121–130 of 194 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody can force opensource code maintainers to build anything. More importantly, nobody can force all exchanges to run any particular code; exchanges can exist in any political jurisdiction.
Whilst way you say may technically be true, the government could just declare this: Each person must publicly declare the bitcoin addresses that they hold. Any legitimate business accepting payment in bitcoins can only receive bitcoins from other registered addresses, else they are black flagged and no longer a registered address. Now, your average business and the banks are not going to circumvent these rules. The B…
This particular implementation wouldn't actually work. Anyone can send BTC to any address, so it would be easy to poison the well.
(But I suspect some similar scheme could be feasible. You might be able to enforce the rule on BTC->$ withdrawls? I wonder about mixers, though.)
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why ? Seems like a great tax to me. The people who are most likely to be hoarding large sums of cash are the type of people who you want to be taxing.
Seems like a great way to discourage saving and keeping people living hand to mouth.
Read about how this tax work before complaining about it, please. It's only for generally big amounts of money, and your mortgage and other stuff is subtracted, making it a non-issue for almost everyone. And you can fine invest the money instead.
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. It's a way to convey messages, but the messages represent value in the same way that paper money does. If bitcoins can be exchanged for goods and services, then they represent the value of those goods and services, just like paper money. An electronic message describing a transaction involving dollars, or eu…
Your argument assumes that individual bitcoins exist... Bitcoin ties a number to a script. By providing a cryptographic key for that script you can add that number with some other numbers from other scripts and then divide that value into new scripts (throwing away the extra). Bitcoin programs often generate new keys for just about every transaction (so it's hard to link them together). These scripts are transactions…
No, my argument only assumes that bitcoins represent symbolic value, i.e. are "currency".
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. It's a way to convey messages, but the messages represent value in the same way that paper money does. If bitcoins can be exchanged for goods and services, then they represent the value of those goods and services, just like paper money. An electronic message describing a transaction involving dollars, or eu…
"the messages represent value in the same way that paper money does." I doubt that, since paper money is guaranteed by law to at least be accepted by the government for tax payments. There are no guarantees at all with Bitcoin.
Fair enough. I think over time that will change -- either the bitcoin idea will evaporate, or they will come to be accepted by all sectors of the economy.
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…
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…
>The fact that it's used as a form of currency is just an interpretation of what Bitcoin is.
Gold star for your comment.
Many of the other interpretations are not regulated as currency and arguably should not be.
I can understand why people are excited about it being used as a simulation for something financial institutions would want to regulate. But the real potential is in the technology, and the innovation potential that comes out of it.
Recent regulatory moves may lead to attempts to try to kill bitcoin:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why ? Seems like a great tax to me. The people who are most likely to be hoarding large sums of cash are the type of people who you want to be taxing.
Nobody hoards large sums of cash. Cash is deposited into a bank, and the bank loans it out to someone who spends it. That's how banks make money, and why they are able to pay you interest on your deposit.
2. Banks stopped making most of their money from deposits a long time ago.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Of course the government cares about money, and of course it wants to control the money supply. And, as a consequence, the USA will never allow any major currency inside its borders other than the US dollar. The history of the United States is littered with the fights over who gets to determine what is money and how much of it there is: Hamilton's fight with Jefferson and Madison…
It is also interesting because bitcoin may be influenced by governments, but not issued by them nor central banks, which is already a fundamental difference in the battles that have come before.
The amount of time/resources that will be spent to try to control something that was never in their control (like kind of along the same lines as government measures in Argentina), nor under the control of any single entity for that matter, will be extremely telling. As far as I'm concerned the writing is on the wall… what is going on now is just the ongoing manifestation of what is to come next.
Not to mention that as more bitcoins are used/accepted by people in exchange for goods/services between individuals, governments will be and are increasingly being side stepped. It will be interesting to see this dynamic unfold more in places where (local) governments are becoming insolvent.
Bitcoin is in no position to supplant the USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, RNB etc, because bitcoin operates in between them now. And as more people loose faith in their respective currencies but still want ways to exchange between other individuals for goods/services, bitcoin will increasingly operate as well in a realm of its own.
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…
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…
The reference to "fixed supply" equivocates to "fixed prices" in a growing economy, i.e. one dollar has equivalent purchasing power today or a hundred years from now.
[1] http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/sr/sr218.pdf "Money is Memory" (1996)