South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax • Hacker News Board

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#211

Post by AgentME » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 2:19 AM UTC

root_axis wrote: post #179

passwordreset wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bitcoin inherently does not hold any value, it is a ledger. I just want you to be aware that those 2 sentiments are directly contradictory. A ledger has value -- an online, world-wide, decentralized, distributed, peer-to-peer ledger moreso. Estimate the value of the ledger (this is a significantly different endeavour than estimating market cap), divide that value by the total number of BTC in circulation, and you h…

> A ledger has value Why? Based on what? That's like saying "a state machine has value". That might be true in some contexts, but an arbitrary implementation of a concept is not necessarily valuable. Certainly, the value prospect of the ledger has no relationship to how many cryptotokens the ledger accounts to one's balance (that is to say, buying up cryptotokens is purely speculative because owning more does not mak…

A ledger that me and another entity (such as a friend I owe money to or a retailer I want to buy from) can both agree on to use to accomplish transactions is pretty handy.

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#212

Post by aoeusnth1 » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 3:10 AM UTC

drawnwren wrote: post #207

mevile wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, bitcoin is not subsidizing Chinese energy. They're paying for the energy being used at the price it costs to use it. I imagine the amount of energy used to mine in China is not a significant fraction of the overall energy production of China.

I think you got the causality backwards in the parent comment. China is subsidizing energy and, indirectly, Bitcoin. The parent assumes the price of energy in China is below cost. I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn this was true.

It's certainly below cost when you include the externalities of burning coal.

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#213

Post by neuro_imager » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 3:47 AM UTC

s73ver_ wrote: post #193

neuro_imager wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its ironic that the same people who keep saying cryptocurrency has no underlying value, that its just a speculative bubble, are saying that profits from its increase in price should be aggressively taxed.

I don't see why it's ironic. Whether something is useful or not, and whether it's increases in value should be covered under financial taxes like any other commodity are separate issues.

Commodity: noun, plural commodities. 1.an article of trade or commerce, especially a product as distinguished from a service. 2.something of use, advantage, or value. 3.Stock Exchange. any unprocessed or partially processed good, as grain, fruits, and vegetables, or precious metals. 4.Obsolete. a quantity of goods.

So if you're saying its a commodity (and therefore should be taxed), it has value (and has to be based on something).

But semantics aside, taxation is theft, even more so in this case - there's no justifiable reason to hand over a portion of the gains to a government that had no involvement in the creation of the source of revenue.

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#214

Post by neuro_imager » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 3:52 AM UTC

ufo wrote: post #184

cmurf wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why people are downvoting, but what I'd like to know is how prevalent Bitcoin usage is in each country. Is it 10%? 50%? Who is it leaving behind? The article suggests it's not based on a scientific sample. I also wonder what the skew is in usage demographically and geographically. And then I'd like to see this contrasted with other hyperinflation instances were people abandon the local currency and start…

I always downvote those Venezuela posts because they are invariably Bitcoin propaganda. The linked stories inevitably originate in a bitcoin news site and are backed by more wishful thinking than actual data.

The article I linked to was from ABC news (as mainstream a news source as you could find).

How is this propaganda? You're saying people in countries with hyperinflated currency have no use for crypto and don't use it? Can you back this up? Can you explain why there are significant premiums for Bitcoin when buying from exchanges from these countries? Or is this propaganda too?

Of course there isn't data (except of course from the exchange rates). These people are breaking the law and at risk of death or imprisonment. What type of evidence would satisfy you?

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#215

Post by danblick » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 3:54 AM UTC

abcdefghijklm wrote: post #79

freehunter wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not on the hook for "my share" of the national debt. The government isn't going to knock on my door with a $62k tax bill next month. That's the government's debt, not mine. If I spend all my money but still owe creditors more, that's what I'm on the hook for. That's real debt.

No, they won't knock on your door with a tax bill. Because it's easier to tax you through inflation to finance that debt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seigniorage#Seigniorage_as_a_t... "Economists regard seigniorage as a form of inflation tax, redistributing real resources to the currency issuer. Issuing new currency, rather than collecting taxes paid out of the existing money stock, is then considered in effect a t…

Eh. But inflation only affects nominal assets like bonds and bank account balances. Real assets like houses or stocks (to a degree) would be expected to rise along with inflation.

That makes inflation distortionary, not some ideal tax on wealth. Governments can't just run away with inflation as an alternative to tax.

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#216

Post by neuro_imager » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 4:04 AM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #190

cmurf wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why people are downvoting, but what I'd like to know is how prevalent Bitcoin usage is in each country. Is it 10%? 50%? Who is it leaving behind? The article suggests it's not based on a scientific sample. I also wonder what the skew is in usage demographically and geographically. And then I'd like to see this contrasted with other hyperinflation instances were people abandon the local currency and start…

People are downvoting because we've seen the Venezuela example used thousands of times by now. Yes there is value in a thing that is difficult for oppressive governments to seize of devalue. The question is whether that is in any way related to the current price of BTC. It seems like the large majority of trading is happening among people who live in other nations and who already have wealth. This isn't a technology…

> The question is whether that is in any way related to the current price of BTC.

Of course it is. People paying money on foreign exchanges contribute to the price too. Foreign remittances are a fantastic use case for crypto (mostly to these same countries).

