Bitcoin: What you're not being told

[Golden]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfeA94BedQI

Exponential growth pwns

[mick silver]

that jp morgan own them made them sell them

[mick silver]

One of the main sources of bitcoin's super-secret protection is DARPA's TOR facility. It always struck us as a bit odd that bitcoin users were depending on a military protocol for their protection – especially Silk Road.
Then there's the initial bitcoin Creation Myth. This has to do with an inscrutable Japanese techno-genius dropping bitcoin rules into the ether where they were gradually discovered and applied by a growing number of enamored acolytes.
The blockchain has always bothered us because what is indecipherable now may not be in a decade. Who knows how technology changes anonymity over time? We did find out that doyenne of alternative currencies, UNESCO"s Margrit Kennedy, has been preaching LETS trading systems that are backed enthusiastically by her former UN employer – probably because they also demand a general ledger. This is most helpful, of course, when the government wants to investigate for non-payment of taxes, etc.
It always seemed to us – throughout this ongoing bitcoin mania – that gold and silver were perfectly good alternatives to a wretchedly complex digital system. Granted, they are not directly as fungible as bitcoin, but they've been around for millennia. That's more than bitcoin's few years.
- See more at: http://www.thedailybell.com/news-ana....LEnpQ0J5.dpuf

[Ares]

Bitcoin does not depend on TOR. Not sure why people keep thinking that it does. It doesn't.
Tor was developed by the U.S. Navy and was released to the public via open source. Anyone is freely available to look at the source code. Tor Source Code: https://gitweb.torproject.org/tor.git
Even the FBI, in the Dread Pirate Roberts indictment said that they were unable to compromise the security and anonymity that Tor provides. They tracked DPR down because he was sloppy with his identity.

The "Bitcoin rules" are hard coded into the Bitcoin protocol. You use a protocol every day just for communicating as your packets get transmitted every day over the TCP/IP protocol.

The ledger this article talks about is the Bitcoin block chain which if anyone knew anything about Bitcoin would know that the ledger is completely useless when attempting to identify anyone. One Bitcoin wallet can generate over 400 unique addresses per transaction. So who are you going to attribute an address to for taxing purposes again?

Its good to be cautious, its why we're all here. But posting bullshit for the sake of having an opposing view serves no purpose.

[mick silver]

i am so glad that your the only one that can post here let me know when i can . i have heard men just like what you just said . yep i said it then i will say it now yep keep thinking like that . dont look at both sides

[EE_]

One Bitcoin wallet can generate over 400 unique addresses per transaction. So who are you going to attribute an address to for taxing purposes again?

It's virtually impossible to tax an exchange between two private parties, but that doesn't stop taxing a business that accepts bitcoins...like they just did in Norway.

The Norwegian tax authorities will treat Bitcoin as an asset that will consequently be subject to capital gains tax. There will also be a 25 per cent sales tax applied to businesses.

http://www.cityam.com/live-blog

[EE_]

JPMorgan's "Bitcoin-Alternative" Patent Rejected (175 Times)
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 12/15/2013 - 17:18

Earlier in the week, we detailed JPMorgan's attempt to create their own "web cash" alternative to Bitcoin (and Sberbank's talk of doing the same). However, as M-Cam details, following the failure of the first 154 'claims', JPMorgan issued a further 20 claims - which were summarily rejected (making JPMorgan 0-175 for approved claims). As they note, The United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO)’s handling of applications like JPMorgan’s ‘984 application ("Bitcoin Alternative") highlights the need to fix a broken system - patent applications of existing inventions need to be finally rejected and not be resurrected as zombies (no matter how powerful the claimant). Obviously, large financial institutions want in on the online alternative currency action. But they would be well advised to pursue novel and non?obvious approaches that do not duplicate existing commercial options with respect to a virtual medium of exchange.

[Shami-Amourae]

I'd rather use Dogecoin than JP Morgan Jewfest Coin.

In Doge We Trust
http://static.tumblr.com/ppdj5y9/Ae9mxmxtp/300coin.png

[Son-of-Liberty]

It's virtually impossible to tax an exchange between two private parties, but that doesn't stop taxing a business that accepts bitcoins...like they just did in Norway.


http://www.cityam.com/live-blog

Well it doesn't say in the article but what I want to know is if they are taxing "Bitcoin" or taxing "profits" from Bitcoin because there is a big difference.

If they are taxing gains in the local currency then that is pretty standard any time you make a "profit." Just like if you sold a piece of real estate.

Usually capital gains taxes are lower then income taxes so if anything it is encouraging to see them not try to tax Bitcoin profits at the highest possible rate.

Now if they are actually taxing "Bitcoin" then I would be asking what makes them think they have jurisdiction and how they actually plan on enforcing the law.

[Ares]

It's virtually impossible to tax an exchange between two private parties, but that doesn't stop taxing a business that accepts bitcoins...like they just did in Norway.


http://www.cityam.com/live-blog

Having a law, and enforcing a law are 2 separate things. They can TRY to tax bitcoins all they want. But what evidence do they have that say my address belongs to me, and not some man in South America? I've never published my Bitcoin address, and even if I did I would just set up a different one each time I made a transaction and archive (deleting basically) when I'm done.

What bitcoin address Mr. Officer? That isn't mine.