… and in this week’s latest makey-uppy unsensational non-story: Why The Next Oil Boom Will Be Fueled By Blockchain.
There is an awful lot of rubbish and a lot of shysters in crypto, it’s true. Would not argue with that.
Still there are some gems amongst the turds.
Just dipping back in, some great ideas here.
Anyone got a phone number for Jim Corr?
I’ve a great idea for a new celtic-rock, sorry celtic-block(chain) project, gonna call it the iCOrrs
Interesting in light of what Bill Gates said this week
He also confirmed that he won’t pay you for forwarding an email to 100 people. Who knew?!
Hi All. Long time - no speak.
I’d like to throw in my tuppence worth here.
I feel the Circle acquisition of the Poloniex exchange should have received more coverage. Circle is a start-up backed by Goldman Sachs. A lot of due diligence would have gone into this and Goldman now has skin firmly in the game. Other Wall St institutions will follow, meaning that regulators will likely back off.
Bitcoin as an experiment with a binary outcome. It’s to the moon or zero. I don’t know if will succeed, but I know what success looks like - institutional and governmental acceptance of digital scarcity/store of value as a new asset class. The Circle/Poloniex news is only a baby-step, but a very significant one.
Good luck to all.
Interesting point. If the only purpose of crypto-currency was convenience and anonymity then I would agree with Mantissa. If the reason that people have decided to assign higher and higher values to inherently worthless crypto coins and tokens relative to inherently worthless paper money is because of the limited supply and trustless properties of crypto are seen as having increasing value relative to the state backing of government fiat then I think it is more likely to be a binary experiment.
Meanwhile, in Venezuela a country which is where we would expect to see evidence of crypto taking over if the second thesis was correct there is currently a premium on paper notes which can sell for a 100% markup over digital money held in banks in the midst of their hyperinflation.
I agree. I should have said that the regulators will back off from serious restrictions or an outright ban. I think increased regulation is a net positive for the Bitcoin ecosystem, despite all the negative media references to a “crackdown”.
It’s important not to confuse Bitcoin with blockchain. Blockchain technology implemented by a bank in such a way that doesn’t involve peer-to-peer, trustless value transfer is fairly worthless and no better than a lumbering conventional distributed database. It’s amusing that the financial media continues with the maxim: blockchain - good; bitcoin - bad. That saves journalists from having to think, I suppose.
The mainstream and financial media remains extremely sceptical about Bitcoin. The Financial Times openly mocks the sector and shows almost zero interest in doing a deep dive into the technology. The only exception I’ve is seen is Forbes Magazine - Laura Shin has done a great job. She’s reached out to some of the thought leaders in the sector and tried to educate readers, while taking a neutral line on the pros/cons.
They get mixed up with the Data/Network layer and the Application layer for a while, which doesn’t help their argument. But the essential point they are trying to make wereby blockchain has a conflict between speed and storing all transactions whilst verifying them is a good.
The whole argument reminds me of the people who argued that peer to peer torrenting of personal info was the cloud of the future. We would share our information with others on peer to peer networks. Each node would have some of your photo collection which would be encrypted. There would also be multiple backups of each section of data. It’s a great idea I even donated some money to a project to put it in a plug. I can’t remember what it was called, it never came off though.
The lads on the World Crypto Network discuss GS acquisition of Poloniex from 6:12 onwards
Investors in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies face hefty tax bills
theguardian.com/technology/ … in-irs-tax
On Reddit earlier this week, one contributor, under the heading “I just discovered that I owe the IRS $50k that I don’t have, because I traded in cryptos. Am I fucked?”… the US tax authorities, who look at cryptocurrency as property and not currency.
Interestingly, eu sees it as a currency:
Germany and Sweden see it as a commodity/property
Also interesting, but that article is from 2015 and things are changing fast. Here’s a non-paywalled version.
There’s an 800 post thread on boards which I have no intention of reading.
I was audited by our good revenue commissioners who decided bitcoin gain was a capital gain and I had to pay the tax on it plus a little extra for not paying it on time!
I’ll say it again, an unowned distributed ledger is no substitute for a relevant authority, however hard that might be to come by.
Bitcoin is going to power up again in price at some stage in the next two years and still people will be saying ‘its a scam’.
Binance is moving part of its operation to Malta which is a big coup for them. Soon other countries will rue the chance they had to attract the biggest and best name in crypto.
They are also developing a decentralised exchange now and there will be a lot more choices in terms of trading fiat for coins in the near future.
At a marketcap of only 300 billion plus and just at the very start of cryptos being used for retail, loans or Intl transactions now is as good a time as any to dio your toe in the market .
Can’t disagree with that.
Yeah guys, we’re still early adopters here. There are some hardcore skeptics here though that’ll never change their minds about this technology.