|
NOT LEGAL ADVICE
NOT FINANCIAL ADVICE
you could just move your coins from one wallet to another and then move coins minus loss back to show a papertrail of "loss"
EG
imagine a 20% bad bet/trade/theft STORY
BC1qWeThePeople 0.5367 -> bc1qSecretwallet 0.5367
bc1qSecretwallet 0.5367 -> BC1qWeThePeople 0.42936
\->BC1qSecretwalletA 0.10734
now you can show a paper trail that publicly shows you put into a private trade 0.5367. but you could only trade back at the 20% loss amount thus only getting 0.42936
the 'secret wallet' you claim as being someone else you dont know
you then only declare you have 0.42936
repeat a few times.. and when you are at 0.053(10% left) and the price then 10x you can sell and show you had multiple bad deals. and then one good deal that brought you back to breaking even
not declaring your secret wallet as being yours. but left aside for other spending elsewhere like while on vacation or via wife.
other ways is to approach someone that can create loan certificates recognised by authorities(official money service)
you ask for a $200k loan after a 10x market pump of your $20k. whereby you pay them btc to settle up
loans are not taxable
its best to speak to a financial adviser because there is a THIN line between legitimate tax avoidance. vs illegal tax evasion. but in both cases you do need to show proof of funds transactions should they ever question you or want to audit your paperwork
|
|
|
|
I am quite sure that I've read that this $4b will be going toward FTX. Sounds ridiculous for the money flow to work like that, but go ahead and dig into that yourselves (or PM me if you want me to find the sources later)
i cant find any info.. i read the court transcripts all i seen is CZ personal fine is to go towards his lawsuit with the CFTC last spring.. nothing related to proceeds going to FTX |
|
|
|
|
very simplified and very dumbed down
imagine 6 people wanted to private trade several times between each other in a taproot multisig
A BC1qUserA 0.01 -> bc1pZKReserve 0.01
B BC1qUserA 0.012 -> bc1pZKReserve 0.012
C BC1qUserA 0.011 -> bc1pZKReserve 0.011
D BC1qUserA 0.013 -> bc1pZKReserve 0.013
E BC1qUserA 0.012 -> bc1pZKReserve 0.012
F BC1qUserA 0.014 -> bc1pZKReserve 0.014
(total 0.072... 0.002 will be used to cover future fees)
bc1pZKReserve 0.01\ /bc1pZKReserve 0.00623521
bc1pZKReserve 0.012\\ //bc1pZKReserve 0.01425654
bc1pZKReserve 0.011\\\ -> ///bc1pZKReserve 0.02834512
bc1pZKReserve 0.013/// \\\bc1pZKReserve 0.00356482
bc1pZKReserve 0.012// \\bc1pZKReserve 0.01025485
bc1pZKReserve 0.014/ \bc1pZKReserve 0.00734346
(total 0.07... fee amount deducted for the 0.002)
the purple amounts do add upto 0.07 so still pass the bitcoin audit that no coins are generated or lost
however inside the multisig/contract/party.. the amounts each output shows publicly are not really what the participants are owed and the address doesnt reveal which participant is which
this is because the contract has maths of s secret formula to take the participants private owed totals and produce a new set of apparently random sat amounts unlike the owed amounts. but still total the input total.
that way the blockchain ledger shows good audit. doesnt create or lose coin.. but doesnt reveal REAL amounts owed to any participant nor reveal which participant is which output
|
|
|
|
I just find it amazing that the SEC would approve a Bitcoin ETF at all considering the Tether problem was never really addressed, there wasn't a proper audit as far as I can tell. If you check the Blackrock fillings they included on the pdf what's basically disclaimers about the risk of tetherings going on that could cause in loses for investors. So if they approve this they don't really care about that. I've always thought that if they approve a Bitcoin ETF, is because they have a plan to try to use it to control it in some way, probably via liquidity, then try to influence exchanges and miners into a Blackcoin of sorts.
