Did Michael Saylor work on the Taproot Upgrade? Is he mining BTC?

[bitquad]

I keep hearing the argument that POS chains are securities because you appear to be profiting from the work of others. Gensler has made this claim and so has Michael Saylor.

Ethereum solo stakers are actually doing the work of securing the network in the same way a POS miner is. They are providing hardware, electrical infrastructure, internet connection, and an Ethereum wallet with 32 ETH. It would seem the Howey test does not apply to solo stakers.

Bitcoin developers updated the blockchain to enable smart contracts via the Taproot upgrade in November, 2021.

If Michael Saylor did not physically work on that upgrade can't the same argument be used that he is expecting to profit on the work of others? He also did not mine the Bitcoin but instead purchased it. If he is not securing the Bitcoin network via mining then he is not doing any work on the Bitcoin blockchain. Therefore he is expecting to profit from the work of others, correct?

[Nwada001]

He is not expecting to benefit from the work of others. Sorry to say, they are not benefiting from the work of others. The Bitcoin purchase announced by Michael Saylor is not his own but that of the entire Microstrategy, of which Michael Saylor is the executive founder and CEO. 

Everyone has a way of working for the Bitcoin; miners are doing their part, which they are earning from block rewards; Microstrategy is also doing their part, which is also accumulating as much bitcoin as they can; their money is working for them, which will eventually pay off when the Bitcoin price hits their target. 

[bitquad]

He is not expecting to benefit from the work of others. Sorry to say, they are not benefiting from the work of others. The Bitcoin purchase announced by Michael Saylor is not his own but that of the entire Microstrategy, of which Michael Saylor is the executive founder and CEO. 

Everyone has a way of working for the Bitcoin; miners are doing their part, which they are earning from block rewards; Microstrategy is also doing their part, which is also accumulating as much bitcoin as they can; their money is working for them, which will eventually pay off when the Bitcoin price hits their target. 

Well then by that same argument, Ethereum is not a security either.

Using your own words I replace Bitcoin with Ethereum and Microstrategy with bitquad:

Everyone has a way of working for the Ethereum; solo stakers are doing their part, which they are earning from block rewards; bitquad is also doing his part, which is also accumulating as much Ethereum as he can; his money is working for him, which will eventually pay off when the Ethereum price hits their target.

Ethereum block rewards (or “proposer rewards”) are a built-in mechanism to incentivize proper behavior on the part of the validators that propose blocks. When a validator completes this task by proposing a valid block that is subsequently attested by all other validators, they receive a block reward.Feb 8, 2023

https://www.blocknative.com/blog/ethereum-block-rewards-maximize-validator-yield#:~:text=Ethereum%20block%20rewards%20(or%20%E2%80%9Cproposer,they%20receive%20a%20block%20reward.

[thecodebear]

OP, nobody considers Bitcoin to meet any of the qualifications of being a security. So I wouldn't worry about it. There is no common enterprise working to create profit in Bitcoin - there is no Bitcoin company creating the bitcoin and selling them.

Ethereum may be classified as a security because it sold a pre-mine as a fundraiser in which the investors obviously expected to profit. And Ethereum has a foundation (a common enterprise) that runs it. Bitcoin has none of that. Though even with Ethereum there is some question as to whether or not it is a security. I think the main danger with 99% of cryptos today are that they are centralized products controlled by companies that pre-mined the supply and sell the supply as a fundraiser, and it certainly could be argued that those sorts of cryptocurrencies are securities.

But honestly given that security laws were made long before crypto existed, it probably makes the most sense to not try to fit cryptocurrencies into the securities definition that obviously was not made to try to describe them.

It'd be better to make new rules for what cryptos actually are rather than try to fit crypto (a new thing) into an old box. For example the three main types of securities are equity which cryptocurrencies obviously are not, debt-based which cryptocurrencies obviously are not, and hybrids which are a combo of equity and debt, so no cryptocurrency falls into any of those categories.

[bitquad]

OP, nobody considers Bitcoin to meet any of the qualifications of being a security. So I wouldn't worry about it. There is no common enterprise working to create profit in Bitcoin - there is no Bitcoin company creating the bitcoin and selling them.

Ethereum may be classified as a security because it sold a pre-mine as a fundraiser in which the investors obviously expected to profit. And Ethereum has a foundation (a common enterprise) that runs it. Bitcoin has none of that. Though even with Ethereum there is some question as to whether or not it is a security. I think the main danger with 99% of cryptos today are that they are centralized products controlled by companies that pre-mined the supply and sell the supply as a fundraiser, and it certainly could be argued that those sorts of cryptocurrencies are securities.

But honestly given that security laws were made long before crypto existed, it probably makes the most sense to not try to fit cryptocurrencies into the securities definition that obviously was not made to try to describe them.

