|
If bitcoin really was a bubble, and people could predict this in advance. They could stand to make a lot of money by shorting bitcoin or by investing in bitcoin's competitors which would stand to benefit when the bitcoin bubble popped.
There are many who claim bitcoin is a bubble, but none of those people are willing to put money on their own prediction.
Maybe I'm old school but I miss past eras when people made a point of standing by the things they say, rather than feeling entitled to say random things that even they don't believe in.
|
|
|
|
With intriguingly coincidental timing, as cryptocurrencies reach mainstream and grab the world's attention, the US Justice Department has unsealed a grand-jury indictment that shows a Long Island woman has been indicted on charges that she tried to funnel money to ISIS using Bitcoin. The Eastern District of New York press release details the crimes... Long Island Woman Indicted for Bank Fraud and Money Laundering to Support Terrorists - Defendant Stole and Laundered Over $85,000 Using Bitcoin and Other Cryptocurrencies
As alleged in the indictment and court filings, the defendant defrauded numerous financial institutions and obtained over $85,000 in illicit proceeds, which she converted to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. She then laundered and transferred the funds out of the country to support the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (“ISIS”), which has been designated by the U.S. Secretary of State as a foreign terrorist organization. After consummating the scheme, the defendant attempted to leave the United States and travel to Syria.
...“As alleged, the defendant Zoobia Shahnaz engaged in a bank fraud scheme, purchased Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies and laundered money overseas, intending to put thousands of dollars into the coffers of terrorists,” stated Acting United States Attorney Rohde. “The indictment reflects the resolve of this Office, together with our law enforcement partners, to investigate and prosecute anyone who would seek to support terrorists, including those who would perpetrate financial crimes to do so.”
...Specifically, Shahnaz obtained a loan for approximately $22,500 by way of materially false representations. She also fraudulently applied for over a dozen credit cards, which she used to purchase approximately $62,000 in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies online. She then engaged in a pattern of financial activity, culminating in several wire transactions, totaling over $150,000, to individuals and apparent shell entities in Pakistan, China and Turkey. These transactions were designed to avoid transaction reporting requirements, conceal the identity, source and destination of the illicitly obtained monies, and, ultimately, benefit ISIS. This plays so perfectly into the narrative that anyone and everyone who uses cryptocurrencies is a criminal that one could be forgiven for being skeptical of the 'false flag'-like nature of the timing of the release. The trouble with the narrative is two-fold - Bitcoin is not anonymous... and Cryptocurrencies are not a major source of funding for terrorists. As we detailed previously, even the IRS can track you down through the distributed ledger that tracks every transaction ever in memoriam. Last month Alt-Market.com founder Brandon Smith warned that Bitcoin may not be all that it’s cracked up to be in terms of its purported anonymity: For years, one of the major original selling points of bitcoin was that it was “anonymous.” It always surprised me that so many people in the liberty movement bought into this scam.
Surely after the revelations exposed by Edward Snowden and organizations like Wikileaks, it is utterly foolish to believe that anything in the digital world is truly “anonymous.”
