This article is well written, and I can relate to the author since we became bitcoin obsessed at around the same time. He makes good points about surviving a bear market, but I don't always agree with his assessment of fellow bitcoiners. I do agree with his criticism of those who believe bitcoin is the cure for every problem. His belief that the dollar may survive longer than most of us imagine seems plausible. In short, it's not your run of the mill take that I have come to expect from a committed maxi.
I think Swan overreacted in this case. They could just do nothing.
reply
I have a question regarding this. If Swan is supposed to be only a DCA (buy only BTC) and not selling, how is supposed to know that a new withdraw BTC address (users must always use a new address to withdraw from Swan) is part of a mixing/coinjoin whatever? I can even create a new set of seeds/xpubs everytime I withdraw and nobody could say that my new address is part of a coinjoin.
I find this Swan move quite stupid and over reacted. Or am I missing something?
reply
I used to buy with Swan. I did not want to reuse my withdraw address, so I manually created a new "wallet" each time I withdrew to have a new address. If you want automated withdrawals you have to reuse an address, if I'm not mistaken.
reply
Not mistaken
reply
deleted by author
reply
Very possible, but that's not what I did. I never moved it automatically.
reply
Yes i was wondering something similar. Is it that they will close your account if an address you sent btc from swan is eventually tied to a coinjoin ?
reply