Bitcoin and Divorce - Family Law Topics

BITCOIN DIVORCE BITCOIN CORE VS BITCOIN CASH EXPLAINED /r/btc

BITCOIN DIVORCE BITCOIN CORE VS BITCOIN CASH EXPLAINED /btc submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Chinese Investors Divorce Bitcoin, Threshold Value Breached

submitted by tidehunterrr to China [link] [comments]

Chinese Investors Divorce Bitcoin, Threshold Value Breached

Chinese Investors Divorce Bitcoin, Threshold Value Breached submitted by haweinn to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Divorcing Bitcoin From Blockchain

Divorcing Bitcoin From Blockchain submitted by blockstreet_ceo to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Divorcing Bitcoin From Blockchain

Divorcing Bitcoin From Blockchain submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Divorce - Bitcoin [Legacy] vs Bitcoin Cash Explained

https://medium.com/@curt0/bitcoin-divorce-bitcoin-legacy-vs-bitcoin-cash-explained-31a1f147527d
or:
https://redd.it/7haa6p
submitted by curt00 to BitcoinBeginners [link] [comments]

Billionaire Chamath Palihapitiya says the economy is 'completely divorced' from markets — issues buy on Bitcoin and cautions against top-down monetary policy.

Billionaire Chamath Palihapitiya says the economy is 'completely divorced' from markets — issues buy on Bitcoin and cautions against top-down monetary policy. submitted by Bitcoin1776 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

AITA for wanting a divorce from husband who lost 200k on bitcoin?


My husband and I have been married for 10 years. For our entire relationship, I have brought the majority of the money into the home. I contribute 75% of that. I don't mind, really. It's not something I think about and I have always considered it "our" money. Our country (Switzerland) is really expensive and I grew up not in a large city, and rather poor. When I had the chance to go to university, I studied hard, learned 3 languages, got 2 degrees, and was able to secure a good position in finance. Years later, I make a very good salary and we don't have to worry about money.
We decided that my husband would handle all of the money and finances for the home. I would check on the accounts every once in a while but, I haven't been checking regularly. A few weeks ago, I was thinking about buying a Model 3, since it has recently come to our country and I've fancied it for some time. I played with the numbers and while figuring out if I can afford it or not, I realized that there was a weird mistake in our accounts. There was 300k CHF/USD missing.
When my husband got home, I showed him the accounts and after some pushing, he admitted that he lost 200k in cryptocurrency in 2018. This is about 25% of our savings. Besides being shocked and angry, I cannot help to feel that he stole from me. He put money into something stupid without talking to me and then tried to hide it. I was thinking about this for a week and talked to my friends and family about it. They think we should see a doctor and talk about it, try to work out the problem. But I honestly just want to get divorced. If he is capable of doing this, how can I trust him ever again? AITA for not wanting to talk about it or go to therapy? AITA for thinking about divorce?

Edit: To clear a few things. We always talked about where the money should go. What things to invest in, etc. I always thought he was really open about it and I trusted him... because he is my husband. I work in finance but, my husband knows just as much about personal finances as I do. After going to work every day, making more decisions about money when I came home wasn't something I wanted to do. That's why I wasn't involved but, that was a mistake. Also, he sold all of the bitcoin for a 200k loss. I don't think that was clear above. So we are not going to buy more and hope for the best like some suggested.
Edit: If he had doubled our money or "won" in some way, would I be feeling the same way? Partially. I would be angry for him not talking about this with me. This is a large sum, too large not to discuss. I would be happy because I would have more money. Who wouldn't be happy if they had more money in their home accounts? But I would have stepped in and taken control of everything because I see all of this as gambling and that's not what I would like to do with money.
submitted by aitathrwthrw to AmItheAsshole [link] [comments]

