedules (both of them), then try to calculate the transaction fee charts, figure out if it's cheaper to sell some alt-coin into LTC and transfer that, or sell into NEO and transfer that (because it's free), or... You get the idea. I'm picturing a few drop-down boxes: I want to move [currency] from [exchange A] to [exchange B]. Hit submit, and up pops the 'here's a couple options' sort of screen. Option A: sell your alt-coin for ETH, transfer that from [exchange A] to [exchange B], then sell the ETH for alt-coin 2... Different paths to the same goal, which is why I thought of Google Maps... Thoughts? Or does this exist already?
Probably the Cheapest and One of the Most Secure Crypto Currency Exchange in the World.
Welcome to Yunbi Blockchain Assets Exchange. https://yunbi.com/?lang=en Yunbi is a professional crypto currency exchange founded in 2013. It is one of the most secure and reliable crypto currency exchanges based on the famous open source project Peatio. Yunbi has several distinctive features. 1. 100% crypto currency reserve on deposit, 100% legal currency reserve on deposit. 2. The assets of Yunbi is fully disclosed to all of its customers. 3. Yunbi has the cheapest trading fees for its customers. It is totally free of withdraw fees and trading fees. 4. Yunbi is the largest Ethereum exchange in China. You won't miss this world class exchange, will you?
BCH is still near ATL in ratio to BTC. In the past there has been enthusiasm and news that helped BCH to remain relevant as a hodl. I feel as though ever since the BSV split the momentum has really fractured to a much smaller minority of supporters. I have a diverse basket of cryptos in the top 10 marketshare range. I continually consider using BCH as a deeper position, but the hatred for the coin in the greater space keeps me reticent. I do use BCH for exchange transfers and basic transactions. I find it’s the easiest, cheapest, and most efficient to use. So how is the community going to honestly be able to deconstruct and rebuild it’s image/brand after the muckraking over these past years? I don’t want to hear the same stuff about adoption, bitcoin cash is bitcoin and the dumbasses of the world will discover that themselves (they won’t), or about how bad bitcoin itself is. It’s still the first mover and clearly has every conceivable advantage to remain a speculative mainstay for years and years to come. There’s no flippening’s happening any time soon, and in fact the ratio keeps draining out. What’s the real next moves for BCH? Why should I go heavier on my position? Where are the buyers?
Why are cryptocurrencies rate higher in India than the rest of the world?
Bitcoin Price worldwide as of 12:57pm, 23rd August is ₹8,69,536 (I converted it to INR). But the crypto exchanges in India offer them around ₹9,07,000. Why such a big change? Where can I buy crypto at the cheapest price in India?
Don't blindly follow a narrative, its bad for you and its bad for crypto in general
I mostly lurk around here but I see a pattern repeating over and over again here and in multiple communities so I have to post. I'm just posting this here because I appreciate the fact that this sub is a place of free speech and maybe something productive can come out from this post, while bitcoin is just fucking censorship, memes and moon/lambo posts. If you don't agree, write in the comments why, instead of downvoting. You don't have to upvote either, but when you downvote you are killing the opportunity to have discussion. If you downvote or comment that I'm wrong without providing any counterpoints you are no better than the BTC maxis you despise. In various communities I see a narrative being used to bring people in and making them follow something without thinking for themselves. In crypto I see this mostly in BTC vs BCH tribalistic arguments: - BTC community: "Everything that is not BTC is shitcoin." or more recently as stated by adam on twitter, "Everything that is not BTC is a ponzi scheme, even ETH.", "what is ETH supply?", and even that they are doing this for "altruistic" reasons, to "protect" the newcomers. Very convenient for them that they are protecting the newcomers by having them buy their bags - BCH community: "BTC maxis are dumb", "just increase block size and you will have truly p2p electronic cash", "It is just that simple, there are no trade offs", "if you don't agree with me you are a BTC maxi", "BCH is satoshi's vision for p2p electronic cash" It is not exclusive to crypto but also politics, and you see this over and over again on twitter and on reddit. My point is, that narratives are created so people don't have to think, they just choose a narrative that is easy to follow and makes sense for them, and stick with it. And people keep repeating these narratives to bring other people in, maybe by ignorance, because they truly believe it without questioning, or maybe by self interest, because they want to shill you their bags. Because this is BCH community, and because bitcoin is censored, so I can't post there about the problems in the BTC narrative (some of which are IMO correctly identified by BCH community), I will stick with the narrative I see in the BCH community. The culprit of this post was firstly this post by user u/scotty321"The BTC Paradox: “A 1 MB blocksize enables poor people to run their own node!” “Okay, then what?” “Poor people won’t be able to use the network!”". You will see many posts of this kind being made by u/Egon_1 also. Then you have also this comment in that thread by u/fuck_____________1 saying that people that want to run their own nodes are retarded and that there is no reason to want to do that. "Just trust block explorer websites". And the post and comment were highly upvoted. Really? You really think that there is no problem in having just a few nodes on the network? And that the only thing that secures the network are miners? As stated by user u/co1nsurf3r in that thread:
While I don't think that everybody needs to run a node, a full node does publish blocks it considers valid to other nodes. This does not amount to much if you only consider a single node in the network, but many "honest" full nodes in the network will reduce the probability of a valid block being withheld from the network by a collusion of "hostile" node operators.
