As a holder of crypto, you are both a customer and an owner.
You pay a fee for each transaction you send, just like any other service. b
However, your holdings increase in value the more other people use the same chain because the value of the entire ecosystem needs to scale proportionally to the value people are attempting to transact across it.
Financial systems, like social networks, and most businesses coming out of SV rely on network effects for much of their value.
USD has been the default option for the world, and enforced through violence when people attempt to create their own networks of trade.
The positive sum value that cryptocurrency is attempting to create is the ability to send anyone in the world any amount of value (money or otherwise) not subject to government permission, or sabotage (ie money printing)
It's like any one being able to suggest a Federal Reserve policy, and the vote being handled by the people, not representatives or a committee.
> USD has been the default option for the world, and enforced through violence when people attempt to create their own networks of trade.
Hah! Of course, who can forget how US paratroopers abruptly ended the attempted creation of the Euro shortly before its intended launch in 1999. Or the way the US Seventh Fleet blockaded China's commercial ports starting in 2002, preventing their rise as a commercial power. We can only wonder what a world with multilateral economic power might look like.
Unforeseen future circumstances could make people more amenable to any kind of changes imaginable. Either way, saying that it's impossible to print more is just not true.
Unforeseen future circumstances could make people less amenable. Saying "we just don't know what the future may hold" in support of a claim is an argument from ignorance.
> Unforeseen future circumstances could make people less amenable
True, but irrelevant. It doesn't matter either way. The point is that it can be done if that is what conventionial wisdom dictates is desirable at the time.
Conventional wisdom also dictates that it is desirable for Bitcoin to handle more than 7 transactions a second - and yet that problem isn't possible for Bitcoin to solve either.
Again, it's an argument from ignorance and gross oversimplification to claim "the future wisdom of the community" will solve problems for bitcoin.
You can equivocate all you like, but accusing me of ignorance doesn't make it so. It's an undeniable fact that it is possible for any of these properties to change and the poster that claimed it was impossible for them to change is wrong. There is no debate here, it's just reality.
I'm not accusing you of ignorance - An argument from ignorance (i.e. argumentum ad ignorantiam) is the name of a known fallacy, which you're making with your claims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
You're engaged in the fallacy known as "straw-man", where you argue against a point I'm not making. I'm going to state my argument clearly so you can't continue to weasel around it.
The technical properties of bitcoin can be modified, saying that it is impossible to change them is wrong.
This is part of the argument from ignorance - the attempt to push a burden of proof when the claim you made was "Unforeseen future circumstances could make people more amenable to any kind of changes imaginable". I didn't say anything about impossibilities, maybe you're confusing me for someone else?
You would essentially "vote" with which fork you were choosing to acknowledge with your own node, should you be running one.
Also I'm fairly certain a majority of hashpower, not just users would need to be on board with the change.
You could argue that as the primary beneficiaries of such a change (increase cap => increased distribution to miners) they would be for it, but I think most rational actors see the catch 22 of trying to profit by removing one of the core attributes that makes bitcoin valuable (it's scarcity)
Bitcoin works by consensus though. Nobody can be in that position. the best you can do is make a fork. Those who don't agree with the rule change will keep mining with the old rules in place
> It is even possible to pay 0% federal rate on sale of stock, I did it on my 2016 return.
Up to the top of the 15% bracket, yes, or $37,950 in total income for single earners in 2017 ($75,900 joint). It's easy to pay little in long-term cap. gains taxes if you are retired (or unemployed) with a cheap-to-moderate lifestyle.
But not possible for ~$1 billion in gains, like Bezos' sale :-).
It is also possible that he never realized the gain. An example would be to gift the shares directly to a trust which sells and then 'loans' BO the money. Tada! You made a billion dollars disappear. That is, I believe, lawful. Consult a qualified legal representative, however.
One problem with this plan is that the debtor is obligated to repay the principal with interest.
If billionaires could do this, they would be doing it all the time. And the IRS would be screaming about it. Instead, they're stuck with higher risk options like illegal tax evasion or just paying the tax they owe.
As a creditor, you're obligated to pay taxes as if you charged a fair market rate, regardless of what you actually charge the debtor. So the actual floor rate at which the creditor isn't losing money is more like 33% (presuming business tax rate, or higher for individuals) of 3-4% (for 25 year loans), or about 1-1.3%.
Also, 100% + 0.01%^25 is still more than the sum loaned. And realistically, the interest rate must be higher than 0.01% annually. Sure, you could invest it over 25 years and theoretically beat the interest floor, but this adds a lot of unnecessary risk. When you've already won the game, I think paying the 25% in tax for a guaranteed cash return is worth it over dabbling in high risk, gray area legality tax avoidance.
Quite possible given enough trust lawyers and accountants. Mitt Romney managed to own a lot of his stock in his Roth IRA. The PayPal gang is famous for paying almost zero taxes though the same tricks. Yes, you dont get to spend it until retirement, but he isnt spending the billion, he is just reinvesting it.
> IRA funds are allowed to be invested in private companies. ... The IRS puts restrictions on private equity investments that can be made by an IRA. It cannot purchase stock that the IRA holder already owns. ... In most cases, neither the IRA holder nor any disqualified persons to the plan can be employed by the company while the IRA has an equity position in that company.
That's not how it works. The capital gains themselves count toward the $37k cap. $1B in cap gains puts him a bit out of range to fall under the $37k max.
You pay a fee for each transaction you send, just like any other service. b
However, your holdings increase in value the more other people use the same chain because the value of the entire ecosystem needs to scale proportionally to the value people are attempting to transact across it.
Financial systems, like social networks, and most businesses coming out of SV rely on network effects for much of their value.
USD has been the default option for the world, and enforced through violence when people attempt to create their own networks of trade.
The positive sum value that cryptocurrency is attempting to create is the ability to send anyone in the world any amount of value (money or otherwise) not subject to government permission, or sabotage (ie money printing)
It's like any one being able to suggest a Federal Reserve policy, and the vote being handled by the people, not representatives or a committee.
It is revolutionarily democratic.