Yea so you say, someone sent Satoshi 12x the minimal reportable amount just so that he's forced to report it to IRS - and you expect Satoshi to turn in just like that, walk into the nearest IRS office and fill the form. After 15 years being in complete darkness, dead or alive, inside or outside the US.
This makes no sense even from legal standpoint. He could say anytime that he didn't know about the transaction. You cannot be prosecuted for something you have nothing to do with. Boom, now what?
lets pretend real satoshi returns to claim his coins solution raid any of the other 20,000 addresses of 50btc each dont touch block that received donations not mention being satoshi, instead mention just being one of many early miners not need to have to seek out any donator nor reveal being satoshi |
|
|
|
Wouldn’t that just make it worst? Whatever automation system that are creating these spam ordinals can then just create an "inscription wall" at 50sat/vb and if no mining pools confirms them, that means all future hash rate fee will always be more than 50sat/vb.
fees are not estimated by what is the lowest-highest fee in a block.. its done by the mempool of how delayed unconfirmed transactions just sit in the mempool at certain fee levels these ordinal supporters could bypass the mempool node routing and instead pushtx direct to pools and fill blocks with 10sat/byte. but leave a large amount of unconfirmed transactions getting relayed above 40sat/byte not confirming in next block thus causing fees to appear as needing more than 50sat/byte to get priority... even though reality would be you need to pushtx direct to pool to get advantage .. thats said core over years have been bumping min relay fee and increments and premiumising older tx formats to make even the most leanest 1legacy in 2 out legacy not able to do 1sat/byte even if segwit done 1satperbyte because legacy is treated as 904 weight units where as segwit is treated as 564 weight units because legacy is treated as 226 virtual bytes where as segwit is treated as 141 virtual bytes and core 4x the "serialised" fee for legacy but doesnt 4x segwit 1legacy in 2legacy out Transaction size in raw bytes: 226 Transaction size in virtual bytes: 226 Transaction size in weight units: 904 1 segwit in 2segwit out Transaction size in raw bytes: 223.5 Transaction size in virtual bytes: 141 Transaction size in weight units: 564 core also approved the bump fee default in increments of 5sat/byte instead of 1 for what they call convenience as they dont see a future of users wanting to increment on small amounts and dont see a future of 1sat/byte fees |
|
|
|
CSW's investors(mainly macgregor and ayres) own the licencing to do book/movie deals. and have never been interested in investment ROI from "satoshi stash" due to them deep down knowing he isnt satoshi. they have however kept up the rouse to keep the drama alive as it has potential money making use of story telling of conference tours, books, movies and even court cases so yes there will be many books and movies.. but right now the investors of CSW dont want to low ball their story versions to some cheap documentarian. they are hoping for big movie production phone calls asking to buy the story ayres has since 2020 been video documenting scenes hoping to pitch to movie producers.. https://cryptopotato.com/calvin-ayre-to-film-a-movie-proving-craig-wright-is-satoshi-nakamoto/still not happening yet, he hasnt got any big budget movie deals yet, but would sue anyone else who tries without their permission .. even later sequels that then turn the story from supposed inventor to fraudster (admitting the rouse and con games) and then showing the frauds of ATO and other things.. its all revenue generation in CSW's investors eyes.. so good or bad they win |
|
|
|
It is still hawkish in banning privacy coins, banning mixers, etc. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but there is no official regulation that makes it blatantly clear the EU is hostile to Monero (AKA, the only truly private coin). It's just centralized exchanges voluntarily de-listing it, similar as to how theymos prohibited the promotion of mixers. But, again; I may be wrong. go to mica link, use the [find in page] option of browser and type in "anonymisation" mica https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32023R1114chapter 3 - article 76 - 2&3 2. Before admitting a crypto-asset to trading, crypto-asset service providers operating a trading platform for crypto-assets shall ensure that the crypto-asset complies with the operating rules of the trading platform and shall assess the suitability of the crypto-asset concerned. When assessing the suitability of a crypto-asset, the crypto-asset service providers operating a trading platform shall evaluate, in particular, the reliability of the technical solutions used and the potential association to illicit or fraudulent activities, taking into account the experience, track record and reputation of the issuer of those crypto-assets and its development team.
