They could, usually through the form of excessive taxation.
It'd be near impossible for them to monitor p2p BTC transactions, so they would work a ban in through economic regulation. They may force you to register any transactions you conduct so they can implement a tax. Bitcoin is treated as property in many places, and therefore the property's value fluctuate. If the government wanted to, they could force you to pay a tax on unrealized gains, merely for holding. Then what happens? Investors dump all their crypto, which accomplishes the same thing as a ban, less usage.
This is a possible way through which government can restrict people from using bitcoin. One such has happened recently in India with a heavy taxation of 30% over the profit out of cryptocurrencies. However I feel that there will be loop holes that let people continue to use cryptocurrencies and generate profit. Maybe we will be restricted much from the bitcoin usage as a legal tender on businesses. The loopholes are just tax evasion because there's a lack of enforcement. So for the investors that follow the law, I'd hope all of us, any taxes are hinderance to using crypto. And that's all that's needed. Once you kick out major financial players of the crypto market, there isn't enough ordinary day-to-day users that would sustain its use. It's why mass adoption is important -- you implement high taxes (or whatever regulation, I use taxes as an example), crypto crashes. Answer to the original post is yes, absolutely. Even if people manage to dodge the regulations, those folks are few and far between.
|
|
|
They could, usually through the form of excessive taxation.
It'd be near impossible for them to monitor p2p BTC transactions, so they would work a ban in through economic regulation. They may force you to register any transactions you conduct so they can implement a tax. Bitcoin is treated as property in many places, and therefore the property's value fluctuate. If the government wanted to, they could force you to pay a tax on unrealized gains, merely for holding. Then what happens? Investors dump all their crypto, which accomplishes the same thing as a ban, less usage.
|
|
|
I don't think you can "avoid" inflation in fiat. It's an integral part of debt-based money. Governments just try to keep inflation somewhat under control when they can, so that it doesn't rise too quickly. Usually not with any great deal of success, but that's the theory, at least.
You technically could if there was a finite supply of fiat. A currency based on the gold standard wouldn't have any inflation, granted the supply of gold was steady. Even without a gold standard, a fiat currency based on magic pixie dust could theoretically not have any inflation, as long as the government is unwilling to create more supply. Government targets the inflation rate to be at 2 percent, so they'll make adjustments accordingly. The problems arise when you try to increase the money supply too rapidly, like the US does by having a debt balance sheet of trillions of dollars -- predictable result is an insane 7 percent inflation rate (compounded by COVID, of course). You can perfectly avoid inflation in fiat and it does not need to have a limited supply. It is a simple as printing money based on the real growth of the economy so that the monetary mass is in sync with the real demand for money. To explain it for a 9 year old: You print the money that is required. If you print less, there is deflation, if you print more there is inflation. Bitcoin is NOT inherently deflationary. The central banks purposely target inflation to be at 2 percent, so even in a perfect world the money supply coincided perfectly with GDP, it'd be difficult to pull off. You're one economic dip away from ruining the entire system before the central banks panic and begin injecting money into the economy to save industries that would have probably crashed had it not been for intervention. Just use COVID as an example, debt of most countries began to sky rocket. The US in particular has their inflation rate out of control so it isn't merely just a problem with supply chains. That's the issue with centralized economics, the entity in control inevitably loses control.
|
|
|
...
We do know about COVID. The world was introduced to SARS-CoV-1 back in 2003, and SARS-CoV-2 is 90 percent homologous to the original virus. And these viruses act similar to most other viruses in history, the structure is generally the same, the replication mechanism, and the illness pathophysiology is the same. We know that once you get infected, you remain immune from reinfection, unless there's infection from a distant strain that is unrecognized by your adaptive immune system. The vaccines were approved after a 6 month trial, boosters were approved with even less data. Yet the recommendation is that all those above 5 years of age get vaccinated, and all those about their mid teens get boosted. There is no data for any of this stuff, and their blanket recommendations are being shoved down the throats of law abiding citizens who are expected to use these therapeutics when they might not need it. If they refuse, in some countries they are treated as second class citizens, unable to enjoy basic liberties. Someone at a high risk category, say 60 years old, obese, would be better off with the vaccine and boosters given their health profile. The risk of severe illness from COVID clearly outweigh the risk of adverse vaccine effects, or any unknown long term effects. But change the health profile to someone, say, 14 years old and healthy. The chance of someone of this demographic having a serious COVID illness is virtually zero, therefore you're taking a gamble forcing them to get vaccinated. A final note -- some of the side effects of the vaccine are fairly harsh, though people eventually get over them. It was common thinking that the side effects originated from the spike proteins that were produced by the mRNA based vaccines. Turns out, the side effects might be caused by the lipid nanoparticles that encapsulate the mRNA (used as a delivery vehicle to reach the target area). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004221014504It's only now, over a year later, that we are having these conversations. There's a lot still unknown about the vaccines, which is why it's best reserved for those who need it and are at high risk of COVID.
