Well there is Binance, but also Bittrex, Okex, Bitbay, Zebpay and others too. I'm not sure about taxes, but Malta's model is more about monetizing licensing fees. This goes in line with Malta's monetization of online gambling licenses, which represent ~12% of their annual GDP.
Exchanges require a Class 4 License. From what I can find, the application fee is €24,000 and the annual supervisory fee is dependent on annual revenue. For revenue up to €1 million, the fee is €50,000. €5,000 fees are added per additional €1 million tranche of revenue. For a small island nation, that's not an insignificant sum of money.
Assuming Binanace does the predicted 1 billion in revenue, that's a 5m, plus 50, plus 24. Where are you getting this "predicted €1 billion in revenue?" Binance was aiming at net profit of $500M-$1B in 2018. We don't know their profit margin or revenue, but revenue should be much higher than that. It could easily be 500% of your estimate or more. Have you now?  We haven't even discussed taxes. The corporate tax rate for companies who are resident and domiciled in Malta is 35%. I haven't researched whether there are taxes specific to cryptocurrency services, as there are with Malta-regulated gaming services. I was just talking about about licensing fees. Also, this is what you said: Why would Malta care if their economy is increasing
And do you have any proof that Biance is contributing more than 0.01% on that increase? You said that Binance contributed no more than 0.01% of GDP. Now you're asserting that the licensing fees Binance pays = their total effect on GDP. These are apples and oranges. Licensing fees constitute a small percentage of Binance's operation. We don't have enough data to know their true effect on GDP, from either an income or expenditure point of analysis. But suffice to say, it's much larger than you thought. Even just looking at their profit (not income) we're talking about a 100-fold difference. The gaming industry constitutes 12% of Malta's GDP and 5-6% of their tax base now. Do you really think Malta would institute a cryptocurrency regulation scheme where they get nothing out of it? Btw, this doesn't mean they have actually paid any taxes yet, right? They probably have, but that's not public information. |
|
|
|
I hope your proud of your creation satoshi, This is not the first or last death, it will only escalate, escalate it will.
This blood is on your hands. You have the power to change it, but you remain a idle idol, I wish I had your influence, I would actually use it. That's a bit dramatic.  What would you have him do, anyway? Somehow fork Bitcoin to make people not treat it like money? If this was a murder -- it may have been a suicide -- that's the fault of human nature and greed, not Satoshi. |
|
|
|
in my opinion UASF has been the worst thing that has ever been introduced to bitcoin mainly because it is incomplete and the way it has been used (BIP148) is a dangerous thing. basically anything that has a remote chance of splitting bitcoin must be avoided at all costs let alone having a very high chance of it. there is a reason why 95% was chosen, there is a reason why consensus exists and that is why bitcoin is still strong. in 2017 SegWit had ~35% hashrate support while UASF had less than 10% and even less node support but people were still pushing for it disregarding the dangers of it. the fact is SegWit was mainly activated because of SegWit2x not UASF. I agree that BIP148 was dangerous. The biggest problem for me was the rushed timeline. By the time it was publicized, there was only ~2 months left before the fork. That's incredibly irresponsible for an incompatible (essentially a "hard") fork and to this day, I resent Luke Dash Jr. and others who promoted it. I mean, we're talking about a patch not even included in the reference implementation! That's just crazy. I wasn't aware that it even had any hash rate support at all. And of course, anyone can "pledge" hash rate but we would only really know about hash rate support at fork time. I do think it forced miners' hand, though. They are very risk averse. They didn't want to risk the chain split, knowing that the survival of the BIP148 chain could end up being a drawn out political battle. If that happened, there was a tiny chance that the legacy chain would be orphaned if the BIP148 chain ever got more cumulative POW. when we plant the idea of anybody can split bitcoin without reaching that 95% agreement first, we end up with things such as bcash which consequently were also called "UAHF". if you ask me, if you support UASF then you are also supporting bcash. because that is exactly what they did: they had little support from miners and nodes, a small group of people decided they wanted a different thing and they went that way. What do you do if a small group of users -- like a few large mining companies -- are blocking upgrades that users want? I don't have a problem with the UASF mechanism per se, but I think it must be done on a very long timeline (years) to maximize full node participation in forcing miners to fork. |
|
|
|
Using the simple average (mean) the result of the daily Bitcoins lost, from 01/01/2009 until May 2019, is around 960 Bitcoin per day, meaning Bitcoin will become a deflationary currency after the halving, by having more Bitcoin lost than produced per day!
