This is possible but lets face it you don't know that.
You don't know if they will go after everyone.
Coinbase's account history logs aren't a paper notebook and some chicken scratch.
It is meticulous and well put together.
The IRS will not have a hard time sifting through the good practices that Coinbase is currently using.
The IRS handles the entire US population's tax filings.
You really think the Bitcoin community is gonna add that much work for them?
You think they are only going after big fish when I say they are out to make a point.
With the dollar going up and the IRS filing the claim to get Coinbase's records I would say the message is clear.
There is a new sheriff in town and he is not going to put up with any dissent in this country at all.
Regime change is upon us.
lol you do know that even in fiat. many people avoid taxes already. using trusts, offshore etc. also the 'average/majority' user of coinbase is not the $10k plus user. so although it wont take them long to find the $10k+ users. its not going to be a significant amount of coinbase customers. only expect a couple % of users to react to this IRS news as personally impacting them. IRS is not a new sheriff. its the same sheriff it always has been. its just drama in the end. those that do use coinbase over $10k will get a letter through the post. whoop-de-doo. and if smart enough they can explain themselves out of how much tax they owe. in short the IRS is just going to continue on as it has done.. these subpoena's are not some big event. to them its just everyday paperwork. much like writing out a daily memo.. nothing when you look at the big picture has changed |
|
|
|
The IRS has a hard-on for getting their share of whatever it is you make, be it a lot, a little, a painfully small amount, or anything else similar to that. They will always want their share of your wealth, and this extends further into Bitcoin.
If anything I'm surprised that the IRS wasn't getting involved sooner, however this is something I expected since we hit the $1,000 mark, and even closer to just $100 to be honest.
I'm surprised that the value isn't going down, seems like people are confident in their ability to hide their wealth, or someone is buying a lot for some reason.
nah.. most dont care. a majority of people are only buying $10-$1000 bitcoin.. due to the registration requirements of coinbased hardly any are actually spending more than $10k in coinbase. so its not like every customer is going to get an IRS letter.. maybe just 1% of coinbase customers who have not bought bitcoin more professionally when spending more than $10k. the real smart guys loop their funds through off shore accounts/foundations and corporations before doing anything. so the end result wont be a mass exodus of customers. because as i just explained hardly any are actually using coinbase for such amounts IRS cares for |
|
|
|
That's not a bad idea for anyone who doesn't have holdings in some datacenter, but if there is anyone who has some sort of vested interest in something like that then you're going to be hard pressed to egt them to give up that investment and go look at something else.
Banking datacenters are both a huge money-maker (for the right people) and a money drain, so something like that is taking away a fair amount of jobs and also takes away from expenditures of the bank.
While it might not be a bad idea, I don't think a lot of them have weighed the pros and cons.
Banking experts seem to lack the understanding that a blockchain is essentially just a decentralized database, but I could be wrong with this assumption. based on what I hear from a lot of people though, they think it is some miracle technology that changes everything. It really doesn't.
first of all.. imagine it this way. no more 900 servers in one building.. but 900 servers scattered over 900 locations.. infact due to distribution it will be 95000 systems. so hardware manufacturers wont lose out. intel/IBM are actually loving it. secondly less staff is a good thing for banks. they dont care about people. they would be happy to sack people as for banking experts. they hir developers. and the developers understand it. the term blockchain is very loose, but does offer many things. bitcoin is 10+ layers deep above blockchain. bankers so far are 4 layers. but compared to their old systems they do see benefits not just about the distribution but the programming ability it opens up that DMS didnt offer and RDMS was limited of. just dont b surprised on how much they will screw customers into smart contracts in the future |
|
|
|
No, financial institutions won't make money developing new blockchains. In simplified terms, what they are doing is creating bloated altcoins. Indeed, they don't know what they are doing, because if they were competent they would know that blockchains are not suitable for the use case they imagine. For all centralized use cases, the most efficient solution is a centralized database. The only reason why Bitcoin has a blockchain is to make a decentralized currency possible. If you're removing decentralization as a core feature, using a blockchain makes no sense anymore. But, of course, they are free to waste money on it.  but they are saving money by distributing their ledger. imagine it. each bank branch has its own sidechain. thus less or no need of a skyscraper with servers and hundreds of staff monitoring it for security. due to the decentralised nature securing each bank branch. yes its not 100% public.. plus the smart contract ability due to changing to programmable databases (in laymens) allows them to do smart contracts. that are programmatically determined. rather than a simply photocopy of old contracts that are human determined. though i dont like what banks do. i can understand why they are doing it. and it seems it will surprise you too. so dont down play what banks have in mind as a 'head in sand' attempt to think bitcoin is going to kill fiat. |
|
|
|
|
forget all delusions of banks using bitcoin.
