Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[Syke]

Corporates pay corporate tax rates on profits.

Except pass-through corporates that pay personal tax rates on profits.

[1603727670]

1603727670

[1603727670]

1603727670

[1603727670]

1603727670

[ruletheworld]

wow

we are clearing TXs down to 10 satoshi/byte if I am reading the chart right

Yes, it's been going on for a while now. So if you still have Bitcoins in non-SegWit addresses, or want to consolidate some of your UTXOs into the same address (so your privacy isn't affected), now would be a good time!

[HairyMaclairy]

Corporates pay corporate tax rates on profits.

Except pass-through corporates that pay personal tax rates on profits.

And partnerships, trusts and more exotic birds.

[Elwar]

So I have been thinking about the Lightning Network for a bit as far as running a node goes.

From my limited understanding of it, if you are the node between 2 people you basically fund the transactions going through, they sign a transaction to you, you sign a transaction to them for the equal amount each (so you need twice the amount for the channel), then throughout the length of time of the channel being open you sign transactions back and forth with the people connected to your node then settle everything at the end or whenever someone wants to settle the balance.

Firstly, is that somewhat accurate? I am sure it is super complicated beyond that, otherwise I would know it better.

My question (if that is accurate) is, could I sign every possible transaction for each node connecting to me offline, then only move the signed transactions to a hot database that I pull the transactions from as needed?

For example, A and B connect to me with 1 BTC each. I copy their public key to an offline machine and have it generate a million transactions each (or however many are needed) to account for every possible signed transaction then transfer that to a computer online.

Also, if this is possible, what prevents me from signing all of those transactions then spending the bitcoins somewhere else. Or is this what SegWit fixed?

[Ibian]

So my banks just complained. Apparently churning too much money in and out of exchanges has them worried shitless that the taxman will complain. Might have to register as a business to keep trading at the current levels of volume. Not sure I wanna deal with that shit. Especially the part where I have to give up half the profit. Blah.

To me, this is worrying more than annoying. Any hint of coordination among banks? How long between the two complaints?

If you only had money coming in and no money going out they probably wouldnt have a problem with it.

This is why we need something like Tether but which is reliable.

What do you mean you have to give half your profit? I know already as a daytrader I have to give up 40% of my profit every year in income taxes. I thought registering as a business would actually prevent taxes until you took out money (paid yourself) to spend it.

I actually considered if tether would be a valid way to store my fiat. Not sure how reliable it is tho, and you need dollar to buy it where I am stuck with euro on kraken.

And danish rules man. As a one person business the entire profit of the business count as regular wage income, and it will eventually be enough to put me in the 55% tax bracket (if it isn't already, can't be arsed checking). On the other hand there is no capital gains tax on bitcoin, so considering just not trading anymore and waiting for the price to go up, then sell a bit as needed during spikes. But nobody can predict the future so...

[bitserve]

So my banks just complained. Apparently churning too much money in and out of exchanges has them worried shitless that the taxman will complain. Might have to register as a business to keep trading at the current levels of volume. Not sure I wanna deal with that shit. Especially the part where I have to give up half the profit. Blah.

I understand you wouldn't like giving an exact figure but.... may I ask if we are talking about millions here or are they complaining over a smaller figure? Any ballpark on what triggered their concerns would help.

[HairyMaclairy]

Tether requires defending a peg.  Some day a whale will decide to short and break the Tether peg.   All over Red Rover.

I saw some commentary on Twitter that said that Tether printing was because the demand for Tether during this bear market was through the roof and they had to print more to hold the price down to US$1.  Otherwise the peg was about to break to the upside.

I interpret that to mean that the best time to blow up Tether to the downside is during a price surge as everyone is dumping their Tether for crypto.

[bitserve]

So my banks just complained. Apparently churning too much money in and out of exchanges has them worried shitless that the taxman will complain. Might have to register as a business to keep trading at the current levels of volume. Not sure I wanna deal with that shit. Especially the part where I have to give up half the profit. Blah.

To me, this is worrying more than annoying. Any hint of coordination among banks? How long between the two complaints?

If you only had money coming in and no money going out they probably wouldnt have a problem with it.

This is why we need something like Tether but which is reliable.

What do you mean you have to give half your profit? I know already as a daytrader I have to give up 40% of my profit every year in income taxes. I thought registering as a business would actually prevent taxes until you took out money (paid yourself) to spend it.

... But your "business" would have to pay corporate taxes over the trading profits TOO.

[Ibian]

So my banks just complained. Apparently churning too much money in and out of exchanges has them worried shitless that the taxman will complain. Might have to register as a business to keep trading at the current levels of volume. Not sure I wanna deal with that shit. Especially the part where I have to give up half the profit. Blah.

