Fiat currencies are affected by inflation whereas cryptocurrencies will be an answer for inflation or financial downturn in a country.
Just as gold was abandoned as a currency because it was unsuitable for fostering economic activity, so too will fixed circulation cryptos like Bitcoin prove to be unsuitable for the same reason. The simple fact is that the world's economy is built on growth, and growth is fueled in some small part by inflation. The fine line the Fed walks is spurring economic activity and growth while also keeping inflation in check, and this is something that is impossible with an economy denominated in Bitcoin. Economic growth will dramatically slow under such a system. |
|
|
|
Really ? If it is useless, why do you waste your precious time here spreading FUD ? The market will decide if it is useless, not from a clueless/uneducated person like yourself.
The price is indicative of value, not utility. The market isn't currently deciding it's useful so much as deciding it's valuable, and the value assessment is being derived purely from speculation and neophytes chasing get-rich-quick schemes. In this respect, it's value proposition is wildly skewed and irrational, or what economists call a "bubble." |
|
|
|
I pay enough tax already outside the crypto field, so I am definitely not letting to government eat off any of my crypto holdings. The downside of this is that my freedom to have it converted back to fiat gets drastically limited by doing so. It doesn't mean that I can't have it sent to my bank account, but these bastards register and report everything, which is forming quite an obstacle. Good thing however is that I am not a fiat centric person, which means that I gladly keep holding on to my coins for plenty of more years, just like I have always been doing. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind paying tax, but it has to be reasonable and limited - it's pure theft to require people to have them pay tax endlessly over the same amount of money.
It's a system based on debt that will drain your wealth bit by bit throughout the years till you have nothing left. Seriously, the majority of people only see their wealth shrink and shrink, where they will end up broke at whatever point in time. I am glad that Bitcoin allows me to outrule this poverty stimulating rubbish system.
The problem with the tax system is that it eats up a huge chunk of your earnings. As much as you want to contribute to your own community and be a law-abiding citizen, it's sometimes become detrimental on your side. Convenient for you that you don't need to have fiat, unlike others who rely on their crypto and frequently have to exchange their crypto into fiat. In that case, they would have no choice but go through having to deal with the government's implications or tax regulations made by them. I would have to agree since I normally wouldn't mind having to pay taxes however it's sometimes too much when you have to pay a huge percentage of your earnings. Instead of using that amount for other things or putting it in your savings, you are forced to pay just because you earn - and sometimes it's just too much of a hassle and unfair to the crypto-user. This is a given; taxes paid reduces the amount of money you have. But they are necessary because government is necessary and the government needs funding. If taxes are too high, that's an issue that needs to be solved at the ballot box. In the US, we have a party that pretends to be fiscally conservative, but just passed a massive tax cut that primarily benefits the wealthy in a total abandonment of their pledge to fiscal restraint. If the government is running deficits, it is not currently paying for its current level of function, and cutting taxes is not going to improve the situation. |
|
|
|
I believe regulators should be aware of some things considering the whole society interests, but ICOs in general could be subject to more self-regulation than government regulation.
The securities industry has a self-regulatory body; FINRA is an industry group that regulates broker-dealers, but also does so under the supervision of the SEC. Perhaps this would be a better solution than outright government supervision, but I'm firmly of the belief that the cryptocurrency industry hasn't the will nor the expertise to regulate itself. It's propagated by far too many bad actors thriving in the lack of regulation. And as long as ICOs are securities, which they are, they are under the jurisdiction of the SEC already. |
|
|
|
Is it possible to have a platform which lists all property + allows comments relating to the property to be associated? Also sales values and ability to just attach an offer if the owner were to ever be interested in selling.... does this make sense ?
In the past I think stuff like this has been illegal? but I think it could help housing market. You never would actually have to list a property for sale as such, you'd just visit this platform and in theory you'd see a range of offers currently on the table for your property (obviously subject to viewing). I know people have to survey a house etc etc. The purpose of the site/platform is purely for the intial meeting of potential seller and potential buyer - something estate agents charge for.
