I am surprised to see mempool.space here in bitcointalk . Anyway, welcome!
My question is : can you synchronise mempool.space to the blockchain.com Explorer? I actually sent Bitcoin from my blockchain wallet and mempool.space was unable to detect the transaction. This is weird. The transaction ID is 42105820754888a816820be27bd8670b5789e82ffd9f88cb68446c1afe414fa9
. The link on blockchain Explorer is
blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/42105820754888a816820be27bd8670b5789e82ffd9f88cb68446c1afe414fa9
. When I search for it on mempool.space, it shows transaction not found.
your transaction pays 16sat/b however mempool.space has a "no priority" minimum of 20sat/b meaning their mempool purged your transaction but blockchain.com did not purge it and still sees it as pending Ok. I can agree with you on this. However, during that period, the fees were high but now, the fees are relatively moderate and with the same amount today as fees, the transaction should be confirmed. In my own opinion, the transaction should be detected by mempool at least. This is unfair. I have sent fees of 10 sat/byte and mempool.space detected it. your tx wont confirm fast because currently (2 hour ago) fastestFee: 27 sat/vB halfHourFee: 25 sat/vB hourFee: 23 sat/vB economyFee: 20 sat/vB fees of 23sat/b took hour+ so you have to wait and hope your transaction out of the many that also pay 16sat/b get picked up also mempools detecting it does not mean MINING pools pick it up. especially if there are megabytes of other transactions 17sat/b+ waiting ahead of you.. even though SOME mining pools selectively choose a couple transactions outside of "highest first" policy. to appear helpful. would make those couple transactions of lesser fee just pot luck getting ahead of the queue.. not a policy that guarantees you getting added any time soon put it this way.. right now https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#BTC,2h,weightthere are about 50mb of transactions ahead of yours ~4mb a block means 12 blocks of transactions paying 17sat/b before getting to yours and if everyone even in last couple hours pays more then 17sat/b it then treats the 17sat/b+ more priority even if your transaction is 10 hours old, but their 17sat/b is 2 minutes old, they come first(in usualy highest fee first) policy |
|
|
|
[...]
i could go on..
point being. when being recognised as forms of currency of different levels, new regulations and conditions apply
[...]
I agree with all of that. I'm not sure what any of this has to do with making Bitcoin the second legal tender currency in the USA though. legal tender status is yet another category to all those listed in my previous which incorporates even more legislation/regulation however, as a separate debate your incessant rants about "force" are exaggerated and can be proven exaggerated should you dare go on a flight with airmiles or buy products using loyalty points. you are not forced to use legal tender and only legal tender, else that would mean bitcoin would not have been open and "not illegal" in 2009-2013 if people were forced to use only legal tender, then any other non legal tender would have been banned and illegal by default there is no legislation that bans anything not recognised as legal tender. banks/courts/IRS prefer legal tender and account/audit in legal tender and request/measure peoples income and gains in such. however even they can seize PROPERTY to settle debts, should you not have the legal tender they request
the whole "pro" talk of make bitcoin legal tender is about allowing banks to directly custodianise bitcoin and offer deposit/withdrawal accounts in bitcoin. allow court fines to be measured in bitcoin and allow taxes to be directly paid in bitcoin.. (i see no benefit/pro, as its just way for institutions to take bitcoin more easily and own it) the "con" of making bitcoin legal tender is more legislation, regulation and rules about who how when and where people can use it EG only able to withdraw X from atm. only allowed to transact Y before KYC even at citizen level. as well as deeper rules about miners and transaction format features |
|
|
|
With this move you are not holding crypto at all... you are holding ETFs... is important to mention that FBTC (Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund) is not Bitcoin, and you are not holding the keys of those coins. But as an investment is not a bad move at all. Right now the price is $39.58 and it could have a massive jump in the next months. So, good luck with your investment.