I understand you wouldn't like giving an exact figure but.... may I ask if we are talking about millions here or are they complaining over a smaller figure? Any ballpark on what triggered their concerns would help.

Millions over several months in local denomination, so... 200-400k in dollar?

The thing is I only make 4-5% per trade, with the upside that there is zero risk on my end. So it looks like massive amounts are being moved (massive in terms of wage slave numbers that is), but it's really just the same pool of money churning back and forth over and over, which to them looks like huge amounts. It pays the rent and a bit more, but it's really nothing massive in terms of profits.

[TERA2]

[HairyMaclairy]

Tera where are we now on that map of yours?

[TERA2]

Tera where are we now on that map of yours?

January 25, 2018

[bitserve]

So my banks just complained. Apparently churning too much money in and out of exchanges has them worried shitless that the taxman will complain. Might have to register as a business to keep trading at the current levels of volume. Not sure I wanna deal with that shit. Especially the part where I have to give up half the profit. Blah.

I understand you wouldn't like giving an exact figure but.... may I ask if we are talking about millions here or are they complaining over a smaller figure? Any ballpark on what triggered their concerns would help.

Millions over several months in local denomination, so... 200-400k in dollar?

The thing is I only make 4-5% per trade, with the upside that there is zero risk on my end. So it looks like massive amounts are being moved (massive in terms of wage slave numbers that is), but it's really just the same pool of money churning back and forth over and over, which to them looks like huge amounts. It pays the rent and a bit more, but it's really nothing massive in terms of profits.

For sure it doesn't look like a big amount BUT having lots of significant (non-negligible) in/out INTERNATIONAL transfers sounds exactly like a business and not regular personal activity... either that or... money laundering!. I guess their concerns go on that path. Did you register an activity and documented it to the banks beforehand? Probably they just want to cover THEIR own asses (KYC/AML thingy).

Do you really need to uses banks all the time for your "activity"? Couldn't you "cache" a bigger ammount outside of banking (ie, spread over several different exchanges to minimize the risk of catastrophic loss) so that you minimize the amount of banking tx's and triggering of alerts?

[Ibian]

So my banks just complained. Apparently churning too much money in and out of exchanges has them worried shitless that the taxman will complain. Might have to register as a business to keep trading at the current levels of volume. Not sure I wanna deal with that shit. Especially the part where I have to give up half the profit. Blah.

I understand you wouldn't like giving an exact figure but.... may I ask if we are talking about millions here or are they complaining over a smaller figure? Any ballpark on what triggered their concerns would help.

Millions over several months in local denomination, so... 200-400k in dollar?

The thing is I only make 4-5% per trade, with the upside that there is zero risk on my end. So it looks like massive amounts are being moved (massive in terms of wage slave numbers that is), but it's really just the same pool of money churning back and forth over and over, which to them looks like huge amounts. It pays the rent and a bit more, but it's really nothing massive in terms of profits.

For sure it doesn't look like a big amount BUT having lots of significant (non-negligible) in/out INTERNATIONAL transfers sounds exactly like a business and not regular personal activity... either that or... money laundering!. I guess their concerns go on that path. Did you register an activity and documented it to the banks beforehand? Probably they just want to cover THEIR own asses (KYC/AML thingy).

Do you really need to uses banks all the time for your "activity"? Couldn't you "cache" a bigger ammount outside of banking (ie, spread over several different exchanges to minimize the risk of catastrophic loss) so that you minimize the amount of banking tx's and triggering of alerts?

One account was specifically made in order to trade bitcoin, which they agreed to beforehand. And the money all goes to kraken, plus a few incoming transactions from people who send fiat after which I send bitcoin. There shouldn't be any problem with any of this, except the size of the amounts - which they didn't care about until just now, because the numbers have been growing.

It's just the volume, nothing else.

[d_eddie]

So I have been thinking about the Lightning Network for a bit as far as running a node goes.

From my limited understanding of it, if you are the node between 2 people you basically fund the transactions going through, they sign a transaction to you, you sign a transaction to them for the equal amount each (so you need twice the amount for the channel),

You don't need twice the amount. It's just the amount because of the way sequence and timelocks are set up to work.

then throughout the length of time of the channel being open you sign transactions back and forth with the people connected to your node then settle everything at the end or whenever someone wants to settle the balance.

Firstly, is that somewhat accurate? I am sure it is super complicated beyond that, otherwise I would know it better.

More than somewhat. Yes, the details are hairy, but that's the basic idea.  One important missing piece is that you need to to have more than 1 channel open in order to route funds. You can close one of your channels when you feel like it.

My question (if that is accurate) is, could I sign every possible transaction for each node connecting to me offline, then only move the signed transactions to a hot database that I pull the transactions from as needed?

For example, A and B connect to me with 1 BTC each. I copy their public key to an offline machine and have it generate a million transactions each (or however many are needed) to account for every possible signed transaction then transfer that to a computer online.

Also, if this is possible, what prevents me from signing all of those transactions then spending the bitcoins somewhere else. Or is this what SegWit fixed?

No you can't do that. You only get some coin from Alice that you must pass on to the opposite end of one of your open channels. Each channel has only two ends: you and the other guy. So you get money on one channel (Alice), you pass it on to Charlie, which will help with another hop, until the coins reach the final destination - Bob, but none of the intermediate nodes knows that. You can't withhold the funds within your node. They must travel onwards.

[vanobe]

So my banks just complained. Apparently churning too much money in and out of exchanges has them worried shitless that the taxman will complain. Might have to register as a business to keep trading at the current levels of volume. Not sure I wanna deal with that shit. Especially the part where I have to give up half the profit. Blah.

I understand you wouldn't like giving an exact figure but.... may I ask if we are talking about millions here or are they complaining over a smaller figure? Any ballpark on what triggered their concerns would help.

Millions over several months in local denomination, so... 200-400k in dollar?

The thing is I only make 4-5% per trade, with the upside that there is zero risk on my end. So it looks like massive amounts are being moved (massive in terms of wage slave numbers that is), but it's really just the same pool of money churning back and forth over and over, which to them looks like huge amounts. It pays the rent and a bit more, but it's really nothing massive in terms of profits.

For sure it doesn't look like a big amount BUT having lots of significant (non-negligible) in/out INTERNATIONAL transfers sounds exactly like a business and not regular personal activity... either that or... money laundering!. I guess their concerns go on that path. Did you register an activity and documented it to the banks beforehand? Probably they just want to cover THEIR own asses (KYC/AML thingy).

Do you really need to uses banks all the time for your "activity"? Couldn't you "cache" a bigger ammount outside of banking (ie, spread over several different exchanges to minimize the risk of catastrophic loss) so that you minimize the amount of banking tx's and triggering of alerts?

One account was specifically made in order to trade bitcoin, which they agreed to beforehand. And the money all goes to kraken, plus a few incoming transactions from people who send fiat after which I send bitcoin. There shouldn't be any problem with any of this, except the size of the amounts - which they didn't care about until just now, because the numbers have been growing.

It's just the volume, nothing else.

This thread might provide some useful information. Some posts in it describe similar account closure experiences to yours. It seems business accounts are needed for big regular transfers.

Free EU bank accounts that you can be opened directly online

[bitserve]

So my banks just complained. Apparently churning too much money in and out of exchanges has them worried shitless that the taxman will complain. Might have to register as a business to keep trading at the current levels of volume. Not sure I wanna deal with that shit. Especially the part where I have to give up half the profit. Blah.

I understand you wouldn't like giving an exact figure but.... may I ask if we are talking about millions here or are they complaining over a smaller figure? Any ballpark on what triggered their concerns would help.

Millions over several months in local denomination, so... 200-400k in dollar?

The thing is I only make 4-5% per trade, with the upside that there is zero risk on my end. So it looks like massive amounts are being moved (massive in terms of wage slave numbers that is), but it's really just the same pool of money churning back and forth over and over, which to them looks like huge amounts. It pays the rent and a bit more, but it's really nothing massive in terms of profits.

For sure it doesn't look like a big amount BUT having lots of significant (non-negligible) in/out INTERNATIONAL transfers sounds exactly like a business and not regular personal activity... either that or... money laundering!. I guess their concerns go on that path. Did you register an activity and documented it to the banks beforehand? Probably they just want to cover THEIR own asses (KYC/AML thingy).

Do you really need to uses banks all the time for your "activity"? Couldn't you "cache" a bigger ammount outside of banking (ie, spread over several different exchanges to minimize the risk of catastrophic loss) so that you minimize the amount of banking tx's and triggering of alerts?

One account was specifically made in order to trade bitcoin, which they agreed to beforehand. And the money all goes to kraken, plus a few incoming transactions from people who send fiat after which I send bitcoin. There shouldn't be any problem with any of this, except the size of the amounts - which they didn't care about until just now, because the numbers have been growing.

It's just the volume, nothing else.

Wait a min... your are receiving bank transfer from other people AND you are not registered as, at the very least, a personal "business" activity?

Not sure if I understood it correctly.

[jojo69]

I like the little particles of orange line leaking out the bottom there Tera.

That is a nice touch.

[HairyMaclairy]

plus a few incoming transactions from people who send fiat after which I send bitcoin.

This might be your issue.  Starts to sound like a money laundering risk for the bank.

[HairyMaclairy]

Tera where are we now on that map of yours?

January 25, 2018

Thanks.  So we are “ahead of schedule” then?