Якобы в кошельке Сатоши миллион биткоинов, но пока с ним никаких действий не было, поэтому нельзя оценить его размер... |
|
|
|
старая картинка  Но актуальная и сейчас) Судя по всему, семнадцатый год войдёт в историю ещё не один раз... |
|
|
|
В статье написано что Bitcoin Wallet всего лишь даёт распоряжаться тем, что уже имеется, передавать это дело куда угодно, обменивать BTC на доллары и обратно. Как в этой программе происходит обмен на доллары и обратно. Для этого ведь нужна биржа, регистрация на бирже? Кошелёк Coinbase тоже позволяет продавать/покупать биткоины за доллары, правда только для американских граждан (из-за юридических ограничений). Часть сделок всё равно будет взаимно погашаться, а разницу они могут компенсировать где-угодно (и на бирже в том числе)... Да и у большинства нормальных банков есть аналогичная функция продажи-покупки валюты |
|
|
|
Been waiting for a payment for ages now. I suspect that this site is not kosher and keeps the advertisers payments and doesn't pay out. The websites contact form doesn't work, E-mails go unanswered.
Why does a site need to pend payments, when other sites can pay out almost instantly or within 24hrs??
The site IS kosher, and has been for a long time. I don't know what that means. My take on this is that the owner probably means it is proper and acceptable to delay payments just like serious banks do (personally, I don't share this opinion)... |
|
|
|
By the way, early adopters who invest time and cash into BTC won't let it be doomed so easily.
In this thread I'm primarily concerned with economic reasons as to why bitcoin will not get into mainstream and will not be able to replace fiat currencies, i.e. government prohibition as well as non-economic reasons aside, if that was your point... Before all, economics is concerned with rational behavior of people and their choice |
|
|
|
Вообще-то в таких случаях конфискат принято отправлять в бюджет. Или спецслужбы у них это уже отдельное гос-во? Там хитрая схема и теоретически можно вернуть свои деньги, но сам процесс занимает долгие годы, а то и десятилетия. В англоязычной части форума народ активно обсуждает перспективы возврата денежных средств с Silk Road. Аргументы против сводятся в основном к тому, что есть немалые шансы самому попасть под раздачу за участие в запрещённых операциях и угодить при этом за решётку... |
|
|
|
Не интервью а сплошная вода  Для человека, который в первый раз слышит про биткоин, вполне нормально, на мой взгляд. Особенно ценен вот этот вот момент (практически в десятку), просто и доступно биткоин стал синонимом бессилия госучреждений и других регуляторов, потому как впервые за долгие годы они оказались не в состоянии ни остановить выплаты другим странам, ни контролировать движение капитала Ну и конечно, кошелёк Coinbase я бы с большой натяжкой назвал стартапом... |
|
|
|
Какие прогнозы по следующему уровню поддержки?
250?
100?
50?
Сливать надо было по 1100+, я предупреждал народ где-то здесь на форуме, что эта вакханалия долго не продлится. Сам закрылся как раз по 1100 с какими-то копейками, потом курс в течение часа ещё немного поднялся до 1150, ну а дальше только вниз... |
|
|
|
I now know your IQ is less than 120.
And you now know my IQ is much higher than yours.
I don't care... |
|
|
|
You may think as you please. I think I made my point clear enough for everyone to make their own conclusions. If no one is willing to pay taxes with $50 face value of a $1000+ gold coin, it doesn't in the least prove that this cannot be done legally. The question was about gold coins being legal tender... If you disagree with that you can petition here You fail Logic 101. By your logic, then Bitcoin would be legal tender even though we lose money paying taxes on Bitcoin that we don't pay on legal tender. Because you argue that losing value does not impact on whether something is actually legal tender. As long as Bitcoin is not officially declared a legal tender, it is not legal tender. As simple as that. I don't really know what else you are going to add to this obvious fact... |
|
|
|
To prove that US gold coins are legal tender on par with paper dollars. The question was about gold coins being legal tender alongside with the national currency... The definition of legal tender in the USA: United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts And thus you've failed to prove it. Gold is taxed on its commodity value and no one would pay taxes with $50 face value of a $1000+ gold coin. Sorry that is nonsense. You may think as you please. I think I made my point clear enough for everyone to make their own conclusions. If no one is willing to pay taxes with $50 face value of a $1000+ gold coin, it doesn't in the least prove that this cannot be done legally. The question was about gold coins being legal tender... If you disagree with that you can petition here |
|
|
|
А после скольки постов дает?