the whole auditing of BTC vs shares is easy. thats why they said(months prior) to most applicants to nominate a custodian(to audit) at the moment(this week) it appears the SEC is poking at the applicants about the inflow and outflow of shares vs other currency however the next question is if brokers wanted to sell a whole basket of shares to close down a broker/agent or trust wanted to consolidate the number of shares. could the custodian then unlock the BTC to exchange btc to fiat to pay out cash to the seller.. (and what impact would 1-x baskets have on that said exchange market) most applicants said it would be much easier to not do 'in cash' sale but instead 'in-kind' swap whereby the seller gets BTC.. however the SEC is against the idea of in-kind swaps from shares to btc.. for many other reasons.. SEC/IRS prefers shares for cash... but, with that said. the SEC wants to know the custodian can handle unlocking and selling baskets of bitcoin to offer large lumps of cash. without it pumping or dumping the market or causing liquidity issues for the custodian/exchange they dont want to see a bank run, where coinbase(for instance of imaginary scenario) dont have enough cash to match the fiat value of shares being redeemed/removed in short if coinbase is the custodian and the exchange for a few ETF... custodianising the BTC is easy, but will coinbase have enough cash in the bank, to use for btc sells when redeeming shares for cash |
|
|
|
Recently I've heard some statements from the SEC's side that they are pointing they have no reason to stop the approval.
what it actually means there is no ability anymore for SEC to just decline without reason anymore.. (the courts sorted that out due to the grayscale case, however they can deny ETF that dont meet the criteria That was nothing new from the 17th November's development,it was clear SEC has no issue with the spot ETF of the Bitcoin, and they are just looking for a good time why? even I'm not sure about it.
out of the 12 not all of them do. so some can be denied the november 17th event was not a deadline to announce any approvals it was a date of communication with some etf's applicants where the SEC gave some advice to some etf applicants about some obvious issues the SEC found |
|
|
|
before binance guilty plea, ETF acceptability
|||||||||||||||
^
after binance guilty plea, ETF acceptability
|||||||||||||||
^
its moved the target. but still not yet a green light for a 2023 approval
How is Binance making a guilty plea changing the odds of a Bitcoin ETF like Blackrock (a sugar daddy company for the feds) of being accepted? If anything, it should only improve the odds of ETFs from crypto companies - the legacy investment houses were never disadvantaged to begin with. when you have 2 exchange power houses serving americans. coinbase 100m customers binance.com 120m customers americans would take a view point of a INDEX from the most popular one serving americans. meaning the second option is deemed less trusted as a index taking binance.com out of the competition makes coinbase instantly the powerhouse of price discovery. and thus ETF applications listing coinbase as the price discovery.. means they get a boost though there are other things that the SEC is looking for to determine strong processes a applicant is using.. which is why its not a green light but a few notches up in the amber than previously |
|
|
|
I also have the same impression about the ETF judging by the recent SEC actions towards top crypto exchanges. Imo, the intention behind the Binance attack has a different target but surprisingly Binance and cz handled that peacefully and the crypto space is more matured.
It is a known fact that regulation is inevitable there was no need to make a scapegoat of anyone.
im sure scam bankman fraud(ex-FTX) gave some details to the SEC about binance as a bit of revenge, potential leniency for his own sentencing |
|
|
|
|
coinbase customer count: 98m
binance.com customer count: 120m
binance.us customer count: 0.67m
regulators and binance.com didnt want binance.com to be regulated by the US.
