 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
Any suggestions on how one may avoid tax or minimise tax on crypto currencies?
I know the popular wisdom is that you can't escape taxes in the US, but ultimately it depends on how motivated you really are. For example, if you relocate to Puerto Rico, any capital gains you generate on assets acquired after relocating are tax free for the next 20 years or so. Not super useful after the fact, but this is just one loophole among many. If you're playing with large amounts, this is the kind of things of good tax professional would be able to help you with. |
|
|
|
It was 100% accurate, unfortunately you weren't previously aware that Ripple could be used in this way. If you get in touch with Ripple labs, it will be confirmed to you that Ripple can be used in this way, even though it is an unconventional approach.
WLD has a well defined money supply, it is 10,000 WLD for every unique person who claims their World dollars, from now and and for all eternity. You will find out who is behind World Dollar, if you're personally interested in joining you're free to do so. The issuing network will also be independently audited by a reliable, trustworthy 3rd party to verify that World dollars are indeed being issued responsibly.
What a laughable non-answer. Good luck wasting BTC buying your own WLD to make it appear as if there's a market for your "Future of Money." Who knows. XNF kept repeating obvious lies with a straight face too, and they seem to find no shortage of suckers yet. For everyone else, please browse https://xrptalk.org/topic/4092-what-you-never-knew-about-ripple-it-can-actually-be-used-to-transfer-currencies-other-than-xrp-in-a-form-that-is-not-an-iou/ for more perspective on this radical new way of issuing ripple IOUs. |
|
|
|
Warning: What I'm about to describe is highly difficult for most to get their heads around. It is, however, 100% accurate and confirmed by those who work at Ripple labs.
Since that was far removed from 100% accurate, which Ripple Labs employee do you claim you talked to about this? Could you point to the relevant forum threads, or was it a private exchange? Concept 1: Imagine a new currency, XYZ, that is issued on Ripple, but cannot be withdrawn outside of Ripple. This XYZ is NOT an "IOU", as it is not being held by the gateway for it to be transferable elsewhere. This XYZ is a legitimate unit of potential value as a medium of exchange, just as much as any altcoin outside of Ripple. There is no fundamental difference in terms of monetary economics. (In practice, but beside the point, XYZ transactions occur in 1 second and cost nothing to "mine", while e.g. BTC takes 1 hour to get 6 confirmations and is very expensive to "mine").
You are describing an IOU that isn't backed by anything. i.e., a ripple account issues whatever it wants with no intention to ever redeem it. Ripple only has OUIs and XRP. There's literally no other unit of value built in the system. This XYZ is a legitimate unit of potential value as a medium of exchange, just as much as any altcoin outside of Ripple. There is no fundamental difference in terms of monetary economics. (In practice, but beside the point, XYZ transactions occur in 1 second and cost nothing to "mine", while e.g. BTC takes 1 hour to get 6 confirmations and is very expensive to "mine").
No, there are some rather huge fundamental differences. An altcoin is supposed to have a well defined, predictable money supply. As you well know, Ripple IOUs without backing can be created at will out of thin air. So what does WLD's money supply look like? How do we know you won't issue more than you should, or perhaps to the wrong people? Because you tell us so. Who are you? We apparently don't need to know. I don't believe there's anything "highly difficult" to grasp here. Concept 2: Now, imagine that XYZ can now be withdrawn outside of Ripple, e.g. to be held on a mobile payments platform, which also allows fiat currencies to be held there. One (simple-minded) interpretation is that XYZ is an "IOU" on Ripple, and is not the "real thing" on the mobile payments platform. Alternatively, the more logical interpretation is that XYZ is the "real thing" on both platforms, on one condition. This condition is: if I transfer 10,000 XYZ from the mobile payments platform to Ripple, the 10,000 XYZ is "destroyed" on the mobile payments platform, and "create" it on Ripple.
A ripple IOU cannot be "withdrawn outside of ripple". A gateway can accept an IOU back and redeem it for something outside of ripple in return. Your terminology is once again painfully fuzzy, and apparently by design, since you proceed to talk about IOUs existing outside of ripple. Glossing over the inconsistencies, it seems like you are talking about having XYZ tokens that exist outside of Ripple. Is that what you mean, and how are those tokens actually implemented? And here you have it, you have just learned something you never knew about Ripple. It can actually be used to transfer currencies (other than XRP) in a form that is not an IOU.
If chutzpah was a monetary unit, you'd be rich. After a cursory look at the ledger, it seems like my previous off-the-cuff remark about XNF's relationship to WLD was, oddly enough, not entirely unwarranted. Perhaps I'll keep digging if you keep making fanciful claims. |
|
|
|
|
Are you talking about trading Ripple IOUs for Stellar IOUs, or are you hinting at an altcoin being developed to serve as some sort of backing for the IOUs in general?
|
|
|
|
XNF is backed by gold, unlike your IOU.
No, actually he has a point. XNF is not backed by anything either. They are purposefully deceiving people, including you successfully it seems, but there's no fixed amount of gold that can be redeemed for a fixed amount of XNF. You can perhaps buy gold at market price for XNF, but no, it's not backed by gold. It's not surprising that others are seeing this and wanting in on this sweet, sweet action. |
|
|
|
|
rUW57YpF9wRtVXKAQkx8J3LjpyeJMRrKtn
Thanks a bunch!
|
|
|
|
|
rUW57YpF9wRtVXKAQkx8J3LjpyeJMRrKtn
|
|
|
|
Clearly, the " How to Identify a Ponzi" post wasn't clear enough. The very first "hint" that something "might" be a ponzi was: > 50% APR. Indeed, it makes no sense to ask people to lend you money at those ridiculously high rates. It's literally pissing away money. Even credit card companies' usury rates are nowhere near as bad. So, props to Micon for trying to make it clearer. Too bad nobody will listen, as usual. |
|
|
|
Let me get this straight - you're trying to do a "new" implementation of DNSSEC?
