it's not a new tax. you're already supposed to pay the tax on such money if they represent an income.
Now Italian Gov. simply suppose by default that every incoming bank transfer is taxable as income.
They have simply switched the burden of the proof, hence the risk of paying a not due tax.
E.g. think of someone who simply forgot to prove to Italian IRS that those money were related to remittances those 20% simply won't come back.
Sure it's not a new tax, it's worse, it's something quite unusual and frightening, and if applied to small amounts of money, that will hurt common people having family abroad far more than real tax evaders who wouldn't dare to wire big sums anyway. We're in violent agreement here. More to the point AFAIU the 20% cut is applied to all incoming bank transfers, no matter the amount involved be it 20 or 20K euro. |
|
|
|
Some facts :
...regarding income withholding tax in Europe, and the position of new tax law in Italy, things are as follows :
LOWEST INCOME TAX IN EUROPE :
.....
it's not a new tax. you're already supposed to pay the tax on such money if they represent an income. Now Italian Gov. simply suppose by default that every incoming bank transfer is taxable as income. They have simply switched the burden of the proof, hence the risk of paying a not due tax. E.g. think of someone who simply forgot to prove to Italian IRS that those money were related to remittances those 20% simply won't come back. |
|
|
|
So Italy recongises BTC as a legitmate currency? Or at least an asset!
no. Italy's gov is desperately in need of money and they're charging every bank wire that comes from a foreign country. be it SEPA or not. It's up to the receiver to prove that on those money the state hasn't to apply that income tax. by default they assume the opposite. Sick pig, its not a simple NO. If Italy taxes you on BTC it means that should you make a profit, you will need to pay 20% tax on the profit - 20% is Capital Gains tax in Italy (CGT). Meaning that Italy have recognised BTC as an asset (indirectly). Thus the opposite should be true, if you lose on BTC then you have a CGT loss. So BTC in the eyes of Italy is like a house, you buy and sell, the difference being +100k, you pay 20%. If the difference is -100k, you have a tax credit for future CGT. Basically they have legitimised any profit that occurs via BTC- making it a valid financial tool. I say, set up offshore in Malta and pay a flat 5% non residents tax! the new tax it's not specifically related to BTC. it applies to all incoming bank transfers. Unfortunately when you cash out btc from an exchange you've to use a bank wire. Another risk Italy gov's is going to expose italian citizens: double taxation. As I said before is up to the recipient to prove that those money hasn't to be taxed. If he fails or just forgot to do it it could pay the taxes twice. Once when he received the money and once when he have the annual rendezvous with the tax man. |
|
|
|
So Italy recongises BTC as a legitmate currency? Or at least an asset!
no. Italy's gov is desperately in need of money and they're charging every bank wire that comes from a foreign country. be it SEPA or not. It's up to the receiver to prove that on those money the state hasn't to apply that income tax. by default they assume the opposite. |
|
|
|
No problem, it was easy way for me to keep track of what i was doing. 8vrm's were engaged with the 0.99.2E, i looked at the trick bonsus posted, but my cgimner looked slightly different than the default revert he posted, so i stuck with the 0.99.2E apply, a power cycle puts it back to only 4vrm running. Yeah, I've thought the same thing. In my cgminer init script (0.99.1-tuning fw) this what's used: i2cset -y $b 0x1$d 3 >/dev/null 2>&1 || true on each VRM on each ASIC board to "CLear faults in megadlynx's" (their on comment at the beginning f the double loop in the start() funciton). As you can see there're 3 parameters after the y switch whereas in the bondus snippet the i2cset command is issued with 4 pars i2cset -y $b 0x1$d 1 0x80 I've to check more carefully the VRM manual though ( https://github.com/KnCMiner/jupiter-hw-docs/blob/master/MDT040A0X.pdf) to understand properly what's going on. Another things to take into account is that bondus settings remain valid across reboot. the one that struck me as most interesting was the following edit: no buzzing noise, NO OC, -0.0798, 165-170GH 140w, 0.03% HW that would be 0.825w per GH, that is just the board power consumption from the advanced page. Obviously with cntl board and fans it will be consuming more though, but still....... It could be that for some reasons using 4 VRM lead to a more efficient setup in term of power consumption. just a wild a guess though. |
|
|
|
got my second one running, buzzing noise also, but not as bad as the other.
