Lab Rat Data Processing, LLC (LabRatMining) Official Announcement - page 95.

Endlessa

sr. member

Activity: 335

Merit: 250

Quote from: BKM on March 10, 2014, 01:53:55 PM

Quote from: Endlessa on March 10, 2014, 01:44:56 PM

Quote from: Lab_Rat on March 10, 2014, 01:38:42 PM

"this were tradable assets, so the payments are not relevant to the value of the asset but instead are a benefit of holding them." makes no legal sense whatsoever.

"Also please point me to the place where it's been stated since the beginning that these contracts are malleable." would have been up on bitfunder the entire time the "asset" was listed.

It made no sense that we could buy and sell these contracts and that value is separate from the dividends you paid? I buy a contract for .15 btc . . . receive payments for the duration then sell it to someone else for .15 (or whatever valuation is). claiming that the dividends were paying off the value of the contract is not even remotely close to how this works. There is no termination point of the contract and you have a lot of outstanding "bonds" that still haven't met fruition.

Everything you sold since bitfunder's demise is not under those terms, but under the ones on these forums. It could be argued that these forums are the actual publicly identified terms, since they are were you perform your business and that sneaking things in other places is a deceptive practice.

Careful Enlessa, your assertions of deception are completely unfounded. Kindly go back and read the materials. If anyone has a snapshot of the original LRM pages from Bitfunder it may be helpful to post it here again

I said "could be argued" not "is being argued".

Edit: I'm just saying it can be construed/perceived as such. not trying to say it actually is.

Endlessa

sr. member

Activity: 335

Merit: 250

Quote from: Lab_Rat on March 10, 2014, 01:51:05 PM

Quote from: Endlessa on March 10, 2014, 01:44:56 PM

Quote from: Lab_Rat on March 10, 2014, 01:38:42 PM

"this were tradable assets, so the payments are not relevant to the value of the asset but instead are a benefit of holding them." makes no legal sense whatsoever.

"Also please point me to the place where it's been stated since the beginning that these contracts are malleable." would have been up on bitfunder the entire time the "asset" was listed.

It made no sense that we could buy and sell these contracts and that value is separate from the dividends you paid? I buy a contract for .15 btc . . . receive payments for the duration then sell it to someone else for .15 (or whatever valuation is). claiming that the dividends were paying off the value of the contract is not even remotely close to how this works. There is no termination point of the contract and you have a lot of outstanding "bonds" that still haven't met fruition.

Everything you sold since bitfunder's demise is not under those terms, but under the ones on these forums. It could be argued that these forums are the actual publicly identified terms, since they are were you perform your business and that sneaking things in other places is a deceptive practice.

What you just stated contradicts your point. If the value of the contract is not associated with the payouts then you shouldn't have ever expected to get the amount of BTC in payouts as the contract cost you.

I never said I expect it to pay for the bonds, you said the payout for the contracts legally cover the cost of buying them.

Quote from: Lab_Rat on March 10, 2014, 01:30:00 PM

Quote from: BKM on March 10, 2014, 01:25:42 PM

Quote from: rangerbob21 on March 10, 2014, 01:08:19 PM

With the change to the original terms, If I do not agree, do I get my original 1 BTC investment back? Fair question, I think.

The very question implies a complete lack of understanding of the investment you have made. Your original 1 BTC investement, for accounting purposes, is converted to USD at the time it is was made. The tax system does not function under BTC - think of it as if you had bought Euros or Yen six months ago and then sold them today at a loss or a gain. Furthermore, the market is the place you go to sell your bonds (or whatever the hell they are actually supposed to be called) just like you would with any company where you wanted to sell your stake. There is no right of redemption in the "real world" of investments, nor should one be implied with any investment in the wild west of BTC land.

I do not intend this reply as a defense of LRM or any other company in the world of BTC but rather as a comment on the seemingly basic and essential lack of understanding regarding accounting and business that seems to come through loud and clear when the shit hits the fan(s).

Also, while I took a pretty hard stance towards LRM in my initial reaction to this situation, I await further guidance from Zach, particularly in regards to the disposition of the incoming hardware, before a decision that this is bad or good. In fact, this may turn out very, very well not only for us but also for the entire space that this kind of business is working within. Its the bleeding edge people, get your red blood cell count up because you might bleed a little more before its done.

