reaching 70% dominance. on cmc, which was always rigged in favour of alts.
BTC dominance was always over 80% until the BCH split happened. From that moment on. Or better to say a bit before that, was always uncertainty. Not just BCH steal dominance but also ETH, which many considered as BTC version two. But it ended just as a platform to crowdfund founds with illegal securities. And it seems it lasted for two whole years. There was an explosion of ICOs at that time. The BCH fork wasn’t a driver. From end of 2017 Feb to mid 2017 Jun, BTC dominance plunged from over 85% to below 40%. https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/#dominance-percentageThe beginning of 2017 is when blocks started becoming persistently full. https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-size.htmlThe loss of dominance was due neither to BCH nor ICOs. 'Twas the Blockalypse. Or more precisely, Blockalypse I. Nice try. It was the ICO boom of 2017 driving up the price of ETH to 35% market dominance. ICOs and token sales became popular in 2017. There were at least 18 websites tracking ICOs before mid-year.[12] In May, the ICO for a new web browser called Brave generated about $35 million in under 30 seconds.[citation needed] Messaging app developer Kik's September 2017 ICO raised nearly $100 million. At the start of October 2017, ICO coin sales worth $2.3 billion had been conducted during the year, more than ten times as much as in all of 2016.[13][14] As of November 2017, there were around 50 offerings a month,[15] with the highest-grossing ICO as of January 2018, being Filecoin raising $257 million (and $200 million of that within the first hour of their token sale).[16] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_coin_offeringNice try, indeed. Your timeline does not match up. Your wiki 'evidence' says nothing about pre-May. By 2017 May 1, BTC's dominance had already been slashed from more that 85% in end of Feb to below 60%. Indeed, a look at a chart of cumulative ICO value per month counters your assertion: https://cointelegraph.com/news/from-2-9-billion-in-a-month-to-hundreds-dead-trends-of-the-rollercoaster-ico-market-in-18-monthsOne can quite clearly see that there was comparatively very little taken in by ICO's by the time 2017 Jun rolled around - and that BTC dominance had already nosedived to below 40%. You know what timeline does match up with the plunge in market dominance? Blockalypse I. |
|
|
|
reaching 70% dominance. on cmc, which was always rigged in favour of alts.
BTC dominance was always over 80% until the BCH split happened. From that moment on. Or better to say a bit before that, was always uncertainty. Not just BCH steal dominance but also ETH, which many considered as BTC version two. But it ended just as a platform to crowdfund founds with illegal securities. And it seems it lasted for two whole years. There was an explosion of ICOs at that time. The BCH fork wasn’t a driver. From end of 2017 Feb to mid 2017 Jun, BTC dominance plunged from over 85% to below 40%. https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/#dominance-percentageThe beginning of 2017 is when blocks started becoming persistently full. https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-size.htmlThe loss of dominance was due neither to BCH nor ICOs. 'Twas the Blockalypse. Or more pecisely, Blockalypse I. 1) jbreher's arguments above should serve as evidence that there is still a decent amount of stubborn hopium regarding the presentation of a bitcoin is broken narrative It's not hopium. Quite the opposite. It's lamentation, you numbskull. 2) spammer BIG blockers like to conveniently forget how much resources they were pumping into spamming BTC's blockchain in mid to late 2017
Yet the fall off the cliff -- as clearly described above -- was early 2017. So, nice try, no gold star. |
|
|
|
reaching 70% dominance. on cmc, which was always rigged in favour of alts.
BTC dominance was always over 80% until the BCH split happened. From that moment on. Or better to say a bit before that, was always uncertainty. Not just BCH steal dominance but also ETH, which many considered as BTC version two. But it ended just as a platform to crowdfund founds with illegal securities. And it seems it lasted for two whole years. There was an explosion of ICOs at that time. The BCH fork wasn’t a driver. From end of 2017 Feb to mid 2017 Jun, BTC dominance plunged from over 85% to below 40%. https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/#dominance-percentageThe beginning of 2017 is when blocks started becoming persistently full. https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-size.htmlThe loss of dominance was due neither to BCH nor ICOs. 'Twas the Blockalypse. Or more pecisely, Blockalypse I. |
|
|
|
Kyle Torpey at least knows how to edit. Yeah, I dunno. What do the last three paragraphs have to do with Blockstream having large mining power? I think it's a PR stunt for BetterHash. I think the rhetoric here is: you mine, you profit but also you can decide not to follow the Chinese pools in taking directions you don't like. You can mine the transactions you want. Here a brief description of what bettterHAsh is: BetterHash Protocol Lets Pool Miners Regain Control Over Their Hash PowerAgain, I fail to see what the last three paragraphs have to do with Blockstream having large mining power. Reproduced below: Even with these concerns around Bitcoin mining centralization, some U.S. lawmakers are convinced they would not be able to ban Bitcoin.
On the other hand, Facebook’s Libra cryptocurrency project would be much easier to manipulate, regulate, and control. That said, multiple members of the Bitcoin industry have pointed out the roundabout ways Bitcoin could benefit Facebook’s Libra.