|
|
|
On a related note in regards to the Canadian trucker convoy, there was a gofundme that raised over 10 million for this event, then gofundme paused the fundraiser for manual review. https://globalnews.ca/news/8590302/trucker-convoy-gofundme-stopped/Article says 1M was already released from the fundraiser, but who knows, they might nuke it. We know the platforms don't like anything politically inconvenient. Also doesn't seem like a great idea to piss off the truckers, the folks that keep the supply chain moving.
|
|
|
Putin emphasizes it clear that there is an agreement about NATO not expanding anymore to the east and pursuing Ukraine to join NATO is a violation. Call it a strategic move by Putin but this is also the proper way for them to protect their sovereignty. How will the US feel if Kremlin expands in CUBA or Mexico, they will also rally their tanks in their borders. That's GEOPOLITICS, countries will protect thier sovereignty.
If the US also deploys troops in Ukraine, Russia will gather more of its troops on its borders to protect thier sovereignty. And NOT JUST Russia but the rest of the countries nearby from Belarus, Poland, Romania, and even Bulgaria will also gather thier troops on their borders because they know, it's going to affect them. Who knows what else are the mission of the US or other countries because each of them still has geopolitics to take care of. Especially Belarus who always suspects the US. And one missile hitting anyone's border will cause chaos, there will be no time to say sorry they made a mistake by shooting someone else tank/plane.
Can you clarify - what agreement exists on the non-expansion of NATO? Can you provide a link to the original document? Or maybe you wanted to talk about the Budapest Memorandum, signed by Russia, which guaranteed and assumed the obligation to preserve the inviolability of Ukraine and the invariability of its borders? No, not about that? And why was Russia not worried about the entry of the Baltic countries into NATO? From there, rockets do not fly? The only reason for hatred for Ukraine is the FREE choice of the citizens of Ukraine, it is a demonstration that totalitarian power can be destroyed, which Putin is deathly afraid of. If you leave Ukraine alone, in a couple of years, Putin’s citizens will come to Putin, living poorer and poorer every year, and ask the question - why do we, the inhabitants of the richest country, live worse and poorer than Ukraine, which does not have such resources, gas, oil and so on? And what can Putin answer them? The truth that all the resources of Russia belong to his friends and the people, as always, "you need to be patient a little bit"? The Baltic countries aren't as big as Ukraine, don't have the historical significance that Ukraine does (Ukraine was previously part of the USSR, after all). And Ukraine cooperates with the US intelligence communities, which is one of the things Putin contests. Sure, missiles could fly from the Baltic countries, but they're not militarily active, and chances are they'd stay neutral in any sort of conflict. Ukraine is a justifiable target, a country like Estonia or Lithuania is not.
|
|
|
John Hopkins meta analysis and review released on lockdowns - https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdfSee p. 38, table 7. Little to no effect on COVID mortality as a result of lockdowns overall. Slight benefit from locking down "non-essential" businesses, though that depends on what one might consider essential. The cost benefit analysis also must be considered within the context of prevented deaths, meaning an analysis of the number of cancer screenings, drug OD's, depression rates, domestic abuse, etc. and seeing how they compare. The lockdowns didn't work, and the benefit was not worth it.
|
|
|
In the essay, written for Allure in March last year, Kryst said that she “cringed” at the thought of turning 30. “Society has never been kind to those growing old, especially women,” she wrote. “…Turning 30 feels like a cold reminder that I’m running out of time to matter in society’s eyes - and it’s infuriating.”
