Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 1075. (Read 2032266 times)

Think of all the tricks companies use to make their profits show up in, for example Ireland, instead of the US.

Lots of ways to do it, but the problem is that bringing the dollars back from Ireland can be tricky because those dollars need to be moved through the legacy banking system.

Bitcoin doesn't have that problem.

Suppose you have a business that's licenced in NY, but you want to keep all your profits in BTC.

No problem - in addition to your US corporation, register a corporation in Bermuda (or other suitable jurisdiction) that holds or purports to hold some kind of IP.

Have the US corporation license the IP from the foreign corporation, with the fees to be paid in BTC, at a rate that coincidentally means the US company is barely or negatively profitable (this is how Hollywood makes sure all its movies lose money no matter how successful they are).

Foreign company accepts the license fees and pays them out to shareholders as dividends. No interaction with the legacy banking system is required.

Tax avoidance FTW.

I'm sure Circle plan to have an insurance reserve made up of bitcoin profits, the reserve requirements and risk profile will just change with profitability allowing them to keep there bitcoin profits. 

and even gold bugs have benefited (sold more gold) from the bitcoin boom.

I can't muster much more than a "meh" reaction to the document.

I actually hope some of the worse provisions, like forcing licenced companies to hold their profits and retained earnings in USD, stay in, because when Bitcoin instantly routes around that requirements the lulz will be epic.

If that provision survives the review process, I'll write a "Tax Avoidance for Dummies" article to explain exactly how to bypass it for the benefit of any Bitcoin company owner who might be deficient in imagination.

I was expecting gold to get taken down below $1300 before the close but it's around $1311 at this point. Silver is nudging $21. Bitcoin has some nice momentum.

when you have a predictable money supply, not dependent on corrupt human intervention, one can reason their way through what were previously deemed complex economic concepts.  this is why logical, mathematically inclined ppl early on in Bitcoin's history were able to identify the key tenets behind what it represents.  if you were willing to take a risk, this has paid off enormously.

"At this point, most of my friends are neutral or positive about Bitcoin... EXCEPT the academic economists. I think the fact that Bitcoin was not invented within the sphere of academic economics really bothers them (not that they would ever put it that way...)"

It probably pisses the academics off that even though bitcoin is based on some really complex math and technology, at a higher level, it brings back the concept of money (and gasp, economics) to very simple rules and concepts. And hence undermines economists' attempts to make it more seem complex than it really is.

I'm scared!

the disruption continues. target: publishers

http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/18/media/amazon-kindle-unlimited/index.html …

https://twitter.com/cypherdoc2/status/490206246847258624

Bang on love this approach.
Also given the pending financial fallout and the simple explanation that will follow,
 “money is the root of all evil”, can easily be understood as true when one thinking of money as a thing to be obtained at any cost.

But it’s the opposite that has social value; it’s the universal ledger that is fair and an opportunity to contribute knowing in exchange one will receive benefits that come from cooperation. The whole that is bigger than the sum of its parts.

In his inquiry into Alexander’s post-NSA activities, Grayson cited security expert Bruce Schneier, who was the first to speculate Alexander’s steep fee included intelligence secrets.

“Think of how much actual security they could buy with that $600K a month,” Schneier wrote in a Tuesday blog post. “Unless he’s giving them classified information.”



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/26/congressman-accuses-ex-nsa-head-of-trading-secrets-for-profit/#ixzz37qYGATSf

if true, this could be explosive:

"Florida Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson accused former National Security Agency director Gen. Keith Alexander Wednesday of disclosing classified information to bank trade groups for monthly fees of up to $1,000,000."

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/26/congressman-accuses-ex-nsa-head-of-trading-secrets-for-profit/#ixzz37qWkQFaK
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/26/congressman-accuses-ex-nsa-head-of-trading-secrets-for-profit/

Unfortunately. But I don't think it's actually advanced theory, just conceptual clarity.

It looks advanced only because of the fallout from the early marketing of bitcoins as "digital coins you can send thru the Internet." I'm confident that with enough debate people will come to see how important it is to start with a solid understanding, rather than start with "digital coins" and have to patch it up with a bunch of addenda about how it can't be forged, why "intrinsic value" is an incoherent concept, why it doesn't need "backing," etc. That path, ironically, takes way more advanced explanations to convince people.

The ledger concept is really pretty easy and intuitive: who hasn't had the experience of keeping track of who did the dishes (or swept the floor or bought dinner or drove someone to the airport) in a sort of subjective ledger, as Wences Casares calls it. It's a very natural and completely familiar concept - albeit a nameless one. It's just that things like gold, which is just this weird physical hack for dealing with the technical difficulties in maintaining the ledger in the age before Bitcoin, get in the way.

I think that each extra minute of time invested upfront, taking it back to basics on what money is in terms of that familiar ledger concept, saves a thousand minutes of answering objections and endless misunderstandings later on.

+1

Mark Twain nailed this one: "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

Hayek phrased the problem more more succinctly as "the pretense of knowledge."

It's also the same reason people often lose their car keys: they know for sure they already looked somewhere that they actually haven't yet.

Money experts will be the last to come on board, because they think they already know what money is.

I just finished a postdoc at Harvard... and a Bitcoin book project... so maybe now is a good moment to again bite off more than I can chew...

(sending you a PM)

Chris, we need to launch J Bitcoin soon!

you're dealing in advanced Bitcoin Theory, ZB.  even the most ardent of Bitcoin supporters can't understand this concept; look at all the dissers of this video in the Reddit thread.

What an awesome video. Just posted it on Facebook.

At this point, most of my friends are neutral or positive about Bitcoin... EXCEPT the academic economists. I think the fact that Bitcoin was not invented within the sphere of academic economics really bothers them (not that they would ever put it that way...)