• TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    10 months ago

    Someone is heavily invested in bitcoin.

    Can we see his portfolio for a sec? Not saying there’s an ulterior motive, but…

    • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      If I remember correctly, his buddy that got busted for getting fake ids for minors also spent a ton of government money buying GPUs to mine crypto.

      • dhork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        10 months ago

        If you have anything in mutual funds, investments funds, pension funds, most of them have some degree of exposure to it.

        Ok. I call bullshit on this. Funds do not hold crypto unless they explicitly say they do, like some of these crypto ETFs that have started up. The regulatory landscape is so weird for crypto right now that we don’t even know if they are handled as a security or not. So I think it’s safe to assume that fund managers are steering clear of it unless they explicitly call out that they are in it. Unless you mean indirect exposure through investing in Crypto related businesses like Coinbase, but even that’s a stretch

        Congress, on the other hand: yeah, they’re all into it. How else would they get their foreign bribe money?

          • dhork@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Your first link illustrates my point; the Wisconsin pension fund disclosed their Bitcoin investment. I see a lot of speculation that other funds are, but no hard facts about it. If it is happening, it is super early. Here is a link from Fidelity stating that many funds are “thinking” about it:

            https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/fidelity:-pension-funds-exploring-bitcoin-investments-on-etf-approval

            It may happen on a broad scale (and I hope it does, I can use another 10x gain), but it’s not there yet. If it happens, they will do it cautiously. The last thing they want is regulatory scrutiny for destroying a pension fund in the next exchange token crash.

            Your second link also doesn’t say what you think it does. It’s a link to a digital tech consulting company, who seems to have a vested interest in pushing crypto into the mainstream. Even then, the link is not about these banks investing in Crypto, but about banks figuring out how to provide custody services to retail customers. OG Crypto Bros self-custody, of course, but that involves a bunch of steps that the general public doesn’t want to bother with.

            So, dont jump the gun on this.

            • borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              but about banks figuring out how to provide custody services to retail customers.

              Opening a consulting firm to help implement this a bold business move, considering the FDIC doesn’t insure crypto and the FRB presumptively prohibits state member banks and their subsidiaries from holding most crypto-assets as principal.

  • BassTurd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Bitcoin and crypto is dumb and a waste of resources. We should tax it at 100% to kill off this unstable energy sink.

      • legion02@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        10 months ago

        We could literally bank the energy in hydrogen to even the curves and be infinitely better off.

      • BassTurd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Incentivizing renewables by demanding energy consumption. It’s a waste. Not wasting evergy at all is better that than incentivizing renewables. It does something poorly that nobody needed at huge cost. Nothing crypto should be considered legal tender.

          • dhork@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Bitcoin used to be valuable as permissionless peer-to-peer currency, but then it was ruined when it zoomed in price. Nobody transacts with it anymore, because it is a StOrE oF vAlUe.

            The energy thing is a solvable problem, once Bitcoiners see the problem. BTC’s PoW algorithm simply doesn’t scale. The devs could slot in a new algorithm if they wanted to, and dramatically reduce BTC’s power footprint. But they see the large energy expenditure as a feature, because they can say that all that energy is being used to secure the network.

              • dhork@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                10 months ago

                This post triggered my /r/Bitcoin PTSD…

                Nobody in this community cares about opening a tab on Lightning and needing to continually police it to make sure you don’t lose your coins, but let me explain the Power thing a bit more.

                Bitcoin’s block confirmation algorithm is based on SHA-256, which is an algorithm that just uses computing capacity to work. Custom ASIC chips have been developed to solve that problem at a very high rate, and current Bitcoin mining farms just use a bunch of these in parallel to go faster and make more hashes. More chips = more power consumed.

                But computing power is not the only resource that you can use for Proof-of-work. Other algorithms are designed to use a large amount of memory also, and memory is harder to scale than computing power. Other algorithms enforce that multiple nodes need to work in concert, and the network delays between them also enforce an additional cost. These make it harder to make things go faster simply by spamming more units. These are just as secure as the SHA256 algorithm that BTC uses. But fewer units = less power.

                BTC Maxis think the enormous amount of power consumed on the network is a selling point, when in reality it is the only feasable excuse for governments to ban it. Governments can never ban the protocol itself – it’s just math, after all – but can severely restrict where mining can happen if they think it is burning too much power and endangering other parts of the economy.

  • PugJesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    10 months ago

    Considering the extreme fluctuation of Bitcoin, it feels like that’s a payment that has to be processed and cashed out within an hour of the filing for the Federal government to not get screwed.

      • Bassman1805@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        10 months ago

        That’s beside the point, because you don’t pay taxes in denominations of “loaves of bread”, you pay them in US dollars. If you pay with an asset that is wont to change its value in US dollars on a whim, that’s a gamble for the government. There’s a reason people don’t regularly pay taxes with stock options.

  • dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Hey crypto bros, it’s a trap! Once they get your tax payment in Bitcoin, they will consider that a capital gain and expect to see the transaction on next year’s tax return.

  • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Why? I know why far-right Republican bozos want it — all the bribes (or “donations”) from the crypto and oil industries. But how would anyone else benefit from this? We don’t pay our taxes in random things that have a perceived value, whether it’s Mexican Pesos, airline miles, gold doubloons, futures contracts, corn, land, etc. for a reason. Individuals sell those assets (and often pay capital gains taxes on the sale) to get dollars, the national currency that has a known value and doesn’t need to be sold.

    Then, the U.S. government would have to sell them all anyway and the price fluctuations make that very risky. Why put that risk on the government? And only for Bitcoin, which is by design1 super volatile. It doesn’t even have a central bank. The U.S. government collecting and selling loads of BTC every April would probably make it even more volatile and speculative.

    1 Probably unintentionally since Bitcoin fanboys all seem to have found their Economics knowledge in a Cracker Jack box instead of a textbook.

  • floppybiscuits@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    This would be just like all the other services that allowed payments with Bitcoin and later sunset them because no one used it. See Wikipedia…