Is There a Difference Between Cryptocurrency and Bitcoin?

A criticism of the article "Six monetarist errors: why emission won't feed inflation"

(be gentle, it's my first RI attempt, :P; I hope I can make justice to the subject, this is my layman understanding of many macro subjects which may be flawed...I hope you can illuminate me if I have fallen short of a good RI)
Introduction
So, today a heterodox leaning Argentinian newspaper, Ambito Financiero, published an article criticizing monetarism called "Six monetarist errors: why emission won't feed inflation". I find it doesn't properly address monetarism, confuses it with other "economic schools" for whatever the term is worth today and it may be misleading, so I was inspired to write a refutation and share it with all of you.
In some ways criticizing monetarism is more of a historical discussion given the mainstream has changed since then. Stuff like New Keynesian models are the bleeding edge, not Milton Friedman style monetarism. It's more of a symptom that Argentinian political culture is kind of stuck in the 70s on economics that this things keep being discussed.
Before getting to the meat of the argument, it's good to have in mind some common definitions about money supply measures (specifically, MB, M1 and M2). These definitions apply to US but one can find analogous stuff for other countries.
Argentina, for the lack of access to credit given its economic mismanagement and a government income decrease because of the recession, is monetizing deficits way more than before (like half of the budget, apparently, it's money financed) yet we have seen some disinflation (worth mentioning there are widespread price freezes since a few months ago). The author reasons that monetary phenomena cannot explain inflation properly and that other explanations are needed and condemns monetarism. Here are the six points he makes:
1.Is it a mechanical rule?
This way, we can ask by symmetry: if a certainty exists that when emission increases, inflation increases, the reverse should happen when emission becomes negative, obtaining negative inflation. Nonetheless, we know this happens: prices have an easier time increasing and a lot of rigidity decreasing. So the identity between emission and inflation is not like that, deflation almost never exists and the price movement rhythm cannot be controlled remotely only with money quantity. There is no mechanical relationship between one thing and the other.
First, the low hanging fruit: deflation is not that uncommon, for those of you that live in US and Europe it should be obvious given the difficulties central banks had to achieve their targets, but even Argentina has seen deflation during its depression 20 years ago.
Second, we have to be careful with what we mean by emission. A statement of quantity theory of money (extracted from "Money Growth and Inflation: How Long is the Long-Run?") would say:
Inflation occurs when the average level of prices increases. Individual price increases in and of themselves do not equal inflation, but an overall pattern of price increases does. The price level observed in the economy is that which leads the quantity of money supplied to equal the quantity of money demanded. The quantity of money supplied is largely controlled by the [central bank]. When the supply of money increases or decreases, the price level must adjust to equate the quantity of money demanded throughout the economy with the quantity of money supplied. The quantity of money demanded depends not only on the price level but also on the level of real income, as measured by real gross domestic product (GDP), and a variety of other factors including the level of interest rates and technological advances such as the invention of automated teller machines. Money demand is widely thought to increase roughly proportionally with the price level and with real income. That is, if prices go up by 10 percent, or if real income increases by 10 percent, empirical evidence suggests people want to hold 10 percent more money. When the money supply grows faster than the money demand associated with rising real incomes and other factors, the price level must rise to equate supply and demand. That is, inflation occurs. This situation is often referred to as too many dollars chasing too few goods. Note that this theory does not predict that any money-supply growth will lead to inflation—only that part of money supply growth that exceeds the increase in money demand associated with rising real GDP (holding the other factors constant).
So it's not mere emission, but money supply growing faster than money demand which we should consider. So negative emission is not necessary condition for deflation in this theory.
It's worth mentioning that the relationship with prices is observed for a broad measure of money (M2) and after a lag. From the same source of this excerpt one can observe in Fig. 3a the correlation between inflation and money growth for US becomes stronger the longer data is averaged. Price rigidities don't have to change this long term relationship per se.
But what about causality and Argentina? This neat paper shows regressions in two historical periods: 1976-1989 and 1991-2001. The same relationship between M2 and inflation is observed, stronger in the first, highly inflationary period and weaker in the second, more stable, period. The regressions a 1-1 relationship in the high inflation period but deviates a bit in the low inflation period (yet the relationship is still there). Granger causality, as interpreted in the paper, shows prices caused money growth in the high inflation period (arguably because spending was monetized) while the reverse was true for the more stable period.
So one can argue that there is a mechanical relationship, albeit one that is more complicated than simple QTOM theory. The relationship is complicated too for low inflation economies, it gets more relevant the higher inflation is.
Another point the author makes is that liquidity trap is often ignored. I'll ignore the fact that you need specific conditions for the liquidity trap to be relevant to Argentina and address the point. Worth noting that while market monetarists (not exactly old fashioned monetarists) prefer alternative explanations for monetary policy with very low interest rates, this phenomena has a good monetary basis, as explained by Krugman in his famous japanese liquidity trap paper and his NYT blog (See this and this for some relevant articles). The simplified version is that while inflation may follow M2 growth with all the qualifiers needed, central banks may find difficulties targeting inflation when interest rates are low and agents are used to credible inflation targets. Central banks can change MB, not M2 and in normal times is good enough, but at those times M2 is out of control and "credibly irresponsible" policies are needed to return to normal (a more detailed explanation can be found in that paper I just linked, go for it if you are still curious).
It's not like monetary policy is not good, it's that central banks have to do very unconventional stuff to achieve in a low interest rate environment. It's still an open problem but given symmetric inflation targeting policies are becoming more popular I'm optimistic.
2 - Has inflation one or many causes?
In Argentina we know that the main determinant of inflation is dollar price increases. On that, economic concentration of key markets, utility price adjustments, fuel prices, distributive struggles, external commodity values, expectatives, productive disequilibrium, world interest rates, the economic cycle, stationality and external sector restrictions act on it too.
Let's see a simple example: during Macri's government since mid 2017 to 2019 emission was practically null, but when in 2018 the dollar value doubled, inflation doubled too (it went from 24% to 48% in 2018) and it went up again a year later. We see here that the empirical validity of monetarist theory was absent.
For the first paragraph, one could try to run econometric tests for all those variables, at least from my layman perspective. But given that it doesn't pass the smell test (has any country used that in its favor ignoring monetary policy? Also, I have shown there is at least some evidence for the money-price relationship before), I'll try to address what happened in Macri's government and if monetarism (or at least some reasonable extension of it) cannot account for it.
For a complete description of macroeconomic policy on that period, Sturzenegger account is a good one (even if a bit unreliable given he was the central banker for that government and he is considered to have been a failure). The short version is that central banks uses bonds to manage monetary policy and absorb money; given the history of defaults for the country, the Argentinian Central Bank (BCRA) uses its own peso denominated bonds instead of using treasury bonds. At that time period, the BCRA still financed the treasury but the amount got reduced. Also, it emitted pesos to buy dollar reserves, then sterilized them, maybe risking credibility further.
Near the end of 2017 it was evident the government had limited appetite for budget cuts, it had kind of abandoned its inflation target regime and the classic problem of fiscal dominance emerged, as it's shown in the classic "Unpleasant monetarist arithmetic" paper by Wallace and Sargent. Monetary policy gets less effective when the real value of bonds falls, and raising interest rates may be counterproductive in that environment. Rational expectations are needed to complement QTOM.
So, given that Argentina promised to go nowhere with reform, it was expected that money financing would increase at some point in the future and BCRA bonds were dumped in 2018 and 2019 as their value was perceived to have decreased, and so peso demand decreased. It's not that the dollar value increased and inflation followed, but instead that peso demand fell suddenly!
The IMF deal asked for MB growth to be null or almost null but that doesn't say a lot about M2 (which it's the relevant variable here). Without credible policies, the peso demand keeps falling because bonds are dumped even more (see 2019 for a hilariously brutal example of that).
It's not emission per se, but rather that it doesn't adjust properly to peso demand (which is falling). That doesn't mean increasing interest rates is enough to achieve it, following Wallace and Sargent model.
This is less a strict proof that a monetary phenomenon is involved and more stating that the author hasn't shown any problem with that, there are reasonable models for this situation. It doesn't look like an clear empirical failure to me yet.
3 - Of what we are talking about when we talk about emission?
The author mentions many money measures (M0, M1, M2) but it doesn't address it meaningfully as I tried to do above. It feels more like a rhetorical device because there is no point here except "this stuff exists".
Also, it's worth pointing that there are actual criticisms to make to Friedman on those grounds. He failed to forecast US inflation at some points when he switched to M1 instead of using M2, although he later reverted that. Monetarism kind of "failed" there (it also "failed" in the sense that modern central banks don't use money, but instead interest rates as their main tool; "failed" because despite being outdated, it was influential to modern central banking). This is often brought to this kind of discussions like if economics hasn't moved beyond that. For an account of Friedman thoughts on monetary policies and his failures, see this.
4 - Why do many countries print and inflation doesn't increase there?
There is a mention about the japanese situation in the 90s (the liquidity trap) which I have addressed.
The author mentions that many countries "printed" like crazy during the pandemic, and he says:
Monetarism apologists answer, when confronted with those grave empirical problems that happen in "serious countries", that the population "trusts" their monetary authorities, even increasing the money demand in those place despite the emission. Curious, though, it's an appeal to "trust" implying that the relationship between emission and inflation is not objective, but subjective and cultural: an appreciation that abandons mechanicism and the basic certainty of monetarism, because evaluations and diagnostics, many times ideologic, contextual or historical intervene..
That's just a restatement of applying rational expectations to central bank operations. I don't see a problem with that. Rational expectations is not magic, it's an assessment of future earnings by economic actors. Humans may not 100% rational but central banking somehow works on many countries. You cannot just say that people are ideologues and let it at that. What's your model?
Worth noting the author shills for bitcoin a bit in this section, for more cringe.
5 - Are we talking of a physical science or a social science?
Again, a vague mention of rational expectations ("populists and pro market politicians could do the same policies with different results because of how agents respond ideologically and expectatives") without handling the subject meaningfully. It criticizes universal macroeconomic rules that apply everywhere (this is often used to dismiss evidence from other countries uncritically more than as a meaningful point).
6 - How limits work?
The last question to monetarism allows to recognize it something: effectively we can think on a type of vinculation between emission and inflation in extreme conditions. That means, with no monetary rule, no government has the need of taxes but instead can emit and spend all it needs without consequence. We know it's not like that: no government can print infinitely without undesirable effects.
Ok, good disclaimer, but given what he wrote before, what's the mechanism which causes money printing to be inflationary at some point? It was rejected before but now it seems that it exists. What was even the point of the article?
Now, the problem is thinking monetarism on its extremes: without emission we have inflation sometimes, on others we have no inflation with emission, we know that if we have negative emission that doesn't guarantees us negative inflation, but that if emission is radically uncontrolled there will economic effects.
As I wrote above, that's not what monetarism (even on it's simpler form) says, nor a consequence of it. You can see some deviations in low inflation environment but it's not really Argentina's current situation.
Let's add other problems: the elastic question between money and prices is not evident. Neither is time lags in which can work or be neutral. So the question is the limit cases for monetarism which has some reason but some difficulty in explaining them: by which and it what moments rules work and in which it doesn't.
I find the time lag thing to be a red herring. You can observe empirically and not having a proper short/middle run model doesn't invalidate QTOM in the long run. While it may be that increasing interest rates or freezing MB is not effective, that's less a problem of the theory and more a problem of policy implementation.
Conclusion:
I find that the article doesn't truly get monetarism to begin with (see the points it makes about emission and money demand), neither how it's implemented in practice, nor seems to be aware of more modern theories that, while put money on the background, don't necessarily invalidate it (rational expectation ideas, and eventually New Keynesian stuff which addresses stuff like liquidity traps properly).
There are proper criticisms to be made to Friedman old ideas but he still was a relevant man in his time and the economic community has moved on to new, better theories that have some debt to it. I feel most economic discussion about monetarism in Argentina is a strawman of mainstream economics or an attack on Austrians more than genuine points ("monetarism" is used as a shorthand for those who think inflation is a monetary phenomenon more than referring to Friedman and his disciples per se).
submitted by Neronoah to badeconomics [link] [comments]

Summary of the new IRS guidelines (TLDR include)

Hey all - I know there's a dozen posts about the new crypto tax deadlines - so apologies for making it a dozen plus one.
Full disclosure, I work for Bitcoin.Tax, where this article was published. I've included the link to our summary, as well as our actual summary. Also - I'll be talking with a crypto tax pro on our podcast about these guidelines soon. I usually post links to our podcast on this subreddit, so stay tuned (if you want...) for that in the next few days. Hopefully this helps some folks, as parts of the new guidelines are fairly ambiguous.
Link: https://bitcoin.tax/blog/irs-crypto-tax-faq/
TLDR:
Generally, this is the same as the advice and common practice used by taxpayers and accountants. Although, the exception here is the clarification of the specific identification rule. We'll talk about that below.
Summary:
The IRS has issued their long-awaited guidance on the tax treatment for cryptocurrencies. You can read their FAQ On Virtual Currency Transactions on the IRS website.
This is the first official guidance since the original 2014-21 notice in April 2014.

