|
They are using the MTGox prices for BTC / USD so i would expect a shipping delay comparable to that of getting USD out of MTGox. Otherwise there would be a really attractive arbitrage opportunity in buying gold there.
|
|
|
|
Hey everybody, here are the official statements in German. I took the liberty to translate the letter concerning VAT. The other ist about taxation of earnings by speculation. Particularly the question on how one is to proof that one has owned sold coins for at least a year so the tax is waived. Feel free to translate the latter one. Please note that I am neither a native English-speaker nor a lawyer. Originals: http://db.tt/5wt8h8zcTranslation of letter "... Bitcoins Umsatzsteuer ... " (meaning "Bitcoins VAT"): Dear Colleague, Regarding your question: “Do you agree with the BaFin (Federal Financial Supervisory Authority) that Bitcoins are “units of account” and as such legally equal to foreign currency implying that trading with bitcoin is excluded from VAT?” I answer the following: “Bitcoins” are neither e-Money nor official legal currency and as such not foreign currency. Anyhow they fall under the term “units of account” by [some paragraph from the law]. Units of account are comparable to foreign currencies but not denominated in foreign currencies. Examples for this are values that fulfill the purpose of private units of account in circles of trade / exchange [not sure about the correct translation here] as well as any other “private money” or complementary money, that can be used as a means of payment in multilateral circles of accounting [again not too sure] on the basis of civil law. Following [yet another paragraph] is revenue from trading with official [legal] currencies excluded from VAT. Legal currencies are bills and coins that are by the laws of any internationally recognized state intended and used in monetary transactions to fulfill money debt. [paragraph that excludes FIAT money from VAT] does not only cover the German currency, but also all foreign currencies that are legal currency in the country of origin; this is the case even if this currency is not usable (without exchanging) as a means of payment in Germany. The above implies that the exclusion from VAT by [paragraph] for revenue of “bitcoins”, that merely come to existence as an act of private money creation is not applicable. Yours sincerely Hartmut Koschyk Long story short: When selling bitcoins as a business model you have to pay VAT for any transaction. The other letter is not as important but I will translate it later. Cheers Levino If this is correct they have created one huge loophole for avoiding VAT. Basically all a consumer has to do to avoid VAT is: 1) Register for VAT as a business 2) Deal only in Bitcoin. Namely get paid in Bitcoin and pay for all expenses in Bitcoin. Avoid trading Bitcoin for Euros or other VAT exempt money. 3) File all the paperwork as per the letter of the law. The key here is that every transaction is VAT neutral. Let say you buy a TV. You have to pay VAT on the TV, but you also get an equivalent credit for the VAT on the Bitcoins. |
|
|
|
Its not the market thats poping, but everybody trying to get outta Gox asap.
There is an upward movement here quite apart from the MTGox issue. The spread with Bitstamp has tightened down to 10.6% 121.11 USD vs 108.56 USD |
|
|
|
I'd be interested in hearing how to accomplish these with Bitcoins. I'd imagine my babysitter is about as likely to accept a credit card as she is Bitcoins. The credit card method here is "go to an ATM".
The key difference is that the babysitter is eligible for a Bitcoin wallet but not for a merchant account. As for using a credit card or Bitcoin for that matter to get cash that ignores the whole point of the debate. |
|
|
|
Oh my gosh!, how did i not know about this TPM crap? Does anyone have somekind of list of motherboards that have TPM installed on them? It spooks me because the tpm chip shown on the wiki is on an Asus mobo, and all my computers run asus mobo's ...
If you are running GNU / Linux there is nothing to fear from a TPM. In fact as others have correctly pointed out it can actually be very useful. The problem is Microsoft using a TPM in order to control what software an owner of a device runs in their device.
... the TPM is used to secure keys e.g. for BitLocker, and also to seal configuration/boot data to prevent against tampering and secure the boot sequence. There is an ongoing debate about Win8 secure boot meaning it's hard for non-Win OS to bootstrap securely, but MS have issued keys to open source distributions in order that people can still run e.g. Linux on their systems with secure boot. ...
