Yes. https://bitcointalk-merit-api.herokuapp.com/api/v0.1/received/xx

xx is the UID of the profile you want to know of th emerit received

I have not yet automated the updating of the database, and as such, the total received may be outdated.

The thread in question appears to have been originally posted in games and rounds. IMO, it would be best to post a sticky in this sub clarifying that altcoin giveaways are not allowed anywhere in the forum. Over the years, various altcoin giveaways have been posted in the games and rounds sub, and it probably would not be unreasonable for forum members to be unaware of this rule.

For those that disagree with the altcoin giveaway rule, one compromise may be that the forum could charge for the ability to host an on-forum altcoin giveaway. Giveaway threads are resource-intensive because they cause many page-views and many posts that do not substantially contribute to the bitcoin ecosystem. I am not necessarily in favor of altcoin giveaways being allowed, however if someone was covering the forum's cost of hosting said giveaways, I would have no issue with them.

The price of bitcoin going up is not a problem, as it would mean that you have additional unexpected gains, and are better off tomorrow than you would have been today if you sold everything (or you were better off than you had planned).

The biggest risk to spreading out gains over time is that you cannot hedge your gains without risking having to pay taxes immediately. So spreading out gains over years means you must take price risk over the number of years you are spreading your gains over. In your example of selling $1 million worth of bitcoin over 10 years, if when you sell in year 2, the price declines by 50% (not uncommon to have this large of price declines), you will have lost $1 million, less your tax savings. Assuming that capital gains taxes increase by 20%, and only apply to capital gains over $1 million (the first million in capital gains are subject to the old rules), if you had sold $2 million instead of $1 million, and did not sell in year two, you would have an additional tax liability of $200k, and a net gain of $800k.

 
This strategy is risky for someone borrowing against a volatile asset such as bitcoin. If you borrow too much against your coin, the lender may force a sale of your collateral, triggering a large capital gains tax bill in a single year. For example, if you borrow 50% of the value of your coin, and in a year, the price of bitcoin declines by 40%, the lender may liquidate all of your coin in order to satisfy your loan, and you would need to pay taxes on any gains that you just realized. 


IMO, this is superior to most alternatives, and probably makes sense under most realistic scenarios in which capital gains taxes increases substantially. This might be modified so that not all of residual assets are used to repurchase bitcoin so some money can be used for living expenses.


It is never a guarantee any asset will continue to rise. This is not to say that it will not. IMO a bigger risk to medium-term prices is interest rates and inflation. If inflation rises over the medium term, the fed will need to stop QE, which will remove the amount of money in the market being used for speculation. Interst rates rising will mean the NPV of investments will decline, all else being equal.

Hamas is widely known as a terrorist organization and is recognized as such by the US and other Western/civilized countries. Unfortunately, many on the left are sympathetic to terrorists.

The IDF has been defending Israel against these kinds of terrorists for decades. It has a very good apolitical intelligence apparatus that is able to find terrorist cells so the IDF can neutralize them. The reason the IDF has been less successful at taking out Hamas than it might otherwise should be is that Hamas uses Palestine citizens as human shields and the IDF wants to minimize civilian deaths, even if that means that terrorists also survive air strikes.

I don't think there is much (or any) evidence that Israel is an apartheid state. Both Arabs and Jews have the right to vote in Israel, and both have equal rights in the country.

Yes, it is possible. (not tax advice -- you should consult with a tax professional for individualized tax advice regarding your specific situation). Taxpayers usually have to specify if they want to use FIFO, LIFO, or specific tax lots when they file their tax return, and generally cannot change the method from year to year without certain criteria being met. A corporation may not get special treatment for holding an asset for greater than a year, however choosing a particular tax lot may be beneficial to minimize their long term tax liability, for example, they may accelerate income if taxes are slated to rise in coming years, or may lower their income so they pay less taxes today, and can put the money from the delayed tax liability to use by investing it.

In any case, even if Tesla were to use FIFO, or LIFO, the profit would most likely not match the average price Tesla paid for the coin.

These are buildings with Hamas terrorists and military equipment inside. The attacks were justified. Hamas is using residential areas to make it more difficult for the IDF to neutralize the terrorists without inflicting civilian casualties. The IDF takes many precautions to prevent civilian deaths.

When Tesla bought the ~46k bitcoin, they did not place a buy order for 46k @ $32,000/each. They bought ~46k bitcoin at an average price of $32k. This means some of the coin they bought was at a higher price, and some of it was at a lower price.

This is important because when you sell bitcoin, you can sell specific tax lots for tax (and accounting) purposes. They could have sold some of their coin that they bought at a higher or lower price than their average purchase price. I would also point out that which tax lots Tesla used is separate and distinct from the inputs they use when they transfer the coin.

All that Musk has done with DOGE is talk about it mention it. He has not endorsed it, helped with it's development, nor invested in it. Musk has a decent following, but merely mentioning it is not going to be enough to get a lot of people to buy it. IMO, we had a lot of people speculating that Musk will either endorse, invest in, or help develop DOGE, in the hopes that doing so would get others to buy. When this did not immediately happen, these speculators eventually sold off their positions.

This is unlike bitcoin in which Musk has (via Tesla), invested in.