regulators and coinbase and institutions didnt want americans measuring bitcoin price based on binance.com
because institutions would not be treated as using a fair index if it wasnt using the biggest. (binance.com )
so they if preferring coinbase they wouldnt want binance.com regulated in the US
and binance.us just doesnt count as a fair index due to lack of customers
so ruling binance.com out, coinbase becomes defacto top index preference
in short. americans wont rely on binance.com for spot pricing anymore due to losing access to binance.com(or shortly will)
and no one wants to give validity to low volume of binance.us.. so win for coinbase.com
|
|
|
|
|
there is truth that most ETF applications prefer coinbase as the defacto spot price index. thus throwing competition off the cliff can solidify coinbase as a defacto stronger index
however the SEC has multiple requirements of strength and facilities and processes a ETF has to offer to "tick all the boxes" and get an approval
there are other things like there being no precedent of minimal standard barrier of entry requirement to start a bitcoin spot ETF. the SEC doesnt want to set the bar too low to let any boiler room scam offering start up. as that will make SEC liable. so they need to set high standards for the first approved ETF so they are not going to rush to approve one unless all the "boxes are ticked"
before binance guilty plea, ETF acceptability
|||||||||||||||
^
after binance guilty plea, ETF acceptability
|||||||||||||||
^
its moved the target. but still not yet a green light for a 2023 approval
|
|
|
|
BlackRock, like any other investment company, is focused on profits. So it's not about personal affinity for Bitcoin as much as it is about seeing an opportunity to make more money.
blackrock is in the game of trading assets that are strong and have sustainability, longevity(for profit). they dont trade penny stocks, they wont invest or hoard in things that can disappear to zero overnight.. as thats not profitable so by them seeing the value and longevity of bitcoin they are willing to spend months-years on lots of legal cost and managerial costs just to be able to start trading (for profit) if they just seen it as a temporary come-and-go penny stock. they would not have bothered they are basically certifying that bitcoin is "bluechip" rather than "penny stock" |
|
|
|
|
i just looked into some other reasons why the SEC does not want shares to be easily swapped direct for btc..
much like wheat, gold, (commodity) which at the end of contract the receiver has to claim the actual underlying asset (gold/wheat)
but by being just share-fiat, the SEC treats share provisions of spot ETF as a security.
if when someone sells a share they are just given btc, not fiat.. it would be a commodity regulator involved in the share regulation(CFTC not SEC)
|
|
|
|
|
alot of people have said "wasnt bitcoin just a fad"
"isnt bitcoin dead already"
"isnt bitcoin that thing that fadded away years ago"
are now saying "wait, big funds manager want to start selling shares pegged to bitcoin"
"wait, big funds manager want to start custodianize and collateralise bitcoin"
they are starting to see that institutions are now recognising bitcoin as value that can be collateralised, invested
other things like regulators recognising bitcoin as an asset if held/used directly or treated as a commodity if used as a collateral to create other financial tools like shares. makes people see that bitcoin is at a "new beginning" a new era of "early adoption" phase
|
|
|
|
|
with many ETF applications wanting to use coinbase as the defacto prime bitcoin spot price index, brushing the competition off the cliff has its advantages
|
|
|
|
thats what "scaling" is for rather then "LEAPING"
just saying no is not the solution to LEAPING.. scaling is the solution to leaping
also SCALING is about the long run.. its not about the high-jump.. (two different sporting events)
Unfortunately, I don't follow you. I will quote myself: To this extent, I think increasing the block size a little will not hurt, but I am against it because it will not solve the "problem" on the long run.
I don't want to increase the blocksize "just a little" because in my opinion it will not solve the issue. I don't want to increase the blocksize "a lot" because of the reasons I have already mentionned. So I don't want to scale, leap, high-jump, run, dive or do any sporting event. If the blocksize scales "a little", I will accept it, even though I disagree. If the blocksize scales "a lot", I am leaving. So simple! SCALING is not a one time "just a little" its not a one time "alot". its a long run of progressive steps.. you solve the long run by doing the long run.. one foot infront of the other.. we dont need 1gb blocks today. today we can fix the issues of the 4mb block bloat, spam, its badly utilised 3mb witness segregation space offset. to allow more transactions to actually get to potentials of 16k transactions instead of stuck at averages under 4.2k. without adjusting more then 4mb.. then move to 8mb and at later date progress again. and more later to progress again.. one step infront of the other.. step by step .. this is literally the meaning of scaling.. the long run all the other detractors/objectors talking about needing to high jump now to solve the long run later..(facepalm) all the other detractors/objectors talking about a high jump cant happen now so lets do nothing at all..(facepalm) all the other detractors/objectors completely ignoring/avoiding/ twist/lie about discussion of SCALING (facepalm) even though 99% of transactions are relayed/broadcast PRE CONFIRM so the "4mb" block limit is not actually "4mb" sent in one go anymore but lets say it was.. heck lets say it was 10mb 10mb /10min = 1mb/min = 16kb/sec a 10mb block is less data than dial-up those in africa who dont live near cabled internet use 4g/5g cellular, which they 'hotspot' to a PC millions of africans livestream, watch tv and game via 4g/5g.. do you think netflix (data of gigabytes an hour to users) said "lets not start a business because customers cant handle gigabytes an hour" as for the initial block download.. things can be done about the user interface of things like core to not be a splash screen telling people to wait to sync-up, when people just want to generate an address to get started, many things can be done to make that a better user experience. not just the user interface but also the underlying download process |
|
|
|
I really don't get this logic .
