Crypto Currency Thread (Vol.2)
Discussion
Shawn Dolifka's lawsuit against Tether/Bitfinex dismissed.
https://dailyhodl.com/2023/08/06/us-court-dismisse...
Quite interesting looking at Tether's latest reserves statement. Massive reserves now, 76.44% in treasury bills. I wouldn't want to hold that much worthless FIAT but I suppose needs must.
They've been doing some very good business!
https://tether.to/en/transparency/#usdt
https://dailyhodl.com/2023/08/06/us-court-dismisse...
Quite interesting looking at Tether's latest reserves statement. Massive reserves now, 76.44% in treasury bills. I wouldn't want to hold that much worthless FIAT but I suppose needs must.
They've been doing some very good business!
https://tether.to/en/transparency/#usdt
simons123 said:
Whilst most of you suckers bore the life out of everybody talking regulations, how BTC is a scam, etc zzzzzz........I've just made 5 figures from just 1k over the last few weeks on Myria and Games for a Living altcoins. Crypto has been popping right now....gaming coins is where its at.
Oh this is just wonderful news! Well done dear.I bought a % of Bitcoin (not a full coin) when it was £16K a coin, I held for a long time and I sold it all a week ago when it was at a high £30k a coin. It now sits in my FIAT wallet. If Bitcoin drops again ill buy back in, if it don't drop again Ill pull my money out. I treat it as a risk rather then an investment.
dimots said:
Yes it’s a very good thing. I could turn that question around. Why would you want your money to be subject to government control? Think about it for a second or two before realising that the only reason you might want that is because your money isn’t worth anything without it.
Hence bitcoin.
The value of my money is nothing to do with government control. It's value is based on the perception of it's ability to pay for goods and services, and more importantly the value being held by the majority of the population and the Bank of England. FWIW said value is a darn site more stable than if it were held in Bitcoin.Hence bitcoin.
If money was not subject to government control, and transactions not open to government investigation where necessary my concern is the honest payment of taxes where due to enable funding for our services.
We all know that tax evasion is rife with cash in hand work. If the more people moved to bitcoin as a method of payment how can you ensure that the government are able to check for tax evasion?
Edited by McMoose on Sunday 19th November 09:18
McMoose said:
The value of my money is nothing to do with government control. It's value is based on the perception of it's ability to pay for goods and services, and more importantly the value being held by the majority of the population and the Bank of England. FWIW said value is a darn site more stable than if it were held in Bitcoin.
If money was not subject to government control, and transactions not open to government investigation where necessary my concern is the honest payment of taxes where due to enable funding for our services.
We all know that tax evasion is rife with cash in hand work. If the more people moved to bitcoin as a method of payment how can you ensure that the government are able to check for tax evasion?
If the units of currency in circulation increase at a rate that surpasses the general growth of the economy, you get inflation of asset and goods prices. This is inflation, this is not controversial in any way to anyone on either the Keynesian or the Austrian side of economic theory. So yes, if the Government decides that it needs to spend more money than it earns in taxes, and the public (through Bond buying) isn't willing to fund it, and in resorting to the BoE creates money from nowhere, you will have a corresponding decrease in the purchasing power of your money. This is alongside demand shocks / supply shocks and government created scarcity or price increases through policy. If money was not subject to government control, and transactions not open to government investigation where necessary my concern is the honest payment of taxes where due to enable funding for our services.
We all know that tax evasion is rife with cash in hand work. If the more people moved to bitcoin as a method of payment how can you ensure that the government are able to check for tax evasion?
The UK / BoE did this to fund WWI when 60% of the War Bonds went unsold to the UK public, the BoE stepped up with some creative accounting and thus QE was born. This was repeated in WWII & Keynes himself congratulated the UK Gov for such an inventive process, but he warned in a 1946 letter to the Bank of England's Governor:
"I am not convinced that the recent increase in deposits is anything more than a temporary phenomenon, and I am afraid that if the Bank continues to pursue a policy of cheap money, it may create an asset boom which will subsequently lead to a slump."
Which was prescient even then.
Taxes should be voluntary, not coerced using their monopoly on violence. It is that act that is dishonest, not the evasion of taxes. Given that all governments have a history of inability to use taxpayer money responsibly. We can also argue that governments often mismanage funds, engage in wasteful spending, and prioritize projects that do not benefit all citizens equally. I believe that individuals are better equipped to make decisions about how to spend their own money, ensuring that it is used for purposes they value and support. This is however, a minority view in line with Libertarianism.
See above answer. Taxation is essentially theft and the government should run on a gofundme website.
If they want taxation then they too have to have transparency. If I want to run a car, I'll pay road tax, as long as I can see that money goes to paying for roads. I want healthcare I'll pay a healthcare tax as long as I have transparency into the spending. They want a war, well, they can FRO they're not getting a penny. Transparency and honesty works both ways. Our system is entirely dishonest and opaque.
