If a person does not want anonymity they could simply publish their full name and address along with their BitShare address on a forum somewhere.
If my account takes a loss in a tax period, I may want to claim that loss against other gains. I wonder if posting my name and address on a forum associated with a bitshare address would be sufficient proof of that ownership? What stops others from posting similar information on another forum? Or just copy and paste my information with changes to point it to them? The goal is to support provable ownership by a unique identity so that it is not only usable by anonymous, yes? (That risks making it a criminal enterprise and invites opposition unnecessarily.) Users may not take advantage of the identity feature, but it should be available to those that need it. |
|
|
|
Disclaimer: I know nothing about EFTs and TLDR the Winklevii document.
I wonder what the tax implications of the Winklevii moving their BTC into this EFT trust are. They would not need to pay any capital gains tax, since they've not realised their profits. But what about the shares they are selling?
There is no tax implication for them or their corp. the corp does not pay taxes when issuing shares. That money goes to the corp (not to you directly). If they then pay themselves a salary from that money, then they'd pay taxes on it. I guess the difference is that if they just sold the BTC, they would pay taxes on any realized gains. So, actually, I guess this is the perfect way of selling BTC at a profit without paying taxes. The money is technically in the corp, but they can still buy themselves pretty things with it. What it does is make the Bitcoins into an ETF. There are well established rules for ETFs for taxes and accounting, so it hides the fact that your investment is in Bitcoins making the accounting easy, its just another ETF in your list of ETF investments. Whether it is wise to do so is an entirely separate question. Also, the ETFs are the #1 mechanism that the leviathans use to manipulate currencies (such as gold). So the existence of an increasing number of ETFs that can move the market however a central bank desires it to move creates additional issues. |
|
|
|
Are you going to accuse someone of stealing your money when *you* initiate the wire transfer?
There is a crypto-signed statement that states that the transfer was voluntary and non-refundable. It also states that the sending of the funds does create a legal relationship or liability on the other parties (escrow agent, etc) to perform any action in exchange for receiving your funds. This should be more than enough to establish the 'intent' of the wire-transfer.
Thank you, this explanation helps my understanding. To the extent that the legal relationship of liability on the other parties is not a contract, recognize that it may not be binding or enforceable. If you are concerned about someone claiming theft then stick to in-person transactions in public places.
Please understand, you asked for input to help make this useful. My comments are offered in that spirit. I am not attempting to suggest that it not be used and in-person transactions be used instead. If you would prefer I make no further comment, I will stop now. A claim of theft is in no way mitigated by in-person transactions, it is mitigated by clearly contracted Ts&Cs of exchange. Note: the bid/ask exchange system does not suffer any of these problems. You do not make a physical exchange (or wire transfer) for every exchange, but you keep your 'balance' with the exchange like you would with a bank account or Mt. Gox. With this balance (BitDollars) you could buy / sell goods directly.
The problem of anonymity is partially resolved with this offering. With an exchange, by being anonymous, you sacrifice any ability to make a claim if an authority seizes the exchange. You will not be able to adequately prove that you are an innocent victim of the seizing authority and have no hope of reclaiming your lost assets (LR customer problem now). Your proposal also mitigates the threat of seizure by law, but not by force. So, if a person does not want anonymity for whatever reason, will it support that? Further, if you wish to only have counter-party trades with non-anonymous traders, will it support that? These would be enhancements to existing exchanges which do not have such control. Consider that some users may want to be provably honest, rather than just avoiding being provably dishonest. |
|
|
|
I rather doubt there will be many interesting legal rulings to come out of the LR case. There may be some wrangling over jurisdictional issues and some defendants may fight extradition. Some may settle or plead guilty. If it can be shown that actual money laundering from a criminal organization occurred, there may be some finger pointing as far as who's to blame. Most of these issues wouldn't directly affect people not involved in the case.
To have the court rule on the validity of AML laws, someone would have to come forward and claim that the government violated their rights. If someone who used LR were to sue the government and demand their money back then things might get interesting, but that hasn't happened yet.
SCOTUS will only get to review it if there is a constitutional issue, and they care to look at it. BUT...How forfeiture is handled in the lower courts for these pseudo-anonymous transactions will be interesting. What is the standard of care for the innocent users hurt by the forfeiture? There are clear precedents for non-fraudulent users to be made whole once the matter is resolved. BUT... How to validate the claims? This is distinct from Bitcoin where the transactions are more plainly recorded and more easily available, but the LR case could have some effects. For example, if a Bitcoin exchange is allegedly doing money laundering, and the exchange gets seized. The non-anonymous users who are innocent of wrongdoing are also harmed by the seizure. The LR forfeiture case will have to accommodate the evidence of these users and have some standard to show that they are who they are without a pure KYC in place. What is to stop a bunch of unrelated folks from making claims saying that XXX anonymous account is really their account and asking the government for their money back? How are valid claims proved? There has to be a standard of care there. This is where it will be interesting for Bitcoin (and where Bitcoin is clearly better). |
|
|
|
It's awfully convenient that you completely ignore the first paragraph of the post. You know, the part of the post that explains how his entire methodology is flawed?
