As for income tax, their law says that if you buy a crypto and keep it for at least 1 year, you can sell it without paying any tax - although someone mentioned that the crypto must be kept in a custodial wallet.
It might help to keep crypto in a custodial wallet for record purposes, but it's not a legal necessity. Thing is, if you hold crypto for more than a year and then sell it for profit, you don't need to report it at all since it's not taxable to begin with. You only need to proof that you held crypto for at least a year if the financial authorities come asking. For the moment it seems that the blockchain is proof is enough. (presumably you will also have to disclose the source of your coins, but thanks to AML5 this questioning already starts at the exchange level anyways) As for Portugal and their decision regarding the crypto tax : Portugal has taken the opposite tack: it made clear that buying or selling cryptocurrencies would not be subject to capital gain taxes or value-added tax (VAT). The PTA previously clarified in 2016 that buying or selling cryptocurrency in Portugal would not be considered a taxable event which means that it’s not subject to tax. There are exceptions: the receipt of cryptocurrency in exchange for goods or services doesn’t change the tax treatment of the original transaction, and taxpayers who deal in cryptocurrency as a professional or business activity are still subject to some taxes. That's again a different case from OP though. If you receive crypto as payment in exchange for goods or services (including mining!) it's taxable income based on the fiat exchange rate at the time, even in countries that don't tax trading profits. |
|
|
|
I'm not assuming any ill will from your end and I have no doubt that there are cases where bootstrapping the blockchain may be desirable. But it is worth noting that in most cases using a bootstrap file will actually take longer and does come with risks due to cases such as this: FWIW, I just removed a nearly year old post with a .bitcoin directory download that would have stolen all your bitcoins.
Case in point as to why these "download the blockchain" links are a disaster. God knows how many people got robbed due to it.
|
|
|
|
FYI, bootstrapping the Bitcoin blockchain via torrent or download is not recommended anymore since 0.10.0: As of Bitcoin Core version 0.10.0 and later, the block chain bootstrap
torrent hosted here takes more time to download and import than it would
to simply start Bitcoin Core and let it sync itself. (also for any newcomers reading this: there have also been cases where bootstrap downloads were used to spread coin-stealing malware, so it's a practice that is generally advised against due to security concerns as well) |
|
|
|
Answer to the first question: NO. Answer to the second: yeah, probably. Trump is a billionaire and has good relationships with lots of banks, and I don't think he's ever going to have a problem with money. And this sounds like some banks are trying to distance themselves from Trump because of the violence at the Capitol--but memories are short, and those banks might very well reverse their positions in the future after things have cooled down. Deutsche Bank was already trying to distance themselves from Trump in late 2020, the Capitol riots were just the nail in the coffin. Or, knowing Deutsche Bank, a welcome excuse to finally cut ties for good. Generally speaking it's rather interesting to see how many companies are turning their backs on Trump now that he's not the president of the United States anymore. It's almost as if they either feared legislative retaliation or wanted to profit from his political capital... Trump owes more than $100 million in debt to deutsch bank that he pays interest on.
If the APR on his loan is 1%. Its $1 million dollars. If the APR is 0.5% he owes $500,000.
How does he pay down the interest off a $200k year salary.
Also why are many making these uninformed impulsive comments without taking 5 seconds to do basic math needed to put things into perspective.
Not just more than $100 million, more than $300 million. And while fiat loans are cheap these days I wouldn't be sure about what rates Trump gets given his track record. |
|
|
|
Even if Trump were to move in the direction of switching part of his business to some cryptocurrency, it certainly wouldn’t be Bitcoin or anything like that - unless his opinion of the same would change completely. “I am not a fan of Bitcoin and other Cryptocurrencies, which are not money, and whose value is highly volatile and based on thin air,” Also, did everyone forget all of a sudden that just a few weeks ago the Trump administration was trying to regulate non-custodial wallets on their way out? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5293390.0This was not a crypto-friendly administration. Heck, it wasn't even an internet friendly administration, or did everyone forget about killing net neutrality as well? |
|
|
|
Could Trump's 1st response be to seek out liquidity in cryptocurrencies. Or would he be more likely to simply seek out other banks to do business with?
