 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
|
мне тоже плз: 10004024352356008149. спасибо!
|
|
|
|
Solche Tauschgeschäfte müssen nur dann versteuert werden, wenn sie gewerblicher Natur sind.
Wir werden Bitcoins doch irgendwann auch geschäftlich nutzen wollen, nicht nur privat. |
|
|
|
now obelisk doesn't link: Making all in include/obelisk
make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/local/src/obelisk-git/include/obelisk'
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/local/src/obelisk-git/include/obelisk'
Making all in src
make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/local/src/obelisk-git/src'
/bin/bash ../libtool --tag=CXX --mode=link g++ -g -O2 -std=c++11 -o obbalancer balancer/balancer.o balancer/config.o -lobelisk -L/usr/local/lib -lbitcoin -lboost_thread -lboost_system -lboost_regex -lboost_filesystem -lpthread -lleveldb -lcurl -L/usr/local/lib -lzmq -lconfig++
libtool: link: g++ -g -O2 -std=c++11 -o .libs/obbalancer balancer/balancer.o balancer/config.o /usr/local/src/obelisk-git/src/.libs/libobelisk.so -L/usr/local/lib /usr/local/lib/libbitcoin.so -lboost_thread -lboost_system -lboost_regex -lboost_filesystem -lpthread -lleveldb /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libcurl.so /usr/local/lib/libzmq.so -lconfig++
/usr/local/lib/libbitcoin.so: undefined reference to `snappy::RawCompress(char const*, unsigned int, char*, unsigned int*)'
/usr/local/lib/libbitcoin.so: undefined reference to `snappy::RawUncompress(char const*, unsigned int, char*)'
/usr/local/lib/libbitcoin.so: undefined reference to `snappy::GetUncompressedLength(char const*, unsigned int, unsigned int*)'
/usr/local/lib/libbitcoin.so: undefined reference to `snappy::MaxCompressedLength(unsigned int)'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
make[1]: *** [obbalancer] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/local/src/obelisk-git/src'
make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
snappy is installed. |
|
|
|
|
Allerdings kann ich mir die Sache mit dem geldwerten Vorteil in der Praxis einfach nicht vorstellen, es ist geradezu absurd.[/quote]
Der Staat hat viele absurde Dinge in der Gesetzgebung. Ich befürchte eben, dass die dadurch das Bezahlen mit Bitcoins unendlich kompliziert machen können - ähnlich wie wenn ein Selbständiger seine Telefonkosten steuerlich geltend machen will, muss er zu jedem einzelnen Telefonat die Aussage machen, ob es geschäftlich oder privat war.
|
|
|
|
|
Das scheint mir merkwürdig, denn in diesem Fall hätte ich Anspruch auf MWSt.-Erstattung beim Kauf.
Ist es mit Gold auch so?
|
|
|
|
|
Nehmen wir an, ich kaufe Bitcoins, und gebe sie nach einem Monat online aus. Der BTC-Preis ist inzwischen um 10% gestiegen. Die Haltefrist von einem Jahr ist offensichtlich nicht ausgehalten. Die Frage: kann das Finanzamt mir das als Spekulationsgewinn anrechnen?
Wie ist das steuerlich gesehen mit dem Gold, wenn ich eine Goldmünze gegen Waren austauschen würde?
|
|
|
|
How exactly you can be sure about that?
Please read the whole discussion. We're arguing whether one will use bitcoins or not given its deflationary design. As far as I'm concerned, I'm gonna stay bullish as long as fiat policies continue same way as now. |
|
|
|
|
The merchants don't have to set prices in BTC. They do it in fiat, and BTC rate is applied at the moment of purchase. If I plan to spend $1000 this month, I just buy once 1 BTC from my monthly salary, and I can be sure that it will have at least that purchasing power (and probably more). Why leave it in fiat? Why not spend it, if I need to buy stuff anyway?
|
|
|
|
Please quote all the discussion, not what part you want.
Gladly. I was responding to this initial thesis which you quoted yourself: No one in their right mind is going to use BTC as a currency as long as they expect the value to keep rising.
Do you now agree or disagree? Will they use it despite deflation? |
|
|
|
I don't think that there are even 10 people with all their money in bitcoin.
It doesn't matter how much savings you hold in bitcoin. If you decide to limit your savings in BTC to 1% of all your fortune, fine. Now you can purchase a few more BTC for payments and then actually spend them. The argument was that nobody would spend bitcoins, because they go up in price. This argument contradicts to the idea of limited savings. |
|
|
|
No one in their right mind is going to use BTC as a currency as long as they expect the value to keep rising.
You know your cash will be worth less this time next year, thats the incentive to spend it.
In the 19th century, during the golden standard, there was a constant deflation. So what? Why spend gold and silver, if you can buy more for them next year? Because you need to eat today! Even now we have a deflation with a lot of things. Why buy a new smartphone now, if in 3 months it's gonna be much cheaper, and in 1 year it will fall to half its price? If bitcoin users have all their cash in BTC they will have to spend it some time. |
|
|
|
|
My concern is problems with mass adoption. There are strong incentives for merchants to accept bitcoins through services like bitpay (more profit at no risk). However, what are the incentives for the masses to buy and use them?