This illustrates the issue best. The fact a GNU / Linux distribution would have to use a Microsoft key in order for people to run GNU / Linux on their systems should be a real wake up call. Keep in mind that Microsoft only allowed this on x86/AMD64. On ARM they simply said no. Yes in both cases the TPM can be used to secure the system against its owner, but the TPM alone is not the issue here. How is this any different from saying the Bitcoin software can only be installed on computing devices using a key signed by Visa or Mastercard? And only on those devices that Visa and Mastercard choose to allow? |
|
|
|
The trusted platform module is good. Windows 8 maybe not. Do not confuse the two. Trusted platform module is how private keys can be secured and is necessary for stuff like secure random number, key security, and so on. It's something we want. Windows 8 is not something you have to use and because it's closed source I recommend you use Linux instead. TPM can be used with open source software and in my opinion should be. This is a very valid point. I do deal with some of the issues in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279262.msg2987427#msg2987427.TPMs and trusted computing used in conjunction with GNU / Linux and Free Software can be a very useful and valuable tool, and I do not wish to create any confusion between trusted and treacherous computing here. |
|
|
|
There needs to be a clear distinction here between FUD and reality here and yes comments that like having to need a government ID to access the Internet (It is more like a Facebook account on many sites but that is another story) or that the mere presence of a TPM means that the some government agency now has access to your computer are simply FUD.
...
Why would someone FUD this? They want to stop people from using the Internet?!? It makes no sense. If I were a control freak, here's is what I would do: Noticing that everyone uses a modem of some sort, I would design an extension which provided an enhanced wrapper between the modem and the ISP. A router if not built into the modem could have the same functionality, and it needs to participate in order to provide universal support for end-user devices since it knows the MAC address. I would also have a selection of bio-metric devices which could bind to the router. Fingerprint scanners, iris scanners for double amputees, etc. I would have a little daemon which can be installed on any device which inter-acts with the router/modem. From time to time a user of any device might get a pop-up to swipe their finger or whatever. Especially if doing on-line banking and such. Such a simple piece of code could easily be open-sourced for inclusion into OS's such as Linux for the relatively few geek types who would pitch a bitch. In my generosity, I would provide all of this gear and technical support to users free of charge. Most users would be delighted not to have to remember all those passwords, and help society root out terrorists, pedos, and associated boogeymen at the same time. Win/win! Such a solution could be rolled out in phases so as not to interfere with business interests or cause un-due alarm and a backlash. Now I fully expect to hear about how that is impossible because of the extra overhead of the protocol enhancement. Further, I expect to hear it from the same dopes who state "Moore's Law" as the two word answer to any concern about Bitcoin scalability. This sounds a lot like Windows 8. Get the user to log in using their Microsoft account and then like that account their credit card information. Then monitor everything they do online and also find out if they install certain application such as Bitcoin-QT or Tor. On a related note the following Windows specific attack on Tor is very interesting: http://www.infoworld.com/t/data-security/tor-browser-bundle-windows-users-susceptible-info-stealing-attack-224157 |
|
|
|
|
I would mention of situations where Bitcoin is complementary as opposed to a replacement to Visa / Mastercard
Here are some examples: Can you use Visa / Mastercard to:
Give money to a busker?
Give money to a homeless person?
Pay the kid next door to do some work in the yard?
Give an allowance to you kids? Note: See pre paid fees below.
Pay your babysitter?
Reimburse an employee for expenses as a small business person?
Pay any consumer / private individual?
Buy products or services online if you have no credit or poor credit? Note: Paying 20 USD or more in fees for a pre paid debit card to purchase a 20 USD item is not the answer.
Purchase a product or service from a merchant that does not have a merchant account?
Send money to a relative that lives in a remote village in Kenya?
Pay for high value low margin items online such as gold bullion coins for example?
...