they are going for hyperledger.
as for the utility of hyperledger.
its much like going from Database Management Systems DMS (decades old) to Relational Database Management Systems RDMS (still pre millenium but newer) where they were able to do more with their data.
blockchain is just a new layer ontop of RDBMS... lets call it BRDBMS.
where not only can they play with the data within the database tables that had relationship ties (quasi-blocks) like they did before. but now they can play around with the database itself by not having it locked in a central server needing a master key.
they can distribute it, lay out the tables (blocks) in different order and or location. change how its secured.
bitcoin does have atleast 10 different secure/feature mechanisms ontop of the old RDMS and its thought hyper ledger has just 4 extra ontop of RDMS, so more secure then older systems, but still not as secure/brilliant as bitcoin.
but because the bankers dont need it as a fully public accessible system and they cannot fully own bitcoin outright or 'efficiently' do the extra secure stuff bitcoin does (PoW to name one) they will just make their own. which they have been doing.
as for how/why/what
thats the big bank secret question about (smart)contracts of: money creation, notaries, equities, collateral, asset creation, etc
|
|
|
|
If IRS decides to chase crypto tax evaders, it will be a losing battle because those people would simply move over to monero, zcash and other anonymous coins.
What can IRS do about that?
its not a bitcoin sepecific thing. same rule applies to any crypto/stock/share/asset/ or even foriegn fiat currency... if you convert it to a fiat that the IRS rules over. expect them to stalk you for it. also as someone else said If you start spending lots of bitcoin on goods and services without paying taxes, the IRS would catch you for having a standard of living inconsistent with your income.
It is the same as using cash to evade taxes.
Eventually, IRS will have to move to bitcoin.
yep if they cannot find you via bank records a jealous neighbour will "grass you in" for having a better car then them, but never see you go to work to afford it. the trick is then to have receipts that the car is leased (NOT OWNED in your name to be towed). paid for from contributions of a foundation (corporate trust fund: again not with your name attached 'personally') |
|
|
|
Reason is that bigger the number of inputs, or what I call internal transactions, bigger the size will be, because there's more thing for miners to verify.
I also want to know this. I don't understand codes, so, is there an average number for inputs and outputs? Like for example: Inputs= 100bytes ; Outputs=50bytes then if there was 4 Inputs and 3 Outputs it would be 4x100 + 3x50 = 550(Estimated Transaction Size) give or take a few. Any ideas? roughly 148*in + 34*out(+-10) so more around the 694-704 mark EDIT: just found https://blockchain.info/tx/9ad969d73f4859f05564682f88ba28451d3609efc808ae100876457fd725e539702... it gets more complicated if multisig addresses and scripted addresses are involved, the "148*in +34*out" (+-10) is usually if your only paying from and to normal addresses.. which will soon become less common after segwit/ln is running. |
|
|
|
|
in short, without techno-waffled
TX1.
came from one source going to 2 destinations
TX2.