Edited by RichTT on Sunday 19th November 09:48
McMoose said:
The value of my money is nothing to do with government control. It's value is based on the perception of it's ability to pay for goods and services, and more importantly the value being held by the majority of the population and the Bank of England. FWIW said value is a darn site more stable than if it were held in Bitcoin.
If money was not subject to government control, and transactions not open to government investigation where necessary my concern is the honest payment of taxes where due to enable funding for our services.
We all know that tax evasion is rife with cash in hand work. If the more people moved to bitcoin as a method of payment how can you ensure that the government are able to check for tax evasion?
Why do we have to surrender our monetary power to the government? Surely that’s a really bad idea?If money was not subject to government control, and transactions not open to government investigation where necessary my concern is the honest payment of taxes where due to enable funding for our services.
We all know that tax evasion is rife with cash in hand work. If the more people moved to bitcoin as a method of payment how can you ensure that the government are able to check for tax evasion?
Edited by McMoose on Sunday 19th November 09:18
RichTT said:
See above answer. Taxation is essentially theft and the government should run on a gofundme website.
If they want taxation then they too have to have transparency. If I want to run a car, I'll pay road tax, as long as I can see that money goes to paying for roads. I want healthcare I'll pay a healthcare tax as long as I have transparency into the spending. They want a war, well, they can FRO they're not getting a penny. Transparency and honesty works both ways. Our system is entirely dishonest and opaque.
If they want taxation then they too have to have transparency. If I want to run a car, I'll pay road tax, as long as I can see that money goes to paying for roads. I want healthcare I'll pay a healthcare tax as long as I have transparency into the spending. They want a war, well, they can FRO they're not getting a penny. Transparency and honesty works both ways. Our system is entirely dishonest and opaque.
Edited by RichTT on Sunday 19th November 09:48
You have not answered the question. You might be willing to voluntarily pay tax with the guarantee of greater transparency on where it is spent. But how do you ensure that others will do the same if the government do not have the ability to investigate the movement of [crypto] 'money' between people and businesses?
McMoose said:
You have not answered the question. You might be willing to voluntarily pay tax with the guarantee of greater transparency on where it is spent. But how do you ensure that others will do the same if the government do not have the ability to investigate the movement of [crypto] 'money' between people and businesses?
What other people do with their money is no concern of mine, just as mine should be of no concern to them. Where do you limit it? The postie not declaring the tenner I gave him at Christmas? The builder who did a weekend job for a few hundred quid and I paid in cash? I guarantee you that both of them will be spending that money and neither the government nor the banking sector will be able to take a cut at each transaction. Leaching value from something they worked hard to earn.
The only reason they feel the need to do this is because they need their cut. Because they've got greedier and greedier as spending gets higher.
Modern banking has been weaponised against private citizens and nation states. If you need permission to spend the money that you've already earned, you're in an abusive relationship. If you need permission to spend money, it's not money, it's a social credit note.
The money in your bank isn't yours, it isn't there, and it isn't even money.
"I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money."
Thomas Sowell
Edited by RichTT on Sunday 19th November 19:08
Personally I feel like bitcoin (or at least triple entry accounting) has the potential to massively improve the transparency of tax take and allocation. It’s a built in feature!
Having said that, governments don’t tax money they tax people. You can take lots of actions to increase personal responsibility and accountability - I wouldn’t mind seeing a system like that in Sweden where income tax is a matter of public record.
Having said that, governments don’t tax money they tax people. You can take lots of actions to increase personal responsibility and accountability - I wouldn’t mind seeing a system like that in Sweden where income tax is a matter of public record.
dimots said:
Personally I feel like bitcoin (or at least triple entry accounting) has the potential to massively improve the transparency of tax take and allocation. It’s a built in feature!
Having said that, governments don’t tax money they tax people. You can take lots of actions to increase personal responsibility and accountability - I wouldn’t mind seeing a system like that in Sweden where income tax is a matter of public record.
The same Sweden where specifically because of the public record of owned assets there's been a massive rise in targeted violent attacks on Bitcoin / crypto owners?Having said that, governments don’t tax money they tax people. You can take lots of actions to increase personal responsibility and accountability - I wouldn’t mind seeing a system like that in Sweden where income tax is a matter of public record.
Yeah, no thanks.
RichTT said:
The same Sweden where specifically because of the public record of owned assets there's been a massive rise in targeted violent attacks on Bitcoin / crypto owners?
Yeah, no thanks.
That’s an issue that has a parallel here in the UK if you don’t take precautions to protect your identity. Not through tax but through companies house data linked to home addresses. I feel bitcoin has a better solution in pseudonymous records.Yeah, no thanks.
