Bitcoins

“I’m not involved in bitcoin. Wait a minute, I want my free lunch first. I’m going with this guy,” Nakamoto said, pointing at an AP reporter. “I’m not in bitcoin, I don’t know anything about it.”

i instinctively like this chap, assuming he is just an unfortunate victim of journalistic credulousness and editorial desperation, he plays them much better than an elderly media novice should be able to

"I'm not in bitcoin" is the catchphrase that's sweeping the nation's freshest generation

Salinger, Jandek, and what

too much time on ilx

so the real Satoshi (whose account dates back to 2010) just came out of hiding to say he's not Dorian (which of course proves nothing), but reading about this guy it seems very unlikely that he's the real dude, in which case LOL @ Newsweek for blowing your big comeback cover story, this is such an amazing thing

― frogbs, Friday, 7 March 2014 15:05 (3 days ago) Permalink

Not surprising. Anyone remember this infamous Newsweek cover from 1986?

http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/galleries/2011/01/22/women-in-the-world-newsweek-covers/jcr:content/gallery/slide12/image.img.410.273.jpg/1337256000000.cached.jpg

It infamously warned women they better get married young, because a 40-year-old woman had a better chance of being killed by a terrorist than ever getting married (serious - these sorts of stories proclaiming dire conseqences for women who stayed single, weren't stay-at-home moms, etc. were everywhere during the Reagan era when the right wing was powerful). 20 years later, they had to run this apology cover story about how fucked up their statistics and attitudes were in the '80s, after real life proved lots of women who were 40-year-old singles in 1986 did somehow find a man.

http://www.anunews.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/aa-Newsweek-cover-on-marriage.jpg

Oh, and let's not forget this one:

http://watchdogwire.com/florida/files/2013/08/hitler.jpg

a few weeks later after this was published, they were proved a forgery

Hitler and the Jews

Hitler and the Jews: Calling it Quits for Good?

Nakamoto and the Jews

Hitler and the Jews: What Was That Relationship Like?

The Jews: What Did Hitler Really Think About Them?

Rethinking Hitler and the Jews

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BiZbwc2CUAAwAws.png:large

lol

SATOSHI NAKAMOTO'S SECRET DIARIES

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/t1/1920451_10151954651046596_124643034_n.jpg

wait ponzicoin is a real thing no wai

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWTICRcmRSQ

A brief history of Bitcoin heists:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/mar/18/history-of-bitcoin-hacks-alternative-currency?utm_content=buffere1467&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

IRS says Bitcoin is taxable property, not a currency

lol

realistically I can't see the IRS going after yer average bitcoiner (everyone in the online poker community was terrified of this but I don't think they went after a single person that didn't make over say $20k a year on it), but if anything this will make it way harder for any business to ever accept bitcoin (not that anyone was seriously considering this, but holy cow is this a trainwreck)

Why does that make it harder for businesses to accept bitcoin?

I guess it depends to what extent they want to "accept" them. Currently no businesses (that I know of) actually keep any coins - they just use a service like Bitpay to convert them to $$$ immediately. If they actually do for whatever reason decide to keep Bitcoins they're now looking at reporting taxes on all that and they could get massively boned from year to year should the price ever take a sharp dive (as it's been known to do)

j0n posted mt gox source code on twitter

I guess it depends to what extent they want to "accept" them. Currently no businesses (that I know of) actually keep any coins - they just use a service like Bitpay to convert them to $$$ immediately. If they actually do for whatever reason decide to keep Bitcoins they're now looking at reporting taxes on all that and they could get massively boned from year to year should the price ever take a sharp dive (as it's been known to do)

― frogbs, Tuesday, March 25, 2014 4:36 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don't think this is correct. They would have to pay taxes (to the extent there is profit in the business) on the value regardless of whether it was treated as "property" or "currency." There are already complex tax rules for treatment of paper gains/losses in the value of an asset, so again I don't know why this would be any different.

There's a good Q&A here that gives better answers than I can obv:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/i-r-s-says-bitcoin-should-be-considered-property-not-currency/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

yeah maybe "harder" isn't the word, but it certainly seems much less attractive now. you never know when the price is going to massively crash and as I understand it if you take in a bunch of BTC at $600 and the next year they're only $300 you still have to pay taxes on the $600 price.

I think more importantly, this makes mining even more terribly unprofitable, since you still have to spend cash on the equipment and tons on electricity and when you finally get the bit you gotta pay taxes on it, in dirty fiat no less! (as of now would be like $200 per)

of course, like only .5% of these dudes are actually gonna report, so whatever

If you buy a bunch of bitcoins at $600 and they fall to $300 you don't pay taxes on anything

But yeah if you made one and when you made it it was $600 you'd have to pay taxes on that $600

I think it'd be a little more complicated than that. You could probably deduct the expenses of mining.

Only if you didn't take the standard deduction and most people can't since their deductible expenses don't rise above the 2% AGI floor so it doesn't make sense

A lot of miners today are businesses, not individuals.

If you buy a bunch of bitcoins at $600 and they fall to $300 you don't pay taxes on anything

right, but say you get paid in them. you sell something for 10 BTC @ $600, then next year the bits are at $300. so essentially you have $3000 worth of bits but you have to pay taxes on $6000.

Presumably you had purchased whatever you sold with after-tax dollars so it wouldn't really be income to you therefore you wouldn't have to pay tax on the bitcoins

Business taxes are more complicated than that. First of all, you don't pay taxes on your gross, you pay on your net. Second, you could probably write off the valuation loss of the bitcoins if you actually held them.

I don't think you could depreciate bitcoin value loss over time but you could definitely deduct the loss when you sell them, but you'd have to sell them first

http://www.businessinsider.com/irs-bitcoin-is-property-not-currency-full-release-2014-3

I think you're correct -- losses would only be written down when they are realized, i.e. when the bitcoin is used to pay for something or sold. Still, one assumes that would occur eventually.

You don't realize the loss when you sell it you recognize it

Actually you do both but the recognition is what you're after

not sure what you mean. that's what a realized loss is.

sry xp that got all garbled

you realize the loss when you sell it, you recognize it when you report it

we're basically saying the same thing

You can realize a loss but if you have something that would offset it then you would never recognize the loss even though you realized it

this is getting more technical than it needs to be for the conversation and veering off track, but I believe you would recognize the loss, but the offset would just change the net impact to your taxes.

You can realize a loss but if you have something that would offset it then you would never recognize the loss even though you realized it

we're not talking about bitcoins anymore, are we

Nah you'd realize the loss, not recognize it xp

What I'm trying to say is that, taxes are more fun than bitcoins

Where's sarahell???

i.e. you have a realized $3000 loss when you take bitcoins you bought for $7K and sell them for 4K. You also sold a lot of magic the gathering cards that you purchased for $4K for $9K, a gain of $5k. Your capital gain of $5K may "offset" your capital loss of $4K, giving you a net gain of $1K. That doesn't mean you don't "recognize" the $4K loss, it just means that your gains exceeded your losses and you don't wind up having anything to write off. I could be wrong, I'm no accountant.

the result is the same so we're just talking terminology.