A lot of institutional players are getting into the Bitcoin market.
Curious do you think this is Bullish or Bearish for the industry?
Won't they drive the price down on the dev. market due to its all paper contracts and not bitcoin settled?
What do you think?
manipulation of the supply via rehypothecation and commingling is a very legitimate concern. because of these accepted wall street practices, it's estimated that collateral in institutional markets is re-used 1.8 times on average. this means the market supply is effectively being inflated by 1.8x:The IMF ’s Manmohan Singh is the foremost expert on collateral chains. He has combed through the footnotes of banks’ financial statements around the world, attempting to quantify the risk Giancarlo discussed, and he estimates collateral is re-used 1.8 times (as of year-end 2015). This means only one of the 2.8 people who think they own a U.S. Treasury bond, for example, actually does own it—namely, the original owner of the bond and the 1.8 parties to which the bond was re-pledged. in other words, wall street counterparty bookkeeping methods could allow for nearly twice the real bitcoin supply to be injected into institutional markets (like bakkt) as paper instruments. more supply = lower price. |
|
|
|
Governments can issue regulations as they please. No doubt about it.
The promise of Bitcoin was to leave governments unable to enforce any kind of regulations using technology and decentralization. bitcoin never really promised that. it depends on the internet (at least it does today) and the electricity infrastructure, among other things. those are totally subject to government regulation. The problem with that promise is that it is enormously expensive for consumers to run Bitcoin nodes. Therefore everyone uses third parties, there's not that many of them and there's absolutely no way for them to stay resistent to regulations. the claim that bitcoin nodes are extremely expensive to run is not self-evident. the storage costs are actually quite cheap, and significant optimizations have been made over the years to mitigate for low bandwidth conditions. i think the reason so many people use 3rd parties is out of convenience. |
|
|
|
I support US government's move in this case! Let's not see it as an arrest of a crypto programmer to teach crypto technicalities! We also need to see where he had bestowed his crypto knowledge! North Korea is a dangerous country and with power in their hand, they can become a big threat to the world! So US government has taken the right step! The dictator of North korea is a psychopath and he can ruin the entire world! Helping such a terrorist, is definitely not a good deed!
it's a bit more complicated than "north korea bad, USA good". tabling the discussion of nuclear arms, the sanctions are having brutal effects on ordinary north koreans---shortage of food and vital medicine, for one. so sanctions evasion should also be viewed through a humanitarian lens. The ban on employing North Korean workers in the construction sectors of Russia, China, and other countries deprived tens of thousands of North Korean workers of potential earnings, hurting workers and their families. Sanctions have hampered the activities of humanitarian agencies and foundations (U.S.-based humanitarian agencies have faced additional difficulties following the United States’ ban on travel to North Korea). As a result, large areas of the country face increased food insecurity and a shortage of vital medicines. The ban on imports of a number of goods (including oil and petroleum products in excess of volumes allowed by UNSC Resolutions, as well as luxury goods and foodstuffs) has fueled a growth in smuggling and “gray” import volumes as well as foreign-flagged vessel operations. In general, the number of intermediaries in supply chains has increased, meaning more suppliers along the way are charging an excess fare for “risks” undertaken, thus making the final cost of goods unaffordable for ordinary North Koreans. |
|
|
|
taxes would be the last reason to not be paying with bitcoins , the primary reason is the lack of businesses that would accept them first place
I spend rather more than I should. If that spending was taxable in the way it seems in the US I would likely stop doing it. Sounds like a right grind. if you do everything by the book, it's a nightmare. but what percentage of crypto investors do you think actually report gains after every purchase? probably a low single digit percentage. after all, there is zero tax reporting on the merchant side or KYC when buying goods/services. i'm hoping one of these bills gets passed which exempts a certain amount of gains realized by spending. that'll give us a bit of additional cover...... |
|
|
|
"counterparty" implies the two of you are transacting. if a counterparty is sending you BTC then he already knows that public key. that's how bitcoin works, by leveraging public-key cryptography.
That's not strictly true... If I tell the counter party to send to "1PQt7uqFwrrUBKSEo5MxNK355JrFuiV9Tg"... then they have the hash (of a hash + some other bits) of my public key... but they don't have the public key itself. yes, thank you for pointing that out. i was thinking strictly in terms of the privacy implications, not the distinction between pubkeys and pubkey hashes. There isn't a lot anyone can do with either unless you've been stupid and linked UTXOs by being careless when creating spending transactions. unfortunately, i think most people are careless when spending. they don't realize that regularly linking outputs together---even just by using default wallet settings---can expose most of their wallet history to outside observers. |
|
|
|
2022?!!! try first quarter of 2020 that would be an interesting question otherwise by 2022 you would look at $19k price the same way you are looking at $220 today. it would be just another tiny price that we shot past years ago that nobody even remembers...
so my answer is yes. and to expand, i believe by first quarter of 2020 (next year) we are going to see the rise happen and previous ATH to either be broken or be so close.
as usual, most people are expecting either "moon" or "doom", and they expect it to happen soon. the truth is that markets roughly follow the pareto principle. the vast majority of the time, they are range-bound and whipsawing, despite everyone's constant expectations that the market will skyrocket or crash tomorrow. maybe we're in for a long term sideways like 2015. |
|
|
|
I've noticed that when you generate a new address in Wasabi, it shows the address' public key next to the QR code. This gives your counterparty an easy opportunity to take a picture of that public key. "counterparty" implies the two of you are transacting. if a counterparty is sending you BTC then he already knows that public key. that's how bitcoin works, by leveraging public-key cryptography. this actually isn't limited to wasabi wallet or the bitcoin protocol. even with privacy technology like monero stealth addresses, the sender and receiver of any transaction can still determine where a payment was sent. they will always know because they were party to the transaction.bitcoin's transparent UTXO ledger does make for additional privacy concerns, particularly where counterparties know your identity. if you don't want your counterparties to be able to perform cluster analysis on your wallets, you need be wary of what you do with the outputs they send you. this is why the biggest customers of bitcoin mixers are exchange users trying to obfuscate where their coins went. |
|
|
|
I don't understand. Why would a bank want anything to do with crypto? They make more with fiat. We all know crypto is against banks and viceversa. banks have no problem with bitcoin. to banks, bitcoin is just another financial asset to profit from. if people want to pervert bitcoin's purpose and deposit it at banks, they will be happy to lend it out at fractional reserve, collateralize it, securitize it, etc. it's people who should be avoiding banks. bitcoin provides us a means to do that. |
|
|
|
Yeah, the number of times China has "banned bitcoin" or "shutdown the exchanges" is practically infinite. It just seems like FUD. every time BTC speculation starts heating up among chinese investors, the government sends a message like this to the market. it's par for the course. you could call it FUD but there is little uncertainty about it. they banned exchanges 2+ years ago. all they are doing is enforcing laws that everyone knew about. it's a lot like the war against unapproved VPN operators in china. it's a game of whack-a-mole that isn't going away. |
|
|
|
Implementing any protocol changes would likely be met with significant resistance from the community in general. Changing the mining algorithm would definitely result in a lot more resistance from the mining community and it would probably result in no change. yep---implement it into an altcoin. the bitcoin ecosystem is extremely averse to drastic consensus changes. any attempt to implement "OPoW" into bitcoin is guaranteed to split onto a new network anyway. might as well just launch it as a new altcoin from the get-go. Putting that aside, the main factor that is securing the network right now is the cost of the resources. While the new mining algorithm could make it more expensive to mine, it could potentially result in centralisation whereby the richer could afford to control a larger percentage of the network. isn't that already the case? bitcoin mining has become completely industrial. only people with huge capital can expect to remain competitive. many people dont realise if it didnt cost something like $900 to mine gold. then the average spot price would not be $1000+
because if every man and his dog can dig it out their own backyard for the price of a metal spoon and a coffee filter. then the price of gold would drop to $ single digits
not due to any change in rarity/scarcity/demand.. but just due to the fact its so cheap to mine no one would even bother to buy for $1000+ when they can get it for $1. thus the price drops even if industry still demanded X tonnes a year
if everyone could mine for gold in their backyard, it wouldn't be scarce. you're not accounting for that. commodity price tends towards the cost of production because producers must remain profitable. that requires demand above the cost of production. the price of gold could fall several hundred $$ and that would just cause loss-making mines to shut down. in turn, the supply of gold being produced would fall to account for the falling demand. |
|
|
|
What can you say about this moved by the US government though? Did Virgil broke any laws here that constitute an arrest?
