If you've never seen bubble burst its a beautiful thing to see unfold.
I've been trading stocks and options since 99. Learned a lot those years. Saw the bust of dot com, real estate and now beginningz of tech 2.0 bubble burst.
Call me a noob if it makes you sleep better investing in a time bomb.
Its like the APPL cult of 2012. TSLA cult of 2013. Hard to call the top. But all the signs are there
With examples like those you could look at current and projected earnings and profits and so forth. How do you propose to do the same with bitcoin? You are claiming knowledge you do not have. What we do know is that more people are learning about bitcoin and getting involved every day, and new tools and new businesses accepting it are springing up all around us. We are not even within 1% of market saturation, so your claim of a "bubble" is asinine. You're right with stocks you can use fundamentals for price prediction. However there are no bitcoin fundmentals so its pure speculation. It a roulette bet on red or black. It'll either be the greatest thing ever or a fad that disappear or morph into something else But im not talking about purely fundamentals. Just investor psychology is same during all bubbles. You have bears on one side creating doom and gloom. Bulls on the other side talking up future perfection and market monopolies. When these arguments get loud and public thens its probably a bubble I'm not claiming I know the future or anything. Just that I've traded a few bubbles before and I've seen some similarities in terms of psychology. And this smells like a bubble |
|
|
|
but eventually you'll get some economists, project managers, financial analysts, tax experts, consumer psychologists, programmers and so forth all working together
What makes you think an "economist" would do a better job than what we have now? Here's my response to an economist that thinks he can do such a thing: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=374829.msg5942089#msg5942089An economist can advise on economics since thats what he spends his life studying. No different than any other experts like computer scientist advising on programming |
|
|
|
|
If you've never seen bubble burst its a beautiful thing to see unfold.
I've been trading stocks and options since 99. Learned a lot those years. Saw the bust of dot com, real estate and now beginningz of tech 2.0 bubble burst.
Call me a noob if it makes you sleep better investing in a time bomb.
Its like the APPL cult of 2012. TSLA cult of 2013. Hard to call the top. But all the signs are there
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is like beta software. Granted it has a big head start, but eventually amidst all this altcoin craziness, you are going to see an altcoin get developed by a competent team that will trump bitcoin. I'm not saying the current alt developers are all incompetent, but eventually you'll get some economists, project managers, financial analysts, tax experts, consumer psychologists, programmers and so forth all working together to create a coin with better overall technical characteristics. Since people are very rational about their financial choices (compared to just about anything else), this coin will eventually triumph.
Or, really, I expect a couple coins to triumph. I ultimately expect that 4-5 dominant coins will arise, along with scores (at least) of niche coins. The reason for multiple dominant coins is that they will each perform best at different things. Business-to-business transfers will be done with Altcoin A, paychecks will be paid out in Altcoin B, major purchases will be done with Altcoin C, in-store purchases with Altcoin D and so on. And there will be complete liquidity between them (such that articles will talk about a gradual 5% shift in exchange between Altcoin B and C due to demographic shifts over the next generation for example).
Interesting thesis. Makes sense though. Im hoping someone designs a crypto thats not based on politics but good economics. I think the challenge is to figure how it should interface w fiat. Expecting crypto to replace fiat is the wrong direction IMO. I think what could be interesting is how we can use current ideas like crowd sourcing and micro finance to provide financial services. Like instead of speculating as a commodity. If you can crowd source a mortgage. I would not mind receiving mortgage payments if I financed 1/10th of a mortgage. There s lots of possibilties you shake out all the libertarian nutjobs from crypto community |
|
|
|
You say the current system is fragile. That may be true but it isn't because of the Federal Reserve System. The dollar is/was pretty stable. The 2008 crisis has more to do w liquidity. Banks like Bear Stearns & Lehman got too leveraged on mortgage derivatives. But these derivatives were back w toxic assets. Investors heard the rumors and worried their investments would go bust so they pulled out. It's like a bank run but not because they feared collapse of dollars. They feared the collapse of their investments. As these MBS collapsed, the banks couldn't unwind them fast enough. Other banks wouldn't lend them money so Bear & Lehman went insolvent. Over at Goldman, their MBS was insured by AIG. So that means AIG would implode if they had to payout all the insurance on Goldman's MBS. It was a big mess. This is completely delusional or wantonly revisionist ... the entire system was insolvent and the taxpayer bailed them out. If you really are involved in banking how could you have missed that detail? Goldman Sachs bonuses in 2008, (~ $20 billion worth) were paid directly out of the check that the taxpayer wrote to bail-out AIG. It was a pirate@40 pass-thru