South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax • Hacker News Board

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#181

Post by fatjokes » Wed, Dec 13, 2017, 9:21 PM UTC

neuro_imager wrote: post #177

fatjokes wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The sort of emotional hyperbole on here about "cryptocurrencies need to be banned by the loving, paternal, incorruptible government to save the world from ourselves" is not just getting old, its absurd. Why is it "getting old"? It's a fair concern that something so volatile should be examined critically and relentlessly. People don't just "get a stiff drink and accept they'll lose money" if it goes down---they jump…

> It's a fair concern that something so volatile should be examined critically and relentlessly. I agree - but backed with concerns based on legitimate understanding not "price is going up quickly, must be a scam". > I think governments/regulators should have some say the same way you'd want them to regulate any financial instrument and punish Ponzi schemers and pump-and-dumpers. Because they did such a great job in…

> I agree - but backed with concerns based on legitimate understanding not "price is going up quickly, must be a scam".

Something that goes up and down so quickly and so frequently does warrant concern. Nobody has that understanding at the moment and it needs investigating.

> Because they did such a great job in 2008?

Maybe not the American government, but IIRC, Iceland is punishing the bankers (jail!) and the Canadian government has been praised for having kept a steady ship during the crisis through their economic policies. Governments can work.

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#182

Post by hyprCoin » Wed, Dec 13, 2017, 9:36 PM UTC

pedrocr wrote: post #127

Agebor wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> index funds are huge and yet most people still prepare very poorly for retirement Retail financial products are only just now entering the internet era. At least in UK, before 2017 we did not have Vanguard, Monzo, Revolut. Nutmeg was less known. Older banks and investment accounts are still relatively hard to use via the internet (e.g. requiring ancient identity verification methods) and understand for unexperience…

>I think the goal should be to stop using any form of cash as a store of value No one should use any currency as a store of value, use actual productive assets. And your argument that we should make financial products enter the Internet era is completely true. I just don't see where the cryptocurrencies help.

Have you looked? There are better savings accounts with proof of stake systems. There are programmable components with ETH, EOS, Lisk, various others. There are bank/savings accounts that can be signed up for with a web browser (smartcash). The list is endless.

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#183

Post by nybble41 » Wed, Dec 13, 2017, 9:38 PM UTC

arcticfox wrote: post #109

KasianFranks wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean like stocks and all other derivatives and equities including the US dollar and other currencies on Forex. Smart.

Except stocks represent ownership in real companies making real products. If one person owns 100% of a company and there is zero trading, it's still an extremely valuable property. If one person owns 100% of a crypto, it is worthless.

> Except stocks represent ownership in real companies making real products.

But what does that mean in practical terms? Sure, if the company gets bought out you might get some cash, and some companies still pay dividends. Aside from those cases, though, shareholders have no direct claim on the company's assets, and only the largest shareholders have significant influence on the company's board. Most profits made by shareholders come from selling their shares to another investor, not from the company itself.

> If one person owns 100% of a company and there is zero trading, it's still an extremely valuable property.

Assuming the company is solvent... plenty are not, despite a positive stock price. They are trading on the expectation of future improvement, not present value.

> If one person owns 100% of a crypto, it is worthless.

Every cryptocurrency (every non-commodity currency, for that matter) starts out owned 100% by someone. That doesn't make them all worthless. Say I create a new currency with one million units, wholly owned by myself. If I stop there, no one else will value my currency. However, say I also arrange to sell widgets (standard market value $100) in exchange for 100 units of my new currency. Now my currency has value, and people who want widgets may well be willing to trade other goods or services for it—perhaps not 1:1, due to the lower marketability, but at some discounted ratio. This makes more goods available; people who have no need of my widgets may still transact business using my currency and accept it as payment. At this point I no longer possess 100% of my new currency and it has taken on a life (and market value) of its own. Even if I stopped producing widgets the currency may well remain in circulation as a marketable commodity.

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#184

Post by ufo » Wed, Dec 13, 2017, 9:41 PM UTC

cmurf wrote: post #176

neuro_imager wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people in Venezuela and Zimbabwe that are now using crypto as an opportunity not to starve now that their fiat currency is worth less than toilet paper disagree. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/venezuelans-bitco... edit: Rather than downvote - could you please explain why you think crypto is not beneficial to the billions of people worldwide currently excluded from the financial system?

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.