That being said, I'd love to see such a platform. I'm just afraid it would be incredibly hard to free real estate of the firm grip of already established agencies while still adhering to local regulations. That's why some kind of decentralization could help because you don't have to worry about local regulations. Well for what i want the platform for anyway which is searching out property and seeing comments relating.
If that's what you're looking for, why not just go to any real estate website or database to find them? Blockchain isn't going to solve this issue or make it easier than websites like Zillow or Trulia or Relator.com (or dozens of others). MLS is a centralized listing of properties for sale, so all blockchain would do is decentralize something that is currently working fine and therefore wouldn't really be an improvement. It just seems like this idea is an unnecessary use of blockchain that solves a problem that doesn't exist. In UK we use rightmove and zoopla, there aren't comments next to property as you search through else pretty sure rightmove and zoopla get shut down with UK regulations. Do Zillow/trulia or relator have this feature? Zillow allows owners of the property to alter the information on the website, as for open-ended comments that anyone can post on it (like a public comment section on websites), I'm not entirely sure of. But if there was a market need for this, I would expect it to be implemented by one of the dozens of sites competing in a competitive space. The fact that there may not be is indicative that there really isn't much point for random people to be commenting on random properties, so the use of blockchain to enable this is nonsensical since no one is asking for this feature. |
|
|
|
of course bitcoin has defeated the gold in the business market. The rate of generation rate of money of the bitcoin is high then gold in a specified time. The user of the bitcoin are so many time of the gold. Gold user are limited while bitcoin user are unlimited and growing day by day.
For me i think there is no comparision of both. Although gold stability will be better to compare real products you see in daily life but bitcoin is best stock in the world according to me because price value of it. We need to check the ounce of gold rare with bitcoin. It's value is more than a ounce of gold now. I suggest you to invest on btc to see the better profit than gold. Why is an oz of gold directly comparable to 1 bitcoin? Why not a grain, gram, oz, troy oz. tael, tola, kg or tonne? Because mindless pumping post is going to mindlessly pump. The distinction used is arbitrary and selected primarily so that one can say that Bitcoin has "defeated" gold. In reality, there's no objective measurement to make such an assessment. Price rise does not indicate that one asset as defeated another. Further, where bitcoin and gold most closely align (as a store of value), gold - which is a fairly volatile asset at times - is far more stable than bitcoin, so there's very little case to be made that bitcoin is a superior store of value either. |
|
|
|
Citing a well-worn comparison to the so-called “tulip bubble,” Shiller said that bitcoin has no value outside of the “common consensus that it has value,” which makes it different from gold and other commodities.
This is a funny comparison, as gold is one of the rare assets that also only have value because of the common consensus that it has value. Gold is economically essentially almost useless. It is only valued, because of the common consensus that it has value. As to the OP: yes, of course it is a bubble, and yes of course it burst. Like in 2011, and in 2013. And like the stock market in 1929. And like the housing prices in 2007. And like the dot-com bubble in the 90-ies. Of course. It is made to bubble. That's what speculative finance is all about. Gold has inherent value in that it is used in industrial, medical, and other fields. Absent people's consensus that it is a store of value, it still has practical use which gives it a baseline value, which is not the case for Bitcoin. Bitcoin is purely speculative and has zero inherent value. Gold also has thousands of years of history as a valuable asset, so it is no longer the case that everyone just decides it has value. For centuries before you've been alive, gold has had value. Gold isn't speculative like bitcoin is in that you can be reasonably sure that gold will continue to have value in the future. The same is not true for an asset like bitcoin that has been around for only 10ish years. I support this stance since this is what I mostly say myself Though I have to add a small but important commentary here. Gold's inherent value mostly consists in its direct use as jewelry. I certainly understand that defending your position (and mine, for the record, since I share it with you here) by emphasizing the use of gold in industrial and medical fields is a lot easier but it is not required since you can't argue with the numbers. And the numbers are that the jewelry industry is responsible for over 50% of the global demand for gold, over 35% of gold is used for investment purposes (central bank gold reserves as well as the IMF stash and private investments), and only around 8% is used in electronics, with other fields sharing the leftover. On the other hand, Bitcoin has inherent value too, which is called transactional utility, but today, with its extortionate fees and infinitely long confirmations, it is minuscule and utterly irrelevant Sure, jewelry is a large application of gold, but its use in jewelry is because of the value. It's a chicken/egg argument. Did gold have value because it is used in jewelry or was it used in jewelry because it had value? Like many precious/rare elements, it's use in jewelry came about as a function of its value as a means to display wealth. You see the same thing with diamonds, which are used in jewelry because the supply has been monopolized and artificially restricted to create a perception of value. Absent a consensus of value, they wouldn't be used in jewelry. Because jewelry's purpose is to display wealth, value is a prerequisite. |
|
|
|
When they really need to. But they'll fight it hard! Apple's business model is to lock everything down -- very closed indeed. This does not align with the goals of bitcoin, at least, how I perceive them.