3. The operating rules of the trading platform for crypto-assets shall prevent the admission to trading of crypto-assets that have an inbuilt anonymisation function unless the holders of those crypto-assets and their transaction history can be identified by the crypto-asset service providers operating a trading platform for crypto-assets.
took me 30seconds to search that they dont mention monero specifically but monero is put into a special category of crypto assets called privacy coins or more officially AEC (anonymity enhanced currency) |
|
|
|
When I made my earlier assertion that I thought that Grayscale's conversion from a Trust to a spot BTC ETF was going to be a taxable event based on the in-cash process rather than an in-kind process,
their are special exceptions for fund managers. they are not charged cap gains per share sell/buy or conversions.. otherwise they would not be able to day-trade small 0.x% profits if they are charged 20-40% per trade/exchange there are other exceptions that allow offsetting gains if they same day then buy assets the capgains is only really triggered if you sell and stay sold.. thats when cap gains is "realised" I was likely overly relying upon the talking heads on the Laura Shin podcast (which is James Seyffart and Eric Balchunas), and I have heard these guys discuss the BTC ETF on a variety of occasions, including on other podcasts. Essentially, they seem to now have changed their opinions, to suggest that Grayscale conversion of it's clients (even though "in-cash") would not be a taxable event since no bitcoin would be sold, it is merely changing the wrapper as they had said around minute 45 in this linked podcast, released today. grayscale has 600k+ coins. they dont need more baskets entering via AP's i think you are still confusing the AP(agents of baskets) vs the end user customers selling/buying individual shares This particular podcast is a bit more than an hour and surely I might be mixing up what Seyffart says versus what Balchunas says, and does it really matter too much, if they seems to have some level of expertise and experience that backs up their points fairly well, and during the podcast, they go into a fairly detailed discussion and are currently arguing a belief that the ETFs are likely to be approved by Wednesday, and allowed to trade by Thursday.. and so the alternative theory would be that they would be allowed to trade on Wednesday.. and yeah of course, they are talking from their own expertise - and I consider this to be part of my own research, even if Franky would conclude that the level of research is not sufficient for him, and that's his choice regarding how he wants to spend his time.
Seyffart and Balchunas are well researched, but i feel you still need to understand what they are saying. for instance they say that ETF waiver fee's for first X billion where as grayscale have 1.5% from start. and they also say the fee's can change even as early as the next day.. grayscale dont want more AP's handing in baskets. grayscale already has 600k+btc.. and because they own those 600k+ they are not actually paying 1.5% because they are paying themselves, so it cancels out. its more of a deterrent to get share holders to buy up enough shares to create baskets to vote out and dissolve shares. the 1.5% is more of a "hold" signal to prevent trades, basket forming to exit When it comes to Grayscale specifically, these guys seem to be suggesting that Grayscale is keeping their fees so high (at 1.5%) because they are likely going to try to milk their current clients - who might not want to suffer a taxable event by converting, and they will end up offering a similar product that will have low fees like the other ETF providers are currently offering. Still to be seen some of these speculative matters.