Lightning Network Will Likely Fail Due To Several Possible Reasons

ECONOMIC CASE IS ABSENT FOR MANY TRANSACTIONS
The median Bitcoin (BTC) fee is $14.41 currently. This has gone parabolic in the past few days. So, let’s use a number before this parabolic rise, which was $3.80. Using this number, opening and closing a Lightning Network (LN) channel means that you will pay $7.60 in fees. Most likely, the fee will be much higher for two reasons:
  1. BTC fees have been trending higher all year and will be higher by the time LN is ready
  2. When you are in the shoe store or restaurant, you will likely pay a higher fee so that you are not waiting there for one or more hours for confirmation.
Let’s say hypothetically that Visa or Paypal charges $1 per transaction. This means that Alice and Carol would need to do 8 or more LN transactions, otherwise it would be cheaper to use Visa or Paypal.
But it gets worse. Visa doesn’t charge the customer. To you, Visa and Cash are free. You would have no economic incentive to use BTC and LN.
Also, Visa does not charge $1 per transaction. They charge 3%, which is 60 cents on a $20 widget. Let’s say that merchants discount their widgets by 60 cents for non-Visa purchases, to pass the savings onto the customer. Nevertheless, no one is going to use BTC and LN to buy the widget unless 2 things happen:
  1. they buy more than 13 widgets from the same store ($7.60 divided by 60 cents)
  2. they know ahead of time that they will do this with that same store
This means that if you’re traveling, or want to tip content producers on the internet, you will likely not use BTC and LN. If you and your spouse want to try out a new restaurant, you will not use BTC and LN. If you buy shoes, you will not use BTC and LN.
ROAD BLOCKS FROM INSUFFICIENT FUNDS
Some argue that you do not need to open a channel to everyone, if there’s a route to that merchant. This article explains that if LN is a like a distributed mesh network, then another problem exists:
"third party needs to possess the necessary capital to process the transaction. If Alice and Bob do not have an open channel, and Alice wants to send Bob .5 BTC, they'll both need to be connected to a third party (or a series of 3rd parties). Say if Charles (the third party) only possesses .4 BTC in his respective payment channels with the other users, the transaction will not be able to go through that route. The longer the route, the more likely that a third party does not possess the requisite amount of BTC, thereby making it a useless connection.”
CENTRALIZATION
According to this visualization of LN on testnet, LN will be centralized around major hubs. It might be even more centralized than this visualization if the following are true:
  1. Users will want to connect to large hubs to minimize the number of times they need to open/close channels, which incur fees
  2. LN’s security and usability relies on 100% uptime of relaying parties
  3. Only large hubs with a lot of liquidity will be able to make money
  4. Hubs or intermediary nodes will need to be licensed as money transmitters, centralizing LN to exchanges and banks as large hubs
What will the impact be on censorship-resistance, trust-less and permission-less?
NEED TO BE LICENSED AS MONEY TRANSMITTER
Advocates for LN seem to talk a lot about the technology, but ignore the legalities.
FinCEN defines money transmitters. LN hubs and intermediary nodes seem to satisfy this definition.
Application of FinCEN's Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies
“…applicability of the regulations … to persons creating, obtaining, distributing, exchanging, accepting, or transmitting virtual currencies.”
“…an administrator or exchanger is an MSB under FinCEN's regulations, specifically, a money transmitter…”
"An administrator or exchanger that (1) accepts and transmits a convertible virtual currency or (2) buys or sells convertible virtual currency for any reason is a money transmitter under FinCEN's regulations…”
"FinCEN's regulations define the term "money transmitter" as a person that provides money transmission services, or any other person engaged in the transfer of funds. The term "money transmission services" means "the acceptance of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency from one person and the transmission of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency to another location or person by any means.””
"The definition of a money transmitter does not differentiate between real currencies and convertible virtual currencies.”
FinCEN’s regulations for IVTS:
"An “informal value transfer system” refers to any system, mechanism, or network of people that receives money for the purpose of making the funds or an equivalent value payable to a third party in another geographic location, whether or not in the same form.”
“…IVTS… must comply with all BSA registration, recordkeeping, reporting and AML program requirements.
“Money transmitting” occurs when funds are transferred on behalf of the public by any and all means including, but not limited to, transfers within the United States or to locations abroad…regulations require all money transmitting businesses…to register with FinCEN."
Mike Caldwell used to accept and mail bitcoins. Customers sent him bitcoins and he mailed physical bitcoins back or to a designated recipient. There is no exchange from one type of currency to another. FinCEN told him that he needed to be licensed as money transmitter, after which Caldwell stopped mailing out bitcoins.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST NEED FOR LICENSING
Some have argued that LN does not transfer BTC until the channel is closed on the blockchain. This is not a defence, since channels will close on the blockchain.
Some have argued that LN nodes do not take ownership of funds. Is this really true? Is this argument based on a technicality or hoping for a loophole? It seems intuitive that a good prosecutor can easily defeat this argument. Even if this loophole exists, can we count on the government to never close this loophole?
So, will LN hubs and intermediary nodes need to be licensed as money transmitters? If so, then Bob, who is the intermediary between Alice and Carol, will need a license. But Bob won’t have the money nor qualifications. Money transmitters need to pay $25,000 to $1 million, maintain capital levels and are subject to KYC/AML regulations1. In which case, LN will have mainly large hubs, run by financial firms, such as banks and exchanges.
Will the banks want this? Likely. Will they lobby the government to get it? Likely.
Some may be wondering about miners. FinCEN has declared that miners are not money transmitters:
https://coincenter.org/entry/aml-kyc-tokens :
"Subsequent administrative rulings clarified several remaining ambiguities: miners are not money transmitters…"
FinCEN Declares Bitcoin Miners, Investors Aren't Money Transmitters
Some argue that LN nodes will go through Tor and be anonymous. For this to work, will all of the nodes connecting to it, need to run Tor? If so, then how likely will this happen and will all of these people need to run Tor on every device (laptop, phone and tablet)? Furthermore, everyone of these people will be need to be sufficiently tech savvy to download, install and set up Tor. Will the common person be able to do this? Also, will law-abiding nodes, such as retailers or banks, risk their own livelihood by connecting to an illegal node? What is the likelihood of this?
