Topic: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;) - page 86. (Read 907229 times)

For the Cryptonote coins, they have 12 decimal place for the coins, is it necessary? Is it better to increase the total number of coins by 10000  times and remove 4 decimal places?  Would that decrease the block size?

One recent block reward of XMR is 13.828558554977, if we remove the last 8 digit, so that it is 13.8285. That will remove the dust and that value is still close to the original one, the difference is only 0.0001/13.

Maybe, but only a small % of the population was exposed to 21 mil number and I heard Allaire (Circle) publicly referring to 2.1 quadrillion units, which are, of course, satoshi, so some were talking about it. When i recently went to look at one house, and asked about the price, the realtor simply said 'about 7', which, based on location and my knowledge of the neighborhood, I immediately translated as '700000'. I don't know why he was so coy about it and not say 700K or seven hundred thou.
My point is use will determine, but nobody except early adopters would be reluctant because of 21 mil BTC vs 21 tril XBT, especially since some of them are already exposed to tril in GDP and budget numbers.

This could have a double effect, it could boost the price and make dealing with Bitcoin easier, but it also could be a big confusion and slow adoption for a really simple reason, while we were talking for 5 years about only 21 million BTC to exist, people will be surprised about Trillions of XBT (which they don't get in the first place).

Check your math...just 10 billion XBT (in 2009)
He is referring to the current day though, with some optimistic twist. it would be 10000XBT when BTC is back to ~1000-1200 (assuming $10-12/pizza)  

Well if the proposed new definition of XBT happens in which 1000000XBT equals one Bitcoin (BTC) then it's going to be the 10 Trillion XBT pizzas in the history books

the infamous 10,000 XBT for pizza back in 2014 :-)

I am with the opposition to "bits", but it does not matter, as OP said. Use determines the terms.
However, the only way to logically reconcile Bitcoin foundation proposal with historical status is to use base unit of "bitcoin" (XBT) and satoshi at 1:100 of XBT.
BTC can be used as a historical unit. The only thing that is required is recalculation of XBT as 100 satoshi(s).
Result: Everyone with one BTC will be XBT millionaire.
Although the last point is somewhat silly, the positive psychological effect is undeniable.

"Bit" is the national currency of Equestria.

+1

@AstroChicks question about "who has authority": stop asking for authority, don't ask for permission. Anyone is free to use whichever unit they wish. However note that there is strong opposition both against the specific name "bits" and also for "changing the unit and confusing people". Whichever unit will be used, it will be a decision made by use.

Yes. http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Foreign-Currency-and-Currency-Exchange-Rates

Are gains on your local currency on a foreign exchange taxed?

In NZ and Switzerland for example, gains on foreign currency if held for long periods and not for short term trading will not be taxed with capital gains. You need to move to a more enlightened country. Capital gains taxes are more regressive for economic wealth buildinng than income taxes, which are bad enough. Consumption taxes only is where the world is heading, and that is the best thing out for strong, deflationary currencies, like bitcoins and gold. Of course, it is bad for govt. generally, but they've had a boom century and it is time for them to go back to the feudal dark ages from whence they sprung.

That would be awesome, but long term is not a solution.

How can bitcoin be exempt from tax when we trade it for our local currency?

Once we pay taxes in bitcoin (yes optimistic), how can bitcoin gains not be taxed?

Unless you expect a complete collapse in modern society, in the sense that we all pay taxes, how can you expect bitcoin to not be taxed like anything else?

didn't some of the EU countries announce that Bitcoin would not be taxed?  I like that position better.

so this ends to XMR and BTC.. whrres whole altcoin observations!

yea andreas shed light on this during the canadian committee meeting that it should be based on where its used and how its used...

Sounds like a great meeting, however I feel this key conclusion is a mistake.

Bitcoin is currently BOTH a commodity and a currency (people regularly use it in both roles), and should be taxed in accordance with how it is used.

Ding ding f***ing ding! They are getting it!

Just attended open meeting of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in Washington DC. Under discussion was the regulatory framework for BTC derivatives in the US.  Most of the meeting was spent explaining several aspects of the Bitcoin protocol and currency.

http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr7010-14

On the panel, besides commissioners:

1. L. Nuara, president of TeraExchange (they have secured approval for a BTC derivative that started trading yesterday)
http://teraexchange.com
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/teraexchange-completes-first-bitcoin-derivatives-trade-on-regulated-exchange-2014-10-09

2. J. Brito, from Coin Center (new BTC advocacy group)
http://coincenter.org

3. H. Shadab, Law Prof., NYU

4. T. Byun, Chief compliance officer, BitPay.

Key conclusions:
- CFTC should aim for a light regulatory touch in order to foster BTC development and financial innovation and efficiency in the US.

- CFTC commissioners believe bitcoin (or something like it) is here to stay, and they need to stay ahead of the learning curve.

- BTC derivatives are key to reduce volatility in an illiquid market and to provide hedging instruments to institutional players.
 
- BTC should be viewed as a commodity, not a currency, on the argument that although it presently functions as a currency, it has many other use cases.

- Programmable nature of BTC allows for regulatory objectives to be embedded into the code of swaps/futures/other instruments or contracts thus eliminating need for intrusive oversight.

Sooo... I wonder if bits is still useful for nickname or xbit? Exhibit seems too many syllables and doesn't flow smoothly for saying a lot. I kind of hope XBT is just referred to as bits.

Same can be said for Ripple and other alt cryptos, but generally (except for pump and dump periods) you don't see people knocking down doors to buy ripple or other alts.

EDIT:  don't get me wrong.  Overall, I believe it would be a good idea to convert to the smaller unit - mostly because BTC's value has increased so exponentially over the past few years, and likely such conversion will make further exponential growth to be easier for the conceptions of the masses to buy in smaller quantities.    For example, in my own case, my initial intuition about BTC did NOT absorb the divisibility aspect, so I did get confused by whether BTC would be practical when valued in the 100s of dollars territory.