It'd be better to make new rules for what cryptos actually are rather than try to fit crypto (a new thing) into an old box. For example the three main types of securities are equity which cryptocurrencies obviously are not, debt-based which cryptocurrencies obviously are not, and hybrids which are a combo of equity and debt, so no cryptocurrency falls into any of those categories.

I don't see Bitcoin or Ethereum as securities. Just playing devils advocate because a lot of Bitcoin Maxi's claim Ethereum is a security. I don't agree with that.

Most of the Ethereum I have I mined via POW. So whether the ETH foundation pre-mined is irrelevant to my situation because I obtained my Ethereum the same way Bitcoin miners obtained their BTC. I did earn some ETH via staking but it is a small percentage.

Regarding pre-mining, an argument could be made that Satoshi also pre-mined because he was mining when the Bitcoin hash rate was very low which allowed him to accumulate 1 million BTC very quickly.

https://en.cryptonomist.ch/2021/11/14/did-satoshi-nakamoto-pre-mine-bitcoin/

The first Bitcoin created by Satoshi Nakamoto
The first 50 BTC tokens were created by Satoshi himself by mining the first block.

However, there are those who argue that because he was one of the very few Bitcoin miners at the time, he actually created many of the first BTC, as if he had “pre-mined” them. In other words, he would have mined them before a significant number of other people started mining them.

It is estimated that Satoshi Nakamoto mined more than 1 million BTC, which today would have a dollar value of more than 60 billion, although there is no record that he ever used them. In fact, Satoshi disappeared in 2011, and no one has heard from him since.

As far as is known, the one million BTC mined by Satoshi have never been used, and may never be used. Many are convinced that Satoshi is dead, and that he did not leave the keys to his Bitcoin to anyone, although there is an ongoing legal dispute between Craig Wright and Dave Kleiman’s brother to regain possession of the so-called “Tulip Trust” in which those keys are allegedly stored.

A few days after mining the first block, Satoshi began to mine others in sequence, and after a few days created the first transaction by sending BTC to Hal Finney, who is also now deceased.

The pre-mining of Bitcoin
At the time, there were so few people using and mining Bitcoin that the vast majority of blocks were mined by Satoshi himself. It is worth mentioning that at the time there was no platform to sell BTC for dollars or other fiat currencies. The value of individual BTC tokens was comparable to zero.

The sequence of all the blocks mined by Satoshi is called “Patoshi“, and some argue that this was in fact a kind of pre-mining, because Satoshi mined the vast majority of the blocks.

[thecodebear]

OP, nobody considers Bitcoin to meet any of the qualifications of being a security. So I wouldn't worry about it. There is no common enterprise working to create profit in Bitcoin - there is no Bitcoin company creating the bitcoin and selling them.

Ethereum may be classified as a security because it sold a pre-mine as a fundraiser in which the investors obviously expected to profit. And Ethereum has a foundation (a common enterprise) that runs it. Bitcoin has none of that. Though even with Ethereum there is some question as to whether or not it is a security. I think the main danger with 99% of cryptos today are that they are centralized products controlled by companies that pre-mined the supply and sell the supply as a fundraiser, and it certainly could be argued that those sorts of cryptocurrencies are securities.

But honestly given that security laws were made long before crypto existed, it probably makes the most sense to not try to fit cryptocurrencies into the securities definition that obviously was not made to try to describe them.

It'd be better to make new rules for what cryptos actually are rather than try to fit crypto (a new thing) into an old box. For example the three main types of securities are equity which cryptocurrencies obviously are not, debt-based which cryptocurrencies obviously are not, and hybrids which are a combo of equity and debt, so no cryptocurrency falls into any of those categories.

I don't see Bitcoin or Ethereum as securities. Just playing devils advocate because a lot of Bitcoin Maxi's claim Ethereum is a security. I don't agree with that.

Most of the Ethereum I have I mined via POW. So whether the ETH foundation pre-mined is irrelevant to my situation because I obtained my Ethereum the same way Bitcoin miners obtained their BTC. I did earn some ETH via staking but it is a small percentage.

Regarding pre-mining, an argument could be made that Satoshi also pre-mined because he was mining when the Bitcoin hash rate was very low which allowed him to accumulate 1 million BTC very quickly.

https://en.cryptonomist.ch/2021/11/14/did-satoshi-nakamoto-pre-mine-bitcoin/

The first Bitcoin created by Satoshi Nakamoto
The first 50 BTC tokens were created by Satoshi himself by mining the first block.

However, there are those who argue that because he was one of the very few Bitcoin miners at the time, he actually created many of the first BTC, as if he had “pre-mined” them. In other words, he would have mined them before a significant number of other people started mining them.

It is estimated that Satoshi Nakamoto mined more than 1 million BTC, which today would have a dollar value of more than 60 billion, although there is no record that he ever used them. In fact, Satoshi disappeared in 2011, and no one has heard from him since.

