I believe that it also has been stated that advertising indicates that a person is acting as a business. it appears to be a rather crucial factor, if the case of @BurtW says anything. If I had never advertised on localbitcoins they would have never been able to claim what I was doing was a business and they would not have been able to arrest me for running a business without the proper license. prior to today, i had only skimmed that thread. i knew they were stinging localbitcoins advertisers for unlicensed MSB, but i didn't realize federal agents are taking control of highly reputed accounts and using them to sting customers! After I was arrested by homeland security the justice department was very interested in taking over my localbitcoins account. As part of the plea deals they offered me they wanted the account so they could use it for undercover operations.
At least some localbitcoins account are run by federal agents, cooperating witnesses or undercover agents in local jurisdictions. That is a fact. so even if you are careful not to trigger FINCEN's MSB requirements, you still need to be very careful not to agree to anything illegal. if a trader ever mentions the need to conceal illegal proceeds, you're looking at something like this: if anyone ever remotely suggests they are using you to launder money, don't just walk away. run! no legit criminal is announcing stuff like that to strangers off the internet. it's a cop. |
|
|
|
Even in-person deals mean nothing, people should always remember what happened to Burtw, 1, 2, especially the part about asking to hand over his account to them. the issue of undercover agents infiltrating the american p2p market is indeed troubling and is the single biggest danger to p2p traders IMO. so many people are ignorant of the law so they hand their cases to the feds on a silver platter. i've been researching the legal issues surrounding p2p bitcoin exchange quite a bit: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5308020.....and there is a crucial element to @BurtW's case which can't be ignored. he says it himself, and it's as true today as it was in 2017: If I had never advertised on localbitcoins they would have never been able to claim what I was doing was a business and they would not have been able to arrest me for running a business without the proper license.
i quite like bitcoins for cash, no ID with a burner phone for contact. as long as you're on the right side of the law. because there are definitely cops on LBC trying to trick you into breaking it. |
|
|
|
thanks, guys---that explains it. i went back and reproduced the error. when i export an unsigned replacement transaction, it looks like this on my watching-only wallet:  but when i import to my offline wallet, it looks like this:  the first few times this happened, i was on autopilot and assumed i had already signed it. in the UI, it looks like any other signed transaction, with the "sign" button greyed out. and when i import it back into the watching-only wallet, it looks the same---like a transaction ready to be broadcast. but when you try to broadcast it, you get the decode error. if you look at the hex it starts with 45505446ff. the transaction was indeed unsigned! you have to be using the latest electrum on both offline and online devices.
as i had feared.  |
|
|
|
AFAIK the only direct bitcoin-related listing on the NYSE is "NYXBT". it's just a bitcoin price index they launched in 2015. https://www.coindesk.com/new-york-stock-exchange-launches-bitcoin-price-index back then, it was based on an average of coinbase and itbit prices. i'm not sure what the composite exchanges are today. either way, there's no direct way to invest. it's just a reference/benchmark. |
|
|
|
How much did you increase the fee? The amount you add to the fee must be bigger the relay fee. Assuming the relay fee of the node is 1 satoshi/vbyte, for replacing the transaction with a new one, you have to increase the fee by at least 1 sat/vbyte. The replacement transaction must also pay for its own bandwidth at or above the rate set by the node's minimum relay fee setting.
thanks. i did come across that rule while researching this problem. -original tx: 110 bytes (0.00001 fee) -replacement tx: 131 bytes (0.00008 fee) that yields the same error, so i assume there is a different issue at hand? |
|
|
|
"(Bitcoin) is a highly speculative asset, which has conducted some funny business and some interesting and totally reprehensible money laundering activity," Lagarde said in an interview at the Reuters Next conference.
Lagarde did not provide specific examples of money laundering cases but said she understood there had been criminal investigations into illegal activity. She did not elaborate. sounds legit.  sadly, the writing is on the wall---2021 is gonna be the year bitcoin gets regulated to shit. the USA is looking to pass those self-hosted wallet regulations to prevent third party money transmission by exchanges, and they're also threatening to implement the FATF travel rule with a $250 reporting threshold! get ready for KYC on the tiniest of bitcoin transactions! the EU is obviously getting ready to join the party too. |
|
|
|
What version are you running?
