One of Bitcoin's advantages is the ability to "move" large sums across borders without worrying about border guards seizing it and calling you a smuggler or money launderer.

When moving cash above a certain amount you're supposed to do paperwork informing the border guards. Not so with BTC because you only move you, not your money...you just sell for local currency upon arrival. Even if the border guards don't seize your money there's nothing stopping a crooked one from phoning a buddy and tipping them off to follow and rob you later.

Oh how wrong you are!  It's already happened in the US more than once. 

As a matter of fact, some think that the reason John Wilkes Booth shouted "Sic Semper Tyrannis!" (Thus Always To Tyrants!) right before he shot President Lincoln is because of Lincoln's issuance of the original "greenback" (unbacked by gold or anything other than "full faith and credit") that was used to pay the Union Soldiers during the US Civil War.  Try finding and spending one of those greenbacks today and see if you can get it accepted.

Another interesting factoid is, during one of the budget crises back when Timothy Geithner was still head of Treasury a few years back the federal government dipped into the federal employees' retirement system as a way to temporarily solve the crisis at hand at the time.  In other words, they temporarily stole the money from the very employees who were working right alongside them and for them rather than outsiders in order to balance the system . . . claiming to have put it back at some later date.  But even if they did put it back, the very fact that they would take it in the first place implies at the very least a "Cyprus/EU" mentality when it comes to funds on deposit.  Granted, it was ONLY (ha! ha!) federal employee retirement money and not everybody's money at all the banks, but still . . . it was a money-grab from a group of people powerless to stop it just the same.

Another thing.  There was a movement in the US to withdraw money from the so-called "too big to fail" banks by a certain November 5th (Guy Fawkes Day) as a protest against the bailouts sometime back.  There is video footage on Youtube of people being turned away from their local Bank of America branch by police officers even though they had CDs and other proof they were customers.  The banks simply refused to allow the customers to enter the bank to make the withdrawals and account closures under threat of being arrested as an effort to keep the collapse from happening.  There was a guy who originally stated that this action should be done based on what he called "Tank a Bank" as part of a political movement.  Congresscritters called him a financial terrorist because, unlike the B of A plan above, people were originally not supposed to just move the money to a credit union, but to take it home to remove it from the banking system completely.

Bottom line here is this.

These people will do whatever they think is necessary in order to keep the party going for as long as they possibly can, up to and including killing people whenever it suits them.  (Rumor is the reason for the attack on Iraq is because Saddam had demanded to be paid in Euros or gold for his oil instead of US dollars back before Desert Storm 1.0)

Thanks for that funny link!

Leave it to TSA to be calling Bitcoin "tokens in the bag," LOL.

And talking about "mission creep" . . . Good grief!

One thing that's changed is the price of Bitcoin.

Wasn't it around $228 USD about this time last year?  Even though it appears to be trending downward from a high north of  . . . was it $1,100 ? . . . it's still at $450+ USD right now.  Don't know if it will stay there or go back to $228 and even below, but that's just about a 100% return year over year.  

Of course that could change.  Past performance is no guarantee and all.  

And it would surely suck to be one of those who bought in at $1,100 and decided to hold onto it for the long haul.

But I look at Bitcoin differently.  I don't think of it as a store of value so much as a method of safely moving money across borders when one travels.  Especially if you travel to Argentina and elsewhere with major inflation problems right now.  People buy and sell in Bitcoin in Argentina because nobody wants to be stuck holding the local currency that's falling down, not just trending down.

The true usefulness of Bitcoin is when you are traveling or moving from one country to another.  YOU move, but your money Bitcoin doesn't have to move with you.  And yet you don't have to worry about border guards trying to lift it from you, seize it, claim you are a smuggler, or any of that other stuff that happens with cash above a certain amount or with gold . . . like that guy who got stuck in Mexico some time back trying to move his gold down to Panama and did not make it all the way there.  Brain wallets might work, and also Wuala or Mega definitely work for holding the details of what you need in order to convert to the local currency upon your arrival.

Try traveling and taking your gold - either bullion or coins - with you.  It's just not the same, just not that easy.  Especially when you compare it to "moving" Bitcoin.