IRS Cryptocurrency Tax FAQ

We have gone into more detail for some of the main points in their FAQ.

Hard forks and airdrops

Despite peculiar wording by the IRS, they have confirmed that receipt of crypto from an airdrop or fork is to be treated as income, and so subject to income tax.
ordinary income equal to the fair market value of the new cryptocurrency when it is received, which is when the transaction is recorded on the distributed ledger, provided you have dominion and control over the cryptocurrency so that you can transfer, sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of the cryptocurrency
However, these drops typically have no market (perhaps a futures market) until they have existed for a period of time, so establishing a value could be difficult. It is possible that the value could be zero right at that exact moment it is recorded on the distributed ledger.
In order to receive income, you must have dominion and control over these new crypto. This effectively means you must be able to manage it; typically you would have the private keys or it is immediately available in a custodial wallet or online account, e.g. Coinbase.
If the crypto doesn't appear in your wallet, or you don't get control of it until a later date, then that later date is used to calculated the USD income value.
This had been a common question among crypto traders: if BTC was forked off into a new "BTC" coin, which you might not even have been aware of, do you still have income? The answer is no. Unless, you subsequently get access to those new coins, in which case you do have income on the date you receive control.
When you have income for an airdrop or fork, this also sets the cost basis (value and date) for any subsequent capital gains calculations.

Fair Market Value (FMV)

FMV is used to give something a value, i.e. what it's worth. If you list a bike for sale, you might research the prices for which other people are selling. Those prices give a FMV. But it you sell your bike and someone buys it for $100, then the bike's FMV was $100.
With crypto, sometimes we need to know FMV because we are not trading directly for dollars.
For example, if you sell 1 BTC for 150 LTC, you are disposing of the 1 BTC at FMV. You need to know the USD value in order to know the proceeds and to calculate any capital gains or losses.
So, first, if this was traded on an exchange, we use the spot price on the exchange at that time. This is true even if the transaction was off-chain.
However, where no FMV exists, such as a peer-to-peer transaction, then you have to get the value from elsewhere.
So, secondly, use the FMV of the service or product you are exchanging. With the above bike example, say buying it with crypto, the FMV would be that of the bike itself (the price it would have sold for USD).
Lastly, when no value can be obtained, then use a service that provides a consistent worldwide indices value (the IRS are calling this an "explorer" but that is a confusing term as blockchain explorers may not provide a USD value). If you do not use an "explorer" value, you can use an "accurate representation of the cryptocurrency's market value". Much like with fiat, this means using an establish and consistent source.

FIFO and Specific Identification

Advice from most tax preparers and accountants has been to err on the side of caution and go with First-In First-Out (FIFO). Basically, if you bought 1 BTC for $9,000 and later another for $10,000, when you come to sell 1 BTC (or partial) you would use the cost of the first 1 BTC that you had acquired.
This is the default IRS cost basis method and would not be challenged.
Some taxpayers had filed using specific identification, where FIFO was not used and instead the "lot" that was sold was chosen from their wallets. Summary strategies could also be employed, such as Last-In First-Out (LIFO), where the basis of the most recently acquired crypto is used instead.
These other strategies, such as last-in first-out, closest-cost or lowest-cost, often try to minimize the gains per transaction and defer them until later.
This is the biggest change in the new IRS guidance and confirms that specific identification can be used. However, you must be able to document this, which the IRS describes as:
You may identify a specific unit of virtual currency either by documenting the specific unit’s unique digital identifier such as a private key, public key, and address, or by records showing the transaction information for all units of a specific virtual currency, such as Bitcoin, held in a single account, wallet, or address.This information must show (1) the date and time each unit was acquired, (2) your basis and the fair market value of each unit at the time it was acquired, (3) the date and time each unit was sold, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of, and (4) the fair market value of each unit when sold, exchanged, or disposed of, and the amount of money or the value of property received for each unit.
There is no guidance if any extra information should be reported, but it is generally the same information that is added to the 8949 form where capital gains are reported.

Gifts and Donations

Similar to gifts of stocks or property, the rules regarding cost basis have remained unchanged. Received gifts are not immediate income but you do still recognize an capital gains income when you later come to sell, exchange or dispose of the cryptocurrency.
You can use the original basis (with documentation) from the giver in order to make use of long-term gains. However, your received basis becomes the lesser of the giver's cost basis and the FMV of the gift on the date you received it. This is to prevent from gifting losses. Also, if you do not have documentation showing the gift cost basis, then your basis is zero, i.e. you must declare 100% as capital gains.
Donations to registered charities do not recognize income, gains or losses. The value of your charitable donation is the FMV on the date of the gift if you have held the crypto for more than a year. For a year or less, it is lesser of the crypto's cost basis or its FMV on the day of the gift.

What was not mentioned

There are still some key questions and ambiguities that tax professionals have been looking for clarification. For instance, with hard forks and airdrops, if you have the private keys but no software, does that count as control?
Airdrop and forks generally have no markets when they are created, so is there a zero FMV? And should you take the value only when you exercise control?
Can specific identification be used at will or must it be done consistently?
Were 1031 "like-kind" exchanges ever a valid approach before 2018?

Guidance is retroactive

Finally, be aware that IRS guidance is always retroactive, unless otherwise stated, and so should be applied to past and future crypto transactions. If you have not followed these rules then you should consult with your tax professional and may need to file an amendment.
---

Edit:
According to BitcoinTaxesMe:
I clarified a couple of the not mentioned ones with the IRS verbally yesterday. This isn't official guidance, but some insight into what the IRS is thinking:
"For instance, with hard forks and airdrops, if you have the private keys but no software, does that count as control?"
If you the software exists and you don't install it, but could have, it's income, even if installation presents a security risk.
"Airdrop and forks generally have no markets when they are created, so is there a zero FMV? And should you take the value only when you exercise control?"
There's no income recognized until you both have control and there's a way to sell it. So there's no way to take a zero basis, as soon as a market appears it triggers the 2nd prong.
I personally think both of these are insane.
submitted by Sal-BitcoinTax to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

Summary of the new IRS guidance

Link: https://bitcoin.tax/blog/irs-crypto-tax-faq/
The IRS has issued their long-awaited guidance on the tax treatment for cryptocurrencies. You can read their FAQ On Virtual Currency Transactions on the IRS website.
This is the first official guidance since the original 2014-21 notice in April 2014.

tl:dr;


Generally, this is the same as the advice and common practice used by taxpayers and accountants. Although, the exception here is the clarification of the specific identification rule. We'll talk about that below.

IRS Cryptocurrency Tax FAQ

We have gone into more detail for some of the main points in their FAQ.

Hard forks and airdrops

Despite peculiar wording by the IRS, they have confirmed that receipt of crypto from an airdrop or fork is to be treated as income, and so subject to income tax.
ordinary income equal to the fair market value of the new cryptocurrency when it is received, which is when the transaction is recorded on the distributed ledger, provided you have dominion and control over the cryptocurrency so that you can transfer, sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of the cryptocurrency
However, these drops typically have no market (perhaps a futures market) until they have existed for a period of time, so establishing a value could be difficult. It is possible that the value could be zero right at that exact moment it is recorded on the distributed ledger.
In order to receive income, you must have dominion and control over these new crypto. This effectively means you must be able to manage it; typically you would have the private keys or it is immediately available in a custodial wallet or online account, e.g. Coinbase.
If the crypto doesn't appear in your wallet, or you don't get control of it until a later date, then that later date is used to calculated the USD income value.
This had been a common question among crypto traders: if BTC was forked off into a new "BTC" coin, which you might not even have been aware of, do you still have income? The answer is no. Unless, you subsequently get access to those new coins, in which case you do have income on the date you receive control.
When you have income for an airdrop or fork, this also sets the cost basis (value and date) for any subsequent capital gains calculations.
Bitcoin.Tax already looks up any current value, if known, for forks or airdrop symbols when they are added to the Income tab, otherwise a zero basis is used.

Fair Market Value (FMV)

FMV is used to give something a value, i.e. what it's worth. If you list a bike for sale, you might research the prices for which other people are selling. Those prices give a FMV. But it you sell your bike and someone buys it for $100, then the bike's FMV was $100.
With crypto, sometimes we need to know FMV because we are not trading directly for dollars.
For example, if you sell 1 BTC for 150 LTC, you are disposing of the 1 BTC at FMV. You need to know the USD value in order to know the proceeds and to calculate any capital gains or losses.
So, first, if this was traded on an exchange, we use the spot price on the exchange at that time. This is true even if the transaction was off-chain.
However, where no FMV exists, such as a peer-to-peer transaction, then you have to get the value from elsewhere.
So, secondly, use the FMV of the service or product you are exchanging. With the above bike example, say buying it with crypto, the FMV would be that of the bike itself (the price it would have sold for USD).
Lastly, when no value can be obtained, then use a service that provides a consistent worldwide indices value (the IRS are calling this an "explorer" but that is a confusing term as blockchain explorers may not provide a USD value). If you do not use an "explorer" value, you can use an "accurate representation of the cryptocurrency's market value". Much like with fiat, this means using an establish and consistent source.
Bitcoin.Tax already uses the exchange price data wherever possible, but otherwise combines crypto pricing for multiple worldwide sources to calculate a FMV.

FIFO and Specific Identification

Advice from most tax preparers and accountants has been to err on the side of caution and go with First-In First-Out (FIFO). Basically, if you bought 1 BTC for $9,000 and later another for $10,000, when you come to sell 1 BTC (or partial) you would use the cost of the first 1 BTC that you had acquired.
This is the default IRS cost basis method and would not be challenged.
Some taxpayers had filed using specific identification, where FIFO was not used and instead the "lot" that was sold was chosen from their wallets. Summary strategies could also be employed, such as Last-In Last-Out (LIFO), where the basis of the most recently acquired crypto is used instead.
These other strategies, such as last-in first-out, closest-cost or lowest-cost, often try to minimize the gains per transaction and defer them until later.
This is the biggest change in the new IRS guidance and confirms that specific identification can be used. However, you must be able to document this, which the IRS describes as:
You may identify a specific unit of virtual currency either by documenting the specific unit’s unique digital identifier such as a private key, public key, and address, or by records showing the transaction information for all units of a specific virtual currency, such as Bitcoin, held in a single account, wallet, or address. This information must show (1) the date and time each unit was acquired, (2) your basis and the fair market value of each unit at the time it was acquired, (3) the date and time each unit was sold, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of, and (4) the fair market value of each unit when sold, exchanged, or disposed of, and the amount of money or the value of property received for each unit.
There is no guidance if any extra information should be reported, but it is generally the same information that is added to the 8949 form where capital gains are reported.
Bitcoin.Tax already provides automatic calculations using multiple specific identification strategies so you can choose your cost basis lots. Navigate to the Calculate tab and you can see the values for each crypto you have traded.

Gifts and Donations

Similar to gifts of stocks or property, the rules regarding cost basis have remained unchanged. Received gifts are not immediate income but you do still recognize an capital gains income when you later come to sell, exchange or dispose of the cryptocurrency.
You can use the original basis (with documentation) from the giver in order to make use of long-term gains. However, your received basis becomes the lesser of the giver's cost basis and the FMV of the gift on the date you received it. This is to prevent from gifting losses. Also, if you do not have documentation showing the gift cost basis, then your basis is zero, i.e. you must declare 100% as capital gains.
Donations to registered charities do not recognize income, gains or losses. The value of your charitable donation is the FMV on the date of the gift if you have held the crypto for more than a year. For a year or less, it is lesser of the crypto's cost basis or its FMV on the day of the gift.
Bitcoin.Tax reports already splits out the basis for any gifts or donations that you make, which can be given to the recipient to provide them with the information they will require.

What was not mentioned

There are still some key questions and ambiguities that tax professionals have been looking for clarification. For instance, with hard forks and airdrops, if you have the private keys but no software, does that count as control?
Airdrop and forks generally have no markets when they are created, so is there a zero FMV? And should you take the value only when you exercise control?
Can specific identification be used at will or must it be done consistently?
Were 1031 "like-kind" exchanges ever a valid approach before 2018?

Guidance is retroactive

Finally, be aware that IRS guidance is always retroactive, unless otherwise stated, and so should be applied to past and future crypto transactions. If you have not followed these rules then you should consult with your tax professional and may need to file an amendment.
submitted by Sal-BitcoinTax to bitcointaxes [link] [comments]

Why I'm buying again at This price.

Thank you IOTA sellers.
Have been buying crypto for 2 years, and right now for me is a wonderful time to load up on IOTA. Yes, it may drop some more sats but I'm not bothered. When the alt coin markets turn, I believe I will see a greater return over the next 2-3 years with IOTA than BTC and most other cryptos.
Why?
Qubic
Coordicide
Reusable address
Jaguar (subsidiary of Indian automotive company Tata Motors)
Possible VW & Ford Germany integrations to be created or announced (if already created by VW)
IBCS Group (Track and Trace Supply Chain Solutions)
Taipei / Austin smart cities
European smart city consortium
Official banking and electricity projects in Norway
Crypto Storage AG
Cybercrypt
EVRYTHNG
Nova
http://iotaarchive.com/listing.html
...and on and on building incredible technology, exciting partnerships and a massive ecosystem in the making.
Edit: and Bosch of course - exploring uses cases with their XDK sensor
https://www.bosch-connectivity.com/newsroom/blog/xdk2mam/

Let's say the Jaguar implementation tests go well and Tata gradually gets more involved. Just look at Tata Group's global coverage industrywide:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Group
Auto, manufacturing, chemicals, coffee, insurance, hotels, telecommunications, commerce, energy, air conditioning and cooling technology... . Think about the possibilities via this one conglomerate alone.