Here is my list of the strongest pros:
1. Protection against inflation.
2. More security: independence from the banking system and government interventions.
3. Fast and cheap money transfers to anybody around the globe.
And here is how my average fellow citizen sees it:
1. What protection against inflation you're talking about with such wild price volatility? I see the risk of loosing all my money!
2. Big brother is my friend! Big brother takes care of me! All my savings in the state banks are insured by the government (in Germany at least). While with bitcoins there are lots of technical risks which I don't fully understand.
3. Paypal or Visa is even more instant and convenient, I don't have to bother funding my account at all.
Thus I don't see currently what could motivate millions of ordinary people in the developed countries to use bitcoins in everyday life. Even the marginal groups like illegal immigrants will most likely be skeptical of it, especially given the traceability of their transactions.
Further, if mass adoption won't be coming within reasonable time, current investors will eventually start to exit bitcoin, which will crush the prices and undermine the credibility of the cryptocurrency.
This pessimistic scenario doesn't take other uses of bitcoin (such as international remittance market) into consideration. But unless mass adoption will happen, other uses will also remain limited - mostly because of massive price fluctuations.
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
So, you would have a direct financial incentive to do so, and no one would be able to stop you. This is the same thing that goes on with arbitrary banking fees worldwide, and the end user is powerless to stop the bank because they need to transact money. If you're sneaky enough about this you can do it under the guise of something like, "the PeerCoin network improvement fee that goes towards research, innovation, and development of the PeerCoin cryptocurrency." Exactly. But even if you don't indulge in such schemes, including a transaction in your block at high volumes will cost you (high) personal expenses, while the beneficiary will be general public. Some people will inevitably cheat in these conditions, trying to parasite on the rest of the network. It will inevitably lead us to the Tragedy of the Commons problem. A cryptocurrency architecture that relies on altruism while cheating can be beneficial to some extent, is far inferior to an architecture, where no egoistic behavior can ever gain you any benefit. I would not bet any significant fortune on the PPC because of this reason unless this aspect is fixed, and so would many other investors probably. Therefore I see not future for the PPC so far... |
|
|
|
Can you please explain the advantage of not including transactions into a block?
Sure. Visa currently processes 1,2 million transactions every 10 minutes. Assume we approached 10% of this volume. At an assumed average transaction size of 500 bytes, a block would have to be 60 Mb heavy. It requires a lot of computation power to verify every transaction and a lot of network resources to spread the block. So a few miners start to ignore some of the transactions. This will increase the load on the next blocks, creating even more incentive to exclude transactions, and so on. We will start to deal with the Prisoner's dilemma/Tragedy of Commons sort of problem here, with Nash equilibrium inclining miners towards NOT to include transactions. |
|
|
|
|
Thank you, but you're answering a different question. I see the beauty of PoS, this is exactly why I'm examining PPC as a possible investment.
There is indeed an incentive to create a PoS block and get rewarded (or rather not to loose 1% of your money).
There is however no incentive to include all known transactions in this block! Moreover, there is an incentive NOT to include the transactions, as their volume gets very high. How will PPC cope with this?
|
|
|
|
|
In peercoin transaction fees are not earned by the miner. In the absence of this incentive, what would prevent a miner from including only a few transactions in the new block when the transaction volumes become high?
|
|
|
|
|
PQCD82LtiJCgyVB9yf8hL5XghYFi5TFoVp
Thank you!
|
|
|
|
|
Wie würdest Du die Blase überhaupt definieren? Wenn es eine Marktsituation ist, bei der der Preis einer Ware ihren inneren Wert übersteigt, was wäre D.E. der innere Wert von Bitcoin? Bzw. wie kann man ihn bestimmen? Ohne diese Antworten wären sonstige Parameter von wenig Bedeutung. Es kann gut sein, dass der Preis sehr schnell wächst, einfach weil immer mehr Menschen mehr Wert in Bitcoin sehen.
Die größten Blasen der letzten Hundert Jahre (von der Großen Depression bis zu der letzten Finanzkrise) wären unmöglich ohne überproportionalen Einfluss von Zentralbanken auf die Marktsituation. Wenn die Fed auch an dem aktuellen Preisanstieg beteiligt ist, umso besser für Bitcoin )))
|
|
|
|
|
чаевые действительно направлены немного не на ту целевую группу. с другой стороны, по статистике сервиса конвертируют почти 40% купонов. очень много на самом деле, и совершенно неожиданно. это позволяет сделать несколько передположений:
- возможно многие официанты не тупые блондинки, а подрабатывающие студенты, которым интересно
- возможно официанты дарят купоны детям или кому-то другому, кому интересно
- возможно статистика хромает. уж очень она оптимистичная. не хочу без оснований разводить клевету, но что мешает автору сервиса записывать в свою пользу часть денег, которые не были истрачены в срок? или я могу отследить статус каждого отдельного купона по его номеру?
вывод: сервис прикольный и востребованный. однозначно стоит расширить его печатью не только чаевых, но и подарочных купонов (обязательно отслеживаемым по номерам и тегам). это позволит дарить больше денег (что повышает мотивацию ими воспользоваться), а также дарить более целенаправленно тем друзьям, кто станет этим заниматься.
|
|
|
|
|