But surely this will not get attention here, and will be downvoted by those people that promote the narrative that there is no trade off in increasing the blocksize and the people that don't see it are retarded or are btc maxis. The only narrative I stick to and have been for many years now is that cryptocurrency takes power from the government and gives power to the individual, so you are not restricted to your economy as you can participate in the global economy. There is also the narrative of banking the bankless, which I hope will come true, but it is not a use case we are seeing right now. Some people would argue that removing power from gov's is a bad thing, but you can't deny the fact that gov's can't control crypto (at least we would want them not to). But, if you really want the individuals to remain in control of their money and transact with anyone in the world, the network needs to be very resistant to any kind of attacks. How can you have p2p electronic cash if your network just has a handful couple of nodes and the chinese gov can locate them and just block communication to them? I'm not saying that this is BCH case, I'm just refuting the fact that there is no value in running your own node. If you are relying on block explorers, the gov can just block the communication to the block explorer websites. Then what? Who will you trust to get chain information? The nodes needs to be decentralized so if you take one node down, many more can appear so it is hard to censor and you don't have few points of failure. Right now BTC is focusing on that use case of being difficult to censor. But with that comes the problem that is very expensive to transact on the network, which breaks the purpose of anyone being able to participate. Obviously I do think that is also a major problem, and lightning network is awful right now and probably still years away of being usable, if it ever will. The best solution is up for debate, but thinking that you just have to increase the blocksize and there is no trade off is just naive or misleading. BCH is doing a good thing in trying to come with a solution that is inclusive and promotes cheap and fast transactions, but also don't forget centralization is a major concern and nothing to just shrug off. Saying that "a 1 MB blocksize enables poor people to run their own" and that because of that "Poor people won’t be able to use the network" is a misrepresentation designed to promote a narrative. Because 1MB is not to allow "poor" people to run their node, it is to facilitate as many people to run a node to promote decentralization and avoid censorship. Also an elephant in the room that you will not see being discussed in either BTC or BCH communities is that mining pools are heavily centralized. And I'm not talking about miners being mostly in china, but also that big pools control a lot of hashing power both in BTC and BCH, and that is terrible for the purpose of crypto. Other projects are trying to solve that. Will they be successful? I don't know, I hope so, because I don't buy into any narrative. There are many challenges and I want to see crypto succeed as a whole. As always guys, DYOR and always question if you are not blindly following a narrative. I'm sure I will be called BTC maxi but maybe some people will find value in this. Don't trust guys that are always posting silly "gocha's" against the other "tribe". EDIT: User u/ShadowOfHarbringer has pointed me to some threads that this has been discussed in the past and I will just put my take on them here for visibility, as I will be using this thread as a reference in future discussions I engage:
When there was only 2 nodes in the network, adding a third node increased redundancy and resiliency of the network as a whole in a significant way. When there is thousands of nodes in the network, adding yet another node only marginally increase the redundancy and resiliency of the network. So the question then becomes a matter of personal judgement of how much that added redundancy and resiliency is worth. For the absolutist, it is absolutely worth it and everyone on this planet should do their part.
What is the magical number of nodes that makes it counterproductive to add new nodes? Did he do any math? Does BCH achieve this holy grail safe number of nodes? Guess what, nobody knows at what number of nodes is starts to be marginally irrelevant to add new nodes. Even BTC today could still not have enough nodes to be safe. If you can't know for sure that you are safe, it is better to try to be safer than sorry. Thousands of nodes is still not enough, as I said, it is much cheaper to run a full node as it is to mine. If it costs millions in hash power to do a 51% attack on the block generation it means nothing if it costs less than $10k to run more nodes than there are in total in the network and cause havoc and slowing people from using the network. Or using bot farms to DDoS the 1000s of nodes in the network. Not all attacks are monetarily motivated. When you have governments with billions of dollars at their disposal and something that could threat their power they could do anything they could to stop people from using it, and the cheapest it is to do so the better
You should run a full node if you're a big business with e.g. >$100k/month in volume, or if you run a service that requires high fraud resistance and validation certainty for payments sent your way (e.g. an exchange). For most other users of Bitcoin, there's no good reason to run a full node unless you reel like it.