271, 760/750GH 1.3%overall HW 780w power between the 4 boards.
when i was testing them all individually as mentioned in my previous post, i had some running at 190GH with 0.03% HW, i cannot repeat this with multiple boards.
so maybe the controller board is the bottleneck. did you try to tweaks SPI freq and voltage? |
|
|
|
I have inspected what the November firmware has actually changed.
What I can see it has changed a value in one of the registers in the VRMs. It has set the "ON" bit in the OPERATIONS register,changing what conditions are needed to turn the VRMs on.
This change will be permanent even if rebooted or power-cycled. It can be changed using i2c commands:
Turn all VRMs on:
#!/bin/sh
# Stop SPI poller
i2cset -y 2 0x71 2 0
for b in 3 4 5 6 7 8 ; do
for d in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ; do
i2cset -y $b 0x1$d 1 0x80 >/dev/null 2>&1
done
done
Restore to factory settings:
#!/bin/sh
# Stop SPI poller
i2cset -y 2 0x71 2 0
for b in 3 4 5 6 7 8 ; do
for d in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ; do
i2cset -y $b 0x1$d 1 0x0 >/dev/null 2>&1
done
done
I suggest stopping cgminer before doing this to limit the power when the operation is done.
Reading the datasheet for the VRMs I can see that when using them in pairs (as we do when all are turned on) there are some requirements on how they should be turned on. This method does not do that!
I have heard that hizzing sound as well. Some boards do that. They did that on 0.90 firmware too. No idea why.
I do not know if this is safe or not, it might be unsafe and burn your boards.
amazing findings! kudos. Next time I'll go to my "mining facility" I'll give it a try for sure. ps this one of the more knowledgeable thread I've ever found on btctalk |
|
|
|
Smartphone Kill Switch Could Become Federal LawOn Thursday, US Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) introduced national legislation to require a way to disable smartphones remotely. The goal is to deter theft and protect consumers, but this defense against thieves might come with greater vulnerability to hackers, according to a mobile industry trade group. WITH CELL PHONE THEFTS SURGING, KLOBUCHAR, MIKULSKI, BLUMENTHAL, HIRONO INTRODUCE LEGISLATION TO REQUIRE A “KILL SWITCH” ON SMARTPHONES TO DETER THIEVES, HELP PROTECT CONSUMERS [from themselves.] The way I see it, this comes from the school of never-let-a-crisis-go-to-waste, in this case, blame thieves who've taken advantage of idiot consumers to advance an agenda. Make no mistake, next are all internet-connectable devices, the same devices currently used to remit payment freely, i.e. Bitcoin. ~TMI BTCITW It's already here. read this: http://www.osnews.com/story/27416/The_second_operating_system_hiding_in_every_mobile_phoneI'm not aware of any commercial phone available where the baseband processor OS is opensource. That's the reason why everyone mustn't install any wallet software on their smarthphone. Once you gain control of the baseband processor you gain root on main OS. |
|
|
|
Most of you ridiculed me
I'm not. I was right.. 100$ and below by tomorrow....watch, wait..its too late... I must retreat now... prepare.
Maybe you're referring to Gox price? |
|
|
|
no kraken is US as far as i know.
You're right I was confused by the fact they include also KRW in their exchange pairs. Just for the record, from their "Contact" page: Payward, Inc.
548 Market Street #39656
San Francisco, CA 94104-5401
|
|
|
|
Interesting! Lots of focus on consumer protection when using exchanges: maybe the next big exchange will be in New York. Maybe Kraken who didn't even pause when the mutability FUD hit? Lots of juice and some worrying stuff but quite a lot of apparently reasonable thinking and a few very refreshing bits: 21:01 24:01 Highly advisable to hear the whole thing! Also, he states they are open to public dialogue and they read blogs and what not. Pay attention and act if it affects you! Also, mtGOX out and Kraken in + big Bitcoin = one point less for the Yen one point more for the USD https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=461915.0 isn't Kraken Korean based? and more to the point it seems it is focused on EU market? though I have to say that I'm more than glad about how they dealt with the latest DDoS which use bitcoin tx malleability glitch. |
|
|
|
I wonder what percentage of the network hashrate is in homes, garages and backyard sheds and what percentage is in rental or owned commercial facilities as full fledged businesses.
