Believe me, if you are under a war scenario and being invaded by a foreign force, last thing you will want is put your money where you maybe won't ever be able recover again. Or at least not in time when you are suffering from famine or thirsty, or need to bribe someone, or need something from the terrorists to take or they will kill you.
No one will use Bitcoin in war scenario, unless they are planning to scape to a pacific region with Internet access.
There have been many times throughout history that an invading force has robbed the citizens of the country they invaded of their money and property. It would make a lot of sense to use whatever money they will not need in the short term to buy bitcoin as long as they have a way to store the keys in a way that would not require them to have physical possession of some kind of equipment. In other words as long as they can store the keys securely in the cloud. |
|
|
|
You should suggest this to Stunna or doog. Trip to Vegas for like 3 days of having a casino.
I think there could be a big opportunity for casino operaters to incorporate bitcoin somehow. People could wager their bitcoin at the card table and the dealer could payout their chips back to their wallets. They could also make it "fair" in a similar way that BTC based casinos do to weed out the cheaters. |
|
|
|
I was spending on equipment for more mining (what a foolish thing) but now i am holding and any equipment i buy is from fiat or immediately replenished.
Don't feel too bad. I bet every single BTC holder has at one time spent BTC for a foolish thing like mining gear. .9 for an erupter stick.... oh well you live and learn. At one point in time this would have been a good investment. Once upon a time erupters were the best and the greatest. As long as you didn't have to wait forever from the time you ordered it to the time it arrived you probably would have gotten ROI. |
|
|
|
Some day in the future we will have human settlements in Mars can they use bitcoin?
The short answer would be, "Yes." The long answer is that there are already some cryptocurrency users who have thought of this, including the Marscoin Foundation. Interplanetary traders are probably going to insist on taking cryptocurrencies as payment for the sake of convenience and complete lack of patience with Earth-bound banks who want a slice of the pie that they haven't earned. It wouldn't be a long shot to say that those interplanetary traders could be backed by economic strategists who have gotten sick of Earth's insistence on using systems that were outdated before we ever had permanent settlements on Mars. I don't think this would actually work very well. It can take several minutes for radio waves to travel from earth to Mars and during this time it would be possible that coins could be double spent. If we were to ever colonize on another planet I don't think that interplant commerce would really be possible due to the costs associated with traveling between earth and any other planet. If you're talking about the buying and selling low priced items on the level of my teapot, you'd probably be right. However, it's estimated that some medium-sized asteroids could be worth trillions of dollars in terms of the rare-Earth elements and platinum group metals that could be mined from them. It's estimated that the Philippines could make $30 billion a year from its deuterium deposits in this era in which nuclear power hasn't really caught on much (source: this article) Imagine how much Martians could make just by being the solar system's shipyard. We'll find a way to make interplanetary trade work. The future prices of these elements would likely fall as large amounts of these elements are sold on the market, as any amount of minerals mined on an astroid would likely be significant. |
|
|
|
|
I just took your survey. I am very happy to hear that students getting advanced financial degrees are studying bitcoin. Hopefully students like yourself will be able to better the bitcoin economy in the future.
|
|
|
|
If they are happy doing what they do then more power to them. Looks like they are off to a good start and getting customers so another potential success story. Interesting story going from a seemingly "normal" 9-5 type job to the porn industry and as a couple. Sure it's not the first time but hey it still a bold move IMO.
I think the mail problem with what they are doing is that they will not be able to do it forever. As they get older they will be less desirable for their clientele and will likely get hired less frequently and get paid less for each "job" (no pun intended). They would likely need to eventually return to some kind of "day job" but it will be harder to do so after being in the industry that they are in. I don't expect them to have riches beyond their wildest dreams and they will be retiring after a few years of this. I just appreciate the story for what it is and not saying this is the best decision they could make or even that I'd make this decision just to be clear. I agree with you that this is a good story how it shows he advantages of accepting bitcoin when a business is paying huge amounts to have their payments processed in fiat. I do also have to agree with dKingston though as I thik the subjects of this story will have a hard time getting any kind of real job, and will not be able to continue to work in the porn industry as they get older. |
|
|
|
just want to know to get more spirit
Everytime I make a constructive post, which I mostly do, I earn .0012 of BTC(I will soon at least because next week I will be a Senior Member). You should really check out my signature and look at other signature campaigns and try to help spread the word around about prime dice or something else that you are interested in. Good way to make money and new friends. You are full and on primedice, so 6mBTC and 10mBTC/posts. 12mBTC/posts is Dicebitcoin's rate. Wrong profile, or you have inside info about PD's increasing the rates. He will become a senior member on tuesday when the activity levels change. This will be the 19th of the month. Prime dice had it's period end on the 17th, but it can take up to 48 hours for payment (per the OP of the campaign) and it pays the higher rank if a user is promoted. In theory he could get the senior rate if PD is on the slow end of sending out payments this month and calculates the payout after he gets the promotion. |
|
|
|
All this convices me that small exchanges will close down, unable to increase security. Even big ones will have their new "MtGox" once in a while.
