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

[bitcoinPsycho]

Bch = bilderberg crypto heist

[bitserve]

I have a question for you guys with good tax advisors:

The thing is that is you have ie, not my situation, 100 BTC which you mostly hold but, at the same time, you do trading with a smaller part ie: 10BTC and keep doing sells on peaks and buys on dips it could be considered that you are basically selling from the whole stash. Thus, if in one year you do hundreds or even thousands of trades with those 10BTC it is basically as if you sold and rebought the whole 100BTC in that same year, thus paying for short term profits. (At least in countries where LIFO is not allowed, only FIFO and "maybe" PMP).

So.... It is a possibility that instead of doing direct sells and buys you use leverage (using your "REAL" Bitcoin or FIAT as collateral), ie opening long or short positions, and paying only for the short term net profit on those positions without considering that you are effectively selling ANY your long term Bitcoin holding?

ANyone using leveraging for this tax concerns or anyone that knows if this is accepted or not?

Is margin trading considered the same as if you were selling from your previous stash or is it a separate thing?

I ask this in this thread because I know that here there are people invested and knowleadgle enough to maybe offer a first hand opinion on the subject. Don't want to open a new thread and get a bunch of completely uninformed replies coming from people that needs to comply with their XXX number of useless posts for their signature campaign (basically most of this forum). BUt if anyone can point me to a good thread where this subject is seriously covered I would also appreacite.

Thanks!

P.S.: I am asking this for a friend.

[hodl_2015]

I have a question for you guys with good tax advisors:

Don't know much about trading or taxes (in any country), but maybe keep the bitcoins you regular trade with on a different bitcoin address? (which would already be the case if you keep them at an exchange). Then just call one an "investment account" and the other a "trading account".
Or just look at the lowest amount of BTC held in a year (or whatever the term is), and call that "savings/investments" and the rest trading stack or something.

[Morgenst3rn]

That and to try and prevent people from buying gold and silver because the market is stretched too thin and they're running out of metals to deliver which would blow up their ponzi.

What do you actually think of Peter Schiff?

Excuse me, if i portray you in a wrong light, but he shares a lot of your views on precious metals & bitcoin.

[bitserve]

I have a question for you guys with good tax advisors:

Don't know much about taxes (in any country), but maybe keep the bitcoins you regular trade with on a different bitcoin address? (which would already be the case if you keep them at an exchange). Then just call one an "investment account" and the other a "trading account".
Or just look at the lowest amount of BTC held in a year (or whatever the term is), and call that "savings/investments" and the rest trading stack or something.

Yes. Let's assume the main holdings are in paperwallets or hardware wallet. Only the small trading part in exchanges. But, I am sure that they will consider that, even you have only 1 BTC in one exchange, that you sell and rebuy a hundred times on the exchange, it would be considered is if you were selling from your 100BTC stash. You can argue that they won't ever know you had those 100BTC and only tax you for short term profits on the trades of that 1BTC but..... then you will never be able to officially sell and pay taxes on the 99BTC remaining. They would be in a "limbo" forever.

That wouldn't have a big impact if Bitcoin wouldn't have rised as much in price as it had. You could just use them to buy stuff online or trade it for FIAT in localbitcoins. But this rises make it valuable enough to buy things as real state, etc... so you first need to make sure it is properly taxed beforehand. I am sure many people is having this same concern with current prices and I supposse there is people with older holdings that faced with this concern long time ago.

[x2666]

Want to send $20? Too bad, you will receive $4, it's only fair to pay the Blockstream Corporation for their Bitcoin invention.

[Wekkel]

Want to send $20? Too bad, you will receive $4, it's only fair to pay the Blockstream Corporation for their Bitcoin invention.

Then fork it and remove patentware.

[gentlemand]

Want to send $20? Too bad, you will receive $4, it's only fair to pay the Blockstream Corporation for their Bitcoin invention.

Actually you're paying a nice Chinese man to finance his attacks on Bitcoin.