Not sure if I got you right, but the ETFs hold real Bitcoins. Although you do not actually own the actual keys, the physical share of Bitcoin within the ETFs is in principle yours, even if you can never transfer them to your wallet. The issue is that now you are trusting that a third party is actually holding that amount of bitcoin instead of holding that amount yourself, and we know that those third parties have a horrible record when it comes to that, so anyone that is serious about owning bitcoin needs to go through the trouble of creating a wallet, buy bitcoin and send that bitcoin to their wallet, I know that this includes additional steps but it is way better than to rely on someone else. no you do not have ownership rights of BTC as a ETF share holder. the sponsor (fidelity) owns the coins they are the sponsor that bought the coins and locked them up share holders just have partial voting right of the fidelity trust that trades as a company/trust fidelity can in their sole discretion de-peg the share:coin comparison(share dilution/spread/etc).. fidelity can go bankrupt and can "close out" its fund the SEC made it clear. there is not "in-kind" redemption.. only "in-cash" which is based on the NAV, which can tank and de-peg should the trust have profitability issues |
|
|
|
|
under fidelity FBTC the OP does not own a share of BTC
he owns a share of a fidelity company share. he cannot redeem that share for actual BTC. he has no ownership rights of actual BTC
however yes using the 401k method to own shares EXPOSED to bitcoin PRICE. means he gets the exact same ups-down of the market movements, with for him the upside that he can purchase exposure amounts at a discount due to pre-tax share purchasing. and tax free selling of shares
but its still worth stating the OP does not have ownership rights over actual bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
I'm not the one that stayed on the network that has the original ticker and still think that btc is bitcoin . I went to the network that works according to how i think bitcoin should work , how bitcoin was meant to be , as an electronic cash system . You just stay in btc and complain because you think that bitcoin is just a ticker . We can both have our opinions . Time will prove who's wrong and who's right . Seems that both of us are not young so i hope we will have the time to see the result .
bitcoin is not just a ticker.. you suggesting that people think bitcoin is just a ticker, reveals more about your misunderstanding of the whole economics, utility and functionality of what makes bitcoin, bitcoin heres the thing though even your beloved BSV leader is in court suggesting his BSV is not bitcoin.. because he wants something from BTC. thus even he thinks BTC is bitcoin because instead of just editing BSV to steal "satoshi stash" and get what he wants.. he wants BTC "satoshi stash" because he admits BTC is bitcoin (he pretends to be bitcoin creator and pretend bitcoin was stolen from him) also he isnt chasing after the other hundred forks.. not even BCH because he doesnt believe any of them are "bitcoin" but just airdrop altcoins oh and time has proven BTC is bitcoin.. goodbye |
|
|
|
I am surprised to see mempool.space here in bitcointalk . Anyway, welcome!
My question is : can you synchronise mempool.space to the blockchain.com Explorer? I actually sent Bitcoin from my blockchain wallet and mempool.space was unable to detect the transaction. This is weird. The transaction ID is 42105820754888a816820be27bd8670b5789e82ffd9f88cb68446c1afe414fa9
. The link on blockchain Explorer is
blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/42105820754888a816820be27bd8670b5789e82ffd9f88cb68446c1afe414fa9
. When I search for it on mempool.space, it shows transaction not found.
your transaction pays 16sat/b however mempool.space has a "no priority" minimum of 20sat/b meaning their mempool purged your transaction but blockchain.com did not purge it and still sees it as pending |
|
|
|
in march 2013 when the US treasury wrote legislation that bitcoin was recognised as currency(but not legal tender status), this allowed the FINcen/FATF(financial action task force) to gain traction writing conditions of use of bitcoin on businesses that accept bitcoin, whereby they needing register as money service businesses to KYC their customers under regulations such as the BSA(bank secrecy act).. this started the ability to then write more regulations over the years The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) is issuing this interpretive guidance to clarify the applicability of the regulations implementing the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) to persons creating, obtaining, distributing, exchanging, accepting, or transmitting virtual currencies.1
Such persons are referred to in this guidance as “users,” “administrators,” and “exchangers,” all as defined below.2 A user of virtual currency is not an MSB under FinCEN’s regulations and therefore is not subject to MSB registration, reporting, and recordkeeping regulations. However, an administrator or exchanger is an MSB under FinCEN’s regulations, specifically, a money transmitter, unless a limitation to or exemption from the
definition applies to the person
in march 2014 when the IRS recognised bitcoin as property currency(asset) (a subclass of "currency" thats not legal tender) this then made bitcoin treated as currency but not legal tender. so employees receiving wages in bitcoin need to declare it for income tax (much like americans have to declare foreign income not treated as legal tender in the US) In some environments, virtual currency operates like “real” currency -- i.e., the coin and paper money of the United States or of any other country that is designated as legal tender, circulates, and is customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the country of issuance — but it does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction.
