Funny how I'm clearly talking about BTC, and you yammer on about personalities associated with other Bitcoins.

I ain't shilling anything. I am pointing out the negative consequences -- quite reversible ones, if the community would get off it's collective delusional metaphorical fat ass -- of implementing a centrally planned production quota upon transactional capacity.

Except now there wont be a trial for him where he would likely bring unwanted attention to numerous politicians including Bill Clinton for pedophilia/sex traffic related visits on his private island. But ya, good riddance just wish it would have happened after the trial.

feels pumpy

I'm calling defcon 2 and moving to 5 minute candles

Nice try, indeed.

Your timeline does not match up. Your wiki 'evidence' says nothing about pre-May. By 2017 May 1, BTC's dominance had already been slashed from more that 85% in end of Feb to below 60%. Indeed, a look at a chart of cumulative ICO value per month counters your assertion:

https://cointelegraph.com/news/from-2-9-billion-in-a-month-to-hundreds-dead-trends-of-the-rollercoaster-ico-market-in-18-months

One can quite clearly see that there was comparatively very little taken in by ICO's by the time 2017 Jun rolled around - and that BTC dominance had already nosedived to below 40%.

You know what timeline does match up with the plunge in market dominance? Blockalypse I.

From end of 2017 Feb to mid 2017 Jun, BTC dominance plunged from over 85% to below 40%.
https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/#dominance-percentage

The beginning of 2017 is when blocks started becoming persistently full.
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-size.html

The loss of dominance was due neither to BCH nor ICOs. 'Twas the Blockalypse. Or more pecisely, Blockalypse I.

ICOs and token sales became popular in 2017. There were at least 18 websites tracking ICOs before mid-year.[12] In May, the ICO for a new web browser called Brave generated about $35 million in under 30 seconds.[citation needed] Messaging app developer Kik's September 2017 ICO raised nearly $100 million. At the start of October 2017, ICO coin sales worth $2.3 billion had been conducted during the year, more than ten times as much as in all of 2016.[13][14] As of November 2017, there were around 50 offerings a month,[15] with the highest-grossing ICO as of January 2018, being Filecoin raising $257 million (and $200 million of that within the first hour of their token sale).[16]

BTC dominance was always over 80% until the BCH split happened. From that moment on. Or better to say a bit before that, was always uncertainty. Not just BCH steal dominance but also ETH, which many considered as BTC version two. But it ended just as a platform to crowdfund founds with illegal securities.  And it seems it lasted for two whole years.

Yup, I pointed that out last time he was mentioning it.



Well apparently they are licensed and monitored by the New York Department of Financial Services which is brutal to get so that adds confidence and no-one can ever tell if something is fractional reserve without having their books open which I don't know of any portal that does, do you?

I am not shilling this only keeping you guys informed of my efforts since I as a US resident have run into these intrusive roadblocks to offramps to fiat and this is the first I've found that is quick, cost effective,non intrusive and apparently safe. What more can one ask for?

They don't even have a referral link so I make nothing mentioning them. I have just waded through tons of offramps that are all closed and wanted to share one that works for US residents.

AFA withdrawing the stablecoin I think it is just a token they use like every DEX out there for trading purposes and it is 1 to 1 on their literature and also that is what they stated when I called them. But also There is literature that stated they are partnered with Binance but I could find no way to get their stablecoin on binance so I just transferred in BTC.

Also their headquarters are in NY so I can sue them without trying to get them extradited which is kind of a huge thing.

Update, As promised.


It took just under 2 days.

I had to transfer btc and sell it for their stablecoin and then immediately withdraw their  stablecoin to my bank. Only cost was the Stablecoin exchange fee which was about a buck and a half for a 500 dollar transaction.

So in essence it looks like paxos is legit at least for small amounts.

The KYC was pretty unintrusive as in no personal questions just my info with a photo of me holding my ID that actually took a day as I had to redo the slfie with ID as they have to be able to read the ID in your hand.

All in all a painless process without the Personal Data Harvesting questions Kraken and Coinbase require.

I think we are in violent agreement on this part. However...

If the courts were to respect the law -- especially common law -- they would be able to trace their decisions through the precedents to the point where any matter of law was considered and judged upon. The basis of the income tax is a matter that cannot be traced back to a source decision. Because there exists none.

Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states' ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void.

Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize "States", and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had "remuneration" in place of "enumeration"; the instrument from Missouri substituted "levy" for "lay"; the instrument from Washington had "income" not "incomes"; others made similar blunders.

Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and – taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems – advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.

Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the "enrolled bill rule". If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462–463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas's. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary's decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox's decision is now beyond review.

— United States v. Thomas

Yes, they have been rejected. Without ever addressing the facts of the matter. At least in every case I have reviewed.

Whaddaya expect? Statists gonna state.

Wikipedia is about as trustworthy and main stream media is, on topics involving government deception.

I agree with you on income, but that law/amendment does not say anything about capital gains.