I agree with the others. In my specific case:

1) Even if the signature campaign paid me more than with my job, why would I quit my job if I can continue with my job and signature campaign.

2) A signature campaign that would pay more than my job would have to pay much more than the Chip Mixer campaign, which I see quite unlikely.

3) Another reason is instability, insecurity. To quit my job, I would have to trust that the signature campaign will continue to give me work for many years, which I don't trust.

So I don't. I would not change it. Another thing could be the case of someone who is in a good financial position, with a good net worth and with considerable Bitcoin holdings, who could quit his job to live on income, and supplement his income with the signature campaign and some other online hobby that generates income.

This depends on the quantity. I don't know where you live if it's different, but where I live, if you don't pay $500 in taxes and get caught they don't put you in jail. They make you pay the $500, interest from the time you would have had to pay it and a fine. You can end up paying $1K or more, though.

While this seems hopeful to me and a way to popularize Bitcoin, it is unclear to me if by moving those Bitcoins to fiat, the Canadian government is not going to be able to freeze them in some way. I mean: as of today you can't pay directly with Bitcoin in many places, Canada is not El Salvador. To convert those Bitcoins to Canadian dollars they will have to go through the Bank or financial institutions.

Couldn't the Canadian Government act there? I do not know if anyone who lives in Canada or has any idea of the subject can inform us.

I assume the OP will be talking about a small amount. I think it unlikely that he is talking about millions, as he would have tax advisors and would be very foolish to ask that on that forum.

The main thing is if you have left traces to the authorities as Lucius says, the normal thing in that case is to pay and stay calm. If you did not leave traces you can also pay and stay calm, or do it to contribute to defray the public expense of your country, but if you do not do it and you get caught you will not be put in jail either. Normally the penalties for small amounts, I don't know exactly how it will be in the UK, are the amount you would have had to pay and a fine.

But if it is a small amount, it is rare that you are investigated.

I'm guessing you didn't write this to make us laugh, but at least in my case, you succeeded.

Now let's assume you're serious. Why should we listen to you? There have been many debates on how to develop Bitcoin and in some cases resulted in hard forks. If your ideas are so good, propose them to see if another hard fork is done, but I bet your idea would end up being a shitcoin cash or something like that.

Of course Bitcoin is much more decentralized than the banking system or the thousands of shitcoins out there. It is not 100% decentralized? So what? Nothing is perfect.

Anyway, I'll let you stop by the Bastille and I'll continue to accumulate Bitcoin in the meantime.

I don't see what the problem is. The Chinese New Year starts on a different date than in western countries, just by making equivalences you know what date we are talking about.

If we are talking about today, it would be the corresponding day of 2014 in the Ethiopian calendar, but it would still be today. And if we are talking about an event six months ago, we would just have to make calculations or look at both calendars,

But on a day to day basis it doesn't affect. Calendars are arbitrary divisions of time.

In the case of Russia, it was a bluff: Russian government to legalize its crypto economy

Bitcoin has come in handy for them now that the US is threatening to take them out of the SWIFT system.

As for the rest of the central banks, I think they will eventually even buy Bitcoin for their reserves. It won't be soon, but they will. When the Bitcoin was born, they didn't even give it any importance. When Bitcoin became bigger they realized the competition it posed and associated it with fraud and scams but they realized they could not stop it and in the end it has been regulated around the world. Now financial institutions that previously associated Bitcoin with scams are preparing custodial services to offer, Bitcoin ETFs, etc. The last step will be for them to buy/mind bitcoin.

Me too. And that doesn't mean that Bitcoin is not a safe haven for criminals. It can be a safe haven for everybody, depending on how you use it, bitcoin is a tool.

This case reminds me of what we have repeatedly talked about in the legal section. The case that the OP comments would be the case of some stolen Bitcoins but even if they are Bitcoin of legal origin, if you can not clearly justify the origin, because maybe you bought them P2P and passed them through mixers for privacy, you better not let the ball get too big and go spending them little by little or always declare them before they become a large amount.

This couple got caught because trying to launder large amounts of money without leaving a trace is extremely difficult.

An interesting thing to do with side jobs is to dedicate all the income to investment. If you are used to live with your main income and even to live and save a little, if you get one or two side jobs, you can dedicate the total of the extra income to investment and live with your main job, even having more margin because the part of the savings that you used to dedicate from your main income you can spend now.