came from one source, going to 9 destinations
if you were hand-writing cheques or delivery notes or anything in the real world
the more source locations or destination locations you have to write... the more you have to write
|
|
|
|
-next block before its confirm. 0.0015231 btc/kb
-within 2 blocks before it confirms 0.0010154 btc/kb
-within 5 blocks 0.00083274 btc/kb
-within 10 blocks 0.00069784 btc/kb
-within 25 blocks. 0.00069784 btc/kb
so here is your maths works out as U.S dollar next block pay over $1/kb (40cent tx average) within 2 block pay over $0.76/kb (30cent tx average) within 5 block pay over $0.63/kb (25cent tx average) within 10 block pay over $0.53/kb (21cent tx average) within 25 block pay over $0.53/kb (21cent tx average) silly high prices electrum is "average estimating" and guess what...even then its not a guarantee. the only issue is if 5000 people all paid 0.0015231 btc/kb only ~2500 will get into the next block because there is a limit. laving the other half waiting no one knows who/which one of them people paying over $1 a kb will get it. theres usually a 3 groups of people that will always pay the top fee, no matter what 1. i need it now theres someone im trading with looking at his watch, tutting and moaning 2. i just dont want the hassle of keep checking the blockchain or having to rebroadcast and/or calculate fee's 3. if i pay more i naively dont understand bitcoin and think it will confirm in 20 seconds by paying more. now then. there is no way to guarantee any of the 3 groups get in first.. now then, there is no way to guarantee group 1 gets higher priority to go first(real need). even when paying obsurd amounts of 40cents per average tx ($1/kb) summary fee estimates alone do no work. especially in a spoonfed sheep herd crowd there needs to be a PROPER WORKING secondary mechanism BASED ON CODE and flags to highlight real priority of the herd crowd of "just pay more" spoonfed people |
|
|
|
The IRS has a job to do, and we have to accept the fact that there are two things that you would never avoid.. Death & Taxes. If you are a good citizen, you will pay your damn taxes and go on with your life. If you decide to use Bitcoin to avoid taxes, then you deserve to look over your shoulder every day, because they will hunt you down... to take their cut. I would rather pay the damn taxes and not have to worry, when they are going to burst through the door to arrest me for tax evasion.  just having bitcoin is not taxable. same as holding shares/stocks/assets/'personal trusts'. whats important is when you CASH OUT(sell asset/shares/bitcoin). you have to declare the FIAT YOU are then holding. the IRS only care about who WITHDREW FIAT from coinbase (if this topic is about IRS V COINBASE) plus its only about the AMERICAN users (meaning DOLLAR withdrawals) its not about bitcoin holders or bitcoin holders outside the U.S |
|
|
|
|
although exchanges may not claim fee's (personal profit) the exchange rate (spread) may differ.
many exchanges with no fee's have big spreads.
most of the time when you buy bitcoin you pay the highest price meaning you get less btc for your fiat.
and the exchange or seller then buys cheaper behind the scene. so they still profit.
exchanges that allow you to make an order that sits on the buy list gets you a better deal then instantly taking from someone elses sell order.
it takes a while to learn about spreads. and which exchange offers the best spread price with or without fee's.
but its things like spreads and withdrawal fee's that add on costs. even if there are no trade fee's. and that has caused a few issues in the remittance markets where people want to go from on FIAT<->BTC<->FIAT another currency, because they have to calculate in 2 exchange spreads, even if there are no "fees".
and also the time delay if you try to save value being a order "maker" rather than a "taker"
|
|
|
|
If i pay 0.001 or 0.005 transaction fees then there is no difference that the transaction will get included in the first next block, i usually pay normal fees and it get included in the first few blocks if not in the first.
but ur also paying 70cents $3.50.. which then starts ramping up the average estimator. all im saying is fee alone is not enough there needs to be a priority flag too. otherwise its just a lottery and auction |
|
|
|
You should only pay normal fees not very high because it doesn't guarantee that your transaction will get faster included in the block, pay normal but not very high.
lol if everyone pays the normal fee then its impossible to know who is happy to wait and who is desperate to get on. dev's need to act like devs and less like bankers and make some actual code that sorts our priority rather than an empty unpredictable fee war put it this way. imagine there are only ~2500 seats on a train.. 5000 passengers pay "normal" 15cents a ticket. only 2500 get on the train. and 2500 left waiting at the platform for the next train in ~10 minutes. no one knows which of the 2500 of 5000 get on, because they all paid the same.. its a lottery. a fee estimator and everyone paying the same amount or those wanting priority all paying a 1cent extra also does not show real priority. especially at the next block where everyone is paying 1cent more making so those paying more at block 1 are then mixed with "average" people of block2 meaning the lottery of randomness begins again but imagine there was a flag that said "1.life or death need it now, 2.need it now but not life or death. 3.soonish please 4. i dont care" then 1250(1) and 1250(2) get in.. and (3)(4) are waiting. without a priority flag.. everyone paying 16cents is treated the same. even if they were the ones paying 16 cents when the average was 15cents previous block |
|
|
|
|
there are no guarantee's.