This is correct, your original investment could have been in the range of $80, so 0.12BTC in hand that LRM has paid you is equivalent in the eyes of the US.

edit: spelling of bonds from "bounds"

BKM

sr. member

Activity: 315

Merit: 250

Quote from: Endlessa on March 10, 2014, 01:44:56 PM

Quote from: Lab_Rat on March 10, 2014, 01:38:42 PM

"this were tradable assets, so the payments are not relevant to the value of the asset but instead are a benefit of holding them." makes no legal sense whatsoever.

"Also please point me to the place where it's been stated since the beginning that these contracts are malleable." would have been up on bitfunder the entire time the "asset" was listed.

It made no sense that we could buy and sell these contracts and that value is separate from the dividends you paid? I buy a contract for .15 btc . . . receive payments for the duration then sell it to someone else for .15 (or whatever valuation is). claiming that the dividends were paying off the value of the contract is not even remotely close to how this works. There is no termination point of the contract and you have a lot of outstanding "bonds" that still haven't met fruition.

Everything you sold since bitfunder's demise is not under those terms, but under the ones on these forums. It could be argued that these forums are the actual publicly identified terms, since they are were you perform your business and that sneaking things in other places is a deceptive practice.

Careful Enlessa, your assertions of deception are completely unfounded. Kindly go back and read the materials. If anyone has a snapshot of the original LRM pages from Bitfunder it may be helpful to post it here again

electerium

full member

Activity: 179

Merit: 100

Quote from: countduckula on March 10, 2014, 01:50:17 PM

The more i read, the more crap we get, the more angry he gets, the more dissapointed i'm of how he handled everything. I can take the risk and btc price and external issues, not the irresponsability, lack of and/or bad management of the legal issues and hiding information to us, coming this miracle solutions that screw everyone over its not a solution at all.

If solutions dont come and are decent to all of us, and anyone its up to sue, count me in. I dont want my btc, my contracts, i'm happy with a long time behind bars for the responsable one.

Thats it for me until a serious reply comes from the head of this proyect.

the good news is that he would not have made this decision wrt LRM unless the 150THs was incoming quickly. Otherwise he'd just liquidate and close his doors.

The other good news is that he obviously is thinking long term, but he's not thinking concurrently with his investors who've basically funded the operation to get to where it currently is.

Komodorpudel

full member

Activity: 137

Merit: 100

Quote from: rustyh17 on March 10, 2014, 01:38:32 PM

As long as LRM issues the correct multiple of 100MH/s contracts for the 58,792 original variable rate
contracts based on the total purchased hash rate to date, I see no problem with him. He would be
acting in good faith.

We all took one main risk when purchasing these contracts. We all fundamentally believed that LRM
could mine more BTC than it cost for us to purchase the mining hardware. This belief was dynamic
and transient in nature. That is, there was a time value associated with each piece of hardware LRM
purchased. If LRM could purchase in bulk or get preferential delivery or get lucky with BTC pricing at
the moment, it could provide more BTC returned per BTC invested. That was the key to this whole
agreement.

The facts are that LRM (and just about every other mining company on earth), got steam rolled by
hardware manufacturers. This occurred because of late deliveries and prices that were too high per
gh/s. As unfortunate as that is, LRM cannot be blamed for that.

All we can really do is make sure that LRM took in X amount of BTC, converted it to Y amount of $,
and purchased Z amount of hash rate. We are entitled to Z amount of hash rate divided up 58,792
ways. That is it. If that "conversion engine" does not yield > 100% BTC out for each BTC in, then we
are S.O.L. If LRM does not give us X-->Y-->Z conversion fairly, then LRM needs to be held accountable
for that.

Please enlighten me if you feel this is overly simplistic.

Yes; there is a problem, LabRat promised several times that the hashrate of this "bonds"(although i was said once, that this is not garantueed-->) will increase together with the absolut Hashrate of LabRat.
Outgoing statements from LabRat made in the last few weeks/months, each bond should have ca. 2,6 Gh/s or at least 600MH/s right now; non of that actually is true at the moment.
These statments were made while LabRat already knew about the "legal issues" and the possible fixing of the hashrate at 100MH/s to solve this "legal issue"

This is misrepresentation and almost fraud

Everything you need to know:
http://www.justia.com/consumer/securities-fraud/

Lab_Rat

hero member

Activity: 599

Merit: 502

Token/ICO management

Quote from: Endlessa on March 10, 2014, 01:44:56 PM

Quote from: Lab_Rat on March 10, 2014, 01:38:42 PM

"this were tradable assets, so the payments are not relevant to the value of the asset but instead are a benefit of holding them." makes no legal sense whatsoever.