You can only post in the Newbie and Local sub-forums till you have made one post and waited 4 hours. This post must be substantial: at least several sentences. The other two restrictions are you need 1 post to be able to send a PM and 10 posts to put a link in your sig. You can only post once every 360 seconds to start and there are a few other things that trigger this timer such as logging in and searching. То есть по-умолчанию можешь постить только в разделе новичков (общем или внутри ветки конкретного региона), пока не сделаешь 1 пост + подождёшь 4 часа. 1 пост нужен, чтобы начать писать в личку. 10 постов нужно, чтобы научиться пихать в подпись ссылку. Постить в принципе можно не чаще чем раз в 360 секунд. Ограничение в 360 секунд действует только до достижения уровня активности 14, дальше начинает действовать ограничение на 1 пост в 60 секунд... |
|
|
|
Why do you guys have such difficulty with the term backing? As I said: The goal of backing is to ensure, that the media of exchange will retain its purchasing power. There is nothing more to discuss, unless you hold the opinion, that the goal of backing is something different.
Why do you have such difficulty with the term 'definition'? I am not interested in the GOAL of backing. So don't keep telling me what the GOAL of backing is. I am interested in the DEFINITION of backing. And no, not A definition or YOUR definition, THE definition. And if you want to keep telling me what the definition is, you'd better be prepared to support that. with. a. link! Anyway, since I've already scooted off to the various dictionaries google provides, there's no need to belabour the point. And the metadiscussion is interesting, it just ain't answering the question I asked. I had been under the impression that the word was a term of art in economics, in the same way that "force" is a very specific term of art in physics, notwithstanding the careless use it may have in the real world. I think you chose the wrong place to search for the definition. And I suppose as well that even if you went to some distinguished economists and their works on money theory, you would still find many different understandings and definitions of what backing actually is... I have expressed my understanding of the term and am quite happy with it, so what are you waiting for? |
|
|
|
If what you say were true, then any speculator selling high and buying low would be "supporting" price (bitcoin or no bitcoin) which is obviously not the case, since for every deal there are two parties, one selling and the other buying. The only direct way to support currency would be to buy it when prices are falling...
I think majority of the speculators can not sell high and buy low accurately. My example just showed that if they successfully did that, their action will support the exchange rate without incur a loss. And there are some experienced institutional traders, they are usually the driven power of price development Unlike gold, bitcoin's supply is limited, for each coin you buy or hold, you reduce the sell pressure on the market by 1 coin permanently. It does not take too much fiat money to drain out the coin supply on market at today's exchange rate On the contrary, if you buy and hold coins, this diminishes liquidity and thereby increases volatility. How could you possibly stabilize the exchange rate through increasing volatility? It is liquidity that supports exchange rate, leveling off speculative component from it... And gold supply is limited too (somewhere around 2-3% annually) |
|
|
|
Why would you pay taxes with the face value of a gold coin instead of selling the gold coin for commodity value which is 2000% higher, subsequently paying taxes with the fiat?
Doesn't make any sense. What is the point you are trying to make with the absurdity?
To prove that US gold coins are legal tender on par with paper dollars. The question was about gold coins being legal tender alongside with the national currency... The definition of legal tender in the USA: United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts |
|
|
|
But this in no case means that you're "supporting" the value of bitcoin. If fact, I would even call such stance hypocritical to a degree, since you're in the first place undermining its value by selling coins at $800 and then pretending to support it by buying it at $400 . This is plain old speculation, nothing beyond that really...