That's a quote from The Sun.
Looks like inability to cope with getting older, which is pretty stupid because she was still young. Maybe she didn't have enough friends who'd cheer her up and tell her the truth, that next year she'll be as pretty as she is now. We don't lose much over the years, just change into different people. I could name a few of actresses and models in their 40s who look stunning and date younger men.
This is useless conjecture, but I've suspected a lot of depression can be caused specifically on Instagram (vs. Facebook or Twitter) because it causes unrealistic expectations. I'm sure research would support this, if someone has studied it. It's very toxic on the human psyche for those that might be susceptible to that type of influence. Now imagine young impressionable children on the platform. Recipe for disaster.
|
|
|
Interesting paper on the lipid nanoparticles/mRNA-LNP complex that the Pfizer/BioNTech & Moderna vaccines are comprised of: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004221014504My understanding of the side effects were strictly from the side of spike protein creation induced by mRNA, but there are cytotoxic effects from the lipid nanoparticles that might explain the immediate side effects (pain/soreness at the injection site, some inflammation). LNP's were the delivery vehicle for mRNA because mRNA is not very stable to begin with, so the notion that that the mRNA floats around unchecked is false. The LNP's seem to stick around though, and activate some inflammatory cellular pathways and induce proinflammatory signaling molecules (IL-1β and IL-6 according to the article).
|
|
|
What happens if he forgets to take his Alzheimer's pills? Hope you have a contingency plan.
|
|
|
A few things to discuss regarding Biden and Bitcoin.
First of all, you can generally get the feeling of what his thoughts are on Bitcoin via proxy -- Janet Yellen, someone Biden believes is doing a great job.
Janet Yellen was appointed by Biden to be the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury department and has previously referred to crypto as inefficient, citing her concernsabout the stability of crypto. She's an open advocate for regulating crypto into the ground. Perhaps Biden could plead ignorance on her crypto stances because I question his cognitive function, but I save this for another discussion. Buck stops with the President, therefore Biden is responsible for this.
Moving onto the general premise of the U.S. economy -- debt to GDP ratio is not sustainable, and neither is the inflation rate the US has at 7 percent and no longer transitory. In addition quantitative easing in which the central banks have taken on trillions in liabilities has irreversibly increased the money supply. The incentive for Biden is to limit divestments from USD, raise revenue to pay for the debt, and prevent individuals from circumventing p2p transactional taxes. His answer to these issues, of course, is regulating crypto to lower the usage and milk every penny of tax revenue possible.
Biden administration has already navigated the narrative on regulating crypto. They claim it's for national security considerations. Complete nonsense. National security, as many of you all will recall, was the scapegoat for 9/11 privacy invasion and NSA/CIA overreach into the monitoring/tracking of U.S. citizens. Americans readily go along with anything as long as if it makes them feel safer, so the pitch will be clear -- regulate crypto, and this keeps the homeland safer (again, nonsense, but this is the pitch).
And coincidentally in this discussion of regulating crypto, the federal reserve has discussed digitalizing the US dollar into a CBDC. How awfully convenient.
You see what's happening...crush crypto and then put people on a CBDC system where the total money supply can be electronically controlled with the pressing of a keypad. And then any digital USD holders will rely on the federal government to sustain their purchasing power. Eliminating the competition makes adopting of a CBDC much easier.
|
|
|
Selling to the poor ensures you have a large market of generally uneducated buyers. Sounds harsh, but it's true. Appeal to the masses of the poor and uneducated with an affordable product, and your business model is quite successful. Though I'd offer an alternative and suggest that any business model that can insert itself into the middle class plus lower class is bound for success.
|
|
|
Wouldn't seem worth it for Russia to launch cyber attacks against the US when they've said they won't get involved IMO. Doesn't make sense to poke a bear with a stick, especially when Russia has oil as leverage against the European countries.
|
|
|
...