I mean sure, but... Deutsche Bank is seeking to resolve more than $300 million in loans, reportedly looking to offload the loans onto another lender due to the negative press their dealings with Trump has caused. Deutsche Bank's relationship with the Trump Organization is under a civil investigation by New York attorney general Letitia James. ...we're mostly talking liabilities here, rather than assets. How do you move USD 300MM of debt into a cryptocurrency? Sure, one could do an ICO where Trump's debt gets crowdsourced, but is that something that anyone would want? |
|
|
|
|
Non-spendable means that you imported an address without its private key. No private key, no access, no way to spend it.
Did somebody sell you a watch-only wallet?
|
|
|
|
I'm slightly disappointed it's now pegged to USD though. I was hoping we'd reach rediculously high amounts per post again if when Bitcoin goes up 10 fold again  Yeah, feels a bit like getting paid with monopoly money now after getting real cash for so long  Not complaining though, Halab's not wrong about the bright side ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
|
|
|
I planned on posting something clever and funny but now I'm not being paid enough to think of something Seriously tho, I mean we all saw it coming  Honestly I was already impressed when ChipMixer stayed true to their BTC rate when the 2017 bull market hit. For reference, BTC was at around USD 3000,- when this campaign started, so CM rode it out until the fiat equivalent increased more than tenfold. *not_bad.jpg |
|
|
|
In der Regel stellt da das Betriebssystem einen Zufallsgenerator zur Verfügung (zB. /dev/random) der dann auf Basis diverser Hard- und Software-Ereignisse die als Hintergrundrauschen dienen zufällige Werte erzeugt [1]. Dh. dieselbe Hardware wird nicht nach Löschung des alten Wallets zufällig das neue wieder generieren (falls doch liegt das Problem nicht am Gerät, sondern an einer fehlerhaften App wie im Beispiel von Chris601). Ein bisschen skeptischer bin ich allerdings ob ein Factory Reset dein altes Wallet File auch wirklich zuverlässig löscht. Ich könnte mir schon vorstellen das jemand mit entsprechendem Vorwissen und etwas Glück alte Dateien -- und darunter auch dein Wallet -- wiederherstellen könnte. [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/tree/drivers/char/random.c?id=refs/tags/v3.15.6#n52 |
|
|
|
I was thinking about the same examples actually with the dotcom & South Sea yes, you are absolutely right that at those periods the reason for crashes was ultimately the narrative-based logic, but those were isolated examples within specific niches / companies / markets. But nowadays, in the past decade or so, it appears to me that this is very persistent and is now the only way to make alpha in the market. Thus, can't we mark it as investment/economic paradigm shift? As I mentioned above about my previous work experience (+ other value/growth/activist/etc. funds), and as mentioned change of global factors by Tytanowy Janusz above, it appears that this is the strategy for now. I know that dotcom, US/Japanese/(now Chinese?) real estate markets started growing for a good reason, but ended up in the "narrative" area with the known results, but now this narrative-based logic appears to be literally in every area - from the American large caps, to Chinese small caps, Russian mid caps, cryptos, PE/VC, seed startups, DeFis, fixed-income, new tech, ... you can continue the list. Whoever is not part of the fancy "next great X" or "will change the world in Y" - is losing, whoever is in - is earning. And I believe the greatest evidence that it's not just a small market hype or craziness, but the "new normal" is again it's prolonged history of it for over a decade. Now is the only time when everyone around expects market(s) to crash, but it doesn't, while before everyone expected market to go on raising, and it eventually crashed. Not sure who said that, but I read ones that "if everyone expects a certain thing to happen - it will not happen, when everyone isn't expecting that to happen - it eventually will", and this thing is again the market crash, which people predicted in 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and now 21... Yet, all markets which are part of the great narrative continue to hit ATHs, and the short sellers (of Tesla, Bitcoin, Zoom, cannabis stocks, tech, solar energy, ESG, real estate EFTs, etc.) keep losing. "Isolated examples" that crashed whole markets though! Also the examples you mentioned as