individual share holders are different group to the AP managing baskets of shares. please learn the difference you confuse "clients" as both AP managing baskets AND "clients" end share individual share customer maybe try to use "agents" for the AP managing baskets that are affected by the "in-cash" stipulation instead of "in-kind" dissolving of shares to unlock btc.. incash= forcing those unlocked btc to be darkmarket(otc) sold by coinbase into cash to give cash to AP clients are the end user individual share customers, whom cant individually dissolve shares/unlock btc.. and are just buying/selling shares at the front end share platform .. CLIENTS are taxable on front end share platform. because that is standard share purchase/selling for fiat. always has been* agents/grayscale are not taxable per client trade on front end share platform .. agents/grayscale are taxable when dissolving share baskets due to in-kind rule clients are not involved in the basket thing the 'in-kind' SEC rule is about the basket handling between sponsors/AP (agents) *there are ways to offset gain/losses if shares are sold and new shares bought same-day, in an umbrella fund like a pension portfolio manager (there are many exceptions to the cap gains rule when shifting between cash-shares) |
|
|
|
Bitcoin has a great intangible strength in its community, which is trust,
no bitcoin was not made to need trust. it was built to verify without the need to trust anyone however it has become a system where we now need to trust the core devs, because they dont want to be scrutinised or veto'd we have to trust that their sponsors are not doing deals for money in exchange for code edits. because these sponsors wont disclose their payments as its "commercially sensitive" we have to trust exchanges/services that offer custodianships. they wont prove reserve holdings nor their source code because its "commercially sensitive" we are not in the same era of bitcoin as 2009-2013, many things have changed |
|
|
|
in the end users walk away with no balance left leaving the businesses hoarding the coin
Now you get it Bitcoin isn't just a shiny new financial toy to play with, it breaks the system, the data model. That is why banks are so keen to control it through the lobbying they buy regularly. i always got it.. it was not me defending/idolising certain groups. it was not me promoting middlemen subnetwork options. i was the one highlighting the risks, flaws, legal issues and centralisations of certain groups |
|
|
|
its become too common that this congestion is blamed on miners and not the actual coders that allow/created the problem
its worth knowing that ASICS(miners) just hash a blockheader ID and have no influence of the transaction selection.
asics have no ram to store mempools of unconfirmed tx's nor hard drives to store all transactions, node software, code to validate transactions
its not miners job to transaction select
its pool managers that do transaction selection using code made by core that prioritise transaction by cores policy of fee estimates
I have previously been called a conspiracy theorist for blaming miners or mining related interests for the ordinals spam, since that opinion I've realized that I've overlooked the other interests potentially making a profit as well, however the difference between them and miners is that miners have the option to exclude ordinals for the betterment of the network if they wanted to do so. read my post again then read yours understand the difference between miners(asics) vs pool managers(transaction selectors and block template creators) if you replaced the word miners with pool managers. your opinions make more sense however even the pool managers COULD edit their node /algo of transaction selection. BUT most just use the defaults.. defaults made by core which core have changed over the years to favour a certain path, so it all leads back to core and their defaults and their policies cores policies and code that the majority of the network use which make it a nuisance to change bitcoin code and get majority of node agreement without cores majority also being in sync |
|
|
|
|
many ETF updated their S1 on the 8thjan to include their management/trade fee's...
if the SEC was wanting to delay things, they would not have responded SAME DAY with update recommendations for applicants to update again before the 10th.
it shows the SEC really is trying to get ETF applicants ducks in a row before the 10th
if the SEC wanted to delay, they would have not responded and let the errors/lack of detail come to fruition on the 10th to then decline or set new deadlines
|
|
|
|
Precisely, and we would be talking about increasing the vMB instead of the raw size. I think that your fundamental misunderstanding is with how the calculation of transaction fee rates should be done. SW tx have discounts, and rightfully so. You can fit more into a block, as opposed to an entire block with only legacy TXes. The fee rates would be compensated for with SW TXes and legacy TXes, all in all, your total revenue will rise.
Again, when replicating the practical scenarios, the question in this topic concerns if miners revenue could rise if blocks were larger and with typical usage patterns. Again, this would concern the economics of the fee market and talking about any other types of scaling Bitcoin would throw this topic on a tangent again.
SW does not discount.. the actual code is they premium'd legacy there is a difference by making legacy 4x more yes it made segwit cheaper than legacy, but not due to discounting segwit. but due to multiplying legacy learn the difference .. "if miners revenue could rise if blocks are larger" is still not a yes/no. unless you are emphasising the "could". because the fee's per user and the congestion also could decrease meaning the miners could get less total fees so the answer to "could" is a yes. but to "would" is both yes and no and there is always many variables to think about. its never straight forward for instance. even now. blocksize has been same for years. yet individual miners get less sats per hashrate due to halvings and hashrate competition with other miners. yep someone owning an s19 since 2020 is getting less sats now then they did in 2020 with that said. comparing the MARKET price, those sats are worth more so its all adjustable to variables which in short if asking WOULD 10x blocks =10x fee.. the answer is more then likely a no if you really wanted to fixate on a short answer without understanding the reasons, details, context |
|
|
|
Wow, I didn't realize about 25-50% of each new block height are ordinals inscriptions, no wonder why the network has been busiest than ever lately.