McMoose said:
The value of my money is nothing to do with government control. It's value is based on the perception of it's ability to pay for goods and services, and more importantly the value being held by the majority of the population and the Bank of England. FWIW said value is a darn site more stable than if it were held in Bitcoin.
If money was not subject to government control, and transactions not open to government investigation where necessary my concern is the honest payment of taxes where due to enable funding for our services.
If money was not subject to government control, and transactions not open to government investigation where necessary my concern is the honest payment of taxes where due to enable funding for our services.
Edited by McMoose on Sunday 19th November 09:18
RichTT said:
The government should have no right to surveille our spending habits at all. It didn't when money was gold, it didn't when money was gold backed notes, it didn't before the advent of modern banking.
What other people do with their money is no concern of mine, just as mine should be of no concern to them. Where do you limit it? The postie not declaring the tenner I gave him at Christmas? The builder who did a weekend job for a few hundred quid and I paid in cash? I guarantee you that both of them will be spending that money and neither the government nor the banking sector will be able to take a cut at each transaction. Leaching value from something they worked hard to earn.
The only reason they feel the need to do this is because they need their cut. Because they've got greedier and greedier as spending gets higher.
Modern banking has been weaponised against private citizens and nation states. If you need permission to spend the money that you've already earned, you're in an abusive relationship. If you need permission to spend money, it's not money, it's a social credit note.
The money in your bank isn't yours, it isn't there, and it isn't even money.
"I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money."
Thomas Sowell
So to continue a little further into this society that you are envisioning. Do you propose any alternatives to the Police, NHS, Fire service, Social Services, State education provision, highways repair, refuse collection etc etc that can no longer be funded? Or do you think we are better off without it all?What other people do with their money is no concern of mine, just as mine should be of no concern to them. Where do you limit it? The postie not declaring the tenner I gave him at Christmas? The builder who did a weekend job for a few hundred quid and I paid in cash? I guarantee you that both of them will be spending that money and neither the government nor the banking sector will be able to take a cut at each transaction. Leaching value from something they worked hard to earn.
The only reason they feel the need to do this is because they need their cut. Because they've got greedier and greedier as spending gets higher.
Modern banking has been weaponised against private citizens and nation states. If you need permission to spend the money that you've already earned, you're in an abusive relationship. If you need permission to spend money, it's not money, it's a social credit note.
The money in your bank isn't yours, it isn't there, and it isn't even money.
"I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money."
Thomas Sowell
Edited by RichTT on Sunday 19th November 19:08
McMoose said:
So to continue a little further into this society that you are envisioning. Do you propose any alternatives to the Police, NHS, Fire service, Social Services, State education provision, highways repair, refuse collection etc etc that can no longer be funded? Or do you think we are better off without it all?
Those things were all privately funded once you know. The argument from Keynesians and statists would be that most of these things are 'public goods' (a term coined in 1954 by Paul Samuelson).
The difficulty with public goods is that the owners have a hard time preventing free riding. For example road and services infrastructure, freely broadcasted media, defense forces, emergency services etc. The idea being that if people don't pay, the companies will underperform and end up going bust. Therefore it is in the states best interest to collect taxes and provide the good directly. But this is a fallacy. The idea that a private company cannot provide a public good is in direct contradiction with the fact that it is mostly private companies that provide / create / build these public goods for the Government anyway. It's just that the Government acts as the middle man between us and the good, whilst creating costly inefficiency along the way.
"historical evidence shows us that all of the so-called public goods that states now provide have at some time in the past actually been provided by private entrepreneurs or even today are so provided in one country or another. For example, the postal service was once private almost everywhere; streets were privately financed and still are sometimes; even the beloved lighthouses were originally the result of private enterprise; private police forces, detectives, and arbitrators exist; and help for the sick, the poor, the elderly, orphans, and widows has been a traditional concern of private charity organizations."
https://mises.org/library/fallacies-public-goods-t...
So, whilst our infrastructure is more complex, there is nothing technically barring the private sector from assuming responsibility over maintenance other than the government monopoly. By creating a monopoly you exclude competitiveness in pricing. Every additional level of government bureaucracy introduces inefficiency and waste. This almost always returns poor value for money given the taxes we pay.
Now the argument against having "public goods" run by private companies is twofold. One is that we almost always end up with no competition, and no accountability within these private companies. Because they are not serving the public as customers primarily, they are serving themselves, the shareholders.
But this ends in a discussion about morals, the ethics of money and wealth, personal choice, personal responsibility, the evils of an inflationary monetary system that encourages and enables it, and why a deflationary currency is better for everyone.
Oops: "Binance chief pleads guilty to money laundering"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-67492753
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-67492753
silentbrown said:
Oops: "Binance chief pleads guilty to money laundering"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-67492753
It's Crypto, nobody cares. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-67492753
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff