The Treasury Department published the addresses because they're putting the compliance burden on Bitcoin services like exchanges. Legally, exchanges need to block and confiscate related funds and notify OFAC. I don't think they intend to publish every address that funds move through: Like traditional identifiers, these digital currency addresses should assist those in the compliance and digital currency communities in identifying transactions and funds that must be blocked and investigating any connections to these addresses. |
|
|
|
Read the article two times already but there were no mentions that the US government will seize your BTC if it has touched by one of those two addresses. And isn't it a little bit dumb if they did that? All they have to do is just send you .0000001 BTC in order for the US government to seize everything you have which is pretty unconstitutional. You should read the news more carefully next time in order to avoid confusion here in your post.
They don't explicitly state your funds will be seized in the press release, but Khorashadizadeh and Ghorbaniyan are now subject to OFAC sanctions. If you're violating OFAC sanctions, you're risking harsh financial penalties. Associated prison sentences can be decades long, and that's on top of fines worth millions of dollars, depending on the offense. Iran is also covered by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which adds additional financial penalties. A French bank just agreed to pay $54 million for violating sanctions against Cuba, Iran and Sudan. Violating sanctions is no joke. The press release also states: As a result of today’s action, persons that engage in transactions with Khorashadizadeh and Ghorbaniyan could be subject to secondary sanctions. |
|
|
|
I wonder if Ohio thinks this will cut down on cryptocurrency-related tax avoidance. I hope not many coiners pay their tax bills this way. It's providing them a possible way to identify your wallets and transaction history. I hope my state will do the same. Even if the government has to sell it on the market to get the fiat, it is still good for the demand of bitcoin in the process.
How so? People aren't going to buy coins to pay taxes. Bitcoin holders might spend coins on taxes, though. And the government will turn around and sell them for fiat. It seems demand-neutral, but encourages more selling on the market. |
|
|
|
The fees aren't really a problem to me if there's no KYC required, what's 0.25% if it requires nothing but allows you to withdraw your money without any single problem. That's definitely one of the primary appeals of the DEX model. Unfortunately, all of the current DEXs are partially centralized -- server and order matching infrastructure, site and domain management, etc. Now that the founder of EtherDelta has been charged by the SEC, I think we're going to see more exchanges following IDEX and implementing KYC. |
|
|
|
We are the bears and the bulls, the hodlers and the fodlers, the peasants of the crypto world. We are just not one thing: we are not whales. We are many, but we don't control the market. Whales are few, but they are in full control. So it seems we got our own version of capitalism: the Crypto-Capitalism, where 1% manages the rest of 99%. What do you think?
Whales have less power than you think. If they keep selling, they're no longer whales. If they want to recoup their coins, they create buying pressure on the market. It's not the 99% vs. the 1%. The market is just the market. Just sit back and enjoy the ride.  |
|
|
|
for me mass adoption is getting off our asses and actually getting our local stores to accept bitcoin. if we all convince atleast one shop. all shops will be convinced (there is more population than businesses) Are you sure about that? Some businesses started accepting Bitcoin, only to stop accepting it later due to lack of demand. It's not just a matter of convincing businesses to accept it. There has to be real demand from consumers to use it. Because of Bitcoin's strength as money, maybe consumer payments aren't its strongest basis for adoption, per Gresham's law. |
|
|
|
I can't find much information on Nasdaq's plans, but from what I've read, they're just planning to offer cash-settled futures like the CME Group. That won't have much of an effect on price since there is no direct arbitrage opportunity. Bakkt's markets might be more relevant since they'll be physically settled. While I still believe that they will play a major role in the next bull run, I am not expecting them to be full-blown cryptoheads in the short-term future. Most of them are just wanting to stay on the sidelines and not get their feet wet by looking into the futures market and just stay there. It'll take a while before they go on and disturb the actual market, but for now, establishing platforms for futures is what they're busy doing atm.