tl;dr Apple = closed. BTC = open.
Apple is the epitome of centralization. They value control so much they close their App Store to publishers until the programs can be reviewed. In a trusted company, this is a good thing because it ensures all programs in their platform have been vetted and meet their minimum standard for quality control. But it's an indication they absolutely will not embrace blockchain because they cannot control it. The alternative is an open environment like the Android platform, but there is also a high degree of infiltration there by as actors who peddle virus-laden apps. It's a perfect analogy to scammy operators in crypto. |
|
|
|
|
Yes, Bitcoin has the biggest impact on all altcoins prices because Bitcoin is the most liquid crypto and the starting point for many alts. Starting point in that if you want to buy XYZ coin, you have to first to buy Bitcoin and then convert your btc to XYZ. The total price of all coins listed coinmarketcap is derived by weighted average of all known market pairings, between fiat and any coin and all other coins and any coin, including Bitcoin, which by weighted average is always among the most heavily weighted pairings. So by definition, when Bitcoin moves up or down it carries almost all alts with it as a function of how the price is determined. The only time it doesn't is in instances where a particular pairing is heavier than Bitcoin/particular alt, and the trading is in the opposite direction of the current Bitcoin price move.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin used to be defined as a store of value, HODL (buy and hold long term) investment.
With the introduction of futures markets, the rise of bitcoin cash and altcoin forks and platforms like coinbase engaging in insider trading by profiting off of their knowledge that they would introduce trading for fork coins beforehand... Bitcoin is slowly but surely becoming more an instrument of speculation than a store of long term value.
That fundamental shift is indicated by rising volatility and greater price swings.
Many trading exchanges are offering trades with no commissions. That also contributes towards higher volatility. The lack of a hard capital gains tax, which promotes HODL and cuts down on rampant speculation, also plays a role in volatility being higher than one might expect from say a stock market.
Lol, Bitcoin has never not been a purely speculative instrument. There has been no fundamental shift to this, it started as this, became even more this, and remains this. Bitcoin may go through higher and lower periods of volatility, but it has never had a period of no volatility. It was born in it, and grew to this height specifically because of it. The majority of people buying do so out of insane expectations of getting rich. It's 100% speculative, and always has been. |
|
|
|
Is it possible to have a platform which lists all property + allows comments relating to the property to be associated? Also sales values and ability to just attach an offer if the owner were to ever be interested in selling.... does this make sense ?
In the past I think stuff like this has been illegal? but I think it could help housing market. You never would actually have to list a property for sale as such, you'd just visit this platform and in theory you'd see a range of offers currently on the table for your property (obviously subject to viewing). I know people have to survey a house etc etc. The purpose of the site/platform is purely for the intial meeting of potential seller and potential buyer - something estate agents charge for.
