Depends on the country, and the way that you acquired the Bitcoin, but you'll either be liable to pay income tax on your earnings or capital gain tax. Either way, the majority of countries are already requiring tax to be paid on cryptocurrencies, even lesser known newer ones, as they come under cryptocurrencies/tokens.

I understand why you may have missed this though since tax in general is confusing, but more so when cryptocurrencies are involved. I can't recommend it enough, but if you are ever in doubt you should contact an accountant, and get their advise on anything involving tax.

Well, that wasn't a great night for me as a fan with Ryan Hall getting knocked out, Wonderboy being pretty much dominated, and Conor breaking his ankle. I'll still support the three on their next fights, and I'm hoping that Ryan Hall can get a lot more fights than he has been, I don't agree with the narrative that fighters are scared to fight him though, he is pretty one dimensional, although very good at what he does.

Wonderboy didn't do overly bad, but once it hit the mat Burns pretty much dominated. I didn't like the back of the head strikes towards the end of the third round, and I feel that could have potentially been a point deducted as there were a lot of heavy, heavy shots to the bank of the head.

Conor was doing okay up until he wasn't. I felt like he was dominating the stand up, and it really did look like he came to hurt Poirer this time around. Poirer taking it to the ground was wise, and while he was on top, he was getting lit up himself on the ground, so I thought it was fairly even. Poirer took some big elbows, and also gave some big elbows. Okay, he did win the round, but they had both taken damage up to this point, and Conor wasn't out of it. The last exchange, before fighters missed fractionally, and either of them landed there, and it could have been goodnight either way, its just unfortunate that Conor snapped his ankle.

I get the animosity towards Conor, but if I wasn't a fan of him, which I do love his fighting style, and I can't just ignore he probably is one of the most exciting fighters to enter the UFC, I'd at least want to see him get convincingly beaten by Poirer via a knockout or a submission. Its just a shame it happened that way, I saw a few comments that Poirier was close to knocking him out at the end of the round, but for those that didn't watch the replay, they both missed their shots in that exchange, the only reason Conor went down, and stayed down was due to his ankle.

Both were in it up until that point, and I felt like we had a war coming. I can't write Conor off, that fight was competitive, and it could have gone either way. It looked like a few times that Poirier got hurt while on top due to the elbows, and Conor was narrowly escaping those big elbows coming down on him, well at least partially.

Tired today though, man its always annoying staying up all night, getting all excited, and feeling those pre fight nerves, and it ends like that.

Not entirely accurate, since hard forks when not considered by the consensus to be Bitcoin, aren't Bitcoin. Forking Bitcoin, doesn't mean that its Bitcoin, the same as using the code Bitcoin has, to create a coin with a different name isn't Bitcoin. Its another altcoin. For example, I think you would be hard pressed to find a supporter of Bitcoin, consider Bitcoin Cash as Bitcoin.

What your really asking is will altcoins effect Bitcoin's price, and the answer is probably yes. Although, predicting how it will effect it or how it has effected it, would be difficult to measure. I would expect that the popularity of altcoins has increased exposure of Bitcoin though, and has impacted it more positively rather than negatively.

Although, it has to be said if there is a better alternative to Bitcoin, then of course it has the potential of devaluing Bitcoin. If there's a better alternative, that fixes the issues of Bitcoins, while not having any drawbacks that outweigh the positives, its quite likely that it would devalue Bitcoin. Depending on how many people would make the switch. I've said this a few times, but Bitcoin has quite a few issues which has been discussed to death, but it is currently the best out there, and eventually we might be referring to Bitcoin as the foundation that started it all, rather than the solution to the problem. There are definitely some interesting technologies, and ideas coming out of the woodwork, e.g MimbleWimble, but their current implementation isn't quite there yet.

I'd suspect that most games would prefer to either implement their own token system or use a alternative cryptocurrency to Bitcoin, simply because Bitcoin isn't really great for microtransactions, which is usually the amount that is commonly sent in these types of games.

