|
My experience was a nightmare, because most tax advisors have no clue what they are talking about, when it comes to Crypto currency matters. The one will tell you that it is an investment and the other will tell you that it is a share trade and that it should be seen as a revenue transaction.
The policy and guidelines from the tax authorities are vague, so you will have to make your own decision based on your interpretation of these guidelines.
Most of these tax advisors just want to make money, so you never get a straight answer.
|
|
|
|
|
Not all criticism is bad. Take for example these two comments :
1. I think Bitcoin sucks, because the fees are too high. <Negative criticism without value>
2. I think Bitcoin can be more popular, if they can reduce the fees. <Constructive criticism with value>
If I analyse his comments, based on the two examples above, then I would categorize them as being constructive criticism. Peter's opinion highlights certain issues, which can be addressed, before the shit hits the fan. We are in the testing phase and people are encouraged to report on issues that might be exploited in the future.
|
|
|
|
I think the drop test comes to mind here. I have bought both devices and I am impressed with Ledger's protective metal plate that slides over the screen to protect it. I have dropped both devices and I squirm every time this happens with my Trezor. I do not feel the same way about my Ledger, because of this little metal plate. Some people are working on a protective cover for the Trezor, but I feel that it just adds to the overall cost of the device. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/18010402/case-for-trezor-wallet-bitcoin-cryptocurrencyBoth of these devices are very good, but I like the Ledger just a little more. ^smile^ |
|
|
|
|
This is why I like my Ledger Nano S more than my Trezor, because they thought about this problem before they sold it. They have a metal housing that slides over the screen to protect it. <genius>
The Trezor is also more expensive than the Ledger, so this added cost will just make it more expensive for the customer, when they have to make the decision what to buy.
I have to say, both wallets are good value for money, so it is not a waste. ^smile^
|
|
|
|
I don't think LN will fundamentally change mining incentives. As you point out, there is the matter of opening, closing and funding channels. These require on-chain transactions. Even if a majority of network traffic goes to LN, a significant portion of network growth will still be on-chain.
For another thing, the security model of LN is different than Bitcoin. As I understand it, parties must be online and private keys are required to update settlement transactions. So your LN node is a essentially a "hot wallet" and shouldn't be used for value storage. I think most high-value transactions will probably remain on-chain. Also, the security of LN hash preimages is based on the idea that you can settle to the blockchain if your channel partner is dishonest. But if you can't get a settlement transaction confirmed on the blockchain before the timelock expires, you can't necessarily empty your channel before a thief can. In the context of high on-chain fees, that could prove significant.
So, even if we sidestep the matter of opening and closing channels, I think the differences in security model mean that LN payments are not interchangeable with BTC payments. There will always be a market for distributed and permanently stored payments/contracts/data on the blockchain.
Of course there will always be a place for onchain transactions to be happened within the bitcoin network, but don't forget that the main that LN comes to handle is with the micro transactions, people who want to transact a small amount wouldn't really need the same amount of security that doing onchain transaction offers, and they will be okay with doing the transaction off-chain. A big concern about LN network is that you would need to open a channel for each bitcoin address you have, which means that you won't be able to use multiple addresses- so you are losing anonymity and you are more open for security flaws as multi-signature addresses are not being supported within the LN network and you can only open channels with segwit addresses. Not a big deal solution at all. The thing is, it is still very early days for this technology and people's expectations are possibly a bit too high. As the technology mature and more applications are developed, most of these problems will be solved. The Lightning Network was built on top of SegWit, so it is expected that SegWit addresses would be a requirement. If it could be applied without SegWit, the guys at BCrash would have used it already. ^smile^ LN can be used without segwit actually. In fact it was almost assumed at some point that segwit would never get activated, and devs were working around this fact, possibly using Litecoin as a gateway to improve LN with a non-segwit Bitcoin, but as we know, it eventually got activated. This is what caused that big Litecoin dip, since as soon as Bitcoin got segwit, Litecoin went back into irrelevancy. I have nothing against Litecoin but that's just a fact. I think LTC will still have a role in the future with further improvements that are delayed by miners and whatnot. It will be a test station for controversial updates before they go live. Oh, that is news to me. I was under the impression that LiteCoin actually implemented SegWit before Bitcoin did. It also seems as though SegWit has been more successful on LiteCoin than on Bitcoin. LiteCoin Segregated Witness (SegWit) Adoption was at 99.8% out of 617 blocks, back in 2017-05-08 < Source : http://litecoin-segwit.info/ > I also read somewhere that SegWit had to be implemented for Lightning Network to work, but things might have changed since then. < I will brush up on that knowledge > |
|
|
|
well half of the list is from those who are directly affiliated with huge coins with premines! XRP is the 100% premine coin which they own all of it so they are rich. ETH is the other premine coin which had 72 million premined coins so obviously they are also rich.
no surprise people keep creating lots of shitcoins like these with the same scheme wanting to get rich like them!
something is seriously broken about this system.