[x2666]

Want to send $20? Too bad, you will receive $4, it's only fair to pay the Blockstream Corporation for their Bitcoin invention.

Actually you're paying a nice Chinese man to finance his attacks on Bitcoin.

I don't buy this "attack on Bitcoin" argument. So what if the chain gets spammed? That's exposing a weakness. What if Bitcoin actually got the mainstream adoption all these sycophants are constantly proclaiming? That spam would be replaced with "real" transactions. Old dice websites and others used to do 1 satoshi transactions all the time, there are legitimate reasons to send low value high volume transactions that aren't intentionally "malicious".

If core don't like the mempool being filled, they should alter their code to handle this. Unfortunately, they prefer to limit the block size and ensure that fees continue to rise, going so far to say $1,000 fees would be acceptable. Pushing transactions off chain is like a toddler pushing their toys under the bed to clean their room. They say things like it would be fine if it took as long as a year for a payment to settle as long as you could ensure it would eventually settle. That completely changes the fundamental currency claim of Bitcoin. It's not a settlement network.

[Gab0]

Shit, MEMpool is really high, now ...  be carefull with yours fees.

I have a transaction in waiting list (with 25 sat/B   Yeah, i'm a cheater, stuck since 5 days) ... and i have made one with 560 sat/B (next block OK).

At what point will it cost the same to maintain a node and pay the fees of a transaction?

Would not that be a BIG irony?

[becoin]

I don't buy this "attack on Bitcoin" argument.

Nobody cares what you buy and what you don't. You're a loser!

[bitcoinPsycho]

Want to send $20? Too bad, you will receive $4, it's only fair to pay the Blockstream Corporation for their Bitcoin invention.

Actually you're paying a nice Chinese man to finance his attacks on Bitcoin.

I don't buy this "attack on Bitcoin" argument. So what if the chain gets spammed? That's exposing a weakness. What if Bitcoin actually got the mainstream adoption all these sycophants are constantly proclaiming? That spam would be replaced with "real" transactions. Old dice websites and others used to do 1 satoshi transactions all the time, there are legitimate reasons to send low value high volume transactions that aren't intentionally "malicious".

If core don't like the mempool being filled, they should alter their code to handle this. Unfortunately, they prefer to limit the block size and ensure that fees continue to rise, going so far to say $1,000 fees would be acceptable. Pushing transactions off chain is like a toddler pushing their toys under the bed to clean their room. They say things like it would be fine if it took as long as a year for a payment to settle as long as you could ensure it would eventually settle. That completely changes the fundamental currency claim of Bitcoin. It's not a settlement network.

Um I thought you are only into  Ixcoin?

[Gab0]

Want to send $20? Too bad, you will receive $4, it's only fair to pay the Blockstream Corporation for their Bitcoin invention.

Actually you're paying a nice Chinese man to finance his attacks on Bitcoin.

I don't buy this "attack on Bitcoin" argument. So what if the chain gets spammed? That's exposing a weakness. What if Bitcoin actually got the mainstream adoption all these sycophants are constantly proclaiming? That spam would be replaced with "real" transactions. Old dice websites and others used to do 1 satoshi transactions all the time, there are legitimate reasons to send low value high volume transactions that aren't intentionally "malicious".

If core don't like the mempool being filled, they should alter their code to handle this. Unfortunately, they prefer to limit the block size and ensure that fees continue to rise, going so far to say $1,000 fees would be acceptable. Pushing transactions off chain is like a toddler pushing their toys under the bed to clean their room. They say things like it would be fine if it took as long as a year for a payment to settle as long as you could ensure it would eventually settle. That completely changes the fundamental currency claim of Bitcoin. It's not a settlement network.

+1
I totally agree with you!
It does not matter if it is spam or real transactions. It is a real problem.

[x2666]

I don't buy this "attack on Bitcoin" argument.

Nobody cares what you buy and what you don't. You're a loser!

Nice ad hominem, try to refute my point. You can't.

