All the transaction history of Bitcoin is all the way back to the genesis block. It’s more than 9000 copies located over 90 counties. Do you think it sounds much?
Bitcoin is incredibly redundant, so yes, it would likely survive a nuclear war. There are plenty of apocalyptic scenarios where the electric grid fails, though. In those cases, Bitcoin is as good as dead. In a world without stable electrical grids, tangible (non-digital) assets become much more useful. |
|
|
|
Is a 51% attack legal to do? Or is it illegal?
This attorney did a legal analysis and found that 51% attacks are illegal under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which could entail both criminal and civil penalties for the attacker. That's just the word of a lawyer, though. Until legal precedent is actually set in the courts, we can't be sure what would happen. |
|
|
|
It ain't my problem but I doubt the IRS will leave interpretations like that open. Like I said their wording is crap. I presume it's going to be tuned.
If they wanted to make it ambiguous they would have said "on the day of receipt." Instead, they were pretty clear: You have received the cryptocurrency when you can transfer, sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of it, which is generally the date and time the airdrop is recorded on the distributed ledger. A fork must be recorded on the distributed ledger before markets can determine fair value. That's just a fact. Arguing taxpayers are supposed to use some price from the future as taxable basis basically means the IRS didn't mean what they wrote. That's unlikely since the IRS strives to never violate its own sub-regulatory guidance. The fact that they specified "date and time" is very good for supporters of the $0 fair market value argument. According to the National Law Review: In this regard, the IRS stated that cryptocurrency received in a transaction facilitated by a cryptocurrency exchange, is valued as the amount that is recorded by the cryptocurrency exchange for that transaction in U.S. dollars.[10] However, if the cryptocurrency was received in a peer-to-peer transaction or some other type of transaction that did not involve a cryptocurrency exchange, the fair market value of the cryptocurrency is determined as of the date and time the transaction is recorded on the applicable distributed ledger, or would have been recorded on the ledger if it had been an on-chain transaction. As evidence of fair market value the IRS will accept the value as determined by a cryptocurrency or blockchain explorer that analyzes worldwide indices of a cryptocurrency and calculates the value of the cryptocurrency at an exact date and time. The people who really are in trouble are those who received exchange-issued "airdrops" after the fact and didn't report any income. They are doubly screwed because the exchanges have their KYC. |
|
|
|
Bitmain is super dependent on what Bitcoin's price does, which means that you can expect their stock to react to that quite perfectly on trading days. It will create plenty of new arbitrage opportunities for traders. It might even bring new traders to spot exchanges trying to exploit these arbitrage opportunities, and that translates into more liquidity.
It won't create arbitrage opportunities since it's a completely different asset, but it will follow Bitcoin price trends just like RIOT does. When RIOT switched their business model to Bitcoin mining and blockchain venture capital in October 2017, they outperformed the Bitcoin market by 100% through December. There are lots of investors who won't touch bitcoins but will want exposure through the stock market. I'm interested to see how Bitmain stock would perform in a 2017-like context. The share price gains could be quite exaggerated and out of touch with actual earnings. |
|
|
|
I doubt it. People now understand that bitcoin mining isn't necessarily something that will get you rich quick. These are mining hardware manufacturers, not merely miners. Bitcoin-related stocks can also sail pretty high just on the basis of greater fools and pure hype. Take the example of Bioptix, Inc. Their company and share price was in the dump, then in October 2017 they changed their name to Riot Blockchain, Inc. and began mining bitcoins and investing in blockchain companies. The price of RIOT went up 800% over the next two months. There are plenty of stock market investors who will seek out exposure to the Bitcoin markets this way. |
|
|
|
Yang Zuoxing, used to be an employee of Bitmain, one of their best engineers who help and design S7 and S9. And it was reported that he demanded Wu to have a stakes in the company in which Jihan declined. Yang left and then started his own company, MicroBT, and then releases their own bitcoin mining hardware Whatsminer.
Domestic intellectual property claims being enforced in China?! I've never heard of that before. If Bitmain can pick off their competitors like this, it really makes one wonder whether they have friends in higher places. I've always wondered to what extent Bitmain might be controlled by the PRC. Note: the link I posted above is in Chinese, I just used Google's translate.
Something did sound off about "block rhythm BlockBeats news."  |
|
|
|
Everyone was of believe that China withdrew itself completely, but it turned out to not be so at all. Cryptocurrency exchanges and ICOs are still prohibited in China. Major Chinese miners like Bitmain are still preparing for the worst, distributing their infrastructure to North America and Europe. Meanwhile, it's not clear what the Chinese government is even talking about. They are apparently launching a central bank coin and praising "blockchains." Yet, I don't see anything in support of Bitcoin or other decentralized cryptocurrencies or about lifting the market restrictions, so I'm skeptical. |
|
|
|
I was just wondering if one day it would be possible for cryptos such as Bitcoin (BTC) OR Ethereum (ETC) to become mainstream one day for people to use for day to day transactions on a daily basis. Because I heard that the people in Zimbabwe with their economic difficulties use cryptocurrencies as a means of trade.