Also,
No Bitcoin Cash little brother (or SV) messing around with the family brand. Bitcoin may become a major digital store of value but there will likely be continuous shenanigans from the major players and mining companies who control the majority of the Bitcoin network.
With time and now growing media exposure again in the U.S., IOTA will become completely free from that drama.

EDIT: Also, one main reason I'm buying IOTA right now at 0.00004547 BTC is because a huge amount of people are panicking and selling, have lost faith. It is the same for most alts. People are selling for BTC in panic. Why didn't they sell 3 months ago if they wanted BTC? This is exactly what the market whales want holders to do, and they'll scoop up alts shortly with their BTC. Don't be a Sheep! Hold or buy at this price.

All the best to IOTA Foundation, partners and investors.
Special thanks to Sergei Popov, David Sønstebø, Sergey Ivancheglo, and Dominik Schiener for this opportunity and incredible work.
Be Bold, Positive and Patient. Go IOTA.

Not financial advice for anyone, as I am just a humble speculator. Just my thoughts trying to bring some positivity to this IOTA board, and letting people know that some see real value to be had in the current market at this BTC ratio.
submitted by AAQQ100 to IOTAmarkets [link] [comments]

ChainLink - Rank 97 with no competitors. Undervalued Gem?

What Does ChainLink Do?
In a nutshell, ChainLink aims to solve the connectivity problem, a key limiting factor for smart contract usability, and whilst it's an ERC-20 token it will not be limited to just the Ethereum blockchain.
What makes $LINK so special? Well, it's the first decentralized oracle network; allowing anyone to securely provide smart contracts with access to key external data, off-chain payments and any other API capabilities. Anyone who has a data feed, useful off-chain service such as local payments, or any other API, can now provide them directly to smart contracts in exchange for LINK tokens.
Partnerships
I will keep this brief, as you can see a full list of current and potential partnerships on https://www.reddit.com/LINKTradecomments/7mob78/list_of_chainlinks_partnershipsprojects_using/
But the main ones to look at are
The Pros
ChainLink has steadily been gaining traction ever since its downfall after the 4chan/reddit SIBOS hypetrain crash (post September). It's remained around the 90-100 rank mark and has yet to really "moon".
The Cons
So what makes ChainLink valuable?
The LINK token is used by smart contract owners to pay chainlink nodes for getting data from them and the more LINKs an oracle node has, the more reputable it is. So oracle node providers are incentivized to hold as much LINKs in their chainlink nodes to appear more reputable to the chainlink network, gaining more usage and profit
(Taken from a comment on https://www.reddit.com/CryptoCurrency/comments/7nwis4/why_i_believe_chainlink_link_is_the_most/)
Most importantly, LINK can (and will be) used for data request penalty payments to ensure that node operators provide the requested data. Penalty payments are LINK tokens that are required to be held in escrow by the smart contract. They are paid to the smart contract creator in the event any of the node operators do not meet the required data requests as stated in the smart contract. This provides an incentive for smart contract creators to trust node operators, knowing that they have a form of financial insurance (the penalty payment) in the event a node (or nodes) submit bad data.
For information that will trigger high value smart contracts, smart contract owners will want to require a proportionate amount of link to be held in escrow as penalty payments by the node operators. When link is tied up for penalty payments, it is released over the life of the contract. For example, let’s say party A wants an API snapshot sent every day for 30 days. If the penalty payment for the contract is 300 LINK (per node operator), then each node operator will have 10 LINK released to them at the end of each day – receiving the full 300 LINK at the end of the 30 days if they successfully performed the data request the smart contract asked for. Now imagine the smart contract creator wanted 10 node operators. That means 3000 LINK is taken off the market immediately, and 100 of that 3000 is released each day from the smart contract to the individual node operators (10 each per operator, assuming they provided the requested data). A cycle will be created where more and more smart contracts will make requests and node operators will be limited only by the availability of their LINK tokens to be used for penalty payments.
Add it all together and you have a singular payment method for a desired network (the most secure external data oracle), lots of supply constantly locked up to have enough link for signaling purposes (the reputation boost for a node operator), financial insurance for smart contract creators (penalty payments) for increasingly valuable triggering data in a wide variety of smart contracts, and a network poised for growth as more adapters are built and more API’s become available so that dapps can thrive on any blockchain network. Yes LINk is an ERC20 token, but it is blockchain agnostic and the adapter network can continue to grow.
LINK can also be staked!
LINK staking is another big thing that will do wonders for Chainlink's valuation. Turns out Chainlink oracles can be made into pools, similar to mining pools on bitcoin and ethereum where multiple people come and put their LINKs together to run a more secure oracle node and distribute the profits fairly between each other. This will be huge as it will effectively allow you to stake your LINK tokens and earn more of them passively without doing anything. One such pool in development is LinkPool (http://www.linkpool.io/).
Where do i buy and store LINK?
You can currently buy LINK at the following exchanges;
As an ERC-20 token, you can store LINK on your ledger or MEW wallets.
Here is a well written guide on how to purchase LINK https://www.reddit.com/LINKTradecomments/7gglfv/how_to_buy_link_chainlink_token/
Sources of Info For Own Research
P.S CEO Sergey Nazarov speaks at Bitcoin super conference next month too https://www.bitcoinsuperconference.com/speakesergey-nazarov/ as well as speaking at SXSW in march alongside Tom Gonser who is the founder and former chief strategy officer of DocuSign.
https://chainlinknodes.com/smartcontract-ceo-sergey-nazarov-speak-sxsw/
Sorry, All sounds great but i only invest based on TA
Good news, if LINK breaks 7k sats we're in for a moon too!
Edit: updated TA
https://uk.tradingview.com/x/GEBhGcKz/
Added from comments
Don't forget that AXA Insurance and Sony Corp did a test smart contract on their platform last week: https://create.smartcontract.com/#/contracts/fa4703cb68e3c152a9f47bafd57fe1fa
AXA Insurance has announced that they will be implementing blockchain: https://group.axa.com/en/newsroom/news/axa-goes-blockchain-with-fizzy
Facebook Director of Engineering joins ChainLink: https://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/news/facebook-director-engineering-joins-chainlink-advisory-board/
Zuckerberg says he will be studying crypto make Facebook better: https://www.coindesk.com/zuckerberg-to-study-cryptocurrency-in-quest-to-decentralize-facebook/
submitted by lamps92 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

IOTA and Tangle discussion/info, scam or not?

In the past weeks I heard a lot pros and cons about IOTA, many of them I believe were not true (I'll explain better). I would like to start a serious discussion about IOTA and help people to get into it. Before that I'll contribute with what I know, most things that I will say will have a source link providing some base content.
 
The pros and cons that I heard a lot is listed below, I'll discuss the items marked with *.
Pros
Cons
 

Scalability

Many users claim that the network infinitely scales, that with more transactions on the network the faster it gets. This is not entirely true, that's why we are seeing the network getting congested (pending transactions) at the moment (12/2017).
The network is composed by full-nodes (stores all transactions), each full-node is capable of sending transactions direct to the tangle. An arbitrary user can set a light-node (do not store all transactions, therefore a reduced size), but as it does not stores all transactions and can't decide if there are conflicting transactions (and other stuff) it needs to connect to a full-node (bitifinex node for example) and then request for the full-node to send a transaction to the tangle. The full-node acts like a bridge for a light-node user, the quantity of transactions at the same time that a full-node can push to the tangle is limited by its brandwidth.
What happens at the moment is that there are few full-nodes, but more important than that is: the majority of users are connected to the same full-node basically. The full-node which is being used can't handle all the requested transactions by the light-nodes because of its brandwidth. If you are a light-node user and is experiencing slow transactions you need to manually select other node to get a better performance. Also, you need to verify that the minimum weight magnitude (difficulty of the Hashcash Proof of Work) is set to 14 at least.
The network seems to be fine and it scales, but the steps an user has to make/know are not friendly-user at all. It's necessary to understand that the technology envolved is relative new and still in early development. Do not buy iota if you haven't read about the technology, there is a high chance of you losing your tokens because of various reasons and it will be your own fault. You can learn more about how IOTA works here.
There are some upcoming solutions that will bring the user-experience to a new level, The UCL Wallet (expected to be released at this month, will talk about that soon and how it will help the network) and the Nelson CarrIOTA (this week) besides the official implementations to come in december.
 

Centralization

We all know that currently (2017) IOTA depends on the coordinator because the network is still in its infancy and because of that it is considered centralized by the majority of users.
The coordinator are several full-nodes scattered across the world run by the IOTA foundation. It creates periodic Milestones (zero value transactions which reference valid transactions) which are validated by the entire network. The coordinator sets the general direction for the tangle growth. Every node verifies that the coordinator is not breaking consensus rules by creating iotas out of thin air or approving double-spendings, nodes only tells other nodes about transactions that are valid, if the Coordinator starts issuing bad Milestones, nodes will reject them.
The coordinator is optional since summer 2017, you can choose not implement it in your full-node, any talented programmer could replace Coo logic in IRI with Random Walk Monte Carlo logic and go without its milestones right now. A new kind of distributed coordinator is about to come and then, for the last, its completely removal. You can read more about the coordinator here and here.

Mining-Blockchain-based Cryptocurrencies

These are blockchain-based cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin) that has miners to guarantee its security. Satoshi Nakamoto states several times in the Bitcoin whitepaper that "The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes". We can see in Blockchain.info that nowadays half of the total hashpower in Bitcoin is controlled by 3 companies (maybe only 1 in the future?). Users must trust that these companies will behave honestly and will not use its 50%> hashpower to attack the network eventually. With all that said it's reasonable to consider the IOTA network more decentralized (even with the coordinator) than any mining-blockchain-based cryptocurrency
You can see a comparison between DAG cryptocurrencies here
 

IOTA partnerships

Some partnerships of IOTA foundation with big companies were well known even when they were not officialy published. Some few examples of confirmed partnerships are listed below, others cofirmed partnerships can be seem in the link Partnerships with big companies at the pros section.
So what's up with all alarming in social media about IOTA Foundation faking partnerships with big companies like Microsoft and Cisco?
At Nov. 28th IOTA Foundation announced the Data Marketplace with 30+ companies participating. Basically it's a place for any entity sell data (huge applications, therefore many companies interested), at time of writing (11/12/2017) there is no API for common users, only companies in touch with IOTA Foundation can test it.
A quote from Omkar Naik (Microsoft worker) depicted on the Data Marketplace blog post gave an idea that Microsoft was in a direct partnership with IOTA. Several news websites started writing headlines "Microsoft and IOTA launches" (The same news site claimed latter that IOTA lied about partnership with Microsoft) when instead Microsoft was just one of the many participants of the Data Marketplace. Even though it's not a direct partnership, IOTA and Microsoft are in close touch as seen in IOTA Microsoft and Bosch meetup december 12th, Microsoft IOTA meetup in Paris 14th and Microsoft Azure adds 5 new Blockchain partners (may 2016). If you join the IOTA Slack channel you'll find out that there are many others big companies in close touch with IOTA like BMW, Tesla and other companies. This means that right now there are devs of IOTA working directly with scientists of these companies to help them integrate IOTA on their developments even though there is no direct partnership published, I'll talk more about the use cases soon.
We are excited to partner with IOTA foundation and proud to be associated with its new data marketplace initiative... - Omkar Naik
 

IOTA's use cases

Every cryptocurrency is capable of being a way to exchange goods, you pay for something using the coin token and receive the product. Some of them are more popular or have faster transactions or anonymity while others offers better scalablity or user-friendness. But none of them (except IOTA) are capable of transactioning information with no costs (fee-less transactions), in an securely form (MAM) and being sure that the network will not be harmed when it gets more adopted (scales). These characteristics open the gates for several real world applications, you probably might have heard of Big Data and how data is so important nowadays.
Data sets grow rapidly - in part because they are increasingly gathered by cheap and numerous information-sensing Internet of things devices such as mobile devices, aerial (remote sensing), software logs, cameras, microphones, radio-frequency identification (RFID) readers and wireless sensor networks.
 
It’s just the beginning of the data period. Data is going to be so important for human life in the future. So we are now just starting. We are a big data company, but compared to tomorrow, we are nothing. - Jack Ma (Alibaba)
There are enormous quantities of wasted data, often over 99% is lost to the void, that could potentially contain extremely valuable information if allowed to flow freely in data streams that create an open and decentralized data lake that is accessible to any compensating party. Some of the biggest corporations of the world are purely digital like Google, Facebook and Amazon. Data/information market will be huge in the future and that's why there so many companies interested in what IOTA can offer.
There are several real world use cases being developed at the moment, many of them if successful will revolutionize the world. You can check below a list of some of them.
Extra
These are just few examples, there are a lot more ongoing and to explore.
 

IOTA Wallet (v2.5.4 below)

For those who have read a lot about IOTA and know how it works the wallet is fine, but that's not the case for most users. Issues an user might face if decide to use the current wallet:
Problems that could be easily avoided with a better understand of the network/wallet or with a better wallet that could handle these issues. As I explained before, some problems during the "congestion" of the network could be simply resolved if stuff were more user-friendly, this causes many users storing their iotas on exchanges which is not safe either.
The upcoming (dec 2017) UCL Wallet will solve most of these problems. It will switch between nodes automatically and auto-reattach transactions for example (besides other things). You can have full a overview of it here and here. Also, the upcoming Nelson CarrIOTA will help on automatic peer discovery for users setup their nodes more easily.
 

IOTA Vulnerability issue

On sept 7th 2017 a team from MIT reported a cryptographic issue on the hash function Curl. You can see the full response of IOTA members below.
Funds were never in danger as such scenarios depicted on the Neha's blogpost were not pratically possible and the arguments used on the blogpost had'nt fundamentals, all the history you can check by yourself on the responses. Later it was discovered that the whole Neha Narula's team were envolved in other concurrent cryptocurrency projects
Currently IOTA uses the relatively hardware intensive NIST standard SHA-3/Keccak for crucial operations for maximal security. Curl is continuously being audited by more cryptographers and security experts. Recenlty IOTA Foundation hired Cybercrypt, the world leading lightweight cryptography and security company from Denmark to take the Curl cryptography to its next maturation phase.
 
It took me a couple of days to gather the informations presented, I wanted it to make easier for people who want to get into it. It might probably have some mistakes so please correct me if I said something wrong. Here are some useful links for the community.
This is my IOTA donation address, in case someone wants to donate I will be very thankful. I truly believe in this project's potential.
I9YGQVMWDYZBLHGKMTLBTAFBIQHGLYGSAGLJEZIV9OKWZSHIYRDSDPQQLTIEQEUSYZWUGGFHGQJLVYKOBWAYPTTGCX
 
This is a donation address, if you want to do the same you might pay attention to some important details:
  • Create a seed for only donation purposes.
  • Generate a address and publish it for everyone.
  • If you spend any iota you must attach a new address to the tangle and refresh your donation address published before to everyone.
  • If someone sends iota to your previous donation address after you have spent from it you will probably lose the funds that were sent to that specific address.
  • You can visualize how addresses work in IOTA here and here.
This happens because IOTA uses Winternitz one-time signature to become quantum resistent. Every time you spend iota from a address, part of the private key of that specific address is revealed. This makes easier for attackers to steal that address balance. Attackers can search if an address has been reused on the tangle explorer and try to brute force the private key since they already know part of it.
submitted by mvictordbz to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Brief guide to calculating your capital gains and losses.

Hey all - full disclosure, I work for Bitcoin.Tax , which is the source of this information. Since Tax Day in Canada is approaching, I wrote up a quick guide to calculating your capital gains from trading/utilizing/selling crypto. We've been in the business of crypto taxation a long time, and we've been supporting Canadian users since 2014.
The full article has information about using Bitcoin.Tax to calculate your capital gains/losses, if anyone is looking for a software to use. Otherwise, feel free to utilize the information below to understand crypto capital gains a bit better. I know there are a lot of knowledgeable people here, so if I've missed the mark on anything, let me know (all info was sourced from official material).
Full Article Link
---
In Canada, Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are considered commodities by The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). The CRA treats cryptocurrency trades as barter transactions, which makes them subject to the income tax.
The gains and losses from these trades must be reported when filing your taxes, where most individuals would report these figures on their Schedule C. If your cryptocurrency trading is considered a "business", it may be taxed as income. It's always best to confer with a tax professional to determine what your trading constitutes.
Official information about capital gains taxation can be found on the Government of Canada's Website.
The normal deadline for tax reporting in Canada is April 30.

Taxable Events

A taxable event refers to any type of cryptocurrency transaction that results in a capital gain.
Here are the primary ways in which your cryptocurrency could result in a capital gain:
Variations of these events can also result in a taxable event occurring (i.e., trading with coins acquired from a fork/split or buying something with crypto that you received for services rendered).
Buying a cryptocurrency with fiat is not, in itself, a taxable event. A taxable event occurs once the crypto is disposed.

Capital Gains = Proceeds — ACB - Fees
ACB refers to "Adjusted Cost Basis", which is how much your coin cost to acquire, plus any expenses associated with it. Adjusted Cost Basis averages together all of your acquisition costs of a specific coin in order to calculate a cost basis.
For example, if you buy 1 BTC for $3,000, 1 BTC for $5,000, and 1 BTC for $10,000, your adjusted cost basis for your BTC would be $6,000. If there were fees associated with those buys, they would also be added to the cost basis.
Proceeds are determined by the value of the crypto, service, or fiat you received, at the time of the coin's disposition. Fees refers to amounts incurred to sell your coin.
Your capital gain or loss on crypto is determined by taking the proceeds from the disposed (i.e., traded or sold) coin and subtracting the coin's adjusted cost basis.
For example, if you acquired 1 BTC for $5,000, plus paid a fee of $100, the adjusted cost basis of your 1 BTC would be $5,100. If you later sold that 1 BTC for $6,000, you would realize a capital gain of $900 ($6,000 - $5,100).
If you did one or two trades throughout the year, it's not too difficult to determine how much of a capital gain has been realized. However, most people have a lot more than one or two trades, which makes manually calculating your gains extremely difficult.

Mining Crypto

The tax treatment for mining cryptocurrency is established on a case by case basis. If the mining being done constitutes a "business activity", it is taxed as income. If it constitutes a hobby, it is taxed differently. It is best to consult with a tax professional to assess whether your mining constitutes a business activity or a hobby.

Superficial Losses

If you realize a capital loss when trading or selling capital property, you can use it to offset capital gains you have elsewhere to lower your taxes. To deter abuse of this rule, the CRA enforces a superficial loss rule on capital losses. If you have a superficial loss, it cannot be used as a deduction against your taxable income.
A superficial loss occurs when you dispose of a cryptocurrency for a loss and then you (or, even someone affiliated with you, like a spouse or a dependent) buys the same cryptocurrency in the surrounding 61 day period (30 days before AND 30 days after the sale).
For example, let's say you have 2 BTC, and then you sell 1 of those BTC at a loss. If that 1 BTC was purchased 30 days prior to the sale, the loss would be superficial. Or, if after selling the 1 BTC, you bought another BTC within 30 days, the loss would also be considered superficial.

Capital Gain Rates

For individuals, the amount of capital gains tax owed is 50% of your capital gains, based off the Inclusion Rate. If your primary source of income is from trading crypto, your gains may subject to a different rate - it is best to consult with a tax professional if you are unsure.

Foreign Property Reporting

Cryptocurrency likely falls under the CRA reporting requirements for "specified foreign property". Given this, if the cost of the cryptocurrency exceeds $100,000 anytime throughout the year, it needs to be reported on form T1135.
This post is for informational purposes only and not intended as tax or financial advice. Please speak with your own tax professional on how you should treat the taxation of your own cryptocurrencies given your own circumstances.
submitted by Sal-BitcoinTax to BitcoinCA [link] [comments]

The IRS Is Cracking Down on Investors… Here’s What You Need to Know About Paying Bitcoin and Crypto Taxes

The IRS Is Cracking Down on Investors… Here’s What You Need to Know About Paying Bitcoin and Crypto Taxes
As 2019 comes to a close, the 2020 tax season is upon us, which means that it is time once again for traders, investors, and business owners to calculate their capital gains and report their income and profits to the government.
One big mistake that many crypto traders have made in the past was reporting their earnings incorrectly or failing to report at all. Although there is a common misconception that Bitcoin is anonymous, the recent crackdown that took place earlier this year, in which the IRS sent letters to over 10,000 people asking them to pay back taxes, demonstrates the need to file properly. Even entities outside of the U.S., such as the U.K.’s HMRC, are taking further steps to ensure tax compliance.
That said, recent changes to cryptocurrency tax guidelines and the complexity of the digital assets themselves can make it hard for those in possession of crypto to understand where to begin in the filing process. Fortunately, crypto taxes are easy to understand once they are explained.
If you have engaged in any crypto transactions over the past year, here’s what you need to know about paying Bitcoin and crypto taxes.

https://preview.redd.it/sgxtgkamsm041.jpg?width=4000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=795a6acd74b979367aaf1f1283482865258ae76b

Crypto As a Tradeable Asset

When crypto is purchased and exchanged at a later date, cryptocurrency is taxed as a tradeable asset. For example, let’s imagine that you purchased one Bitcoin in January of this year and sold it when the price spiked up to $12,000 in May. As a result of your sale, you would have to report your profits as capital gains for the sale of that asset and pay the resulting tax. (However, you may also claim losses if the value of your asset’s value depreciated over that time instead.)
Along with trade transactions, other transactions, such as making purchases with your crypto, are considered taxable events as well. Continuing with the above example, let’s imagine that you spent $2,500 of your Bitcoin on your rent. You would need to sit down and calculate exactly how much that portion of your asset has gained since its initial purchase. Of course, this brings up the question of how exactly to calculate these gains. We will dive deeper into this topic after the next section.
Put simply, any time you spend your asset, exchange your crypto for a similar asset or a fiat currency, or otherwise engage in a transaction that involves receiving something in return for your crypto, you need to report any capital gains or losses.

Crypto As Income

While crypto is used by many as a tradeable asset, there are also those who make a living through trading crypto or through accepting crypto through a business or as part of their paycheck. If crypto is earned, it becomes taxable not only as an asset when it is traded but as income as well. The type of work that you do in return for crypto will dictate how you will need to file when you report this income.
What’s truly important to know, however, is that any form of income is taxable. In the IRS’s new guidelines, they touch upon the topic of forks as an example and the resulting cryptocurrencies that you may obtain through a hard fork. If you receive any amount of cryptocurrency, whether you asked for it or not, you are responsible for reporting it as income. As always, there are some exemptions, such as gifts, which you will only need to report when you sell or trade it at a later date.

How Does Crypto Tax Filing Work?

Reporting fiat currency is simple as there are no price fluctuations that complicate your filing efforts. Cryptocurrency, on the other hand, is always changing, which makes it more difficult to determine what you owe and how you need to report it.
In general, there are four main accounting methods that people turn to in order to report their crypto profits: first in first out (FIFO), last in first out (LIFO), average cost, and specific identification. Simplified, they look like this:
  1. FIFO- The crypto that you spend or trade is taken from your first purchase. If you spend one Bitcoin and you own two Bitcoin, you calculate your gains or losses based on the first Bitcoin that you acquired.
  2. LIFO- Using this accounting method, traders do the opposite of the above, calculating gains and losses by drawing from their most recent purchases first.
  3. Average Cost- One of the easier accounting methods, the average cost is calculated by determining the amount of holdings you have sold and pulling from the overall price of your assets. This method isn’t as commonly seen as the other three, however.
  4. Specific Identification- If you can show the IRS proof of specific transactions stored in different places, you can choose which asset you want to calculate your gains or losses on. For example, if you have one Bitcoin stored in address A and one in address B and you spend one Bitcoin, you can choose which asset you sold as long as you can provide documentation of the purchase of said asset.
As always, it is vital that you do your research, consult professionals, and fully understand your responsibilities before you begin trying to report your income and capital gains. While the above gives you an overview of what you can expect to come across as you prepare your crypto taxes, it is ultimately up to you to make sure that you are compliant and up-to-date with local tax laws.
If you have sold any crypto over this past year, use the above as a starting point for learning more about how to file cryptocurrency taxes before the deadline arrives.
Trakx is building a one-stop shop for Crypto Traded Indices. Discover more about our project on our website and social media channels, such as Telegram http://t.me/trakx_io.
submitted by Trakx_io to Trakx [link] [comments]

2017 Taxes Megathread - Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax, and Mining

There's a lot of posts in /BitcoinCA popping up about tax questions and it's tax season so please post all tax related questions and discussions in this thread to clear up the clutter and this way we don't need to repeat ourselves.
I've been able to find the fallowing links on crypto taxes that can offer some guidance. I included some snippets with key take aways click the links to read the full articles for context.

CRA: What you should know about digital currency

Do tax rules apply when digital currency is used?
Yes. Where digital currency is used to pay for goods or services, the rules for barter transactions apply. A barter transaction occurs when any two persons agree to exchange goods or services and carry out that exchange without using legal currency. For example, paying for movies with digital currency is a barter transaction. The value of the movies purchased using digital currency must be included in the seller’s income for tax purposes. The amount to be included would be the value of the movies in Canadian dollars.
More information on the tax implications of barter transactions is available by consulting the Canada Revenue Agency’s Interpretation Bulletin IT-490, Barter Transactions.
Digital currency can also be bought or sold like a commodity. Any resulting gains or losses could be taxable income or capital for the taxpayer. Paragraphs 9 to 32 of Interpretation Bulletin IT-479R, Transactions in Securities, provide information that can help in determining whether transactions are income or capital in nature.

Inuit/TurboTax: How Bitcoins Might Impact Your Income Taxes

Trade and Barter Transactions With Virtual Currencies
Transactions made with bitcoins or other virtual currency are covered by the section of the tax code that governs barter and trade transactions. Under this portion of the tax code, you must declare any income received or expenses made, regardless of whether any actual cash was tied to the transaction.
For example, if you run a daycare and you accept eggs, bitcoins or any other type of trade in exchange for child care, you still are required to report these transactions on your income taxes. Since you can’t declare bitcoins, eggs or other material items on your tax form, you must declare the typical dollar amount that you would have otherwise claimed for those services.

The Globe and Mail: Here's what you need to know about the Canadian tax implications of cryptocurrencies

I "mined" cryptocurrency. What are the tax consequences?
Cryptocurrency miners should report as income the cryptocurrency they earn, and should be able to deduct associated losses, such as those hefty electricity costs.
I was paid in cryptocurrency. What should I do?
If your employer has paid you with cryptocurrency, it's like being paid with money. You will be required to pay income tax on your earnings.
If you are an independent contractor and you have been paid with cryptocurrency, again, from a tax perspective, it's like being paid with money. You need to pay income tax and collect GST/HST, but you can also deduct associated expenses and claim input tax credits.
For general tax advice /PersonalFinanceCanada is worth checking out.
submitted by PoliticalDissidents to BitcoinCA [link] [comments]

Summary of the new crypto tax guidelines (tldr included)

Hey all - I know there's a dozen posts about the new crypto tax deadlines - so apologies for making it a dozen plus one.
Full disclosure, I work for Bitcoin.Tax, where this article was published. I've included the link to our summary, as well as our actual summary. Also - I'll be talking with a crypto tax pro on our podcast about these guidelines soon. I usually post links to our podcast on this subreddit, so stay tuned (if you want...) for that in the next few days. Hopefully this helps some folks, as parts of the new guidelines are fairly ambiguous.
Link: https://bitcoin.tax/blog/irs-crypto-tax-faq/
TLDR:
Generally, this is the same as the advice and common practice used by taxpayers and accountants. Although, the exception here is the clarification of the specific identification rule. We'll talk about that below.
Summary:
The IRS has issued their long-awaited guidance on the tax treatment for cryptocurrencies. You can read their FAQ On Virtual Currency Transactions on the IRS website.
This is the first official guidance since the original 2014-21 notice in April 2014.

IRS Cryptocurrency Tax FAQ

We have gone into more detail for some of the main points in their FAQ.

Hard forks and airdrops

Despite peculiar wording by the IRS, they have confirmed that receipt of crypto from an airdrop or fork is to be treated as income, and so subject to income tax.
ordinary income equal to the fair market value of the new cryptocurrency when it is received, which is when the transaction is recorded on the distributed ledger, provided you have dominion and control over the cryptocurrency so that you can transfer, sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of the cryptocurrency
However, these drops typically have no market (perhaps a futures market) until they have existed for a period of time, so establishing a value could be difficult. It is possible that the value could be zero right at that exact moment it is recorded on the distributed ledger.
In order to receive income, you must have dominion and control over these new crypto. This effectively means you must be able to manage it; typically you would have the private keys or it is immediately available in a custodial wallet or online account, e.g. Coinbase.
If the crypto doesn't appear in your wallet, or you don't get control of it until a later date, then that later date is used to calculated the USD income value.
This had been a common question among crypto traders: if BTC was forked off into a new "BTC" coin, which you might not even have been aware of, do you still have income? The answer is no. Unless, you subsequently get access to those new coins, in which case you do have income on the date you receive control.
When you have income for an airdrop or fork, this also sets the cost basis (value and date) for any subsequent capital gains calculations.

Fair Market Value (FMV)

FMV is used to give something a value, i.e. what it's worth. If you list a bike for sale, you might research the prices for which other people are selling. Those prices give a FMV. But it you sell your bike and someone buys it for $100, then the bike's FMV was $100.
With crypto, sometimes we need to know FMV because we are not trading directly for dollars.
For example, if you sell 1 BTC for 150 LTC, you are disposing of the 1 BTC at FMV. You need to know the USD value in order to know the proceeds and to calculate any capital gains or losses.
So, first, if this was traded on an exchange, we use the spot price on the exchange at that time. This is true even if the transaction was off-chain.
However, where no FMV exists, such as a peer-to-peer transaction, then you have to get the value from elsewhere.
So, secondly, use the FMV of the service or product you are exchanging. With the above bike example, say buying it with crypto, the FMV would be that of the bike itself (the price it would have sold for USD).
Lastly, when no value can be obtained, then use a service that provides a consistent worldwide indices value (the IRS are calling this an "explorer" but that is a confusing term as blockchain explorers may not provide a USD value). If you do not use an "explorer" value, you can use an "accurate representation of the cryptocurrency's market value". Much like with fiat, this means using an establish and consistent source.

FIFO and Specific Identification

Advice from most tax preparers and accountants has been to err on the side of caution and go with First-In First-Out (FIFO). Basically, if you bought 1 BTC for $9,000 and later another for $10,000, when you come to sell 1 BTC (or partial) you would use the cost of the first 1 BTC that you had acquired.
This is the default IRS cost basis method and would not be challenged.
Some taxpayers had filed using specific identification, where FIFO was not used and instead the "lot" that was sold was chosen from their wallets. Summary strategies could also be employed, such as Last-In Last-Out (LIFO), where the basis of the most recently acquired crypto is used instead.
These other strategies, such as last-in first-out, closest-cost or lowest-cost, often try to minimize the gains per transaction and defer them until later.
This is the biggest change in the new IRS guidance and confirms that specific identification can be used. However, you must be able to document this, which the IRS describes as:
You may identify a specific unit of virtual currency either by documenting the specific unit’s unique digital identifier such as a private key, public key, and address, or by records showing the transaction information for all units of a specific virtual currency, such as Bitcoin, held in a single account, wallet, or address.This information must show (1) the date and time each unit was acquired, (2) your basis and the fair market value of each unit at the time it was acquired, (3) the date and time each unit was sold, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of, and (4) the fair market value of each unit when sold, exchanged, or disposed of, and the amount of money or the value of property received for each unit.
There is no guidance if any extra information should be reported, but it is generally the same information that is added to the 8949 form where capital gains are reported.

Gifts and Donations

Similar to gifts of stocks or property, the rules regarding cost basis have remained unchanged. Received gifts are not immediate income but you do still recognize an capital gains income when you later come to sell, exchange or dispose of the cryptocurrency.
You can use the original basis (with documentation) from the giver in order to make use of long-term gains. However, your received basis becomes the lesser of the giver's cost basis and the FMV of the gift on the date you received it. This is to prevent from gifting losses. Also, if you do not have documentation showing the gift cost basis, then your basis is zero, i.e. you must declare 100% as capital gains.
Donations to registered charities do not recognize income, gains or losses. The value of your charitable donation is the FMV on the date of the gift if you have held the crypto for more than a year. For a year or less, it is lesser of the crypto's cost basis or its FMV on the day of the gift.

What was not mentioned

There are still some key questions and ambiguities that tax professionals have been looking for clarification. For instance, with hard forks and airdrops, if you have the private keys but no software, does that count as control?
Airdrop and forks generally have no markets when they are created, so is there a zero FMV? And should you take the value only when you exercise control?
Can specific identification be used at will or must it be done consistently?
Were 1031 "like-kind" exchanges ever a valid approach before 2018?

Guidance is retroactive

Finally, be aware that IRS guidance is always retroactive, unless otherwise stated, and so should be applied to past and future crypto transactions. If you have not followed these rules then you should consult with your tax professional and may need to file an amendment.
submitted by Sal-BitcoinTax to CryptoMarkets [link] [comments]

The insurance company with the biggest exposure to the 1.2 quadrillion dollar (ie, 1200 TRILLION dollar) derivatives casino is AXA. Yeah, *that* AXA, the company whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group, and whose "venture capital" arm bought out Bitcoin development by "investing" in Blockstream.

TL;DR:
Just scroll down to page 5 of the PDF and check out the graph:
http://www.actuaries.org.hk/upload/File/ET210513.pdf
In 2013, AXA had $464 billion in exposure to derivatives, representing more than 50% of their balance sheet - more (in absolute and percentage terms) than any other insurer.
My theory: AXA knows that Bitcoin is real money, and real money will destroy AXA's balance sheet - which is based on the "fantasy accounting" of derivatives. So AXA wants to control Bitcoin development (by buying out the Core/Blockstream devs), and artificially suppress the blocksize, to artificially suppress the Bitcoin price.
My question: Do you want Bitcoin development being funded by a financial institution like AXA which would literally become bankrupt overnight if the worldwide derivatives casino lost a miniscule fraction of its so-called "value"?
Personally, I can think of no greater conflict of interest than this. This is the mother of all smoking guns of conflicts of interest. Derivatives are 1.2 quadrillion dollars of fake money circulating in a fraudulent system of fantasy accounting - and bitcoin is 2.1 quadrillion satoshis of real money circulating on the world's first unfake-able global ledger. They are polar opposites.
AXA's so-called "value" would collapse overnight if the fakery and fantasy of the worldwide derivatives casino were to finally be exposed. AXA is the last organization which should have any involvement whatsoever with Bitcoin's development - and yet, here we are today: AXA is paying the salary of guys like Greg Maxwell and Adam Back.
Details/Background:
What are derivatives?
Derivatives are the $1.2 quadrillion ($1200 trillion) "time bomb" of bets using fake, debt-backed fiat money that's about to explode and destroy the world's financial system:
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/06/09/risk-quadrillion-derivatives-market-gdp/
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=derivatives+time+bomb&ia=web
Derivatives are like a giant blood-sucking "tick" (representing 1200 trillion dollars in "notional" value, ie the total value of all the bets, without offsetting) on the back of a "dog" representing the world's "real" economy (representing mere tens of trillions of dollars):
http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa/derivatives/bank_exposure.html
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=derivatives+dwarf+economy&ia=web
Derivatives were the root cause of the financial crisis that already almost destroyed the world's debt-based fiat financial system in 2008:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/01/08/five-years-after-the-financial-meltdown-the-water-is-still-full-of-big-sharks/#43930ad45474
http://www.businessinsider.com/bubble-derivatives-otc-2010-5?op=1&IR=T
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Recession
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=derivatives+financial+crisis+2008&ia=web
Derivatives are that giant blob of fake, debt-backed fiat "money" shown at the bottom of the graph shown below (where the top of the of the graph shows that tiny speck of real money, bitcoin):
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3xpecf/all_of_the_worlds_money_in_one_chart/
http://www.businessinsider.com/all-of-worlds-money-in-one-chart-2015-12
Derivatives are are also the fake, debt-backed "money" which already brought down another giant insurance group (AIG, not to be confused with AXA), in the financial crisis of 2008, which you're probably still bailing out personally with your tax dollars and your country's "austerity":
https://web.archive.org/web/20150730232015/http://www.thenation.com/article/aig-bailout-scandal
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=aig+derivatives+scandal
And finally:
Derivatives are also the fake, debt-backed "money" which makes up over 50% ($464 billion) of the balance sheet of insurance giant AXA - which has more derivatives exposure than any other insurance company, both in percentage and absolute terms (2013 figures - scroll down to page 5 of the PDF to see the graph):
http://www.actuaries.org.hk/upload/File/ET210513.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20160519091543/http://www.actuaries.org.hk/upload/File/ET210513.pdf
Yeah, AXA.
The same company...
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin+bitcoinxt+bitcoin_uncensored+btc+bitcoin_classic/search?q=bilderberg+group&restrict_sr=on
https://www.axa.com/en/newsroom/news/axa-strategic-ventures-blockchain
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=axa+strategic+investments+bitcoin&ia=web
Every time I mention how AXA is in charge of Blockstream's payroll, a few "random" people come out of the woodwork on these threads trying to dismissively claim (while presenting absolutely no arguments or evidence) that it is a mere irrelevant "coincidence" that AXA's venture capital subsidiary is funding Core/Blockstream.
But there are very few coincidences in the world of high finance.
And meanwhile, here are a few things we do know:
  • Henri de Castries is not only the the CEO of insurance giant AXA (he's actually stepping down later this year) - he's also the chairman of the Bilderberg Group - the secretive group which includes most of the major players in the current global debt-backed financial system:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=henri+de+castries+bilderberg&ia=web
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=henri+de+castries+axa&ia=web
  • AXA Strategic Ventures (the venture capital arm of insurance giant AXA) was behind the second, $55 million round of investment in Blockstream:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22axa+strategic+ventures%22+bitcoin&ia=web
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin+bitcoinxt+bitcoin_uncensored+btc+bitcoin_classic/search?q=bilderberg+group&restrict_sr=on
  • As of 2013, AXA already had $464 billion in derivatives exposure - over 50% of its balance sheet - far more than any other insurance company (both in $ and in % terms):
http://www.actuaries.org.hk/upload/File/ET210513.pdf
  • Many if not most major financial institutions would actually be considered insolvent now, if their so-called assets and liabilities were honestly valued (ie, "marked to market):
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzne2014/10/03/everything-you-didnt-know-about-the-federal-reserve-board/#45c36aa03f25
  • Bitcoin, by having no counterparty risk, threatens to expose this whole fraudulent casino of fantasy accounting on the part of major financial institutions - which is probably why companies like AXA want to control Bitcoin development - so they can artificially suppress the blocksize, and artificially suppress the the bitcoin price.
My guess:
The 2.1 quadrillion satoshis (21 million bitcoins x 100 million satoshis per bitcoin) of real money starting to circulate on the Bitcoin network threaten to expose the fact that the 1.2 quadrillion dollars of fantasy fiat circulating in the worldwide derivatives casino are actually worthless.
And this is probably the real reason why AXA - the insurance company with the largest derivatives exposure - is trying to control Blockstream, in order to control Bitcoin development, and suppress Bitcoin price.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

PSA: 1031 Like-Kind Exchange Does NOT Apply to Cryptocurrency!

There is so much bias and bad information regarding this contentious issue, so I'm going to try to spell this out for your benefit and mine, with citations.
As a foreword, please realize Forbes is not an authoritative source (neither is Robert Wood, Esq.'s click-bait piece that uses ambiguous language such as "arguably", "may", "might", "one can always make arguments", ad nauseam.); when in doubt look to IRS code, the new tax bill, burden of proof during audits, etc.--language straight from the horse's mouth, and speak with your tax professionals (preferably more than one).
Q: Do crypto-to-crypto transactions qualify for 1031 like-kind exchange (and therefore tax is deferred until the final transaction back to fiat)?
A: Definitive NO after 2018, "most likely" NO even before 2018 (I put the caveat of most likely here because technically you can argue it, but I wouldn't--for the reasons provided below).
1. 1031 Like-Kind Exchange is an EXCEPTION to the GENERAL RULE
It's important to keep in mind the backdrop that 1031 is the exception, and not the general rule, to wit --
Whenever you sell business or investment property and you have a gain, you generally have to pay tax on the gain at the time of sale. IRC Section 1031 provides an exception and allows you to postpone paying tax on the gain if you reinvest the proceeds in similar property as part of a qualifying like-kind exchange. [https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/like-kind-exchanges-under-irc-code-section-1031]
Moreover, the IRS actually already provided guidance that "virtual currency" does not qualify for 1031, as far back as 2014.
2. Pre-2018 Guidance Clearly States that 1031 Does Not Apply to "Virtual Currency".
The 2014 IRS Notice [https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-14-21.pdf] provides, and I quote --
Q-6: Does a taxpayer have gain or loss upon an exchange of virtual currency for other property?
A-6: Yes. If the fair market value of property received in exchange for virtual currency exceeds the taxpayer’s adjusted basis of the virtual currency, the taxpayer has taxable gain. The taxpayer has a loss if the fair market value of the property received is less than the adjusted basis of the virtual currency. See Publication 544, Sales and Other Dispositions of Assets, for information about the tax treatment of sales and exchanges, such as whether a loss is deductible.
Q-1: How is virtual currency treated for federal tax purposes?
A-1: For federal tax purposes, virtual currency is treated as property.
While guidance is not law (now law in 2018), it does make the rule implicit and therefore hard to argue against.
Now some have suggested playing word games here with the IRS, that is, what is the container "other property", does it include cryptocurrency or does it mean other property not including cryptocurrency? My take? "Other property" is not in caps, it just plainly means other property. When you trade Bitcoin (one cryptocurrency property) for Ripple (another cryptocurrency property), that is a taxable event. Just like when you trade a car for a truck, that is not a like-kind exchange.
In personal property exchanges, the rules pertaining to what qualifies as like-kind are more restrictive than the rules pertaining to real property. As an example, cars are not like-kind to trucks. [https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/like-kind-exchanges-under-irc-code-section-1031]
But let's suppose you want to play word games with the IRS (which I don't recommend) and jump down the rabbit hole, you would be arguing up a hill and most likely fail -- why? keep reading.
3. Correctly Reporting 1031 Transactions via Form 8824
In order to qualify for like-kind exchange on a qualified property in a qualified exchange, you have to attach a form 8824 [https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8824.pdf] and correctly report said qualifying transactions, not to mention retain the transaction records to back that up (the taxpayer's duty). Instructions here [https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i8824.pdf].
For argument's sake, let's assume you did this correctly.
4. Get Audited and Prepare to Argue (Up the Hill)
The IRS sends you a letter disputing that your crypto A <-> crypto B <-> crypto C, etc., do not qualify for 1031, get ready to rumble!
During the proceedings, the burden of proof is on you to establish that yes, your crypto exchanges do qualify for like-kind exchange and you try your best to avoid a penalty of an understatement in your taxes reported. If the underreporting is substantial (10% or > $5k, which is most likely), 26 CFR 1.6662-4 requires that you show that you have it on "substantial authority" of the 1031 tax treatment of your crypto pairs.
The substantial authority standard is an objective standard involving an analysis of the law and application of the law to relevant facts. The substantial authority standard is less stringent than the more likely than not standard (the standard that is met when there is a greater than 50-percent likelihood of the position being upheld), but more stringent than the reasonable basis standard as defined in § 1.6662-3(b)(3). [https://www.law.cornell.edu/cftext/26/1.6662-4]
Here is how the audit will likely go:
IRS Agent: do you have it on substantial authority that your reported crypto A <-> crypto B <-> crypto C qualifies under 1031, understanding the 1031 is an exception to the general rule that you must report each exchange as a gain or loss?
You: (thinking you're super smart, you pull out the 2014 guidance and ask the agent) but look -- here it says that I only have to report a gain/loss when exchanging virtual currency for "other property"! But what does other property mean? It might be exclusive of cryptocurrency! (grinning as you think you pulled a fast one.)
IRS Agent: so let me see if I understand, your position is that an exception (1031) to the rule (paying tax at time of transaction) applies to crypto because the IRS did not not call it an exception. I'm sorry but that position doesn't meet the requirements of CFR 1.6662-4(d)(2). IRS precedent on like-kind exchanges are very narrow, even deviation in purpose of similar type property is not treated as like-kind... cites string of precedent cases @ https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/0035005.pdf
You: ...
IRS Agent: let's see, after adding back interest, and adding a 20% penalty, your tax debt comes out to $XXXXX, would you like to pay that in lump sum or in installments?
For what it's worth I am an attorney (not tax) but have consulted numerous CPAs and colleague tax attorneys on this subject. But DISCLAIMER: this is not legal advice but mere information for your perusal, and you should always speak to your own CPA / tax attorney regarding your unique legal and tax circumstances (preferably more than one as most may not give you a definite answer on this subject).
Now feel free to down vote, deny deny deny, and get folks audited (but honestly if you can find a legally sound rebuttal I would LOVE to hear it as it would also save me a sizable chunk in taxes).
EDIT: Just one final important comment: for those waiting to defer paying taxes because it's too complicated... if it all comes crashing down tomorrow and your coins total a loss -- you STILL have to pay taxes for 2017 and can't deduct the loss until 2018 reporting, i.e. trading crypto with borrowed money is stupid.
submitted by xenxes to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Why are people sleeping on Enigma? Why shouldn't I average down with another $50k in?

I'm a big fan of Enigma - no drama, no shilled advertising, no 'pay to play' nonsense in terms of marketing, and a stud team. Intel took a leap of faith in working with them (https://newsroom.intel.com/editorials/intel-advances-silicon-based-security-ai-blockchain-workloads/) and the more I search the more I find just how aggressive Enigma has been in the space since 2015. Oddly enough, they sought to remove content from the web as if to keep things under wraps, yet I can still find some articles that show just how aggressive they've been and how far ahead they are of other projects in the space:http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Value_Healthcare_report_2018.pdf
http://blog.irvingwb.com/blog/2016/05/presidential-commission-on-enhancing-national-cybersecurity.html
Whether 99% of altcoins are shit or not, we all come to the same conclusion, even the ultra-bears who bash Bitcoin daily - blockchain technology is the future. What Enigma is doing with secret contracts, TEE, and if they deliver on MPC (they will if anyone can), the technology and protocol is vital to the blockchain realm itself. Not some random use-case or a product running on a blockchain, but an actual integral component to blockchain itself.
Idk, but I like to follow the money. Pantera Capital invested, Intel publicly associated themselves with a working partnership, the team is actually from MIT and not some random guy who held a seminar in the school's lab once. If they can deliver on their MPC ambitions, I can't see why this isn't a top 20-30 coin all day long and surviving long term. I'm genuinely asking for reasons not to go into Enigma deeper, or why people may be staying away (or if it's just not on the radar yet).
***Yes, I own Enigma***
submitted by PhillyCrypto to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Everything you need to know about the $5T group of European Central Banks planning to undermine Cryptocurrencies in 2018 (X-Post /r/Bitcoin)

Hey Vertans, I made this post for Bitcoin's sub but I thought you all would get some value out of it since it is directly related to all cryptos including Vertcoin. I had mentioned these topics in my last post here, but I took some time to gather all the references so its crystal clear I'm not a conspiracy nut. There are actually truly some "bad guys" working against crypto. They are called The BIS.
Remember these quotes?
"Bitcoin ... has become a combination of a bubble, a Ponzi scheme and an environmental disaster." - Agustín Carstens, General Manager of the BIS https://www.bis.org/speeches/sp180206.pdf
“If you look at what has happened in the past when it comes to reaching those type of heights, being it tulip bulbs or a bunch of other things over the centuries, the odds are against those who actually think that [Bitcoin] is going to be the future.” - Stefan Ingves, Chairman of the BIS Banking and Risk Management Committee and Governor of Sweden's Riksbank https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/08/bitcoin-is-dangerous-and-akin-to-tulip-bulb-mania-stefan-ingves-says.html
Here's another one that's translated from German:
"As a result, voices calling for regulation of crypto-tokens, including their prohibition, are increasingly being heard.” - Jens Weidmann, Chairman of the BIS Board of Directors and President of the Deutsche Bundesbank https://www.bundesbank.de/Redaktion/DE/Reden/2018/2018_02_14_weidmann.html
If you know about central banks, you may have heard of The Bank for International Settlements (BIS). It is a for-profit, non-governmental bank with a $220B asset sheet that is managed by the heads of the world's central banks. It also is the central authority in charge of the XDR, or Special Drawing Rights currency. The XDR is an international currency used by central banks amongst themselves, and as a way to valuate international things in a somewhat unbiased way.
All of the above quotes are from directors of the BIS.
Ironically, the BIS is a huge fan of blockchain tech, but they want the blockchain of the future to be government controlled. Stefan (from above quote) is from Sweden, and he's the guy who is leading the research into the e-Kroner which may be the first 1st-world government crypto. https://www.bis.org/review/r180123c.pdf
Here's a very interesting read for later on BIS's analysis of how government cryptos could work: https://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1709f.pdf
Up until this point you've read old news. As you can see above, we know the BIS hates bitcoin. The BIS hates bitcoin because the BIS is the entity with the most to lose if bitcoin becomes defacto. Where commercial banks can adapt to providing crypto services, the BIS will simply have no purpose. If you want to see just how much these guys hate bitcoin, read that reference from Jens's quote all the way through (here it is again: https://www.bundesbank.de/Redaktion/DE/Reden/2018/2018_02_14_weidmann.html).
Over the past month the BIS has been drumming up support against bitcoin all over the place, and has a new friend at the $660B International Monetary Fund. The BIS is now working with the IMF to create an educational course for “some 200 government officials from 41 countries... later this year” that may discuss “risks of financial innovation - think of the heightened risk of money laundering and the broader financial stability concerns” and how “the long-term potential of virtual currencies and their underlying technologies need to be taken seriously—especially when it comes to regulations.” (Christine Lagarde, IMF Managing Director, Feb 8 2018) .
Here are the press releases:
http://www.imf.org/en/news/articles/2018/02/08/sp020818-imf-and-bis-working-together-to-boost-financial-stability
https://www.bis.org/press/p180209a.htm
Most of the BIS's directors are also on boards at the European Central Bank. You can see some of the effects of the support they are drumming up there already: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/explainers/tell-me/html/what-is-bitcoin.en.html
Maybe there has been some talk to the EU government as well? The EU has publicly committed to create a campaign against Bitcoin & Open Crypto later in 2018 to educate the public on its risks: “crypto-currencies... expose consumers and investors to substantial risk including the risk to lose their investment. … our conclusion is that warnings about these risks to consumers and investors are important: these must be clear, frequent, and across all jurisdictions.” (EU Vice President Valdis Dombrovskis) http://europa.eu/newsroom/rapid-failovespeech-18-1242_en.pdf
There are battle lines being drawn right now in Europe regarding Bitcoin. Germany, France, and the Nordic countries are at one end of the ring and the Eastern and Southern European countries are at the other. The fact is that the money is against Bitcoin in Europe right now, with central banks worth $5T (!) with either confirmed or implied support for the ban-bitcoin camp.
What can the average hodler of bitcoin do? Transparency is what bitcoin was built on, while secrecy is what central banks depend on. The more exposed a central bank's true motives are, the less trust people will have in them, and the more trust Bitcoin and cryptos will garner. Do what you can to spread the message and expose the truth! Watch for BIS in the news, know they are the largest and most powerful entity that is directly challenged by Bitcoin, and know that they are actively working against Bitcoin.
It is obvious that central banks have both the money and political power to change laws in their favor, but they don't have the power to change hearts and minds. But you do!
submitted by 1ncehost to vertcoin [link] [comments]