That said, even if improvements are made to the decentralization and censorship resistance of Bitcoin from a technical level, the reality is the digital cash system still faces a serious regulatory issue in terms of its use as a payments mechanism due to the way in which the crypto asset is taxed.
Kind of a funny way to conclude an article on Blockstream's mining activities, no? |
|
|
|
Kyle Torpey at least knows how to edit. Yeah, I dunno. What do the last three paragraphs have to do with Blockstream having large mining power? |
|
|
|
There's no point for the FED to posa a "threat to banks" or "topple large banking institutions".
Quite. Especially in light of the fact the the FED is actually a private corporation owned by the banks. |
|
|
|
Sixteenth Amendment ratification arguments have been rejected in every court case where they have been raised and have been identified as legally frivolous.[3]
Yes, they have been rejected. Without ever addressing the facts of the matter. At least in every case I have reviewed. Whaddaya expect? Statists gonna state. You live under a common law system. Judges make the law by interpreting the constitution, legislation and previous cases. If a judge says it, it’s law until overturned. That’s just how it works. If you want to tip over that particular apple cart, you are going to have to go back to the Norman Conquest in 1066. I think we are in violent agreement on this part. However... If the courts were to respect the law -- especially common law -- they would be able to trace their decisions through the precedents to the point where any matter of law was considered and judged upon. The basis of the income tax is a matter that cannot be traced back to a source decision. Because there exists none. United States v Thomas carefully trawls through the ratification argument. This is clearly a source decision that the 16th Amendment has been properly ratified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_Sixteenth_Amendment_argumentsThanks. I'll absorb it when time permits. Though from a superficial glance, I have the following comments: - lower court decision not necessarily applicable to courts other than 7th Circuit Illinois jurisdiction - timing of 1986 is kind of too little too late (I guess better late than never) - seems to cover only the contention that enactment of differing texts is still valid for the amendment process - most germane, as a rebuttal to my points, completely ignores the lack legislative and regulatory authority and misapplication |
|
|
|
Sixteenth Amendment ratification arguments have been rejected in every court case where they have been raised and have been identified as legally frivolous.[3]
Yes, they have been rejected. Without ever addressing the facts of the matter. At least in every case I have reviewed. Whaddaya expect? Statists gonna state. You live under a common law system. Judges make the law by interpreting the constitution, legislation and previous cases. If a judge says it, it’s law until overturned. That’s just how it works. If you want to tip over that particular apple cart, you are going to have to go back to the Norman Conquest in 1066. I think we are in violent agreement on this part. However... If the courts were to respect the law -- especially common law -- they would be able to trace their decisions through the precedents to the point where any matter of law was considered and judged upon. The basis of the income tax is a matter that cannot be traced back to a source decision. Because there exists none. |
|
|
|
Got a call from my bank today. They had a few questions about my finances and expected money movements in the coming year. I barely deal with them so it was over quick, but they know I have bitcoin and I know they don't like it. Probably just a matter of time until they boot me, but that's expected.
I'm gonna buy my plane tickets with bitcoins the next few times. Lots of places that do it now, gotta see if I can actually live a normal life without a bank.
On that topic, check out Celsius.network. It pays me 4.6% interest on my Bitcoin, and will loan me money at 5%interest witl btc collateral. I started earning on some of my btc stash 2 weeks ago. So far it's awesome! So now you don't need. Anne for loans any more,. And holding can pay interest. At the mere cost of counterparty risk. |
|
|
|
Let alone the fact that the 16th Amendment was fraudulently declared as enacted by Secretary of State Philander Knox, without the acquiescence of the requisite 2/3 of all states ratifying.
So much wrong I can't address it all, so I'll just correct one item and declare your entire post invalid. "when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states" Thanks. Working from memory here. Fraudulently declared as enacted by Secretary of State Philander Knox, without the acquiescence of the requisite 3/4 of all states ratifying. Actually, I'll revisit this. If there is 'so much wrong', then with what else do you take issue? Are you trying to tell me that decisions of the US Supreme Court have no relevance? |
|
|
|
Sixteenth Amendment ratification arguments have been rejected in every court case where they have been raised and have been identified as legally frivolous.[3]
Yes, they have been rejected. Without ever addressing the facts of the matter. At least in every case I have reviewed. Whaddaya expect? Statists gonna state. |
|
|
|
Let alone the fact that the 16th Amendment was fraudulently declared as enacted by Secretary of State Philander Knox, without the acquiescence of the requisite 2/3 of all states ratifying.
So much wrong I can't address it all, so I'll just correct one item and declare your entire post invalid. "when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states" Thanks. Working from memory here. Fraudulently declared as enacted by Secretary of State Philander Knox, without the acquiescence of the requisite 3/4 of all states ratifying. |
|
|
|
It was interesting to learn than Schiff's dad, Irwin, died in prison 3 years ago as part of his protest/boycott on federal income tax.