Also, what inspires many people to enter crypto, is general lack of trust in government and financial institutions. People choose to buy crypto rather than buying other asset classes or to hold fiat (this is a decision with a strong geopolitical basis).

> It seems like the large majority of trading is happening among people who live in other nations and who already have wealth.

Possibly, but thats besides the point. This argument is a refutation to several arguments that detractors make: - there's no use case for crypto - there's no underlying value to crypto - crypto can't replace a fiat currency

> This isn't a technology that protects the developing world against monied interests. Its a technology that amplifies inequality due to an enormous difference in cost depending on when you joined the network.

As the Big Lebowski said "that's just like, your opinion man".

Joking aside, there are good reasons to think that crypto could in fact allow many people who are currently stuck outside the financial system to have access. This may me a small use case right now but its still early days for the technology.

I'd encourage you to watch: A. M Antonopoulos 'What Bitcoin Means For Unbanked Economies https://youtu.be/xeSfDbbcN2c

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#217

Post by neuro_imager » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 4:09 AM UTC

mundo wrote: post #191

neuro_imager wrote: post #165

This thread reminds me that even on HN most comments on the internet are from people with very little understanding. I expected the "bubble", "tulip", "no value" arguments to come from the chicken littles on Forbes. If you think Bitcoin is overvalued, fine. Pour yourself a stiff drink and accept some people might lose some money. The sort of emotional hyperbole on here about "cryptocurrencies need to be banned by the…

> "cryptocurrencies need to be banned by the loving, paternal, incorruptible government to save the world from ourselves" If you're going to summarize the other side's position, do so in a way that they would agree with.

Well there are people on here that are saying literally: - cryptocurrencies should be banned - government regulation is the solution (with the implication that government is extremely concerned about the well-being of the populace in general, and investors/speculators specifically) - the people investing don't know what they are doing and need to be protected from potential losses

If there's something I've left out from this particular argument please let me know.

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#218

Post by thkim » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 6:10 AM UTC

afsina wrote: post #138

thkim wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's a valid question. three reasons why bitcoin & crypto is NOT like gold and very dangerous. 1) limited supply: drives up price enormously. almost endless. minimal supply, infinitely increasing demand. depending on how far this will go it can potentially suck up all liquidity in the world. 2) no authority, no price stabilization, meaning extreme volatility that adds fuel to vol & price rise, 3) ease of access: an…

All your points are positively good things. 1- Limited supply prevents money printing and inflationary theft. Besides there are many coin alternatives and a BTC can be divided to a hundred million units. 2- No `central` authority is a big plus (probably the best property of it). Once crypto coin pass its infancy, the volatility will be much lower. 3-Ease of access. Another superb property.

1 - money printing is not crony capitalism like what bitcoin creators tout them to be. it is a method of stabilizing value. when used wrong it can destroy economy (venezuela, zimbabwe), but that is a question of politics (voting wrong people). bitcoin or crypto's decentralization is NOT a solution to this problem. also bitcoin is particularly problematic because it gained traction. value is simply sum of people's belief. when other coins gather enough followers then it will similarly be a problem, but not at the moment.

2 - this is false. if you know how currencies work you will know that this whole "decentralization" makes no sense. central authority is required for a currency because price needs to be stabilized. unlike what some people believe, bitcoin will not "self-stabilize" because currency stabilization has nothing to do with how many people use it. currency stabilization works by an authority dictating how much it should worth and manipulating market towards it. this is not some conspiracy, it is a protection provided for all currency users. not only bitcoin offer zero protection (completely exposed to vol risk), but also it is not really decentralized as 40% of entire bitcoin owned is owned by 1000 people only.

3 - yes, this is a good property. so there should be a state sponsored coin.

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#219

Post by thkim » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 6:16 AM UTC

nopinsight wrote: post #116

thkim wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's a valid question. three reasons why bitcoin & crypto is NOT like gold and very dangerous. 1) limited supply: drives up price enormously. almost endless. minimal supply, infinitely increasing demand. depending on how far this will go it can potentially suck up all liquidity in the world. 2) no authority, no price stabilization, meaning extreme volatility that adds fuel to vol & price rise, 3) ease of access: an…

I’m curious. How would it bring about global inflation since almost all of bitcoin is not really used for getting goods/services and people need to exchange real dollars/yen/etc to drive up its price? Doesn’t it actually suck out liquidity from other assets and drive down inflation of other assets?

bitcoin's price increase creates inflation because it makes holders wealthy. inflation is not a bad thing when driven by fundamental growth (value creation). bitcoin is not creating value.

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#220

Post by thkim » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 6:17 AM UTC

patrickk wrote: post #145

thkim wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's a valid question. three reasons why bitcoin & crypto is NOT like gold and very dangerous. 1) limited supply: drives up price enormously. almost endless. minimal supply, infinitely increasing demand. depending on how far this will go it can potentially suck up all liquidity in the world. 2) no authority, no price stabilization, meaning extreme volatility that adds fuel to vol & price rise, 3) ease of access: an…

> either collapsing a global economy Barely anyone uses bitcoin as a percentage of the world's total population, this isn't even remotely feasible today, or likely even in five years.

us economy is big so bitcoin feels like a noise right now. in other countries, it is a real threat. it's going to take some years until us feels the heat, but by then it will be too late.