Musk is not telling anyone to buy DOGE. He is merely mentioning it.

Merely mentioning the name "Bitcoin Savings & Trust" is not the same as telling anyone to invest in that poinzi.

It is strange that Musk/Tesla flipped his stance on bitcoin so quickly.

My guess is that Tesla buying bitcoin was the reason why the price went up to ~50k, or at least was a major contributor. If Tesla reveals that it has in fact sold it's bitcoin, I would expect the price to fall pretty significantly. The price of bitcoin has recently fallen a decent amount, so it is somewhat likely that a large holder has recently sold.

Musk recently said that Tesla is working with the DOGE devs to improve DOGE. If Tesla starts to accept DOGE, I would expect the DOGE market cap to exceed that of bitcoin...that obviously would not speak to the technical specifications of either.

I don’t think the IRS is going to go after taxpayers who owe $200 in unpaid taxes in masse, although they may go after a small number of them in order to make a statement.

My advice is to pay your taxes according to the law.

You need to be at least a full member in order to view threads in that section because it contains personality identifiable information aka dox information.

I believe he is referring to transaction fees. It appears he wants to use altcoins that have lower current transaction fees than a typical bitcoin transaction would have under current conditions.
LBC is an escrow itself. I don't think it is possible for a person to escrow a transaction on LBC. LBC will also only facilicte certain types of transactions.

You are not addressing all of the genders. You will need to address all 58 genders. Even the number of genders is fluid.

Hey OP, you are confused. It is the terrorist Hamas that is targeting civilians from residential areas. Israel is merely defending itself.

Yes, it would probably require a hard fork. The benefit of using balanced based addresses, versus individual outputs being spent is that transactions would become more efficient. It would save block space when one address receives many transactions, and more than one input is being spent. All that would be necessary would be a single input, a nonce and a single signature versus at least two inputs, at least two signatures, and two outputs under the status quo. It would also reduce UTXO bloat, as it would no longer be necessary to send to a change address when spending less than an entire output; this would save both blockspace, and the amount of required memory to run a node.
Noted. There could be some other clear distinction for addresses that are using "balances" instead of individual inputs.

IMO Musk is trolling the SEC who sanctioned him for tweeting about TSLA having a buyer lined up at $420/share when this was less than true. Musk is not able to tweet about certain things about his companies without company approval for accuracy. Musk appears to have responded by tweeting about crypto in ways that he knows will influence the price of what he is tweeting about.

That is obviously nonsense.

First of all, "genetic algorithms that simulate the natural selection for optimising the bots" doesn't actually mean anything. This is just a bunch of fancy-sounding words that is meant to impress someone who doesn't know much about machine learning.

More importantly, you absolutely control any output from any model. When you are training a model, you are choosing the training data, the loss function, and any additional penalty loss that your model will attempt to minimize.

---

Does anyone have access to historical data for crypto trading pairs on futures markets? Preferably minute by minute data?

According to this description of how crude oil gets to gas stations in the form of gasoline, it looks like the "storage" part of the process happens before the gas gets to the pipeline.

I know there are few locations in which oil is stored, and this is generally governed by the terms of futures contracts. For example, gasoline futures traded on the CME, appears to be delivered in the New York Harbor.

Also, having any kind of inventory in storage is expensive, not just in terms of paying for the storage, but also because having inventory in storage means you have to use capital (money) to pay for the inventory and are being delayed in receiving payment for said inventory.

It appears that approximately 1 in 6 tax dollars go unpaid, so the percentage of taxes related to unreported crypto gains may be higher than 1%. Even if 1% of citizens fail to report crypto-related income, it would mean that over 3 million people are not reporting their income accurately.

When the IRS reviews data from an exchange, they can compare this data to tax return data to get a good idea as to the amount of unreported income. However, when the IRS reviews blockchain data, for example, they will have a difficult time determining which transactions are related to taxpayers obligated to report income to the IRS.

It would not be a good use of resources for the IRS to go after people exploiting loopholes in the tax code. A loophole may or may not be something that congress intended, however, a loophole is still legal. If loopholes are being used in ways that Congress did not intend, it is up to Congress to close the loophole.

This is an issue of gas stations. The supply depots, at least those in the northeast will have an overabundance of gas, possibly to an extent they will be unable to hold additional gas, and gas production may need to be taken offline. Depots in the southeast are running empty.

The issue is that there are not enough alternate delivery methods that will deliver sufficient amounts of gas to meet ongoing demand. A single gas station may be able to procure additional gas by paying an additional $0.17 per gallon, however, all gas stations that are out of gas cannot do this.

The pipeline in question delivers ~50% of gas throughout the east coast and has been offline for 5-6 days (depending on the time the pipeline went offline, and how much gas continued to flow after it went offline). Assuming weekly deliveries, this means assuming no increased gas demand, that all gas stations that receive gas from this pipeline would run out of gas in a couple of days. Trucks making long haul drives, and additional gas delivered via ports that would not normally be delivered will reduce this somewhat, however, total fuel delivery will still be sharply reduced.

There is some panic buying, which is making the problem somewhat worse, however, this is not the same as the panic buying of toilet paper last year, as there is a limit as to how much gas people can buy, and purchases can only be accelerated by so many days.