scandal only a truly evil cadre could abide by and profit from .... They were criminal because a criminally compliant congress bailed out broke institutions to the tune of trillions of dollars stolen from the wealth of nations themselves to make bankers whole on bad baets that made the entire system insolvent. Just because they were not prosecuted does not absolve them of their criminality. Wait you know what a bailout is don't you? Its a loan and its already been paid back. Did you pay bailout? Cause I didn't and I pay tons of taxes. I got mortgage relief through an FHA loan though. So you pissed I got bailout thru via FHA? You know what would happen if AIG didn't get bailed out? Goldman would have gone under. Do you realize the size of Goldman compared to Lehman and Bear? Do you understand the concept of liquidity at all? Criminals are people who commit crime. Please cite the crime Bear or Lehman committed. If there was crime then we already have a justice system to deal with that. Im so sick of the moral superiority in here. Bankers are just bankers. Its there job to make money. You don't like that some people make 100x your salary then that's your problem for choosing that profession. I don't like that 2008 happened either. And Im scared as hell that it happens again. But I think issues are regulatory. Heck thats the only thing you can do is change the laws. You can't remove greed from human nature. Bitcoin world is of equal if not more greed and corruption than banking specifically due to lack to zero REGULATIONS. The idea that bitcoin will solve banking is a joke to anyone w a rudimentary knowledge of undergrad macro and finance You think Goldman Sachs will go away if bitcoin replace dollars? If anything they'll monopolize it and ess rape you even more without regulations. If Goldman truly believed that bitcoin replaces dollar they'll use so much money to short it, collapse the price and buy it all. It would be too easy at the current market cap. Fortunately for you, they're not kiddies. They don't care about your libertarian utopian fantasy |
|
|
|
|
With so many imminent signs of a bubble burst. Its be foolish be bagholder here. Even crazier to catch falling knives.
Too bad its not easy to short bitcoin. I really wanted to short from 1200
|
|
|
|
|
Its not even legal tender so the merchant would have to convert back to fiat anyways. If they need fiat to operate their business
The easiest way to do this is through a service similar to credit or debit cards. Isn't there some service for this already?
Its a pain to use bitcoins currency. No different if you work for dollars then instead of a checking account you buy gold. When you need dollars you sell that gold back to dollars to make purchases
|
|
|
|
|
I dont support criminals. I said Lehman & Bear didnt do anything illegal to cause their collapse. I already said problems in banking is due to weak regulations. We need MORE regulations not LESS
The problem w your bitcoin is these problems dont arise from arise from currency creation itself but from people outsmarting the system so they can profit. People are corrupt not the currency.
You are naive if you think bitcoin offers anything other than an innovation in money transfer
|
|
|
|
re: Slippery Slope: For example, consider a Bitcoin ATM compared to a bank ATM. The Bitcoin ATM uses the internet to operate same as a bank ATM - but the Bitcoin ATM does not involve the vast overhead of the banking infrastructure... And the bitcoin ATM certainly doesn't use WindowsXP where an estimated 95% of traditional ATM are still using XP! http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/04/technology/security/atm-windows-xp/re: twiifm: If more crypto developers understood how money works then maybe the next iteration won't be so held back by immature politics or designed to be abused by speculators. I believe there is enough evidence to prove that the existing system is fragile from the ground up. If not so, there would have been no need for QE in all its flavors since, what, 2008? If not so, the average lifespan of the dominant currency might be longer than 27 years. http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2011/08/average-life-expectancy-for-fiat.html Even today, after all the bailouts, Citibank failed a 'stress test' - what's that supposed to mean anyway? How do we measure it when the most important ledgers were kept of the balance sheets. I worked at a bank. I would read internal guidance on a regular basis. I learned that it was 'in the best interest of our customers' to get them on Libor, 'because it is more stable' - yeah... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal - they left out the part where it was more stable for collusion and profit through theft. I would regularly read guidance internally in the banks that was later echoed by Federal Reserve publications. Not only are banks ahead of the game but they rig it and plan its course, yet they still can't survive without extortionary tactics. This was not fair to all the credit unions and small independent banks who were wise with their assets and leverage and still suffer the consequences through higher insurance costs and regulation - not to mention the damages to everyone else who's not a big bank. I remember Greenspan saying in 2004 that adjustable rate mortgages 'might be the better deal' - http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/fed/2004-02-23-greenspan-debt_x.htm - yeah... how'd that work out. Start with an anti-fragile base and build on top of it. Just like Microsoft has chosen to stop supporting WindowsXP on April 8th, Bitcoin developers can dump the old code and build from the ground up