You've got that exactly right, Littleshop.

Back when word processors were in their infancy, there was no 'standard' file format. There wasn't even a thought at a 'standard', because you couldn't make a standard when there were so many unknowns about what next thing to add to your program. Tables? Images? Different fonts? When the full set of features became more stable, only THEN did a standard make sense, and only THEN to the losers of the market share battle.

Additionally, what would Microsoft gain by making their word processor 'Word Perfect compatible'? Nothing. They would be stuck waiting for Word Perfect to create the next new feature before Microsoft Word could have it. Microsoft Word would always be one step behind the competition - why buy it? The best way was for Microsoft Word to read existing Word Perfect documents, then be able to save them as Word documents - allowing for Microsoft Word to be ahead of Word Perfect. That's how the market worked back then.

I don't think you understand what Monopoly is.

Nintendo does not have a monopoly, although they control all the software that is released on the Wii or Wii U. There are other players like Microsoft and Sony. This is exactly what Apple is.

Microsoft was declared a monopoly in the 90s when over 95% of the computers had Windows. ALL the software was written for windows, with very little ports to other manufacturers. Microsoft used it's monopoly of Windows by going after other markets, like web browsers. By putting Internet Explorer in windows, microsoft immediately got a 95% browser share, thus winning the browser wars automatically. Apple can't do anything of the sort, EVER, with a 20% market share, and they can't even try. It's pointless even saying they would try, because it's impossible and makes no sense.

Not even close.

Microsoft had 95% of the desktop market in the 1990s. There were no choices back then.

There are many, many choices now. Apple can't be a monopoly if Android has 70% of the market! I don't know what world you are living in.

Android is more of a monopoly, and more like Microsoft was in the 90s.

There is real competition now. Apple vs Android vs Windows.

Openness - it's not the best for all situations. Most people actually want CLOSED systems.

Take this example:
An OPEN party is happening at a friend's house. Anyone can come to the party. Bring whatever alcohol, drugs they want. Parents will be gone for the weekend. Enjoy!
A CLOSED party is happening at another house. The parents are supervising. No alcohol or drugs allowed. Only a strict guest list is allowed. Entertainment and food provided.

What party would you have more fun in?
What party is more likely that someone might get injured at?
What party is more likely that the house might get trashed, and be very expensive to clean up?
What party is more likely that you would get someone pregnant?

There is good and bad to everything. Say you are 18 - what party are you going to? Say you are 35 and married with kids, what party are you going to? People's life situations matter about what they choose.

Everything that you hate, I actually LIKE. I don't care about customization at all. All I want is a product that works, has the apps I want, and is less likely to get malware.

0% of my buying decision is about jail-breaking or customization - something that you seem to care deeply about.
0% of my buying decision is about changing a battery - something I have NEVER done in 20+ years of owning cell phones. Technology changes so quickly that I'll buy a new model of phone before ever thinking about the battery. My daugher has a 4-year old iPhone - battery still works great. My battery in my phone works fine too - never a need for more. Maybe if you have a different use-case than me you care, but to me it's a non-issue.

There is just so much Apple hate that's ridiculous. I really have low opinions of vehement Apple haters. I mean, get a life. Not everyone feels the same way about everything. Calling someone a sheep or an idiot for liking something you don't is ridiculous. And saying that someone who buys Apple products is a sucker or loves American Corporatism, or any drivel is not true at all. Apple makes some great products I love, and they also make products I won't buy. It's my preference to do what I want to and nobody is forcing anything upon me.

Your hatred actually makes me want to buy Apple products MORE because I don't want anyone to think I'm the type of person you are.

I can like country music, you can like alternative music. It doesn't have to mean anything else but preference.



 

Then you'd better pay the tax as a 'currency' if you're thinking that bitcoins are a currency. ('Currency' doesn't care about gains/losses like assets do, but GETTING the currency is taxable)

ANY income you derive be it from US currency, bitcoins or bananas, you need to report and pay taxes on.