At least that's what I do.

In order to be able to give a good answer, it would be better if you could provide other data. How much are your fixed expenses during the week? What is the average income in your country? Do you have an emergency fund? If you don't have one, the first thing you should do is to save one for contingencies and have it in cash, a minimum of $1K if you live in a western country. If you live in a poor country, maybe $500 will be fine.

From there, with your emergency fund, subtract your fixed expenses of each week and the rest you can invest, or distribute in some expenses that you want to make, even if they are not fixed and the rest to investment.

I think Tucker is misrepresenting what CNBC says. Tucker says "the crypto guys must be white supremacists", while the woman on CNBC says "crypto is an avenue for money laundering and white supremacist are taking options (apparently)".

Tucker is exaggerating what is being said. If we take the literal sense, Bitcoin is a tool like cash would be or like a knife or a shovel might be, as mentioned. Whatever Tucker says if it sounds far-fetched I'd rather look into it, as he tends to do things like this.

Of course, and why should we believe you? Maybe you are an investor with exceptional results to back up your argument, if so, show us proof, but I doubt it.

I found the post interesting, not so much for what you say as for the answers, and I am surprised that no merit was given to the answers. I would have given some but I'm out at the moment.

It is clear to me that what you say was also thought by many in the past: those who bought at $1 and sold at $10 or bought at $10 and sold at $100, to give examples using round numbers.


Good way to sum it up.


For these and other reasons I still believe that Bitcoin has a brigth future, and I hope that the analogy between Internet adoption and Bitcoin adoption, which I have heard before, ends up being true, because it means that for Bitcoin holders, the best is yet to come.

For me (and I understand that for a large majority on this forum, except for those in the alt section) it is the best investment. What my investment is more boring than yours: I just do DCA, small amounts but little by little I accumulate. With that accumulation and the return of a few years I hope to make a considerable amount in the future.

Although it may not seem directly related, this reminds me of the attempt to leave Russia out of the SWIFT system, to which Russia looks set to respond by legalizing Bitcoin on the 18th (after proposing a ban on crypto use and mining).

In this case as well as in the case of sex workers, Bitcoin opens a window of opportunity to escape restrictions.

It depends on what percentage of my net worth that money was. If it was a ridiculous percentage, I could bet those amounts. Some people can bet $0.5M just like I can bet $50 without breaking a sweat.


Just because it is published by a Ukrainian media does not make it any less credible. Moreover, if we google it, we see that numerous media from all over the world echo the bet.

It depends on whether we believe it is going to be a real war or pure theater for show. If it were a real war, in which people are really afraid that the conflict will escalate and atomic bombs will be dropped, I think the panic would be such that everything, stock markets, crypto, gold, etc. would go down. But what would be of least concern would be the return on investments.

Being pure theater, which I think is most likely if in the end there is war conflict, I think it would be neutral or positive for Bitcoin.

Interesting. Although this may attract attention I bet that in a few years it will be quite normal for crypto companies to have investments in other traditional companies that do not come from the crypto world. Another form of investment that I believe will become more widespread in the coming years is investment in advertising. If, say, Coinbase starts investing a considerable amount in advertising in the FT every year, the likelihood of an editorial line advocating that cryptocurrencies are a fraud and have no future is greatly reduced.

Another way they can influence these forms of investment positively is to give more coverage to crypto news.

In any case it looks like good news for us.

What I think is that the situation we are in is not very clear. The price predictions for the past year, all failed, were based on a repetition of the price pattern of previous cycles. We are now in uncharted territory, and more uncertain about what might happen than last year.


That's the million-dollar question. I'm not sure, I'm just going to wait and see what happens, and in the meantime I'll continue to accumulate.

I've recently heard Mark Moss, using the term CPLIE, which I think paints a closer picture to reality.

The CPI has been changed over the decades so as not to shock people too much, just as the current 7% CPI calculation has been done with cherry-picking, using a 0.5% increase for rents, for example, when it is much higher, so as not to shock people, because real inflation is higher.

This is the only thing we have to worry about. If 7% is recognized, we are in a very bad way.

That has never happened to me. I have never seen that image. Therefore, I'm inclined to think it's something the OP does rather than a problem with the forum.


That would be a logical explanation.