with the goal of lasting more than 27 years. I don't disagree that there are numerous problems in banking. But it has more to do with regulations than what currency we use or how its made. In terms of regulation there is a lot of controversy surrounding repeal of Glass Steagal. And some people believe the repeal in 1999 was a major contributor to 2008 crisis 9 years later. I happen to agree. Dodd-Frank tries to address some of these issues but unsuccessful in reinstating Glass-Steagal itself. Things like Volker Rule & ring fencing would help minimize damage if something like 2008 were to occur again I'm for MORE regulations when it comes to banking not LESS. It is my observation that many bitcoin activist are politically libertarian and in general prefer less to NO regulations. Um, I just don't see it. Money makes people greedy and I see more greed and corruption in bitcoin world than in mainstream banking. The only difference is scale. The Mt Gox saga didn't crash bitcoin only because bitcoin is fringe. Imagine if that was NYSE or Nasdaq. That would severely damage our economy I am for regulation that is enforced. If it is not enforced, it should be totally removed as regulation. Programmable money solves many barriers to enforcement. There will still be corruption but it won't be like rotting from the inside out. Banking is a cat & mouse game between bankers & regulators. These bankers did nothing illegal. Just they outsmarted the regulations. How does programable money solve barriers to enforcement? Lets say I created derivatives on bitcoin. How is that regulated? Mt Gox isn't regulated by SEC. That's why they can lose the customers money and just declare bankruptcy |
|
|
|
re: Slippery Slope: For example, consider a Bitcoin ATM compared to a bank ATM. The Bitcoin ATM uses the internet to operate same as a bank ATM - but the Bitcoin ATM does not involve the vast overhead of the banking infrastructure... And the bitcoin ATM certainly doesn't use WindowsXP where an estimated 95% of traditional ATM are still using XP! http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/04/technology/security/atm-windows-xp/re: twiifm: If more crypto developers understood how money works then maybe the next iteration won't be so held back by immature politics or designed to be abused by speculators. I believe there is enough evidence to prove that the existing system is fragile from the ground up. If not so, there would have been no need for QE in all its flavors since, what, 2008? If not so, the average lifespan of the dominant currency might be longer than 27 years. http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2011/08/average-life-expectancy-for-fiat.html Even today, after all the bailouts, Citibank failed a 'stress test' - what's that supposed to mean anyway? How do we measure it when the most important ledgers were kept of the balance sheets. I worked at a bank. I would read internal guidance on a regular basis. I learned that it was 'in the best interest of our customers' to get them on Libor, 'because it is more stable' - yeah... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal - they left out the part where it was more stable for collusion and profit through theft. I would regularly read guidance internally in the banks that was later echoed by Federal Reserve publications. Not only are banks ahead of the game but they rig it and plan its course, yet they still can't survive without extortionary tactics. This was not fair to all the credit unions and small independent banks who were wise with their assets and leverage and still suffer the consequences through higher insurance costs and regulation - not to mention the damages to everyone else who's not a big bank. I remember Greenspan saying in 2004 that adjustable rate mortgages 'might be the better deal' - http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/fed/2004-02-23-greenspan-debt_x.htm - yeah... how'd that work out. Start with an anti-fragile base and build on top of it. Just like Microsoft has chosen to stop supporting WindowsXP on April 8th, Bitcoin developers can dump the old code and build from the ground up with the goal of lasting more than 27 years. I don't disagree that there are numerous problems in banking. But it has more to do with regulations than what currency we use or how its made. You say the current system is fragile. That may be true but it isn't because of the Federal Reserve System. The dollar is/was pretty stable. The 2008 crisis has more to do w liquidity. Banks like Bear Stearns & Lehman got too leveraged on mortgage derivatives. But these derivatives were back w toxic assets. Investors heard the rumors and worried their investments would go bust so they pulled out. It's like a bank run but not because they feared collapse of dollars. They feared the collapse of their investments. As these MBS collapsed, the banks couldn't unwind them fast enough. Other banks wouldn't lend them money so Bear & Lehman went insolvent. Over at Goldman, their MBS was insured by AIG. So that means AIG would implode if they had to payout all the insurance on Goldman's MBS. It was a big mess. In terms of regulation there is a lot of controversy surrounding repeal of Glass Steagal. And some people believe the repeal in 1999 was a major contributor to 2008 crisis 9 years later. I happen to agree. Dodd-Frank tries to address some of these issues but unsuccessful in reinstating Glass-Steagal itself. Things like Volker Rule & ring fencing would help minimize damage if something like 2008 were to occur again I'm for MORE regulations when it comes to banking not LESS. It is my observation that many bitcoin activist are politically libertarian and in general prefer less to NO regulations. Um, I just don't see it. Money makes people greedy and I see more greed and corruption in bitcoin world than in mainstream banking. The only difference is scale. The Mt Gox saga didn't crash bitcoin only because bitcoin is fringe. Imagine if that was NYSE or Nasdaq. That would severely damage our economy |
