Of course he is. There are very few countries that would let him just keep all his profits. Governments exist with the purpose of taxing that sort of thing.
1 Like
Thatās not exactly how it works.
The same government have those places in them where they are indeed having their own different tax systems there.
Itās also part of the same government system, which is a group of systems related to another system, related with themā¦
Not everyone can go there, and those that do not wonāt benefit from it.
ā
The study they do, rather than research, is omitting the parts related,
which parts that are omitted, sought omitted from forfeiture,
or, sought to be made to be seen as if they didnāt know about,
when they in fact are themselves trying to justify to now know about,
to try to claim for diminution of responsibility from it,
while hiding other things they hide, to hide what they hide and to try to hide more things from hiding previous things,
will not only be revealed,
no matter how hard it is to verify what was omitted, when, and how, and by who, and for who, and about who,
will eventually be known, and revealed.
The same system who use those tax creation also use resources from those systems to deal with the same problems to create at home, from it, about it, and with it.
Itās also related to more ancient slavery as well.
ā
The research which is referred to, if any,
for that research to be valid
(research included 2 times, for in case someone tries to unreasonable divert from the use of an "it", even though it is clearly following the first subject about the research, about which grammatical use grammatical research would not and should not be required, despite attacks against the grammar, in exercise of futility and vanity)
[In grammar, the subject of a clause is the noun group that refers to the person or thing that is doing the action expressed by the verb. ā¦ To be subject to something means to be affected by it or to be likely to be affected by it.]
has to be approved by government,
without which government, such as in the case of police research,
is not legal, but is or would be limited to police studies, instead of research.
That is not to say that the studies cannot be better than the research.
It does however say and state and confirms that,
the study was not approved by the government to be a research,
while that government approves of studies that are legal, and,
not against research they approve.
ā
By the way, with indictments for life, itās really not hard and more obvious to verify and get confirmation from the military about where the source of those attempts to coerce into futility and vanity are from,
because that is generally and usually, and most commonly from common law and case law what indictments are about,
even without getting into more further moral details as to what and how and why it is and by who it is done and what goals they seek to achieve by this and what kind of control they have over it and seek to justify from it,
even though it is false and misleading and how it is,
and how they misrepresent it as a danger to them when it is not and when it wasnāt intended to be, and why it isnāt and how it isnāt,
and how they are instead the ones to try to do so,
and try to justify to blame others for their own demise which demise they bring upon themselves by attacking others with and from those very systems and procedures in abuse of procedures and against the due process to stop those doing those abusive acts against public interest and security of health.
That is even more true when the ones liable are not being prosecuted and the blame goes on victims while those protected to escape, such as in tax evasion, or, encryption scheme against public interest,
is sought to be created and blamed on those victims of their attacks,
which they then try to hide by getting rid of them and interfering against them getting married and so on.
Right, if those criminals were instead indicted, for their indictable offense,
which, even if not done, in many cases can be done later, as there is no statute of limitations on crimes against the government, for which the government can start criminal prosecutions.
The government doesnāt have a statute of limitations in regards to criminal prosecution.
Sure, they may not try for theft after 14 years,
however, if that theft led to other damages or death or supported treason, or other, they will be liable for the additional charges instead of the original one, which may be party to the other commission.
Hence, government commission.
Commission as in committing, and, commitment, as in commitment in marriage and the moral rights and duties conferred in marriage.
Also, you canāt steal intellectual property before marriage because the marriage does not only prove the moral abuse from those theft, but, also, the intentions to divert from it, even if intending to hide nuclear weapons illegally, or, trying to steal them, or, interfere against them, which secrets and prohibited areas the government does safeguard and did.
The lack of discretion of judgment from the moral authorities in charge of the government in no ways diminishes the liability of that government against history to attack those same moral issues in relation to intellectual property in regards to marriage the rights conferred therein.
To take duties related to marriage out of proportion is taking both the moral rights and duties out of context and deserves punishment according to the level of amount of the moral being taken out of context, including the immoral sought justification of communication gap sought to be created by encryption, the lack of knowledge, the attribution of mental illness conditions, also taken out of context, and not compared to their own conditions,
which, if even worse,
will be as worse as their own mental conditions allows them to give a good judgment about the conditions of the subject they make erroneous diagnosis about, in both malpractice, and against moral.
I think that is what some politicians and their banker friends want people to think. They are threatened by crypto currency. Control over currency is quite a bit of power. Its why Margaret Thatcher opposed the Euroā¦she did not want that power over Great Britain held by continental Europe. Crypto will take their power away.
1 Like
The first step in any decent confidence game is convincing the mark that they want to believe. When I read through this thread, I see post after post of pro-bitcoin guys explaining all the reasons why they want to believe.