narrative investment cases are pretty niche as well Honestly I think the main driver behind this extended bull market is a lack of alternatives for any aspiring investor. There's just nowhere to put your cash in except for stocks, crypto and maybe real estate. A decade ago the cautious investor could flee into bonds. They might have made less profit, but it would still have been profit. These days that's a losing proposition and there's nowhere to go but to charge forward. Essentially monetary policies have herded cash into arguably ever more overvalued assets -- which of course kinda loses its meaning once everything is overvalued. I get that narrative investing can be highly profitable, but it's simply not sustainable, not if it's the only factor. And while investors seem to be more likely to "buy the dip" these days, as we've seen in March 2020, it will come down eventually. Regardless of that not being invested seems to remain a losing proposition -- After all "the markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent". |
|
|
|
|
I think the description of the historical eras hit the nail pretty much on the head, but with the 2010s onwards I'm not so sure.
While the label "narrative economy" (or rather "narrative investing") does make sense, generally speaking, I would not see it as part of economic evolution but rather as a short phase that usually precedes a bubble. Take the dotcom bubble for example. Sure, it may have started as an example of growth investing, but it ended up as investors telling themselves fantastic stories about the companies they are investing in. Or if you look further back in history, the South Sea bubble. Investors telling themselves fantastic stories about unimaginable riches across the pond. Even outside of bubbles you often see a bit of a narrative factor at play. That's why exciting stocks mostly come at a bit of a premium, regardless of growth potential.
Now I'm not saying that narrative investing had its play in every bubble -- both the US and Japanese housing crises had mostly other root causes -- but once investors turn to narratives rather than facts, by definition they are decoupling from reality. And while that may work for a little while, it's rarely a good sign.
|
|
|
|
The President of Brazil salary (and also the supreme court) is R$ 39.000 This is now 0.185 BTC per month Cm pays 0.15, or R$32000 per month (A few more because a month has more than 4 weeks) So a few less than the supreme court judges and the president. Maybe the same as a senator or something like Well yes but these politicians don't really know anything about Bitcoin now, do they? |
|
|
|
So, institutional investors could have dumped their coins in retails for up to x4 profit, but didn't? This is good to know. I believe most institutional investors are in it for long term gains, rather than swing trading, so it's not all that surprising that they didn't lock in their profits yet. It will be interesting to see what happens once the market gets really crazy though, ie. whether they weather the storm or shed some coins to alleviate the subsequent crash and crypto-winter. Also, I'm a bit surprised that retail investors joined the really so quickly, I thought they would do it much later, although it makes sense, because it looks like this time the media is covering Bitcoin's rally much more eagerly than before. I read some general economic news sites, and they report Bitcoin news a few times per day, especially if there's a lot of price action.
Yeah, I've been noticing the same thing. Lots of small but steady mainstream coverage. Usually that only happened a few months after an ATH was breached, towards the end of the bull market. Now it's more present. Seems like people are keeping a closer eye on Bitcoin these days. Presumably they finally caught on that Bitcoin only comes back stronger after each "death". |
|
|
|
Does you know why Grayscale stop buying bitcoin?
Because of the holidays, presumably? Unlike us retail-coiners, businesses have business hours More interesting would be at which point they continue investing, assuming they haven't done so already. |
|
|
|
I understand you correctly that if I come to the usa to live and work in 2021 and start exchanging my bitcoins for dollars.
When the US Tax Service is interested in me, I will tell them that I purchased my bitcoins between 2015 and 2020, and under Russian law, cryptocurrencies were not taxed.
Will they really answer me that I have to declare my bitcoins from 2021 and pay taxes on them next year?
