dessuten så ser ikke bitcoins ut til å være skatte pliktig, virker som di fleste land ikke har offisielt klasifisert btc som en valutta.
ligger i en "grey area" for å si det sånn.
All inntekt er uansett skattepliktig når du selger dem for en valuta som er tatt inn i varmen av myndighetene. Sørg for å samle på kvitteringer på alt du har av utgifter, hvis ikke kan du ende opp med at skattemyndighetene skjønnslikner deg med en kjempeinntekt og ingenting å skrive den av mot. Bankene rapporterer alle pengeoverføringer fra utlandet til Norge til myndighetene (eller skal, i hvert fall). |
|
|
|
Grinder
Can you be specific?
If you mean the positive sides about Bitcoin it says this on page 21: "Users have several incentives to use Bitcoins. Firstly, transactions are anonymous, as accounts are not registered and Bitcoins are sent directly from one computer to another. Also, users have the possibility transactions are carried out faster and more cheaply than with traditional means of payment. Transaction fees, if any, are very low and no bank account fee is charged." It also mentions other sides of Bitcoin which are more neutral, but which have some positive consequences which can be focused on. It would be would be much more constructive to look for these than the "Look how clever I am, I found a tiny issue that in some respects is slightly incorrect"-attitude that a lot of Bitcoin users have. |
|
|
|
In my mind, bitcoin is way more real than FIAT money. I wouldn't use "virtual" at all, because it implies "not really existing, just hot air". As for the terms they use for the Euro, they're very unfitting: it's neither "real" nor is it "money".
There is no way you're going to be able to convice average Joe about this, though, and it's not really important at all. Nitpicking on issues like this will make Bitcoin supporters look unnecessarily nerdy, and lower the chances of convincing the public that Bitcoin is a good idea. Instead we should just use terms like this in the way other people are most likely to understand, and focus on what Bitcoin can do better than other currencies. The paper actually mentions some things, and it would be much more beneficial to discuss how to use this to promote Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
For Bitcoin the report is wrong and your interpretation is the only reasonable course of action for the central bank to take; namely hold reserves of Bitcoin.
It's not wrong, it's just not possible to implement for Bitcoin. If such a law is implemented anyway it might for instance make it illegal to trade bitcoins. |
|
|
|
What are you doing here, then? I wouldn't touch Bitcoin with a ten foot pole if I was you...  I guess my world is significantly less black and white than yours. |
|
|
|
Yes, it does say the markets are unregulated, but it calls it currency and cash throughout the paper...
Draw your own conclusions.
No thanks, that is too risky when we're talking about legal issues. |
|
|
|
What I got from this paper is that bicoin is money, currency, and therefore I can setup shop and sell it without charging 23% VAT to my customers.
The paper says very little about how virtual currencies should be treated legally, it only describes how they work and relate to the real world economy. |
|
|
|
|
How about making room for one alias in each block? People could add bids for it in the same way as transactions are queued. The one who solves the block gets to decide who wins. The transaction fee won't make up for the lower block reward in the future. The extra reward would make it more profitable to mine, which is good for the security of the network.
|
|
|
|
This is not referring to the total value of the money supply? Are you sure?
Yes, it is, it says so clearly on the Wiki page. repentance is wrong. |
|
|
|
|
That must be the biggest waste of money ever. When have you ever seen anybody change their mind on a web forum?
|
|
|
|
The numbers you give look bad, but they assume a mythical person who owns half the coins and suddenly wants to get out entirely all at once. I didn't give any numbers, and it doesn't matter if the coins are held by 1 person or 1 billion. If it is the currency of the whole economy it will still be so when the economy have doubled, and those who just sit on their money will eat up the whole increase without contributing. Those who invest will be playing a zero sum game, where they have to be very lucky or unusually good at what they do to benefit from investing. Bitcoins are not very relevant as the Bitcoin price is only driven by speculation. I'm talking about a mature economy. |
|
|
|
Wouldn't 2) reach an equilibrium, because many large players will be entering and leaving at random points in time, so the effect would be even less noticeable?
Not as long as new players are literally born every day, and those who invest make the economy become more productive. |
|
|
|
The old man benefits because he planned for his future by saving, and also incurred years of opportunity cost by not employing his dollars in a different way, [...]
Why do you think it's right that those who don't waste their opportunities should effectively be taxed to pay for his opportunity costs? |
|
|
|
No one here believes that but you (and maybe a couple of others). It is hardly an established fact. It is, I think, the central question here, and you can't claim it as evidence of it's own truth. (To do so would be to beg the question.)
It's very simple logic. Value doesn't come from nowhere, so when you get value even though you just keep the money in the safe you must be getting it from someone who has created it. If this wasn't an ideological question for so many of you it would be much easier for you to see. Unfortunately it's like telling a communist that communism in reality undermines the welfare of the people. It is obvious if you don't desperately need to deny it for your ideology to make sense. |
|
|
|
That purchasing power has to come from somewhere. And it does. It comes from everyone else holding that currency.
No, it comes from there being lots people who have something they want to sell. Deflation discourages that, because it's easier to just hold on to the money than to invest them to create something new, or buying something so others can create something new. The evidence is that that's pretty much what you say you want to do with your dime. |
|
|
|
No, no, no. I'm saying that you can't just assert your position and expect us to accept it. You need to demonstrate it. That the majority of us won't buy it when you say "I'm right" doesn't mean that I'm arguing from popularity, it means that you are begging the question.
No, this is what your saying now, it is not what your original reply said. |
|
|
|
No it wasn't. Pointing out that people aren't likely to accept a bland assertion from you on the very point of debate is hardly an appeal to popularity.
You can call the argument whatever you like, saying it's wrong solely because most people don't believe it is the very definition of an argumentum ad populum. |
|
|
|
You could buy a can of tomato soup in 1950 for a dime. In 2012, you can buy somewhere between 2.5 and 3 cans of tomato soup for a dime. Oh, but it has to be the same dime. (The current melt value of a 1950 silver dime is around $2.50.) It occurs to me that people see inflation and get angry, but most of them don't see the deflation that would have occurred if people were freely allowed to use a sound currency. The theft is bigger than you thought.
Not really when it's so easy to adapt. If you put it in a savings account you would could buy just under 2, and if you put it in 1 year bonds you could buy about 5 after taxes. If you put it in an S&P index fund you could buy more than 50. Why anyone would want a system that would discourage people from investing and creating such a fantastic wealth increase is beyond me. |
|
|
|
No one here believes that but you (and maybe a couple of others).
I would expect nothing else on a forum which has a deflationary currency as topic. So, make an argument that isn't circular then. Pointing out inconsistency in an argument is not being circular, and yours was an argumentum ad populum. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
