You could easily argue that it already has been a disaster, it just hasn't reached it's full potential yet. Cex.io controls as much of the mining power as they do mainly because ASICs are available and the barrier of entry to mining has become much higher. Judging from their press release it will only get worse.

Another question is what happens when the government in what ever country their owners live in orders them to do something that is harmful to bitcoin and keep quiet about it? In the US this is done all the time to ISPs and other internet related companies.

I really doubt you're as clueless as you appear. A ponzi which pays as little as BT can frequently last more than a year. The whole point of paying is to appear legit and attract more victims. As long as the lucky ones who got in first are successful in their eager work to attract enough new victims it is profitable to continue paying.

So, what *is* the incentive of ghash.io? They aren't charging any fees. Why are they paying for setting up a mining network that controls so much of the mining power out their own pocket and then just give it away for free? If anyone wants to do a 51% attack this would be the cheapest way to do it.

Anything that can happen will happen. The biggest problem I see is that you don't have to buy mining equipment with more than the current mining power to do a 51% attack. All you need to do is start a few pools that pays slightly better than the current pools, and wait until their total mining power is more than 51%. It's also sad that Gavin seems to think that the safety of the Bitcoin network ultimately depends on the ability of the established banking network to verify their customers.

And I'm amazed at how bad the wishful thinkers in this thread are at seeing the flaws in their arguments. Credit isn't free, and you wouldn't get much for something as speculative as this. If you want others to move the fiat for you, you would have to pay fees and they are very unlikely to give you the price for the crypto currency that is required for the arbitrage to work. You are completely ignoring all the real world problems with your "creative" ideas.

And what would the actual average daily profits be after you've paid the fees and waited for the days it takes to wire the fiat from Bitfinex to you and then back to BTC-e?

You don't have to wait before you reinvest the profits. If you did this every time they pay and assume there are about 240 of their trading days in a year and they pay just 1% every time, you get a profit of 1.01^240 ~ 10.9 or about 990% profit in a year. As for your skype claim, most likely either you or they are lying.

That's not really necessary. We'll know when it collapses, and until then everything will seem fine.

No, of course not. Anyone finding a business opportunity as profitable as the HYIPs pretend to be would find a much cheaper way to finance it, and just keep the profits.

It shouldn't be, most of the response here and on FB will be from sock puppet accounts.

Det er ikke noe konkret beløp. Skillet går egentlig ved om du gjør det for å tjene penger. Hvis du f.eks. kjøper bitcoinene fordi du vil prøve det, eller du skal kjøpe noe konkret for dem, så vil neppe en verdiendring være skattepliktig. Hvis du derimot gjør det fordi du tror de vil øke i verdi, og har tenkt å selge når de har gjort det, så er det skattepliktig. Beløpet er likevel relevant for hvor stor sjanse det er for at skatteetaten vil undersøke. Hvis du tjener 5000 kr en gang og ikke noe mer vil du neppe få problemer. Hvis du fører det opp må du sørge for å ha dokumentasjon på kjøp og salg.


Ja, hvis du gjør det for å tjene penger. Skatten er for øvrig 27%. Hvis du ikke har noen annen inntekt vil du slippe skatt pga. minstefradraget.


Du trekker egentlig ikke tapet fra skatten, men inntekten. Det reduserer alminnelig inntekt med 1000 kr, og siden det er 27% skatt vil du måtte betale 270 kr mindre. Hvis ikke du har inntekt må du sjekke om tapet kan framføres til neste år. Jeg vet ikke hvordan det virker helt konkret.


Det blir i teorien det samme, men det kan selvsagt bli komplisert å regne ut hvis du går innom div. altcoins.


Du vil muligens få forespørsel fra Skatteetaten om mer dokumentasjon hvis du gjør det slik, men du får neppe straffeskatt.


Tviler på at du får noen på døren med mindre du blir ilagt straffeskatt og lar være å betale den. Sannsynligvis vil du først få brev med forespørsel om dokumentasjon, og så gir de straffeskatt hvis de mener de har grunnlag for det.

Then you've learned the wrong lesson. Currency trading is a zero sum game with no rules against using insider information. This means that most normal people will lose money even before fees. What you should have learned was to invest in something that has a positive expected return.
 

No point in warning against something everybody knows. In this case that does not seem to be the case.

I don't understand this argument. Why throw money down the drain on something that has a negative expected return, just because you can afford it?

If you sell to one of the traders who's been there for a long time and has feedback from 100+ people you're as safe as you can get.

Beklager, men det er bare en svindler som vil ha høyere post-count. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=571878.msg6977747#msg6977747

I'm sorry, but you're terrible at recognizing scams. The most profitable thing for you to do is to put your coins in an offline wallet and keep them there, or you'll end up with nothing pretty fast. Bitcoin-arbitrage is a scam, and so is BTCpromo.

The way I understand it, it's the fiat part of the trades that is suspected of not being real. That would explain why they've made their customers jump through hoops to withdraw fiat for so long.

No use, it's just an account building post count. That way it will look more credible when it starts or supports what ever fraud the owner is working on. There are a lot of those lately.

Like you, he's is very unlikely to have any significant amount of real world experience in Bitcoin arbitraging. If you did you would have had to follow the markets more closely and you would have known why your theories are not very accurate.