All of these work with Bitcoin but not with Visa / Mastercard
|
|
|
|
There needs to be a clear distinction here between FUD and reality here and yes comments that like having to need a government ID to access the Internet (It is more like a Facebook account on many sites but that is another story) or that the mere presence of a TPM means that the some government agency now has access to your computer are simply FUD. A TPM by itself is not the issue. It is a place to securely store decryption keys and even if the state has a back door to the TPM there are many situations where the state is not the adversary or may not be able to obtain physical access to the computer for legal reasons for example. Furthermore in order to obtain remote access an OS with a back door is necessary the TPM by itself is not enough. Where the TPM can be very dangerous is that it can and is used to ensure that only an Operating System and / or software trusted by a third party who is not the owner of the device runs on the device. Now GNU / Linux supports the TPM and trusted as opposed to treacherous computing. The crucial difference here is that in the GNU / Linux scenario because of the presence of GPL v3 code in the OS the TPM can only be used to ensure that an OS and / or software trusted by the owner the device runs on the device and cannot be use to prevent the end user from running an OS or software that the owner of the device trusts. This is the crucial difference between trusted and treacherous computing and between using a TPM with GNU / Linux vs a TPM with Microsoft Windows. The following article by Richard Stallman written over a decade ago in 2002 describes treacherous computing. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html. At the time many dismissed it as FUD and the term Palladium was dropped by Microsoft yet almost a decade to the date Microsoft released Windows 8 RT and the surface tablet which does precisely what RMS was warning about a decade earlier. This follows Apple with IOS devices, almost all game consoles on the market, ebook readers such as the Kindle, and many smart phones and tablets including many Android devices that have to be "rooted' in order for the end user to take back control of the device they own and lock out the manufacturer and other not trusted 'big brothers". The primary motivation for this lockdown of devices was and still is DRM and it comes down to the very simple realization that the only way to prevent the copying of digital information is to take a way control of computing devices from the end owners of the devices. The use by the state for surveillance, censorship or other big brother activities comes later once the centralized infrastructure has been put in place by big copyright in order to prevent of "piracy" of intellectual property. What we have seen over the last decade is the shift of a fair amount of computing activity away from an open device say a computer running Windows 98 SE to a locked down device say an iPad. This by itself is a very troubling development quite independent of Bitcoin. The implication here for Bitcoin is clear. The entire security model of Bitcoin relies on a distributed network where no one person of entity can get control and only works with a computing model such as Microsoft Windows in the days of Windows 98 SE, Windows 2000 or earlier or that of GNU / Linux then and today. What is crucial for the security of the Bitcoin network is that the owner of a computing device has complete control over that computing device and no centralized "authority" can take this control away. So where does this place Microsoft Windows as a platform for Bitcoin. What we have seen in an evolution of gradual small steps starting with the the very open Windows 3.xx of the early 1990's (lets say 20 C in the boiling frog scenario) to the complete lockdown of Windows 8 RT (100 C in the boiling frog scenario). Where does one draw the line to not trust Microsoft Windows? I drew the line back in 2006 with the move to Windows Vista, others may choose a different point in this gradual evolution towards big brother. The German articles drew the line at Windows 8. One simple rule of thumb to keep in mind is here that if a device and / or operating system is trusted by the MPAA and other big copyright players for consumption of the their DRM protected content it should be trusted for use with Bitcoin. Trust after all is a two way street. |
|
|
|
According to Thomas Reuters GFMS, roughly 377 MM pounds of gold exist above ground which equates to about 6,000,000,000 ounces of gold. For simplicity, I'll use an undervaluation of gold at $1,000. This means the total value of gold above ground is roughly 6 trillion dollars.
If bitcoin is adopted on a global scale as a deflationary store of value that is coupled with other valuable functions, much in the same respect as gold, what does this mean for the potential price of one BTC? If BTC ever becomes as valuable as gold, we're looking at 6 trillion dollars divided by 21 MM instead of 6 Bn.
