If you don't mind KYC and don't mind navigating scammers in the beginning, LBC's pretty all right. Localcryptos and Bisq though are where I'm looking to go, except volume is not so good, and that network of trusted users isn't there.
That goes to show why Coinbase is still so popular too. People go where the volume is. Plus, the first-mover advantage. Localcryptos has actually been improving a lot in that respect. In-person cash listings have exploded over the past couple months, at least where I'm located. It's not quite like LBC was in the old days, but it's getting there. I've made several new contacts recently. Paxful seems to be making a comeback too, possibly because they allow some volume of trading without KYC:  |
|
|
|
More than they could, i would say they will. And that's just because blockchain is more efficient than the current system they use to make transactions or to save money, What isn't clear yet is if they will use their own blockchains or if they will run under smart contracts.
I bet they will make their own closed permissioned blockchain, where the user won't get any kinds of benefit. This was the context. He was talking about decentralized finance: Tarbert said he is fascinated by decentralized finance (DeFi).
“When you think about the idea that at some point a large part of our financial system could very well exist in blockchain format, that’s also revolutionary,” he said. Years after the idea emerged, I am still baffled by the idea of permissioned blockchains. It's a gimmick. I don't see it lasting the test of time as a model. Most of the emerging projects in decentralized finance won't last the test of time, either. But unlike permissioned blockchains, I think there are potentially useful applications across a variety of sectors -- asset trading, asset title transfer and liquidation, secured lending, etc. I just don't know when we'll actually see mature, safe platforms in terms of contract reliability. While I like the global nature of decentralized finance, I also wonder about the legal implications when you start getting into things like securities and tokenization of assets, and what happens when things go awry, especially with things like asset liquidation. |
|
|
|
There is no information on whether the 9.500 customers that have had their personal data breached, have or have not been explicitly notified of this fact.
They specified this on Twitter: If you are part of the approximately 9500 customers whose detailed personal information - name surname, postal address or phone number - were accessed by the unauthorized third party you have been notified 30 minutes ago. I guess you can breathe easy if you haven't received an email specifying that you were part of the smaller breach. This is all very disappointing considering what Ledger is in the business of. This is yet another reminder -- don't reuse email addresses, and use P.O. boxes for sensitive purchases. |
|
|
|
Good luck trying to trace monero, grin etc. anonymous cryptocurrencies... Read this paper about Monero. You might be surprised. Prior to a fork in 2017, its privacy flaws were especially critical. Therein lies the problem -- blockchains are forever. Exploits found in the future could be used to deanonymize past transactions. |
|
|
|
Now that DeFi projects are on a roll, it looks like the SEC is trying to stand on their way again. What are your thoughts or opinions about this one guys?
The Abra case was very specific -- they offered markets for tokenized securities and foreign currencies, did not register this activity with the SEC or CFTC, and did nothing to stop customers in the US from investing. They did this in a completely centralized way too, so there could be no hiding behind decentralized protocols. In other words, the regulators went after the lowest hanging fruit they could find. To some extent, I'm sure regulators are watching De-Fi projects. It's inevitable given the amount of money flowing into them. It's not just the SEC or CFTC either. They pursued the Abra case because of the products being offered. Other De-Fi projects cover money transmission (FinCEN), lending (FTC)... The degree of decentralization will be a key factor. The SEC chairman confirmed last year that Ether was not a security despite its ICO beginnings. That suggests there is some wiggle room for companies that launch De-Fi protocols that become increasingly decentralized over time -- perhaps in line with Hester Peirce's safe harbor proposal. |
|
|
|
Does anyone have thoughts on this recently published paper? Flood & Loot: A Systemic Attack On The Lightning NetworkOne of the risks that was identified early on is that of a wide systemic attack on the protocol, in which an attacker triggers the closure of many Lightning channels at once. The resulting high volume of transactions in the blockchain will not allow for the proper settlement of all debts, and attackers may get away with stealing some funds.
This paper explores the details of such an attack and evaluates its cost and overall impact on Bitcoin and the Lightning Network. Specifically, we show that an attacker is able to simultaneously cause victim nodes to overload the Bitcoin blockchain with requests and to steal funds that were locked in channels.
We go on to examine the interaction of Lightning nodes with the fee estimation mechanism and show that the attacker can continuously lower the fee of transactions that will later be used by the victim in its attempts to recover funds - eventually reaching a state in which only low fractions of the block are available for lightning transactions. Our attack is made easier even further as the Lightning protocol allows the attacker to increase the fee offered by his own transactions.
