Precisely; none of that has taken place in this thread.

A contemplative discussion was begun and information regarding asset protection has been provided. That information is relevant for any and all individuals living, working or residing in any country. In fact, supportive information for the reporting of Bitcoin assets to US tax authorities was provided.

Just like the assumption regarding some of my links, the emotional reactions toward the tax information and thoughts provided assumed what I spoke of was only pertaining to the US. It is true that the information is applicable to the US as well, but the responses were derogatory and bordering on zealotry, as thought the world outside of America doesn't exist.

Nowhere have there been claims of wrong-doing or malicious intent; the conceptual discussion has been objective and pertaining to defensive measures. At worst, a suggestion of avoidance regarding becoming a guinea pig in setting precedent was mentioned. It was already pointed out that once wealth leaves the Bitcoin system, even if functioning as a tax haven, it is subject to whatever rules are applicable to the instrument the wealth has been transferred into. The issue of wealth that remains in the Bitcoin system is a different matter that wasn't broached because of one individual's ill temper.

Yes, I should've ignored the troll. Even with that admission, any actions taken to offline status move into a clearly-defined precedent, especially if that happens with international significance. The emotional reactions taken offline by a certain participant in this thread have been uncalled for and these actions may be seen as grounds for harassment with serious legal repurcussions, including both civil and criminal slander and libel suits in multiple juridictions.

If the challenge is to be persisted in after witnessing multiple lengthy replies of lucid clarification from myself and considering the extensive measure of legal contacts that accrue in some industries, then it will be met will the fullest extent of legal defense. Reminder: offline harassment is a clear case - in some instances a felony.

Note the following statements that were made prior to the threat of offline action, then the initial direct statement implying good-natured discourse (again, nation-agnostic) and multiple escalating offers for the instigating offender to cease hostilities (after which the offender's comments were addressed indirectly):





Now that that's done...


Everything you need to protect your assets the way the "selfish and greedy" do has been handed to you on a silver platter, but that's selfish and greedy? If I'm using that information and the same is given to you, it cannot logically follow that making use of the information is selfish or greedy. Please explain your view, preferably without the profanity.

Who determines what the "share" is? You? Me? Some nameless, faceless person who has barely a vague idea about either of us, or the drunkard subsisting on government hand-outs? What if Ireland demanded that all persons holding an Irish passport had to pay taxes to the nation, even if income were made in the US? Would America stand for that?

Get out of where? Mine is a sentiment that's part of a small, but rising global chorus. It's a mindset of live and let live. I don't dictate to you and don't dictate to me; I don't pay your way, you don't pay mine. Is that so threatening?

These aren't necessarily easy questions, nor is there an easy answer at this point.