..
The notice provides that virtual currency is treated as property for U.S. federal tax purposes. General tax principles that apply to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency. Among other things, this means that:
Wages paid to employees using virtual currency are taxable to the employee, must be reported by an employer on a Form W-2, and are subject to federal income tax withholding and payroll taxes.
Payments using virtual currency made to independent contractors and other service providers are taxable and self-employment tax rules generally apply. Normally, payers must issue Form 1099.
The character of gain or loss from the sale or exchange of virtual currency depends on whether the virtual currency is a capital asset in the hands of the taxpayer.
A payment made using virtual currency is subject to information reporting to the same extent as any other payment made in property.
in 2015 when the US CFTC recognise bitcoin as a commodity currency(another subcategory of "currency" thats not legal tender) they stating that to be a commodity exchanger bitcoin futures businesses who wanted to futures/derivatives trade needed to register first as commodity exchanges.. Virtual Currencies Such as Bitcoin are Commodities Section 1a(9) of the Act defines "commodity" to include, among other things, "all services, rights, and interests in which contracts for future delivery are presently or in the future dealt in." 7 U.S.C. § 1a(9). The definition of a "commodity" is broad. See, e.g., Board ofTrade ofCity ofChicago v. SEC, 677 F. 2d 1137, 1142 (7th Cir. 1982). Bitcoin and other virtual currencies are encompassed in the definition and properly defined as commodities.
i could go on.. point being. when being recognised as forms of currency of different levels, new regulations and conditions apply because of the 2013 recognition as currency. this then activated the BSA jurisdiction. which then conditioned usage.. whereby by recognising it as a currency instead of just property(like pokemon cards, cars, art) bitcoin using businesses could not then swap openly. they could not offer ETF/(spot or futures) unless later regulations then allowed that functionality. its also worth noting that due to 2015 classification as commodity allowed futures ETF. but not spot its also worth noting that due to 2024 classification as security allowed spot ETF its also worth noting due to commodity classification it allowed other agencies to get involved like the EPA and EIA(environmental protection and energy information agencies) wanting to survey bitcoin miners about who they are, where they are and what miners they have, how many, how its powered, who powers it, etc |
|
|
|
as for you saying that it deminishes others.. well yes el salvador does treat the rupee, pound, yuan, peseta peso as a lesser currency. and yes COURTS, BANKS, TREASURIES wont accept fines, taxes in rupee, pound, yuan, peseta peso..
