Alternatively: Sod off and live somewhere else.
Aar yes, the run-off-in-the-face-of-injustice approach. And as I said earlier in the thread; if Mandela and King had just decided to "sod off and live somewhere else" instead of fighting injustice? Mandela was imprisoned. King was shot. They suffered for what they believed in. You aren't standing up for the underclasses or the repressed, you are trying to avoid paying your share of taxation. [Besides, Mandela is a poor example of non-violent protest, considering that he participated in several bombings.] Do you think you should be able to ignore the law with impunity?
Do you think I should acquiesce in the face of injustice just because that injustice has been committed to the statute books? That's a very odd argument. Just because you think something is unjust doesn't mean I have to agree. I think that fact that you are benefiting from all the services paid for by taxation without contributing to it to be unjust. |
|
|
|
If a person owes taxes, and have the money in their bank account, gov should be allowed to take the money out of his account, instead of wasting time and money in courts or raising taxes.
And if you refuse to pay tax because you feel that funding the state is morally repugnant? Then you should be prepared to suffer the consequences of your actions. It is easy to take a moral stand when there are no consequences. Alternatively: Sod off and live somewhere else. Or are you opposed to non-violent, civil disobedience? Do you think you should be able to ignore the law with impunity? |
|
|
|
In Cyprus, the banks became insolvent, and customer deposits took a haircut to refinance them. For customers who had done nothing wrong.
In the UK, if you owe taxes, and have refused to pay them after being contacted several times, and you have enough money to pay, they will take what you owe.
They are more similar than you care to admit. They both represent wealth confiscation. They are both non-voluntary. Both confiscations occur under the banners of necessity and state-sanctioned legitimacy. In one case there is a debt owed that is being collected. In the other there wasn't. One is targeted to just those who actually owe debts. The other wasn't. They aren't the same. If you happen to disagree with taxes per se, that is a different matter. |
|
|
|
Carl Davis, Jr of the Silicon Valley Black Chamber of Commerce asked Donahoe what he thought of Bitcoin in regards to global trade. The CEO called it a new, exciting and emerging technology. "We think Bitcoin will play a very important role in the future. Exactly how that plays out, and how we can best take advantage of it and enable it with PayPal, that's something we're actively considering. It's on our radar screen." |
|
|
|
This is completely unlike what happened in Cyprus.
In Cyprus, the regime decided that people owed them money and that they should be able to remove it at will from their bank account. In the UK, if the regime decides that you owe them money, they will be able to remove it at will from your bank account. They were both for taxation. They were both theft. They are completely different. In Cyprus, the banks became insolvent, and customer deposits took a haircut to refinance them. For customers who had done nothing wrong. In the UK, if you owe taxes, and have refused to pay them after being contacted several times, and you have enough money to pay, they will take what you owe. I agree. Only the courts should be having that sort of power.... not the government. Which, as a principle, is fine. The problem is that it costs more to take an individual to court to recover the tax they owe than is gained by recovering the tax. Which people can evade paying taxes with a likelihood of no real penalty. |
|
|
|
But isn't a sale a form of debt. I always thought it ment you intend to purchase an item from someone, and they give you it, but then you now owe them the money, which you then settle the debt by paying with it in cash? No, it is a sale, you exchange money now for an item or service now. There is no sale until they have accepted your payment, so if they don't accept cash, there can never be a debt to extinguish. A debt would be if you received an item or service now, and agreed to pay for it later. |
|
|
|
How much does it cost the merchant to accept cash?