You are 100% spot on with that statement. These Ethereum Founders made a shitload of money with these premines and people are still buying into that. I also do not see the mining giants on there, that supposedly sold Billions of dollars worth of ASIC chips, just in last year. These lists will never be accurate because you never know how many of these people might have sold some of their coins. |
|
|
|
I am not a big Circle fan, because they used the old Bait n switch trick on Bitcoiners a few years ago. They started out as a big supporter of Bitcoin and then when they gained enough users, they dumped Bitcoin and changed their business model. I will never trust a company like that again. <They use people> They are going to use "Poloniex" and spit it out when they are done with them. <absorb more customers into Circle> |
|
|
|
Segwit is just a sticking plaster for a system that won't scale on-block so never mind talk about becoming an industry
standard in the future because crypto has moved on and will leave Bitcoin dead in its tracks.
Yeah, right... Roger Ver and Craig Wright will scale the decentralised crypto by introducing gigabyte blocks and hiring people to change the constants in the code for them  You don't know what you're talking about, man. Why are we making things so complicated or is this just a temporary solution to push SegWit quicker into mainstream use? Please share your experience and which implementation you used and why you chose to go that route. You can use whichever standard you find suitable - they all work and none of them will stop working. How is it complicated? What is your problem? Looking at your response to RNC and myself, I should say that you should just take a chill pill, because you seem to be very tightly strung there. ^hmmmmm^ The problem is, we do not need different services using different formats all over the place. I see with the latest Bitcoin Core 0.16.0 that was released, they sort of singled out Bech32, so I reckon that is the way things are going to now.  This means I have to switch to wallets that use Bech32 or hope that my wallet provider makes the switch soon. |
|
|
|
A lot of people are moving over to SegWit now. The big question is, which implementation is going to be the standard in the future? We currently have P2SH addresses <The ones starting with a 3 and backward compatible to non-SegWit wallets> or Bech32 addresses <Starting with bc1>  Also looks like there are bech32 P2WSH addresses & bech32 P2WPKH addresses. Bloody confusing! This reminds me of the days when we had a VHS and Betamax videotape format war, way back then. <I feel so old now> I find that even signing a message with a SegWit address is still a bit problematic, because different applications handle this differently, based on the format you used. See this topic : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2885058Why are we making things so complicated or is this just a temporary solution to push SegWit quicker into mainstream use? Please share your experience and which implementation you used and why you chose to go that route. |
|
|
|
|
If you consider that Elon Musk founded X.com in 1999 (which later became PayPal), it is strange that he did not experiment a little bit more with Crypto currencies. I think the bigger projects like SpaceX and Tesla would take up a large share of his time.
This is not to say that he did not assign some team to look into this and that he might announce a MarsCoin, somewhere in the future. The guy is brilliant and I doubt that he would miss an opportunity to capitalize on the opportunity to create his own TeslaCoin or MuskCoin. ^smile^
|
|
|
|
I don't think exhcange crashes during massive price moments are accidental, but I don't think the exchanges are doing it on purpose either. I would guess it's more of an infrastructure problem than anything else. None were ready for the growth that crypto markets saw in 2017.
Well, now is the time for them to get their sh1t together. We need these exchanges to be on board with their platforms, when the big push is happening. How embarrassing is this scenario, when millions of people are rushing to buy bitcoins on these platforms and they are down for hours. How much potential investments in bitcoins were lost, because of this? They should prepare their IT systems and upgrade their bandwidth to handle bigger traffic, when we need them the most. |
|
|
|
I don't think LN will fundamentally change mining incentives. As you point out, there is the matter of opening, closing and funding channels. These require on-chain transactions. Even if a majority of network traffic goes to LN, a significant portion of network growth will still be on-chain.
For another thing, the security model of LN is different than Bitcoin. As I understand it, parties must be online and private keys are required to update settlement transactions. So your LN node is a essentially a "hot wallet" and shouldn't be used for value storage. I think most high-value transactions will probably remain on-chain. Also, the security of LN hash preimages is based on the idea that you can settle to the blockchain if your channel partner is dishonest. But if you can't get a settlement transaction confirmed on the blockchain before the timelock expires, you can't necessarily empty your channel before a thief can. In the context of high on-chain fees, that could prove significant.
So, even if we sidestep the matter of opening and closing channels, I think the differences in security model mean that LN payments are not interchangeable with BTC payments. There will always be a market for distributed and permanently stored payments/contracts/data on the blockchain.
