Dan is doing the right thing .. again!

[NewMine]

Just wanted to chime in here. I would say I've been a fairly consistent member and have had many wonderful chats and made great connections on this community. I think that the community is the strength of this project. With that said, I think one of the biggest problems that has come about with the cryptonomex/bitshares 2.0 move is the lack of transparency in demands for usage of the code. In the previous version, we knew the unspoken rule was 20% (because it was said that you would be outright ostracized from the community if you didn't sharedrop). I always have liked the idea of sharedropping, but I understand there are numerous ways to get across your means of being able to pay for the services of those who came before. Which is why I have such a problem here. There hasn't been that kind of transparency in terms of demands. Part of this I understand due to the sacrifices (and yes, there were sacrifices made on the dev's end...you'd have to be a fool to not see that). But at what cost? This community has been the driving force behind Bitshares and worked to maintain its relevancy. I think that there should be more efforts put into transparency regarding the license. That's my wishlist item. Other than that, keep doing what you guys are doing. I've been trying to get up to speed with the new code and it is just gorgeous....and the Doxygen file is written very well this time around to the point where I can actually reasonably figure what the hell is going on in the code. All in all, just keep trying for transparency. Everything else will follow. That's my 2 cents. I'm out.

We've already stated that share dropping is the normal expectation but that we can't anticipate all the future scenarios.  For example, I wouldn't expect Apple to sharedrop for a private blockchain or for a blockchain that doesn't involve shares to  do something that doesn't even make sense.  That's as transparent as we can get, because we have learned that we will be smarter tomorrow than we are to day.

In the mean time, much more is yet to be said this summer...

Like I said Stan, I understand. Just wish it wasn't so. A man can dream, can he not? In any case, while I'm attempting to contribute to the Github, I will be in contact with both you and Dan for any future ideas that come about.

He won't share because he thinks you will steal our project from them. The project we paid for. All because they want to retain the right to sell it to a competitor when Bitshares falls in line with MMC and 99% of all other blockchains.

Heads they win, tails they win. They are securing their future against all BTS holders potential loss. Don't think for one second that they won't hesitate to sell you down the river so Stan can buy a new farm and Dan can move out of the basement.  After all he has child support to pay and $25 a day doesn't cut it.    Good luck all.

[NewMine]

Unfortunately Bm has said he must pay child support which means if he doesn't get paid he could go to jail. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BM is not as smart as I thought if he took this on knowing the probability of success was rather small while having life obligations and responsibilities as you claim.

Of all the things you could have responded to, you choose this?  Newmine, you are a great conversation starter but you have created the impression with me that you are unable to see beyond the points you make.  You never seem to open your mind to a broader context.  And finally, you seem to resort to discourtesy too readily.  If you can't let this go, you will miss the enjoyment of the successes to come (should they arrive.)  Don't live with bitterness, life is too short.

Pretty sure I responded to all BM's points and questions.

To be fair, yes you did....I just mean't there were several other points you could have responded to and i was hoping that one of them may have engendered something positive.  Never mind though.

Which point? You have had two posts to call me on it exactly, but you haven't.  Why?  Oh, never mind though.

[VoR0220]

Just wanted to chime in here. I would say I've been a fairly consistent member and have had many wonderful chats and made great connections on this community. I think that the community is the strength of this project. With that said, I think one of the biggest problems that has come about with the cryptonomex/bitshares 2.0 move is the lack of transparency in demands for usage of the code. In the previous version, we knew the unspoken rule was 20% (because it was said that you would be outright ostracized from the community if you didn't sharedrop). I always have liked the idea of sharedropping, but I understand there are numerous ways to get across your means of being able to pay for the services of those who came before. Which is why I have such a problem here. There hasn't been that kind of transparency in terms of demands. Part of this I understand due to the sacrifices (and yes, there were sacrifices made on the dev's end...you'd have to be a fool to not see that). But at what cost? This community has been the driving force behind Bitshares and worked to maintain its relevancy. I think that there should be more efforts put into transparency regarding the license. That's my wishlist item. Other than that, keep doing what you guys are doing. I've been trying to get up to speed with the new code and it is just gorgeous....and the Doxygen file is written very well this time around to the point where I can actually reasonably figure what the hell is going on in the code. All in all, just keep trying for transparency. Everything else will follow. That's my 2 cents. I'm out.