|
|
|
In my opinion the Winkelvoss ETP will be very unlikely to become the pricing mechanism for BTC, but since the issue was raised
Whats the ticker? I want to short this sucker |
|
|
|
From my comments on various MarketWatch.com articles, I believe that only a minority of ordinary stock market investors have purchased bitcoins, and even fewer are true believers. And the ponzi scheme, pump and dump notions have been applied to bitcoin for four years by skeptics. A true believer is one who believes that the Bitcoin economy will achieve future market domination. I became a true believer in the 30 minutes that it took me to read Satoshi Nakamoto's paper back in 2010. I am a computer scientist with a degree in applied mathematics, who also has a great interest in business. I have lived long enough to witness full adoption of many disruptive technologies, e.g. TCP/IP, bank credit cards, ACH (US Automated Clearing House), bank check truncation, Automatic Teller Machines, emailed financial statements, hard disk drives, open source software, microcomputers, electronic word processing, digital spreadsheets, relational databases, algorithmic credit scoring, Virtual Private Networks, High Frequency Trading, etc. Back in 2010 I had recently worked with X.509 certificate trust chains and knew how digital signatures worked. I also understood how distributed peer-to-peer networks and clients worked at the developer level. Thus it was easy for me to understand how Satoshi's platform operated. I fully understood the problems with the current financial infrastructure, having programmed for a wide variety of bank software applications, and also as an ordinary banking customer. Whether a particular Bitcoin company can build a moat around its core business to fend off competition, whether a particular Bitcoin company can endure and achieve market domination - is not my concern. Whether Bitcoin achieves future market domination as a payment mechanism, as a technology platform, and as a deflationary store of value - is my concern. One of the reasons I came to this board is because my old retired father got a tip somewhere to invest in bitcoins because "its the future of curency", "its like digital gold", "designed deflationary - always go up in price", etc.. I got so sick of hearing this drivel and thinking how all these unsophisticated folks will get suckered into it and lose their money. It happens on Wall Street all the time w tech stock pumping. Before that it was mortgages. And before that it was internet stocks. The worst are penny stocks and small & micro cap. But at least w stocks we have fundamentals to use as price indicator. I also have some background in economics and finance. So I understand the finance/ banking system The simple economic reason bitcoin will fail as replacing fiat. It is not centrally controlled. The power to adjust the supply of money is extremely crucial in order to maintain liquidity in money markets. This didn't happen overnight it evolved to this stage through painful lessons of history. Without this aspect bitcoin is inefficient as money. As a technology I think cryptocurrency has potential. The public ledger aspect of it is extremely intriguing. Bitcoins potential is in money transfer not as currency. This is what GS and Buffett said and I agree. I predict that in the future the banks will create some digital cash using public ledger idea. But its not a separate currency but based on dollars in your bank account. Thats what consumers want. Something like M Pesa or Ripple Anyways, you seem like a smart guy. Smarter than most of the bitbugs I've encountered or "believers" if using your semantics I suggest you look into a coursera.org course called "economics of banking" taught by prof Merhling of Columbia U. Theres no politics in this course. Just banking, how it functions, its history. I think you will understand money much more and how banking infrastructures weakness is not because Central Banking or fractional reserve banking. It has more to do w regulations surrounding derivatives, prop trading, shadow banking, etc. Things that can't be solved by inventing a new currency https://class.coursera.org/money-001https://class.coursera.org/money2-001If more crypto developers understood how money works then maybe the next iteration won't be so held back by immature politics or designed to be abused by speculators. If you want to design something useful, then design it to work on top of what we have not replace it. Why do you want millions of indiviual networked bankers? Can they provide financial services like loans or credit? Deal liquidity? Make markets? Or are they there just to support the network for blockchain? Why do you need a new curency when it has to be converted back to dollars? I just don't get what problems bitcoin is supposed to solve |
|
|
|
There is a problem with finance now because of globalization and interweave of markets. But it has nothing to do w conspiracy or fractional reserve or whatever those Zeitgeist/ Alex Jones nutjobs tell you. Has more to do w regulation, derivatives and shadow banking
Nothing to see here. Move along.  Don't get it. Shadows banks are just unregulated banks. |
|
|
|
You think it's so easy to be a bank? Try lending money some time. Its pretty risky if the borrower doesn't pay you back.