"Also please point me to the place where it's been stated since the beginning that these contracts are malleable." would have been up on bitfunder the entire time the "asset" was listed.

It made no sense that we could buy and sell these contracts and that value is separate from the dividends you paid? I buy a contract for .15 btc . . . receive payments for the duration then sell it to someone else for .15 (or whatever valuation is). claiming that the dividends were paying off the value of the contract is not even remotely close to how this works. There is no termination point of the contract and you have a lot of outstanding "bonds" that still haven't met fruition.

Everything you sold since bitfunder's demise is not under those terms, but under the ones on these forums. It could be argued that these forums are the actual publicly identified terms, since they are were you perform your business and that sneaking things in other places is a deceptive practice.

What you just stated contradicts your point. If the value of the contract is not associated with the payouts then you shouldn't have ever expected to get the amount of BTC in payouts as the contract cost you.

countduckula

full member

Activity: 140

Merit: 100

The more i read, the more crap we get, the more angry he gets, the more dissapointed i'm of how he handled everything. I can take the risk and btc price and external issues, not the irresponsability, lack of and/or bad management of the legal issues and hiding information to us, coming this miracle solutions that screw everyone over its not a solution at all.

If solutions dont come and are decent to all of us, and anyone its up to sue, count me in. I dont want my btc, my contracts, i'm happy with a long time behind bars for the responsable one.

Thats it for me until a serious reply comes from the head of this proyect.

Endlessa

sr. member

Activity: 335

Merit: 250

also from the LRM website "An official statement is being released at Bitcoin Talk and at Butterfly Labs forums. "
this designates these forums and the BFL forums are the official source for the terms, please demonstrate where on these forums or BFL's you indicated the contracts are malleable at your discretion

edit: changed "BFL" to "BFL forums"

rustyh17

full member

Activity: 213

Merit: 100

Quote from: Lab_Rat on March 10, 2014, 01:42:07 PM

This is way too true. The only issue is that if I paid out all of Z, I would be in a lot of red....

The Z amount would, of course, be less the agreed percentage that LRM would have kept
per the terms of the original contract.

rangerbob21

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

The only reality I see here is the promise of a proportional hash rate per bond is now out the window. The few bonds I now have (original x3?) are worth a fixed 300MH/s. Is this correct?

As for the business misunderstanding... This is not a misunderstanding. I agree on the risk of the market, but this is not a market issue. This is a change in the terms from the original terms.
According to what has been presented here thus far, LRM can change the terms to state that "all bonds are worthless, no more payouts and LRM keeps everything", apparently. Is this a misunderstanding as well?

EDIT: I am NOT trying to be a dickhead here, I simply do not agree with the new terms where my bonds are now at a fixed hash rate and will no longer grow in proportion to the total LRM hash rate.

EDIT 2: The few bonds I now have (original x3?) are worth a fixed 100MH/s

Endlessa

sr. member

Activity: 335

Merit: 250

Quote from: Lab_Rat on March 10, 2014, 01:38:42 PM

"this were tradable assets, so the payments are not relevant to the value of the asset but instead are a benefit of holding them." makes no legal sense whatsoever.

"Also please point me to the place where it's been stated since the beginning that these contracts are malleable." would have been up on bitfunder the entire time the "asset" was listed.

It made no sense that we could buy and sell these contracts and that value is separate from the dividends you paid? I buy a contract for .15 btc . . . receive payments for the duration then sell it to someone else for .15 (or whatever valuation is). claiming that the dividends were paying off the value of the contract is not even remotely close to how this works. There is no termination point of the contract and you have a lot of outstanding "bonds" that still haven't met fruition.

Everything you sold since bitfunder's demise is not under those terms, but under the ones on these forums. It could be argued that these forums are the actual publicly identified terms, since they are were you perform your business and that sneaking things in other places is a deceptive practice.

electerium

full member

Activity: 179

Merit: 100

Quote from: Lab_Rat on March 10, 2014, 01:22:52 PM

Quote from: Endlessa on March 10, 2014, 01:19:45 PM

no we are expecting a complete picture when you drop a bombshell and for you to responsibly present information

I'm working on doing so and all I have done is provide an immediate fix that does fit into the original contract promises, with the intent to find a way to benefit early contract purchasers as more hardware comes in.

