Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Every important person in BitCoin just got subpoenaed by NY financial regulators

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 194 posts

Re: Every important person in BitCoin just got subpoenaed by NY financial regulators

#81

Post by reedlaw »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #45
coinman wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a way, bitcoin itself is not really a currency, or money, it's more like an idea for exchanging messages. Bitcoin is really a decentralized messaging system which relies on cryptography and proof-of-work to maintain integrity. Should exchanging messages in the form of "I owe you x amount" over a p2p network be regulated or be made illegal? However, The fact that it's used as a form of currency is just an interpret…

They are also disastrous for the planet - bitcoin's carbon footprint is growing, trading our planet for ... imaginary points. This has got to stop.

This is yet to be proven. Is the bitcoin network really more costly than existing payment systems? Can the security benefits, instantaneous transmission, and other features be replaced by less costly alternatives?

As the mining reward rapidly dwindles relative to the cost of electricity, there is a huge incentive to reduce the electricity consumption while maintaining the security of the network. At what point does this reach an equilibrium depends largely on the market value of bitcoin. So it should be a somewhat fixed cost in proportion to the adoption of bitcoin, just like the fixed costs of any currency (e.g. minting coins, mining gold, etc.).

Re: Every important person in BitCoin just got subpoenaed by NY financial regulators

#82

Post by [deleted] »

pkulak wrote: post #37
marcell wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing stops you from create hundreds or even millions of bitcoin addresses, which can act as "accounts." Edit: A bitcoin address is a 160-bit number. That number is associated with a public and private key. The only way you can spend bitcoins stored in an address is if you know the private key of that address. For more information, this video gives a fairly in depth explanation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx9zg…

I just wondered to myself how long it would take you to use up all the addresses if you created a trillion per second. 3.6e+17 times the current age of the universe. So, it looks like there are enough addresses for you to really go nuts, if you like. Block chain might get a bit bloated though.

[deleted]

Re: Every important person in BitCoin just got subpoenaed by NY financial regulators

#83

Post by tg3 »

nilved wrote: post #50
pnathan wrote: post #6

Unpopular opinion of the day: bitcoin is real money, and the government will regulate it and control it as such. In my opinion, the end-game is this: bitcoin addresses are taxable, with occasional tax agents spot-checking large accumulations of bitcoin to determine if said addresses fall within their jurisdiction. Bitcoin has the unusual ability to have a very tight trace on where a given virtual coin goes: that just…

> Unpopular opinion of the day: bitcoin is real money, and the government will regulate it and control it as such. Which government?

Over time, likely all of them.

Re: Every important person in BitCoin just got subpoenaed by NY financial regulators

#84

Post by colanderman »

bluedino wrote: post #67
e12e wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Holding an amount of currency isn't taxable It is in Norway - any cash or deposits in excess of 750.000 NOK (around 125.000 USD or so) is taxed in addtion to interest being taxed as income. Now, cash isn't easily detectable, so it is a very easy asset to hide -- but while possible, that would be tax evasion and is illegal.

Taxed at what percent? Ludicrous.

How is that any different than controlled dilution of a fiat currency, like the Federal Reserve does? The net result is the same.

Re: Every important person in BitCoin just got subpoenaed by NY financial regulators

#85

Post by darkchasma »

pnathan wrote: post #6

Unpopular opinion of the day: bitcoin is real money, and the government will regulate it and control it as such. In my opinion, the end-game is this: bitcoin addresses are taxable, with occasional tax agents spot-checking large accumulations of bitcoin to determine if said addresses fall within their jurisdiction. Bitcoin has the unusual ability to have a very tight trace on where a given virtual coin goes: that just…

Of course it is. If at any point where you think you have created a technology that will be tax free, it will only remain so until it becomes economically viable for the governments to tax it. We only have to look to Mass. software tax to realize this is the case, even when the implementation doesn't make a lick of sense.

Re: Every important person in BitCoin just got subpoenaed by NY financial regulators

#86

Post by AnthonyMouse »

rayiner wrote: post #79
revelation wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the wild west, except not a single person ever died from it. It's a communications network . I'm all for treating it as the wild-west, self regulating thing it is. Applying this logic, mail is the old Wild West.

Nobody has died in the Internet, but money has been stolen and commerce has been interfered with, and that was one of the major drivers behind the taming of the Wild West. Stage coach robberies and train holdups.

I'm assuming the reason somebody downvoted you is the implicit assumption that saving fat cat bankers from middle class teenagers justifies turning the Internet into cable TV. I want to make the other point.

You're claiming it was about commerce rather than loss of life and then using examples where there was often loss of life.

Re: Every important person in BitCoin just got subpoenaed by NY financial regulators

#87

Post by Tehnix »

betterunix wrote: post #70
VMG wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does it destroy the utility of a crypto currency for exchanges and processors to be required to detect e.g. money laundering? It introduces a mandatory third party (the government) to transactions where only two parties are intended. Such a virtual currency could be designed, and I don't believe it would be successful. The Bitcoin protocol allows two parties to transact without any outside interference. If governme…

"The Bitcoin protocol allows two parties to transact without any outside interference" ...other than the entire Bitcoin network , right? When last I checked the design of Bitcoin called for transactions to be checked by other Bitcoin users and then broadcast to the entire network. That is about as far as one can get from a two party transaction. If you want real two party transactions, you probably want this sort of…

the network doesn't interfere, they do nothing to the transactions. They are there to act as a safe-guard against double spending, among others, by "validating" them.

Re: Every important person in BitCoin just got subpoenaed by NY financial regulators

#88

Post by kjackson2012 »

adestefan wrote: post #62
ebiester wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but only via the gift tax and after you've reached the gift tax exemption, which is pretty big.

It's not that big. It's $14,000 per person per year.

The first $5M is exempt.

Re: Every important person in BitCoin just got subpoenaed by NY financial regulators

#89

Post by marme »

dclowd9901 wrote: post #66
adestefan wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that big. It's $14,000 per person per year.

I'm trying to think of a way to "test" this, like set up a couple of accounts and programmatically transfer money back and forth. I imagine most banks/processors have some sort of mechanism to limit transactions that would be considered suspect (such as automated back-and-forth transfers). But the lower limit's not a problem -- by repeating the transaction, you'd be contributing to the limit of $/year, even with a mi…

The bank doesnt report you. It is up to you to report yourself as receiving a gift. The entire US tax system works on self reporting and the fact that during audits if you have wilfully lied you will go to jail. So you can transfer some amount a million time and then just say you transferred it once and the IRS will probably never even look into it.
Post reply on HN