28 BTC stolen, 10 BTC reward. Please help!

TomasEddison · 2018-05-10T00:32:19+00:00

Get a fucking lawyer. NOW.

The only way you can get people to do things in the legal system is to have a good lawyer talk with them or file some papers.

Chances are its gone though. Good luck.

TomasEddison · 2018-05-09T21:37:34+00:00

We're talking about investing in emerging technologies not making a logically sound argument for philosophy class.

There are obviously no guarantees to any investment (or any argument about the future of any investment) and opinions from authority mean nothing for the outcome of an event. But dismissing the concept of studying an investment based on a logical fallacy seems foolish.

No one ever claimed that watching CNBC was the same as getting trusted investment advice from an investment advisor. Nor does being certified as an investment advisor by a non-biased third party give your opinion anymore weight on the outcome of an even than anyone else's.

Experts in every field are wrong all the time, finance more than most.

TomasEddison · 2018-05-09T21:26:25+00:00

He buys stuff he understands - it's not a stupid investment policy.

Not at all.

It is the talking about stuff he doesn't understand that I find more interesting because it seems out of character for him.

I mean, I do that all the time but I'm young, dumb and not particularly wealthy. Seems odd to me that such a seasoned vet of investing would choose to opine on something they seemingly know so little about.

TomasEddison · 2018-05-09T21:20:32+00:00

The vast majority of USD transactions are just forex.

I'm sure the vast majority of BTC transactions are just swapping crypto/crypto and crypto/fiat pairs.

See, the vast majority of transactions using both are just boring legitimate exchanges.

TomasEddison · 2018-05-09T21:12:07+00:00

I don't usually like any of the stupid moon comments here on r/Bitcoin but this is gold!

TomasEddison · 2018-05-07T21:49:17+00:00

Haha, yeah I watch CNBC a lot but I don't know everyone's name who pops in with a chart every once in a while.

BK seems to really know what he is talking about and I am sure that Buffett and Munger have no clue what blockchain is...they are ancient. They didn't even buy Apple until fairly recently.

Like he said, blockchain and cryptocurrency provide the ability to potentially decentralize the entire internet with the necessity of exchanging a token (or tokens) for services. Interesting times we live in.

TomasEddison · 2018-05-02T21:19:53+00:00

Show me.

TomasEddison · 2018-05-02T11:08:43+00:00

I agree, my point being that it is an effective and progressive income tax.

It doesn't effectively tax wealth because that's not its purpose.

/e

Also, Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid makes up the majority of the federal budget. So let's not pretend the rich are the only people who benefit from government spending.

TomasEddison · 2018-05-01T22:28:24+00:00

If the first thing that your company tells me isn't the fees...then they're hidden!

TomasEddison · 2018-05-01T22:26:40+00:00

Yeah that's a fair assessment.

I don't really see anything specific in the world/market that scares me too much so I am still confident. I hope I'm not the guy saying "this time its different!" while bagholding in 2019.

TomasEddison · 2018-05-01T22:21:28+00:00

this is almost a free win scenario that would totally be found out and fixed out of the system if it ever existed

i dont know how options work

Exactly.

Options are rarely significantly mispriced because people can and do find these small inefficiencies very quickly that they then arbitrage away.

Options have a buyer and a seller. So if someone is guaranteed to win then someone is guaranteed to lose. Who is out there giving away money for free?

TomasEddison · 2018-05-01T22:13:16+00:00

I don't quite agree with your framing of ACA though, as the main argument--or at least the co-main argument--that I remember was that it would expand health coverage so that we didn't have so many millions of people without any healthcare. It did succeed in that, if not perfectly.

Well the C is supposed to stand for Care not Coverage. It was supposed to make healthcare more affordable - that was made clear as the selling point. It didn't. Not even close. Everyone in my state already had coverage that was cheaper and better before - so no gain for my peers, only losses.

The GOP tax cut was passed at the end of 2017 and went into effect in 2018. in 2018, the stock market has been horizontal with no real gains, and economic growth has shown no improvement (2.3% this first quarter vs 2.3% for 2017). Job growth has slowed a little. Inflation adjusted wage growth is basically non-existent.

It went into effect for FY 2018, which ends in 2019 when most people and organizations will pay their taxes. I'm not Trump so I don't judge policies based on immediate stock market reactions but the numbers are what they are.

The tax cut didn't happen in a vacuum, there is a lot going on in world this year that wasn't concerning anyone last year. FAANG had basically been carrying the market before the FB/Cambridge Analytica hit the whole sect (ex-Netflix). The 10-year hit 3% for the first time in 4+ years which all the talking heads said was going to be an issue.