put it this way. imagine there are only ~2500 seats on a train.. 5000 passengers pay 15cents a ticket.
only 2500 get on the train. and 2500 left waiting at the platform for the next train in ~10 minutes.
however another 5000 people walk onto the platform. see how crowded it is so they pay 16cents.
only 2500 paying 16cents get on the next train. leaving 2500@15cents and 2500 at@16cents on the platform
however another 5000 people walk onto the platform. see how crowded it is so they pay 17cents.
only 2500 paying 17cents get on the next train. leaving 2500@15cents, 2500 at@16cents and 2500 at@17cents on the platform
however another 5000 people walk onto the platform. see how crowded it is so they pay 18cents.
only 2500 paying 18cents get on the next train. leaving 2500@15cents, 2500 at@16cents, 2500 at@17cents and 2500 at@18cents on the platform
paying 15cents which is top rate at train one does not give you any 'first in first on' privileged priority due to when they got on the platform or even asked "urgent need step forward, dont mind waiting step back".
its an auction.. highest payer wins a seat.
the issue is that people are all seeing these 'recommended fee's' and 'estimated fee's and they are then shooting themselves in the foot.
everyone ends up paying more than the last,
if everyone is forced to pay xxcents(many web wallets).. then some people that didnt mind waiting get on, while some that need to get on may not. because priority is not recognised in anyway. it just ends up as everyone pay more rule
dev's have not acted as devs to actually code "priority" properly. they acted more like bankers letting fee's rule. but then acted like bankers by trying to get everyone to pay a fee no matter how happy they are about waiting
yes you can just pay less manually.. but the old priority structure and many methods of coding a new priority structure have been avoided. and its just a bidding war
|
|
|
|
|
when you see empty blocks, you usually see that they are solved quicker than average, this is both the cause and effect.
the reason. is simple.
say miner X solved a block... all the competitors
wait the few seconds to get the data
wait the few seconds to validate X
wait a few seconds to build up a list of transactions in the mempool that remain unconfirmed because if X proves valid they cannot include X's transactions in the next block obviously.
however by not including any transactions. pool Y can immediately start hashing a new block while it validates X separately, at the same time. and if X proves valid it can then start building a list of unconfirmed transactions to add to the Y pools attempt. giving them a headstart. and if it took them 10 minutes to solve a block they would usually have added tx's into a block and no one would know any difference.
you sometimes notice the more time that passes the more transactions appear in their block. but usually if the block is solved under 2 minutes, its usually empty
afterall its stupid to start hashing a new block full of transactions before validating the previous. but smart to start empty then add unconfirms as soon as you validate
|
|
|
|
i doubt very much that it has anything to do with bnkofthefuture, it does look really scammy, and i dont think these boys would be at that.
yea the benedix thing is gone. evaporated shot down before it got very far, but everyone should be wary of who they hand money too. if the banking crisis of 2007 hasnt taught anyone anything. or gox, or cryptsy or bitfinex. then its worth looking into anyone/anything you invest in now. not just say "here take my moneyz" |
|
|
|
Bnktothefuture has raised huge amounts on their platform and a huge amount of money lost as of today's price on mining an altcoin that was crashed in a pump ,dump...& that some allege was via insider trading.
I saw Simon erect the anti-banking shield, the disrupt banking shield, the crusade..it's great PR... He also takes credit for rescue of finex and saying crypto could not afford another gox type scandal...and says he waved fees for finex rescue and infers altruist motive claiming we could not afford another gox story. Who is the real Simon Dixon? The person writing these emails in 2011? Or the one saving us all,working for no fee on finex deal to protect us from another gox?
there is always a fee. just not where people commonly see it. he is paid a salary and will earn a christmas double bonus for other hidden costs/profits. so sometimes the publicly known fee is just some PR |
|
|
|
bnktothefuture.com
is headed up by Max Keiser(and others) and used as a kind of kickstarter, VC portal for crypto businesses.