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#185

Post by petre » Wed, Dec 13, 2017, 9:41 PM UTC

alistproducer2 wrote: post #150

scottnyc wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that this might be a wealth transfer to China. Bitcoin inherently does not hold any value, it is a ledger. When someone buys bitcoin, someone else sells it and takes the cash out of the system. Right now, a lot of mining is still taking place in China since energy is cheap. These miners sell their coins outside of China and bring cash back into the mainland to pay for the energy and hardware used for mining.…

That's an interesting statement. I've never thought of it that way. In essence, Chinese miners are exporting subsidized Chinese energy (via mined coins) for foreign currencies. Sounds very much the M.O of Chinese trade practices (not meant to be overly negative, I'm just saying).

Other communist states were/are doing the same: exporting a product of their captive workforce for foreign hard currency. For instance Uzbekistan is exporting cotton picked up by school students which are essentialy a slave work force. China is just a bit more "liberal" in this regard.

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#186

Post by petre » Wed, Dec 13, 2017, 9:50 PM UTC

setecgastronomy wrote: post #162

rudiger wrote: post #101

At its core, the current cryptocurrency craze is simply an unprecedented wealth transfer to China from the rest of the world. Until the end of 2013, Bitcoin was predominantly traded for US dollars. However, after the crash of 2013, miners consolidated in China and Bitcoin mostly traded for Chinese yuan[1]. At the start of 2017, regulators in China cracked down on digital currency exchanges[2] and trading quickly move…

> At its core, the current cryptocurrency craze is simply an unprecedented wealth transfer to China from the rest of the world. Actually it's a wealth transfer from china to the US. The chinese are using bitcoins as a means to evade CCP capital controls. There's a reason why china cracked down on bitcoin. Do you think china would stop wealth transfer to china? Of course not. They are trying to stop wealth transfer fr…

Not only to the US, to the rest of the world. Chinese money is also being parked in real estate in Australia, NZ, Switzerland, the UK etc.

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#187

Post by anonymous5133 » Wed, Dec 13, 2017, 9:55 PM UTC

passwordreset wrote: post #146

scottnyc wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that this might be a wealth transfer to China. Bitcoin inherently does not hold any value, it is a ledger. When someone buys bitcoin, someone else sells it and takes the cash out of the system. Right now, a lot of mining is still taking place in China since energy is cheap. These miners sell their coins outside of China and bring cash back into the mainland to pay for the energy and hardware used for mining.…

> 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…

Banks are just giant ledgers as well and theyre worth trillions. Seems like ledgers are valuable indeed.

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#188

Post by jlawer » Wed, Dec 13, 2017, 10:04 PM UTC

fosco wrote: post #78

fragsworth wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bitcoin & cryptos are financial weapons of mass destruction. You need to explain this. Many of us just think it's a good replacement for gold and other precious metals. Is gold a "financial weapon of mass destruction"?

it is far easier to transfer 10 million dollars wworth of bitcoin than it is 10 million of gold. this comparisons are _not_ doing either bitcoin nor gold justice. bitcoin is far more liquid, accessible and usable than gold ever will be. I will start calling it Internet Liquid Gold... because while the transactions might be slow, being able to transfer it across continents multiple times back and forth is possible bef…

I would not say bitcoin is more usable then gold as gold has numerous industrial purposes (electronics, optics, thermal and electronic shielding).

If we were able to infinitely replicate gold and bitcoins, gold would still have value, bitcoins would not.

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#189

Post by petre » Wed, Dec 13, 2017, 10:06 PM UTC

fatjokes wrote: post #170

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…

> The sort of emotional hyperbole on here about "cryptocurrencies need to be banned by the loving, paternal, incorruptible government to save the world from ourselves" is not just getting old, its absurd. Why is it "getting old"? It's a fair concern that something so volatile should be examined critically and relentlessly. People don't just "get a stiff drink and accept they'll lose money" if it goes down---they jump…

You probably don't live in Zimbawe, Venezuela or trying to get money out of China or another country for that matter. If you want to take over 10 grand out of the country you have to declare it or risk having it siezed.

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#190

Post by UncleMeat » Wed, Dec 13, 2017, 10:07 PM UTC

cmurf wrote: post #176

neuro_imager wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people in Venezuela and Zimbabwe that are now using crypto as an opportunity not to starve now that their fiat currency is worth less than toilet paper disagree. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/venezuelans-bitco... edit: Rather than downvote - could you please explain why you think crypto is not beneficial to the billions of people worldwide currently excluded from the financial system?

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 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.