This is easily the most pressing issue moving forward. Bond value today means nothing because there is no clear direction for the future of the mining operation.

If today and future bond holders are appropriately compensated for increase in hashrate accordingly, then I do not see why this change in structure is so nefarious.

I also feel it is extremely important for you to acknowledge that any decrease in overall hashing entitlement, relative to total mine hash rate, to bond holders directly increases what LRM rakes itself. Or more plainly, LRM rakes in proportionately more today than it did yesterday and no additional bonds have been sold. I do not think that this can move forward without this acknowledgement and a concerted effort to appropriately compensate bond holders, present and future, when the mine increases its hashing power. If there is no such provision, LRM should dissolve itself.

Lab_Rat

hero member

Activity: 599

Merit: 502

Token/ICO management

Quote from: rustyh17 on March 10, 2014, 01:38:32 PM

The facts are that LRM (and just about every other mining company on earth), got steam rolled by
hardware manufacturers. This occurred because of late deliveries and prices that were too high per
gh/s. As unfortunate as that is, LRM cannot be blamed for that.

All we can really do is make sure that LRM took in X amount of BTC, converted it to Y amount of $,
and purchased Z amount of hash rate. We are entitled to Z amount of hash rate divided up 58,792
ways. That is it. If that "conversion engine" does not yield > 100% BTC out for each BTC in, then we
are S.O.L. If LRM does not give us X-->Y-->Z conversion fairly, then LRM needs to be held accountable
for that.

Please enlighten me if you feel this is overly simplistic.

This is way too true. The only issue is that if I paid out all of Z, I would be in a lot of red....

Lab_Rat

hero member

Activity: 599

Merit: 502

Token/ICO management

Quote from: Endlessa on March 10, 2014, 01:34:07 PM

Quote from: Lab_Rat on March 10, 2014, 01:30:00 PM

Quote from: BKM on March 10, 2014, 01:25:42 PM

Quote from: rangerbob21 on March 10, 2014, 01:08:19 PM

With the change to the original terms, If I do not agree, do I get my original 1 BTC investment back? Fair question, I think.

The very question implies a complete lack of understanding of the investment you have made. Your original 1 BTC investement, for accounting purposes, is converted to USD at the time it is was made. The tax system does not function under BTC - think of it as if you had bought Euros or Yen six months ago and then sold them today at a loss or a gain. Furthermore, the market is the place you go to sell your bonds (or whatever the hell they are actually supposed to be called) just like you would with any company where you wanted to sell your stake. There is no right of redemption in the "real world" of investments, nor should one be implied with any investment in the wild west of BTC land.

I do not intend this reply as a defense of LRM or any other company in the world of BTC but rather as a comment on the seemingly basic and essential lack of understanding regarding accounting and business that seems to come through loud and clear when the shit hits the fan(s).

Also, while I took a pretty hard stance towards LRM in my initial reaction to this situation, I await further guidance from Zach, particularly in regards to the disposition of the incoming hardware, before a decision that this is bad or good. In fact, this may turn out very, very well not only for us but also for the entire space that this kind of business is working within. Its the bleeding edge people, get your red blood cell count up because you might bleed a little more before its done.

This is correct, your original investment could have been in the range of $80, so 0.12BTC in hand that LRM has paid you is equivalent in the eyes of the US.

this were tradable assets, so the payments are not relevant to the value of the asset but instead are a benefit of holding them.

Also please point me to the place where it's been stated since the beginning that these contracts are malleable.

"this were tradable assets, so the payments are not relevant to the value of the asset but instead are a benefit of holding them." makes no legal sense whatsoever.

"Also please point me to the place where it's been stated since the beginning that these contracts are malleable." would have been up on bitfunder the entire time the "asset" was listed.

rustyh17

full member

Activity: 213

Merit: 100

As long as LRM issues the correct multiple of 100MH/s contracts for the 58,792 original variable rate
contracts based on the total purchased hash rate to date, I see no problem with him. He would be
acting in good faith.

