Pages:
Author

Topic: Do I really have to pay taxes on crypto investments? - page 9. (Read 2482 times)

newbie
Activity: 21
Merit: 0
Petro’s idea is untenable because the state’s economy itself is in extremely poor shape. If the United States launched its own one and made it yield like treasury bonds, then we can confidently say many would like to use their crypto. It’s hard to imagine someone who could launch their crypto with worse results
newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
Of their own free will, yes, people will not choose such currencies, but states have ways of pressure. If pensions, benefits, payments for state. the contracts will be in this centralized state cryptocurrency, many will simply be forced to start using it.
I don’t know why, but today I can imagine the launch of such cryptocurrencies. only in China of course.  well, in extreme cases, in Korea.
Venezuela launched such a cryptocurrency, only the hype did not happen and the population preferred the alien Bitcoin instead of their Petro.
Yes, but it’s one thing to launch such a cryptocurrency during the economic crisis and quite another to launch it when the state’s economy develops rapidly. Many wrote about the failure of the Petro idea, even before its launch.
There was fresh news that the Central Bank of Japan had already developed a national cryptocurrency, but decided to start offering it to Cambodia. Apparently, they are less sorry for the Khmers now. But, if it grows together, it will probably be possible to look at a more interesting experiment than in the agonizing economy of Venezuela.
newbie
Activity: 27
Merit: 0
Of their own free will, yes, people will not choose such currencies, but states have ways of pressure. If pensions, benefits, payments for state. the contracts will be in this centralized state cryptocurrency, many will simply be forced to start using it.
I don’t know why, but today I can imagine the launch of such cryptocurrencies. only in China of course.  well, in extreme cases, in Korea.
Venezuela launched such a cryptocurrency, only the hype did not happen and the population preferred the alien Bitcoin instead of their Petro.
Yes, but it’s one thing to launch such a cryptocurrency during the economic crisis and quite another to launch it when the state’s economy develops rapidly. Many wrote about the failure of the Petro idea, even before its launch.
newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
Of their own free will, yes, people will not choose such currencies, but states have ways of pressure. If pensions, benefits, payments for state. the contracts will be in this centralized state cryptocurrency, many will simply be forced to start using it.
I don’t know why, but today I can imagine the launch of such cryptocurrencies. only in China of course.  well, in extreme cases, in Korea.
Venezuela launched such a cryptocurrency, only the hype did not happen and the population preferred the alien Bitcoin instead of their Petro.
newbie
Activity: 27
Merit: 0
Of their own free will, yes, people will not choose such currencies, but states have ways of pressure. If pensions, benefits, payments for state. the contracts will be in this centralized state cryptocurrency, many will simply be forced to start using it.
I don’t know why, but today I can imagine the launch of such cryptocurrencies. only in China of course.  well, in extreme cases, in Korea.
newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
Of their own free will, yes, people will not choose such currencies, but states have ways of pressure. If pensions, benefits, payments for state. the contracts will be in this centralized state cryptocurrency, many will simply be forced to start using it.
newbie
Activity: 21
Merit: 0
In my opinion, not a single cryptocurrency backed by the government with the ability to return a perfect transaction, selective blocking of unusable addresses, the need to go through the KYC and AML procedures, will have such a widespread worldwide distribution as bitcoin.
newbie
Activity: 27
Merit: 0
we are talking about existing coins, for example, very closely associated with fiat currencies or those that are “secured” by fiat?
So what about them? Purely logical - where there is fiat, there is regulation.
newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
we are talking about existing coins, for example, very closely associated with fiat currencies or those that are “secured” by fiat?
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
Do you think such centralized coins currently exist?

in China maybe.
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
Do you think such centralized coins currently exist?
newbie
Activity: 27
Merit: 0
Another question is whether it was laid down in the contract initially, because how to coordinate the work of the new coin with state regulators if there is no such “backdoor” there?

This is a purely terminological issue. I consider cryptocurrency to be any digital currency emitted using cryptographic means. Accordingly,for me a centralized coin can be a cryptocurrency. For those cryptocurrencies that rely on the original ideas of the cryptocurrency community, I prefer to use terms with refinements such as labor cryptocurrency or just crypto. But this is only a question of who uses what terms, it is not so significant. The main thing is a common understanding of the content side of the issue.

Of course, government structures will have to go with ready-made and consistent code, which involves such manipulations. If you develop a similar feint for any top-end cryptocurrency that already exists, separation with the advent of a new coin is inevitable, because a significant part of the community will not accept such centralization of the coin and will remain in the classic version of the blockchain. Accordingly, all the same, this is similar  to the principle originally laid down in the code.
newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
Another question is whether it was laid down in the contract initially, because how to coordinate the work of the new coin with state regulators if there is no such “backdoor” there?