I'm saying that if you received bitcoins as income (ie. by mining, providing services or selling goods), and it's been taxed as income in a country that has a tax treaty with the US, they won't have to pay income tax a second time for the same payment when moving to the US, even if the amount of income tax was zero because in the country of origin the threshold for having to pay income tax wasn't reached. That was my response to squatter's assumption that OP would get taxed twice, once for the income upon receiving payment and once for the capital gains upon selling. (put differently, opposed to squatter I assume that OP would get taxed in the US only once, for capital gains, since the first taxable event -- receiving the bitcoins as mining income -- happened under a different tax jurisdiction) Now I know very little about how taxation in the US works, but from what I've gathered once you become a tax resident of the US, you'll have to pay capital gains tax on your Bitcoin gains regardless of whether you bought (or earned) them before you moved to the US. I do assume that would happen in any country that applies a capital gains tax on Bitcoin (ie. even if you bought your coins in a tax jurisdiction that does not require capital gains tax on Bitcoin, once you start selling the coins as resident of a tax jurisdiction that does, you are owing taxes to that country). I'm no tax expert though. |
|
|
|
I've been scanning the references you sent...
The term "UTXO db"
... is that the very "coin" that I'm really looking for?
If that's the case, by dissecting it (that is "UTXO db"), I'd get to understand how a Bitcoin looks like and works - is that it? :-/
Maybe taking a look at how a transaction looks like will also help you in your understanding: https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/mastering-bitcoin/9781491902639/ch05.htmlTo reiterate what ranochigo already mentioend above, there is no "bitcoin" to look at. Bitcoins / satoshis are only accounting units. Transactions are as close as you get to "looking at one". |
|
|
|
My guess is that this is the start of banks trying to establish their own stablecoins. Maybe cooperate with existing stablecoin operators such as gemini. I don't think banks are yet ready for Bitcoin deposits. Not because they couldn't, but because they haven't yet given up on control. okay, let's say jpmorgan and some of the other big boys issue their own stablecoins---what's the end game for them? are they just trying to stay relevant in a context where SWIFT and ACH are becoming too slow/obsolete? stablecoins = faster settlement---is that all they're interested in? or are there possibly bigger plans in the offing that i'm not seeing? What's the end game for Bitcoin? Imagine that, but under your own, private, corporate control. Or imagine creating a stablecoin that eventually trades places with its collateral. I mean that's essentially what happened with gold, right? I'm just spitballing though. In all likeliness the main motivation could be just to stay in the loop, trying to avoid a Kodak moment. I think more newcomers keep their coins on exchanges than care to admit, so I wouldn't be surprised about people keeping their BTC in banks, no matter the silliness. i think banks accepting bitcoin deposits will represent a new era of retail adoption. most people are still stuck in the old way of thinking---they keep their money in banks, and they trust them. they don't trust bitcoin exchanges, or their ability to be their own bank. Absolutely! To be fair though, I also neither trust bitcoin exchanges, nor the ability of most people to be their own bank |
|
|
|
WHAT HAS HAPPENED?
r/wallstreetbets happened. TSLA has become pretty much a meme at this point. And also, I don't think Elon Musk has all of his wealth because of Tesla (someone correct me if I'm wrong). He's had his hand in a number of different pies throughout the years and had loads of money before the inception of Tesla. I also don't think Tesla should be worth nearly as much as Amazon or Apple for that matter. It isn't as though everyone you and I know is driving a Tesla--but the stock market can do weird things to company valuations (especially bull markets like this one we're in).
Elon Musk started 2020 with USD 29 Billion and ended it with USD 188 Billion: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/elon-musk-is-the-worlds-richest-person-in-2021/So while he has a lot of interesting ventures going on, and was already wealthy before, most of his recently gained wealth is caused by an immense TSLA rally. I absolutely agree that Tesla appears to be highly overvalued though. Sure, markets are forward-looking, but if forward-looking means a couple of decades from now it may not be that great a deal. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