[...]My local supermarket has a lcd monitor at each counter where it shows the price (among other info). It could very easily also display a bitcoin QR code. Supermarkets I go to have very simple two or three line LCD price displays. They couldn't display a QR code. So you'd have a significant investment cost to replace them with terminals that could. And, of course, of developing, testing and validating the software. You'd also have the issue of ensuring that you had sufficient phone network coverage at the tills for all major networks, otherwise people wouldn't be able to pay. You might save on per-transaction costs, but there would be significant up-front costs. At the moment, would there be enough Bitcoin transactions to recoup those costs? Plus, are people currently paying in cash likely to be those who would switch to paying digitally? Isn't it more likely to be those customers who are already paying with debit or credit cards? |
|
|
|
I was just wondering if there's a legal problem with only accepting Bitcoin? Are they actually refusing to accept GBPs? I don't know if the law is different in Scotland, but I don't think a business can refuse to accept legal tender unless it's counterfeit etc. Businesses are free to accept or not accept any form of payment they wish for sales. They cannot refuse to accept legal tender as payment of debt. |
|
|
|
You want a really long con. Here you go mate, introducing you to the Federal Reserve: The history of fiat money, to put it kindly, has been one of failure. In fact, EVERY fiat currency since the Romans first began the practice in the first century has ended in devaluation and eventual collapse, of not only the currency, but of the economy that housed the fiat currency as well. Stop and think for a second, and that is obviously rubbish, because practically every economy that currently exists uses fiat currency, and hasn't collapsed. So your argument becomes that every economy that has adopted fiat currency has collapsed ... except all the ones that haven't. You can say the same thing about anything. Every economy that has adopted democracy has collapsed ... except all the ones that haven't. Every economy where people each vegetables has collapsed ... except all the ones that haven't. Every economy in a country beginning with R has collapsed ... except all the ones that haven't. And you think it was fiat currency that caused the collapse of the Roman empire? If not, then what is the connection? Much more simply: Every economy has collapsed ... except all the ones that haven't. |
|
|
|
|
To add some commonsense:
If a certain proportion of the population don't pay the taxes they owe, everyone else has to pay more to ensure the same total amount of tax revenue.
That isn't particularly complicated.
|
|
|
|
- PayPal is an online wallet (Like Blockchain)
- You deposit money directly and keep your home currency
- PayPal is owned by Ebay
- PayPal admitted it is threatened by BitCoin
- PayPal makes money at a rate of 2.5% on average for online transactions
- PayPal is free to send money to friend's account
- BitCoin's transaction fees are ridiculously low if you buy a $1,000 item
- BitCoin is a lot safer and faster and flexible, businesses rejoice, a new internet is born
In other words, BitCoin is a threat to them since adepts of PayPal are fast switching to BitCoin. My company went from doing 95% of it's online purchases with the payment system that almost every merchant uses now to either bank transfers or BitCoin. We now use PayPal once every three months instead of daily. I spoke with eBay about this and they don't seem to be too receptive or brush it off. They recently banned sales of ANY BitCoin, neither minted nor virtual and restricted it to the classified ads sections. This means no feedback is exchanged. Instead of working with companies they rather play the "We want the control said in other words" card. I told them they'd see a significant drop in my using their system but they said it was fine and my choice to do so. Been over three months since PayPal made money from me.... I hardly ever use eBay anymore. Amazon hardly ever has the best deals anymore. What does that have to do with Amazon? They don't care if eBay make money on PayPal or not. I mean, nice rant, but in the wrong place. |
|
|
|
Just to summarise the suggestions:
"Screw the original idea of giving value to the citizens of Malta. We have loads of worthless coins and want you to make them more valuable."
Oh, and there is already a name for PoS with high interest values, it is called inflation, and people seem to hate it when it is applied to fiat currencies.
Inflation or money supply increase is good if it is kept low and people know beforehand. Money supply should be compatible with the economy growth. Inflation of the coin can also compensate the loss of coins. So I think 2-3% of the coin inflation per year is OK. This coin inflation is much lower than the fiat inflation. The main problem with PoS is that the rich will get richer. But this happens in real world with fiat. The government can use property tax to adjust that. So it can only be used in one country, is inflationary, and makes the rich get richer. What exactly would be the point of the coin then? This version would appear to offer nothing over using euros. (Obviously the point is to let current bagholders make more money, but beyond that?) |
|
|
|
|
Just to summarise the suggestions:
"Screw the original idea of giving value to the citizens of Malta. We have loads of worthless coins and want you to make them more valuable."
