If as I have posited in this thread, that Craig Wright succeeds in building a legacy BTC fork in private splitting his ~0.9 million BTC and depositing his free ~0.9 million Core airdrop tokens to exchanges so he can dump them for stable coins (e.g. USDT) before initiating the SegWit attack (which will crater the Core BTC price for the reasons already explained in this thread), then all the rest of us have a new problem to worry about that I did not think of before:Resolving a long-standing question, the guidance says new cryptocurrencies created from a fork of an existing blockchain should be treated as an ordinary income equal to the fair market value of the new cryptocurrency when it is received.
In other words, tax liabilities will apply when the new cryptocurrencies are recorded on a blockchain if a taxpayer actually has control over the coins and can spend them.
A23. When you receive cryptocurrency from an airdrop following a hard fork, you will have ordinary income equal to the fair market value of the new cryptocurrency when it is received, which is when the transaction is recorded on the distributed ledger, provided you have dominion and control over the cryptocurrency so that you can transfer, sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of the cryptocurrency.
A24. If you receive cryptocurrency from an airdrop following a hard fork [
] You have received the cryptocurrency when you can transfer, sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of it, which is generally the date and time the airdrop is recorded on the distributed ledger.
So since the blockchain timestamps are the only record of relevance since we always have control over our private keys, this means when Core is forced to fork off from the legacy fork because of the SegWit donations which are a illegal in Core but legal in the legacy protocol, what happens is that Core appears to have forked at the moment Craig created the private legacy chain with said protocol violations which Core will not accept when he publicly releases the legacy fork. Yet Core is forking off from legacy, not vice versa because only legacy address hodlers get free airdropped Core tokens in addition to retaining their legacy tokens.
So think about what this means. I already explained upthread that if you hodl in Core addresses (i.e. those beginning with 3) then you will only have worth-less tokens and be unable to sell them after the attack begins for reasons I already detailed in this thread. But if you hold in legacy addresses (i.e. those beginning with 1) then you will retain the legacy BTC which will continue to appreciate in price probably headed to $1 million, but you will also receive a free air-drop of the worth-less Core tokens.
But the problem for legacy address hodlers is that the IRS will presume the value of the Core tokens when you received them was before the SegWit attack began, thus you will owe income tax on the full value of the Core tokens before they plummeted in price and became worth-less! Ah the diabolical plan of the powers-that-be to destroy us becomes more clear. They will jack up the BTC price to perhaps $100k before the May 2020 halving, then we will all owe income (not capital gains!) taxes on that amount even we cant sell any more.
They are planning to burn our fingertips up to our armpits. Clever bastards!
Other governments will likely follow the same common sense rules because all the governments are bankrupt and need more income from taxation.
There wont be any Segwit spend to any attacks
There are barely any nodes running satoshis old codebase, that code was buggy and vulnerable and couldnt handle higher traffic, so theyre all gone.
Its the same as breaking any other consensus rule like allowing joe-blow to spend block 1s coins with a key that isnt the right one, or mining 1000 BTC in a block or whatever: all nodes enforcing the rule will ignore the invalid blocks just like they never happened. Any nodes not enforcing it, if there are any, will play along so long as there is more hashpower mining the invalid blocks. Of course, the miners making invalid blocks are burying millions of dollars a minute in power to make blocks that pretty much only their own nodes will accept, so theyll rapidly go bankrupt.
This is the same deal for any nearly-universially deployed consensus rule. Segwit would only be different if it werent deployed everywhere but it (like almost all other rule additions made going all the way back to the rules satoshi added in 2010) didnt get activated until an overwhelming majority of users, all major businesses, etc. were enforcing it.
Read the thread to correct your myopia. All of your incorrect points were already refuted numerous times. I am not going to repeat it all again, just because you are too lazy or incapable of assimilating the logic in the thread.