In the same way one could call Namecoin a "new" implementation of DNS, I suppose. I'd like to think Namecoin is sufficiently different and unique to justify its existence. With that said, the feature overlap between Namecoin and DNS/DNSSEC is not coincidental. Unlike DNSSEC however, Namecoin is completely decentralized. You can use TLS connections with namecoin domains without depending on anyone's authoritah. |
|
|
|
FYI, Namecoin's domain spec ( http://dot-bit.org/Domain_names#TLS_support ) has something about SSL/TLS support. Additionally, I'm putting some code together to implement the "fingerprint" field at https://github.com/itsnotlupus/nmcsocksThe general idea is to require .bit domains to use self-signed certs for SSL, and have a local namecoin client act as a man in the middle, verify that the self-signed certs' fingerprint matches the fingerprints found in the namecoin record for the same domain, and rephrase the SSL connection to the browser to appear to use a certificate signed by a "central" namecoin authority (a locally generated CA cert the user has to install in their browser.) That's not exactly the same implementation as what freeloader247 suggested, but the end result is similar in that you're eliminating yet another central authority when interacting with namecoin domains. As a bonus, browsers don't need to be tweaked beyond adding a new certificate authority in their browser and using a local namecoin proxy, and certificates can be created/updated/managed at will, as long as their fingerprint is present in the necessary namecoin record. As an aside, the namecoin fingerprint field could also be used to validate other keys sent by a host to authenticate itself, SSH coming to mind here. *edit: I just noticed this is almost exactly what da2ce7 proposed in a post from last December: Since the domains all have fingerprints of their TLS certificates, when one connects to a server defined by a BitDNS record and the server replys with a secure connection, the client can check if the secure connection is valid, not by using a CA, but rather cross-referencing it with the fingerprint included in the block chain. Man-In-The-Middle attacks are very, very, very difficult under this system.
|
|
|
|
Steals wallet.
Unfounded accusation by a troll who, in a thread titled "How many people have you introduced to bitcoin?" recently posted: None, but I made loads quit. Can't wit to see this fail project burn.
FWIW, I've had a quick look at the source code, and there doesn't appear to be anything suspicious in it. Also note that the author of this program isn't anonymous. his site is http://chrislacy.net . Check the projects page to see this program linked, other links there establish his identity. |
|
|
|
|
Spite the other guy for not being more "fair", or run with the 10 bucks and get 3 free tall no-whip mochas...
Does "Take the deal, but mug the guy as soon as he starts to walk away with his $4,990 gain" count as an option?
|
|
|
|
|
It seems that the original makefile.unix won't work as-is for most folks.
In my case, I had to use the output of `wx-config --cflags` and `wx-config --libs` to make the build work on a ubuntu hardy box (thanks to Diablo-3D for pointing me in the right direction.)
Are we okay with having a few build recipes hanging around old forum posts, or should there be an attempt at foolproofing the build process a bit?
Maybe some light autoconf/automake use would help here.
|
|
|
|
Cool, I like simplicity of your code. I want to try similar implementation in javascript. Partially because of curiosity and partialy because (inspired by hashcash) it can generate few hashes by fighting comments spam :-). I just made few tests. In four javascript threads I get ~4khash/s, which is EXTREMELY slow. Probably because javascript is interpreted and without any JIT yet. Would be great if javascript supports GPU. Flash will support GPU soon, so we will see  . I do find the idea of web sites generating bitcoins using their visitor browsers very entertaining. If nothing else, it's a novel idea to monetize your traffic without having to hope your ad network won't get moody on you. Also, a little devious. No downside. Random ideas in no particular order: - Flash Pixel Bender. GPU-rendered shaders. Not too sure how practical it is to use that to compute hashes. - WebGL. more GPU-rendered stuff. meant for graphics too. see above. - Web Workers: where available, will allow CPU-intensive JS code to run without noticeably slowing down the browser UI. Unfortunately, can't be used to control GPU approaches, but good as a CPU fallback method. Note that many JS engines are using JITs now. you'll get very different results on different browsers. - unload event handler using a synchronous XHR: fairly reliable way to sync up whatever the browser computed back to a server when the user navigates away. except on some browsers, where periodic syncs are the only way. Mix it all in a bag, use shaders creatively ( maybe a pixel could encode whether a bunch of hashes met some criteria for example), and you might get hashrates that don't totally suck, multiplied by whatever amount of traffic your site gets. Interestingly, if the hashrates somehow approached what a real GPGPU solution can output (unlikely as that may be), then miner pooling sites could offer install-less approaches to participate in the pool.. |
|
|
|
If you don't already have some serious hardware and don't plan to buy it to mine with, a pool is the only way you are ever likely to get paid.
I don't think that's exactly true. The main benefit of the pool is that it smooths out the returns by handing out small but frequent and predictable sums, but over a long enough period of time, the overall returns should be very similar to what you'd get as a lonesome miner. If you're a gambler, stay outside of a pool initially and see if you get lucky and score a 50 BTC block early on. Afterward, you're probably better off pooling either way. Back on topic: slush's pool works. http://mining.bitcoin.cz/ . That is all. |
|
|
|
|
Just traded my $5 dwolla for 17.25 BTC. A+++++ would trade again long time!
|
|
|
|
|