We've already stated that share dropping is the normal expectation but that we can't anticipate all the future scenarios.  For example, I wouldn't expect Apple to sharedrop for a private blockchain or for a blockchain that doesn't involve shares to  do something that doesn't even make sense.  That's as transparent as we can get, because we have learned that we will be smarter tomorrow than we are to day.

In the mean time, much more is yet to be said this summer...

Like I said Stan, I understand. Just wish it wasn't so. A man can dream, can he not? In any case, while I'm attempting to contribute to the Github, I will be in contact with both you and Dan for any future ideas that come about.

[Stan]

Just wanted to chime in here. I would say I've been a fairly consistent member and have had many wonderful chats and made great connections on this community. I think that the community is the strength of this project. With that said, I think one of the biggest problems that has come about with the cryptonomex/bitshares 2.0 move is the lack of transparency in demands for usage of the code. In the previous version, we knew the unspoken rule was 20% (because it was said that you would be outright ostracized from the community if you didn't sharedrop). I always have liked the idea of sharedropping, but I understand there are numerous ways to get across your means of being able to pay for the services of those who came before. Which is why I have such a problem here. There hasn't been that kind of transparency in terms of demands. Part of this I understand due to the sacrifices (and yes, there were sacrifices made on the dev's end...you'd have to be a fool to not see that). But at what cost? This community has been the driving force behind Bitshares and worked to maintain its relevancy. I think that there should be more efforts put into transparency regarding the license. That's my wishlist item. Other than that, keep doing what you guys are doing. I've been trying to get up to speed with the new code and it is just gorgeous....and the Doxygen file is written very well this time around to the point where I can actually reasonably figure what the hell is going on in the code. All in all, just keep trying for transparency. Everything else will follow. That's my 2 cents. I'm out.

We've already stated that share dropping is the normal expectation but that we can't anticipate all the future scenarios.  For example, I wouldn't expect Apple to sharedrop for a private blockchain or for a blockchain that doesn't involve shares to  do something that doesn't even make sense.  That's as transparent as we can get, because we have learned that we will be smarter tomorrow than we are to day.

In the mean time, much more is yet to be said this summer...

[Ben Mason]

Unfortunately Bm has said he must pay child support which means if he doesn't get paid he could go to jail. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BM is not as smart as I thought if he took this on knowing the probability of success was rather small while having life obligations and responsibilities as you claim.

Of all the things you could have responded to, you choose this?  Newmine, you are a great conversation starter but you have created the impression with me that you are unable to see beyond the points you make.  You never seem to open your mind to a broader context.  And finally, you seem to resort to discourtesy too readily.  If you can't let this go, you will miss the enjoyment of the successes to come (should they arrive.)  Don't live with bitterness, life is too short.

Pretty sure I responded to all BM's points and questions.

To be fair, yes you did....I just mean't there were several other points you could have responded to and i was hoping that one of them may have engendered something positive.  Never mind though.

[VoR0220]

I think that there should be more efforts put into transparency regarding the license.

Bitshares uses the current version of Graphene toolkit for free. Anyone else using it licenses it from CNX and pays CNX, it has got nothing to do with us.

We can hire CNX to make modules, add features etc and pay for them, but these developed can later be resold to others by CNX only.

I will politely agree to disagree with you. In any case, it's a rather small thing to ask for IMO. I think that transparency in what you are asking for in exchange for utilizing software is something to be admired. But again. I understand why they're being a little bit more hush hush, one because they're still developing the license, and two because...well....they've come out of a pretty shitty situation....and done some fairly impressive work to show for it. But let's be 100% honest...who else is going to develop for the Bitshares platform? Nobody as far as I can see in the near future....We live and die by Cryptonomex....and I'm okay with that....just wish that there was some more transparency going on. That is all.

[sumantso]

I think that there should be more efforts put into transparency regarding the license.

Bitshares uses the current version of Graphene toolkit for free. Anyone else using it licenses it from CNX and pays CNX, it has got nothing to do with us.

We can hire CNX to make modules, add features etc and pay for them, but these developed can later be resold to others by CNX only.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Heads they win, tails you lose.

[VoR0220]

Just wanted to chime in here. I would say I've been a fairly consistent member and have had many wonderful chats and made great connections on this community. I think that the community is the strength of this project. With that said, I think one of the biggest problems that has come about with the cryptonomex/bitshares 2.0 move is the lack of transparency in demands for usage of the code. In the previous version, we knew the unspoken rule was 20% (because it was said that you would be outright ostracized from the community if you didn't sharedrop). I always have liked the idea of sharedropping, but I understand there are numerous ways to get across your means of being able to pay for the services of those who came before. Which is why I have such a problem here. There hasn't been that kind of transparency in terms of demands. Part of this I understand due to the sacrifices (and yes, there were sacrifices made on the dev's end...you'd have to be a fool to not see that). But at what cost? This community has been the driving force behind Bitshares and worked to maintain its relevancy. I think that there should be more efforts put into transparency regarding the license. That's my wishlist item. Other than that, keep doing what you guys are doing. I've been trying to get up to speed with the new code and it is just gorgeous....and the Doxygen file is written very well this time around to the point where I can actually reasonably figure what the hell is going on in the code. All in all, just keep trying for transparency. Everything else will follow. That's my 2 cents. I'm out.

[yellowecho]

Under US rules:

Crypto income is taxed on the value the day you received it.
If it drops in value before you sell it you only get to use to use the losses to offset other capital gains (if you have any).
The phantom income is still on your books.

In a secular crypto bear market this is a complete wrecking ball to most people's finances.

And this explains much of what has been happening in the crypto industry this year.  The need to pay taxes on phantom income has dramatically increased selling pressure across the industry.

 

[Riverhead]

Heads they win, tails you lose.

[Murderistic]

Under US rules:

Crypto income is taxed on the value the day you received it.
If it drops in value before you sell it you only get to use to use the losses to offset other capital gains (if you have any).
The phantom income is still on your books.

In a secular crypto bear market this is a complete wrecking ball to most people's finances.

And this explains much of what has been happening in the crypto industry this year.  The need to pay taxes on phantom income has dramatically increased selling pressure across the industry.

After Gox and all that BTC mess I have enough cap gains losses for 5 lifetimes...weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[Stan]

Under US rules:

Crypto income is taxed on the value the day you received it.
If it drops in value before you sell it you only get to use to use the losses to offset other capital gains (if you have any).
The phantom income is still on your books.

In a secular crypto bear market this is a complete wrecking ball to most people's finances.

And this explains much of what has been happening in the crypto industry this year.  The need to pay taxes on phantom income has dramatically increased selling pressure across the industry.

[eagleeye]

Ya bytemaster is good.  He should use more than just forums or hangouts to communicate though.

The Facebook page is looking for sound bites from bytemaster, you see what I just did there, sound bytes.

[arhag]

I suppose that the lesson is that any time you receive $X worth of something as a bonus, you must immediately convert $Y of it to cash, where $Y is what your tax bill is going to be.

Yeah, better yet I would prefer getting paid in a mix of the asset and dollars such that the dollar compensation (after putting aside the estimated tax portion on the dollar part) is enough to cover the estimated tax on the asset portion valued at the market price on the date I receive the asset. That way liquidity issues get pushed to the entity doing the paying which would only be subject to capital gains/losses and not income tax. Because you don't want to immediately sell off a huge amount of the asset in an illiquid market and trade it at a far lower average price than the market price you are forced to record when you received the asset. But you also don't want to wait too long to trade the asset because with your luck the price could just keep dropping every day. This is where BitUSD comes in very handy.

Curious, what would be the tax treatment in US for an amount of BTS not paid directly, but only payable at a vesting date, subject to certain conditions (like market cap growth), as I described earlier in this thread? (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17292.msg220350.html#msg220350)

Good question. The concept of ownership becomes really murky with smart contracts. When exactly is someone receiving ownership of something of value and how much really is the value of that something? And how do we answer that question for all the various innovative smart contracts we will inevitably come up with.  It gets ridiculously complicated. And that's why I wish we would only have property tax despite the fact that the price discrimination is not as effective at capturing the consumer surplus of the taxpayers as an income tax.