Would the world adopt cryptocurrency as a means of transaction, what do you guys think?
The reports of Bitcoin fever in Zimbabwe this summer were no doubt exaggerated. As for the future of day-to-day transactions, I expect Bitcoin fees to rise over the years to compensate for its falling inflation rate. As such, on-chain transactions will become too expensive and uneconomical for your daily coffee and grocery purchases. However, the Lightning Network, sidechains, or cheaper altcoins with lower security could be perfectly economical for low value transactions. So, we'll probably be using protocols other than Bitcoin for most of our day-to-day transactions. |
|
|
|
What would be your thoughts about China spending $2 billion on blockchain in 4 years from now? What would be the possible effect in the cryptocurrency market? This spending has very little to do with cryptocurrency. The mantra "blockchain, not Bitcoin" comes to mind: In the current year, the majority of blockchain spending focused on the banking sector. Elsewhere, the manufacturing, professional services, and retail industries also attracted funds for DLT projects.
According to Xue Yu, a researcher at the IDC and author of the latest report, the official recognition of blockchain will push adoption and drive spending growth in the sector.
Interestingly, this morning, Bitcoin made the headlines in Xinhua, a publication backed by the Chinese government. Nevertheless, the article, titled ‘Bitcoin: The First Successful Application of Blockchain Technology,’ doesn’t praise cryptocurrency. As such, it's difficult to say what effect (if any) this will have on the cryptocurrency market. |
|
|
|
I'm still a newbie and I'm confused.
Bitcoin halving is expected in May, 2020. From what I've been reading about halving, it seems that it should have a positive effect on any crypto coins pricing.
Today I read about Litecoin/LTC halving on August 5, 2019 and the halving effect after three months is negative, it's down 30% since the halving.
Is that also what can be expected of the Bitcoin halving?
To an extent, probably yes. Upcoming halvings are usually seen as a psychological reason to buy or hold. Once they're over, the hype is gone. You can't view Litecoin's post-halving decline in a vacuum, though. From the start of 2019 to late June, it rose 390% in price. A correction was inevitable. Given that these heights were reached just several weeks before the halving, it's no surprise that price declined so much afterwards. |
|
|
|
The stock-to-flow model predicts that the price will increase exponentially to infinity. Not only is that impossible, but the price is already diverging from the model. If you look at a price graph, you can see that the price is increasing exponentially, but you can also see that the price is starting to flatten out. That is the opposite of what the model predicts.
I agree that the model doesn't work at the margins -- the returns should eventually diminish. However, I don't think we have enough historical price data to say it's diverging from the model yet. What if we are following a normal probabilistic distribution, as the technology adoption life cycle is often viewed? That would mean we haven't yet experienced the steepening curve where adoption crosses the chasm between "early adopter" and "early majority." At that point, price could accelerate beyond the stock-to-flow model's projection before reversing back below. Like any regression model, price should be expected to stay at the lower end some of the time. |
|
|
|
It is 2019, there are climate protests nearly every day all around the world. Meanwhile bitcoin is consuming more energy than a small country Two things to keep in mind: First, consider that Bitcoin mining largely runs on clean/renewable energy sources like wind, solar and hydropower: CoinShares says bitcoin network gets 74.1 percent of its electricity from renewables, making it “more renewables-driven than almost every other large-scale industry in the world.” Second, power stations always generate electricity beyond real demand to maintain grid reliability. Industrial Bitcoin miners can and do make load balancing agreements with power generators to consume already-generated electricity at discounted prices. A non-zero portion of the hash rate is not increasing net electricity consumption. |
|
|
|
As the report notes, the Russian government is working on developing a legal means of seizing virtual assets, and it has called on agencies such as the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Justice Ministry, among others. With the participation of the Russian Supreme Court, all of these agencies are expected to develop a mechanism of seizing these assets by Dec 31, 2021. Bizarre -- I never imagined this would be an issue, in Russia of all places. The US government never hesitated to seize Ross Ulbricht's bitcoins after the Silk Road bust. They just followed the typical process for seizing and liquidating any assets associated with criminal activity. I'm surprised there aren't similar processes in place in Russia. And now it's still going to take them 2+ more years to develop them? Another law to give the corrupt police more authority to steal money from others. While some of you may see this as a positive, because the law has now the right to confiscate stolen goods, it also gives them the right to do it on false pretenses.
