I want to register at dsx.uk to buy btc for market price, I have to make a fiat deposit either via their card(epayments) or bank wire. Obviously this thing conforms to KYC regulations, which nobody likes. Suppose I submit fake documents, do you think I'll have troubles depositing to exchange with bank wire? Normally any financial service requires you to deposit from your own bank account, I'm not sure if exchange would check where money come from.
Don't involve yourself in any form of money transactions if you will just use fake documents. I mean, isn't it usual that KYC is always associated with any money transactions much especially to fiat transactions involving banks? Not necessarily. There are services in Europe that allow you to buy/sell bitcoins without KYC using bank transfers. The landscape is obviously changing, though. Not so long ago, Localbitcoins and Paxful were the go-to places for trading without KYC, and before that you could use BTC-e. |
|
|
|
My question is, unlike today when coins are initially pre-mined and then distributed through ICO, how was Bitcoin initially distributed?
I know about mining and I am aware of the fact that mining reward was 50 BTC initially which is the good way to distribute the supply but what actually miners were mining in the start? Who were doing the transactions? How does the initial ones get the Bitcoins in their wallet?
There weren't many transactions in the early days, mostly just miners mining coinbase rewards to themselves. Most blocks just had a single transaction -- the coinbase transaction. This is the first known peer-to-peer transaction, between Satoshi Nakamoto and Hal Finney. |
|
|
|
A possible trade-off would be to limit transaction amounts from unhashed public keys to few million USD per day.
That sounds like a real kludge. The idea probably wouldn't gain traction. Theoretically it's also not just unhashed public keys that are vulnerable, but all public keys as they currently exist. The solution seems rather binary to me. We either lock/destroy vulnerable outputs or we let them wreak havoc on the market. Whether the first option is ethical seems like an issue of time -- how long is long enough? We have some duty of care not to deprive people of their money, but does that entail going down with the ship? |
|
|
|
There are still some big questions hanging out there. The IRS mentioned nothing about like-kind exchanges in prior tax years, which many altcoin traders have been employing for years. It's also not clear what the IRS means by "control" -- if you have access to private keys but not the software to exercise control over forked coins, does that meet the definition? I already concluded that hard forks have zero value at creation, so it's not too comforting that Bitcoin.Tax seems unsure: What was not mentioned
Airdrop and forks generally have no markets when they are created, so is there a zero FMV? |
|
|
|
They seem to be referring to "airdrops" only as tokens credited by exchanges after a hard fork. What about "airdrops" of already existing cryptocurrency into public keys? I'm thinking of things like the weekly Bitsend airdrop that went on for years. I'm guessing that they'd get the same treatment as hard forks, but I was hoping they might qualify for bona fide gift treatment since technically they appear to fit the IRS definition of "gift." |
|
|
|
For example - If you held 2.5 Bitcoin in July of 2017, and received 2.5 Bitcoin Cash as a result of the bitcoin cash hard fork, you recognize this received 2.5 Bitcoin Cash as income at the fair market value of the bitcoin cash at the time it was received. If Bitcoin Cash was trading for $500 a piece that day, you would recognize income of $1,250 ($500 * 2.5). Your cost basis in this Bitcoin Cash becomes $1,250. It depends if you held your own keys or had bitcoins on an exchange. At the time of the fork, tokens had not yet been credited to exchange accounts, so price discovery hadn't begun. Therefore -- for keys you controlled -- the value at time of receipt was $0. If an exchange credited you with BCH, then it depends when you received them. For example, Bitstamp took almost two months to credit users. Those people won't be able to claim the income was zero. |
|
|
|
I was really freaked out when I first read the guidelines, but I'm glad Coincenter pointed this out: On the other hand, because the value of a coin is typically zero at the moment of a hard fork (given there are no markets yet), then the reportable income would be zero, in which case taxpayers may be incentivized to always hold their own coins rather than end up with new coins from an exchange only after markets have developed and the income event could actually be substantial. Since hard forks are valued at zero at the time of receipt, this actually seems like a positive development. It means if you ignore the hard forks, you never received any taxable income. And if you sell the fork coins, the taxes are really straightforward. |
|
|
|
