Gonzovision wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 5:49 am
It will be hard to unseat bitcoin as the top store-of-value crypto asset - Stanley Druckenmiller
So whether YOU think its a store of value or not is irrelevant, as it's being used as a store of value.
Someone using something as a store of value, or thinking it is, does not make it a store of value. A fact that a Billionaire thinks it is (I could cite others who do not) does not make it so. Additionally, he adds the caveat in that he is discussing within the Crypto universe. I have no issue with thinking that Bitcoin is likely to remain the most expensive Cryptocurrency, out of the current universe.
So not ban it then, just tax it now?
If people are converting to fiat, it's up to them to pay CGT, same as when you sell a stock or asset.
Unlike some, I am not against gambling. If people want to do it, then fair enough, I would not ban it. But I would tax it heavily. As things stand, Bitcoin is a speculative "asset" within a bubble. Nothing more. I don't see a reason to ban it. But if it ever got to a stage, or it looked like it was imminent, (I don't think it will) where Bitcoin hindered or stood in the way of democratic control of monetary policy, or nullified the levers available to countries to direct their economy, I think it should be banned. But in all probability putting heavy tax on it before it got that far (if it ever actually could outside of libertarian wet dreams) heavy tax would stop it in its tracks. This is why investing on the back of this libertarian wet dream where Bitcoin will take over the world monetary system is incredibly stupid. It will not be allowed happen, even it could.
You are incorrect here regarding CGT. It does not have to be converted to fiat in order for it to be a taxable event. Any "conversion" or swap of one crypto for another is a taxable event. So if you swap to tether, or ETH or whatever, this is a taxable event, reportable as such. Many (anecdotally most) crypto "investors" are actually in breach of the law, because they, erroneously, believe that it is only when selling for "fiat" that a taxable event arises. This is wrong. I look forward to when revenue comes knocking, which they will. It was nice of so many anti-government control types to supply PPS numbers and such to brokers.
Clearly didn't read the Chain analysis data so, but sure you've your mind made up. If you actually think more fraudulent activity happens of the btc network compared to fiat, what can I say.
I did not say that, what is the point in having a discussion if you are either going to ignore points I make (which you have done here with your less than fulsome response) or put words in my mouth?
In terms of ESG, those points have been rebuked many times at this stage, just look at the latest article by Lyn Alden on the energy use and energy use when the system is scaled.
Current energy use of the bitcoin network is akin to a rounding error.
Obviously you don't understand proof of work and why it is necessary.
Lets try this again. Bitcoin, and all that is associated with it, does not produce anything, or add value anywhere. It is not a necessary evil. It is not productive. Any energy usage is wastage, certainly the amount Bitcoin uses, which is not trivial. Much activity escacpes the oversight and control of democratic governments (by design), making it useful for criminals. Even many of the ordinary Joes who use it are tax cheats. ESG is cited as a reason for many institutional investors avoiding it. I have already said that I am sceptical of letting ESG dictate investment decisions, I am merely stating the truth of the matter, which is that ESG concerns are a major downside in the eyes of those who buy into it.
https://www.swanbitcoin.com/bitcoins-en ... lyn-alden/
Do the research, don't do the research, nobody really cares. You can keep saying it has no fundamental use case or value, but the network will keep growing, price will keep rising and more and more real world applications will be developed on L2 and L3.
Yes, your speculative bubble may continue to inflate and you might make money, good for you, just don't go all in or be left carrying the bag.
I return again to my initial point that has called all this fuss:
I think anyone who is solely invested in Bitcoin is on course for an (eventual) hiding. I think people will be safer and better served over the long term with a well-diversified portfolio of assets and equities (quality companies with a reasonable valuation). Stick a small % in BTC for a gamble if you want, and trim it if it rises. I would add that a few % of gold would fall under "assets" in my statement.
Nothing you have said has offered anything to counter the idea that this is a sensible way to do things, with Bitcoin exposure, if you insist on it, being kept to a small part of your portfolio. Putting all your money in Bitcoin with a "hold forever come what may" attitude is completely stupid (stupid to do this with any asset, but particularly a speculative one!) and no one should do it. In refuting my statement you said there are no reasonably valued companies. There are. You said equities have not delivered a return that has beaten inflation, this was wrong. You have abandoned addressing my other main point, which is that Bitcoin has no fundamental value (because you realised I was not fibbing when I said many Bitcoin fans admit or embrace that fact?). If you believe Bitcoin has a fundamental or intrinsic value, please explain why, and what your approach to calculating this (in a general sense) is.