The feds have been proving there is no anonymity, even in bitcoin, for some time, as multiple arrests using bitcoin tracking have indeed occurred when the FBI decided it was in their interest. Meaning, when the feds want to track bitcoin transactions, they can, and it does not matter how well the people involved covered their actions. Because every transaction exists on a public blockchain ledger, an enterprising organization – say like the NSA or IRS – could conceivably implement blockchain analysis tools to track down Bitcoin fund transfers around the globe. Of course, with ISIS having been hammered to shell of its former self by Russia and its allies the following "how does ISIS fund itself" infographic is out of date, but provides some context for the 'threat' that donations... let alone donations via cryptocurrencies... represent.  Even The Fed has argued that the payments flows within the crypto-space are not relevant. However, we fully expect to see a congressional probe demanded sooner rather than later to crackdown on Bitcoin as funding source of terrorism (besides, the US and Saudis don't like competition). * * * Coincenter's Peter Van Valkenburgh has issued a statement about the arrest: Coin Center statement on Long Island money laundering arrest.All we have to go on so far is the unsealed indictment, which does not mention cryptocurrencies, and the statements of the prosecutor. Based on what we know so far though, here are our thoughts: Thankfully she got caught before she was able to move money to ISIS. This suggests that law enforcement has the tools necessary to deal with this sort of money laundering even when it involves cryptocurrency. The unsealed indictment doesn’t have enough facts in it to draw strong conclusions about how important Bitcoin actually was to the scheme. We know she bought it with fake credit cards and a bogus line of credit from a bank, but that’s about all. From the statement of the prosecutor, it looks like she still tried to use wire transfers and shell companies in order to get the money to ISIS. This may suggest that a simple bitcoin transfer didn't work to accomplish her ends, and that the old ways (wire fraud) remain the best ways when it comes to evading sanctions. We await further information. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-14/long-island-woman-indicted-funding-isis-bitcoin.... Summary: A woman applied for loans using fake ID's and applied for more than a dozen credit cards to obtain $62,000 in bitcoin and other crypto. In total she sent more than $150,000 to people with terrorist affiliation in foreign countries via "wire transfers". I'm not certain how compelling people will find this story. It seems to implicate crypto but the part of the narrative describing her using "wire transfers" seems to imply she used a bank to send the funds. |
|
|
|
|
With new things like bitcoin derivatives, traders typically err on the side of safety. This leads to greater volatility and larger price swings as relatively small events relating to derivatives become exaggerated by larger scale adherance to proactive damage control. Initially btc derivatives should increase volatility. But as time goes on and it becomes a better known phenomena, volatility and price swings should decrease unless something crazy happens.
Derivatives should be a lot like forks. Initially there were large price swings and high volatility whenever a fork announcement or rollout was deployed. As time passed and people realized forks were not doomsday scenarios for bitcoin, volatility related to forks declined.
Derivatives should follow that same format. Although derivatives also carries a potential to increase volatility in certain scenarios if coordinated pump and dump occurs with derivatives stacked on top to boost potential profits. It depends on trading volume and viability. The higher trading volume is, the more difficult and unfeasible it becomes to manipulate price. Insider trading (if it exists) could be the best scenario for manipulation if not timing large dumps to coincide with short selling.
|
|
|
|
|
2FA emails sent by a blockchain.info account I used were blocked by AOL/AIM not long ago, so that I couldn't receive them or confirm logging in to my blockchain account.
If any of you have a spare blockchain.info account try linking it to an email address on the AOL/AIM domain. It seemed to me that AOL/AIM blocks emails coming from the blockchain.info domain. Maybe someone doesn't like me, or my case was an isolated event. Either way, I wouldn't be surprised if my experiences represent future actions taken against bitcoin/crypto.
It is known that ISP's already engage in "throttling" of bandwidth for services like bittorrent. If Net Neutrality is repealed it may not be an exaggeration to assume circumstances will be much worse.
As far back as 5 years ago, politicians in the USA were saying america needed to adopt an "internet kill switch" and stronger censorship of internet content "similar to what china implements". If net neutrality is repealed that could be what we end up with.
|
|
|
|
|
The dotcom bubble was fostered by tech giants like microsoft, apple and google. A very large percentage of newly made millionaires and billionaires in the world made their wealth in the tech industry. The Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniaks of the world. There was something like a gold rush of eras past where a lot of people tried to hop on the bandwagon hoping they could get rich, too.
I think the dotcom bubble was very different from bitcoin. Profiteering and getting rich in 21 quick steps was the main motive fueling the dot com bubble. Bitcoin is different. Crypto currencies are something people actually use that have utility and real world functionality. Bitcoin is not a get rich quick scheme to most. From the beginning I remember there being a lot of people who believe in crypto and everything it stood for. That spirit and mentality appear to still be present today.
While the dotcom bubble may have been a mere stepping stone to many on their path to fame and riches, I don't think that type of mentality is as prevalent in crypto.
|
|
|
|
|
Part of me feels compelled to point out growth charts depicting automobiles replacing horse drawn carriages resembled a bubble. The growth of personal computers and operating system manufacturers like microsoft resembled a bubble, as they replaced more traditional paper trail based office systems.
One valid question may be whether crypto currencies represent the next evolution of banking and electronic payment systems. If a case could be made for bitcoin eventually making banking systems and electronic fiat obsolete. What we could be seeing is what happens when someone succeeds in inventing a better mousetrap. In that case, bitcoin wouldn't be a bubble, it might better be described as the future? If that makes sense.
It could come down to how much of a legitimate need there is for technologies like bitcoin. That's something that isn't easy to measure as far as I know. If there's a real and dire need for bitcoin and crypto currencies which will sustain their growth, it may not be a bubble at all.
Also keep in mind the chart which depicts bitcoin's growth could be misleading. Bitcoin reached an all time high of greater than $1,000 around 2014. A case could be made for btc trading at nearer to 10x its ATH, which could be sustainable, rather than the 40 to 60 x some cite back to around 16 months ago.
|
|
|
|
|
A different perspective for you.
Millions of credit card numbers are stolen and sold on the internet. There's never been a real attempt to crack down on the practice that I know of(contrast to the effort made to crackdown on crypto markets like silk road and alpha bay). Every year it seems the security practices of credit card companies declines making it easier for cards and data to be stolen. Almost everyone I know that owns a credit card has been robbed or been a victim of identity theft at some point. I can think of one person I know who has had their credit card data stolen multiple times & they weren't reimbursed as far as I know.
On the flip side of this debate, I don't know anyone who has had their bitcoins or crypto stolen. The only cases I can think of where people lost coins were due to phishing and other low percentage attacks. There isn't much if any identity theft which occurs in crypto as personal details and data are not tied to financial transactions.
|
|
|
|
|
Very true, OP.
Its worth noting many bank accounts carry minimum balances which prohibit the poorest demographics from being able to buy and sell goods & services electronically. In some countries this precedent is even worse with there being zero electronic transaction support for those living in poverty which effectively prohibits the poor from having access to electronic payment.
In other cases where poorer demographics have access to electronic transactions, which often function effectively as monopolies, fees and taxes are so exorbitantly high it becomes impossible to send things like wire transfers without paying effective 40% or higher taxes.
Bitcoin and crypto are more easily accessible to those poorer demographics who go ignored by banking systems worldwide. This low bar to entry could be a neglected reason behind the success of crypto currencies and they're rising demand.
|
|
|
|
I think that bitcoin ATM's, crypto resellers and some exchanges who can get away with marking up the price of crypto, often do so. Its similar to ticket scalping for sports events or concerts where all of the tickets will set out quickly only to be resold for a higher price on ebay, etc. The most expensive bitcoin resellers I know of are in africa on the http://golix.com exchange. I've seen bitcoin selling higher than $30,000 on there. Fees and taxes are so high on electronic transactions in africa that people there are willing to pay a lot more for bitcoins as they're much better and more affordable than using bankers electronic payment systems. |
|
|
|
|
I too would be interested to know what approach you took with your assignment.
The most obvious answers that come to mind in terms of "finance for better society" are financial planning perhaps becoming standardized and mandatory curriculum in schools. Only a small percentage of people bother with financial planning in terms of preparing for retirement, knowing how to plan for their future or be ready for events such as economic recessions. Better financial planning could make a huge positive difference in peoples lives.
Investment in stocks, bonds or precious metals could also be a mandatory course in schools. Some degree of economic curriculum might also be mandatory to ensure that students have a decent comprehension of economic implications in terms of political issues like healthcare, taxes and other subjects which would help them to understand the nature of issues surrounding controversial things like healthcare, foreign wars, economic stimulus, bank bailouts, et al.
Any financial or economic topic covered in school could benefit from attempts at real world application. There isn't much application in terms of real history nor encouraging students to think about things in their own terms independently. A lot of education is heavy handed and might be described moreso as indoctrination rather than real knowledge or education.
|
|
|
|
|
It depends on how much it costs to produce a single S9.
If say a single S9 costs $300-$1,000 to produce, and sells for $3,000 to $5,000 antminer could still be running a very profitable enterprise. Not everyone is in a position to mine crypto. Tweaking settings and finding cheap sources of electricity isn't something that appeals to everyone. Antminer could well be making good money without venturing into the mining industry.
It may be also be said that a decent percentage of professional grade mining is state sanctioned or partly funded by governments. Some mining outfits in china are situated next to hydroelectric power plants, which produce electricity at cheaper rates than coal power. Access to things like hydroelectric plants may be due to miners having state level connections--and that may be what is needed to be a truly competitive, top notch, mining outfit these days.
|
|
|
|
|
I can't imagine deficits becoming smaller anytime soon.
As long as deficits continue to increase and taxes are hiked as governments attempt the flawed policy of taxing and spending their way out of debt.
Interest in crypto currencies should continue to increase dramatically as people seek ways to protect their wealth and savings against what may be a rising tide of fear and concern, propelled by fears over the dollar and euro failing or hyperinflating.
Heightened increase in crypto, should translate to higher trading volume and higher demand, which should in turn continue to drive its value upwards.
|
|
|
|
|
Netanyahu's comments could reflect politics more than economics. There's a question of how anti israel campaigns are funded. Worldwide there are many professors teaching at universities and others in positions of authority who push anti israel propaganda. There's a massive campaign against israel and some say this campaign is funded by bankers. Netanyahu must recognize this on some level and so his comments on banks needing to be removed might better be put into perspective.
Netanyahu being a politician(and a former special forces commando), I doubt he knows much about bitcoin in terms of exposition or details. Most politicians trend towards being computer illiterates. They know absolutely nothing about computers or digital currencies, which can make things hard when it comes time to pass laws regarding those things.
|
|
|
|
He could have a valid point in terms of vertical terminal velocity on charts often being unsustainable in stocks, bonds and precious metals. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule. The zimbabwe dollars recovery could represent an example of vertical terminal velocity in charts being sustainable:  To answer whether bitcoin is a bubble, someone would need to quantify to what degree people of the world have lost faith in governments and other institutions. How much fear is there that the euro or dollar will crash due to high deficits and overprinting of fiat? It is possible enough people have lost faith in world leaders to drive concern about crashing dollars/euros/economies to support the growth we're seeing in bitcoin, enough to make it sustainable. This may seem like a technical issue but it may be fair to say markets are often largely driven by emotion and so the pulse of the crypto community in terms of what drives it, could be a valid point here. |
|
|
|
|
The general consensus is, there will continue to be forks of bitcoin until it is no longer profitable. Forks are a relatively new phenomena, they could be overvalued at the moment. History will show what the true value of forks is. It may be fair to say there is some misinformation about forks being proliferated. False claims about forks having faster transactions and lower transaction fees. In reality both claims could be untrue, the reason for faster transactions/low fees may simply be a lack of support and small userbases for forked alts, which keeps network traffic low.
The market cap and value of alt coins could be misleading figures. The value of coins (other than BTC) decline very quickly when a sell off occurs. The sustained value of forks and alts is nowhere near as robust as btc, due to trading volume being lower and buyers more sparse, making it more difficult to sustain dumps. The market cap and value of forks and alts declines very quickly whenever a dump occurs, in contrast to bitcoin. It could imply figures like market cap and value regarding forks and alts are exaggerated.
|
|
|
|
There's another option: expatriation. It is possible to renounce citizenship and pay no taxes. Its been reported that record numbers of americans are renouncing US citizenship over the past 5 years or so. I wouldn't be surprised if a number of bitcoin billionaires renounced citizenship before selling off their HODL stash to avoid paying taxes. They could reside in a place like Vanatu while paying a 1 time fee of $200,000 and it would be much cheaper and more affordable for them to do so. Record number of Americans renouncing citizenshipAmericans are on pace to renounce their citizenship in record numbers in 2017, according to the latest quarterly report from the Treasury Department. Some 5,411 U.S. citizens expatriated in 2016, a record high that topped 2015's numbers by 26 percent. 2017 is currently on track to beat those figures, Bloomberg News reported Tuesday, estimating a tally of 6,813 by the end of the year if the fourth quarter is similar to 2016's. In the third quarter, 1,376 Americans renounced their citizenship. 2011 was the first year in which more than 1,000 people chose to terminate their American citizenship, according to the Federal Register. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/358277-record-number-of-americans-renouncing-citizenship-in-2017 |
|
|
|
Imposing taxes on capital gains from crypto for traders ostensibly would not affect whether or not an exchange charges commissions. .... To clarify the reasoning behind me saying capital gains could affect exchange commissions. Its based on the idea that anything which makes an exchange more expensive to run, could upset their business model and force them to implement commissions on trades, higher fees and other policies to maintain profit margins. In a broad sense, when property taxes are raised the cost is often passed on to tenants in the form of higher rent. Higher tobacco and alcohol excise taxes are passed on to consumers in the form of more expensive beer and cigarettes. Gasoline taxes are passed on to drivers in the form of more expensive gasoline. These types of tax programs come at a cost, that money has to come from somewhere and it makes sense that the cost will be passed on to crypto traders in the form of higher commissions. If you disagree with my reasoning, I would be interested to hear why.  |
|
|
|
|
I didn't catch the Lomachenko vs Rigondeaux fight. Lomachenko is a massive and underrated talent. That's the impression I get from watching his previous fights.
One interesting thing to note, I think Vasyl Lomachenko has competed in sambo and wrestling in the past and done very well in both. There's a chance Lomachenko could make a move to MMA to fight in the 125 lb division against Demetrious Johnson. If Lomachenko was bigger he might have fought Conor McGregor in MMA.
I was thinking Conor McGregor's career could be over after he suffered cardio issues in his 1st fight with Nate Diaz despite not cutting weight to fight @ 170 lbs. Physically there could be something wrong with Conor that is hurting his cardio and his career might be over.
|
|
|
|
In Seoul, after an emergency meeting on Wednesday, South Korea’s government said it will consider taxing capital gains from trading of virtual coins and will also ban minors from opening accounts on exchanges, according to a statement obtained by Reuters ahead of its official release. To be eligible, exchanges in South Korea will need to uphold investor protection rules and disclose all bid and offer quotes. The measures need parliamentary approval. Seoul will maintain a current ban on all financial institutions dealing virtual currencies. “The regulations in Korea will not have a negative effect,” said Thomas Glucksmann, head of marketing at Hong Kong-based exchange Gatecoin, adding that on the contrary, “licensing brings certainty, which encourages already regulated entities ... to get involved in addition to skeptical retail investors.” In an interview with Reuters on Tuesday, the Seoul-based operator of the world’s busiest virtual currency exchange Bithumb, said it will fully comply with potential regulations from the South Korean government and adequately capitalize itself to protect its clients. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-markets-bitcoin-southkorea/south-korea-considers-cryptocurrency-tax-as-regulators-grapple-with-speculative-mania-idUSKBN1E703O.... This raises a few interesting questions. It is known that crypto exchanges in china and south korea often do not charge commissions on trades. Imposing taxes and regulation on a crypto exchange can sometimes come with additional cost. Sometimes that cost will trickle down to consumers, which could imply that taxes will trickle down to users of exchanges in the forms of higher withdrawal fees or the introduction of commissions on trades. This could imply taxes on south korean exchanges could legitimize crypto in addition to whatever negative implications might arise as a result. Imposed taxation could cut down on the trend of exchange traders buying/selling to themselves to take advantage of zero commissions on trades. Capital gains taxes also may not apply until crypto is exchanged for fiat(?). In equities markets, capital gains do not apply until the stock is sold which encourages long term buy and hold, rather than day trading. Not certain if similar measures might apply to btc under capital gains but it is a possibility. |
|
|
|
Have you compared it to gold mining? Mining and recycling gold consumes far more energy. It's important to keep this in perspective as environmentalists begin complaining about Bitcoin's energy consumption. Here's a recent comparison: But in his paper, Vranken counters that in the 100MW to 500MW range, bitcoin mining requires between 0.8KWh to 4.4KWh per year, but the energy required for mining and recycling gold – which backs US currency – is 138KWh a year, while printing paper notes and minting coins is 11KWh. He pins the banking system, including not only its data centres but also its branches and ATMs, at 650KWh. In the same article, one researcher -- Marc Bevand -- claims that Bitcoin mining uses ~ 4TWh annually, which is considerably less energy than is used by Christmas lights in the US during the holiday season. Granted, as difficulty grows and proof-of-work becomes increasingly difficult in the context of decreasing block subsidy, the network's energy consumption can be expected to increase. But my point is this: When we consider how much energy is consumed by Bitcoin, you have to consider the alternatives (like gold), which have significant energy costs themselves. Good information(bolded^). That's what I was expecting to see in a valid breakdown. According to polls, only 2% of americans have used bitcoin or a crypto currency. Bitcoin's userbase being extremely small across a global scale, it isn't likely to consume as much power as critics claim. It could help to know some bitcoin mining installations in china are powered by hydroelectric power rather than coal. Earlier this year russia proposed construction of bitcoin miners powered by nuclear energy. The media claims all bitcoin mining is powered by coal and other extremely polluting hydrocarbon based energy sources but this is not true. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