We continue to empirically show that the vast majority of nodes agree to channel opening requests from unknown sources and are therefore susceptible to this attack. How feasible is this attack, in practice? Will anchor outputs be sufficient to mitigate the threat? |
|
|
|
Micree has the balls and it's really turning ugly and becoming a shit show. I'm waiting for Jihan to response (if he hasn't responded yet), and if you are a board of directors, you should really pick a side here. I think Jihan has still the influence but Micree has the legality. Jihan Wu isn't going down without a fight. He posted an announcement 16 hours later claiming the earlier document contained false information and that the WeChat and Weibo accounts were compromised. When TechNode contacted Bitmain about the incident, a Bitmain spokesperson directed them to the later announcement posted by Wu. Without official legal proceedings, it's difficult to say who is in the right or who will maintain control of the company. |
|
|
|
My guess is that he/she destroyed the private keys to those addresses Although I agree that it is unlikely Satoshi will ever move his coins, and it becomes less likely as time goes on, I would disagree with the quoted statement. I think it is unlikely that Satoshi destroyed those private keys given his previous statements on such a matter: Sigh... why delete a wallet instead of moving it aside and keeping the old copy just in case? You should never delete a wallet.
I'm not actually sure about that. Satoshi's thoughts on best practices don't really address what he planned to do with his bitcoins. This quote always makes me wonder: Lost coins only make everyone else's coins worth slightly more. Think of it as a donation to everyone.
I wouldn't be surprised if those bitcoins are sitting in a bricked wallet. I always thought his intent was to donate that value to the Bitcoin community. |
|
|
|
Indeed, I'd like to see a more reliable primary source. All the outlets are just citing the Cointelegraph article. I find this pretty weird. There are tons of things with value with no legal status other than being property and that should be enough no matter what legal system it is, not that Russia really has one any more.
There may be inconsistencies between the Russian Civil and Criminal codes. The Civil Code was amended late last year to define "digital rights" -- the term used to describe cryptocurrencies -- and cases where they conferred property rights or transfers. For example: According to the revision, along with money, securities, and other property, the illegal provision of property-related services and property rights can now be considered part of a bribery offence. “In cases where the subject of the bribe is property rights, an official has the opportunity to receive income from the use of uncertified securities or digital rights,” the clarification details.
If a corruption case under investigation involves the transfer of digital rights, their value has to be estimated by experts employed to conduct a monetary assessment, the court remarks. Its decree also explains that the transfer of such assets to an “electronic wallet” is to be considered as the exact moment of the bribe that has been paid. Perhaps the criminal courts currently lack jurisdiction, but restitution is within the purview of the civil courts. |
|
|
|
As a non-US human,i just want to ask that how exactly do these people rake up such liabilities. By natural law, any tax liability can only arise from an actual gain from an investment. So how do they go from setting up and investment that is worth "1 Million in taxes" and then going back to a stage where they supposedly withdraw 19k per month from crypto account to fund themselves.
That kind of financial mismanagement sounds kindda insane. The liability stems from 2017. They obviously sold a lot of cryptocurrency that year to have incurred a $1.1 million tax bill. They may have lost a significant amount in early 2018 -- after the market crashed -- and opted not to pay their 2017 taxes, expecting that the IRS would approve a long term payment plan. In the meantime, they probably used their remaining capital to reinvest -- which is likely why they are sitting on $7 million worth of cryptocurrency now. They may be waiting until they can liquidate at long term capital gain rates rather than short term rates. They essentially used the IRS as a backer for their investments. Now the IRS wants their money. They'll get it too. Legally, the couple has no legs to stand on. The IRS can approve or deny payment plans at their discretion. If a taxpayer doesn't pay on time and the IRS doesn't approve a payment plan, they can put a levy on the taxpayer's assets: An IRS levy permits the legal seizure of your property to satisfy a tax debt. It can garnish wages, take money in your bank or other financial account, seize and sell your vehicle(s), real estate and other personal property. Personal property includes digital currency. I hate the IRS but I wouldn't mess with them, either. Good luck to these people. |
|
|
|
Your opinions on that news?