Mining $100,000 in bitcoins is technically the same to the IRS as a bank truck crashing into your house in the middle of the night and 'depositing' $100,000 into your living room. You need to pay taxes on the $100,000 in either case.

Laws are NOT made by the courts. Laws are made by the Legislature (and other government agencies like towns, cities and states and even homeowners associations). It's the courts that decide whether a law is VALID and ENFORCEABLE or not.

Once a law is on the books, however it gets there, you must follow it, or you can be prosecuted for that law. If you choose to fight the law in court, you may do so, but you're guilty of breaking that law until the courts prove that the law is not valid.

Sage, I guess I'm on the other side of the fence than you are, therefore I see this differently. There is nothing for me to 'Wake Up' to - I have a different philosophy than you do. I would say the same 'Wake Up' to you before you end up in jail.

I agree that Americans need to pay the income tax. I know the court MUST use skullduggery because, technically, income tax is not in the Constitution. I don't have a problem with that - because I feel that Americans must all pay income tax for the good of the country, I do not support the idea that you can question this in the court.

There have been numerous court cases brought to the Supreme Court in which the Supreme Court has ruled that people must pay their taxes. For example, Cheek vs. United States: ' The Court ruled that an actual belief that the tax law is invalid or unconstitutional is not a good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law, and is not a defense.'

Okay. I read what you wrote. It sounded unbelievable, so I looked it up myself.

Yes, Judge Kent J. Dawson did indeed say, "I will not allow the law in my courtroom". But what he said is being misinterpreted. He did NOT say that his court is lawless, but instead was following the laws of the court.

Under the U.S. legal system, the general rule is that neither side in a civil or criminal case is allowed to try to prove to the jury what the law is. For example, in a murder case the defendant is not generally allowed to persuade the jury that there is no law against murder, or to try to interpret the law for the jury. Likewise, the prosecution is not allowed to try to persuade the jury about what the law is, or how it should be interpreted.

It would take too much of the court's time to (a) prove that the crime was actually a law broken, (b) prove the defendant guilty/innocent. So, after an incident is brought up to the court - part A is decided BEFORE THE TRIAL. Part B is decided upon AT THE TRIAL. All lawyers know this. Otherwise every single trial would take 10 time what it does now, because the law would have to be proven again and again and again.

So, when you go to court to fight 'not paying your taxes', you CANNOT claim that 'there is no law that says you must pay your taxes'. There is assumed to be a law (or the court case would have been thrown out previously).

Anything Sage says in the future, I'll have to verify, or I won't believe now. He's taking things out of context.

Yes, you won't get the 'rule of law' in the tax court, i.e. whether the tax law is legal or not - you only get to defend yourself against the existing tax code.

It's a scam. Don't think otherwise.

When someone asks 'Is Poloniex safe now?' and an immediate response back is something about Busoni being truthful, it IMMEDIATELY throws off red flags and sirens to me.

There is a 800+ BTC 24 hour volume ($40,000+/day) - it's really amazing to me how people can trust someone like this. Poloniex should be deemed completely UNSAFE until all the btc is returned. AFTER he keeps his word by returning ALL the btc, only THEN should SOME trust be placed in him. SOME - not all. Until poloniex is safe for at least a year.

The most common scam recently is someone takes 100% of your btc, then claims that they will give you some back slowly. You get some back, then regain confidence, meanwhile, over 50% of your btc have been stolen. And somehow people feel GOOD about 50% being stolen.

If, instead, only 50% was stolen and never given back, people would think it was a scam, but by doing it by stealing 100% then giving back 50%, people have confidence? I love psychology.... it's why this scam works so well.

Because, of course, these scammers are hoping to buy some time to get away with it.