Fascinating. I had no idea they were related. Peter Schiff published a moving memorial speech about his Dad Irwin. https://schiffgold.com/commentaries/death-of-a-patriot/Sorry I am going to call this out. This will be a highly unpopular post. Dying chained to a hospital bed because you refuse to pay federal taxes is not the act of a patriot. It is an act of greed, foolishness and stubbornness. If you have not read the evidence (I gather you have not), you may wish to retract your claim. I have read the Code. I have read the legislative register. In contrast to what the IRS claims, there is no law nor regulation which subjects the regular income of US persons to an assessment of income tax. Of course, the IRS claims differently. As was once famously said (Voltaire?) It is dangerous to be correct when your government is incorrect. So I have stopped tilting at that particular windmill, and pay according the illegal assessment as per the various 1040 forms. And reel in disgust each time. Dude. 16th Amendment, followed by the Revenue Act of 1913? I googled that in less than 10 seconds. Edit: here is the text of the 16th Amendment The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. Bravo. You have learned how type a query into the convenient text box provided by Da Gooble. Too bad you are unable to understand the text to which it leads you. First: That is NOT legislation. Any existing power is not exercised until legislation is enacted. More importantly: The 16th does not say what you seem to think it says. Firstly, the Supremes have clarified that the 16th only clarifies pre-existing power: "... aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that, by the previous ruling, it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived -- that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed." - USSC Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/103/... and that the 16th does not make taxable anything that was not previously taxable: "As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely removes all occasion which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income, whether it be derived from one source or another." - USSC Peck & Co v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/247/165/and... "Does the Sixteenth Amendment authorize and support this tax and the attendant diminution -- that is to say, does it bring within the taxing powers subjects theretofore excepted? The court below answered in the negative, and counsel for the government say: "It is not, in view of recent decisions, contended that this amendment rendered anything taxable as income that was not so taxable before." " - USSC Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920)https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/253/245/...for starters. Let alone the fact that the 16th Amendment was fraudulently declared as enacted by Secretary of State Philander Knox, without the acquiescence of the requisite 2/3 of all states ratifying. But even IF the 16th were legally ratified, and even IF the 16th covered regular income of the average person, there would still need to be enacting legislation for the income tax to be applicable to the income of the average person. Three strikes - you're OUT! |
|
|
|
It was interesting to learn than Schiff's dad, Irwin, died in prison 3 years ago as part of his protest/boycott on federal income tax.
Fascinating. I had no idea they were related. Peter Schiff published a moving memorial speech about his Dad Irwin. https://schiffgold.com/commentaries/death-of-a-patriot/Sorry I am going to call this out. This will be a highly unpopular post. Dying chained to a hospital bed because you refuse to pay federal taxes is not the act of a patriot. It is an act of greed, foolishness and stubbornness. If you have not read the evidence (I gather you have not), you may wish to retract your claim. I have read the Code. I have read the legislative register. In contrast to what the IRS claims, there is no law nor regulation which subjects the regular income of US persons to an assessment of income tax. Of course, the IRS claims differently. As was once famously said (Voltaire?) It is dangerous to be correct when your government is incorrect. So I have stopped tilting at that particular windmill, and pay according the illegal assessment as per the various 1040 forms. And reel in disgust each time. |
|
|
|
It was interesting to learn than Schiff's dad, Irwin, died in prison 3 years ago as part of his protest/boycott on federal income tax.
Fascinating. I had no idea they were related. |
|
|
|
Observing BTC @12,070 USD. whoops 11,690
Observing GOLD @1,502 USD. (highest point since April 2013)
Donald Trump sent Gold overshooting criticizing FED being too shy cutting rates (like 15 trln of negative yield bonds worldwide are not enough)
Some user would be celebrating for this move in Gold.
All other user know what bullish gold implies for their favourite asset and are celebrating too!
News of simultaneous pump in Bitcoin and in Gold is likely to cement the 'digital gold' narrative in the minds of the many. |
|
|
|
r0ach HATES crypto, I get that, but his commentary ought to be read by anyone here at W.O. who is over 30 - 35 or so...
I dunno. 'Gold and Silver Good' is a pretty generic message that can be absorbed anywhere. I don't really see any need to swallow r0ach's flawed axioms at the same helping. Isn't Schiff or some similar goldbug's opinion not closed enough? |
|
|
|
I started buying in May 2014. I’ve never declared any tax at all. Correct me if I’m wrong but you only pay capital gains tax when you start to sell?
Only when you sell for fiat. If you convert to another digital asset you don't pay capital gains. At least not yet. US? Absolutely false. Early years, one could make the argument that crypto-crypto trades were 'like kind exchanges' under 1031. In TY 2018, the law was changed in order to specifically outlaw like kind exchanges for anything other than real property (e.g., real estate). Note: IANAL, and this is not tax advice. Evidently, neither is bkbirge. |
|
|
|
Observing top holder Coinbase buy/sell ratios:
btc: 33/67
eth: 35/65
ltc: 29/71
I have no idea what that even means. |
|
|
|
I have noticed a new trend : No one is calling Bitcoin a bubble any more.
Are you kidding? Nouriel mumbles it in his sleep. Hit him up if you need a fix. May be people are getting to believe that no price is impossible to achieve with Bitcoin and cryptocurrency. Price can go as high as $50,000 even before the end of this year. This is also possible.
Well, there is that. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