I need to see it to believe it. PayPal has been trolling Bitcoin users for years. I could certainly see them operating a service like Coinbase or Robinhood. Most of PayPal's users will probably ignore it, though. I'm sure they would charge exorbitant fees and track your Bitcoin usage too -- nothing to get excited about, really. |
|
|
|
What's the fate of any money recovered? I don't recall any structure, group or process regarding this. Not sure I've ever read any summary about aggrieved customers or whether they've attempted to unite. I kind of got the impression everyone knew they were going to get raped when wex resurfaced.
I presume it's being treated as another Silk Road and all the money is automatically condemned as evil and kept to spend on training people to choke the innocent to death in a sneakier manner.
This is quite different than cases like the Mt. Gox liquidation. I don't believe there's much chance of recovery for customers. Regulators have asserted over and over that BTC-e was essentially a money laundering operation, implying its money was tainted. FinCEN also fined them for $110 Million, so the bulk of the money is already spoken for. I wonder if other regulators might follow suit after the Vinnik case is decided too. On top of all that, I have to wonder how many legitimate customers ever completed KYC -- it was not required -- and would also want to involve themselves in a Department of Justice victim claim. |
|
|
|
So let's wait if this is going to be approved and see if it can bring positive effect to the market. And will probably compete with Grayscale’s Bitcoin Trust (GBTC).
It does look to be modeled after Grayscale's cryptocurrency trusts. Similarly, shares will only trade on the OTC market, so this is not like an ETF. The Sponsor intends to apply to have the Shares quoted on OTC Markets Group, Inc.'s OTCQX Best Marketplace (the "OTCQX") under the ticker symbol [ ]. After issuance of the Shares, the Shares can be bought and sold throughout the trading day like any other publicly traded security. The only real difference I see is that Wilshire Phoenix will be undercutting Grayscale's fees by more than 50%. Interestingly, Fidelity Digital Asset Services will act as custodian for their bitcoins. That's the first I've heard from them since New York granted them a trust charter. ETF or no ETF, Wall Street has certainly arrived. |
|
|
|
We don't know if the obtain document is legit or not.
We can be fairly sure. The Intercept is legitimate, and they obtained it from the Pentagon in a FOIA request. Leftists hate Bitcoin, they go nuts when they discover that some people get rich from investing in Bitcoin in the early days. They also hate the idea of private citizens controlling their own money, they want the revolutionaries to be in charge of everything.
It's no coincidence that you won't find many leftists on this forum, and that a lot of people here are libertarians and conservatives - Bitcoin is a radical form of capitalism. These are some excessive generalizations. Capitalism is defined by private property. Opposing money -- such as bitcoins -- is not necessitated by anti-capitalist philosophy. Anarchists are also generally acknowledged to be part of the left. It's not 2010 anymore. The days where Bitcoin users were mostly conservatives and right-wing libertarians are long gone. |
|
|
|
Happen to be anyone on this site who has used CashApp for Bitcoin purchases and can shed some light on the process they use to generate 1099-b forms? There site says they will issue a 1099-b for anyone who "sells" coin on their app, but I have also seen they generate a form for anyone who just buys it and then transfers it to another wallet. Seems very confusing to me, so any help would be appreciated.
I'm not sure about this, but they may also send a 1099-B if you're holding bitcoins on Cash App on 12/31 of the tax year. Their FAQ is pretty vague, but if you sold through Cash App, you'll definitely get one. We know that for sure. I would guess that if you did all your buying and selling through Cash App without withdrawing bitcoins, that the cost basis -- if listed at all -- would be more or less correct based on FIFO. Otherwise it will probably be wrong. You should be tracking all of your activity separately so you can correctly calculate your cost basis and associated gains and losses. If your basis differs from the 1099-B Cash App generates, this is how to deal with it: There are two options, which depend on if your sale was of a covered or noncovered security. If it's covered, then the basis on your 1099-B is reported to the IRS. Report the sale on the 8949 under the correct box, using the proceeds and basis on the 1099-B. Then adjust the gain/loss to what it should be through a code B adjustment. On the other hand, if it's noncovered, the basis is not reported. Report the sale on the 8949, using the proceeds on your 1099-B and your correct basis. No adjustment required in this case. I would think Bitcoin is treated as a noncovered security anyway, so they probably aren't reporting cost basis to the IRS at all. It's more of a heads up to the IRS that you made sales on particular dates that totaled particular net proceeds, so make sure your Form 8949 reflects all your Cash App activity! |
|
|
|
It looks that one guy wants to test this game theory. He put 1BTC to segwit wallet and said that it was generated from 12 seed words which will be releasing within the next 30 days: https://twitter.com/alistairmilne/status/1266037520715915267As soon as the last words are released, tens or hundreds of people will try to release funds increasing the transaction fee. Let's see if it is the case  Is he just releasing all the seed words one by one, or is there a puzzle involved with each post? If the latter, then it's conceivable one person will solve it and take the bitcoin before a race develops. Otherwise yes, it'll be interesting to see whether the highest fee or the first broadcast transaction wins -- or something else entirely, like the miner that finds the next block sweeping it themselves. |
|
|
|
|
It isn't a huge turnaround. The author of the report, JPMorgan analyst Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou, has been tracking and reporting on Bitcoin's "intrinsic value" -- essentially marginal mining cost -- for at least a year. He has long maintained that gaps between marginal cost and price can be resolved either by a change in price or a change in marginal mining costs.