Cryptokitties comes to mind, which I believe uses ETH. I haven't personally played so can't comment on the authenticity of it, but I heard its quite popular. Point being, it might be difficult to find a Bitcoin paying game, and the alternative might be to earn in alternative cryptocurrencies, and then exchange it for Bitcoin later.

Yeah, especially with the various laws around Know Your Customer (KYC). At least, when you use a non Peer 2 Peer exchange, they can track every movement of your money, and make sure you are declaring your taxes. However, the real issue for them currently is more, and more people are going to P2P exchanges, and using them for lower fees, and for improved privacy. They may well try, and disallow the usage of P2P exchanges in the future, since that wouldn't comply with KYC. The reason I think this might happen is they've already demonstrated that if cryptocurrencies can't comply to KYC, they'll be removed. For example, privacy coins being removed from exchanges. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't the exchanges choice that they did that, it was more than the law dictated their decision, and forced their hand because the government are becoming increasingly strict on KYC.

If you believe a thread is unsubstantial you can report it, and see if a moderator agrees. Although, I haven't seen too many threads being created recently which would fit the above criteria, and is unsubstantial. You might not agree with the thread or you might think its a bit crazy, but that doesn't really warrant removal. Also, if a user is creating a lot of threads, as long as it doesn't get too annoying there shouldn't be too much of an issue. I mean, as long as its constructive.

I'm not sure to what techniques you are specifically alluding too, but simply creating threads wouldn't be one, unless they were opening threads which are already being discussed recently, and instead of replying on those threads, they open a new one. If a user is creating a lot of threads based on the fact that they are trying to get more merit, then that doesn't necessarily mean that's a bad thing. I mean, without any specific examples, a user could just be getting a little more creative, and thinking what would benefit the community. Opening new threads more than average doesn't necessarily make it spam, it depends on the context of the situation.

Sometimes, there doesn't need to be anything else added to the discussion. They might have had their points countered, but they might not have an answer for it. Although, it is true that some users do open new threads, never reply, and it probably is due to the fact that they were trying to earn merit or gain activity. Although, its hard to say since they sort of activity happened before merit was introduced, and before activity was introduced. Although, it was definitely much easier to rank up before both of these were introduced so the point would probably still be valid.

This is something that I haven't seen implemented in a casino/gambling website, but it most certainly works elsewhere. Gamification is often implemented in places of study, so as you progress through the course, you earn badges, and achievements. We already know how addicting it can be to collect achievements, because Xbox, and Playstation has been doing it for a long time now. I don't know why more gambling places don't implement a similar system. You could effectively convince the player to think they are winning, by rewarding them achievements, while they are losing money potentially causing them to keep that feel good factor, and gamble more than they would normally. It might not be entirely ethical, and I'm not saying that they should implement it, I'm just surprised there isn't more utilizing this.

I don't have any strong feelings either way for England or Italy, but I just feel that England seem to collapse under pressure, at least from a historic point of view. Italy on the other hand are formidable, and are probably on one of their best runs in history. I just think this Italy squad has too much for England, and that isn't based on the skill difference, but rather their collective state right now.

I think its a wise bet to make for both teams to score. England simply have too many dangerous players for them not to be expected to score. While their defense has been good, there is definitely a few players in that squad that are a little suspect to the pressure. I'm still sticking to my 1-0 prediction, mainly for the odds, and value of the bet.

Yeah, I've in between a Conor TKO, and a late round submission by Poirier. Although, I keep changing my mind, even if Conor comes in at his best, Poirer is still a formidable foe, and we know what we are going to get from him, Conor on the other hand he's just so unpredictable, and while that can work to his advantage from a betting perspective it makes it even more difficult.

The sensible option is avoiding this fight altogether from the betting perspective I think.