People eed to be educated and coins stored without the need to rely on third parties.
I am not so sure about this. I think it would be more accurate to say that exchanges that grow too quickly will eventually close down due to a hack. If an exchange is able to limit it's growth then it can continue it's security procedures as it becomes more of a target to hackers. |
|
|
|
I believe that the blockchain breaks the privacy laws. Do you agree?
If bitcointalk.org does not violate privacy laws by publishing your comments, the blockchain does not violate privacy laws by publishing your transaction.  This actually is a very good point, and a good way of looking at it. When you broadcast a transaction you are publicly broadcasting your TX for anyone and everyone to see. |
|
|
|
from what I have heard so far, you definitely do not want to be claiming losses from BTC at this point (as a write off on your taxes). Even though it is quite possible for some people to have lost some money due to bad timing over the last year, since BTC is so new, it is almost like an instant way to get audited.
Just because you are audited doesn't mean anything bad will happen to you. If you have done nothing wrong paid your taxes then an audit will be nothing more then a small headache. If you accurately report your income and don't over report your deductions then nothing bad will happen to you, and if you were to under report your deductions you could receive a refund. Fixed that for you. Everyone does not owe taxes. There are some situations when people legitimately do not owe taxes. My example also covers people who have taken deductions that were correct to take. What most audits look for is to make sure that the deductions actually should have been taken, and that the correct amount of taxes was paid. |
|
|
|
|
I think that bitcoin is far from the point that traditional fiat currencies will be disrupted. The market cap for the Dollar is in the tens of trillions of dollars, while bitcoin is well under 10 billion.
|
|
|
|
Question, is it legal to perform a Ponzi scheme with bitcoin since it is not recognized as a currency?  I could see some interesting gambling-like sites that use a ponzi scheme in order to allow people to earn money, the more people you refer to the sites the more likely you are to double your BTC by them participating, and so on. After an amount of time (as stated by the site clearly) the unpaid for people could receive 50% of what they put in or something along those lines. That way it's not a scam, and you know what you are getting into. Just curious. No. It does not matter how to promise to pay your investors back, if you make a promise that you know you cannot keep and have no intention on keeping, and you intentionally deceive your investors then you are breaking the law. |
|
|
|
|
I don't think this would be a very good idea. If for example you have some emergency that you need to spend your bitcoin, say for example you lost your job and your home is in foreclosure then you would likely want to sell your bitcoin to save your house. Or for example you (or someone you care about) needs some kind of experimental medical treatment not covered by insurance (that is very expensive) then, again you would sell your bitcoin. This kind of "lock" would prevent you from doing these kinds of things.
|
|
|
|
|
I think this is just a very liberal government agency trying to prevent people from making money with bitcoin. If people think they will be scammed if they use bitcoin then they will likely not use it at all and will not be able to unlock the opportunities that bitcoin can offer. Since the Obama administration wants people to rely on government they don't want people investing and being successful with bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
I would like to think that I don't need anonymity. I am good guy, I never did anything wrong. But the way government and other big companies are collecting info on people now I think that anonymity is the only way to live. I don't want to be catalogued, and I want to keep my thoughts and views to myself.
Of course you need it. It's not about being a good guy or doing anything wrong. The government shouldnt be allowed into your property to hassle you without any evidence or wrong doing just to see if there might be a random chance you have been doing something wrong. Even people on the street shouldnt be able to know your details if you don't want them to. Of course the government shouldn't be allowed into your property to hassle you without any evidence or wrong doing. In fact, in many countries doing so would be illegal. In modern democratic countries, the government (or police) need evidence and warrants before they hassle you. In practice of course, such governments do hassle people, but its usually marginalized people such as ethnic minorities, the mentally ill, former criminals, etc. The government does not just keep turning up at random houses. This is illegal in the US as well. The 4th amendment protects us from unreasonable search and seizure. Law Enforcement must present probable cause to a neutral judge to get a search warrant in order to enter your house to look for evidence (or look through any of your other private property). |
|
|
|
I think what the OP may have been implying (and I may be reading too much into it) is that you could potentially try to "write off" the value of your coins if you had sent your bitcoin to a "void" wallet. If you gave the "wallet service" something of value (your bitcoin) and received nothing in return (the "void" wallet) then by this measure you would have a capital loss.