You realize, of course, that under partial reserve banking, the vast majority of the money that banks lend does not even exist until the the very act of making the loan zaps it into existence, right? How hard can it be to stay in business collecting interest on making loans of made up money? I know how banking works. Don't try to school me about banking. I didn't challenge your knowledge of banking. You should learn though. [...blah blah federal reserve...]
Irrelevant to the topic at hand -- your claim was not about the central bank, it was about _a_ bank. Lending money is risky. If the loan defaults you are left w illiquid collateral.
Sure its risky. If lendee defaults in the first year, a bank might not break even on the 10% of the loan that was actually the bank's money. Boo fucking Hoo. Of course, if lendee defaults later, bank is made whole on its _actual_ investment. Plus it gets to repossess what ever collateral secured the loan. May not be liquid, but the bank nets out positive. If the loan goes to term, the bank gets the 90% of the principal that was made up on the spot, plus all the interest - and all that money reflects the theft of wealth -- in the form of stolen purchasing power --- from each and every person who held dollars at the instant that 90% of the loan principal was zapped into existence. The industry employs a funny definition of 'risk'. Banks don't create money, Central Banks do. Theres nothing wrong w creating money through balance sheet expansion. Its the most efficient way to inject liquidity into the economy. That money isn't free either, it is debt. However debt is necessary for economies Risk is simply how much money you stand to lose. In business everybody takes risk and they expect payoff in proportion to the amount of risk they take. Banks are not special in this regard. The issue is not they take risks. The issue is when risk blows up in their face they can become insolvent. Insolvency of one bank can trigger domino effect as we witnessed in 2008 Listen, you don't need to be rude. You think you know everything when clearly you don't. I suggest you read about banking and economics before trying to teach other people. Im trying to help you be more educated but believe whatever you want Here's an article written by Steve Keen, a well respected economist. Its about myth of fractional reserve. If you want enlighten yourself then read it. Might be above your grade though. Its not easy to understand unless you've done a course in banking. Thats why I linked you that simpler and broader investopedia article. http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2012/10/22/commodities/myth-money-multiplier |
|
|
|
[Are you sure Metcalfes law can used to price an asset class? Isn't it used to describe network effects?
I am not completely sure that Metcalfes law can used to price an asset class. However, the stunning results posted by gbianchi and Peter R are sufficiently convincing, e.g. the close alignment of the data series in Peter R's graph, make me very interested to see just how the law can indeed apply. Especially considering much headroom the Bitcoin economy has with regard to transaction quantity growth over the next seven years. You might get a stronger explanation by posting your issue in gbianchi's thread linked earlier. Yeah I tried reading that thread but the idea of using a formula to price a future is laughable. BTW I trade options so I know about how options price works and I know quite a bit about technical analysis. One thing I can say is that most bubble charts have the same shape. If you look at AAPL in 2012 compare it to FB, TSLA, AMZN today. You'll find an uncanny similarity in there shapes. With only a variance of 2-4 weeks. Ive looked at past bubbles like MSFT, YHOO, NOK, CSCO too. They have some resemblance to curent bubbles but slightly different. Anyways by studying shapes of bubbles I predicted the top of TSLA, FB, NFLX they all crashed this week. I believe AZMN is showing signs of bubble but not the top yet. Same as GOOG My theory is that bubbles are more technical than fundamental but the similarity is they disconnect from fundamentals and then eventually fundamentals pull them back into alignment. I don't trade bitcoin so I don't know its chart. But a sign of bubbles is when speculators invest on future market domination. I believe they do this to justify their investment as well as recruiting greater fools so they can exit. To me bitcoin smells exactly like a pump and dump. IMHO |
|
|
|
You think it's so easy to be a bank? Try lending money some time. Its pretty risky if the borrower doesn't pay you back.