There are many people who don't share the same logic that I do and it is totally fine. There are people on the planet ( close to 50% ) that have no pc or internet access . Does that mean that the network should stop because of that ?
The network shouldn't stop. No! However, the inspiration was that everyone should be able to run a node. To this extent, I think increasing the block size a little will not hurt, but I am against it because it will not solve the "problem" on the long run. In case you are running a node , because someone else hasn't that comfort does it mean that you should stop having one too ?
I didn't say that. If someone doesn't have the comfort to run a node, it doesn't mean I will stop running a node. I will, however, keep the blocksize low, so that I don't make it even more difficult for them to run a node. thats what "scaling" is for rather then "LEAPING" just saying no is not the solution to LEAPING.. scaling is the solution to leaping also SCALING is about the long run.. its not about the high-jump.. (two different sporting events) dont be fooled into disregarding progress via scaling.. dont be fooled by trolls talking about the high jump when rational people are talking about the long run |
|
|
|
Clearly no one saw this current situation coming.
funny part is i was having lengthy debates with gmax and others in 2016 about the exploit-ability of "anyonecanspend" (unconditioned opcodes).. it is funny how things come full circle where core gods and their cult followers lie, deceive try to deny things to push their agenda using tactics that the person on other side of debate is lying and deceiving because you, data in the blockchain proves whos right in the end. Congratulations, one of your hundreds of Chicken Little "Sky is falling!" cries turned out not to be 100% wrong. Have a cookie. Purely by the law of averages, even a fruitloop like you has to get it right once in a while. Don't let it go to your head. Actually the thing he quoted has nothing to do with this topic and the example chosen in that comment is actually wrong and the silliest one since P2WPKH (ie. OP_0 + 20 bytes) is literally the strictest SegWit scripts that exists and there is absolutely no way of exploiting it. incorrect.. because there is no expectation of content in op_0 remember op_0 was not a strict segwit script.. because.. 2016... yep segwit wasnt even a thing!! back then they had buzzwords for them empty opcode, called nops, nulls.. these days for the new subclass of opcodes of segwit and then the next subclass of opcodes for taproot they buzzword names like opsuccess LEARN THEM, learn what they do and dont do anyways the very next bytes you can put in a op_0 is op_push4 which say the next bytes after that can be 4,294,967,295 bytes(4.29GB) which are only prevented by the block limit to not actually be 4.29gb also multisig did not use op_0 it used other operation bytes.. so it can be abused in so many ways due to its openness at the time of writing it in 2016 seems doomad and pooya have rejoined each other in the cultish narrative of merit circle jerkin and defending each other again, to prevent bitcoin scaling by not even knowing about the code or exploits that are causing the congestion that is not helping bitcoin have lean transactions or increased transaction counts but let them pat themselves on the back merit cycling each other while not wanting to learn how things really work i can literally hear it now, them high fiving each other shouting "Got-em'" but not realising they just proved they dont even know about the opcodes or the abuse the openness of the opcode caused by the stuff it allowed.. so give each other a pat on the back for proving you didnt know what your talking about. it doesnt pay to learn from each others idiocies,, it pays to actually learn bitcoin. doomad already proved he cant earn an income from having blind adoration and just repeat what they told him. so dont waste your time circle jerking things you dont know, and take the time to learn bitcoin |
|
|
|
This is how it works:
A rich person is having assets worth $50 billion. Out of that, he announces that he is "donating" $40 billion for charity (any resemblance to criminals such as Bill Gates is purely unintentional). Now he forms a "charity trust" with him and other relatives as the board members. $40 billion worth of cash and other assets such as stocks and bonds are moved to a bank account earmarked for this charity. Any income in the form of interest payments or dividends are tax-free, as the account is owned by the charitable trust.