Shouldn't individuals benefit from fraud resistance too? Why just businesses?
Personally, I think it's a good idea to make sure that people can easily run a full node because they feel like it, and that it's desirable to keep full node resource requirements reasonable for an enthusiast/hobbyist whenever possible. This might seem to be at odds with the concept of making a worldwide digital cash system in which all transactions are validated by everybody, but after having done the math and some of the code myself, I believe that we should be able to have our cake and eat it too.
This is recurrent argument, but also no math provided, "just trust me I did the math"
The biggest reason individuals may want to run their own node is to increase their privacy. SPV wallets rely on others (nodes or ElectronX servers) who may learn their addresses.
It is a reason and valid one but not the biggest reason
If you do it for fun and experimental it good. If you do it for extra privacy it's ok. If you do it to help the network don't. You are just slowing down miners and exchanges.
Yes it will slow down the network, but that shows how people just don't get the the trade off they are doing
I will just copy/paste what Satoshi Nakamoto said in his own words. "The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server."
Another "it is all or nothing argument" and quoting satoshi to try and prove their point. Just because every user doesn't need to be also a full node doesn't mean that there aren't serious risks for having few nodes
For this to have any importance in practice, all of the miners, all of the exchanges, all of the explorers and all of the economic nodes should go rogue all at once. Collude to change consensus. If you have a node you can detect this. It doesn't do much, because such a scenario is impossible in practice.
Not true because as I said, you can DDoS the current nodes or run more malicious nodes than that there currently are, because is cheap to do so
Non-mining nodes don't contribute to adding data to the blockchain ledger, but they do play a part in propagating transactions that aren't yet in blocks (the mempool). Bitcoin client implementations can have different validations for transactions they see outside of blocks and transactions they see inside of blocks; this allows for "soft forks" to add new types of transactions without completely breaking older clients (while a transaction is in the mempool, a node receiving a transaction that's a new/unknown type could drop it as not a valid transaction (not propagate it to its peers), but if that same transaction ends up in a block and that node receives the block, they accept the block (and the transaction in it) as valid (and therefore don't get left behind on the blockchain and become a fork). The participation in the mempool is a sort of "herd immunity" protection for the network, and it was a key talking point for the "User Activated Soft Fork" (UASF) around the time the Segregated Witness feature was trying to be added in. If a certain percentage of nodes updated their software to not propagate certain types of transactions (or not communicate with certain types of nodes), then they can control what gets into a block (someone wanting to get that sort of transaction into a block would need to communicate directly to a mining node, or communicate only through nodes that weren't blocking that sort of transaction) if a certain threshold of nodes adheres to those same validation rules. It's less specific than the influence on the blockchain data that mining nodes have, but it's definitely not nothing.
The first reasonable comment in that thread but is deep down there with only 1 upvote
The addition of non-mining nodes does not add to the efficiency of the network, but actually takes away from it because of the latency issue.
That is true and is actually a trade off you are making, sacrificing security to have scalability
The addition of non-mining nodes has little to no effect on security, since you only need to destroy mining ones to take down the network
It is true that if you destroy mining nodes you take down the network from producing new blocks (temporarily), even if you have a lot of non mining nodes. But, it still better than if you take down the mining nodes who are also the only full nodes. If the miners are not the only full nodes, at least you still have full nodes with the blockchain data so new miners can download it and join. If all the miners are also the full nodes and you take them down, where will you get all the past blockchain data to start mining again? Just pray that the miners that were taken down come back online at some point in the future?
The real limiting factor is ISP's: Imagine a situation where one service provider defrauds 4000 different nodes. Did the excessive amount of nodes help at all, when they have all been defrauded by the same service provider? If there are only 30 ISP's in the world, how many nodes do we REALLY need?
You cant defraud if the connection is encrypted. Use TOR for example, it is hard for ISP's to know what you are doing.
Satoshi specifically said in the white paper that after a certain point, number of nodes needed plateaus, meaning after a certain point, adding more nodes is actually counterintuitive, which we also demonstrated. (the latency issue). So, we have adequately demonstrated why running non-mining nodes does not add additional value or security to the network.