I can't imagine anywhere near 960 bitcoins per day are still being lost. The trend probably resembles a tangential curve where the number of coins being lost is approaching 0. Plus, we have no idea how many coins have really been lost. Those estimates assume that bitcoins that haven't moved in x years (and whose keys haven't been used to sweep forks) must be lost. That seems unreliable to me. We should also consider the possibility -- however remote -- that quantum computers will reintroduce some of those lost coins into circulation at some point in the future. |
|
|
|
This is why I'm a small blocker. The inflation subsidy is quickly dwindling down. In just a few more halvings, it will hopefully be negligible compared to transaction fee revenue -- otherwise we might need to start worrying about major drops in hash rate, reorganization attacks, etc. Any increase to block size will lower fee revenues, so I'm definitely on the conservative side when considering them.
this is not necessarily true. because the relationship between revenue and fees is not that easily. small blocks which means higher fees will also mean less users and stop of adoption and the result of that is falling price and finally less resulting revenue for miners. on the other hand bigger blocks can mean more transactions in block which have a higher sum of fee instead of having individual high fees and it also means more adoption and the result of that is higher price and finally a much higher revenue for miners. I don't think the bolded statement is a safe assumption to make. The fee market is a function of how full blocks are (at any size) -- it doesn't linearly aggregate fees as blocks get bigger. Increasing block size won't necessarily increase fee revenue because it will also reduce fee pressure by providing more block space. That means more transactions, more bloat and cheaper fees but not necessarily more revenue for miners to replace lost subsidy. Let's assume that Bitcoin adoption is increasing, regardless of the transaction fees users need to pay. Then all else equal, keeping block weight limit static will increase fee revenue for miners. The same cannot be said if increased adoption (demand for block space) is being negated by increasing block sizes. In that situation, we're left hoping that speculative price increases are enough to incentivize miners. |
|
|
|
My gut reaction was to assume this was a disgruntled customer with huge losses or some kind of mob hit. Being the known owner of an exchange obviously isn't smart from a security perspective. This might be a feud between the management and/or someone who lost tons of money on the said exchange, or could have been severe depression leading to Niemiro's suicide. It sounds like Bitmarket was an insolvent exchange from the start, much like Mt. Gox. They may have been running a bitcoin deficit for years until they finally imploded. In this context, the suicide scenario doesn't seem impossible. From what I can glean from Polish speakers, it's being investigated as a suicide. |
|
|
|
OP, Bitcoin is a medium of exchange, peer to peer cash, it's written in the white paper. OK! Well, it's not exactly a medium of exchange yet. That's the problem. TimeBits wants Bitcoin to be a medium of exchange and unit of account, but this isn't something we can just will into existence. It'll take time and significantly more adoption. As long as fiat money is what merchants, suppliers and consumers predominantly want, Bitcoin users are quite limited in options even if they want to spend/barter their bitcoins directly. |
|
|
|
Anyone noticed that we have breached 17,800,000 BTC already? Which means that 85% of all BTC have been mined. And in the next 10+ years we can all assumed that 'almost' all bitcoin is mined already. This is why I'm a small blocker. The inflation subsidy is quickly dwindling down. In just a few more halvings, it will hopefully be negligible compared to transaction fee revenue -- otherwise we might need to start worrying about major drops in hash rate, reorganization attacks, etc. Any increase to block size will lower fee revenues, so I'm definitely on the conservative side when considering them. |
|
|
|
And after all that it has emerged that the CTFC have said they haven't approved LedgerX yet after all.