If you feel you've been scammed, you'll go after the scammer immediately... but if the scammer tries to say, 'oh, I'll pay it back!' and gives some 'proof' that they're willing to give it back, by giving people a small percentage of their money, gullible people will believe this story is possibly true, because just 'waiting' for money is a lot easier than trying to persue the person.

The scammers then have some time to either (a) hope most people forget about it months later (b) change IP addresses by changing hosting providers, or some other way of hiding.

It's such a common scheme, I really don't understand why so many people fall for it - must be their first time seeing this type of scheme.

And who in the world, once robbed, and in the hospital needing money to pay bills and lost wages at work would instead of thinking of himself, refund money to people he doesn't know on the internet. Money he doesn't have. He should write about being concerned about finding who the people are that beat him up / stole something. Plus, who in the world steals bitcoins by beating someone up? It's ridiculous.

Somehow my roads and bridges are getting repaired, snow is being plowed, my library is open and lending books and videos, my water works, my sewer works, my court systems are functioning, police are responding when needed, fire engines are putting out fires, etc. etc.

If none of that is being paid for, then I guess I'm happy everyone is working for free for me.  

This, I see as a major flaw in bitcoin's model.... hear me out...

It looks like bitcoin mining is becoming increasingly difficult to the point that only a few rich with huge server farms can mine the coins. When there comes a point when there are like 10 major server farms that mine 90% of the bitcoins, which looks to be where it's going...

You'll then have 10 very rich people basically in charge of bitcoin. I'm sure these now powerful and influential people will have meetings and discuss various ways to control bitcoin. The rest of us will be pawns in their game. It would be very easy for this group to come to a consensus and control bitcoin to their whims.

I can't see how we wouldn't end up with a few large server farms mining most of the coins, controlling most of bitcoin. Can anyone steer me to not believe this?

That's how it works now. Communities decide what things they need by voting for sewers, road, libraries, schools, etc. Community members pay for these through taxes. And if they don't pay, they lose their homes / go to jail.

How do you expect your 'communities working together' to work when people there don't contribute their fair share? Just let them get away with it? Your community will crumble really fast.

As a kid, riding your bike around the neighborhood, it seems that Mr. Smith can fix the roads, Mr. Jones can fix the sewers, Mary can teach the children, Jennifer can run the library, etc. etc. All working together in harmony. This is not capitalism - this is communism. I'm not for that. Some jobs are harder than others, thus people get compensated differently, thus people's commitment to the community is different, thus taxing a percentage of your earnings is a way to solve this.

Sure, I have 'issues' with paying taxes. But I understand the consequences of NOT paying taxes as well.

I think I can see where the divide is coming from. Older people with 'real' jobs who are making $50,000+ see no problems paying a few hundred in taxes. Younger people who don't make much see a few hundred as a 'lot' and want to avoid the taxes.

Or they've never paid taxes before, and don't understand why someone is trying to 'steal' their money. I felt the same way when I was younger. I only made $2.35 an hour. My paycheck was about $100 a week, and I had about $15 in taxes taken out of my paycheck each week. It seemed way beyond stealing to me. Then as I grew older, I learned how taxes worked, how the tax code worked, and although I still hate it, I understand more.

The IRS won't take even $1 out of an income of $2400.

It's a lot easier to pay taxes now on the mined bitcoins from previous years when the bitcoins weren't worth much. It's only a few hundred dollars. Then, in the future, when cashing out the btc, I won't have to worry about questions like 'where did I get the btc' 'why didn't you report it'. etc. etc. I might never be audited or asked, but to me, it's so little that it makes me feel better. Like buying insurance for my laptop. I don't need to, but it makes me feel better.

A few hundred dollars is 'nothing' in the scheme of things. It all depends what a few hundred is worth to you. To me, it's less than 0.25% of my income, so I don't mind to feel safe. It's not worth it to risk a quarter of a percent on much larger hassles to fight the IRS or pay penalties down the road.

You guys are ridiculous.