TMX’s (Toronto Stock Exchange) Shorcan Announces Cryptocurrency Initiatives

March 22, 2018 (TORONTO) – TMX Group today announced that its wholly-owned subsidiary, Shorcan Digital Currency Network (Shorcan DCN) has entered into an agreement with Paycase Financial (Paycase), a Toronto-based, value network and trustware provider for decentralized financial services, most widely known for their mobile-first remittance platform, to launch a new cryptocurrency brokerage service focused on Bitcoin and Ether. BMO Financial Group will provide Shorcan DCN with banking services as part of the payment and settlement infrastructure.
Shorcan DCN is designed to leverage the combination of Shorcan Brokers' (Shorcan) expertise in providing clients in the Canadian financial industry with liquid, efficient and reliable brokerage services with Paycase's premier cryptocurrency data aggregation platform and established worldwide network of industry leaders and participants. Concurrently with the establishment of brokerage services, Shorcan DCN, together with Paycase, will create proprietary-based cryptocurrency benchmarks based on consolidated data from the world's leading crypto exchanges as well as over the counter, or OTC, brokered volume.
"We are excited to enter in to this agreement with Paycase, an industry leader with an innovative and entrepreneurial spirit," said Peter Conroy, President, Shorcan. "We look forward to putting in the necessary collaborative work in the days ahead as we strive to make Shorcan DCN a lasting success."
John Lee, Managing Director, Enterprise Innovation & Product Development, TMX Group added: "Shorcan DCN represents a significant step forward in the execution of TMX Group's digital strategy. As new technologies continue to reshape the global financial industry, we continue to explore new ways to evolve our business to address client needs in both traditional and non-traditional markets."
Shorcan DCN is planned for launch in the second quarter of 2018. For more information, please visit shorcandcn.com.
For more information on Paycase, please visit paycasefinancial.com
About TMX Group (TSX: X) TMX Group's key subsidiaries operate cash and derivative markets and clearinghouses for multiple asset classes including equities and fixed income. Toronto Stock Exchange, TSX Venture Exchange, TSX Alpha Exchange, The Canadian Depository for Securities, Montréal Exchange, Canadian Derivatives Clearing Corporation, Trayport and other TMX Group companies provide listing markets, trading markets, clearing facilities, depository services, technology solutions, data products and other services to the global financial community. TMX Group is headquartered in Toronto and operates offices across North America (Montréal, Calgary, Vancouver and New York), as well as in key international markets including London, Beijing and Singapore. For more information about TMX Group, visit our website at www.tmx.com. Follow TMX Group on Twitter: @TMXGroup.
https://www.tmx.com/newsroom?id=650&lang=en
submitted by PoliticalDissidents to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

Interview with Ian Miers, cofounder of Zcash

Privacy on the blockchain is a philosophical question as much it is an economic one. The technology is innately unalterable and public – conditions that are unavoidable in a decentralised system.
There are a number of ideological differences, though, in the level of privacy that can exist while legitimately maintaining the core features of blockchain technology. Some argue that private, permissioned models are not really blockchains at all, they’re just distributed ledgers.
In response, a variety of cryptocurrencies have emerged offering different solutions to the privacy question.
Some see payment channels as the way forward, though there are still privacy issues given that the aggregate payment flow is still publicly visible. Payment networks with a central hub avoid the issue fairly well – people can see how much an individual has spent with them, but they won’t see where the money goes afterwards. This central third-party has access to the information though, and this is not privacy as we would wish.
Onion routing has also been posited as a solution, in which transactions go through layers of users before they are finalised. This too has potential problems if the on-ramps are in collusion though, and ensuring that these on-ramps are agnostic to what occurs in the middle is difficult. Essentially, no silver bullet has emerged that can guarantee privacy while maintaining the core tenets of blockchain technology.
Ian Miers is a postdoctoral researcher at Cornell Tech, focusing on applied cryptography and computer security. His research led him to co-found Zcash, a cryptocurrency introduced in October 2016 that is firmly rooted in ensuring privacy.
BDJ spoke to Ian at ‘Off the Chain’, our master workshop held in Berlin this June, to discuss Zcash and the importance of upholding privacy and confidentiality on the blockchain.
The importance of Privacy on the Blockchain
“The inspiration of my work in blockchain privacy was, when I first started looking at Bitcoin in 2011, I wasn’t sure if it would succeed as a payment system,” Ian told us. “But, I realised that if it did, there was going to be a massive set of privacy issues in that it exposes all of your transactions to everybody.”
“This is not a way we can do business. You can have a debate about whether governments need access to things or not, governments do these days so maybe it seems like it’s not that big a problem.”
Despite a culture of oversharing online, people do care about their privacy when it comes to digital products. Often though, they simply don’t know how to make their information more secure. In a recent IBM survey, for example, 78% of U.S. respondents rated a company's ability to keep their data private as "extremely important".
Furthermore, 73% of people see their personal banking information as their most sensitive online data. This would suggest an innate reluctance to have any financial data broadcasted publicly, be it sensitive access data or, more simply, data detailing where your money went. In his talk at the event, Ian used the analogy of someone paying money to a psychiatrist.
In many current models, though people would not necessarily be able to see the frequency with which transactions were made or the dates on which they were made, they would be able to see that after, say, a year, that payment channel closed at a certain value. Anyone and everyone would be able to see that you paid a significant amount of money to address psychological issues that year – not an ideal situation.
“With blockchains,” Ian says, “every transaction is available to everybody, and you can’t have a world in which everybody can find out about your payments. You have your business competitors knowing about it, you have stalkers using it to harass people – the things that’ll happen are just awful, so you need privacy controls, that’s a fundamental.”
The Creation of Zcash
Zcash was founded with the purpose of addressing these issues head on. It calls itself ‘the first open, permissionless cryptocurrency that can fully protect the privacy of transactions using zero-knowledge cryptography’. It’s one of a handful of cryptocurrencies that could realistically deliver secure, private transactions on the blockchain.
Vitalik Buterin, co-founder of Ethereum, has even joined those praising Zcash earlier this month, tweeting that the technology is ‘cool’ - recognition and praise which will come as no surprise to Ian, who has been working on the project for some time.
“Zcash is a very important tool for getting privacy for blockchains,” Ian says. “We’ve been working on it for quite a while, building the core tech stack, and now that we have that up and have gotten to the point where it’s actually performant – a thing called Sapling that is going live hopefully in October – we’re now starting to focus on usability and actually growing the consumer user base. Getting people onto it so they actually have privacy and aren’t exposing all their details to everybody in the world.”
This anonymity and inherent privacy for all users underpins Ian’s work. Of course, individuals don’t want their financial transactions broadcasted in a public forum for anyone to examine, but equally no business would want to expose their dealing to potential competitors. Ian believes there is now a strong call for a stringently private cryptocurrency from both consumers and businesses alike.
“Anonymity is crucial to crypto for social reasons – privacy is a public good, it’s a human right,” he tells us. “It’s also necessary for economics. Fungibility is an important property of money; you give someone else a dollar and it’s actually the same as another dollar, and that doesn’t work if currency has history.
“It’s also important to businesses. One of the more interesting things that has come out of doing Zcash is finding out that there is actually quite a bit of demand from enterprises who want to do blockchains but again don’t want to expose everything that they’re doing to their competitors."
This point is interesting, because ultimately it will be businesses that carry the torch for privacy on the blockchain. The general public will, eventually, be almost unaware that they are using cryptocurrency or blockchain technology altogether. Even when they are aware, the history of the internet would suggest that users are willing to sacrifice elements of individual privacy to access the benefits of new technology.
submitted by jvndn101 to binarydistrict [link] [comments]

Malta leads on cryptoassets regulation while EU ponders

FILE PHOTO: Virtual currency Bitcoin tokens are seen in this illustration picture, December 8, 2017. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File PhotoFebruary 26, 2019
By Francesco Guarascio
BRUSSELS (Reuters) – As the European Commission ponders whether the European Union needs rules for cryptoassets and trading in virtual currencies, EU states are moving ahead with their own regulations, with the smallest of them, Malta, leading the pack.
The risks of investing in the industry were made clear last year when Bitcoin, the most successful cryptocurrency, lost three-quarters of its value from a peak around $20,000 in late 2017. The market capitalization of cryptoassets dropped to $110 billion at the end of January from $830 billion a year earlier.
These market developments have occurred in a “legal vacuum”, said Robert Ophele, the head of France’s financial regulator. Speaking at a financial-technology conference in Brussels, he urged the EU Commission to propose new regulations to address risks.
Last month, EU regulators called for new rules to prevent money laundering and protect investors. But the Commission, the sole source of new EU legislation, so far has avoided taking action, fearing it will hamper the nascent industry.
“We have to make sure that our financial sector rules do not inadvertently hinder useful innovation,” said the financial services commissioner, Valdis Dombrovskis. Brussels was still considering whether EU action was needed, he said.
MALTA HUB
Individual EU states are moving into the vacuum, despite risks that uncoordinated action could weaken the EU market. The French parliament is passing cryptoassets legislation, and Germany’s finance ministry has begun a consultation on a blockchain strategy that will be published before summer.
Smaller states are ahead of them. Luxembourg passed its rules this year, and the Baltic countries have long been active in the sector, industry consultant Peter Moricz said.
The boldest is Malta, which has set up a broad regulatory framework and aims to become Europe’s cryptohub.
“We are the first EU jurisdiction to have a complete framework that caters for all key areas of risk: the risks to consumers, market integrity, financial crime and cyber security,” Joseph Cuschieri, the head of the Maltese financial regulator, told the Brussels conference.
The Mediterranean island is already home to the EU’s largest online gambling industry and a large financial-services sector, which have been drawn there by advanced regulation and low taxes.
But these successes have partly been marred by foreign investigations of several gambling firms and banks on the island that have exposed weak enforcement by local authorities.
“As a result of these failures, we have learnt how to strengthen our supervision,” said Christopher Buttigieg, a top supervisor at Malta Financial Services Authority.
(Reporting by Francesco Guarascio, editing by Larry King)
Source: OANN
from MAGA First News https://magafirstnews.com/oan-newsroom/malta-leads-on-cryptoassets-regulation-while-eu-ponders/
via IFTTT
submitted by peterboykin to The_NewDonald [link] [comments]

Malta leads on cryptoassets regulation while EU ponders

FILE PHOTO: Virtual currency Bitcoin tokens are seen in this illustration picture, December 8, 2017. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File PhotoFebruary 26, 2019
By Francesco Guarascio
BRUSSELS (Reuters) – As the European Commission ponders whether the European Union needs rules for cryptoassets and trading in virtual currencies, EU states are moving ahead with their own regulations, with the smallest of them, Malta, leading the pack.
The risks of investing in the industry were made clear last year when Bitcoin, the most successful cryptocurrency, lost three-quarters of its value from a peak around $20,000 in late 2017. The market capitalization of cryptoassets dropped to $110 billion at the end of January from $830 billion a year earlier.
These market developments have occurred in a “legal vacuum”, said Robert Ophele, the head of France’s financial regulator. Speaking at a financial-technology conference in Brussels, he urged the EU Commission to propose new regulations to address risks.
Last month, EU regulators called for new rules to prevent money laundering and protect investors. But the Commission, the sole source of new EU legislation, so far has avoided taking action, fearing it will hamper the nascent industry.
“We have to make sure that our financial sector rules do not inadvertently hinder useful innovation,” said the financial services commissioner, Valdis Dombrovskis. Brussels was still considering whether EU action was needed, he said.
MALTA HUB
Individual EU states are moving into the vacuum, despite risks that uncoordinated action could weaken the EU market. The French parliament is passing cryptoassets legislation, and Germany’s finance ministry has begun a consultation on a blockchain strategy that will be published before summer.
Smaller states are ahead of them. Luxembourg passed its rules this year, and the Baltic countries have long been active in the sector, industry consultant Peter Moricz said.
The boldest is Malta, which has set up a broad regulatory framework and aims to become Europe’s cryptohub.
“We are the first EU jurisdiction to have a complete framework that caters for all key areas of risk: the risks to consumers, market integrity, financial crime and cyber security,” Joseph Cuschieri, the head of the Maltese financial regulator, told the Brussels conference.
The Mediterranean island is already home to the EU’s largest online gambling industry and a large financial-services sector, which have been drawn there by advanced regulation and low taxes.
But these successes have partly been marred by foreign investigations of several gambling firms and banks on the island that have exposed weak enforcement by local authorities.
“As a result of these failures, we have learnt how to strengthen our supervision,” said Christopher Buttigieg, a top supervisor at Malta Financial Services Authority.
(Reporting by Francesco Guarascio, editing by Larry King)
Source: OANN
from MAGA First News https://magafirstnews.com/oan-newsroom/malta-leads-on-cryptoassets-regulation-while-eu-ponders/
via IFTTT
submitted by peterboykin to TheRightPill [link] [comments]