Some argue that unlicensed LN hubs can run in foreign countries. Not true. According to FinCEN: "“Money transmitting” occurs when funds are…transfers within the United States or to locations abroad…” Also, foreign companies are not immune from the laws of other countries which have extradition agreements. The U.S. government has sued European banks over the LIBOR scandal. The U.S. government has charged foreign banks for money laundering and two of those banks pleaded guilty. Furthermore, most countries have similar laws. It is no coincidence that European exchanges comply with KYC/AML.
Will licensed, regulated LN hubs connect to LN nodes behind Tor or in foreign countries? Unlikely. Will Amazon or eBay connect to LN nodes behind Tor or in foreign countries? Unlikely. If you want to buy from Amazon, you’ll likely need to register yourself at a licensed, regulated LN hub, which means you’ll need to provide your identification photo.
Say goodbye to a censorship-resistant, trust-less and permission-less coin.
For a preview of what LN will probably look like, look at Coinbase or other large exchanges. It’s a centralized, regulated and censored hub. Coinbase allows users to send to each other off-chain. Coinbase provides user data to the IRS and disallows users from certain countries to sell BTC. You need to trust that no rogue employee in the exchange will steal your funds, or that a bank will not confiscate your funds as banks did in Cyprus. What if the government provides a list of users, who are late with their tax returns, to Coinbase and tells Coinbase to block those users from making transactions? You need Coinbase’s permission.
This would be the antithesis of why Satoshi created Bitcoin.
NEED TO REPORT TO IRS
The IRS has a definition for “third party settlement organization” and these need to report transactions to the IRS.
Though we do not know for sure yet, it can be argued that LN hubs satisfies this definition. If this is the case, who will be willing to be LN hubs, other than banks and exchanges?
To read about the discussion, go to:
Lightning Hubs Will Need To Report To IRS
COMPLEXITY
All cryptocurrencies are complicated for the common person. You may be tech savvy enough to find a secure wallet and use cryptocurrencies, but the masses are not as tech savvy as you.
LN adds a very complicated and convoluted layer to cryptocurrencies. It is bound to have bugs for years to come and it’s complicated to use. This article provides a good explanation of the complexity. Just from the screenshot of the app, the user now needs to learn additional terms and commands:
“On Chain”
“In Channels”
“In Limbo”
“Your Channel”
“Create Channel”
“CID”
“OPENING”
“PENDING-OPEN”
“Available to Receive”
“PENDING-FORCE-CLOSE”
There are also other things to learn, such as how funds need to be allocated to channels and time locks. Compare this to using your current wallet.
Recently, LN became even more complicated and convoluted. It needs a 3rd layer as well:
Scaling Bitcoin Might Require A Whole 'Nother Layer
How many additional steps does a user need to learn?
ALL COINS PLANNING OFF-CHAIN SCALING ARE AT RISK
Bitcoin Segwit, Litecoin, Vertcoin and possibly others (including Bitcoin Cash) are planning to implement LN or layer 2 scaling. Ethereum is planning to use Raiden Network, which is very similar to LN. If the above is true about LN, then the scaling roadmap for these coins is questionable at best, nullified at worst.
BLOCKSTREAM'S GAME PLAN IS ON TRACK
Blockstream employs several of the lead Bitcoin Core developers. Blockstream has said repeatedly that they want high fees. Quotes and source links can be found here.
Why is Blockstream so adamant on small blocks, high fees and off-chain scaling?
Small blocks, high fees and slow confirmations create demand for off-chain solutions, such as Liquid. Blockstream sells Liquid to exchanges to move Bitcoin quickly on a side-chain. LN will create liquidity hubs, such as exchanges, which will generate traffic and fees for exchanges. With this, exchanges will have a higher need for Liquid. This will be the main way that Blockstream will generate revenue for its investors, who invested $76 million. Otherwise, they can go bankrupt and die.
One of Blockstream’s investors/owners is AXA. AXA’s CEO and Chairman until 2016 was also the Chairman of Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group is run by bankers and politicians (former prime ministers and nation leaders). According to GlobalResearch, Bilderberg Group wants “a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace…and financially regulated by one ‘World (Central) Bank’ using one global currency.” LN helps Bilderberg Group get one step closer to its goal.
Luke-Jr is one of the lead BTC developers in Core/Blockstream. Regulation of BTC is in-line with his beliefs. He is a big believer in the government, as he believes that the government should tax you and the “State has authority from God”. In fact, he has other radical beliefs as well:
So, having only large, regulated LN hubs is not a failure for Blockstream/Bilderberg. It’s a success. The title of this article should be changed to: "Lightning Will Fail Or Succeed, Depending On Whether You Are Satoshi Or Blockstream/Bilderberg".
SIGNIFICANT ADVANCEMENTS WITH ON-CHAIN SCALING
Meanwhile, some coins such as Ethereum and Bitcoin Cash are pushing ahead with on-chain scaling. Both are looking at Sharding.
Visa handles 2,000 transactions per second on average. Blockstream said that on-chain scaling will not work. The development teams for Bitcoin Cash have shown significant on-chain scaling:
1 GB block running on testnet demonstrates over 10,000 transactions per second:
"we are not going from 1MB to 1GB tomorrow — The purpose of going so high is to prove that it can be done — no second layer is necessary”
"Preliminary Findings Demonstrate Over 10,000 Transactions Per Second"
"Gigablock testnet initiative will likely be implemented first on Bitcoin Cash”
Peter Rizun, Andrew Stone -- 1 GB Block Tests -- Scaling Bitcoin Stanford At 13:55 in this video, Rizun said that he thinks that Visa level can be achieved with a 4-core/16GB machine with better implementations (modifying the code to take advantage of parallelization.)
Bitcoin Cash plans to fix malleability and enable layer 2 solutions:
The Future of “Bitcoin Cash:” An Interview with Bitcoin ABC lead developer Amaury Séchet:
"fixing malleability and enabling Layer 2 solutions will happen”
However, it is questionable if layer 2 will work or is needed.
GOING FORWARD
The four year scaling debate and in-fighting is what caused small blockers (Blockstream) to fork Bitcoin by adding Segwit and big blockers to fork Bitcoin into Bitcoin Cash. Read:
Bitcoin Divorce - Bitcoin [Legacy] vs Bitcoin Cash Explained
It will be interesting to see how they scale going forward.
Scaling will be instrumental in getting network effect and to be widely adopted as a currency. Whichever Coin Has The Most Network Effect Will Take All (Or Most) (BTC has little network effect, and it's shrinking.)
The ability to scale will be key to the long term success of any coin.
submitted by curt00 to btc [link] [comments]

Whichever Coin Has The Most Network Effect Will Take All (Or Most)

BITCOIN LEGACY DOES NOT HAVE MUCH NETWORK EFFECT
Most people think that Bitcoin Legacy (BTC) has the most Network Effect. Even Tom Lee from Wall Street attributes his rising price predictions to network effect. Roger Ver talks about BTC’s network effect.
They are mostly wrong. BTC does not have much network effect.
DEFINITION OF NETWORK EFFECT
According to Wikipedia:
"A network effect…is the positive effect…that an additional user of a good or service has on the value of that product to others. When a network effect is present, the value of a product or service increases according to the number of others using it.”
The keyword is “using”, not buying or owning. Another key word is “network”. It is related to networks.
Wikipedia gives these examples:
"The classic example is the telephone, where a greater number of users increases the value to each. A positive externality is created when a telephone is purchased without its owner intending to create value for other users, but does so regardless. Online social networks work similarly, with sites like Twitter and Facebook increasing in value to each member as more users join.”
Again, the key is “users”, not owners. If four billion people create and own profiles on Facebook, but do not share photos and do not message each other, Facebook will have no network effect and have little value.
To leave Facebook for another social networking site, you need to convince your 300 friends to go with you, because of the “usage". To leave gold or any coin, you do not need to convince anyone to leave with you.
Fax machine is another good example of network effect. By itself, it is useless. The more people that have them, the more useful they become.
Network Effect does not relate to the price. If there is less supply than demand, the price of a telephone may go up, but this is not correlated to network effect.
Network Effect does not relate to ownership. Seven billion people can buy and own telephones or fax machines (and drive up the price). But, if every one of them is disconnected, they are all useless and have no network effect.
Network Effect relates to usage and interaction.
Millions of people can buy and store gold, which will drive up the price, but there is little to no network effect. My gold does not network nor communicate with your gold, to increase the value of your gold.
So, contrary to popular believe, BTC has little network effect, because most people buy it to speculate or HODL, like they do with gold. They do not use it, by spending it.
The more BTC buyers there are, the higher the price goes. That's mostly it. Most BTC owners stay home, and do nothing. Facebook users are out of the home, interacting with each other.
HOW TO INCREASE NETWORK EFFECT
When people spend their currency and people accept this currency as payment for goods and services, then the network effect goes up. As an example, the more merchants that accept your currency, the more valuable your currency becomes. The more people that spend their currency, the more valuable it is for a merchant to accept that currency, by implementing Bitpay, etc.
This is one of the factors for the value of the U.S. dollar. Out of all the currencies in the world, USD has the most network effect. It is used and accepted in more countries than any other currency.
In its initial years, BTC was taking market share from fiat currencies. During this time, it was increasing its network effect. In the past year, the trend is reversing. SatoshiDice, Yours.org and Bitmain switched to Bitcoin Cash. According to Businessinsider:
"Out of the leading 500 internet sellers, just three accept bitcoin, down from five last year.”
Why is Bitcoin losing market share to fiat? According to Businessinsider:
“when they do try to spend it, it often comes with high fees, which eliminates the utility for small purchases, or it takes a long time to complete the transaction, which could be a turn-off.”
BTC has transformed from a currency to store-of-value. As a store-of-value, like gold, it can continue increasing in price. Crypto fans salivate at the thought of taking market share from gold, which is worth $7.8 trillion worldwide. However, this is not where the real prize is. This is chump change compared to money, which is worth $80.9 trillion worldwide.
This is why the most successful crypto-currency will become more valuable than the most successful crypto-store-of-value.
The key to getting network effect for a crypto-currency, is to get people, such as merchants, to accept that cryptocurrency as payment. If you want to send a fax, but there is no machine willing to accept it, then your fax is useless and worthless.
There is a significant side benefit whenever a merchants accepts a coin. It is providing free advertising for the coin.
Try to imagine a world where more merchants accept ABC coin than any other coin, and growing. As a consumer, will you get some ABC coin? Likely you would. If you’re a merchant, will you accept ABC coin? Likely you would. Like Facebook, this trend will likely continue growing. The bigger the network effect, the more attractive it is, and the more people that will want to join. Once it starts, there will be a compounding and self-reinforcing effect that will be hard to stop, unless ABC coin does something stupid, such as make it too costly for merchants to accept it.
WINNER TAKES ALL (OR MOST)
Once the majority of merchants in the world accept ABC coin, it will be extremely difficult for another coin to compete. Let’s say you’re a merchant that accepts ABC coin and you see that most merchants accept ABC coin and most consumers have ABC coin. Are you going to go through the hassle of accepting another crypto-currency? Unlikely.
When something dominates a space with network effect, it is nearly impossible for a competitor to compete. You can build a website with superior technology to Facebook, but you will likely fail to get people to leave Facebook to come to your site. Google+ tried and failed. Similarly, this can happen with crypto-currencies.
Once the value or market cap of the crypto-currency matches that of the crypto-store-of-value, the owners of the crypto-store-of-value will likely migrate to the crypto-currency, because the crypto-currency will be serving both functions: currency and store-of-value.
APPRECIATING VALUE DOES NOT HAVE TO DETER USE
Some argue that crypto holders will spend their bad money before their good money. That is, they will spend their fiat because their crypto is appreciating in value. That is not necessarily true.
Merchants will likely offer discounts to purchases made in crypto, due to savings from not paying fees to credit card companies and not suffering from chargebacks.
Let’s say a person wants to maintain a certain balance of ABC coin. When he sees the merchant’s discount, he will likely pay in ABC coin and then replenish his ABC coin holdings by buying more with fiat.
Let’s say that you are a merchant accepting ABC coin. If you can use your ABC coin to purchase from another merchant, regardless of discount, you likely will.
If you want to send money to another country, you will likely use crypto, instead of paying the exorbitant bank wire fees.
If more people start receiving their salaries in crypto, they will spend their crypto.
COMPETITORS
As it stands today, the coins that have the most network effect, though they still do not have much, are Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash, Dash and Monero. I may have missed a coin and this list can easily change.
In my opinion, the ultimate winner will be the one which can get the most people, merchants, retailers, businesses, etc., to accept the coin and to do it the quickest. If you want your coin to succeed, this is what you must focus on.
Bitcoin Cash
Strengths: Brand awareness. Low fees and fast confirmation times.
Weaknesses: Misperception and confusion in market place. (To clear the confusion, read: Bitcoin Divorce - Bitcoin [Legacy] vs Bitcoin Cash Explained)
Ethereum
Strengths: Brand awareness. Low fees and fast confirmation times.
Weaknesses: Perceived to be a platform for smart contracts, not money. Slow transactions.
Litecoin
Strengths: Low fees and fast confirmation times.
Weaknesses: Perceived as Bitcoin’s silver (another store of value).
Dash
Strengths: Very low fees and very fast confirmation times. Optional privacy.
Weaknesses: Low brand awareness and perceived centralized ownership/control/instamine
Monero
Strengths: Privacy.
Weaknesses: Low brand awareness, high fees. Cannot scale.
Ripple
Strengths: Cheap and fast transactions
Weaknesses: Highly centralized control. Bankers' project.
Will Bitcoin Legacy win due to its brand awareness? Will Bitcoin Cash beat out Bitcoin Legacy with its cheaper and faster transactions? Will Bitcoin Cash beat out Dash with its better brand awareness? Will Dash or Monero win with its very low fees and very fast transactions?
submitted by curt00 to btc [link] [comments]

Lightning Network Will Likely Fail Due To Several Possible Reasons

ECONOMIC CASE IS ABSENT FOR MANY TRANSACTIONS
The median Bitcoin (BTC) fee is $14.41 currently. This has gone parabolic in the past few days. So, let’s use a number before this parabolic rise, which was $3.80. Using this number, opening and closing a Lightning Network (LN) channel means that you will pay $7.60 in fees. Most likely, the fee will be much higher for two reasons:
  1. BTC fees have been trending higher all year and will be higher by the time LN is ready
  2. When you are in the shoe store or restaurant, you will likely pay a higher fee so that you are not waiting there for one or more hours for confirmation.
Let’s say hypothetically that Visa or Paypal charges $1 per transaction. This means that Alice and Carol would need to do 8 or more LN transactions, otherwise it would be cheaper to use Visa or Paypal.
But it gets worse. Visa doesn’t charge the customer. To you, Visa and Cash are free. You would have no economic incentive to use BTC and LN.
Also, Visa does not charge $1 per transaction. They charge 3%, which is 60 cents on a $20 widget. Let’s say that merchants discount their widgets by 60 cents for non-Visa purchases, to pass the savings onto the customer. Nevertheless, no one is going to use BTC and LN to buy the widget unless 2 things happen:
  1. they buy more than 13 widgets from the same store ($7.60 divided by 60 cents)
  2. they know ahead of time that they will do this with that same store
This means that if you’re traveling, or want to tip content producers on the internet, you will likely not use BTC and LN. If you and your spouse want to try out a new restaurant, you will not use BTC and LN. If you buy shoes, you will not use BTC and LN.
ROAD BLOCKS FROM INSUFFICIENT FUNDS
Some argue that you do not need to open a channel to everyone, if there’s a route to that merchant. This article explains that if LN is like a distributed mesh network, then another problem exists:
"third party needs to possess the necessary capital to process the transaction. If Alice and Bob do not have an open channel, and Alice wants to send Bob .5 BTC, they'll both need to be connected to a third party (or a series of 3rd parties). Say if Charles (the third party) only possesses .4 BTC in his respective payment channels with the other users, the transaction will not be able to go through that route. The longer the route, the more likely that a third party does not possess the requisite amount of BTC, thereby making it a useless connection.”
CENTRALIZATION
According to this visualization of LN on testnet, LN will be centralized around major hubs. It might be even more centralized than this visualization if the following are true:
  1. Users will want to connect to large hubs to minimize the number of times they need to open/close channels, which incur fees
  2. LN’s security and usability relies on 100% uptime of relaying parties
  3. Only large hubs with a lot of liquidity will be able to make money
  4. Hubs or intermediary nodes will need to be licensed as money transmitters, centralizing LN to exchanges and banks as large hubs
What will the impact be on censorship-resistance, trust-less and permission-less?
NEED TO BE LICENSED AS MONEY TRANSMITTER
Advocates for LN seem to talk a lot about the technology, but ignore the legalities.
FinCEN defines money transmitters. LN hubs and intermediary nodes seem to satisfy this definition.
Application of FinCEN's Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies
“…applicability of the regulations … to persons creating, obtaining, distributing, exchanging, accepting, or transmitting virtual currencies.”
“…an administrator or exchanger is an MSB under FinCEN's regulations, specifically, a money transmitter…”
"An administrator or exchanger that (1) accepts and transmits a convertible virtual currency or (2) buys or sells convertible virtual currency for any reason is a money transmitter under FinCEN's regulations…”
"FinCEN's regulations define the term "money transmitter" as a person that provides money transmission services, or any other person engaged in the transfer of funds. The term "money transmission services" means "the acceptance of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency from one person and the transmission of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency to another location or person by any means.””
"The definition of a money transmitter does not differentiate between real currencies and convertible virtual currencies.”
FinCEN’s regulations for IVTS:
"An “informal value transfer system” refers to any system, mechanism, or network of people that receives money for the purpose of making the funds or an equivalent value payable to a third party in another geographic location, whether or not in the same form.”
“…IVTS… must comply with all BSA registration, recordkeeping, reporting and AML program requirements.
“Money transmitting” occurs when funds are transferred on behalf of the public by any and all means including, but not limited to, transfers within the United States or to locations abroad…regulations require all money transmitting businesses…to register with FinCEN."
Mike Caldwell used to accept and mail bitcoins. Customers sent him bitcoins and he mailed physical bitcoins back or to a designated recipient. There is no exchange from one type of currency to another. FinCEN told him that he needed to be licensed as money transmitter, after which Caldwell stopped mailing out bitcoins.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST NEED FOR LICENSING
Some have argued that LN does not transfer BTC until the channel is closed on the blockchain. This is not a defence, since channels will close on the blockchain.
Some have argued that LN nodes do not take ownership of funds. Is this really true? Is this argument based on a technicality or hoping for a loophole? It seems intuitive that a good prosecutor can easily defeat this argument. Even if this loophole exists, can we count on the government to never close this loophole?
So, will LN hubs and intermediary nodes need to be licensed as money transmitters? If so, then Bob, who is the intermediary between Alice and Carol, will need a license. But Bob won’t have the money nor qualifications. Money transmitters need to pay $25,000 to $1 million, maintain capital levels and are subject to KYC/AML regulations1. In which case, LN will have mainly large hubs, run by financial firms, such as banks and exchanges.
Will the banks want this? Likely. Will they lobby the government to get it? Likely.
Some may be wondering about miners. FinCEN has declared that miners are not money transmitters:
https://coincenter.org/entry/aml-kyc-tokens :
"Subsequent administrative rulings clarified several remaining ambiguities: miners are not money transmitters…"
FinCEN Declares Bitcoin Miners, Investors Aren't Money Transmitters
Some argue that LN nodes will go through Tor and be anonymous. For this to work, will all of the nodes connecting to it, need to run Tor? If so, then how likely will this happen and will all of these people need to run Tor on every device (laptop, phone and tablet)? Furthermore, everyone of these people will be need to be sufficiently tech savvy to download, install and set up Tor. Will the common person be able to do this? Also, will law-abiding nodes, such as retailers or banks, risk their own livelihood by connecting to an illegal node? What is the likelihood of this?