'on Thursday morning, the day after CoinDesk’s initial story ran, CFTC chief communications officer Michael Short said in an emailed statement: “LedgerX has not yet been approved by the Commission.” According to CFTC regulations, the DCO registration amendment should have been approved by default, so I can see how LedgerX made the mistake: According to CFTC regulations (Title 17 part 39.3), the agency has 180 days to approve or deny a DCO application.
“[The CFTC] said to clear swaps and they said later that [we] should actually clear futures too and … we were waiting essentially for this amendment,” Paul Chou told CoinDesk Thursday.
Juthica Chou appeared to suggest that because this period had passed without an objection from CFTC, the company was under the impression that it was clear to proceed.
However, LedgerX needs explicit approval, according to a senior CFTC official.
“Every new or amended DCO application needs to be affirmatively approved by the Commission,” said this official, who did not want to be identified. “The absence of a decision does not constitute approval, and entity self-certification is not an option.”
Bakkt seems to be in a similar position with the NYDFS. Some people assumed that NYDFS trust status was a sure thing or perhaps didn't require explicit approval, but that seems to be exactly what they're waiting on. |
|
|
|
We will not steal, just make the owners change address from time to time (10 years for example), nothing can grow forever, information grow without control will be one of biggest computer area problems in the next years, to much data, excess of data, we need to deal with it, sometime we will not have resources to make more data hosting.
Whether you opt to call it stealing or not, you are still effectively threatening to change the ownership of someone else's coins if they neglect to move them. It's a concept people have proposed on numerous occasions in the past and you are more than welcome to search for some previous topics where people have outlined the reasons why it's not likely to happen in Bitcoin. It's unfortunate, because eventually that will have real implications for Bitcoin's monetary policy. Consider, for instance, what will happen if quantum computing breaks ECDSA. Implementing a new signature scheme won't do anything about all the bitcoins that don't move to safe addresses. That could result in millions of previously lost bitcoins being reintroduced into circulation. Hypothetically, on an ethical level, I don't mind the idea of owners being required to move coins every n epochs/blocks/years. The problem is this was never established in Bitcoin's rule set early on -- users never agreed to it. Now, consensus change seems impossible. |
|
|
|
|
Regarding criticisms, the need to keep private keys online and regularly monitor channels limits the appeal.
For me, the choice of whether to use Lightning is question of how pressured I am by on-chain fees. For now, the answer is "not enough." I'm hoping by the time that changes, the UX issues will have improved somewhat.
As for success, the jury is out, but it seems inevitable at least as one of several approaches to the scalability question.
|
|
|
|
The trace was broken from my coins but now I have new trace with the user who sent the coins from the exchange to address x.
Here is a risk: If this user has some shady record then my coins are now carrying that bad reputation. That's the thing about taint. You can't eliminate it, you can only exchange it for someone else's. This is why there is a market for "virgin" bitcoins. Chainalysis has been doing it for years, even though they couldn't de-anonymize some mixers/CoinJoin method.
Chainalysis admitted this? Which mixers? I'm operating under the assumption that mixing algorithms not broken today might be broken in the future. This could be used retroactively to de-anonymize transactions. |
|
|
|
Will you be partaking in their offering? Probably not. I don't think they'll be allowing unverified accounts, and I've already done KYC at Coinbase Pro, who I assume will have deeper order books and also more altcoin markets. I don't see what Blockchain is bringing to the table, unless every other exchange breaks during the next bubble and Blockchain's trading engine really is superior. We'll have to wait for the next bubble to find out, though. What are the odds they never implement Segwit and never batch on Roger's orders?