[becoin]

I don't buy this "attack on Bitcoin" argument.

Nobody cares what you buy and what you don't. You're a loser!

Nice ad hominem, try to refute my point. You can't.

What is your point? You don't like to use bitcoin as a settlement layer? Then don't use it as a settlement layer! Use it as usual. But you say you can't afford to pay the tx fees. Well, you're offered a choice. You either pay the tx fees, if you don't want to use the second bitcoin layer, or you use BCH or some other shitcoin! Hope that solves your dilemma.

[fluidjax]

I don't buy this "attack on Bitcoin" argument. So what if the chain gets spammed? That's exposing a weakness. What if Bitcoin actually got the mainstream adoption all these sycophants are constantly proclaiming? That spam would be replaced with "real" transactions. Old dice websites and others used to do 1 satoshi transactions all the time, there are legitimate reasons to send low value high volume transactions that aren't intentionally "malicious".

If core don't like the mempool being filled, they should alter their code to handle this. Unfortunately, they prefer to limit the block size and ensure that fees continue to rise, going so far to say $1,000 fees would be acceptable. Pushing transactions off chain is like a toddler pushing their toys under the bed to clean their room. They say things like it would be fine if it took as long as a year for a payment to settle as long as you could ensure it would eventually settle. That completely changes the fundamental currency claim of Bitcoin. It's not a settlement network.

Increasing the block size won't stop spam, it will just fill up the hard drives quicker.
To stop spam you need a fee market, which 'prices out' the spammers, coupled with a 2nd tier, low cost, off chain payment system where spam has no effect... oh look thats what we are now getting... great

 

[Meuh6879]

At what point will it cost the same to maintain a node and pay the fees of a transaction?
Would not that be a BIG irony?

Node and fee ... seriously, you ask ?
Bitcoin is a network, and fee is the mecanism to be allow to emit a transaction.

If you don't follow the rules (or choose deliberatly a low fee) : Deal with it.

A full node can process 20 connexions with 10 tx per second (per each connexion) without arming the bandwidth and the power of the node (well, if it's a pi ... ).

Most of the (new ?) users, here, don't understand the "network" in the "B" of the Bitcoin.
bitcoin (with a "b") is money.

But a good part of this forum understand and valuate the Bitcoin, first (and get rich with bitcoins after ... a couple of years).

[BTCtrader71]

Is margin trading considered the same as if you were selling from your previous stash or is it a separate thing?

My guess is that it has to be considered a separate thing. My reasoning is this: suppose someone does the exact same trades as your friend does, but that person does NOT have an extra stash that is kept offline. In his case, it would make no sense to act as if the offline BTC were being sold (and bought back), bc he doesn't have any. So now the question becomes: does it make sense to treat the exact same trades one way for one person, and another way for another person? I would think probably not.

PS I'm no accountant, and this is not tax advice, blah blah blah.
PPS Hopefully I understood your question correctly. Correct me if I did not ...

[blockinoutthehaters]

The altcoin mining market is growing:

http://www.zdnet.com/article/asus-unveils-cryptocurrency-mining-motherboard-that-supports-19-gpus/

If only intel/amd/nvidia start making asic miners...finally some competition.

[harrymmmm]

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Ok, so my account yefi got hacked 2017-08-19. I'm a little shocked at this as my p/w was a random 9 digit code with a special character. It was also unique to this site. Anyway, please ignore anything my lobotomised impostor now writes, thank you.
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1NYG8FXzttGBxeyTpvefkG9qVEQUFRacQo
ILKE74zlefd0JdEr8uhy4EK9XsbeVUuDxPHyoMzPlFl5fJV2k0pmeNU1O7o00kUXY/9t5H7jJh7rXYjwmIYQq0k=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Here is the unedited post where I posted that address: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=996318.msg13422402;topicseen#msg13422402

I didn't see that anyone confirmed this, so let me say I did.
yefi2 possesses the private key that matches the address yefi posted previously.