Some argue that unlicensed LN hubs can run in foreign countries. Not true. According to FinCEN: "“Money transmitting” occurs when funds are…transfers within the United States or to locations abroad…” Also, foreign companies are not immune from the laws of other countries which have extradition agreements. The U.S. government has sued European banks over the LIBOR scandal. The U.S. government has charged foreign banks for money laundering and two of those banks pleaded guilty. Furthermore, most countries have similar laws. It is no coincidence that European exchanges comply with KYC/AML.
Will licensed, regulated LN hubs connect to LN nodes behind Tor or in foreign countries? Unlikely. Will Amazon or eBay connect to LN nodes behind Tor or in foreign countries? Unlikely. If you want to buy from Amazon, you’ll likely need to register yourself at a licensed, regulated LN hub, which means you’ll need to provide your identification photo.
Say goodbye to a censorship-resistant, trust-less and permission-less coin.
For a preview of what LN will probably look like, look at Coinbase or other large exchanges. It’s a centralized, regulated and censored hub. Coinbase allows users to send to each other off-chain. Coinbase provides user data to the IRS and disallows users from certain countries to sell BTC. You need to trust that no rogue employee in the exchange will steal your funds, or that a bank will not confiscate your funds as banks did in Cyprus. What if the government provides a list of users, who are late with their tax returns, to Coinbase and tells Coinbase to block those users from making transactions? You need Coinbase’s permission.
This would be the antithesis of why Satoshi created Bitcoin.
NEED TO REPORT TO IRS
The IRS has a definition for “third party settlement organization” and these need to report transactions to the IRS.
Though we do not know for sure yet, it can be argued that LN hubs satisfies this definition. If this is the case, who will be willing to be LN hubs, other than banks and exchanges?
To read about the discussion, go to:
Lightning Hubs Will Need To Report To IRS
COMPLEXITY
All cryptocurrencies are complicated for the common person. You may be tech savvy enough to find a secure wallet and use cryptocurrencies, but the masses are not as tech savvy as you.
LN adds a very complicated and convoluted layer to cryptocurrencies. It is bound to have bugs for years to come and it’s complicated to use. This article provides a good explanation of the complexity. Just from the screenshot of the app, the user now needs to learn additional terms and commands:
“On Chain”
“In Channels”
“In Limbo”
“Your Channel”
“Create Channel”
“CID”
“OPENING”
“PENDING-OPEN”
“Available to Receive”
“PENDING-FORCE-CLOSE”
There are also other things to learn, such as how funds need to be allocated to channels and time locks. Compare this to using your current wallet.
Recently, LN became even more complicated and convoluted. It needs a 3rd layer as well:
Scaling Bitcoin Might Require A Whole 'Nother Layer
How many additional steps does a user need to learn?
ALL COINS PLANNING OFF-CHAIN SCALING ARE AT RISK
Bitcoin Segwit, Litecoin, Vertcoin and possibly others (including Bitcoin Cash) are planning to implement LN or layer 2 scaling. Ethereum is planning to use Raiden Network, which is very similar to LN. If the above is true about LN, then the scaling roadmap for these coins is questionable at best, nullified at worst.
BLOCKSTREAM'S GAME PLAN IS ON TRACK
Blockstream employs several of the lead Bitcoin Core developers. Blockstream has said repeatedly that they want high fees. Quotes and source links can be found here.
Why is Blockstream so adamant on small blocks, high fees and off-chain scaling?
Small blocks, high fees and slow confirmations create demand for off-chain solutions, such as Liquid. Blockstream sells Liquid to exchanges to move Bitcoin quickly on a side-chain. LN will create liquidity hubs, such as exchanges, which will generate traffic and fees for exchanges. With this, exchanges will have a higher need for Liquid. This will be the main way that Blockstream will generate revenue for its investors, who invested $76 million. Otherwise, they can go bankrupt and die.
One of Blockstream’s investors/owners is AXA. AXA’s CEO and Chairman until 2016 was also the Chairman of Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group is run by bankers and politicians (former prime ministers and nation leaders). According to GlobalResearch, Bilderberg Group wants “a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace…and financially regulated by one ‘World (Central) Bank’ using one global currency.” LN helps Bilderberg Group get one step closer to its goal.
Luke-Jr is one of the lead BTC developers in Core/Blockstream. Regulation of BTC is in-line with his beliefs. He is a big believer in the government, as he believes that the government should tax you and the “State has authority from God”. In fact, he has other radical beliefs as well:
So, having only large, regulated LN hubs is not a failure for Blockstream/Bilderberg. It’s a success. The title of this article should be changed to: "Lightning Will Fail Or Succeed, Depending On Whether You Are Satoshi Or Blockstream/Bilderberg".
SIGNIFICANT ADVANCEMENTS WITH ON-CHAIN SCALING
Meanwhile, some coins such as Ethereum and Bitcoin Cash are pushing ahead with on-chain scaling. Both are looking at Sharding.
Visa handles 2,000 transactions per second on average. Blockstream said that on-chain scaling will not work. The development teams for Bitcoin Cash have shown significant on-chain scaling:
1 GB block running on testnet demonstrates over 10,000 transactions per second:
"we are not going from 1MB to 1GB tomorrow — The purpose of going so high is to prove that it can be done — no second layer is necessary”
"Preliminary Findings Demonstrate Over 10,000 Transactions Per Second"
"Gigablock testnet initiative will likely be implemented first on Bitcoin Cash”
Peter Rizun, Andrew Stone -- 1 GB Block Tests -- Scaling Bitcoin Stanford At 13:55 in this video, Rizun said that he thinks that Visa level can be achieved with a 4-core/16GB machine with better implementations (modifying the code to take advantage of parallelization.)
Bitcoin Cash plans to fix malleability and enable layer 2 solutions:
The Future of “Bitcoin Cash:” An Interview with Bitcoin ABC lead developer Amaury Séchet:
"fixing malleability and enabling Layer 2 solutions will happen”
However, it is questionable if layer 2 will work or is needed.
GOING FORWARD
The four year scaling debate and in-fighting is what caused small blockers (Blockstream) to fork Bitcoin by adding Segwit and big blockers to fork Bitcoin into Bitcoin Cash. Read:
Bitcoin Divorce - Bitcoin [Legacy] vs Bitcoin Cash Explained
It will be interesting to see how they scale going forward.
Scaling will be instrumental in getting network effect and to be widely adopted as a currency. Whichever Coin Has The Most Network Effect Will Take All (Or Most) (BTC has little network effect, and it's shrinking.)
The ability to scale will be key to the long term success of any coin.
submitted by curt00 to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