This is another difference between this attack and its predecessors. This time in the Ordinals Attack the spam transactions carry a clear sign of being a spam transaction whereas in previous spam attacks such as the last big one in 2017, it was very difficult to distinguish between a spam transaction and a regular transaction in a lot of cases (not all though). usually normal people dont re-spend their money every 10minutes.. constantly each block for days when funds are being spent with only low confirms repeatedly its obvious these payments are not normal people buying goods or services.. thus spam ordinals is just bloated spam (double attack) |
|
|
|
|
random is never random.. its a buzzword to mean so many variables are involved in the cause, that its super difficult to predict the effect
EG
random evolution of thyroid gland. cavemen never could have predicted it would result in certain clans to get smarter and start winning more fights eventually killing off the primitive lineages where the stronger generations of evolution survive.
and yes mutations happen all the time.. and when its time for you to finally have sex. if you manage to make someone pregnant and want to keep your offspring. you will learn that your offspring is not 100% identical to you
also your body is climatized to your locality.. EG lets say northern europe.. imagine you migrate to california/medrid where its "always sunny"
you will forever sweat in the heat of 22oc+, but your children will EASILY adapt and think 24oc is an average day
mutation is not just at birth. people can change and adapt at certain stages of life which can then be passed down
welcome to real science and nature, survival of the fittest.. its been going on long long long before your beloved sci-fi character "jesus"
|
|
|
|
How I wish that I'll be a millionaire but there are lots of it here in the forum that have been holding two digits of Bitcoin and that's more than enough for their retirement but still will patiently wait until the end of the bull run.
smart people dont 100% cash out everything to then live on/spend it all they instead just cash out portions of the gains to live on never cash out everything. do everything in small allotments/percentages like traditional finance, dont spend the capital, live off the interest/dividend only take out (not all) but bigger portions if significant ATH to then buy more at discount n a correction these 5% tides are nothing compared to the 300% tides of true ATH/corrections (mid 2021-dec2022) dont get emotional over 5% waves, dont go full 100% trade on these small waves |
|
|
|
so you then decide you will use a mixer to get coins from someone you dont know nor trust when using a mixer
so you then decide you will use a mixer to get yourself tagged as a higher threshold worth monitoring further, thus they get more involved in looking at the taint(history) of the inflows and the spending path of the outflows
You already get yourself tagged as a higher threshold when you use any kind of on-chain obfuscation or swapping with XMR. You might as well require everyone submit their ID papers before they can create a bitcoin address. i been here 12 years, never used a mixer. ive moved coins alot. even in exchanges, i have a healthy stash of coins (not my vanity address) .. dare you to find my stash |
|
|
|
|
now for step one
what if i told you a decade ago SEC declared bitcoin as currency to start adding in legislation and regulation for businesses that use bitcoin to control the gateways in and out of bitcoin.
now for step 2
what if businesses cant make middlemen fees from bitcoin transactions so they sponsor devs to make bitcoin annoying to use where the options are CEX accounts to hoard, or locking coins into hubs to then use balance on subnetworks so middlemen can make fees on each payment
step 3
what if i told you the SEC started by getting CEX's to start reporting tax and gathering KYC.. and then...
.. now allowing ETF's that are if using a pension funds for tax free trading.. meaning holding actual coin will charge you tax per CEX trade but trading via pension fund ETF has no cap gains tax per trade..
step 4
what if i told you that using mixers actually get you watched more nd everyone conned into promoting mixers are actually making bitcoin get flagged as bad, thus the only "clean" coin is that held by regulated custodians. so each time you see mixer promoters shout "everyone should use a mixer" they are actually saying lets make bitcoin more annoying and troublesome for users
..
end result is
people avoid CEX to avoid KYC and IRS and if using mixers, definitely avoid CEX's.. so knowing cash-out options dry out and onchain is annoying. they end up locking value into subnetworks and then buy silly avatars of marvel characters or colourful hats and other silly things to spend down their coin giving middle men fees until their balance is gone. all due to the annoyances and fears pushed on them which they then trap themselves in by using the promoted services that pretend to free them but just end up giving them more traps to fall into
in the end users walk away with no balance left leaving the businesses hoarding the coin
..
its the old game
"holding real metal gold is cumbersome, expensive and security risk of theft.. invest in gold shares, they are easy, come with tax incentives, and dont require paperwork jsut to buy or sell $1k"
|
|
|
|
but its not a yes/no
Again, the topic IS a yes/no. The following sentence below: [Poll] If Bitcoins blocks were 10x larger, would the miners be earning 10x?