Even with somewhat successful privacy coins there are certain pitfalls that can indicate an address belongs to x. When you combine the Blockchain, which is transparent in Bitcoin's implementation, and include a way of keeping it anonymous, of course that's going to be difficult. Plus, the current implementation we have is good enough in my opinion, we don't need too much anonymization, and the fact that Bitcoin is only pseudonymous might actually help with adoption, since there was definitely some issues with privacy coins being rejected from exchanges if I recall, probably for not being able to comply with Know Your Customer?  

MimbleWimble is probably the best idea that I've seen when it comes to privacy, but as above there might be issues with governments actually allowing Bitcoin with something like MimbleWimble attached to it. Of course, we shouldn't be relying on the government to approve it, but that's the reality if we want adoption.

I think there might need to be adjustments made to MimbleWimble for it to be acceptable in terms of adoption, but I definitely do see it becoming a part of Bitcoin in the future.

I think its somewhat true, maybe less these days, but when merit was initially introduced, and we had less merit sources it was definitely the case. Although, I do think it still applies to an extent. In terms of exposure, users will usually read the first post, and maybe a few posts there on after, but when there's multiple pages the odds of users browsing all the replies diminishes somewhat. Of course, merit sources probably do read a lot more replies than the average user, but I think there's quite clearly an issue sometimes with users not reading the entire thread, and thus the probability of a post getting merit also diminishes with that.

A thread will likely always get more exposure than the replies, and therefore likely from a statistic point of view, will generally receive more merits. Not always the case of course, but in general I think that would likely be the case. Obviously, without any good statistics available its hard to prove.
 

I'd have to question the data that's backing this up before actually commenting on it. For example, what exchanges are included, is the new decline an indication or either new exchanges taking some of the volume or are more people looking to use peer to peer exchanges, which probably aren't going to be included in a metric like this?

There's too many factors to consider, to be able to accurately determine what direction the price will go.

I don't think they should be held responsible for making Bitcoin healthy, I'm not even quite sure what you mean by that. However, in economics those with a large share of the market will always influence the market for others whenever they decide to move money. This happens in fiat currencies as well as cryptocurrencies, yet we don't really expect those involved in fiat to only do things for a healthy economy. Usually, whales are businessmen, who want to make more money so when they are moving money its usually an investment or a way of taking money out, and putting it elsewhere. They aren't going to take into consideration the effect it has on the market, unless they are trying to manipulate the market to profit directly off of it.

Market manipulation is a problem, and there should probably be counter measures to try, and prevent it. However, its hard to identify what is natural usage, and clear market manipulation. Elon recently has been accused of market manipulation, but I'm not entirely sure I would agree. The thing is when your famous or you have a lot of money, people will accuse you of things for just having an opinion or taking a certain action, even if it was not your intention. So, while whales most definitely exist, and influence the market, I don't think they should be held responsible for helping Bitcoin, at the end of the day they are just trying to make money like you, and I. Besides, placing this responsibility on them is almost censorship, and that's something we should be trying to prevent rather than encourage.

Absolutely, and this is going to answer the OP's question partly too, but whenever you are investing whether its for the long term or for short term trading, you should try to remove as much emotion from it as possible. Bots, are extremely good for this, and if you don't interfere with them you should profit over time, at least judging by the history of Bitcoin, you would only profit in the long run.

Emotion is what causes panic buying, and selling. The OP's method above is fine, but instead of manually doing it, I would probably use a bot or setup automated payments on an exchange if they allow it, so you remove that emotional element.

They will do, Bitcoin's popularity has definitely reached a new high this year, with infulencers from various different outlets now promoting getting into cryptocurrencies, so naturally as people become more interested, movie directors will want to scratch that itch, and include Bitcoin in their movies. I'm actually surprised that Sci Fi movies haven't included Bitcoin more often that they do, in fact I don't actually know a science fiction movie that has included, only politics related movies.

To be fair, most fiat currencies are used in crime related movies, since that's what the movie fans like to watch. You kind of touched upon it, but no one is going to enjoy a movie about Bitcoin or fiat without some drama added too it. I don't think the movie makers are actually trying to make Bitcoin bad by showing it involved with drugs, and crime its just what sells to the public.