There used to be a company called webvan - they would buy groceries at supermarkets and deliver them to your home. Lots of investors loved this company - it was the epitome of dot-com. Unfortunately, the supermarkets were watching. They let webvan figure out the business model - what worked, what didnāt work, how to handle delivery, etc. Then, once webvan worked out their system, the grocery stores started offering the service themselves. RIP webvan.
If cryptocurrencies have potential, and they probably do, then we are in the phase where the bankers are watching - looking to see what the vulnerabilities are, weaknesses and strengths. Once the independent cryptocurrencies have figured out a safe, workable system, the bankers will introduce their own system and shut down all the scrappy amateur systems.
1 Like
You clearly donāt understand how the blockchain, especially with the PoW model, works if you think that the blockchain doesnāt have fees. Bitcoin, if it ever becomes more than just a way to gamble on the price of bitcoin, will have higher transaction fees than paypal or bank transfers.
You just said the SECs approval is meaningless
Because it is. The SECās approval is not a statement that the SEC believes that bitcoin is a useful product or that its market price reflects its actual value. It is literally nothing more than the SEC saying āit is not illegal to buy and sell bitcoinā. The SEC will approve pretty much anything that follows the relevant laws and there was no reason to believe theyād refuse to grant that approval to bitcoin as soon as it became necessary to do so.
i canāt even reply after this
So you say, followed by an epic wall of text replying to me.
not everyone wants to be responsible for themselves (clearly) but majority do.
Nonsense. Karen doesnāt care about libertarian ideological purity, Karen wants to speak to a manager about why her bitcoin card isnāt working. And there are way more Karens than libertarian fanatics in the world.
News flash people, you canāt regulate Bitcoin.
Utter nonsense. The government can easily regulate bitcoin by declaring what laws bitcoin and users of bitcoin must follow and imprisoning anyone who violates them. It doesnāt matter if itās theoretically possible to use illegal bitcoin if no legitimate business will accept it as payment and no bank will allow you to exchange bitcoin for cash.
1 Like
They have potential to gain trust and lose it too.
The balance may really be zero in the end. Depends what happens.
It really wonāt. If somehow cryptocurrency, despite all odds being against it, becomes relevant enough to threaten the mainstream financial system the state will simply take ownership of cryptocurrency and regulate it. Bitcoin only remains independent so long as bitcoin is not a threat to anything.
I think some form of cryptocurrency might be the dollar alternative that Russia/China/Brazil have been looking for. Right now, too many things, like oil, are strongly biased toward dollar pricing. The US then manipulates the price of the dollar, and nobody can fight it directly because they need oil.
The world needs a ābasket of currenciesā with reasonable price discovery and resistance to manipulation by a single player (like the US). Cryptocurrencies might provide a non-violent way for countries not aligned with US interests to participate in the global economy. Maybe.
1 Like
China introduced virtual currency, it is not entirely what Bitcoin is, as its just another currency, only virtual, highly regulated.
Cryptos to be alluring have to be volatile. And that works against them becoming currencies. It is only -currency in name.
1 Like
Perhaps I was unclear. I wouldnāt imagine anything like these crazy current bitcoins - I was imagining something like the blockchain - mostly for ātrustlessā currency conversion. It would allow people to take out loans (or other financial contracts) that are not denominated in ādollarsā but in āsomethingā that could be converted at the moment of payment from any currency at the moment of payment.
Well said, and coming from someone who watches the industry DAILY, banks are already well past watching. 
Bankers will 100% try to compete, i donāt believe they will come out on top but still a major needed product, thatāll never change.
Thereās too many things too learn about that people donāt care to grasp. The blockchain is more important than Bitcoin. BTC is just a flagship at this point and with a market cap of $1,041,477,315,588 and daily volume today of $62,960,578,650 itās hard too watch silly uneducated FUD. Now iām not saying crypto is perfect right now obviously itās not but again, itās well past noticing loop holes and thereās hundreds of sub systems fighting to create the perfect system to be adopted. Thereās no hopes and dreams anymore just a waiting game for it to squeeze in slowly where it can.
I didnāt say blockchain didnāt have fees, and have ackowledged itās fees like 3 times now so i dont even know how to respond there. And again, half of this is preference. I personally would take higher fees to get my money INSTANTLY. I donāt like waiting to access my own money like half the world doesnāt. Instant transfers, thatās not an option in the US other than Zelle and PayPal (which has a fee) so the use case here is very meaningful all around, just starting with transfer speeds.
āBecause it isā is not a response. Itās operational functionalities and CURRENT meaning/power is the reality you should PROBABLY pay attention to. If SEC approves an ETF, you sit there with your same comments, watching the markets go very green, and major wealth being invested, and try and convince people to āSELL NOWā lmao. Typically the only ones against decentralization are the ones who arenāt gaining from investing in the future. I get it. Itās major investments going on daily within crypto industry and i mean big.
The market already goes green with the thought of approval maybe you donāt watch the markets? lol Again that data isnāt up for debate, thatās straight facts. The market goes green with close ETF approval and that in your mind means the SEC approval is meaningless? lol Your off in another world i think but the rest like money but anyway iām going to buy some more bitcoin, and popcorn and watch the confused haters complain as my wallet increased daily by about $45 the past 3 months. O_O
What about PAX Gold and others, which is literally backed by physical gold reserves?
Itās 2021. iām in the U.S. and it seems everyone is just loving money. If you love money, you know it makes no sense to have physical US dollars in a safe. US Dollar is not the main currency as it used to be. I literally can trade my US Dollars for Swiss Francs once a month and make a profit. x-x
As for running a node and the legality around that, you hit that ā ā ā ā right on the nail. I donāt even know how that could ever be considered legitimate for mass adoption unless govt approval and KYC or something of that nature which goes against the idea of decentralization really.
Everything is backed by SOMETHING. Clearly thereās some fraudulent companies doing scam ICOs and everything and they make the rest look back, but as far as iām concerned investors need to do due diligence or companies be forced to work with some govt entity (I donāt know, the SEC?) so theyāre happy with requirements on their endā¦ Same with the stock market.
I think the invention part is software majorly, people trust in its safety. But they still get other things failing instead.
Sure, its nice when it goes higher and higher, untill something bad happens.
What are you talking about? Look at Bitcoins marketcap. Investors money is something. $1,041,477,315,588 market cap and check etherscan to investigate/confirm holdings.
Invented Value? Wtf? Do you not know what proof of concept is? Do you not know what companies use Bitcoin now, and why?.
The creation of BTC i believe is to show us potential and recreate just as itās already happening by many quality companies. Not to use an unverified cryptocurrency nobody can verify itās creator, youāve got to be a fool to really believe everyone wants BTC to be official currency. Thereās no hope for that to be centralized just based on the above. Hence the reason so many others are creating their own blockchains, ect.
When Chase puts 5billion into a company creating their own blockchain, that means that company is backed by Chaseā¦ Seed funding you knowā¦?
You canāt have a customer when your business is attacked.
That is what is causing the lockdown.
If people didnāt attack my business,
there would be no need to equalize damage they sought to create against
the army.
I understand they are not allowed to know secret but public information is not secret nor intended.
It is public and intended to be public, and not intended to be hidden,
and it is also possibly illegal to hide, for the exact same reason that,
when and if hidden, it may very well be against public interest to know about it,
since it may be illegal competition, and,
intended to monopolize on the information,
and,
seeking to justify attacks against inventory,
by trying to justify other intellectual property such as nodes and other information system to prevail over security about clients and so on.
Yes, its good show how people fall for promise of high gains. While premined bitcoins are owned by unknown creator(s), who would rather I think remain unknown and cash out before everyone knows who they are.
ā
Also, you canāt mix up
Market Cap,
and,
Assets.
Those are 2 different Values.
Even the largest Market Cap on Earth donāt have 1 Trillion in Market Cap.
Those are American followed by other powers.
The largest assets on Earth are Chinese, to the tune of $14 trillion for the 4 largest , Assets,
not market cap.
They donāt have market cap of billions over those assets.
List of largest banks
By total assets
4 Largest Chinese banks = $14.82 trillion.
If JPMorgan Chase reported under the IFRS,
it would be ranked 5th in the list as of 2020, rather than 7th.[1]
Rank - - - - Bank name - - - - - - Total assets
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _(2019)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (US$ Billion)
1 
Industrial and Commercial Bank of China 4,324.27
2 China Construction Bank 3,653.11
3 Agricultural Bank of China 3,572.98
4 Bank of China 3,270.15
5 
JPMorgan Chase 3,213.00
6 
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group 2,892.97
7 
HSBC 2,715.15
8 Bank of America 2,434.08
ā
By market capitalization
The list is based on Relbanks.comās ranking as at 12 January 2018,
where the data are derived from annual reports and financial statements of the companies.[3]
Rank - - - - Bank name - - - - - - Market cap
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (US$ billion)
1 JPMorgan Chase 390.934
2 Industrial and Commercial Bank of China 345.214
ā
By market capitalization
### Market Capitalization Definition - Investopedia
ā
Searching:
āare business asset larger than bank assets?ā
ā
āmarket capā
Market capitalization refers to the total dollar market value of a companyās outstanding shares of stock. Commonly referred to as āmarket cap,ā it is calculated by multiplying the total number of a companyās outstanding shares by the current market price of one share. ~ Feb. 5, 2021
ā
āasset valueā
In stocks, the market value of a companyās assets per share. Asset value does not take into account the share price; one calculates the asset value by adding together the total value of the companyās tangible and intangible assets and dividing by the shares outstanding.
What is a Business Asset?
A business asset is an item of value owned by a company. Business assets span many categories. They can be physical, tangible goods, such as vehicles, real estate, computers, office furniture, and other fixtures, or intangible items, such as intellectual property.
ā
such as intellectual property.
Trade Secret.