but its not about forcing C2B B2B C2C to only use legal tender.... else in 2009. bitcoin would have been banned right from january 2009 by default if legal tender was as you describe
For the umpteenth time, "legal" is not the same thing as "legal tender". I know they share a word, but they are not the same thing. Bitcoin is legal in the USA and in most countries. It is de jure, but not de facto legal tender in El Salvador and nowhere else. YOU are the one combining terms "not illegal" is SEPARATE to being LEGAL you keep thinking they mean the same thing being legal means there is legislation not illegal means NO legislation to stop it bitcoin 2009-2013 was not illegal because there was no legislation stopping it. much the same with many things that have no legislation involving it learn the difference as for legal tender that is something separate again. requiring further legislation AND REGULATION i have told you this before, that the legal tender status is above legal status legal tender status is a HIGHER status. its about the bank, court, treasury custodial and service acceptance you really should get out and explore more. i have already challenged you twice to experiment in the real world a. go to retailers or services that do loyaltypoints/airmiles and realise businesses are not forced to only accept legal tender b. go to retailers and see many that are not forced to accept all denominations/forms of legal tender. (places that only accept cash, places that only accept debit card, places that refuse cash and coinage... businesses can choose) ... the arguments of bitcoin and legal status have not just been about legal tender or not over the years many changes of status have occurred incurring more and more legislation and regulation(more ways in which governments are clawing at the edges digging their jurisdictional grounds into aspects of bitcoin economy) 2009-2013 - no legislation, no regulation. bitcoin was freely open to be used how ever by whomever due to no legislation. thus not illegal 2014-2016 - legally recognised as currency by some countries(us, eu, etc) (not legal tender, just currency recognition.. there is a difference) 2016-now - commodity/asset category, means extra regulation jurisdictions added 2017-now - some countries legally banned it(china, etc) making it illegal. via making legislation to call it illegal in el salvador, people are not FORCED to pay everything in bitcoin. banks are not forced to make their customers deposit in bitcoin nor forced to accept bitcoin as withdrawals government dont force citizens to pay taxes in bitcoin(especially if people dont have bitcoin).. people can CHOOSE. however if people have bitcoin or fiat(both legal tender) they have to account and pay taxes/debts of the acquired value they have in those forms. |
|
|
|
Day four
Day four has now concluded. As usual Craig has been blaming everyone but himself for the forgeries. He admitted today that several documents are in fact fraudulent, but passed the buck onto disgruntled ex-employees who are trying to make him look "incompetent".
not surprised at all, not first time he played this trick knowing that millions of legal costs are at risk. i would not even be surprised if he paid off a loyal fan girl to play disgruntled to later say they messed with CSW files. again not first time he pays people to play act a bit of drama to push his agenda |
|
|
|
|
there are many layers as to why people find it difficult to save
a. they dont see how even saving $1 helps so they dont bother saving anything
b. they have never felt "bottom" and too used to their level of lifestyle and dont want to change
c. their ambitions are too high to see direction to achieve even a step closer to ambition
d. their upbringing, (social/cultural/schooling) never taught them about budgeting/economics
e. consumerism is taught, DIY/homecooking/self repair is not taught
alot of kids were raised to just expect to ask parents for money for no chores done, no work. thus grow up expecting things to just be handed to them without effort. expect new clothes/gadgets on demand, expect funds to appear in their hands
when people do work. they set that as their "survival" amount. they always want more. they dont imagine going back to real basics of living on less and saving.
..
so heres a challenge for everyone reading this.
look at your local governments very basic unemployment social security payment amount. and set yourself a challenge to pretend you are this month unemployed and having to live on that low low income.
see what you need to do to make that low budget work for you. see how your grocery shopping habits change. see which entertainment costs/subscriptions suddenly feel less important. see if you start caring about lighting/heating being on 24/7. see if you branded clothing really mean that much to you
and then see if you really can save money/live within your means
|
|
|
|
|
i can understand parents wanting the best education for kids. but there should be some compromise.
it should not be a business/medical degree vs school drop out choice. it should be a compromise of a degree in fashion/design thus everyone is happy
|
|
|
|
el salvador made bitcoin legal tender. but does not force people to only use bitcoin.
Yes, but if forces people to accept bitcoin if a payer wants to settle a debt in that medium. El Salvador basically gave one technology procuct--Bitcoin--a duopoly along with their sovereign currency. go fly to el salvador.. you will soon realise that is not the case bitcoin being legal tender status there offers more choice I know it's not the case because they don't enforce their law: they can't, because it's a stupid law (or it was just put there so the country's leaders could profit from their Bitcoin holdings). And the government forcing you to do something you don't want to do is not "more choice" it's less choice. Like any government-granted monopoly, Bitcoin being given a special status will necessarily diminish other products that didn't get the benefit of the government's largess. It would be like the US making McDonald's the official fast food of the USA: this would screw-over Taco Bell, Burger King, and Wendy's, and everybody else who isn't McDonald's. highlight
el salvador still accepts USD as legal tender too
even if el salvador courts made a court order of a fine/debt repayment denominated in bitcoin. if the guilty party does not have bitcoin. he can still ask the court for a USD value and pay in USD
as for you saying that it deminishes others.. well yes el salvador does treat the rupee, pound, yuan, peseta peso as a lesser currency. and yes COURTS, BANKS, TREASURIES wont accept fines, taxes in rupee, pound, yuan, peseta peso.. but its not about forcing C2B B2B C2C to only use legal tender.... else in 2009. bitcoin would have been banned right from january 2009 by default if legal tender was as you describe |
|
|
|
el salvador made bitcoin legal tender. but does not force people to only use bitcoin.