Now comes the irony. Instead of purchasing luxury houses and yachts from his own account, the billionaire will just purchase them using the charitable trust. Instead of bribing politicians openly with his own money, he will do so with the bank account owned by the trust, in the form of "speaking charges". On top of that, he will write down a few million USD every month for himself in the form of salary.
salary Pfft the richguy can put (instead of $40b in one go..) $2B a year for 20 years the trust can sell upto $2b/yr of asset and invest in-kind in a 'loan facility'. thus no capgain... and give a'personal' loan to himself from trust to personal. so rich guy receives a loan (tax free money) and as a repayment(to himself as trust) puts another $2b into trust. to cancel loan. which again is no gain for trust |
|
|
|
Personally, I haven't gotten insurance for my business yet, but I'm thinking about it. Right now, my main goal is to save up so I can kickstart another business in a completely different field from what I'm doing now. Gotta keep those options open as we never know.
there is different levels of insurance as a minimum for running a business... liability its the legal costs if you or your product causes harm or loss to an employee, customer or guest then there is buildings/contents insurance. but these can be at different levels. whether its fully inclusive or only contains one or more of: accidents, arson, no fault fire, flood, storm, lightning, damage, theft, etc |
|
|
|
|
insurance is important.. but the correct insurance is more important
a story of a business lady who never experienced flood in 50 years would not pay a higher premium that has a "flood protection" add-on.. but then the flood happens and oops, still not covered.
many people pay basic insurance for false security and find out they dont qualify for a claim when the worse happens
get the RIGHT INSURANCE not just the basic insurance
the other option is to look at the costs of repair/replacement. and then look at the premium amount to insure. and calculate if its worth paying a premium or setting aside that amount as a 'emergency savings' pot to cover repairs
EG
a. if you know you can buy new flock of chickens and it takes 4 months to full grow them to sell.. for 1k
and renting a chicken coup for 4 months is 2k (total 3k to get back to work)
b. if rebuilding a coop for yourself is 15k and will take 6 months and ontop you pay 1k to get a flock of chickens
3k to be at a point of selling chickens in 4 months
vs
16k to be at a point of selling chickens in 10 months
work out is it better to pay premiums to insure the 16k cost. or put aside the premium amount into your own savings for emergency to cover 3k to get straight back to operating under rent
|
|
|
|
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said that Tuesday's action was the largest settlement in the department's history.
"I want to make sure that folks really understand how unprecedented this monitorship is," a senior official told reporters earlier on Tuesday. "We're not just going after the egregious conduct … but we're also … getting Binance out of the U.S. entirely."
binance.us is still online though right now just goes to show how binance doesn't really take things too seriously. if they had any sense they would have an announcement on the very front page saying "DON'T CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT WE'RE CLOSING DOWN!". irresponsible behavior towards their us customers...
Frankly it looks to me like the USA is backing coinbase and allowed this attack. I don't understand why CZ went into the US in the first place it was very likely going to be this way. What I don't like is Coinbase may end up being the only exchange for USA citizens. binance.COM has to exit servicing US customers binance.us will be allowed to continue to operate with US customers
it even says it in your own coindesk link The official clarified that the separate exchange called Binance.US, which is the operating name for BAM Trading Services, a U.S. affiliate for Binance, is a registered money services business and therefore is not affected by Binance's exit.
binance.com is under probation (monitoring) binance.US has not been charged, not plead, nor sentenced. binance.us is not in trouble |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