05-15 06:54 - 'Wow. So still no discussion allowed here. Oh well. The scars are deep on both sides. It sucks being caught in the middle. But such is my life, being the child of two divorces. First my parents, then the first community where I...' by /u/yrral86 removed from /r/Bitcoin within 13-23min

'''
Wow. So still no discussion allowed here. Oh well. The scars are deep on both sides. It sucks being caught in the middle. But such is my life, being the child of two divorces. First my parents, then the first community where I felt like I belonged. I just wish there was less hate and more willingness to learn from each other so we can all make Bitcoin the best it can be. But people suck and cling to hate and reject dialog. Thanks for making me feel the pain yet again.
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: yrral86
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Whichever Coin Has The Most Network Effect Will Take All (Or Most)

BITCOIN LEGACY DOES NOT HAVE MUCH NETWORK EFFECT
Most people think that Bitcoin Legacy (BTC) has the most Network Effect. Even Tom Lee from Wall Street attributes his rising price predictions to network effect. Roger Ver talks about BTC’s network effect.
They are mostly wrong. BTC does not have much network effect.
DEFINITION OF NETWORK EFFECT
According to Wikipedia:
"A network effect…is the positive effect…that an additional user of a good or service has on the value of that product to others. When a network effect is present, the value of a product or service increases according to the number of others using it.”
The keyword is “using”, not buying or owning. Another key word is “network”. It is related to networks.
Wikipedia gives these examples:
"The classic example is the telephone, where a greater number of users increases the value to each. A positive externality is created when a telephone is purchased without its owner intending to create value for other users, but does so regardless. Online social networks work similarly, with sites like Twitter and Facebook increasing in value to each member as more users join.”
Again, the key is “users”, not owners. If four billion people create and own profiles on Facebook, but do not share photos and do not message each other, Facebook will have no network effect and have little value.
To leave Facebook for another social networking site, you need to convince your 300 friends to go with you, because of the “usage". To leave gold or any coin, you do not need to convince anyone to leave with you.
Fax machine is another good example of network effect. By itself, it is useless. The more people that have them, the more useful they become.
Network Effect does not relate to the price. If there is less supply than demand, the price of a telephone may go up, but this is not correlated to network effect.
Network Effect does not relate to ownership. Seven billion people can buy and own telephones or fax machines (and drive up the price). But, if every one of them is disconnected, they are all useless and have no network effect.
Network Effect relates to usage and interaction.
Millions of people can buy and store gold, which will drive up the price, but there is little to no network effect. My gold does not network nor communicate with your gold, to increase the value of your gold.
So, contrary to popular believe, BTC has little network effect, because most people buy it to speculate or HODL, like they do with gold. They do not use it, by spending it.
The more BTC buyers there are, the higher the price goes. That's mostly it. Most BTC owners stay home, and do nothing. Facebook users are out of the home, interacting with each other.
HOW TO INCREASE NETWORK EFFECT
When people spend their currency and people accept this currency as payment for goods and services, then the network effect goes up. As an example, the more merchants that accept your currency, the more valuable your currency becomes. The more people that spend their currency, the more valuable it is for a merchant to accept that currency, by implementing Bitpay, etc.
This is one of the factors for the value of the U.S. dollar. Out of all the currencies in the world, USD has the most network effect. It is used and accepted in more countries than any other currency.
In its initial years, BTC was taking market share from fiat currencies. During this time, it was increasing its network effect. In the past year, the trend is reversing. SatoshiDice, Yours.org and Bitmain switched to Bitcoin Cash. According to Businessinsider:
"Out of the leading 500 internet sellers, just three accept bitcoin, down from five last year.”
Why is Bitcoin losing market share to fiat? According to Businessinsider:
“when they do try to spend it, it often comes with high fees, which eliminates the utility for small purchases, or it takes a long time to complete the transaction, which could be a turn-off.”
BTC has transformed from a currency to store-of-value. As a store-of-value, like gold, it can continue increasing in price. Crypto fans salivate at the thought of taking market share from gold, which is worth $7.8 trillion worldwide. However, this is not where the real prize is. This is chump change compared to money, which is worth $80.9 trillion worldwide.
This is why the most successful crypto-currency will become more valuable than the most successful crypto-store-of-value.
The key to getting network effect for a crypto-currency, is to get people, such as merchants, to accept that cryptocurrency as payment. If you want to send a fax, but there is no machine willing to accept it, then your fax is useless and worthless.
There is a significant side benefit whenever a merchants accepts a coin. It is providing free advertising for the coin.
Try to imagine a world where more merchants accept ABC coin than any other coin, and growing. As a consumer, will you get some ABC coin? Likely you would. If you’re a merchant, will you accept ABC coin? Likely you would. Like Facebook, this trend will likely continue growing. The bigger the network effect, the more attractive it is, and the more people that will want to join. Once it starts, there will be a compounding and self-reinforcing effect that will be hard to stop, unless ABC coin does something stupid, such as make it too costly for merchants to accept it.
WINNER TAKES ALL (OR MOST)
Once the majority of merchants in the world accept ABC coin, it will be extremely difficult for another coin to compete. Let’s say you’re a merchant that accepts ABC coin and you see that most merchants accept ABC coin and most consumers have ABC coin. Are you going to go through the hassle of accepting another crypto-currency? Unlikely.
When something dominates a space with network effect, it is nearly impossible for a competitor to compete. You can build a website with superior technology to Facebook, but you will likely fail to get people to leave Facebook to come to your site. Google+ tried and failed. Similarly, this can happen with crypto-currencies.
Once the value or market cap of the crypto-currency matches that of the crypto-store-of-value, the owners of the crypto-store-of-value will likely migrate to the crypto-currency, because the crypto-currency will be serving both functions: currency and store-of-value.
APPRECIATING VALUE DOES NOT HAVE TO DETER USE
Some argue that crypto holders will spend their bad money before their good money. That is, they will spend their fiat because their crypto is appreciating in value. That is not necessarily true.
Merchants will likely offer discounts to purchases made in crypto, due to savings from not paying fees to credit card companies and not suffering from chargebacks.
Let’s say a person wants to maintain a certain balance of ABC coin. When he sees the merchant’s discount, he will likely pay in ABC coin and then replenish his ABC coin holdings by buying more with fiat.
Let’s say that you are a merchant accepting ABC coin. If you can use your ABC coin to purchase from another merchant, regardless of discount, you likely will.
If you want to send money to another country, you will likely use crypto, instead of paying the exorbitant bank wire fees.
If more people start receiving their salaries in crypto, they will spend their crypto.
COMPETITORS
As it stands today, the coins that have the most network effect, though they still do not have much, are Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash, Dash and Monero. I may have missed a coin and this list can easily change.
In my opinion, the ultimate winner will be the one which can get the most people, merchants, retailers, businesses, etc., to accept the coin and to do it the quickest. If you want your coin to succeed, this is what you must focus on.
Bitcoin Cash
Strengths: Brand awareness. Low fees and fast confirmation times.
Weaknesses: Misperception and confusion in market place. (To clear the confusion, read: Bitcoin Divorce - Bitcoin [Legacy] vs Bitcoin Cash Explained)
Ethereum
Strengths: Brand awareness. Low fees and fast confirmation times.
Weaknesses: Perceived to be a platform for smart contracts, not money. Slow transactions.
Litecoin
Strengths: Low fees and fast confirmation times.
Weaknesses: Perceived as Bitcoin’s silver (another store of value).
Dash
Strengths: Very low fees and very fast confirmation times. Optional privacy.
Weaknesses: Low brand awareness and perceived centralized ownership/control/instamine
Monero
Strengths: Privacy.
Weaknesses: Low brand awareness, high fees. Cannot scale.
Ripple
Strengths: Cheap and fast transactions
Weaknesses: Highly centralized control. Bankers' project.
Will Bitcoin Legacy win due to its brand awareness? Will Bitcoin Cash beat out Bitcoin Legacy with its cheaper and faster transactions? Will Bitcoin Cash beat out Dash with its better brand awareness? Will Dash or Monero win with its very low fees and very fast transactions?
submitted by curt00 to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

(April) Bloomberg Crypto Outlook: Bitcoin Divorcing Equities, Joining Gold

submitted by abercrombezie to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Could Core & Unlimited come together to make 'one' coin for wealth store and 'one' coin for transactions?