There was a mass killing in Waukesha Wisconsin where some terrorist (my words, not the media's words of course) drove down a parade line and killed 6 people, some children. He had a massive criminal record, was out on bail, and posted anti-white rhetoric on his social media pages. Overall, just a pleasant guy. The district attorney in that locality is a person named John Chisholm, a radical progressive that believes in fundamental changes in criminal justice, which translates into not holding criminals accountable. The blood is on his hands. https://twitter.com/DAJohnChisholm/status/1218021655131443200As a prosecutor, I am committed to substantive reform that affirms procedural justice, proportional outcomes, and true public health and safety. In a paper released last month, MKE Co.'s chief public defender and I propose a paradigm for effective reform:
I notice a pattern -- all the soft on crime district attorney are affiliated with the progressive far left movement. I suppose crime increase is a core tenet of their belief system.
|
|
|
Seems like you're asking two different questions -- the costs associated with mining and the value of BTC within the context of mining costs...so you're essentially asking what the profit is?
There isn't anyone that can answer that -- BTC's price is not at a fixed position, setting aside the varying costs of mining. A bit of a pointless question to ask. The "true" value of BTC is not calculated by taking the asking price subtracted by the mining cost because you're assuming the asking price is fixed.
|
|
|
I don't think it even has a chance of passing the Arizona legislature, let alone surviving the court system after it were to get challenged. This senator isn't the only U.S. politician to say they want to legalize Bitcoin, there's been plenty before her -- they know they can't do it, it's just to pander so they present themselves as being outside of the establishment. We've all heard the script before.
Also, if it was passed and the governor of Arizona signed it into law, I reckon it would not make a difference. Arizona also made gold and silver legal tender during 2017, however, are the people there really using gold and silver as money? There might be less than 3% of people in Arizona that own bitcoin. The skeptical me thinks this might only be for the Senator to get more attention. Midterm elections will be on November hehehe. However, what might be good for bitcoin as legal tender in Arizona is the removal of the capital gains tax. Arizona Governor Approves Bill HB2014 to Make Gold & Silver Legal Tender
The moment that Arizona precious metals investors have been hoping for finally came this week, as Governor Doug Ducey signed Arizona House Bill 2014 into law. The bill eliminates state capital gains taxes on income “derived from the exchange of one kind of legal tender for another kind of legal tender,” which specifically includes specie, or coins with precious metal content. In other words, gold and silver coins will be treated, at least for Arizona state tax purposes, purely as money and no longer as commodity assets.Source https://www.sbcgold.com/blog/arizona-governor-approves-bill-hb2014-make-gold-silver-legal-tender/Seems like you're right. I was under the impression Bitcoin as legal tender would operate as a new currency, but if they can classify Bitcoin as a commodity perhaps they could get around the constitutional barrier. But again, as you alluded to, these sort of attention grabbing headlines are designed to give these state senators some publicity. It doesn't take any effort to introduce a bill, anyone can do it. Then the state senator can go back to his/her constituents and brag about how pro-crypto they are citing the introduction a bill that went no where in the legislature.
|
|
|
I don't think it even has a chance of passing the Arizona legislature, let alone surviving the court system after it were to get challenged. This senator isn't the only U.S. politician to say they want to legalize Bitcoin, there's been plenty before her -- they know they can't do it, it's just to pander so they present themselves as being outside of the establishment. We've all heard the script before.
|
|
|
So even you see through Slow Joe... I think of him as more like Boris Yeltsin but instead of a drinking problem Slow Joe has a dementia problem and belongs in a Senior home. So to both of you who would you have picked as the democratic nominee instead of Joe Biden? I think I would vote for Mitt Romney over Joe Biden and that was the reason I didn't vote in 2012 because Romney was such an arrogant snot. I would prefer if Ron DeSantis got the nomination over Trump because then you'd have a new more powerful enemy to hate on instead of him.
I've seen plenty of Americans that are right leaning that would take Hillary Clinton over Joe Biden, but only to the extent that Clinton is a capitalist and isn't afraid of pissing the progressives off. Recalling an excerpt from HRC's book where she ripped all over Bernie Sanders and the progressive agenda, it gave me quite the laugh to see people get upset over a democratic capitalist, as if it's somehow controversial. Maybe Clinton should run again in 2024, and even better if Trump did so to. There wasn't enough suspense the first time, round two will be much better. The Republican party would be in shambles trying to pick between DeSantis and Trump, and the Democratic party would implode trying to pick between Clinton and a progressive (and Kamala Harris, but she is in her own category).
|
|
|
|