431–440 of 598 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the one hand, in general with raw bitcoin, you can't. On the other hand, you can only lose the bitcoins you actually have. With a credit card you can go into debt.
That seems worse unless your big problem is not being able to exercise discipline (in which case a debit card would also meet your needs).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many states in the US have legalised buying and selling of marijuana. Many payment processors don't want to touch this, on neither the buying nor selling side. You might declare marijuana vaguely shady, but as far as I can tell, it's a legitimate product that consenting adults might want to trade in.
How many people do you see choosing to use Bitcoin rather than cash at marijuana dispensaries? I'm puzzled at how this is a rebuttal of "people don't want to use Bitcoin unless they absolutely need to" argument. If the issue is that taking credit cards is inconvenient for the seller, I don't think buyers generally see that as their problem so long as someone else is willing to accept them.
Yes, if you buy in person, then cash works. I was more thinking of buying online. And also where a marijuana business would keep their money.
(For the latter, bitcoin isn't very useful, because suppliers won't accept it. But neither is the legacy banking system always willing to serve businesses in weird niches.)
Bitcoin solves this. Sorry I just had to. I think crypto as an investable asset class is finished. SEC is sending a very clear signal here. It’s entirely the community’s fault for failing to properly manage this space. They actually earned public’s trust (sometime during the pandemic). And then they threw it all away for a few bucks.
Bitcoin would solve this, if it was actually used (or fit to be used) as intended - people keeping their own wallets and making on-chain transaction. However, because it is so poorly designed, almost nobody does that, and instead store their crypto in exchanges. Which have all the downsides of banks (they can hold your money hostage) but none of the upsides (security and regulation).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The banking industry makes 25 times more profit than all other industries around the world combined. It has no competition and abuses this fact. Isn't it interesting how little awareness this issue has?
> The banking industry makes 25 times more profit than all other industries around the world combined. And that's why Apple is worth 6x more than JP Morgan Chase?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Useful? It's gambling, gambling on whatever system is backing the currency, like the bitcoim blockchain or usefulness of anonymity by monero, USD pegged currencies beinf used to avoid needing dollars for international trade,etc.... or maybe people just like to gamble sometimes. No one accused blackjack of being useful to society.
I would argue that blackjack shouldn't be part of our financial system to the point that it needs regulation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The big problem comes when they want to use their crypto horde to buy real world stuff. Want to buy a house? Now you need to convert your crypto into fiat and a deed transfer. People will start asking where your funds are coming from. This is where you tend to get caught.
> People will start asking where your funds are coming from. This is a weird statement. If it's a cash offer, it's a seller's job to determine if you have the money, not if you paid taxes on it. If it's a mortgage down payment, then the bank is more interested in if your assets are going to disappear (e.g. are they actually a loan from a third party?). I've never had a mortgage bank inquire about my tax situation. If…
Yes, but your bank and the bank of the seller both have strict KYC/AML rules to respect. And the seller probably doesn't want to accept a pile of bills that requires laundering.
This is a political stunt. Nothing more. Some helpful context:
https://twitter.com/superanonymousk/status/16666372273239982...
Gensler is a man who's overtures to work for Binance were spurned. He came into power at the SEC, and then he went after them, literally since the day he entered office. They were originally going to drop this case right when FTX blew up, but they knew how bad the optics of that would be, so they waited. This isn't someone impartial, looking out for investors. This is someone spiteful, looking out for himself.
If he wanted to protect people, he'd have done this when the market was hot. That's when investors need protection. That's when a good regulator acts - when a market is overexcited and people are being exploited. Who, exactly, is being protected now? From what?
Lots of things are scams in crypto, but Binance is not one of them. The allegations that they misappropriated user funds in any material way are absurd. They didn't. They have never had any serious problems meeting redemptions or withdrawals in any of their products, and despite this lawsuit dropping and the asset freeze being granted by the court, still aren't. If they were insolvent, withdrawals would have been fro…
Lots of things are scams in crypto, but Binance is not one of them. The allegations that they misappropriated user funds in any material way are absurd. They didn't. They have never had any serious problems meeting redemptions or withdrawals in any of their products, and despite this lawsuit dropping and the asset freeze being granted by the court, still aren't. If they were insolvent, withdrawals would have been fro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is evading tax not as bad as scamming people? Isn't it really just scamming the public (i.e. everyone)?
It's certainly more morally complex than just scamming somebody. Money is property. People generally agree that once you earn your money, it belongs to you. Is the government automatically entitled to part of it? The Boston Tea Party, the Women's Tax Resistance League, and Gandhi's Salt March are a few examples where people said no. Usually in this context the "evaders" will refer to it as tax resistance or tax prote…