Noticeably, the hash rate fell 6% since the halving and is expected to fall another 6% or so next week. This means the "intrinsic value" of a bitcoin is declining, and may continue to decline.
|
|
|
|
Conservative estimates put the size of the Russian shadow economy at 20% of GDP. Other estimates put its size closer to 45% of GDP. Russians are very used to hiding their assets from the authorities. Bribery is also extremely common. We can also see from the explosion in cross-border Tether usage between China and Moscow that cryptocurrencies make restrictions on capital flow ineffectual. I wonder what the bill's backers think a ban would accomplish -- another widely ignored Russian law and new avenue for corruption?  In the summer, there will probably be another Russian bill that proposes fully legalizing cryptocurrencies. Wake me up when Vladimir Putin actually signs one of them. Chances are that nothing will come of this. Russia -- and Putin specifically -- have much bigger problems to worry about. He has even delayed his longstanding plans to rewrite the constitution to give himself another two terms in office. Rumblings of discontent are growing in Russia over Vladimir Putin’s handling of the pandemic. His approval ratings fell to an historic low for him — down to 59 % last month from 63 % the previous month, according to the independent pollster Levada Center.
Even the normally loyal state-owned broadcaster Russia Today ran a report last week warning that the country risks a double-digit unemployment rate and a “return to the pain of the economic miasma of the Yeltsin years [that] would have unpredictable consequences for President Putin.”
The Russian president has had to put on hold his plans to rewrite the Russian constitution, which would allow him another 12 years in office, “while the Kremlin tries to deal with both the virus and a new economic crisis,” says Tatiana Stanovaya, an analyst with the Carnegie Moscow Center, a think tank. “These twin challenges represent the biggest shock the Putin regime has ever faced and are likely to feed popular dissatisfaction,” she adds.
The economic fallout is mounting. A quarter of working-age Russians say they have lost their jobs or expect they will soon. Six out of ten Russians have no savings. There have been isolated protests and analysts say there’s a real prospect of much wider unrest, once the pandemic starts to accelerate beyond Moscow and St. Petersburg, where hospitals and local health services have been neglected for years.
|
|
|
|
They are charging tax means they are making bitcoin legal.
Hmm. Not sure. There are many things that are not illegal but aren't worth bothering declaring legal either, or it's so obvious there's no need to make a declaration about it, or so obscure they can't be bothered. This reminds me of the case of Al Capone. He amassed a fortune from bootlegging and racketeering, but what he actually went down for was neglecting to pay taxes on his illegal income. Tax authorities don't care where your money comes from. They just want their cut. |
|
|
|
This is actually one of the reasons I prefer ChipMixer to CoinJoins. The latter are too obvious on-chain, at least when using popular methods like Wasabi Wallet. Not sure I follow your logic here? Although it is impossible to link coins which have come from ChipMixer with coins which have been sent to ChipMixer, it is trivial to identify coins as having come from ChipMixer, given their very characteristic chip creation transactions. If an exchange wanted to ban all deposits from ChipMixer, they could do easily. That's not quite as trivial as you make it sound, and could be disastrous for fungibility. There are very few CoinJoins on the network, so in my opinion they are low hanging fruit. I also think participating in Wasabi CoinJoins is more likely to mean directly transacting with DNM outputs, which may have some relevance in cases like these. Paxful is another example. Too many services have been freezing accounts for CoinJoin activity over the past year to say the distinction is trivial. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