3.3.4. my keys stay offline so i generally don't update unless there is a critical security issue, or something that literally breaks the wallet. there's nothing i hate more than downloading files off the internet and installing them on my offline computer... |
|
|
|
i've had a transaction stuck for days. after bumping the fee, i get this error whenever i try broadcasting:  it's not a server issue. this is an offline wallet with a lot of history so sadly i can't even locate the sending output in the offline wallet to sweep the private key either. i'm just completely stuck. do i seriously need to download an electrum update just to be able to broadcast an RBF transaction? |
|
|
|
Does the IRS expect the FIFO/LIFO/HIFO methods to be applied to all the crypto assets owned by the tax subject (even those not used for trading at all), or is it applied within one exchange at the time?
the determination applies to all of your assets. if you're using multiple exchanges and maintaining a separate long term stash, specific lot identification will be easier. it will probably provide the best tax benefits too. Specific identification can be used as an accounting method for trading crypto assets. This means that taxpayers can select which units and lots of cryptocurrency they are selling at a given time as long as they can specifically identify them and support the cost basis of the units. If you are unable to specifically identify your cryptocurrencies, you are to default to a first-in first-out (FIFO) basis. https://cryptotrader.tax/blog/new-irs-cryptocurrency-tax-guidance |
|
|
|
If Tethers are actually 1:1 backed, then it's just as dangerous as the typical fiat USD.
If Tether's aren't actually 1:1 backed, then it's definitely a problem. people often repeat this but what's the problem, exactly? not the philosophical problem of fractional reserve---that applies to the whole banking system and probably a bunch of crypto exchanges too. but how/why is this one exchange's USD balances such a problem for bitcoin? worst case scenario, people holding USD balances with tether get screwed over---the same risk at literally any custodial exchange. the amount of bitcoins held by coinbase (~1 million or 5-6% of the entire bitcoin supply) is much scarier to me. that could equate to massive political influence over bitcoin, especially as their coffers grow even larger. |
|
|
|
"1 BTC = 1 BTC" emerged, IIRC, as a commentary on/response to fiat-obsessed bitcoin speculators who only cared about fiat value. if you are a true bitcoin believer then BTC is the proper unit of account---never any kind of fiat money. fiat money is just a temporary reference. purchasing power is not and never was the definition of a bitcoin, nor should it ever be. 1 BTC = 1/21,000,000th of the max monetary supply, period. if that's not how you're oriented, then you're still stuck in the old paradigm, and you don't value bitcoin as an economy unto itself. People arguing to keep the ChipMixer payments at their current rates who are trying to get a bigger paycheck, they know that the campaign should decrease the rates and probably want the discussion about it to stop. It's logical, though a bit too smarmy.
i just think all the open speculation lacks tact. it feels icky. people with common sense understand the underlying economics and can reasonably expect what's gonna happen, but i just don't see the point in making some public spectacle out of CM's business decisions. that's why the discussion should cease and why the service thread should be cleaned up IMO. |
|
|
|
I have some bitcoins that I've kept for a couple of years and I'd like to sell them for a profit, without paying a big tax on it, and then to transfer the money through bank transfer to my country. Here in my country I'd have to pay 20%, which is not acceptable.
you need to establish tax jurisdiction first---often a timely and difficult process, and one which usually requires that you establish residency. in malta for instance, that takes physical presence on the island for more than 183 days/year and also the general intent to reside there. they don't want people renting an empty house while living abroad and using malta solely as a tax shelter. establishing residency in a second country for tax purposes also does not automatically remove your tax liability in your home country. that depends on the tax laws where you currently live and/or do business. |
|
|
|
If "we're really looking for a more cause-and-effect driver to explain [Monday's] pullback, other than the obvious "what goes up must come down" element, it would be [Monday's] uncanny apparent correlation to the US dollar, which bounced hard off her own lows [on Monday]," Mati Greenspan, founder of Quantum Economics, wrote in his newsletter yesterday, adding that stocks and commodities are also softening on the greenback's strength. i don't buy the dollar explanation. the DXY bounce is not coinciding with a decline in the stock market, and there is also historically a positive correlation between the DXY and bitcoin, not a negative one. occam's razor: bitcoin just doubled above its 2017 highs. it was due for a correction. blaming the dollar or coinbase is just the media scrambling to explain things in hindsight. |
|
|
|
Most importantly don't use margin in general because it is like playing with dynamite. Margin with bitcoin is like playing with nitroglycerin, riding in a Jeep on a bumpy road while bees are flying in the vehicle.
They are right, you could lose all your money. you can lose your shirt margin trading anything. forex traders are using 200-250x leverage vs the 3-10x that is typical with bitcoin, and the significant majority of them are consistently losing money. this is the most recent data from oanda:  so i'm perpetually annoyed by the emphasis on cryptocurrency and these canned pronouncements claiming that the lack of nanny state regulations is the problem. like, if we only had the correct consumer protections, it would save total degens from blowing up their trading accounts?! pffff. the FCA isn't capable of shit in that department. they're just blowing hot air to justify their existence. |
|
|
|
sorry if the headline comes off as FUD---i've just been seeing it everywhere today (bloomberg, the post, the guardian, etc) and thought the sentiment was too funny to ignore. what a bunch of wankers. be prepared to lose all your money, guys!  Britain’s financial watchdog issued a dire warning to cryptocurrency traders Monday as Bitcoin took investors on another wild ride.