i'm not sure which resolution he broke exactly, but probably. the sanctions on north korea are endless, and they include things like "specialized teaching or training" and "science and technological cooperation". according to wikipedia, sanctions extend to "general travel and trade"---not sure on all the specifics. needless to say, this guy didn't run this by his lawyer first. he's an american citizen going to north korea to explain cryptocurrency as a means for sanctions evasion and money laundering, seriously? and then flying to los angeles to boot?! |
|
|
|
In the new draft law, the requirement for separation, which still existed in the first version, was deleted. The separation requirement stated that the retention of Bitcoin and other digital assets must not originate from the same legal entity as other banking transactions. Accordingly, banks would have had to resort to external service providers who offer an appropriate custody service.
The custody thing is what most intrigues/alarms me. Banks screw up all the time. If they do get into this area then someone someday is going to make a monumental mistake and I wonder how it's going to be resolved. yep, that's one of my fears with open-ended ETFs and physically settled markets like bakkt as well. if institutions become significantly exposed to BTC, wall street custodians could become the "richest" bitcoin holders in the world. that has some slightly scary implications for contentious forks. if some dodgy exchange gets hacked (like binance last year), of course the idea of a rollback would be laughable. but how about if fidelity gets hacked for 15% of the entire bitcoin supply 10 years from now? not only will the "too big to fail" mentality of 2008 be applied from a top-down political perspective, but the economic incentives to coordinate with miners on a rollback would be massive! so much for immutability.  |
|
|
|
You need to understand that hype is not enough. Bitcoin price is influenced by lots of factors on which one of them is market demand. No matter how good the news is, or your so-called positive hype, traders or just a simple crypto passerby will not just buy bitcoin for the sake of getting rich in the future. hype is a massive driver of adoption. i see the 2011, 2013, 2017 cycles as recurring gartner hype cycles, each one propelling bitcoin further and further into the mainstream. since bitcoin's circulating supply is so low, these hype cycles mean exponential price increases. the april 2013 bubble is the reason bitcoin got my attention. then i never left. that's how it works. the problem for the OP is it ain't 2017 again yet. we've gotta wait a while for the hype to build back up. 2020 or 2021 seems more like it. |
|
|
|
Either way, why not the US? It has been far more open to the crypto industry as a country than China is, so they stand to raise more money.
it depends on the state of the bitcoin market. in these bearish conditions, canaan couldn't even raise 1/4 of its IPO target---the public launch was very much a flop. timing is everything! the compliance costs of IPO'ing in the USA are pretty astounding too. underwriting, legal, auditors, exchange listing and SEC registration fees, incorporation and other organizational costs, etc etc.......we're talking millions of dollars. https://www.ipohub.org/costs-going-public/there are jurisdictions with less red tape and regulatory costs/scrutiny. that's one angle to consider anyway. |
|
|
|
I don't think this would have a huge impact though, to be honest. The banks will still not want to work with crypto-currency and definelty not bitcoin, when it is literally the opposite of the values that they support. bitcoin isn't in conflict with their values. they can take deposits and issue loans denominated in BTC. they can even apply fractional reserve banking. banking with fiat is functionally no different than banking with BTC---not for commercial/retail banks anyway. i'd prefer to see people being their own bank, but i suspect there is a big market for banking/brokerage customers who don't want to take custody of their own coins. |
|
|
|
What 2018 miner capitulation?
Glad you asked, because I don't even know what that phrase means--not to mention what significance it has or why it might lead bitcoin to plummet to $3800. What Is Capitulation?
Capitulation is when investors give up any previous gains in any security or market by selling their positions during periods of declines. Capitulation can happen at any time, but typically happens during high volume trading and extended declines for securities. A market correction or bear market often leads investors to capitulate or panic sell. The term is a derived from a military term which refers to surrender. miners are fundamentally investors too---originally it was the only form of bitcoin investment, before there were liquid markets. when a mining operation is loss-making and the outlook is dire enough, the operator cuts their losses and capitulates just like any other investor. the OP is suggesting that the 11/7 difficulty drop is the beginning of a trend. All that said, I don't think the market is headed back to the $3k range. It's possible, true. Probable? I don't think so.
the 200wma---which served as the bottom in 2015 and again in 2018---is around $5000 now. going back to the $3000s at this point would suggest that bitcoin's long term bull trend is dead. |
|
|
|
This is beyond my understanding Yesterday, Canaan Inc. (Nasdaq: CAN) a Chines crypto mining company, completed an initial public offering (IPO) of 10,000,000 American Depositary Shares (ADSs), each representing 15 Class A ordinary shares.Shares were issued at US $9.0 per share for a total offering of US $90 million. assuming the underwriters do not exercise their option to purchase additional ADSs. Shares in Canaan initially popped but have since dropped below the IPO price and now trade around $8.30 a share. How the hell can the shares of a company drop almost 10% a day after the initial launch? Oh, it's not almost, they have indeed dropped to 8.11. Who the hell is selling at 10% discount the stuff they've just bought yesterday? No seriously, I simply can't understand this, someone explain this to me like in a "dump for dummies" edition!! that only considers the IPO investors, not traders on the open market. check out all the volume exchanged between $9 and $12.34 right at market launch:  some IPO investors dumped for a quick profit, while other speculators bought high. there was no sustained demand above $9 on the open market, so traders began unwinding positions and cutting their losses. it's probably not IPO investors who are selling down here---unless the poor performance of the IPO and the stock price has shattered their faith. |
|
|
|
Aren't Bitcoin transactions below $500 are exempt from taxes in the US? no. there have been some bills introduced to congress like the token taxonomy act, which would exempt a total of $600 of capital gains per year from taxes if realized by spending on goods/services. (the per transaction amount wouldn't matter) right now, there are no exemptions whatsoever. I think it only applies to mining, and the amount is set to $400. In general, all income or rewards received by a taxpayer in excess of $400 generated from the mining of cryptocurrency must be reported to the IRS. The taxpayer must also identify whether they are a hobby or (self-employed) business miner for tax reporting purposes. that $400 threshold pertains to self-employment income. capital gains taxes are a totally separate issue. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc554 |
|
|
|
Coinbase Sends Form W-9 to send Form 1099-K if 200+ Transactions Are $20K+
Ive only ever Deposited £2895 and have made a loss trading leaving me £1,000 gbp so i dont understand as i havent made over 20k?
Im Uk resident and its not a business for me. to get a 1099-k you just need to have traded $20k worth. it's not about profit. are you a USA citizen residing in the UK? did you provide them with a USA tax ID number? otherwise it's a bit puzzling why they would send you (and the IRS) a 1099. Do i have to send the form in ? what are the penalties if i dont? Im panicking tbh if id had know i wouldnt have dabbled  Thankyou in advance for any help or advise you don't send the form in. the IRS already has it. the 1099-K doesn't report cost basis, so it basically just informs them that you've done a significant amount of trading. as such, it will probably get their attention if they receive a 1099-K and you don't file a schedule D or form 8949 reporting crypto capital gains/losses. if you're not a USA citizen or resident and you don't have a business there, you don't need to report anything to the IRS. it's just coinbase's mistake. |
|
|
|
Today, almost no one is using Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies for everyday payments. There are a few different reasons for this, including Bitcoin’s price volatility, but that’s far from the only problem. While Bitcoin has become a more stable store of value over time, the tax implications of using Bitcoin for payments remain an impediment to widespread use.
While some Bitcoin enthusiasts have no issue with breaking or bending the law to avoid capital gains taxes on cryptocurrency payments, the mainstream consumer does not necessarily want to take that kind of risk. regular folks avoid paying taxes all the time. i doubt most people are considering tax implications when spending a few hundred or thousand bucks from their bitcoin stash. most people are also smart enough to know bitrefill, egifter, overstock etc aren't sending out tax reports for buying goods and services. the real reason people aren't spending is because they're hoarding instead. when the price goes up exponentially again, we'll see another big increase in spending as a form of profit taking. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
