21 sats \ 0 replies \ @TwoLargePizzas 4 Sep \ on: Is Bitcoin a discovery or an invention? bitcoin
The word invent means to create something that didn't exist before.
But you can't really have invention without discovery. So it's actually both.
It's both. People who have done the work up front will push the price higher and the price going higher will attract more people.
I think a lot more people are paying a small amount of attention but it's not thier main focus. Kinda like they see Bitcoin in thier peripheral vision but haven't turned thier head to really look at it.
In other words, I think the orange pill barrier has lowered and the next wave of people being orange pilled well be much larger than the previous.
Hi James! I've often wondered if your time as a hockey player has given you any unique perspectives in the investment world?
I think people underestimate the ability of Bitcoin core developers. They can read, understand and test the SHA256 code as well as any NSA employee.
If there was a back door it would've been found. This is one fear I don't lose sleep over
If we're going to talk about tainted sats I would like to understand what the risks actually are?
As far as I'm aware receiving money is not a crime. But it could be used to connect you to a crime.
Receiving money is also a taxable event. If you failed to declare it as income on your taxes that would also be illegal.
If you didn't actually commit a crime it would seem to me the risk is being falsely accused of a crime you didn't commit.
Don't get me wrong, the risk is certainly not zero. There's obviously corruption in the legal system. People do get caught in the crossfire sometimes. We also don't know what the future holds, some future political change could greatly increase the risk of receiving tainted sats.
In an ideal world I never want to receive tainted sats. But it seems to me the simple act of receiving them is not the issue. The risk is the surrounding evidence that connects you with a crime you didn't commit.
Legal tender has a very specific purpose in tax law. You use legal tender as the base currency to calculate capital gains tax.
If you live in the United States the government expects you to use USD as the base currency for capital gains tax.
However, if you live in Australia and the government declared AUD as legal tender but you're holding some USD you are supposed to pay capital gains tax if you sell, dispose or transact with USD.
You could technically walk into a coffee shop in Australia and pay with USD if the owner accepted it. But that transaction could incur a capital gains tax for you and the coffee shop owner now has the USD and they could incur capital gains tax if they converted it to AUD.
In other words, legal tender is simply the currency the government declared it to be.
The point is, even though USD and AUD are both legal tender in thier respective countries they are not equally treated as legal tender from country to country.
Legal tender is any form of money that courts of law are required to recognize as satisfactory payment for any monetary debt. In particular, legal tender is typically the currency the government collects taxes in. However, the money itself does not technically have to be a debt based fiat currency. Although, as far as I'm aware they all are.
Remember, laws are just rules some politicians decided. There's nothing technically stopping them from deciding to make sea shells legal tender.
32 sats \ 0 replies \ @TwoLargePizzas 3 Jun \ parent \ on: I resent the term "Bitcoin Company" bitcoin
You're right. I don't know what you're talking about.
I'll let you get back to doing very important things and I'll go do something else.
It just so happens I was calculating CAGR of real estate in my area today.
To put these numbers into perspective my house has an 8% CAGR over the last 15 years.
Even if this was telling us something useful which I don't believe it is, a heck of a lot has changed since 2019.
Are we somehow forgetting we had C19 in 2020, the government printed 25% of all money in existence, inflation skyrocketed then interest rates went up faster than any other time in history.
The point is, the last 5 years really really matter. Looking at a chart from 2019 isn't very useful.
My thoughts on this are pretty simple.
Real estate is great collateral for a loan. In other words, it's pretty easy to go to a bank and borrow $500,000 dollars against a house. The same is not really true for Bitcoin or many other assets.
So while I agree real estate doesn't have the potential upside of Bitcoin it can't be understated how beneficial it can be to have long term low risk leverage. If you manage your finances right you can use this to acquire more Bitcoin.
That said, it's not a no brainer. In the current high interest rate environment it might not be the right move to buy real estate right away. But over the long term it tends to work out because rent goes up with inflation and home loan repayments don't.
Real estate has generally gone up in tandem with currency debasement. You can see this if you plot real estate prices over monetary inflation.
This is not a bad thing per se. It means dollars stored in real estate have kept their purchasing power over time. If you borrowed dollars to buy real estate that's a pretty good deal because you've created an inflation hedge on the banks freshly printed money. Of course, your loan interest rates do play a role in this equation.
So strictly speaking, while real estate prices have gone up the 'value' of real estate has stayed relatively stable in purchasing power terms.