You realize, of course, that under partial reserve banking, the vast majority of the money that banks lend does not even exist until the the very act of making the loan zaps it into existence, right? How hard can it be to stay in business collecting interest on making loans of made up money? I know how banking works. Don't try to school me about banking. You should learn though. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/10/understanding-the-fed-balance-sheet.aspLending money is risky. If the loan defaults you are left w illiquid collateral. Markets rely on liquidity. Solvency relies on liquidity. Try looking at finance from a bankers POV not as a anarchist geek. There is a problem with finance now because of globalization and interweave of markets. But it has nothing to do w conspiracy or fractional reserve or whatever those Zeitgeist/ Alex Jones nutjobs tell you. Has more to do w regulation, derivatives and shadow banking |
|
|
|
Metcalfe's Law Explains 10x Price Growth Vs. 3.2x Transaction Quantity GrowthAt least two posters, gbianchi https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=441336.0and Peter R https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=400235.msg5877592#msg5877592have presented a theory on the relationship between Bitcoin transactions and bitcoin prices. The consensus result is that prices are growing in proportion to the square of the transaction quantity and also in proportion to the number of addresses. Peter R uses the Blockchain.info data series that excludes the 100 most popular bitcoin addresses from the recorded transaction quantities. Here is the outstanding chart provided by Peter R that best illustrates the application of Metcalfe's Law to bitcoin prices . . .  And here is the example device network from the Wikipedia article on Metcalfe's Law. The insight of the law is that the utility of the network, e.g. bitcoin users, is directly related to the number of reachable nodes. The number of connections is the approximately the square of the number of nodes.  Supposing that Bitcoin completely replaces the current payment infrastructure entails a transaction rate that surpasses the current quantity of bank card transactions. At a growth rate of 3.2x annually, Bitcoin daily transaction quantity will exceed 350 thousand in 8 more years. But applying Metcalfe's law predicts a bitcoin price of 58 billion USD per coin at that point - which is implausible. Therefore it is reasonable to suppose that small-world effects will disconnect the bitcoin price relationship from transaction volume, in that the future whole Bitcoin network will not be uniformly well connected but rather be clusters of well connected nodes. Here is the example graph from the Wikipedia article on small world networks . . .  Are you sure Metcalfes law can used to price an asset class? Isn't it used to describe network effects? |
|
|
|
|
If dollar collapse people would use a more stable currency. But thats not bitcoin.
Why would dollar collapse? Only if something big happened. Its not gonna collapse because of debt
|
|
|
|
Seriously, I don't why so many bitbugs are anti bank.
Banks perform an important function in economies. They take risk to provide liquidity. Bottom line, If you take risk you get paid for it. Banks are liquidity dealers & market makers
Even if bitcoins go mainstream there still needs financial services. People need mortgages, credit, etc.. Banks aren't going to go away cause some anarchist geeks don't understand banking
I agree w futbol that its more likely that banks will make a type of "bitcoin" if the consumers really demand it.
That would be nice if it were true but in reality banks get paid for risk and when that risk doesn't turn out, they get bailed out. Socialize losses and privatize profits is what we have right now. You are describing moral hazard. In any case bailouts aren't free. They're loans. Second, the govt has no choice in times of crisis. Third not all banks get bailed out. Lehman went under |
|
|
|
So would the taxes be worse if bitcoin was considered property or a currency? I've been pondering this lately.
You pay taxes on income. Capital gains have cap at 15% I believe. Ordinary income is based on tax bracket. We are taxed in dollars. If you bought a bitcoin a year ago for $1 and now its $600. If you sell it you get taxed on $599 as ordinary income. But tax rate depends on all your other income combined If you don't sell it there is a cap of 15%. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