The IRS doesn't care how many bitcoins you have. They don't care about your frickin' blockchain!!!!! It's just like they don't care how many beanie babies you have stored in your garage! You can have 1,000,000 bitcoins in your wallet and the IRS won't care. You don't owe them a dime for that.

They will only see transactions going in and out of your bank accounts. If there is high activity or high dollar amounts, the IRS will question it. Or if they see big purchases you've made, the IRS will question it. That's it!

If you made $10 income from mining, it's just like having a lemonade stand and making $10. The IRS doesn't give a crap about it.

If you're able to keep everything you do in bitcoins and cash without going through any bank accounts or leaving any paper trails - you'll most likely fly under the radar to the IRS. But if you pay cash for anything large, like a car, it will be reported by the car dealer, then the IRS will look into everything you do. So, you CAN fly under the radar for most things, but live a real life, and you'll find out you can't. You can't get a loan unless you have a credit record, which means you need a bank account, etc. etc.

Wow. So much hate on here.

In all seriousness, a government CAN destroy bitcoin, just like they can destroy ANYTHING. Thinking they can't is foolish.

Propaganda can spread popular opinion. All a government needs to do is release news bulletins in the AP that are picked up by newspapers which equate bitcoin to something nefarious. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. The more people believe something, the more it becomes true.

In order for bitcoin to become more successful, more people need to use btc. If government keeps slamming it, most of us here will know they're lying - but it will be impossible to spread the word to the majority of people if they just get their information from the newspapers.

It takes a concerted, planned effort by a government to slowly release more and more news articles that equate bitcoin to something bad. They can't outright say a whopper of a lie, or there will be a big pushback. They need to plan and slowly spread little pieces of bad information at a time, until there is nothing really crazily contridictory that people will care to think of it as a scandal.

This is similar to how the republican party in the united states acts. They have half of America believing there is no global warming (either man-made or not) and to think everything scientists say is a lie. This has been 20 years of propaganda that the republican party is winning.

I don't know why bitcoin fanatics want to hide under a rock. There is no FUD in what skooter is saying.

There is a reason bitcoin is not catching on with most Americans. It's NOT better than fiat. You want to be anonymous? Carry cash. For other situations, credit cards are secure for the consumer.

Franky1's situations all make no sense. He obviously doesn't live the life most Americans do.

You card has been declined? Maybe in the 1970s it was something to be ashamed of, not now. It happens occasionally. That's why you carry an extra card in your wallet for that rare occasion. You don't? Pull money out of an ATM using your bank card? You didn't bring either? Maybe that girl should be worried about you.

The coffee shop scenario already exists. I can order at a Starbucks with my phone app and pay with a click of a button, the payment going to my credit card. No problems, nothing beyond a button press. Same at pizza places, the app remembers what I've ordered before. One click, I can get it again.

Really, there is no use for anything quicker or less expensive than what we have now. When I'm online, the merchants I use know my Credit Card numbers already. When I'm out, a simple swipe. It's easy.

Bitcoin is a solution waiting for a problem. International travel? I'm using my bank card to get out cash in the country's currency. And for Americans, most Americans don't even have passports - they never leave their country, so this is never an issue. Americans who do go beyond Canada or Mexico are not poor, so of course they have a bank card, or a credit card that charges no international fees, to get cash abroad.

Maybe the situation is different for poorer Europeans, but America doesn't have these issues. Oh, Western Union? It's a joke. I've NEVER found a reason I needed to use them outside the 1980s. Why do you need cash sent to you? Use your credit card. Or call someone to get their credit card number and use that.

But they aren't ant-government. They're a mix.

They're pro-government for things they want to control (i.e. no abortions, no gay marriage, programs to help businesses, army/navy/air force/marines) but anti-government for things they don't want government controlling (guns, religion, programs to help the poor, programs to help workers).

Republicans control most of the money - why would they want to lose control? It would be a hard sell to get the rich to move to bitcoins. They know lots of other ways to make money that they understand.