Every single comment I've seen about this so far from everyone vaguely in the know is along the lines of - WTF? One of the most persistent points is that if these rules are the rules countless random strangers can drop tax bills on you like cluster bombs and you have no say in it. The most frustrating thing is the liquidity aspect. If you follow their guidelines to the letter, then a single overpriced trade at 0.00000001 BTC volume could result in billions of dollars in tax liability across the market. It's completely absurd. More than that, this could stick taxpayers with huge bills based on the value at fork time, but if the value plummets, those taxpayers will only be able to deduct $3,000 in capital losses. This could ruin people's lives if they honestly report these transactions. It would be one thing if they were treated like bona fide gifts, but if there are no standards and every token in existence is reportable based on the time of receipt, then this is incredibly screwed up. |
|
|
|
Most of them, wallets with exposed public keys, will migrate to the new scheme before the catastrophe and after the QC resistant fork. At the End of the day, we are left with a (tiny, IMHO) fraction of bitcoin wallets being abandoned by their owners for some reason, which I suppose less than 10% of them would have exposed keys and P2PKH addresses. My estimation is based on their current 25% ratio and the fact that such wallets are used to be more active compared to untouched wallets that are more suspicious to be abandoned. Those numbers are completely invented. If my time in this space has taught me anything, it's that most people are overwhelmingly careless about their security and don't keep up with Bitcoin development. One of the reasons a fork like this should be done over several years is because it'll take that long just for people to gradually update their nodes. If a QC broke Bitcoin tomorrow, no emergency fork could repair the harm done by today's key practices. This problem is compounded by the fact that quantum resistant signatures Like Lamport are extremely heavy, so we have incentive to delay a fork as long as possible: The size of Lamport public key and signature together is 231 times (106 bytes vs 24KB) more than the ECDSA public key and signature. I'm not sure what alternatives there are. |
|
|
|
OP,
I think there is and there will be no solution regarding funds in addresses with already exposed public keys in case of a QC cryptographic disaster. Such addresses are not too many thanks god. There are quite a lot, actually: At least 5M BTC is stored in outputs with known public key that I could identify, and there are probably millions more. I can't begin to verify the numbers but it sounds like 30-50% of the existing supply could still be vulnerable even if unused P2PKH addresses are safe. With that much loot on the table -- an amount that surpasses the entire global bid side many times over -- anyone with access to this powerful of QC would have incentive to crack and sell outputs as quickly as possible. |
|
|
|
Put me down for $9,050. I'm no trading guru, just a random guess.  |
|
|
|
I'm looking to rent my avatar and personal text space. I can also include the "website" space on my profile page. Terms:- Bitcoin payments only
- Upfront payment or escrow preferred
- Any agreement reached can be terminated by either party at any time
Please PM me with any offers. |
|
|
|
I wouldn't withdraw fiat from an exchange via a bank. So far I've only withdrawn Bitcoin to my own wallet. I have funded my Coinbase account using faster payment from my bank, and I am mildly concerned that that is on record.
What are you worried about? Should i Open business account to cash out crypto from Exchangers? That's a bad idea. Chase, Bank of America, and others are known to close business accounts that transact with exchanges. Do it from a personal account. |
|
|
|
I don't see why people still care about it after Bakkt being such a fail. Vaneck has launched a trust not that long ago, and it is a fail as well. Based on these institutions not generating volume, how well do you think an ETF would do? An ETF would be more accessible. For instance, average folks would have access through mainstream brokers -- probably for cheap, flat fees. It could also be packaged for IRA and pension investment at low cost. Years down the road, it could even be an option in your employer-provided 401(k) plan. By comparison, Bakkt and the Vaneck trust are for institutional investors only. I also don't think futures contracts are nearly as marketable as a long term investment. The only successful institution so far is CME with tens of thousands worth of BTC traded every day.... downside is that these are cash settled contracts and not actual BTC, so there is no positive impact on the market.
The CME market gradually built up that volume over the last couple years. Bakkt could follow a similar route. |
|
|
|
Now that LocalBitcoins is enforcing KYC, I'm looking for a good alternative to cash out crypto to my bank account. If you guys can post the platform/services you are using, that would be great. It would be nice to find something that works quickly, I don't want to wait weeks to get my money.