Indeed, asset managers have indicated there isn't much institutional interest yet. Further, it seems like the major investment banks are only interested in providing trading infrastructure for their clients right now. There's also the flip side to consider. If physically-settled markets are combined with leverage, Wall Street may be able to manipulate the Bitcoin market. They can play the short side too. |
|
|
|
i know some foolish people think signing blocks using PoS is greener. but they have no cost/risk in signing. it doesnt cost a penny to sign a block. meaning there is no cost for people to pool up 'stake' and syndicate themselves into controlling block creation which is a SECURITY RISK
by having a cost to mine prevents outsiders from attack and also makes bitcoin have a viable bottomline value because it actually costs funds to mine it. thus those mining it will not sell at a loss and wont sell it down to a penny
altcoins using PoS have no underlying cost of production and the price is pure speculation
Pure proof-of-stake is obviously problematic because it costs large stakers nothing to attack the network. What do you think about hybrid POW/POS protocols, where traditional mining is used as a check to ensure honest staking? I haven't actually researched it too deeply, but a couple miners have mentioned it to me in a positive light. |
|
|
|
Obviously as you say, if a court doesn't recognize that bitcoin is legal property that is owned by someone, then there will be serious issues as to persecuting someone for money laundering and other crimes that are done through bitcoin, and could seriously open up loopholes for criminals. With regard to American law and probably others as well, that's not true. The federal money laundering statutes don't specify that instruments used for laundering must be "personal property." I wouldn't assume this opens up many loopholes in terms of criminal law. The legal protections the authors are talking about are matters of civil law -- tort law and such. |
|
|
|
There are no experts in crypto, just people that got lucky by investing early. The drop occurred at the same time as the bitcoin cash battle so that was the trigger that started the panic dump
I think Calvin Ayre caused this. https://mobile.twitter.com/CalvinAyre/status/1064928118065061889He said" @ProfFaustus has any interest in chains that do not scale. Accepting my offer would have Craig completely out of the ABC chain. If not, hash war continues until the cheating transient hash is gone. " After the BCH hash war is over, he will attack bitcoin. That's not my reading of it. Anyway, what makes you think he has the resources to attack Bitcoin? BCH is orders of magnitude easier to attack. I don't think they're dumb enough to try. What would they accomplish besides lighting a bunch of money on fire? |
|
|
|
1- Whales control big percentage of the 21 M Bitcoin
2-they can manipulate the price It's difficult to know exactly how much whales control. Some analysts speculate that several million BTC are actually lost, which would lower the circulating supply considerably. Sure, whales definitely exist, but their coins are becoming increasingly distributed over the years. When I first started watching the charts years ago, whales buying and selling thousands of coins at a time was much more common. 3- they did created new coin each time they disagree LTC BCH BITCOIN GOLD ...etc That doesn't seem like a big deal. Cryptocurrencies are permissionless, so anybody can spin off a fork if they want to. It's up to the market to decide whether those forks are worthless or not. Isn't that a good thing? |
|
|
|
I hear people constantly say that the price of Bitcoin at 5,000 USD or 4,000 USD is "cheap". But, the initial price of Bitcoin was at 0.001 USD. "Cheap" is a judgment about value -- it means it's "worth more than its cost." It doesn't matter what the initial price was; it only matters what the value is now. I believe that Bitcoin's value is derived from Metcalfe's Law, i.e. its network size. Today, buying BTC means buying into a vastly larger network than in 2009 when it cost 0.001 USD. If adoption continues to grow in the coming years, then 4,000 USD will surely turn out to be cheap, don't you think? |
|
|
|
Thanks for reply and nice links.
I am assuming that, it is supposed to be US-residents. I US/China residents are excluded (as will be written in TnC) from ICO sale, these complication will not come into picture ?
I am looking at having this token as security, but not selling it to US residents. Many investors (even outside US) prefer to go only with Security tokens. That is the reason, looking possibilities in this option.
If you're not selling to US residents, then the Reg D restrictions don't apply. However, it's definitely not enough to simply write in the terms and conditions that US residents are prohibited. You likely need to go further than restricting US IP addresses too. You'll need an adequate KYC screening process to keep out US investors. If you don't implement it carefully, you may run into problems from federal or state regulators, like this: In his defense, Bensonoff raised the fact that the tokens are not available for sale to U.S. citizens and that screening procedures had been established to ensure that sales would not be made to U.S. residents. However, the Division found that the screening procedures were inadequate to prevent the sale of Caviar tokens to U.S. residents, noting that at least two U.S. residents were approved to participate in the ICO. The complaint further describes the types of general solicitation Bensonoff and Caviar used to promote the ICO, including websites and other social media platforms (including those of third party promoters) that are accessible by investors in the United States. |
|
|
|
Before this plunge, a lot of people spreading FUD about bitcoin and how they want bitcoin to die and how obsolete bitcoin is. People saying that this alt or that alt will replace bitcoin and that bitcoin is no longer King of crypto. Now, looking at CMC, as bitcoin values going down so are ALL altcoins. No shitcoins...I mean altcoins able to get through what's happening in the market not even BCH, XRP, XLM or any other alts able to get pass through the bear market. This is just a proof that all alts value depends on bitcoin value and the influence of bitcoin to the whole crypto market. I'm very sure before bitcoin value turn to zero all alts turns to dust just like when Thanus snap his fingers and dusting happened.
So tell me, with all honesty, do you still wants bitcoin to die?
Of course not. Whether they know it or not, no altcoiner really wants Bitcoin to die. It's just talk to hype up their coins. If Bitcoin crashes, it takes down the whole market with it -- that's always been true. Every altcoiner learns that sooner or later. |
|
|
|
Hello,
I need a suggestion from legal point of view.