Is indeed a yes or no question. Segwit did increase the total revenue from pre-segwit with the theoretical increase in potential transaction volume, not to mention the subsequent development in layer 2. Yes, it resulted in a higher miner revenue from fees. Again, besides the point. The topic discusses the possibility of a proportional increase given the increment in Bitcoin block size. What is your answer? you are not understanding the question nor answers because the answer is notstraight forward EG 10x more blocksize does NOT mean 10x more transactions at current fee rate so it may not mean 10x more fee instead 10x more blocksize may end up that the limited transactions +junkweight pay less sats per byte per tx because te junkweight gets more discount again without understanding al the details you cant give a yes/no. the question does not say if there will be 10x more transactions or if the extra blocksize is actual tx utility or just witness space just for junk if doesnt say if blocksize increase also includes fixing the cludgy bloat spam to make things leaner EG current 4mb is about 4200tx which 10x would be 42k tx in 40mb which if fee rates per byte stayed same would be 1x(same) fee per user but 10x fee total for the pool hoever with less congestion could see 10x LESS fee per user but 1x(same) fe total for the pool however making leaner tx allowing for 16k tx in 4mb.. meaning 160k tx in 40mb fes per user can go 40x LESS while still being 1x total fees for pool |
|
|
|
I think this topic has gone from a simple yes/no,
but its not a yes/no when bitcoin moved from 1mb allotment to 4mb allotment it did not result in 4x transaction count nor a direct economic impact on fee's instead the code changes had other edits to it that manipulated fees (legacy * 4) yep they made legacy more expensive as part of additional code, rather then letting the "freemarket" decide there are other things that can be done to undo some of the changes, make tx leaner, and allow more transactions thus reducing the per tx fee per user even without further scaling blocks which if done right, then scaling blocks would allow more tx thus not require so much congestion/bidding wars, further reducing fees however thats not the direct devs want to take bitcoin |
|
|
|
The amount of ignorance in this thread is despicable. Did you think only signature campaign users use mixers? If you want an accurate description of why you (the community) would need a mixer, you should read https://bitmixlist.org. And before you hit the Report button, yes I am allowed to post my resource on Bitcointalk. The relevant section: Why Bitcoin Mixers Are Necessary
Other Reasons Why You Might Use A Bitcoin Mixer
But sometimes, you need to mix some bitcoin quickly, maybe you don’t trust the person who gave you the coins. Maybe you are taking a stand against “blockchain taint”. Or maybe you are an activist or some other kind of person who police unfairly go after. Or perhaps you are just an ordinary person who is not savvy in bitcoin. All in all, if you find the wallet interfaces too clunky,
so you dont trust the person who gave you coins so you want to avoid taint so you then decide you will use a mixer to get coins from someone you dont know nor trust when using a mixer so you then decide you will use a mixer to get yourself tagged as a higher threshold worth monitoring further, thus they get more involved in looking at the taint(history) of the inflows and the spending path of the outflows maybe you need another year to work out that mixers do the opposite of your intentions |
|
|
|
|
its worth noting, that its best to try to set up a second account with a different bank for the emergency funds for these reasons:
1. if main income accounts bank freezes the account they also freeze accounts associated with account holder they hold.
2. if main income accounts bank has a internal error problem or does a bank run.
3. if bank wants to close account spontaneously, access to funds can be delayed from that bank
so by having spare funds with a different bank increases success of having money available in an emergency
|
|
|
|
|
i wasnt paying attention to the movie, another person was watching it in another room and i only over heard the part i mentioned and it perked my ears up to ask them to tell me timestamp of scene.
i normally pay attention when the words "bitcoin" are mentioned and less so when "crypto" or "wallet" are mentioned.
however i might edit my post to include all subtitle inclusions of bitcoin from the movie
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