If you only bought bitcoins when the price went down (and spent it on goods or services), that would go for support
Since bitcoin's total supply is limited, if I do not create net sell pressure on the market, I would indirectly support its exchange rate Of course I can't always sell high and buy low, I might even do it with a small loss, but the result is the exchange rate get supported and majority of the bitcoin's value kept high If every bitcoiner realize this, that will be the biggest support behind bitcoin. Unfortunately most of the people are short sighted and only care about their own profit, so they are destined to be ruled by a few bankers who can see a larger picture If what you say were true, then any speculator selling high and buying low would be "supporting" price (bitcoin or no bitcoin) which is obviously not the case, since for every deal there are two parties, one selling and the other buying. The only direct way to support currency would be to buy it when prices are falling... |
|
|
|
I'm confident that there are many miners already doing this, include me (maybe even some mining companies). And it does not incur any loss, that's the reason after each bitcoin hype, it crashed to a new higher low
For example, I have sold 10 coins with an average price of $800, received $8000. Now if bitcoin price crashed to $400, I need only $4000 to buy back all the coins I sold, thus there will be no net sell pressure from me and I still made $4000. I can even spend $6000 to buy 15 coins thus both of my bitcoin holding and fiat money holding increased after the crash
Sorry, but this doesn't work that way. If you sell something dear and then buy cheap, it is called speculation. If you sold some coins at $800 and received $8000 in return and bitcoin price then crashed to $400, it means that some poor wretch has lost $4000. I just can't fathom how this could possibly be called support for bitcoin price... Why those poor guys lost $4000? Because they want to sell the coin at a lower price, if they don't sell, I won't be able to buy coins at $400. So their loss purely comes from their lacking of confidence of their investment, if they never sell any coin, they won't have any loss, and I don't need to support the exchange rate either From the view of the central bankers, they normally don't care about the loss or profit, those are trivial things comparing to their large holding of fiat money and foreign currency reserve, the exchange rate is the only concern But this in no case means that you're "supporting" the value of bitcoin. If fact, I would even call such stance hypocritical to a degree, since you're in the first place undermining its value by selling coins at $800 and then pretending to support it by buying it at $400 . This is plain old speculation, nothing beyond that really... If you only bought bitcoins when the price went down (and spent it on goods or services), that would go for support |
|
|
|
If you pay taxes with gold coins at their face value instead of paper dollars (i.e. taxes total being equal coins face value total), you effectively end up paying more than you would pay if you previously sold your coins at their market price and paid the original tax plus the tax due to the commodity value of your coins.
And who would be stupid enough to do that? People are stupid, but that not that stupid. Most of them can count. This doesn't render payment of taxes with gold coins at their face value either impossible or eligible for taxing the commodity value of them (which was your point). You can't pay an income tax on an income that you didn't get (that was my point)... Actually your entire thesis is incorrect and you missed the point of the links I provided in a prior post. If someone pays you face value for your gold coins, you and they will both be taxed as if you gave them incremental commodity value as a gift. So they will pay income taxes on that portion. My links showed someone tried to pay payroll using face value of coins and it was ruled he under-reported payroll. I didn't miss the point of the links you provided. They are just not relevant to the issue of paying taxes with gold coins I wasn't talking about someone paying somebody gold coins as wages or whatever (which I mentioned specifically), I was talking about paying taxes (not wages) with gold coins at their face value (total taxes = total face value of coins) and nothing beyond that. I hope I made it clear at least now. Why you raised the point which is not relevant to the issue what I had been talking about (i.e. paying taxes with gold coins, not wages) is beyond my understanding... |
|
|
|
Starting a new iteration at 1540 posts... That was not easy last time!
I'm afraid that I edited my original post (which is now prohibited), so I'm reposting it according to the new rules Starting posts: 1540 Bitcoin address: 1NBY6GbirSZuW7CaWQSgB6AwtHW2Fe1uqc |
|
|
|
If you pay taxes with gold coins at their face value instead of paper dollars (i.e. taxes total being equal coins face value total), you effectively end up paying more than you would pay if you previously sold your coins at their market price and paid the original tax plus the tax due to the commodity value of your coins.
And who would be stupid enough to do that? People are stupid, but that not that stupid. Most of them can count. This doesn't render payment of taxes with gold coins at their face value either impossible or eligible for taxing the commodity value of them (which was your point). You can't pay an income tax on an income that you didn't get (that was my point)... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