I cant imagine why you would do that...
It was not ignored. I agree that there is very likely a flaw, or more than one. I am however hoping for some substantiation of what you mean by "entire methodology is flawed", or a mention of the flaw to which you refer. A single flaw may not completely destroy credibility. As careful as we may be, we each have flaws. You and I included. If by methodology, you simply mean that it is wrong to analyze national data to determine how the method of calculating it changes over time, we'll disagree. The CPI data is used to compute entitlements, and Inflation adjusted bonds. So in budget balancing, it can be useful to skew it downward to slow growth of entitlements. Understanding the extent of the skewing seems a useful endeavor, so the methodology has at least some merit. The reasons for skewing it when it is done, tend to list other reasons than entitlement cuts, but the effect is the same. Clinton (quality adjustment) and Obama (chained CPI) administrations both cut entitlements in this way. As an SEC agent, you know that the market reacts differently to "earnings" that appear due to an accounting change than it does to earnings that appear due to increased sales. |
|
|
|
Milk seemed to be your choice, you effectively used it to illustrate the dollar's "multi-generational downtrend" just about here:
I was third on the Milk issue, by adding the national data, if you missed where that started.. The multi-generational dollar downtrend is a reference to other's previous posts (covering time since Fed 1913+), not the single decade of milk data. The broader SEC Agent point of BTC being no replacement for any fiat currency is currently very valid. BTC "whales" are investors with a few million's invested. We haven't seen real whales yet, much less the leviathans lurking in the deep, so the volatility is going to keep wrecking the BTC market, until it doesn't. |
|
|
|
Bitstamp is really starting to gain some momentum now, the trading volume keeps increasing there which is a good sign imo.  Agree, better resilience than market dominance. |
|
|
|
So why the shadowstats incredible?
His methodology is flawed from the get go. He claims that CPI doesn't account for things like food and energy costs (and yet, we were just discussing CPI stats about the cost of milk, and energy costs are definitely factored in http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm ). Otherwise, he has made some pretty outrageous claims for precious metals (ie gold at $8,890 oz) that havent even remotely panned out. Since you provided no link for this, I went looking. The closest thing I can find is others making the same claim that he wrote this. The closest thing I can find on that matter is significantly more sane. Jason Hamlin wrote that for gold to reach the bubble level it had previously -according to John Williams inflation metrics- it would have to reach 8890. So it seems his only connection to it is tangential. http://www.munknee.com/2012/02/will-gold-peak-at-2500-8890-or-15000/I didn't find any John Williams prediction that it would reach this price within any time at all, Maybe you have it? Others have also claimed that he John Williams claimed this so perhaps he has other messages that upset folks so that they feel the need to distort them in order to discredit him. Perhaps you went looking for something outrageous from John Williams and found a distortion of someone else's that you chose to repeat as if it were true? I may have missed it though, let me know if you find that link. https://www.goldstockbull.com/articles/gold-8890-silver-517-williams-shadow-stats/That gold didn't reach 8890 may suggest that either his inflation metrics are off or that gold wasn't in a bubble, or that the person who actually wrote it was just wrong, but even that was only ever stated as a conditional statement. However your credibility metric is 0 for 1 so far, pending a reference, as your claim about him wrong and his wasn't. How about 2 out of 3? |
|
|
|
site is not even https secured?
-Zero financial transactions occur on the site. -Zero information is collected via the site. -Hence zero need for Https on the site. Has anyone said in your face yet?  I suppose a hacker could expose how to make deposits into our accounts. |
|
|
|
How is credibility measured, please? (Links?)
I am more interested in the credibility of the content over who repeats it, but I will settle for what you can help me with, for this.
The content of what they say is what drives their credibility. Take Ick, for example; he claims that the world is ruled by shape-shifting reptilian aliens. Do I need to explain why this isn't credible, or why anyone with an ounce of sanity would ignore what he has to say? I would hazard to guess that these topics are not his original research. Likely also true for John Williams, though possibly a bit more of the analysis may be original there. To your question as to why explain what is credible to you, that was to let have the opportunity to your support your claim. I can't vouch for or against any of these folks, so I am relying on your expertise and am curious as to how you reached the conclusion. Crazy people also sometimes say true things, especially if they heard it from somewhere more credible than they, but whom they happen to agree with in some way. Media likes crazy people so much that sometimes the sane even have to act crazy to get attention. So why the shadowstats incredible? |
|
|
|
No, I am stating that using the price of milk as evidence of runaway inflation is asinine, because it ignores all of the other factors that drive the price.