That being said, I'd love to see such a platform. I'm just afraid it would be incredibly hard to free real estate of the firm grip of already established agencies while still adhering to local regulations. That's why some kind of decentralization could help because you don't have to worry about local regulations. Well for what i want the platform for anyway which is searching out property and seeing comments relating.
If that's what you're looking for, why not just go to any real estate website or database to find them? Blockchain isn't going to solve this issue or make it easier than websites like Zillow or Trulia or Relator.com (or dozens of others). MLS is a centralized listing of properties for sale, so all blockchain would do is decentralize something that is currently working fine and therefore wouldn't really be an improvement. It just seems like this idea is an unnecessary use of blockchain that solves a problem that doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
Hi,
[snip]
What is your opinion on modern ICO regulations and investors' attitude to ICOs?
ICOs are securities and should be registered as such or properly filed as exempt. Unregistered ICOs are currently being used to skirt securities laws, and anyone doing that should be viewed with the maximum amount of suspicion. It may be unfair to label all ICOs scammers on account of a few, but it certainly is not unfair to regard anyone issuing an unregistered ICO as someone attempting to avert regulation, and therefore suspect them of not acting honestly. There is essentially no difference between an ICO offering and a securities offering, except the ICO doesn't grant ownership rights to the business raising the funds, and so ICOs (in my view) are generally bought into by people who aren't sophisticated enough not to be taken advantage of. |
|
|
|
How does everyone feel about being taxed on profits earned through crypto currencies. We all took the leap of faith and risked our money, if we had all lost our money would the IRS still be interested in taxing us. Dont think so.
How far do you think governments will go to get a piece of the action?
Taxes have to be paid, there's no question there. There's no argument you can make that you don't have to pay taxes on this unless you're argument is income taxes are wrong/immoral/what have you, but then you're wrong anyway (but at least you're consistent). The major problem is the method (at least in the US) of taxation and how the US IRS has deemed "taxable events" to effectively cover potentially hundreds or thousands of transactions. The burden is far too high to compute the proper tax owed, and of course, if you make a mistake you're at fault. Computing taxes should be easy and compliance will be higher. |
|
|
|
You come up with all this issues regarding bitcoin, transaction fees, delays and all that, you forget to mention that Bitcoin has helped the cryptocurrency market in so many ways, and even still helping, it can be used to get any alt coins of your choice, something ethereum cant even do for some coins, yes Bitcoin has flaws, but thats no reason to call it useless, Hodlers of bitcoin ( I mean real hodlers ) wont even complain about such fees like that, because i think BTC has done more good in terms of profit, than most alt currencies could ever achieve. So please get your facts right
Bitcoin was the cryptocurrency market, and it's success spawned all the altcoins. Some alts have legitimately made improvements over Bitcoin as far as speed, cost, anonymity and scalability goes, but there's no doubt that the majority of alts are pointless garbage coins. They're not serving a market purpose but they're good for scammers and gamblers to pump and dump. But the fact also remains that Bitcoin's weaknesses provide a market for the legitimate alts to exist. People not complaining about transaction fees are clearly not using the coin for transactions, and it's much less interesting as an asset than a currency. |
|
|
|
Is it possible to have a platform which lists all property + allows comments relating to the property to be associated? Also sales values and ability to just attach an offer if the owner were to ever be interested in selling.... does this make sense ?
In the past I think stuff like this has been illegal? but I think it could help housing market. You never would actually have to list a property for sale as such, you'd just visit this platform and in theory you'd see a range of offers currently on the table for your property (obviously subject to viewing). I know people have to survey a house etc etc. The purpose of the site/platform is purely for the intial meeting of potential seller and potential buyer - something estate agents charge for.
Sounds like Zillow, why would you need an overly complicated technology like blockchain when this information can be much more easily controlled and edited on a centralized database like those offered by Zillow, Trulia, Realtor.com, etc. These services already permit you to list your house for free there in a searchable database. This doesn't seem like a useful application for blockchain. Far more useful (potentially) is recording of deeds and such using blockchain, not for listing properties for sale. |
|
|
|
What do you guys think will happen with prices when the popular stocking trading app Robinhood starts trading bitcoin and a few other coins in February ?