We all took one main risk when purchasing these contracts. We all fundamentally believed that LRM
could mine more BTC than it cost for us to purchase the mining hardware. This belief was dynamic
and transient in nature. That is, there was a time value associated with each piece of hardware LRM
purchased. If LRM could purchase in bulk or get preferential delivery or get lucky with BTC pricing at
the moment, it could provide more BTC returned per BTC invested. That was the key to this whole
agreement.

The facts are that LRM (and just about every other mining company on earth), got steam rolled by
hardware manufacturers. This occurred because of late deliveries and prices that were too high per
gh/s. As unfortunate as that is, LRM cannot be blamed for that.

All we can really do is make sure that LRM took in X amount of BTC, converted it to Y amount of $,
and purchased Z amount of hash rate. We are entitled to Z amount of hash rate divided up 58,792
ways. That is it. If that "conversion engine" does not yield > 100% BTC out for each BTC in, then we
are S.O.L. If LRM does not give us X-->Y-->Z conversion fairly, then LRM needs to be held accountable
for that.

Please enlighten me if you feel this is overly simplistic.

Endlessa

sr. member

Activity: 335

Merit: 250

Quote from: BKM on March 10, 2014, 01:32:49 PM

Again, not defending LRM here but you have a paper loss until you dispose of your bonds. And, are you counting in BTC or USD? Counting in BTC losses and gains is a complete and utter fallacy when it comes to investing. It misses the point. Yes, you COULD have had more BTC IF you had done something different with it before. And BTC MIGHT have dropped to $1 in the meantime.

Come one people...... get a grip and deal with the reality of the circumstances at hand and not what MIGHT have been IF I only just.......[fill in your regrets here]

actually, it wouldn't be an issue, except that this whole exercise is unnecessary. This change is under the assumption there is no legal path forward. Where as, FinCEN explicitly states in it's administrative ruling that dividends payed by mining groups through real non-voting shares are legal. It would be the exact same thing we have now. So why burn or futures to the ground?

Edit: it would require forming a corporation, but LRM could maintain all voting rights

Endlessa

sr. member

Activity: 335

Merit: 250

Quote from: Lab_Rat on March 10, 2014, 01:30:00 PM

Quote from: BKM on March 10, 2014, 01:25:42 PM

Quote from: rangerbob21 on March 10, 2014, 01:08:19 PM

With the change to the original terms, If I do not agree, do I get my original 1 BTC investment back? Fair question, I think.

The very question implies a complete lack of understanding of the investment you have made. Your original 1 BTC investement, for accounting purposes, is converted to USD at the time it is was made. The tax system does not function under BTC - think of it as if you had bought Euros or Yen six months ago and then sold them today at a loss or a gain. Furthermore, the market is the place you go to sell your bonds (or whatever the hell they are actually supposed to be called) just like you would with any company where you wanted to sell your stake. There is no right of redemption in the "real world" of investments, nor should one be implied with any investment in the wild west of BTC land.

I do not intend this reply as a defense of LRM or any other company in the world of BTC but rather as a comment on the seemingly basic and essential lack of understanding regarding accounting and business that seems to come through loud and clear when the shit hits the fan(s).

Also, while I took a pretty hard stance towards LRM in my initial reaction to this situation, I await further guidance from Zach, particularly in regards to the disposition of the incoming hardware, before a decision that this is bad or good. In fact, this may turn out very, very well not only for us but also for the entire space that this kind of business is working within. Its the bleeding edge people, get your red blood cell count up because you might bleed a little more before its done.

These is correct, your original investment could have been in the range of $80, so 0.12BTC in hand that LRM has paid you is equivalent in the eyes of the US.

this were tradable assets, so the payments are not relevant to the value of the asset but instead are a benefit of holding them.

Also please point me to the place where it's been stated since the beginning that these contracts are malleable.

BKM

sr. member

Activity: 315

Merit: 250

Quote from: Endlessa on March 10, 2014, 01:26:34 PM

Quote from: Doff on March 10, 2014, 01:21:42 PM

Quote from: Endlessa on March 10, 2014, 01:19:45 PM

Quote from: Lab_Rat on March 10, 2014, 01:16:32 PM

Quote from: Doff on March 10, 2014, 01:15:05 PM

Quote from: Lab_Rat on March 10, 2014, 01:01:08 PM

Many questions were posted last night. Please allow time before my responses as I'm not going be sitting infront of the computer 24/7. If you want something to actually get done that is.

I'm sorry but it took me about 15 minutes to read all the posts last night, and about 10 minutes while working to catch up this morning.