Then our Bureau of Labor Statistics is asinine. Tell it to the BLS. The CPI has been adjusted all sorts of ways to reduce the visibility of inflation. It is losing trust as a metric, so this suggestion of how to fix it should be well received by them. Go for it. I think you're on the right track. Price of milk should be adopted as the new metric of national economy. All them ivory tower chalkboard economists with their GDP this, standard of living that and their fancy learningz! Got Milk? Milk wasn't my choice. Am just sharing what is out there. Thanks for contributing, since you brought up the new metric, how do you like to measure "national economy"? More data, please. |
|
|
|
Speaking of losing purchasing power:  Ouch. We agree, Ouch. The numbers have some meaning here, more explanation might be useful. |
|
|
|
What a fucking joke. Are you going to quote Alex Jones or David Ick next? (because they are about as equally credible as John Williams) How is credibility measured, please? (Links?) I am more interested in the credibility of the content over who repeats it, but I will settle for what you can help me with, for this. |
|
|
|
No, I am stating that using the price of milk as evidence of runaway inflation is asinine, because it ignores all of the other factors that drive the price.
Then our Bureau of Labor Statistics is asinine. Tell it to the BLS. The CPI has been adjusted all sorts of ways to reduce the visibility of inflation. It is losing trust as a metric, so this suggestion of how to fix it should be well received by them. Go for it. |
|
|
|
|
Is your suggestion that the Dollar receives no subsidies? Or that it is less than what Milk gets?
I've been rereading your tagline. It is a beautiful sentiment.
"It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a Free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defense of it."
-George Washington
I heartily agree with this. To a Free Government we can devote our property, sweat and blood with pride. Freedom is an outgrowth of Liberty, which is always precious and fragile. From misplaced fear, we must resist plunging daggers into Liberty's breast to spill blood on the altar of security. We would do well to heal those wounds when we are able.
Another brilliant piece of sage advice from our greatest founder:
“Paper money has had the effect in your state that it will ever have, to ruin commerce, oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice.”
― George Washington
This advice was written in 1787 to Jabez Bowen (1739-1815), a lawyer in Providence, was deputy governor of Rhode Island, and is as true today as ever.
|
|
|
|
|
Back to the point.
Over the last 10 years, our US Dollar, AKA Federal Reserve Note, buys about 45% less milk.
Using gold (lets be generous and use the highest price from 2003, US$363.58 and the lowest price from 2013, US$1,180 to make it look as bad as possible) if we were using gold to buy our milk instead of the FRN, we would get about 300% more milk.
If we used bitcoin, we'd own the farm instead.
So milk has been getting cheaper, just not cheap enough to keep up with the rate that dollars have been getting cheaper.
So dollars go bad faster than milk.
Over this time period we did well if we sold dollars for milk, gold and BTC as fast as you get them.
Our SEC agent's wisdom must be based on the buy-low sell-high philosophy, the question is, will US$ ever be high? Its on a multi-generational downtrend, we may just be looking for the greater fool.
|
|
|
|
|
With absence of contracting or agreements, what defense do i have from receiving payment from someone and thereafter being accused of theft?
|
|
|
|
it's doesn't work this way.
new tech completely replaces old tech.
eg boats, you don't see people going back to swimming or rafts,
planes, you don't see people going back to not flying
you don't see electrcity not replacing kerosene lamps
the store of wealth function of silver and gold are largely over with the advent on CC's
until you can tele-port gold, make it government proof, unseizble, untrackable, weigh almost nothing and unable to be manipulated, then get back to me.
None of these apply (except the weight) to CC either. In fact, precious metal is far more anonymous than CC. Think about it. |
|
|
|
If the dollar is so strong then why did it cost me $4.39 for a gallon of the other day?
Because you shop like an idiot? Seriously, I pay $2.75 for a gallon of milk. From the US dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor statistics: Series Id: APU0000709112 Area: U.S. city average Item: Milk, fresh, whole, fortified, per gal. (3.8 lit) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 2003 2.686 2.689 2.656 2.674 2.685 2.676 2.708 2.666 2.904 2.905 2.937 2.947 2004 2.879 2.814 2.786 2.906 3.374 3.574 3.479 3.297 3.149 3.161 3.219 3.233 2005 3.304 3.176 3.226 3.225 3.207 3.122 3.090 3.136 3.133 3.171 3.211 3.241 2006 3.197 3.224 3.161 3.123 3.066 3.001 3.083 3.019 3.049 3.064 2.985 3.004 2007 3.067 3.083 3.072 3.135 3.259 3.427 3.736 3.807 3.841 3.838 3.904 3.870 2008 3.871 3.869 3.781 3.799 3.760 3.773 3.961 3.886 3.773 3.656 3.734 3.681 2009 3.575 3.319 3.116 3.084 3.068 3.009 2.992 2.979 2.981 3.046 3.034 3.105 2010 3.236 3.203 3.188 3.140 3.178 3.297 3.313 3.303 3.278 3.321 3.327 3.318 2011 3.301 3.357 3.503 3.597 3.653 3.622 3.654 3.713 3.715 3.622 3.557 3.565 2012 3.583 3.520 3.499 3.474 3.427 3.396 3.428 3.474 3.469 3.524 3.536 3.580 2013 3.526 3.480 3.431 3.428 3.441 So is our SEC agent living in the past, or is not living in USA? Or maybe gets a nice subsidy? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