Yes, but if forces people to accept bitcoin if a payer wants to settle a debt in that medium. El Salvador basically gave one technology procuct--Bitcoin--a duopoly along with their sovereign currency. go fly to el salvador.. you will soon realise that is not the case bitcoin being legal tender status there offers more choice however by bitcoin being legal tender status, comes with conditions such as its taxable(registering your earnings/acquisitions) .. highlight el salvador still accepts USD as legal tender too even if el salvador courts made a court order of a fine/debt repayment denominated in bitcoin. if the guilty party does not have bitcoin. he can still ask the court for a USD value and pay in USD |
|
|
|
Seems that me , franky and some others are too stubborn to let you poison the newbies with nonsense . Our common is that we love bitcoin even if we disagree on parts while you love anything other than it .
Those attempting to lure newbies into a cheap imitation of Bitcoin with scammy forks are the ones spreading poison. yep HmmMAA is promoting a scam coin but doomad promotes a different network too.. which has flaws, bugs, and bottlenecks. which for years have not been solved.. both people are as bad as each other.. both trying to compete to offramp people away from bitcoin. both wanting to ruin bitcoin with annoyances to promote their other networks they prefer |
|
|
|
Again, that's simply not what the term means. Please use Google to learn more about what this term actually means, or read about it in this thread.
This is the entire point of this thread: people are using the term, "legal tender" and not understanding what they are actually asking for. Please learn, and I think if people did learn it, they would stop using this phrase.
It's fine to ask for Bitcoin to be "legal" or even "regulated", but that's very different that a government forcing people to accept it which is what legal tender does.
no one is FORCED to only accept legal tender.. else bitcoin would have been outlawed by default/from the beginning if the only currency acceptable was legal tender no business is FORCED to accept legal tender as only currency i can without touching the US dollar in the US. Pound in the UK, yaun in China can pay for my flights in airmiles or other forms of payment legal tender puts a currency into the top valid status of common accepted currency which banks, courts, treasuries CAN accept/audit/account. but doesnt force people to pay using it force is about making it the only option. yes if there is only one legal tender. then courts, banks, treasuries will only want payment in that tender.. but its a different story to forcing everyone to only use one currency between each other and businesses legal tender is about the banks, courts and treasury acceptance even you can admit. retail stores can refuse to accept nickels and dimes. refuse to accept bank notes, only ofer products for debit/credit cards. and even refuse certain cards like american express.. .. and the opposite applies(refuse debit cards and only accept cash) businesses can even decide to only offer products in loyalty points. so its not enforced at B2C or C2B or C2C or B2B (Consumer Business) level the legal tender status is about reaching a HIGHER level of acceptance whereby banks, treasuries, courts CAN accept the currency the downside in the ability to be accepted comes with extra conditions.. and its the conditions we should be aware of .. el salvador made bitcoin legal tender. but does not force people to only use bitcoin. it just means that el salvador treasury can now accept bitcoin for taxes. el salv banks can custodianise bitcoin and offer services, accounts for bitcoin. el salv courts can accept bitcoin for court fines. retailers can accept bitcoin and pay its employees in bitcoin and still account/audit profits and losses in bitcoin the downside in the ability to be accepted comes with extra conditions.. and its the conditions we should be aware of you might want to read the BIS reports (banks of international settlement) right now banks cannot custodianise bitcoin and offer direct services, deposit accounts in bitcoin. but from jan 2025. they can start doing so.. but with conditions |
|
|
|
It could also be that they want to have control over miners so that they can mandate them to censor transactions which is a total attack on Bitcoin privacy.
miners have no hard drives, miners have no mempools. miners do not consolidate or choose transactions... miners just turn electric into SHA256 results so relax about that dont confuse "miners" with "mining pools" mining pools manage the nuances of creating block candidates filled with transactions.. not miners |
|
|
|
I don’t see or hear that anyone en masse asked the government to accept this as legal tender. Bitcoin was originally conceived for precisely a different reason, from user to user with its own internal market, bypassing banks and other financial elements.
At the moment, I have enough of everyone functions and I can easily exchange crypto for fiat money in my country, without notifying the government. Yes, they are trying to regulate everything and propose a legislative framework, but to be honest, this worries me very little for many years, I somehow managed without them.
In real life or social medias, people aren't really asking for that, but in this forum you will find there are a lot users especially newbies want Bitcoin to be accepted as legal tender when they're not even use Bitcoin frequently as a currency.  Imagine if Bitcoin is already accepted as a legal tender in their country, they won't use Bitcoin for paying something and they will give many excuses e.g. complicated, high fees, privacy concern etc. most institutions, even banks want bitcoin rules wrote into legislation/regulation as it then offers a barrier of entry whereby they can profit from it. they then use social media to get newbies to then promote it should be "mainstreamed" "tendered" using hooks like "it will make the price rise" and then newbies then without thinking of the ramifications, do the marketing for the institutions i prefered bitcoins openness, (lack of legislation) pre 2014. where it was not illegal(no legislation) and no conditions of use inferred by any government |
|
|
|
|
again OP keeps mixing the terminology
not illegal=no legislation either way thus no one says its not allowed
-this was bitcoins status 2009-2013, it was not banned it was not disallowed, it simply had no rules thus open to be used in anyway
- much like there is no pokemon card legislation. thus nothing against pokemon cards being traded, auctioned,
legal=there is legislation. and legislation is allowing it, but comes with some conditions of use, for things like financial services
- much like contracts being legally binding if there is written contract documentation
- this was the 2013+ of bitcoin when lobbying the "mainstreaming" campaigns of recognition legally
legal tender= extra regulations that allow banks, courts and government to custodianise and offer services
asset/commodity = when (in US) SEC/CFTC wrote regulations to recognise bitcoin. where by regulated businesses could get licences to custodianise and offer services
in none of the terms of legal, tender, or asset/commodity does it force services or institutions to accept the currency attining such status, its to allow them to accept it as equal to rules of other currencies they accept
..
however the attaining of such status means that conditions of use if accepting it then apply. meaning its not as open and free to play with in any which way services seem fit, they have to use it within the conditions set by legislation/regulation
|
|
|
|
As you know his opponents ( AVP , Lopp etc ) were saying that he doesn't even have diplomas . Does he give you that impression ? Do you think he is/was a forensics expert?
he wasnt a forensics expert heck he cant even forge his own documents correctly so doesnt know much about forensics to cover his own lies also when he created companies like "info defense"/"hotwire" he was not actually offering any real services. didnt even have a server farm of super computers, he was just creating shell companies scamming both the australian and american governments for R&D grants/tax rebates.. the american gov never gave him any money and his partner seen early the scam and stepped away. but he did manage to scam the australian government and got caught(and ran off) .. added note of future prospects of CSW drama CSW filed forged documents to australian gov over years and got caught.., however CSW and his then team then tried to suggest the documents he filed with australians gov were THEN edited where he blamed the australian government for falsifying/editing the documents.. so as i said in earlier post i expect him to later suggest he will say(probably, as its his style) that he had originals, but at filing someone else edited the files either an assistant of his at filing or the UK courts edited it at receipt and presented him at court with edited documents |
|
|
|
|
just buy miners fresh coin rewards
end of story
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