I am confused why this takes you 24/7 to accomplish, and what I think what we would all like to know is what the hell you are doing when you aren't posting here.

But how many hours were in between? People are expecting a response within 5 minutes of their post.

no we are expecting a complete picture when you drop a bombshell and for you to responsibly present information when you reduce the value of our investment to 0.001% of your previous valuation of bonds.

This too, whats currently on the website just pooped all over this investment. I put in 13 coins I expected 13 back, with the current proposition ill never see that happen.

correction: 0.01% of original value (forgot the percent contains two decimals, don't want to exaggerate)

Again, not defending LRM here but you have a paper loss until you dispose of your bonds. And, are you counting in BTC or USD? Counting in BTC losses and gains is a complete and utter fallacy when it comes to investing. It misses the point. Yes, you COULD have had more BTC IF you had done something different with it before. And BTC MIGHT have dropped to $1 in the meantime.

Come one people...... get a grip and deal with the reality of the circumstances at hand and not what MIGHT have been IF I only just.......[fill in your regrets here]

Lab_Rat

hero member

Activity: 599

Merit: 502

Token/ICO management

Quote from: BKM on March 10, 2014, 01:25:42 PM

Quote from: rangerbob21 on March 10, 2014, 01:08:19 PM

With the change to the original terms, If I do not agree, do I get my original 1 BTC investment back? Fair question, I think.

The very question implies a complete lack of understanding of the investment you have made. Your original 1 BTC investement, for accounting purposes, is converted to USD at the time it is was made. The tax system does not function under BTC - think of it as if you had bought Euros or Yen six months ago and then sold them today at a loss or a gain. Furthermore, the market is the place you go to sell your bonds (or whatever the hell they are actually supposed to be called) just like you would with any company where you wanted to sell your stake. There is no right of redemption in the "real world" of investments, nor should one be implied with any investment in the wild west of BTC land.

I do not intend this reply as a defense of LRM or any other company in the world of BTC but rather as a comment on the seemingly basic and essential lack of understanding regarding accounting and business that seems to come through loud and clear when the shit hits the fan(s).

Also, while I took a pretty hard stance towards LRM in my initial reaction to this situation, I await further guidance from Zach, particularly in regards to the disposition of the incoming hardware, before a decision that this is bad or good. In fact, this may turn out very, very well not only for us but also for the entire space that this kind of business is working within. Its the bleeding edge people, get your red blood cell count up because you might bleed a little more before its done.

This is correct, your original investment could have been in the range of $80, so 0.12BTC in hand that LRM has paid you is equivalent in the eyes of the US.

Endlessa

sr. member

Activity: 335

Merit: 250

Quote from: BKM on March 10, 2014, 01:25:42 PM

Quote from: rangerbob21 on March 10, 2014, 01:08:19 PM

With the change to the original terms, If I do not agree, do I get my original 1 BTC investment back? Fair question, I think.

The very question implies a complete lack of understanding of the investment you have made. Your original 1 BTC investement, for accounting purposes, is converted to USD at the time it is was made. The tax system does not function under BTC - think of it as if you had bought Euros or Yen six months ago and then sold them today at a loss or a gain. Furthermore, the market is the place you go to sell your bonds (or whatever the hell they are actually supposed to be called) just like you would with any company where you wanted to sell your stake. There is no right of redemption in the "real world" of investments, nor should one be implied with any investment in the wild west of BTC land.

I do not intend this reply as a defense of LRM or any other company in the world of BTC but rather as a comment on the seemingly basic and essential lack of understanding regarding accounting and business that seems to come through loud and clear when the shit hits the fan(s).

Also, while I took a pretty hard stance towards LRM in my initial reaction to this situation, I await further guidance from Zach, particularly in regards to the disposition of the incoming hardware, before a decision that this is bad or good. In fact, this may turn out very, very well not only for us but also for the entire space that this kind of business is working within. Its the bleeding edge people, get your red blood cell count up because you might bleed a little more before its done.

that only makes sense if they are valued in USD. LR values and continued to sell them in BTC, so reguardless of the USD conversion rate, these commodities were value, traded and sold in BTC. for tax purposes you declare the value in USD, but it doesn't change the current value, whether you choose to declare it in USD or BTC.

Topic: Lab Rat Data Processing, LLC (LabRatMining) Official Announcement - page 95. (Read 452224 times)