The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority said consumers who invest in the red-hot cryptocurrency market “should be prepared to lose all their money” because there are so many risks involved.
Firms promoting crypto investments may overstate the returns that traders will reap and understate the risks of the market, and investors who buy in are unlikely to have access to consumer protections if something goes wrong, regulators said.
“Consumers should be aware of the risks and fully consider whether investing in high-return investments based on cryptoassets is appropriate for them,” the agency, known as the FCA, said in the warning. “They should check and carefully consider the cryptoasset business involved.” Institutional investors have helped drive up Bitcoin’s price in recent weeks amid growing perceptions that it offers protection against inflation and could even become an alternative to gold.
But the FCA cast cryptocurrencies broadly as risky, “speculative” investments that could empty retail traders’ pockets given how loosely regulated they are.
“Investing in cryptoassets, or investments and lending linked to them, generally involves taking very high risks with investors’ money,” the agency warned. “… As with all high-risk, speculative investments, consumers should make sure they understand what they’re investing in, the risks associated with investing, and any regulatory protections that apply.” https://nypost.com/2021/01/11/uk-watchdog-warns-cryptocurrency-traders-amid-bitcoin-volatility/ |
|
|
|
As far as I know localbitcoins.com is still working.
Thought this was not an option for most US people? Unless you wanna run into trouble. if you're willing to use bank transfers, it's fine. there are plenty of active, reputable traders. just expect to be KYC'd at multiple levels---once by localbitcoins and again by your trading partners, who are in this day and age increasingly likely to be FINCEN-registered MSBs. the people getting arrested appear to be 1. advertising/making regular commissions on an exchange business not registered with FINCEN or licensed at the state level, 2. not filing SAR or CTR reports or collecting KYC while running an exchange business, or 3. knowingly laundering money (undercover cop tells seller the money is the proceeds of crime and seller still goes through with the deal). if you are just casually buying some coins from a trader on LBC, none of that applies. Always thought LBC wasn't a reliable or safe option for US people depending on their jurisdiction too actually. A quick look for me right now shows most ppl selling really low amounts, and very few bank transfer options.
hmmm, i see many dozens of offers for bank transfers/cash deposit, with offers into the high 5-figure USD. i reckon if you're looking to buy 6-figure USD amounts, you should just go through an OTC desk---cheaper and much safer. |
|
|
|
Because my family member gave me cash, I made a purchase in my name so I am holding the coin for that person. The problem is, it will affect my capital gains tax in long term if he decides to withdraw the fund. Is there any way I can transfer the person's coin if I create a wallet in his name and not affect my CGT? Is there a better way for this? Cheers!  what is your tax jurisdiction/where do you live? it makes a big difference. when you say "in your name" i assume you mean you bought on an exchange---gave your ID information and all that? in most cases, there has been no taxable event until the coins are sold. so if you just withdraw the coins to your family member's external wallet and relinquish control, the issue can probably be ignored and you can both go on your merry way. if you want to be especially careful, you two could write up a memorandum detailing the agreement you had, in case the tax office ever comes knocking. i strongly recommend you avoid this in the future, and i especially recommend against selling someone else's coins through your own exchange account. all of their taxable activity will be linked to you, and if you live somewhere like the USA or EU, the tax office may find out about it. it'll be a big mess trying to separate your activity from the other party's, and proving everything. in the future, they should just handle it themselves through their own exchange or broker account. |
|
|
|
Are there any clarifications on how they consider these "coins held"?
I am asking because iirc in countries like Germany at first everybody rejoiced that long time holders are tax free, and the clarifications have starting to pop out that this applies only if the coins are held by certain custodians and the values are under some 600 EUR.
I mean that although the news does look good, it needs to be clarified more, and the newspaper doesn't do that for now.
it's not news, just an opinion that crypto holders should take advantage of the tax incentives aimed at long term investors. the IRS already said in 2014 that bitcoin is treated as "property" for federal tax purposes. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-14-21.pdfthat means that crypto transactions are subject to the standard capital gains tax regime, just like all other forms of personal property---cars, collectibles, art, whatever. there is no ambiguity about it. short term capital gains (assets held for 1 year or less) are taxed at your ordinary tax rate, up to 37% depending what tax bracket your income puts you in. the taxes on long term capital gains (assets held for over a year) are capped at 20%. for most people, they are capped at 15%. americans should absolutely be thinking about the tax implications of short term selling, especially during bull runs like this. minimizing tax liability in this regime is all about timing. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
