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

South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 231 posts

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#201

Post by Agebor »

pedrocr wrote: post #126
jsutton wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hundreds of years ago, you could transfer money across the world just like you can now. It would just take having the right connections and a lot of time. Does that mean our global banking system is unnecessary? Bitcoin et al unlock a potential economic powerhouse the likes of which can be comparable to the internet. Just because you can do mostly everything that blockchain tech provides without one, doesn't mean it…

>Just because you can do mostly everything that blockchain tech provides without one, doesn't mean it isn't incredibly valuable. If you can already do everything that it provides that's pretty much the definition of not having any extra value. This is just extending the hand waving. What transactions will you be able to do with cryptocurrencies you can't already do with the modern financial system?

The ones no-one imagined before. Just like few people saw social networks coming, it's currently hard to predict what can be done when huge number of people is connected in networks of value. But a few examples can be: borderless financial system; programmable instruments, derivatives by just about anyone; stable-coin (a stable reference currency)

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#202

Post by SCAQTony »

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…

I believe Venezuela, Zimbabwe, South Sudan, Argentina and others greatly appreciate Bitcoin as a store of value due to their hyperinflation travails. These locations are the exact places where a complete loss trust exists toward government and the financial institutions therein.

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#203

Post by DennisP »

marshray wrote: post #199
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…

Unless it is good at ledging things other than Bitcoin itself, your argument that the Bitcoin ledger has inherent value is completely circular.

The dollar just ledges itself, since it's not backed by gold anymore. Most dollars are just entries in a database somewhere (and I would argue that paper dollars are really a distributed kind of ledger too).

Some people claim the dollar has value because the government accepts it for taxes, but the IMF's SDRs function as currency (within an exclusive population), aren't backed by anything, aren't accepted for taxes by anyone, and are worth $300 billion.

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#204

Post by jacobreg »

anonymous5133 wrote: post #187
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…

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

Banks also have money, I think that helps a bit...

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#205

Post by mevile »

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).

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.

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#206

Post by dhruvrrp »

deweller wrote: post #122
pjc50 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worst case scenario: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_Civil_War "a period of civil disorder in Albania in 1997, sparked by Ponzi scheme failures. The government was toppled and more than 2,000 people were killed" .. "By January 1997, Albanian citizens, who had lost a total of $1.2 billion—the population being only three million—took their protest to the streets" There are now reports of people taking out mortga…

I call FUD on the reports of people going into deep debt to buy bitcoin. Sure there will always be some people that do this. And it makes for a good story, so the media reports it. But I don't think this is something that is happening in significant numbers.

I don't know about deep debt, but I've had multiple people whose are basically technically illiterate ask me about bitcoin and how to buy them. One of them even asked me which bank they could drive to open an account and buy bitcoin!

There is a new wave of people who've read the 10,000% return articles on fb or whatever who now wanna invest every penny that they have into bitcoin

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#207

Post by drawnwren »

mevile wrote: post #205
alistproducer2 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

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.

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#208

Post by lurker456 »

jacobreg wrote: post #204
anonymous5133 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Banks also have money, I think that helps a bit...

their direct possessions (money, real estate, license, ...) are much smaller then their total value. fractional reserve banking and all that. A significant fraction of their value comes from their reputation (to have an incorruptible ledger), ability to transact and Branding. bitcoin has those as well.

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#209

Post by fosco »

jlawer wrote: post #188
fosco wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree with your sentiment, I should have asserted that I was thinking strictly for use as a currency.

as an aside, no one can make infinite of anything so I do not think that part of the comment applies.

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#210

Post by yongjik »

seibelj wrote: post #49
non_sequitur wrote: post #2

Updated: South Korea Clarifies Position After Reports of Possible Ban on All Crypto Transactions "On Monday, Financial Services Commission (FSC) Chairman Choi Jong-ku clarified to reporters at a luncheon meeting that “the FSC is mapping out measures to restrict [cryptocurrency] transactions to some extent,” which he did admit include “an all-out ban,” Yonhap reported. “The restriction is aimed at minimizing side effe…

Thank goodness it’s impossible to ban crypto! Everyone in SK withdraw from the exchanges before they seize it!

> Everyone in SK withdraw from the exchanges before they seize it!

Pick 100 random Koreans who traded in any cryptocurrency in the past 30 days, and I guarantee that 95 of them will never figure out how to store their coins in their hard drive even if someone held a gun to their heads.

You don't have to bust doors to seize cryptocoins. Just make its usage sufficiently "socially unacceptable", and people will find it's not worth the hassle.

Sure, some determined people will keep using them, but they are not what the government is worried about. The government is worried about all those average Kims and Parks who threw their life savings into $(some coin nobody heard about), because when the inevitable hits these people and their families may lose jobs, career, and livelihood.

Post reply on HN