Oh, and there is already a name for PoS with high interest values, it is called inflation, and people seem to hate it when it is applied to fiat currencies.
|
|
|
|
At least 350,000 people (bitcointalk members, VC's, early adopters, entrepreneurs, and the general public) and nearly 100,000 merchants (currently accepting bitcoin around the world) would say "yes" given the opportunity to voice their opinion. Your direct competitors are doing millions in business every month in Bitcoin payments alone. Those numbers are rubbish, and Amazon will know it. 100,000 merchants? Not using any definition of merchant that Amazon would consider 'direct competitors'. And millions a month? How can you back that up? |
|
|
|
Might I suggest we just take all of the good names off the table? Start as many dead projects as possible with as many names as you can think of. How would we be able to tell the difference from the alt coins that are being created now?  |
|
|
|
IF this does get let into legislation and some of you do ignore the HMRC's letters they post you (they send 4 warnings)
Do you know if this power had been granted? Or does it require new legislation? The Treasury says that the new tax powers, which are due to be put in place next year... |
|
|
|
There is a "new" one. There's a numerical IP address in Boxxa's twitter feed. The post was a few days ago. Apparently explorer.mazacoin.org points to a machine under Boxxa's control. Apparently there's nobody at home at mazacoin.org to update the DNS record to point explorer.mazacoin.org to the new numerical IP. http://107.170.135.77/chain/MazaCoinNobody at home seems to sum the project up quite well. |
|
|
|
This can't be good news. The Mazacoin block explorer is now occupied by Boxxa's continuumcoin pool.
explorer.mazacoin.org
I hear the fat lady warming up.
Looking at a couple twitter feeds, I'd say that Boxxa and Payu had a falling out and will try to blame each other.
I wouldn't touch either one of them with a 10 foot pole after this.
But Boxxa seems to be a particularly childish asshole.
Boxxa left MAZACOIN BEFORE 1 MONTH, THERE IS NEW block explorer Where is it? This tweet: https://twitter.com/MazaCoin/status/439656677777104896Leads to: http://coyn.org/mazacoin/explorer/Which doesn't work. Edit: Looks like you can view blocks and transactions here: http://cryptoexplorer.udf.me/blocks.php?cid=83&coinname=MazacoinBut you can't view addresses, so no way to track the premines. |
|
|
|
There is no guarantee that a transaction will be included in the next block.
There cannot be a guarantee that a transaction will be included in the next block unless you control 100% of the hash power. There is no guarantee that [once] a transaction [has been received by a pool it] will be included in the next block [mined by the pool]. And 3-4 are assumed to be default behaviour, but not required?
I don't follow. There is nothing stopping a node deciding to drop a transaction from its mempool and prefer a different one, or deciding not to relay it. Plus, the merchant currently only receives the 'service' from the node they submit to. Receiving it simultaneously from pools covering say 60% of hashing power is a much more powerful guarantee.
Merchants can already estimate the % of the network that has accepted a transaction into mempool by employing a well-connected listening node. The "service" of finding out if a peer has TX1 (or a conflicting variant TX2) in mempool is just one of the perks of being a node lol. If most of the network has accepted TX1 into mempool, then most likely it will be TX1 that gets mined. If 10% of the hashpower has TX2 in mempool then the probability that TX2 gets confirmed (instead of TX1) is approximately 10%. How many merchants are going to be interested in running a full bitcoin node, just to be able to safely process transactions? I'm sure most would rather pay a small fee to someone else to provide that guarantee for them. The way to gain mainstream acceptance is to hide the technical details, and provide simple services, not to require everyone else to learn all about it. Merchants don't have to deal with each and every little bank out there, they deal with Visa and Mastercard instead. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