This is a purely terminological issue. I consider cryptocurrency to be any digital currency emitted using cryptographic means. Accordingly,for me a centralized coin can be a cryptocurrency. For those cryptocurrencies that rely on the original ideas of the cryptocurrency community, I prefer to use terms with refinements such as labor cryptocurrency or just crypto. But this is only a question of who uses what terms, it is not so significant. The main thing is a common understanding of the content side of the issue.
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
Another question is whether it was laid down in the contract initially, because how to coordinate the work of the new coin with state regulators if there is no such “backdoor” there?
newbie
Activity: 27
Merit: 0
Suppose developers have the right to "freeze" a transaction from any user. And also cancel or block the transaction, and this also applies to everyone. Is it possible to consider that such a coin will be a scam? And the second question - knowing such conditions - what are the risks of using such a coin?
Since such a coin cannot automatically be considered decentralized, the only way for it not to be considered a scam is to be under the tutelage of the sovereignty of one or another power with its judicial and legal system, which would regulate the measure of such actions. In this case, the risks would be commensurate with the traditional for the banking system.
If the coin is not controlled by anyone in fact, then even just such a mortgaged opportunity, in my opinion, is a scam, even without taking action, because it intentionally creates extremely high risks for all users of the system (including possible hacks from the outside, change of leadership, etc.)
Risks, in this regard, drammatically increas, firstly because  such coins are under the control of developers, who can make transactions “reversible” at any moment and secondly, because a  government agency may demand that developers perform such an operation.
Of course, the risks increase dramatically, and if you have a choice, of course, using classic cryptocurrencies is much more reliable than using potentially centrally controlled ones, but governments have the opportunity to impose the use of their money, including through various payments. So there will not always be a choice.
newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
Suppose developers have the right to "freeze" a transaction from any user. And also cancel or block the transaction, and this also applies to everyone. Is it possible to consider that such a coin will be a scam? And the second question - knowing such conditions - what are the risks of using such a coin?
Since such a coin cannot automatically be considered decentralized, the only way for it not to be considered a scam is to be under the tutelage of the sovereignty of one or another power with its judicial and legal system, which would regulate the measure of such actions. In this case, the risks would be commensurate with the traditional for the banking system.
If the coin is not controlled by anyone in fact, then even just such a mortgaged opportunity, in my opinion, is a scam, even without taking action, because it intentionally creates extremely high risks for all users of the system (including possible hacks from the outside, change of leadership, etc.)
Risks, in this regard, drammatically increas, firstly because  such coins are under the control of developers, who can make transactions “reversible” at any moment and secondly, because a  government agency may demand that developers perform such an operation.
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
Suppose developers have the right to "freeze" a transaction from any user. And also cancel or block the transaction, and this also applies to everyone. Is it possible to consider that such a coin will be a scam? And the second question - knowing such conditions - what are the risks of using such a coin?
Since such a coin cannot automatically be considered decentralized, the only way for it not to be considered a scam is to be under the tutelage of the sovereignty of one or another power with its judicial and legal system, which would regulate the measure of such actions. In this case, the risks would be commensurate with the traditional for the banking system.
If the coin is not controlled by anyone in fact, then even just such a mortgaged opportunity, in my opinion, is a scam, even without taking action, because it intentionally creates extremely high risks for all users of the system (including possible hacks from the outside, change of leadership, etc.)
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
Suppose developers have the right to "freeze" a transaction from any user. And also cancel or block the transaction, and this also applies to everyone. Is it possible to consider that such a coin will be a scam? And the second question - knowing such conditions - what are the risks of using such a coin?
Since such a coin cannot automatically be considered decentralized, the only way for it not to be considered a scam is to be under the tutelage of the sovereignty of one or another power with its judicial and legal system, which would regulate the measure of such actions. In this case, the risks would be commensurate with the traditional for the banking system.
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
Suppose developers have the right to "freeze" a transaction from any user. And also cancel or block the transaction, and this also applies to everyone. Is it possible to consider that such a coin will be a scam? And the second question - knowing such conditions - what are the risks of using such a coin?
newbie
Activity: 27
Merit: 0
This is theoretically possible, but not every network with a similar situation will cope in the same way as Ether. It’s unrealistic to constantly roll back the entire network to change one record, no one will use such a network of their own free will. This is all in fact a variation of 51%.

I think it’s not quite right to compare with the 51% variety. In order to crank a 51%, it is enough to have mining capacities that seriously exceed the existing ones in this blockchain. It is not necessary to be the developer of the coin itself. Developers have much wider impact functionality. We have not yet seriously faced the fact that someone's wallet was cut out and forbidden to miners to process transfers coming from it.
I have a very great interest in seeing the first government "cryptocurrency". Because without control, such a coin cannot exist, within the framework of the regulator. This is the main task of the "protection" that the country gives to citizens, as it were. And I would like to see how this will be done in practice.
Pages:
Jump to: