Jump to content

Zerponaut

Gold Member
  • Posts

    3,751
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Zerponaut last won the day on June 11

Zerponaut had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Zerponaut

Recent Profile Visitors

2,623 profile views

Zerponaut's Achievements

  1. This is way above my pay grade but could it mean it's not so much Ripple selling their XRP one way to exchanges and banking the $ from FlashFX, but allowing Ripple to absorb selling pressure by removing the need for XRP to be sold immediately at the second exchange to cover the trade? E.g. (I know they don't say 'where' the XRP is coming from in the video but) Ripple could buy XRP back from the exchange (or from the exchange that the sender would have otherwise purchased from) at exactly the same price they sold to FlashFX for, buying after the XRP was sold, effectively lessening or equalising selling pressure and in the process increasing volume but insuring value isn't leaked from the network? I dunno if that even makes sense to me. I wonder if this has anything to do with the Bobarithm?
  2. Absolutely. I've been thinking this about Brad and other parties being 'complimentary' towards BTC and ETH lately. It's classic killing them with kindness. The more attention drawn to them, the more everyone finds out about their bad traits.
  3. It's not even an argument, it's common sense. Of course bitcoin 'should' move towards another more eco-friendly consensus method. And I agree, they can't, or at least it would be bloody hard - I'm sure the miners that have complete control over bitcoin now would be upset - and in the process bitcoin would destroy their god complex decentralized argument because it would show the magical code can be changed at a whim by the decision of a few. So **** them. When the world grows up, hopefully in another 5-10 years, bitcoin will be a pariah. BTC's corporate backers will see their sustainability ratings being downgraded severely and things will slowly happen. Bitcoin has no future, there are many better options already. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2273672-bitcoin-mining-emissions-in-china-will-hit-130-million-tonnes-by-2024/#Echobox%3D1618182272
  4. Dunno but I think the XRPL DEX should be an option. But it's a bit more complicated
  5. Well at least it's not Rule 589. Now that would have been too much.
  6. So how's your #flippening going these days?
  7. I won't be surprised to see whales dump it as soon as the markets open to tank the price and then turn around to scoop up the cheap FLR at a fraction of the price when the rest of the market panic sells after them.
  8. It's proof of what a mess regulation in crypto is. The NYC financial regulator gives validity to a crypto that has the integrity of a house of cards. Even if ETC's only approved for custody, someone willl get burnt and all cryptos will pay the price for years to come because the regulators don't know what they're doing, or worse. Maybe Brooks just has a bag of ETC from his Coinbase days or some favours to repay.
  9. LOL, that’s Cory in the Bloomberg interview in the vid.
  10. Faketoshi and nChain = future patent trolls that could seriously impede the crypto space, both for innovators and investors. It’s pure arrogance, hubris and greed, horrible.
  11. This claim was ridiculous and opportunist. I read the patent when the claim first came up and not that I'm any kind of legal eagle but it is so far from XRP and the XRPL. There is literally nothing in the patent that mentions 'money', 'value', 'finance', 'transfer', 'encrypted', 'secure' or any terms related to how XRP works. Here's the patent if anyone's interested https://patents.google.com/patent/US9432452
  12. I guess it depends on which country you're in - and previously the rule of thumb to be safe was to use FIFO - but I was looking for a relevant link and this one was interesting (read under 'Cost Basis'). It says a new ruling has been introduced. "specific identification" can now be used. This basically seems to give the green light for FILO accounting because, if your wallets are set up correctly you can specify when each unit was acquired and when it was disposed of. Interestingly this confirms that if you can't specify units you are to default to a FIFO method. See below from the first link (https://www.cryptotrader.tax/blog/new-irs-cryptocurrency-tax-guidance which is paraphrasing the official IRS page) To specifically identify a unit of cryptocurrency, you must include the following information: 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 If you are unable to specifically identify your cryptocurrencies, you are to default to a first-in first-out (FIFO) basis. Source: A36, A38 There is also newly created guidance from the IRS (page updated 6 Dec): https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/frequently-asked-questions-on-virtual-currency-transactions This is great news for us, well for those of you in the U.S. If my tax dept follows I would be very very happy.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.