Malta leads on cryptoassets regulation while EU ponders

FILE PHOTO: Virtual currency Bitcoin tokens are seen in this illustration picture, December 8, 2017. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File PhotoFebruary 26, 2019
By Francesco Guarascio
BRUSSELS (Reuters) – As the European Commission ponders whether the European Union needs rules for cryptoassets and trading in virtual currencies, EU states are moving ahead with their own regulations, with the smallest of them, Malta, leading the pack.
The risks of investing in the industry were made clear last year when Bitcoin, the most successful cryptocurrency, lost three-quarters of its value from a peak around $20,000 in late 2017. The market capitalization of cryptoassets dropped to $110 billion at the end of January from $830 billion a year earlier.
These market developments have occurred in a “legal vacuum”, said Robert Ophele, the head of France’s financial regulator. Speaking at a financial-technology conference in Brussels, he urged the EU Commission to propose new regulations to address risks.
Last month, EU regulators called for new rules to prevent money laundering and protect investors. But the Commission, the sole source of new EU legislation, so far has avoided taking action, fearing it will hamper the nascent industry.
“We have to make sure that our financial sector rules do not inadvertently hinder useful innovation,” said the financial services commissioner, Valdis Dombrovskis. Brussels was still considering whether EU action was needed, he said.
MALTA HUB
Individual EU states are moving into the vacuum, despite risks that uncoordinated action could weaken the EU market. The French parliament is passing cryptoassets legislation, and Germany’s finance ministry has begun a consultation on a blockchain strategy that will be published before summer.
Smaller states are ahead of them. Luxembourg passed its rules this year, and the Baltic countries have long been active in the sector, industry consultant Peter Moricz said.
The boldest is Malta, which has set up a broad regulatory framework and aims to become Europe’s cryptohub.
“We are the first EU jurisdiction to have a complete framework that caters for all key areas of risk: the risks to consumers, market integrity, financial crime and cyber security,” Joseph Cuschieri, the head of the Maltese financial regulator, told the Brussels conference.
The Mediterranean island is already home to the EU’s largest online gambling industry and a large financial-services sector, which have been drawn there by advanced regulation and low taxes.
But these successes have partly been marred by foreign investigations of several gambling firms and banks on the island that have exposed weak enforcement by local authorities.
“As a result of these failures, we have learnt how to strengthen our supervision,” said Christopher Buttigieg, a top supervisor at Malta Financial Services Authority.
(Reporting by Francesco Guarascio, editing by Larry King)
Source: OANN
from MAGA First News https://magafirstnews.com/oan-newsroom/malta-leads-on-cryptoassets-regulation-while-eu-ponders/
via IFTTT
submitted by peterboykin to The_NewDonald [link] [comments]

Malta leads on cryptoassets regulation while EU ponders

FILE PHOTO: Virtual currency Bitcoin tokens are seen in this illustration picture, December 8, 2017. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File PhotoFebruary 26, 2019
By Francesco Guarascio
BRUSSELS (Reuters) – As the European Commission ponders whether the European Union needs rules for cryptoassets and trading in virtual currencies, EU states are moving ahead with their own regulations, with the smallest of them, Malta, leading the pack.
The risks of investing in the industry were made clear last year when Bitcoin, the most successful cryptocurrency, lost three-quarters of its value from a peak around $20,000 in late 2017. The market capitalization of cryptoassets dropped to $110 billion at the end of January from $830 billion a year earlier.
These market developments have occurred in a “legal vacuum”, said Robert Ophele, the head of France’s financial regulator. Speaking at a financial-technology conference in Brussels, he urged the EU Commission to propose new regulations to address risks.
Last month, EU regulators called for new rules to prevent money laundering and protect investors. But the Commission, the sole source of new EU legislation, so far has avoided taking action, fearing it will hamper the nascent industry.
“We have to make sure that our financial sector rules do not inadvertently hinder useful innovation,” said the financial services commissioner, Valdis Dombrovskis. Brussels was still considering whether EU action was needed, he said.
MALTA HUB
Individual EU states are moving into the vacuum, despite risks that uncoordinated action could weaken the EU market. The French parliament is passing cryptoassets legislation, and Germany’s finance ministry has begun a consultation on a blockchain strategy that will be published before summer.
Smaller states are ahead of them. Luxembourg passed its rules this year, and the Baltic countries have long been active in the sector, industry consultant Peter Moricz said.
The boldest is Malta, which has set up a broad regulatory framework and aims to become Europe’s cryptohub.
“We are the first EU jurisdiction to have a complete framework that caters for all key areas of risk: the risks to consumers, market integrity, financial crime and cyber security,” Joseph Cuschieri, the head of the Maltese financial regulator, told the Brussels conference.
The Mediterranean island is already home to the EU’s largest online gambling industry and a large financial-services sector, which have been drawn there by advanced regulation and low taxes.
But these successes have partly been marred by foreign investigations of several gambling firms and banks on the island that have exposed weak enforcement by local authorities.
“As a result of these failures, we have learnt how to strengthen our supervision,” said Christopher Buttigieg, a top supervisor at Malta Financial Services Authority.
(Reporting by Francesco Guarascio, editing by Larry King)
Source: OANN
from MAGA First News https://magafirstnews.com/oan-newsroom/malta-leads-on-cryptoassets-regulation-while-eu-ponders/
via IFTTT
submitted by peterboykin to MagaFirstNews [link] [comments]

Malta leads on cryptoassets regulation while EU ponders

FILE PHOTO: Virtual currency Bitcoin tokens are seen in this illustration picture, December 8, 2017. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File PhotoFebruary 26, 2019
By Francesco Guarascio
BRUSSELS (Reuters) – As the European Commission ponders whether the European Union needs rules for cryptoassets and trading in virtual currencies, EU states are moving ahead with their own regulations, with the smallest of them, Malta, leading the pack.
The risks of investing in the industry were made clear last year when Bitcoin, the most successful cryptocurrency, lost three-quarters of its value from a peak around $20,000 in late 2017. The market capitalization of cryptoassets dropped to $110 billion at the end of January from $830 billion a year earlier.
These market developments have occurred in a “legal vacuum”, said Robert Ophele, the head of France’s financial regulator. Speaking at a financial-technology conference in Brussels, he urged the EU Commission to propose new regulations to address risks.
Last month, EU regulators called for new rules to prevent money laundering and protect investors. But the Commission, the sole source of new EU legislation, so far has avoided taking action, fearing it will hamper the nascent industry.
“We have to make sure that our financial sector rules do not inadvertently hinder useful innovation,” said the financial services commissioner, Valdis Dombrovskis. Brussels was still considering whether EU action was needed, he said.
MALTA HUB
Individual EU states are moving into the vacuum, despite risks that uncoordinated action could weaken the EU market. The French parliament is passing cryptoassets legislation, and Germany’s finance ministry has begun a consultation on a blockchain strategy that will be published before summer.
Smaller states are ahead of them. Luxembourg passed its rules this year, and the Baltic countries have long been active in the sector, industry consultant Peter Moricz said.
The boldest is Malta, which has set up a broad regulatory framework and aims to become Europe’s cryptohub.
“We are the first EU jurisdiction to have a complete framework that caters for all key areas of risk: the risks to consumers, market integrity, financial crime and cyber security,” Joseph Cuschieri, the head of the Maltese financial regulator, told the Brussels conference.
The Mediterranean island is already home to the EU’s largest online gambling industry and a large financial-services sector, which have been drawn there by advanced regulation and low taxes.
But these successes have partly been marred by foreign investigations of several gambling firms and banks on the island that have exposed weak enforcement by local authorities.
“As a result of these failures, we have learnt how to strengthen our supervision,” said Christopher Buttigieg, a top supervisor at Malta Financial Services Authority.
(Reporting by Francesco Guarascio, editing by Larry King)
Source: OANN
from MAGA First News https://magafirstnews.com/oan-newsroom/malta-leads-on-cryptoassets-regulation-while-eu-ponders/
via IFTTT
submitted by peterboykin to MagaOneRadio [link] [comments]

[US] Basic tax explanation from a non-CPA

Update: Turbotax says I was partially wrong about cap gain vs sales revenue :( https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/tax-payments/tax-tips-for-bitcoin-and-virtual-currency/L1ZOgU00q
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-virtual-currency-guidance
tl;dr: The value of the sales revenue is based on the value of the BTC (or other coin) on the day you received it. If you HODL, it then gets treated as a gain or loss.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about how this is taxed and so people say fuzzy things like "it's a grey area" and "the IRS doesn't even know". For the most part, especially in terms of NiceHash sellers, this isn't complicated.
When you go to do your taxes there is a Schedule C form that is literally called "Profit or Loss From Business". If you're just a guy doing this out of your garage (or a girl from a dorm, or an agender potatoe doing it from the woods), this is the form you use.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040sc.pdf
So what do all of the lines mean? It's really simple. Anything you make from NiceHash that's converted to cash gets put here: should be valued as of the day you receive it and put here:
Part I Income 1 Gross receipts or sales.
"But hungrycapitalist, where do I put my expenses for the deduction?" Great question! If you move under Part II there is a section for expenses broken down by category. Line 13 is for depreciation and is where you put your equipment purchases (which actually can be a little complicated). Line 25 is where you put your utilities (whatever percentage you attribute to your mining equipment). If you look at the form, you get the idea.
"But hungrycapitalist, what about capital gains?" Capital gains is when you buy something you passively hold. For example, you go to CoinBase and buy $1,000 of BTC, then sit on it. If you sell it within a year it gets taxed at a higher rate than if you sit on it for more than a year. If you're mining and this is your form of payment, you simply sell it for whatever you sell it at and report it as line 1 Gross receipts or sales. Why? Think of it like this, if you build chairs as a business and they don't sell so well (or you think they'll go up in value) and you sell it a year down the road, it's still sales revenue, not a capital gains. Also, if you're reporting it as sales revenue, you won't get double taxed on it as a capital gain.
Is it complicated to understand the difference between a capital gain and business income? I guess, but the key difference is pretty clear if you look at the schedule C form and ask the question "is this pay from a business activity or a passive investment?"
As I said, I'm not a CPA nor am I qualified to give you definitive tax advice, but if you look at the IRS form you file your taxes on it makes it pretty clear.
Source: Run internet business and this is how my CPA explained it to me.
~~
submitted by hungrycapitalist to NiceHash [link] [comments]

Watch CNBC's full interview with Berkshire Hathaway CEO ... Blockchain in 2 Minutes BTC Halving and The Bull Market  Microsoft's Cryptocurrency Patent  Alibaba, IBM Blockchain Patent Conversation With Patrice Motsepe - YouTube What are the warning signs of a recession? - YouTube

Cash depreciates in value, literally the opposite of what you say Bitcoin Cash will do. That's why we can't treat them the same. Having it both ways is destroying the argument that it needs to exist at all. Everyone agrees the original Bitcoin is fine as long as you're not trying to spend it. Forbes reports that the so-called bitcoin - one of the most popular and recognizable cryptocurrencies on the market - has lost 17% of its value over the last few days. The price of a single virtual coin is currently at the same level as in January this year, before a period of quite intensive increases - 7.6 thousand dollars. “I don’t see bitcoin as an alternative to gold, but as another way for the ordinary citizen to protect him or herself from monetary inflation of ... Weiterlesen. Claudio Grass Marktberichte. By SF. 24. Januar 2019. 819. 0. Crypto-crash: An optimistic post-mortem – Part 2. Blatant security deficits and rampant fraud Over the last year, news of crypto hacks and heists became so prevalent ... Bitcoin Scams: See Articles Below. Another form of Bitcoin scam or Bitcoin-related scams is the promise of exchange for competing cryptocurrencies that have no value or may not exist. Malware scams involving Bitcoin have also been occurring. See more Bitcoin scams as they unfold here. / Newsroom; The Rise of Bitcoin: Understanding the Ins and Outs of this Cryptocurrency. Recently, the value of bitcoin jumped to more than $7,500, up significantly from its value of $700 in November 2016. While bitcoin has been out for a number of years now, it and other cryptocurrencies have only recently gained greater awareness in people’s minds. This leaves many to wonder: what are ...

[index] [16191] [36658] [17544] [8181] [40787] [30367] [47434] [43168] [31321] [19222]

Watch CNBC's full interview with Berkshire Hathaway CEO ...

How to make money from Bitcoin?This video expains in detail how to get started in making money through bitcoin. Follow me on Facebook https://www.facebook.co... Berkshire Hathaway's chairman and CEO Warren Buffett sat down with CNBC's Becky Quick on Monday to answer viewer questions and discuss the top news stories o... Fears of a brewing global recession were renewed this week as markets reacted to President Donald Trump's trade war with China. CNN's John King examines the ... Any currency is only as good as the value we give it. That's the way it is for the U.S. dollar, and that's the way it is for the virtual currency known as bitcoin. way to download: https://1.envato.market/c/1303493/475676/4415?u=http%3A%2F%2Fvideohive.net%2Fitem%2Ffinance-hud%2F12611003 Full HD resolution 25 fps No plug...

#