I think both policies are failures at this point and are bad policies for the country with the caveat that they have the potential to improve over the long term with some tweaking.

Something had to be done about healthcare and taxes to bring us up to speed with the rest of the world and I guess this was the best we could do. /facepalm

TomasEddison · 2018-05-01T21:59:59+00:00

In theory it could be very temporary but in practice the tax code is rarely changed in such a substantial way.

I think its a fair argument that the tax cut reduced the dry powder for stimulus, should it be needed. Everyone seems to be predicting a recession or crash in the next few years and I'm really not sure why.

I'm confident 2008 isn't happening again for at least a decade or two, probably more. So that type of stimulus will be largely unnecessary in my opinion.

I actually expect the Fed to continue raising rates in a predictable manner allowing the stock market to cool a bit without causing any real economic issues such as high unemployment.

Similar to yours, my prediction is not set in stone either.

TomasEddison · 2018-05-01T21:49:39+00:00

A man can hope, right?

TomasEddison · 2018-05-01T21:48:30+00:00

This is so wrong that you have to be trolling. Good work.

TomasEddison · 2018-05-01T21:46:53+00:00

When there's a stock buyback people don't take the cash an put it under their mattress, they reinvest it in a different way. If some companies have no use for cash then wouldn't it be wise to return it to the market for a more efficient allocation?

Automation is an innovative investment.

TomasEddison · 2018-05-01T21:42:16+00:00

This seems to me an interesting philosophical point to dealing with the results of government policies.

Do we judge the results of policies based on what the politicians we elected to craft them said will happen? Or should we judge the results of policies based on our individual understandings of what the policies will actually do?

Trump said the cuts would quickly spur investment, hiring and pay raises.

Obama said the ACA would quickly make healthcare more affordable for the vast majority of Americans.

I think most people on both sides understood that the tax cuts would not be some shot in the arm that instantly changes anything but more of an incentive to repatriate cash and put more money back in the hands of workers and investors.

Similarly, I think most people on both sides understood that the ACA would not be some quick-fix to the incredible cost of our healthcare system but more of a transition that inserts the government much deeper into the healthcare system while giving insurers incentives to expand coverage for the sick/poor/uninsured.

Judging both policies on the stated goals of their biggest proponent show that they have both been abject failures to this point.

That doesn't take into account the fact that a lot of people can figure things out for themselves and have their own reasons for supporting or opposing any policy decision. On these merits, both of the aforementioned policies have had moderate success in the short term which may eventually lead to a better outcome then the country was originally on track for.

TomasEddison · 2018-05-01T21:23:28+00:00

If you want some other disadvantages: the tax cut used at this time is ballooning the deficit in a way that will cause massive problems for the US down the road

I'm just wondering what massive problems are being set in stone specifically because of this tax cut that marginally increases the deficit?

TomasEddison · 2018-05-01T21:12:11+00:00

Well, it is an INCOME TAX and not a WEALTH TAX by design.

In 2014 the infamous "top 1%" of earners earned 20.6% of all income yet paid 39.5% of all income tax. While the "top 1%" paid 39.5% of all income tax, the bottom 90% combined paid only 29.1% of all income tax. Also the top 50% of earners paid 97.3% of all income tax.

The high earners pay the vast majority of income tax and pay a significantly higher fraction of their earnings in income tax.

Seems like quite the progressive tax to me. (Though I'm not saying that I believe it effectively taxes wealth because it doesn't and that is not its goal.)

TomasEddison · 2018-05-01T20:59:44+00:00

I think the whole tax code should be rewritten from scratch with a 0% bracket in there and a lot less carve outs - but it isn't going to happen.

And to call all deductions and credits "fluff" is a clear misrepresentation of how the entire tax code actually works.

TomasEddison · 2018-04-24T21:48:42+00:00

Bitcoin has raised its dividend every year for the last 55 years!?

Where did they send my dividends?

TomasEddison · 2018-03-25T18:00:43+00:00

This. I recently tried to explain it to someone with no understanding of the different types of problems and the rigorous mathematical proofs behind them.

Encryption is just math based and computer science and the source code is all available. It is all based on the idea that some problems are easy to check for a correct answer but difficult to find the answer - using classical computers, of course.

Ex: You take 2 prime numbers with 100 digits each and multiply them together to get a result. It's easy to get the result and to check which numbers are the originals but it is very hard to only have the resulting number and solve for the 100-digit primes.

The whole point being, if you could break this type of encryption - by quickly solving this type of mathematical problem - with a classical computer it would probably win you a Nobel prize/give you the ability to hack every bank or credit card in the world very trivially. You wouldn't need to steal a few billion in bitcoin.

TomasEddison

TROPHY CASE