Corrupt police would just steal your cryptocurrency anyway, same as cash. That's the status quo today, and it will be no different after these legal mechanisms are developed. |
|
|
|
Of course, Tether would push back and say that. Granted, they were obviously going to dispute the study no matter what, but I think they make some strong points: As an example of one of many deficiencies, the authors openly admit they do not have accurate data on the crucial timing of transactions or the flow of capital across different exchanges. This critical lack of information means they are unable to establish a valid sequence of events through which the alleged manipulation could have happened. It's rather insulting that the authors would conclude that a single trader caused the 2017 price surge -- they don't have data that even begins proving that theory. I'm amazed that these professors would publicly discredit themselves like this. They must have been paid an exorbitant amount of money. Their conclusions are obviously intended to be taken purely on their academic authority, not on the merits of their study. |
|
|
|
Read between the lines folks  FBI director predicts the MOON  That's how it should be reported, don't you think? That's what they're implying, yes! They see that cryptocurrency usage is continually growing, and they expect that trend to continue. It's obviously not just being adopted by speculators but by anyone who needs to move money. As the Bitcoin network becomes increasingly valuable and liquid, it becomes increasingly useful for money laundering. Naturally, terrorists are adopting it as well -- just like they did with Paypal and similar services. |
|
|
|
Mow postulates that Zhan's removal was executed without investor or shareholder approval "because the change was messy."
Wu had warned Bitmain staff from interacting with Zhan, saying, "Any Bitmain staff shall no longer take any direction from Zhan, or participate in any meeting organized by Zhan. Bitmain may, based on the situation, consider terminating employment contracts of those who violate this note."
The warning to employees in addition to a series of seemingly rushed appointments following Zhan's departure has led Mow to "feel that a #BitmainCivilWar is just starting." This looks really messy! I feel like we're missing some crucial pieces of this story. If the move didn't have shareholder approval -- and Zhan is apparently the single largest shareholder at 37% ownership -- what the hell was Jihan Wu thinking? That Zhan would just quietly walk away? I think this is good for bitcoin.
The more bitman fights between themselves, less mining centralization.
Agreed there, although I would have preferred to see Jihan Wu ousted. Of the two, Zhan always seemed like the voice of reason. |
|
|
|
The talks about funding terrorists again, yet they ignore the fact that a large chunk of these terrorist groups' funding are fulfilled by USD using bank and wire transfers. They aren't ignoring that at all. For decades, Homeland Security and other agencies have been focusing on more conventional payment rails. Earlier this year, UniCredit Bank and the Treasury Department settled for $611 million over terrorist sanctions violations. This stuff happens all the time. Paypal reached a similar settlement with them a few years ago. For years, law enforcement agencies have been saying that Bitcoin is too small to be a threat. That opinion is beginning to change now. |
|
|
|
If the mining activity does not amount to a trade, the value (at the time of receipt) of any cryptoassets awarded for successful mining will generally be taxable as miscellaneous income, with any appropriate expenses reducing the amount chargeable.
If the miner keeps the awarded assets, they may have to pay Capital Gains Tax or Corporation Tax on chargeable gains when they later dispose of them. So, there is a room for a bit of mining avoiding taxes while keeping a low profile, especially since there will be no VAT on crypto sales. Is there a "trade" or "self-employment" tax in the UK that hobby miners are able to avoid? They still appear to be liable for taxes on mining receipts as ordinary income, plus capital gains tax if they benefit from appreciation. This means that any Corporation Tax legislation which relates solely to money or currency does not apply to exchange tokens or other types of cryptoasset. For example:
the foreign currency rules (section 328 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009)
the Disregard Regulations relating to exchange gains and losses (Statutory Instrument 2004/3256)
designated currency elections (section 9A of the Corporation Tax Act 2010) What exactly are the implications of this for Bitcoin traders? |
|
|
|
But what if it's a totally new service, what would pull you over the line of trusting them/joining their site?
Nothing. I wouldn't go anywhere near it no matter what unless it involved amounts and information I didn't care about going up in smoke. That's the right attitude. There's no need to be the guinea pig when new services launch. Let other more reckless people do that. I've seen too many incompetent operations and outright scams in this space to take unnecessary risks like that. |
|
|
|
Why do you trust some website/company with your bitcoins?
Let's say a bitcoin casino, what makes you deposit bitcoin?
Is it the provably fair? Does it mean you trust a site when the game is fair?
Is it the looks of the site? The amount of users there are? If there is an open chat where you can see active users?
Or something else that doesn't have a game that's fair, for example a bitcoin exchange, how do you trust them?
Overall: What makes you trust bitcoin related services?
Reputation, reputation, reputation. Why trade at "EXX" or "Bilaxy" when you could trade at Binance? However, I don't trust any service. Even the most reputable services get hacked, or might lock your account and freeze funds under the guise of AML/KYC concerns. That doesn't mean I never use centralized services, but suffice to say: You should minimize the amount of money you put at risk and the amount of time it stays deposited, no matter what. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