It depends where you're located. If you have access to the European SEPA system, you can cash out 5,000 Swiss francs equivalent per day without KYC documentation using the Edge wallet. You can respond to offers and trade up to $1,500 without verification on Paxful. I suppose you could create multiple unverified accounts to stay below the threshold. Bisq and Hodl Hodl are often mentioned as alternatives but the number of offers is lacking. You could also try the Currency Exchange board. |
|
|
|
Everyday I (and everyone else, knowingly or unknowingly) have to deal with basically someone trying to mentally rape the entire world market on binance and strangle it into buying bitcoin. I see the machine or team and how it strangles the price of bitcoin trying to force the price color to be green even when it's going down.
Literally every second people are forced into a borderline war by something that thinks its ok to strangle the price and try to "DISRUPT" (illegal/manipulation, cited in laws) the market. EVERY SECOND OF THE DAY something thinks its ok to strangle/screw with/force the price ticker of bitcoin to be green (even when it's going down). This is not ok and it's illegal. As a professional exchange I am certain Binance has the obligation to prevent something like this, but it has gotten worse and worse. What you're describing sounds like it could be typical bot activity. How does it negatively affect you? Binance's prices seem to be in line with the rest of the market. There may be serious legal consequences and I might begin demanding an explanation as to why people think this is ok to put up with anymore.
Using robots to commit crimes is still a crime. Even if it's a bot, it belongs to someone, and they need to really be charged for the crimes they're committing. What's the crime? Are they spoofing, wash trading, employing bear raids? |
|
|
|
Quantum-resistant cryptography already exists, so banks and other centralized institutions are in a much better position to recover.
With Bitcoin, we have much bigger problems. Simply switching to quantum-resistant signatures doesn't solve the issue because we can't force people to move their bitcoins to safe addresses. Something like 1/3 of the circulating supply is at risk -- quite possibly more -- due to key reuse, xpub sharing, pay-to-pubkey mining, etc. If a QC attacked Bitcoin in the wild, it would irreparably destroy faith in the currency based on that alone. I don't believe the same is true for banks.
People would be stupid not to move if the encryption was under threat and we could actually force them by requiring them to change addresses if all wallet software developers accepted this change. Forcing people to do things goes against the Bitcoin ethos. That's the crux of the problem. We could give people several years to move their bitcoins to quantum-resistant addresses before destroying them. Even that seems incredibly controversial based on these user reactions. Forget block size -- this is the real political issue of our day. |
|
|
|
Banks can freeze accounts, rewind, correct it.
And then the quantum owner does it again and again. The whole global economy would rapidly become a smoking ruin. Bitcoin would be the least of anyone's concern. Quantum-resistant cryptography already exists, so banks and other centralized institutions are in a much better position to recover. With Bitcoin, we have much bigger problems. Simply switching to quantum-resistant signatures doesn't solve the issue because we can't force people to move their bitcoins to safe addresses. Something like 1/3 of the circulating supply is at risk -- quite possibly more -- due to key reuse, xpub sharing, pay-to-pubkey mining, etc. If a QC attacked Bitcoin in the wild, it would irreparably destroy faith in the currency based on that alone. I don't believe the same is true for banks. |
|
|
|
Its already implemented
I'm sure they're already implementing Coinfirm's software, but they must be ignoring the FATF thresholds for now. I haven't seen any changes to their KYC verification tiers -- that's what matters. They're still allowing 2 BTC ($16,500) per day withdrawals with no verification or recipient info required. I wonder for how much longer... |
|
|
|
* Bitfinex and Tether’s liability to the putative class allegedly surpasses $1.4 trillion U.S. dollars
$1.4 trillion? That's completely insane. The RICO charge adds triple damages, so that's the brunt of it. Let's see if the courts actually allow it to move forward as a RICO case: Unfortunately for plaintiffs, there are onerous requirements for the complaint to show that there is enough evidence to allow the lawsuit to move forward as a RICO case. Judges take a dim view of efforts to turn what look like ordinary state law claims into federal cases by claiming a RICO violation. For that reason, RICO cases often don’t survive the pleading stage. [...] RICO lawsuits are tempting. They allow a plaintiff to sue a variety of defendants by claiming that they acted together and seek an award of triple damages, a bonanza in some business disputes that can run into millions of dollars. But these cases should also come with a bright red warning sign: Tread lightly or see your case thrown out of court before it even gets started. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/business/dealbook/harvey-weinstein-rico.html |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