Again, what is the number of nodes that makes it counterproductive? Did he do any math?
There's also the matter of economically significant nodes and the role they play in consensus. Sure, nobody cares about your average joe's "full node" where he is "keeping his own ledger to keep the miners honest", as it has no significance to the economy and the miners couldn't give a damn about it. However, if say some major exchanges got together to protest a miner activated fork, they would have some protest power against that fork because many people use their service. Of course, there still needs to be miners running on said "protest fork" to keep the chain running, but miners do follow the money and if they got caught mining a fork that none of the major exchanges were trading, they could be coaxed over to said "protest fork".
In consensus, what matters about nodes is only the number, economical power of the node doesn't mean nothing, the protocol doesn't see the net worth of the individual or organization running that node.
Running a full node that is not mining and not involved is spending or receiving payments is of very little use. It helps to make sure network traffic is broadcast, and is another copy of the blockchain, but that is all (and is probably not needed in a healthy coin with many other nodes)
He gets it right (broadcasting transaction and keeping a copy of the blockchain) but he dismisses the importance of it
~$10 free with CoinField for depositing $100/£100/100 EUR
~$10 free with CoinField for depositing $100/£100/100 EUR CoinField is a cryptocurrency exchange and digital wallet, allowing you to buy, sell and exchange over 20 different cryptocurrencies worldwide. They also offer SOLO, their own cryptocurrency, built on the XRP Ledger. They're currently offering 40 SOLO which is around $10 for depositing $100 USD/$100 CAD/100 EU£100 GBP/10,000 JPY/300 AED. I also got an extra 10 SOLO on signing up, but I can't see this mentioned anywhere so don't think it's guaranteed. To minimise fees, I'd recommend making the deposit in EUR via SEPA and then exchanging to and withdrawing SOLO/DGB (free) or XLM (£0.02). Edit: it seems SEPA deposits are currently unavailable, so to minimise fees, I'd recommend making the deposit in CAD via debit card and exchanging to and withdrawing XRP/SOLO/DGB as they have no associated withdrawal fees. $110 in CAD works out to around £63.68 so is the cheapest option available, and can easily be sent via TransferWise or Revolut. Steps
The "cheapest" cryptocurrency exchange is going to be one that provides users the best (lowest) fees in regards to purchasing and selling (or simply trading) crypto assets. Not all exchanges offer the same type of fees - while Binance or Kraken might be cheap ( in the best way possible ), there are other trading platforms that have much higher It also leads the crypto exchange industry in terms of low transaction fees. The world’s leading and most significant cryptocurrency exchange is the cheapest crypto exchange to purchase, trade, and sell digital currencies. The Malta-based cryptocurrency exchange has a transaction fee of 0.05%, which is the lowest in the industry. Crypto.com App - Rolling out a massive product line in 2019, Crypto.com has a great mobile app where you can trade crypto for crypto at 0.0% or absolutely free (they do have withdraw fees and fees for their other products)! Crypto.com also offers cool things like a connected Visa debit card you can use to spend your crypto anywhere that accepts Visa. The exchange is best known for its high liquidity crypto-fiat trade pairs, allowing users to trade against four different fiat currencies, including USD, EUR, and GBP. Beyond this, the exchange also offers dozens of crypto-crypto trade pairs — though fiat trading is its clear standout feature. Keeping this in mind, we have compiled a list of 13 crypto exchanges with the lowest fees to make your search for a crypto exchange a bit easier. 13. Coinbase. Coinbase is a crypto exchange and a crypto wallet that claims to have over 20 million users.
World's Top 5 Best CryptoCurrency Exchanges With The Lowest Transaction Fees VERIFIED EXCHANGE
Link to join Blockchain Education (Limited Space, Discount Code): http://link.blockchaineducation.com.au/mgKa2dN3 Link to join Blockchain Education: http://p... Cheapest Way to Buy Bitcoin सबसे सस्ता बिटकॉइन यहाँ खरीदें The PIT Exchange by Blockchain - Duration: 15:29. Coin Gyaan 4,262 views 15:29 This video will show you the best places to buy #cryptocurrency like #Bitcoin, with a debit card or credit card. ℹ️ These sites are all exchanges, and I compare and contrast the pros and cons ... Another big US player in the exchange market is the Las Vegas based Bittrex. They have an across-the-board 0.25% fee for trading and do a ton of volume. for more info please visit: Top 5 CHEAPEST Crypto Coin Masternodes to SETUP - Up to 117% Return ... [The GUARANTEED best trading group & crypto education program out there today] ... SAFE Binance Exchange Link [Best New ...