Jump to content

Zerponaut

Silver Member
  • Content Count

    2,724
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Zerponaut

  • Rank
    Veteran

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. 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.
  2. LOL, that’s Cory in the Bloomberg interview in the vid.
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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 f
  6. Yeah, I'm just trying to play devils advocate. I'm still bitter about crypto generally requiring FIFO accounting. From the Oxford Dictionary: "Fungible - (of goods contracted for without an individual specimen being specified) replaceable by another identical item; mutually interchangeable." My point is, crypto isn't strictly fungible. It meets most of the definitions, but I can theoretically prove that the 'coins' I traded today are NOT the same 'coins' I purchased two years ago, because I bought the recently traded 'coins' last week and they have been kept in separate wallets
  7. Next time I see an ant on my $ I'll think of you. (and be jealous)
  8. Then why does the tax dept basically consider crypto to be fungible?
  9. From the Stellar blog “To burn the lumens, we have sent them to a Stellar account with no signers (including a master key weight of 0): GALAXYVOIDAOPZTDLHILAJQKCVVFMD4IKLXLSZV5YHO7VY74IWZILUTO“
  10. Seriously, literally the post above yours explains that Stellar didn't 'destroy' or 'cut in half' the XLM, it was sent to a blackhole wallet and hence is in no way related to the ability of the protocol to be altered indiscriminately. Nothing happened that couldn't also be done with any PoW coin so let's not get into the whole forking Bitcoin debate. The credibility question re XLM, to many, was never resolved to start with. The SDF was/is at a dead end and have again (is this the second or third time?) flipped on their stated mandate in order to try to create meaning for their coin.
  11. I have no clue whatsoever about the complexities of patent law but in my professional opinion this is a pile of horse bits. Reading through this patent I would challenge anyone to equate it with the XRPL (that, as noted above by Archer, existed before this was lodged). I note that nowhere in the Patent concerned does it mention 'money', 'value', 'finance', 'transfer', 'encrypted', 'secure' or any other vaguely even tangentially related terms that RippleNet focuses on. It would seem obvious that the authors of this Patent never had any intention whatsoever that it would claim to
  12. I agree, Libra doesn't sound like a genius idea if they blew their first and maybe only chance of creating a Facebook crypto. They scared the $#!+ out of everyone so badly that they're on notice now.
×
×
  • 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.