Not implementing Segwit is basically a sure thing. I hope they batch transactions, though. |
|
|
|
I would call it Ecfasnpuaoiltfc
Electronic Cash Fast And Secure No Printing Unlimited Amounts Of It Like The Fiat Scam
Sounds catchy! Mass adoption, here we come!  I never thought about it much, but the choice of "Bitcoin" for the name was fantastic. Nothing comes close for me other than Nick Szabo's "Bit Gold." |
|
|
|
It's not easy considering Gresham's law. As long as weaker currencies like fiat money ("bad money") are widely accepted, people will opt to hoard away "good money" like bitcoins. If/when Bitcoin achieves a sustainable economy where there is no need for fiat inflows and outflows -- meaning supply chains and payrolls are covered in bitcoins -- this can change. If people are getting paid in bitcoins, they will feel more comfortable spending them. As it stands, spending bitcoins and rebuying them later could entail lost bitcoins because of conversion/exchange fees and rising price. For most people, it makes more sense just to hoard their coins and spend fiat money on consumer goods instead. Absolutely, but this is kind of a chicken and egg problem. To drive out volatility/"bad money", adoption must be rampant. For adoption, volatility needs to be driven out. There's got to be some kind of gradual, seamless transition from good and bad money co-existing to one being the dominant driver. We can hope for that, but honestly, it's impossible to know what the transition from state-backed to decentralized currencies would look like. We don't have precedent for it. Theoretically, it could be a turbulent event like USD hyperinflation that causes a fast and violent transition. If fiat currencies are crumbling, people will want to be paid in stronger currencies. I'm not sure that volatility needs to be driven out for mass adoption. A volatile Bitcoin simply needs to be better than the alternatives. |
|
|
|
The US Senate has a hearing about cryptocurrencies today, and guess who they're hearing as an expert: Jeremy Allaire, Circle CEO.
Does anyone think that the man is qualified to speak at a US Senate hearing?
It's like asking a convicted child rapist if sex outside marriage is right or wrong.
I've never liked Allaire. Circle and Poloniex are terrible companies. However, let's look at the bigger picture. Allaire is CEO of a cryptocurrency service/exchange. He has strong incentives to fight against burdensome regulation because it'll cost Circle money or push them out of the US entirely. I'm more worried about the other witnesses -- a Congressional researcher and a law professor who is unequivocally negative towards cryptocurrencies. |
|
|
|
Any update from Poloniex? Have they even said anything since the 10% repayment? Hearing crickets at this point is bad news. It probably means they really were banking on borrowers making deposits to cover the losses. As if that were ever going to happen... |
|
|
|
New update on the Bitfinex/NYAG saga: Judge Punts on Decision in New York Case Against Bitfinex and TetherThe Attorney General's office came out firing in its last filing. I honestly thought the judge would quickly decide in the state's favor. It looked like they had established jurisdiction. Apparently, the judge isn't so sure about that: On Monday, New York Supreme Court Judge Joel M. Cohen said he needed more time to make a final decision on whether to dismiss the NYAG’s case entirely, or rule the other way and reject Bitfinex and Tether’s motion to dismiss. As such, a preliminary injunction he filed in May will be extended, probably for 90 days.
“I will extend the injunction … if I dismiss the case then obviously the injunction goes with it. If I don’t dismiss the case the injunction will be extended,” Cohen said, adding: “The idea is to keep things where they are until the decision of this motion, so the decision is to extend the stay and … extend the injunction.”
The ruling means Bitfinex and Tether can continue operating their businesses as normal, but Tether still cannot lend any more funds to Bitfinex. If Bitfinex wins and has the case dismissed, it'll lend some credence to the idea that their policies re: US persons might hold up at the federal level as well. |
|
|
|
Like the SEC chairman said on his interview about a year ago, all ICO coins ARE securities and needs to be regulated as such.
Go down the list in coinmarketcap and mark em
ETH, XRP ,... all such are, no rocket Science.
What the SEC chairman said at the time was, "I believe every ICO I’ve seen is a security." It wasn't a blanket statement about the ICO mechanism itself, though he was certainly implying that most ICO tokens are securities. The SEC clarified last year that ETH is not a security: William Hinman, director of the division of corporation finance at the SEC, explained at the summit: “Based on my understanding of the present state of ether, the Ethereum network and its decentralized structure, current offers and sales of ether are not securities transactions.” |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