I don't expect it greatly increase adoption. Anyone inclined to trade bitcoin has already gotten involved. What this is likely to do is drive people already trading bitcoin to their app for free trades and to sap business away from other exchanges like Coinbase and Poloniex, et al. I expect the increased adoption to be minimal. Also, I expect it to be completely ignored by serious traders, because you're getting what you pay for. Free trades means days-long settlement times, and any day trading crypto is going to find that unacceptable. Serious traders will remain with GDAX and other major exchanges because they can't afford to lose time waiting or funds to be unlocked or coins to be available for trading due to long settlement delays. Overall, this is an overhyped event, but then again, that feels appropriate for Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Citing a well-worn comparison to the so-called “tulip bubble,” Shiller said that bitcoin has no value outside of the “common consensus that it has value,” which makes it different from gold and other commodities.
This is a funny comparison, as gold is one of the rare assets that also only have value because of the common consensus that it has value. Gold is economically essentially almost useless. It is only valued, because of the common consensus that it has value. As to the OP: yes, of course it is a bubble, and yes of course it burst. Like in 2011, and in 2013. And like the stock market in 1929. And like the housing prices in 2007. And like the dot-com bubble in the 90-ies. Of course. It is made to bubble. That's what speculative finance is all about. Gold has inherent value in that it is used in industrial, medical, and other fields. Absent people's consensus that it is a store of value, it still has practical use which gives it a baseline value, which is not the case for Bitcoin. Bitcoin is purely speculative and has zero inherent value. Gold also has thousands of years of history as a valuable asset, so it is no longer the case that everyone just decides it has value. For centuries before you've been alive, gold has had value. Gold isn't speculative like bitcoin is in that you can be reasonably sure that gold will continue to have value in the future. The same is not true for an asset like bitcoin that has been around for only 10ish years. |
|
|
|
of course bitcoin has defeated the gold in the business market. The rate of generation rate of money of the bitcoin is high then gold in a specified time. The user of the bitcoin are so many time of the gold. Gold user are limited while bitcoin user are unlimited and growing day by day.
Gold is universally recognized as a store of investment. Bitcoin is not. Gold is generally less volatile than Bitcoin. Gold has wider adoption. Gold has a longer history. Gold has electronic capabilities and derivatives (on par with Bitcoin). The only advantage that Bitcoin has over gold is ease of use for value transfer, but that's not much since Bitcoin is very expensive to transact in now compared to what it used to be. So on the whole, Bitcoin has not defeated gold. It's a ridiculous assertion. |
|
|
|
is not that bitcoin able to change the state of its users which effects also on the state of the country's economy, why even banned hemzzz   There are just some government that wants to ban bitcoin but not all the government in each country. We all know that when we earn bitcoin we dont pay taxes. That's one a good features of bitcoin, you can earn it in easy way. Now, for me, I think why government wants to ban bitcoin because as I have said earlier, it is tax free. It means instead of finding a job, a lot of people would just focus in earning bitcoins rather than look for a job and pay for the taxes of the government. You're going to find that Bitcoin is not tax free. Most countries already have rules or laws in place that require you to pay tax on earnings in Bitcoin and capital gains on Bitcoin price appreciation. Most countries haven't banned it either. At best, most are agnostic, at worst, a few have outright banned, but they are the vast minority. |
|
|
|
While global regulators are suspicious of cryptocurrencies, bankers are retreating from traditional finance and choosing to enter the world of cryptocurrency. They see the digital coinage ecosystem as an incredible feast for the world.
No bankers are retreating from traditional finance, that's ridiculous. The best you an Day is that some financial institutions are dabbling in blockchain technology (Ripple is a prime example), as well as internal blockchains for internal document retention. But in no case is it accurate to say that any institution pursuing these initiatives are doing so instead of their traditional businesses, it's being done on the side. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