Of course there will always be a place for onchain transactions to be happened within the bitcoin network, but don't forget that the main that LN comes to handle is with the micro transactions, people who want to transact a small amount wouldn't really need the same amount of security that doing onchain transaction offers, and they will be okay with doing the transaction off-chain. A big concern about LN network is that you would need to open a channel for each bitcoin address you have, which means that you won't be able to use multiple addresses- so you are losing anonymity and you are more open for security flaws as multi-signature addresses are not being supported within the LN network and you can only open channels with segwit addresses. Not a big deal solution at all. The thing is, it is still very early days for this technology and people's expectations are possibly a bit too high. As the technology mature and more applications are developed, most of these problems will be solved. The Lightning Network was built on top of SegWit, so it is expected that SegWit addresses would be a requirement. If it could be applied without SegWit, the guys at BCrash would have used it already. ^smile^ |
|
|
|
|
The introduction of regulations is not necessarily a bad thing. It becomes a bad thing, when these governments over regulate the technology. I see the New York BitLicense is finally under review, because it was a good example of over regulation. We just have to hope that India will not follow the same stupid route as the people in New York.
India has a high unemployment rate and a innovative technology like Bitcoin will help to alleviate unemployment and poverty, with the introduction of low fees for micro transactions. ^smile^
|
|
|
|
|
Before these Wall Street guys entered Bitcoin, we saw a increase in the Bitcoin price, when the stock markets took a beating. Lately, when these stock markets suffer, we also see a decline in the Bitcoin price. This is telling me that these Wall Street guys are not just invested in Bitcoin futures. I think they have bought bitcoins on the side and they panic sell, when there is a slight dip in the price. <We definitely have a lot more speculators in the Bitcoin scene, lately.>
Bitcoin used to be a excellent Store of Value, but this is also changing with the introduction of institutional capital.
|
|
|
|
|
Why should Fiat money suddenly be replaced? People should consider that Bitcoin is digital and not everyone in the world has access to the internet or devices to access it. A lot of people are also uneducated and will not be able to use these devices.
Bitcoin and other Crypto currencies will have to become a lot more user-friendly, before we could reach a stage where Fiat can be replaced by these technologies. I see a gradual progression to a stage where people in first world countries will go 100% paperless, but it is going to take a lot more time.
|
|
|
|
This is not something you can teach people, they will have to experience this for themselves. We have repeatedly gone done this road before and we know how frustrating these dips can be, but we held on and we received huge rewards for that patience. This is also a good exercise to rid ourselves from the weak hands. <People who does not have the belief in Bitcoin and those who just bought bitcoins to make a quick profit.> |
|
|
|
|
They are already stealing <very harsh word> Bitcoin's code, by building their decentralized "private" Blockchains on Bitcoin's basic concept. So I can feel 2 shits about their patents, if it is based on Satoshi's Open Source code. <Public Domain>
I say, F@ck them and their superiority complex over everyone else. ^grrrrrrr^
|
|
|
|
Does anyone know when Lightning Network will be available? This will be a good addition to Bitcoin. Lightning Network is available on both mainnet and testnet. However, I can't recall any user friendly Lightning Network clients for mainnet. Most of them are still being developed so that is why they are configured to send and receive transactions on the testnet. I doubt that anyone would like to lose their bitcoins due to bug in the code. You can check the number of nodes and channels right here. Zap is easy to use and it seems like it might be one of the first ready-to-use Lightning Network clients. I'm quite curious when will Trezor and Ledger start working on LN support. As far as I know, TorGuard accepts Lightning Network payments for their service. You might try to contact them to learn more if you are interested in their offer. TorGaurd is taking huge risks by doing this, but they have given customers their word that they would refund people, if they lose any money, due to exploits in the Lightning Network. I think most people are just doing small "test" transactions now, to see how it will react in a live environment. As a matter of fact, I believe their are even a limit on the amount that you can send & receive now, to protect people from themselves. ^smile^ |
|
|
|
If by crash you mean the exchanges not handling traffic then this looks like It's done on purpose with the resources they have to own the best servers. Bitcoin Core 0.16.0 (final version) has been tagged so It should released in the upcoming days, I expect most exchange to implement SegWit (assuming that they were serious in the past when they said they are waiting for this release). A transaction with 1sat/byte (currently) can get confirmed after a few blocks only so as long as we have no spam attacks, we're good. LN developers already warned about using it on the mainnet, yet people are still doing it. So, It may take sometime before we see it in action (I'd say the end of the year maybe). You can see the testing results here: https://cdecker.github.io/lightning-integration/ (see this video  https://vimeo.com/256250634 ) Well, the testing on the Mainet is limited to small amounts, so it is not going to cause a lot of damage if it gets exploited. In some cases it is neccessary to do testing in a live environment and I think this is one of them. We have to build channels to build a network, to see if it will be able to handle the load. I am really chuffed with the progress so far with the Lightning Network. ^smile^ |
|
|
|
Scammers are everywhere my friend, not just in the Filipino community. I might be wise if you post something on this local board : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=219.0 where most of the Philippines are hanging out. On this forum, you will find that there are thousands of scammers hanging around, to see if they can scam people. This is not just limited to this forum, you can get scammed on the streets! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