~ $285,000. Is that realistic? In my opinion, probably not. Is it a possiblity? Anything's possible, but this would make one satoshi worth $0.28, and I think that a satoshi would serve better payment functions at a smaller value.
No if 1 BTC is worth USD 285,000, 1 satoshi is worth USD 0.00285 |
|
|
|
|
Of course GNU / Linux and Free Software is the antidote, but given the market share of Windows the danger here is that a majority of the nodes or even the hash power are controlled by Windows computers and effectively by Microsoft and what ever state they chose to give control to. In the case of mining an ASIC controlled via USB by a Windows 8 machine would effectively give control to Microsoft.
|
|
|
|
i wonder where bitcoin would be if there were no difficulties extracting fiat from Gox? do you think charts showing the April and 2011 crashes would overlap better?
Which 2011 "crash"? The one from the peak in February 2011 or the one from the peak in June 2011? I actually believe April 2013 chart is a better fit to the February 2011 one. june To answer this question lets compare the June 2011 market on MTGox to the April 2013 market on an exchange that is not only not having withdrawal problems but may have some minor deposit issues Virtex in Canada. See this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=273286.0MT Gox May - October 2011: http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg60zczsg2011-05-01zeg2011-10-31ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zvVirtex February 22 - August 21 2013: http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/virtexCAD#rg180zczsg2013-02-22zeg2013-08-21ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zvThis market is very different from the aftermath of the 2011 June crash. It may have more in common with the aftermath of the February 2011 crash. As for the impact of the MTGox withdrawal problems it may turn out to temporally depress the price on other exchanges in an otherwise bullish recovery. |
|
|
|
|
It is having an impact on what currencies are traded for BTC on MTGox with a drop in USD and rise in most other currencies. The risk of holding USD in MTGox is very different from holding JPY, PLN, EUR, CAD, AUD etc. there. The key difference a withdrawal of USD from MTGox is routed via a US bank while for other currencies it is not.
|
|
|
|
i wonder where bitcoin would be if there were no difficulties extracting fiat from Gox? do you think charts showing the April and 2011 crashes would overlap better?
Which 2011 "crash"? The one from the peak in February 2011 or the one from the peak in June 2011? I actually believe April 2013 chart is a better fit to the February 2011 one. |
|
|
|
|
Virtex has traded for most of the time below MTGox, and this is to a large part due to the lets heat the home/apartment during winter with the mining rig. Yes there have been exceptions such as this spring but over time the simple reality that Bitcoin mining is more cost effective in Canada than in most other parts of the world will keep prices on Virtex somewhat depressed. This however does not explain the current spreads that are way more than the historical averages, especially during the summer.
1) A more pronounced MTGox - Bitstamp scenario with Canadian buying on MTGox and selling on Virtex. Granted that this is even more crazy than those who are selling on Bitstamp after buying on MTGox, but from the perspective on someone in Canada once "burned" in Japan may think twice about trying their luck in Slovenia
2) Virtex has eliminated cash deposits and added a 1%+0.25 CAD fee for bill-pay deposits when they changed payment providers. So it is now more difficult and expensive to get funds into Virtex. Kind of like a minor version of MTGox in reverse.
|
|
|
|
|
The cost of electricity for Bitcoin mining must take to account value of the heat produced
1) Heat is a waste product the has to be disposed of. For example: Phoenix Arizona, USA during the summer months
2) Heat is a valuable product that has to be paid for. For example: Canada, Russia during the winter
Many people use electricity for space heating at least in part, but even if they use another fuel the effective cost of Bitcoin mining is the difference between the cost of the electricity and the cost of the fuel that is displaced. Now unlike some of the custom GPU rigs ASIC miners are relatively compact boxes that placed in many places heat is needed. This is very much the case with the Avalons. So I would expect many ASIC miners to continue to operate long after they are uneconomical on a strict cost of electricity vs value of BTC generated with a portion of the resulting BTC dumped on certain exchanges. Virtex? BTC-E?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