In this case, you'd still have a "capital gain" based on the value of the bitcoins at the time that you sent them to the "wallet service". The bitcoins (the capital you were holding) would have gained in value. Unfortunately, you would have made a donation to the website, and there is a limit to how much you can "write off" in charitable donations. Didn't you say that your "sales price" is the fair market value of the good/service that you are exchanging your bitcoin for? I don't think it would be considered to be a charitable donation unless the wallet service was actually a legit charity. I would argue that you would be able to write off the entire amount as a capital loss. Also, if I understand the tax code regarding donating assets correctly (I probably don't) you do not need to pay capital gains on an appreciated asset if you donate the asset directly to charity and you can claim the entire value as a donation. The example that I am familiar with is you buy 100 shares of XYZ for $10 per share, then four years later, XYZ is trading at $40 per share. You want to donate $4,000 to your church but also want to minimize your tax bill. You also no longer think that you no longer want to own stock in XYZ. You donate the 100 shares to your church directly and can deduct the entire $4,000 donation (subject to other, unrelated limits) and do not need to pay capital gains on the $3,000 that the stock appreciated by. http://www.programforgiving.org/charitable/pages/donatingAppreciatedAssets.jsphttp://www.fool.com/FoolCharityFund/Donating_Stock.htmAs you've pointed out, tax law is a complicated mess. If anyone were going to try remotmass's strategy, it would be very important to discuss their plan with a qualified and knowledgeable tax professional first. You are correct both that if you are donating to an organization that the IRS recognizes as a charity, then you might not have to pay capital gains taxes (subject to various limitations), and that if you are not donating to an organization that the IRS recognizes as a charity, then it can't be written off as a charitable donation. I still don't think that you can choose to intentionally send a valuable asset out of your control and write it off as a capital loss. I'm trying to decide, if an eccentric wealthy person were to purchase an oil on canvas painting for $10,000. Then hold it until it was worth $1,000,000. Then very publicly (news media present, etc) intentionally light it on fire and burn it to ashes declaring their intention to claim it as a capital loss, would such a claim be allowed? My gut tells me no, but I'd love to hear an opinion from a qualified tax professional. I don't think either lighting a painting or intentionally sending bitcoin to a "void" wallet would be considered a donation under tax law. The IRS has rules about who you can give money to and claim a tax deduction. A "tax exempt" organization (I believe under section 501(c) - although I may be mistaken - it is the same kind of group that is subject to the controversy about conservative groups) is able to take "donations" and not owe any taxes, however the people donating are not able to write off the money they gave this organization on their tax return. If on the other hand someone were to "donate" money to a church (or other organization that allows you to take a deduction on your tax return - I have no idea what part of the code this is) then you can use this donation to reduce your income for tax purposes. What both of these examples fail to realize is that regardless of if the IRS would allow it to be a valid deduction is that a person who would do this would have a net effect of loosing at least 60% of the value of the property. If in the example about setting fire to the painting a taxpayer could save ~$400,000 (assuming the deduction would be allowable) by taking a million dollar deduction on their tax return. However if the person were to sell the painting for fiat they would owe $400,000 in taxes, and have $600,000 left over from the sale. I strongly doubt that there are many people that are so opposed to paying taxes that they would actually destroy their own wealth just so they do not pay anything to the government. |
|
|
|
Best age would be 8 - 10. Especially when you taught them how to save money and they are old enough to understand the concept of money.
I would agree that this is probably the best age to teach a child about bitcoin. You should teach them around the same time you teach them about "traditional' fiat money. You may want to wait a little while longer until you teach them how to secure their coins and the risks of not securing them. That's what brought me to this conclusion I'm teaching them how to handle fiat money so I thought it would be a great idea to also show them Bitcoin but they are already interested in Bitcoin so it's a little better I think I would be able to teach them more because they would be willing to learn. After thinking about this a little bit I think you should probably wait until they are in the mid-teenage years until you teach them the importance of security measures. It is true that people will try to steal your bitcoin if they have the opportunity, however this is really not something you want to be teaching your innocent child |
|
|
|
According to what I know about Satoshi I think, his Bitcoins are just considered Test-Coins.
Satoshi is the kind of guy, who makes his tests in the productive system and then just destroys the data after the test is complete.
It is very rare for someone to destroy data like this after a test is complete. Scientists and researchers usually do not know if some data is going to be important in the future so they are very likely to keep it archived somehow. |
|
|
|
The WikkiLeaks founder had said in a news interview a few months ago that if it was not for their investment in BTC several years ago they would likely have not been able to survive. They had purchased several thousand BTC for pennies and sold it near it's highs. The moral of the story is that dollars are not the only thing that can support a foundation.
Small correction. Wikileaks didn't purchase the bitcoins. They published a donation address and the bitcoins were donated. I donated a bunch way back. I thought for sure that the article said they purchased them for pennies each but it could have been that was the value that they had when they were donated. I am also certain that they did not accept BTC early on, but it is possible they started some time after it was initially suggested. |
|
|
|
It's not known who controls it so it's probably meant to be as anonymous as they can be. Revealing their identity to give someone's 0.2 back is probably not going to happen.
You are probably right on this. They will likely not risk leaking who they are just to give someone .2 BTC when they have thousands of BTC in there wallet. There is a good chance that they even have some automated program that controls the wallet and they would not recognize the address if they saw it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