Since ICO are difficult to go in current market and STO have better market. For an upcoming exchange, we can register token as security in Reg D scope. And that can be presented as STO, instead of ICO. Is there any legal complication later ?
Compare it like BNB token of Binance. Suppose if BNB is a security, would there be any legal complication, if users will sell/buy and trade with BNB ?
Suggestions please.
Thanks in advance
One of the conditions under Regulation D is that the securities being sold contain restrictions on their resale. That means you're likely to see less liquidity in these markets because investors can't freely trade them (legally) on secondary markets. Per the SEC: “Restricted securities” are previously-issued securities held by security holders that are not freely tradable. Securities Act Rule 144(a)(3) identifies what offerings produce restricted securities. After such a transaction, the security holders can only resell the securities into the market by using an effective registration statement under the Securities Act or a valid exemption from registration for the resale, such as Rule 144. More specifically: A security owner willing to sell a security restricted to the public has to meet five conditions: - Holding Period: typically between 6–12 months
- Current Public Information: Information regarding the nature of its business, the identity of its officers and directors, and its financial statement publicly available
- Trading Volume Formula:<1% of the outstanding shares
- Ordinary Brokerage Transactions
- Filing a notice of proposed sale with the SEC
that explains all the trouble investors need to go through to sell Reg D restricted tokens. |
|
|
|
I can't believe that after all this time Bitpay is the only game in town, a company that is now Bitmain and BCwhatever's bitch and is not to far off actively hostile to Bitcoin. Coinbase have abdicated this area with their changes to how they treat merchants.
I wonder why they're not accepting ABC coins. BCH has been unavailable on Bitpay since the fork. There's a few other competitors in town like Coingate and Coinpayments. The latter has pretty low fees at 0.5% too. But Bitpay has a much bigger brand and marketing budget, a sleek invoicing interface and runs smoother than them. At a 1% or lower cut, I'm guessing it's not the most lucrative business absent significant volumes. |
|
|
|
@squatter. It might also be important to know how much of Bitmain's mining farms and other mining farms supplied to are from California. Is there a big mining farm there or is this lawsuit only from one unhappy individual? hehehe.
It sounds like it was just filed by one unhappy individual. I assume it was filed in California because Bitmain is headquartered in San Jose. That means general jurisdiction applies -- any suit can be filed against Bitmain in California, regardless of where the damages occurred. That's probably why the filing specifies that the class could include hundreds of thousands of people. I'm pretty sure miners from other states can join the lawsuit. |
|
|
|
Roger Ver is The Main Player Behind This Hash War Thats Been Going On Between BITCOIN & BCash ABC
This is The Guy Who is Supporting BCashABC Most
This is The Guy Who is The CEO of Bitcoin.com Website
and Bitcoin.com has its Mining Pool Who Provides a Significant Amount of HashPower to The BITCOIN Network and now, look at both price. abc price 50% under bch before fork. all war on the world will be come destroyer anything, cryptocurrency too bad for that destroying 1-2 person with they egosentric. they don't care about the price, of course they wanted a higher price but that still is free money that they earned out of thin air and with a little bit of social media drama. not to mention the fact that now they are buying bitcoin at a much cheaper price compared to before! so that is even more profit. Before the network split, the price of BCH was $512. Now the combined price of both BCH tokens is $247. It's hard to think of that as free money! More like lost money.  I'm not sure about the ABC side, but didn't Craig Wright say his side was selling BTC to fund this little war? I don't think any party in this war benefits from lower BTC prices... |
|
|
|
https://bonnerandpartners.com/the-assassination-of-bitcoin/Personally I'm doubtful this fall has anything to do with central bank attacks. The morons who populate cryptoland can easily do it themselves. There is however no doubt that the overall concept of BTC is a huge stone in their shoe and the noises they're making about wanting to take total control of money, and by extension us lot, are growing louder. I see here on daily basis people believing a 'government crypto' is Bitcoin's biggest threat. That's a fine example of how mindless many posters are on here. Governmentcoin makes crypto more vital than ever and ever more opposed to it. I'm doubtful about this narrative as well. Unsurprisingly, it's a conspiracy theory with no evidence. Good old Bill Bonner. It might not be irrational from the standpoint of central banks, but the market won't follow -- they must know that. Bitcoin is increasingly seen as an investment or store-of-value asset. How can central bank coins compete? All they can do is soak up a bit of the empty hype around digital currency. |
|
|
|
This comes out printed as a scandal in the bitcoin news media only now? I thought this was already commonly known by the whole community hehehe.
I reckon all of the Asic manufacturers mine using their customers' hardware before shipping.
It's common knowledge that this is typical industry practice, but this is the first time someone has brought the issue before a judge. It'll be interesting to see how Bitmain responds, and how the court eventually rules. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could reverberate across the industry because it will establish precedent in the federal court system. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