As far as is known, the one million BTC mined by Satoshi have never been used, and may never be used. Many are convinced that Satoshi is dead, and that he did not leave the keys to his Bitcoin to anyone, although there is an ongoing legal dispute between Craig Wright and Dave Kleiman’s brother to regain possession of the so-called “Tulip Trust” in which those keys are allegedly stored.

A few days after mining the first block, Satoshi began to mine others in sequence, and after a few days created the first transaction by sending BTC to Hal Finney, who is also now deceased.

The pre-mining of Bitcoin
At the time, there were so few people using and mining Bitcoin that the vast majority of blocks were mined by Satoshi himself. It is worth mentioning that at the time there was no platform to sell BTC for dollars or other fiat currencies. The value of individual BTC tokens was comparable to zero.

The sequence of all the blocks mined by Satoshi is called “Patoshi“, and some argue that this was in fact a kind of pre-mining, because Satoshi mined the vast majority of the blocks.

Well the definition of a security has nothing to do with how you personally got your Ethereum. Whether you mined or staked or bought or earned or were given or stole your Ethereum has nothing to do with whether or not it is a security. All Ether is either a security or not a security, not individual tokens, so it isn't irrelevant to your situation. But how you got your Ether on the other hand is irrelevant to whether ETH is a security or not.

And no, Satoshi running the first miner is not as though he did a pre-mine. A pre-mine is a specific thing and has nothing to do with being the first miner on a network. A pre-mine means minting coins at the start of the network (basically the opposite of mining them) and selling them off to raise funds for the project. This, obviously, is not the case with Bitcoin. Nobody argues that Satoshi pre-mined, unless they simply don't know what pre-mining means.


So it seems you have some false ideas on what a pre-mine is as well as what it means for something to be a security. Bitcoin obviously had no pre-mine as is well known by everyone, and it doesn't meet any definition of a security. Ethereum could definitely be considered a security, though that's up for debate, and honestly I think the main reason to not call it a security is simply to allow it an exemption just because it is such an important part of the crypto industry and is already established (unlike every other altcoin). And regardless of how you got your ETH, your ETH is either a security or not depending on what the regulators decide.



Personally I don't think the idea of securities should even be applied to cryptocurrencies, because they are a totally new kind of asset that obviously was not taken into account when securities rules were made a long time before cryptocurrencies existed. If we do apply securities rules to cryptocurrencies though, just about every crypto besides Bitcoin is a security (maybe a handful of other old non-pre-mined altcoins might not be securities but its a small number). Everything else including ETH is likely a security if we're gonna apply security rules. Ethereum isn't really different from any of the countless altcoins controlled by a centralized company or organization that issued coins in a pre-mine to fundraise. Though if in the case securities laws are decided to apply to cryptocurrency I'd be for exempting Ether simply because it is already established and important to the industry. Of course if you do that and not to the many other similar altcoins then you're basically just playing favorites. So either Bitcoin and a few other old cryptos are not securities while Ethereum and most altcoins are securities, or we just don't apply securities rules at all to crypto and none of them are and we give them their own regulation rules that have nothing to do with securities.

[ImThour]

Bitcoin developers updated the blockchain to enable smart contracts via the Taproot upgrade in November, 2021

Not sure if any of you will agree with this statement of mine however Taproot is the best upgrade ever for Bitcoin in history. It made Bitcoin faster, and much more efficient.

Verification of transactions on Bitcoin's network used to be a slow process prior to the implementation of Taproot. This was due to the fact that each digital signature needed to be validated against a public key, which significantly increased the time required for complex transactions involving multiple inputs and signatures, such as multi-sig transactions.

We can finally have DeFi on Bitcoin as well.

Also another benefit of Taproot (Source: https://cointelegraph.com/learn/a-beginners-guide-to-the-bitcoin-taproot-upgrade)

Merklized Alternative Script Trees (MAST), which condense complex Bitcoin transactions into a single hash, reducing transaction fees, minimizing memory usage, and improving Bitcoin’s scalability.

That is a literal game changer for Bitcoinverse.

Now coming back to the topic, Did Michael Saylor work on the Taproot Upgrade? No. Is he mining BTC? Yes, on his personal desktop with a 3060 /s 

[hugeblack]

When a currency is classified, what is classified based on it is the currency’s business model and not the intent of the buyer, and it is a legal rule as the judgment is based on actions and not on intentions.
So, if you bought the currency and were working on proof-of-stake and proof-of-work, then things are completely different.
Also, Michael Saylor and others cannot change the way bitcoin works even if he wants to sell all his currencies.

This matter does not apply to proof-of-stake currencies, as the owner of the largest part will determine the direction of the currency.

[YUriy1991]

I think Michael Saylor is an outspoken advocate for Bitcoin who has invested heavily in it and has helped educate others about its potential. If one looks at buying and holding Bitcoins it can be seen as a form of supporting and securing the network, as it contributes to its overall strength and stability. Maybe While Michael Saylor is not working on upgrading Taproot or mining Bitcoin but I think he has contributed to the Bitcoin ecosystem in other ways.