dunno about hashrate distribution, but my gut feeling is telling that the trend is moving toward commercial facilities |
|
|
|
Gratz on 1GH/W. I was wondering how you did it until I realized it's 12x A1 chips per board. 210GH/12 = 17.5Gh per chip @ 1GH/W. For the guys asking about overclock 35GH per chip has been reached by Technobit Hex8A1, but you need 4500rpm fans and huge heatsinks. Potentially 12x 35GH x 5 = 2100GH but it would have to outside the case.  Correct math, but wrong assumptions. What has been shown on the video is a fully populated CoinCraft Desk, which has 5 boards with 8 chips each running at 800MHz and reaching 25GHps. That's exactly the 1THps you can see. The updated Rig board were added 2 chips to be able to provide the nominal hashrate with under-clocked chips. With that, the chips can run below 700MHz, resulting in controllable system temperatures As for the over-clockabilities in general: with extreme cooling I pushed the chip to 1.15GHz / 36.8GHps (47%+). For that, the voltage needs to be raised from 0.85 to 1.1V, resulting in the degradation of power efficiency of 0.7J/GH to over 2J/GH - which is in line with the expectations based on physics (consumption proportional to (clock^2 * voltage)). Bottom line: while chips are over-clockable as advertised, do not expect to reach the full potential with the CoinCraft products. For one, getting 50% more hashrate requires 3x more power - which the PSU is not dimensioned for; consequently for the other you can not get 3x more heat out of a closed box unless you submerge it or live close to the poles. For those who ordered the CoinCraft rig with extreme overclocking in mind, I frankly tell you to better expect max 20% above nominal speed. You might top that if you modify cooling and power yourself, but then Bitmine's turnkey products that plug-and-mine are maybe not the right choice for you. I find that the WU (work utility) value reported on cgminer is very low once the avg hasrate has been taken into account, I would expect at least something higher than 10K/m. Am I missing something obvious? |
|
|
|
1GHz baby!
I accidentally managed to turn on all 8 VRMs on my old 8VRM Jupiter.
Since they were all on and we can control the voltage with the tuning firmware I decided to try some more overclocking.
When running these with all VRMs on they have a base voltage of about 0.9V, so it had to be lowered in the advanced tuning page to get a reasonable voltage. -0.5V works fine.
Currents and temperatures are reasonable.
Total power consumption on the inside of the VRMs is 850W. I guess that will be 950-1000W at the wall. Since my PSU is only 1050W I do not dare to go higher.
The November units will be crazy once you get the tuning FW!
Very good. A few quest: - are you able you able to turn on all the vrms at will? If yes how? - what oc settings are you using? - any mod to get better cooling? |
|
|
|
GMaxwell (Core #Bitcoin dev): It is exceptionally unlikely that malleability will be fixed in the year
Just because malleability won't be fixed this year doesn't mean they can't mitigate these DDoS attacks through other ways. That made no sense unless you actually present a way to mitigate this by presenting a feasible course of action. Everything else is just hope and faith. The DDOS is due to the fact that most clients currently allow you to spend unconfirmed change outputs. There are already patches being worked which will allow the user to require at least 1 confirmation before spending change outputs. There are also patches being worked which will hide the duplicate transactions. Exchanges and service providers will still need to not rely on tx id as canonical proof of payment but they shouldn't be doing that right now anyways. Relying on tx id as confirmation of a withdraw won't result in a denial of service, it will result in the exchange being robbed. More info: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=460944.msg5089865#msg5089865Also not all services are halted. BitSimple is still operating, the malleability of tx id doesn't affect our processing engine at all. also kraken.com is uneffected |
|
|
|
Why not today’s Bitcoin? Because the digital currency of the future must choose between two mutually exclusive paths. It can either be anonymous, enabling black market transactions in the shadow economy, or it can be fully compliant with the growing body of know your customer, anti-money laundering laws that constrain global financial markets. A single digital currency cannot do both.
Because transferring cash between 2 persons is not an anonymous transaction.  is a fundamental property of any currency. All satoshis are created to equal. I think that customer's identity issue has to be dealt with at the payment level, a layer above btc core functionality. if you a few time to spare just listen to Adam Back interviewed by Andreas M. Antonopoulos. Among other things they they spoke about fungibility and other related topics. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