I'm a regular user, investor. I want Bitcoin to succeed for political (change the system) reasons and for personal investment.
I don't want greed, power plays or manipulation by outside governments to get in the way of my dream. At the moment Unlimited vs Core seems threatens my dream and investment.
Is it a stupid proposal to 'consider' that Core and Unlimited to come together to make a smooth well thought out divorce?
Bitcoin would be considered gold 2.0. It would be slow and steady, extremely decentralised and secure. SegWit would be allowed to go through but the blocksize would be fixed at 1MB.
Unlimited bitcoin's energy would be invested in speed and the formation of a daily currency. Big blocks.
Is it naive of a normal hodler to want harmony in the force?
submitted by russellreddit to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Why the 'revolutionary' aspect of Bitcoin is important to technological progress

I'm quite encouraged by this community to see that the majority of us, at least at this point, are still ideologically driven. Our common ideology being neutrality.
Let me explain;
The current system is biased. It only works for some and then to varying degrees based on their "cast" in society. The poorer and less connected you are, the higher interest (as an example) you pay for things. The more you suffer from inflation etc. If you live in a country where your countrymen perhaps have created a distrustful situation, you are likely being locked out of the financial system to some degree. Perhaps you are being locked out because the politicians on one place of the map dislike the politicians on your place on the map.
Another aspect of the bias is that certain entities get near infinite funding with the consequent devaluation of the money held by the rest of society. "Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks".
Regardless of our proposed politics. Most of us feel a sense of disgust at the bias of the existing system. Personally I believe that if we were to pull that thread to its end we will discover the non-aggression principle lying there. But that is not necessary for us to make common cause.
Ideology is important because it motivates more than money; Take the following hypothetical situation: The US Federal government outright bans buying cryptocurrency. The result would be a bunch of furious geeks who will pour in their extra hours into opensource solutions to make that ruling untenable. Some of us would be so furious we might downscale our standard of living to right such an injustice. (Amir Taaki's group as an example)
To my knowledge this type of activism has not existed before. We've had hacktivism before, but those were isolated protests that frustrated the beast. Things like TOR and Bitcoin have the capacity to stab it in the heart. Before Bitcoin those geeks would have been angry but there was no president that such activism might be successful. To be honest, before it actually worked even I would have thought Satoshi's ambitions were delusional (and I'm pretty delusional).
To divorce Bitcoin and the larger revolution from extreme ideologies is to rip out its heart in the name of leaving a meaty corpse.
TLDR; To paraphrase Guy Kawasaki 'Make meaning not money, because if try to make money without meaning you will most likely end up making neither money nor meaning.'
submitted by sjalq to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

/r/CryptoCurrency gives advice on bitcoin during a divorce

submitted by RipIt_From_Space to bestoflegaladvice [link] [comments]

Bitcoin in Divorce

I have some Bitcoin I purchased during the marriage with some money I had.
Should I be disclosing this to my lawyer as part of my disclosure of assets/money?
The STBX knows about it.
Would she be entitled to half of the bitcoins or rather half of what I would sell it for during the divorce proceedings?
I was thinking to just sell them now and disclose it as part of my money but my fear is since we are already legally seperated if it will look bad on me to sell them now or be an issue?
Confused about what to do and I haven't spoke to my lawyer yet about it since I am not sure I want to disclose it.
submitted by lostandconfused88888 to Divorce [link] [comments]

Bitcoin in a divorce case [Happy Update]

submitted by seaboard2 to bestoflegaladvice [link] [comments]

12-18 05:03 - 'Help can someone send 10 20 dollars so I can do my French project for class I’m broke af and my parents are divorced with barley any money' (i.redd.it) by /u/bish3030 removed from /r/Bitcoin within 33-43min

Help can someone send 10 20 dollars so I can do my French project for class I’m broke af and my parents are divorced with barley any money
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: bish3030
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Wife Wants Divorce Over Husband's Failed $200k Bitcoin Investment

Wife Wants Divorce Over Husband's Failed $200k Bitcoin Investment submitted by ChinnyBeneath to bitcoin_uncensored [link] [comments]

Bitcoin is becoming a "nightmare" for divorce lawyers

Bitcoin is becoming a submitted by FenwayFranks to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Full Episode - Brown vs. Brown: Biker Babe Beatdown - YouTube Divorce  Assets and Bitcoin Part 3 of 3  The Marks Law Firm in St Louis MO Bitcoin Property Division in Separation or Divorce [Bitcoin] Cannot be divorced from pre-existing political ... YouTube

DIVORCE. 6 Signs That You Need to Hire a Divorce Lawyer. Top 3 Benefits of Attending Miams before Divorce. The Top Reasons for Divorce – Why Most Couples End Their Marriage. Tips For Staying Calm When Your Husband Is Asking For A Separation Or Divorce. Archives. October 2020; September 2020; August 2020; July 2020; June 2020; May 2020 ; April 2020; March 2020; February 2020; January 2020 ... Hiding Assets with Bitcoin in Divorce. 02/23/2017 12:06 am ET Updated Feb 27, 2017 As the world of money changes, so do the ways that people try to hide assets in their divorces. For those of you who don’t know what Bitcoin is, in short, it is a technology that is changing the way people transact just like the internet and email changed the way that people communicate. As a New York divorce ... Traditional methods for discovering hidden assets. At the beginning of the divorce process, both spouses are required to submit a financial affidavit that should encompass all of their assets, incomes and liabilities. However, if you believe your spouse is not being 100 percent truthful in their declaration, your attorney will start the process of verifying whether there are financial aspects ... Bitcoin and Divorce: Is your spouse hiding money? Going through a divorce is stressful. Sometimes, it’s very stressful. One of the stresses is the uncertainty of how much of your money you will end up with at the end of the divorce. When thinking about that issue, many people worry that their spouse may have hidden money. The thought being, “If my spouse has hidden $100,000.00 and we ... Non-disclosure of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency assets has increasingly become a problem in many divorce cases. We help lawyers and their clients find and prove existence of cryptocurrency funds if and when they do exist, in addition to helping recover the appropriate share of funds through our advisory to legal professionals and strong connections with cryptocurrency exchanges.

[index] [16115] [36677] [25535] [34701] [41157] [31430] [46228] [30607] [43758] [15193]

Full Episode - Brown vs. Brown: Biker Babe Beatdown - YouTube

Vinay Gupta Networks With IamSatoshi http://www.iamsatoshi.com/free-market-and-free-people https://twitter.com/Iam_Satoshi https://www.facebook.com/I.am.Sato... Iviera and Leo share a love for motorcycles, but Iviera says Leo is taking her for a ride by hooking up with multiple women. Leo admits to cheating and wants... St. Louis divorce and family law attorney, Jonathan Marks, discusses the issue of hidden assets and bitcoin in the third installment of Tech Nuptials. Visit ... How is Bitcoin divided during a separation or divorce? Watch this video to learn more! www.Kahanelaw.com The Kahane Law Legal Minute is brought to you by Jeff Kahane of Kahane Law in Calgary ... From divorce, drug addiction, making or losing money, his feuds and court cases with Billionaires Craig Wright and Calvin Ayre. In this interview, we discussed the following; – Peter Mccormack ...

#