however the screenshot of the email looks unrelated to bnktothefuture.com and the email looks "scammy".
i can see many red flag buzzwords/rhetoric
overselling their influence. "having lots of friends".. but instantly red flag "will turn off other phones ignore emails and dedicate myself to you"
who in the moral/ethical world would do that!!
basically if someone would turn off their phone and ignore emails to work solely with their most recent client.. expect yourself to be ignored once they find their next client
from my knowledge bnktothefuture do not cold-email people inviting them to facebook groups.
the screenshot of email looks like someone trying to speculatively grab people and probably find out the facebook group then makes financial demands or gets people to pay a fee or some other agenda to coax funds out of you.
in short if i received it i would assume a scammer is trying to suggest they are linked to bnktothefuture.com to coax your trust into blindly going to a facebook group to be persuaded into some "scheme".
I felt a bit sick when I read it and I have real concerns about bnktothefuture. though the benedix thing is not bnktothefuture... based on what you have highlighted about one of the guys history before joining bnktothefuture i too would be wary of simon. so although your email screenshot does not have evidence of nasty business of bnktothefuture directly, i would be wary of simon who is part of bnktothefuture and what he might be doing behind closed doors. based on his personal history |
|
|
|
I can't wait for Bitcoin Unlimited Take Two, where the block reward is dynamically determined by the free market...
actually those that love core were coming up with an option where dynamic blocks are possible, but with a penalty of reducing the blockreward if its implemented. and greg actually liked it Elastic block capThe heart of the suggestion is - instead of forbidding large blocks, penalize them. The miner of a large block must pay a penalty that depends on the block's size. The penalty will be deducted from the funds he collects in the generation transaction, and paid into the rollover pool, to be distributed among future miners. If the penalty exceeds the miner's income of tx fees + minted coins + his share of the current rollover pool, the block is invalid. This requires choosing a function f that returns the penalty for a given block size. There is great flexibility and there's little that can go wrong if we choose a "wrong" function. The main requirements are that it is convex, and has significant curvature around the size we think blocks should be. My suggestion: Choose a target block size T. Then for any given block size x, set f(x) = Max(x-T,0)^2 / (T*(2T-x)). ( graph) This will mean that there are no penalties for blocks up to size T. As the block size increases, there is a penalty for each additional transaction - negligible at first, but eventually sharply rising. Blocks bigger than 2T are forbidden. I think this kind of proposal is a massive improvement on proposals without this kind of control; and while it does not address all of the issues around larger blocks-- e.g. they do not incentive align miners and non-mining users of the system-- it seems likely that proposals in this class would greatly improve a some of them of them; and as such is worth a lot more consideration.
Thanks for posting, Meni-- I'm looking forward to thinking more about what you've written.
silly people wanting to play with bitcoins mining rewards output as a appendix to allowing bitcoin onchain scaling its like saying "yea you can have more capacity but we will destroy bitcoins 21m coin cap mechanism if you do" ofcourse messing with mining rewards is stupid and no one should even try messing with it. anyone seeing positives of messing with the blockreward mechanism should be watched, we should be careful of their other idea's. you never know what is hidden as a appendix to their concepts hidden between the lines of code While there may have been actual proposals to toy with the block reward, what you've quoted is not that. Meni's proposal involves adjusting transaction fees in relation to the block size, and your quoted bit says as much. yes transaction fee is also mentioned but so is minted coin. so dont downplay the cores crappy thoughts and then make up thoughts about others. many times people have protected gmaxwell, but then used his negative idea's and pretended other people opposing maxwells dominance as wanting what maxwell wants. as shown in the OP of f*rking off.. only core and maxwell want to avoid true consensus and want there to be a network split.. not the other way round. but it is very cute how you downplay cores mentions of messing with minted coins. but i would guess if you seen the exact same posts wrote by anyone not fanboying core. you would jump on them and scream like a sex addict with his first prostitute |
|
|
|
as some have noted its not bitcoin relatedThe 1,000-year-old Royal Mint is working with CME Group—the world’s largest futures exchange operator—to put $1 billion worth of gold on a blockchain sometime next year.
yet its a hyperledger project, trying to get fame by mentioning bitcoin
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