Conor did struggle with those leg kicks though. However, when he went back to the corner his team or himself didn't mention it, and in the next round they didn't make any adjustments to avoid those leg kicks. I'd like to think that they have a game plan to reduce the amount of leg kicks hes taken, at least on his one leg, but I'm not convinced since they didn't adjust in that fight. Fighters most certainly practice how to adjust, so it was just odd that he continued to take a beating on that lead leg.

I felt the confrontation was more forced, than Conor is usually so I really don't know how to judge it based on what has happened prior to the fight, and going off the adjustments Conor has made previously, he doesn't really make all that many. The thing is, Conor most certainly has the talent to beat Poirier even without any adjustments, but I want to see Conor react intelligently, and actually come in with a game plan other than trying to knock him out in the first few rounds.

If I was to compare each player against the opposite number on the other team. I'd probably have the majority of the English players in my team. They have some world class players or if not world class very close to that level. Harry Kane, Sterling, Sancho, Henderson, and Trent are all probably up there. Yet, they don't seem to click as well as they should. I'm not sure if its because of British media hyping them up, and then turning on them even for the slightest mistake, but that team should be running things. Italy have some good players no doubt, but I definitely think on a individual basis, England would win every day. However, this is a team game, and Italy has proven that they function brilliantly as a team, and that's what counts at the end of the day.

England also have a history of collapsing under pressure which is why I mentioned that earlier. I think certain players are more susceptible than others e.g Sterling, Maguire, and Pickford.

Seriously, if you care for the future of computing then you should be supporting Linux wherever you can. I deal with multiple systems, and I've become increasingly annoyed at the stunts that Microsoft has been pulling on its users over the years. Increasingly so recently, including things that I don't want, but every time there's an update, it'll be added again. Even after prior removal. Linux, not only has several distributions to choose from, which you can cater to your needs, but they don't force anything on you. Plus, some of the popular distributions are really starting to touch upon industries that they hadn't before. For example, Linux has got significantly more improved in the gaming industry, and its now actually viable to have a gaming computer on a Linux operating system, because of the support for a lot of games, either through the game developer or  the community.

I'd hope that a few of you in the community had already contributed to Linux in some way before the implementation of Bitcoin, even if it wasn't financially. However, now that they've included Bitcoin I really hope they'll be an increase of donations, because Linux is simply awesome, and is one of our only hopes when it comes to privacy, and personal computers while not giving up too much in return.

Honestly, I just love Linux. I've used a lot of distributions, and still do. I even used Slackware for a while just for fun. However, the more popular distributions have really come on leaps, and bounds recently.

This is important. Unless the post is completely broken, and hard to understand then bad English is fine. Just as your knowledge of Bitcoin might be poor. Hell, I've been researching, and reading up on cryptocurrencies for a while now, and I'm still far from perfect on my knowledge, and usually learn something new every so often. Even the experts will learn something new every so often, and I'm far from that.

Anyway, back to the point; bad English doesn't necessarily mean its a bad quality post. I've seen many of posts that contain poor English, but their point was still valid or they demonstrated that they had put effort into the post despite not being fluent.

I feel collectively as a community, we are a little too hostile sometimes.

Its mainly third world countries, or lesser developed countries which have adopted this approach. Potentially banking on the fact that it could potentially spring them forward in terms of developing the country. There's also the possibility it could be politically motivated, since most countries are governed by similar types of government, and by that I mean they tend to want to control their citizens. China can be used as a drastic example where they are much more open about censoring their citizens, but I believe USA/UK are also following a similar approach, except in a different manner. Anyway, getting back to the point,  most governments want to remain in power, and therefore they want to control the population, Bitcoin kind of goes against their objectives, as it gives a little more freedom, and power to its people.

I'm personally not reading too much into the implementation of Bitcoin as a currency in the announcements recently as I can't really determine the motive accurately. While it does seem they are supporting Bitcoin, it just goes against what I've come to expect governments to do, and therefore I'll reserve my judgement until later.