And if you are relocating, after converting to the local fiat, you're free to convert the local stuff to gold and/or silver or whatever else you might want . . . until your next move.

That's what YOU think. But if you've ever used multiple currencies you'd know that yes, you DO have to keep track.

Consider the American who lives and works in Australia. (S)he is paid in AUD. Buys a house using those AUDs and then sells it years later, again for AUD.  Mr. IRSMan expects everything marked to USD for tax calculation purposes. It's actually possible to end up owing taxes on the LOSS of the sale of real estate under this situation...so you'd better be keeping track of exchange rates.

But doesn't this sucky ruling come with a silver lining? I mean, if Bitcoin is property, doesn't that mean that it's no longer a currency therefore exchanges no longer need a money service bureau license? And doesn't that mean that US Treasury owes Mt Gox their Dwolla account back? As well as any other exchanges whose funds they've stolen for not registering?

And isn't this treatment like the way gold is treated?

Here's something you might want to take a look at:

http://www.nestmann.com/your-money-isnt-safe-in-any-u-s-financial-institution#.Uth2brTqFOw

It's one of the best explanations of what happened when MF Global went kaboom and imploded.  There are other explanations, but this one tells the perspective of an account holder and what he went through.

I mention this because next time it might be a stock brokerage that holds your stocks that implodes instead of a bank in a tax haven country like Cyprus that pulls the robbery.

Note that there was an insurance plan in place, but due to the irregularities of what the main guy Jon Corzine did the insurance people stepped aside and let the fecal matter hit the rotary impeller instead.

Plus, in the case of the US there is not anywhere near enough currency even in existence to bail out a single too-big-to-fail bank if it comes to that.

Another thing is, do you know what is actually supposed to happen in the event of a bank failure where you are?  Not the extraordinary stuff like with Cyprus, I mean when it's an ordinary situation and the insurance scheme kicks in to make everybody whole.  A lot of people in the US will be in for a really huge surprise if their bank fails because even when the FDIC backs the bank it doesn't just come in and give everybody their money back.  There is a standard procedure they follow where they only allow so much per week to be withdrawn, no matter what the bank balance is.  If that amount is less than your mortgage, then that's tough and it's all on you unless your mortgage is with the bank that's failing.  And this is when it's an ordinary situation.  I was stunned to learn how they do things when a bank goes down.

^^^ What they've said!

The government saying Bitcoin is dangerous fails to realize that Bitcoin is regulated by mathematics, not by men.  Math is found throughout nature, even WITHIN men.

Yes, there is volatility in Bitcoin.  But which is better?  The volatility of Bitcoin, or the volatility of the ever-changing politicians' will against the ordinary citizen?

What are CUs?

Do you mean credit unions?

Sorry for going off-topic.

But maybe you can just fake being with NSA and it would work out.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/spy-shy-mugger-thwarted-by-nsa-intern-on-capitol-hill/article/2537252

FDIC has recently announced that deposits in foreign branches of US banks are not insured, that they are not eligible for insurance.  I'm betting that somebody somewhere was likely depositing in those foreign branches thinking that they were covered by FDIC when they are not.

When I first heard it I got the impression they were prepping for something, perhaps prepping to step aside and leave somebody swinging in the wind the way the stock market officials and that insurance plan stepped aside in the wake of Jon Corzine's damage.

Might I suggest Jack Daniels and a few other choice liquors to go along with your cigarettes?  Nothing too rare, but maybe you might want to consider a few different levels of the liquor . . .

Cigarettes are much better when it comes to traveling, though, because if something happens and you have to evacuate it's pretty easy to grab a backpack or duffel bag filled with cartons of smokes.  Also, if you're in the US (or near a US military base overseas) it might be wise to strike up a friendship with someone in the US military, especially if that someone doesn't smoke.  Because they might go shopping for you on base and bring you back a few cartons . . . at a much better price than what you can get yourself.  I don't smoke, but I certainly didn't mind going shopping for a friend every now and then back when I was in the military.

And come to think of it, the liquor is probably still be cheaper on base too.

You definitely got THAT right!

There was word some time ago that some drug dealers in some parts of the USA had started taking Tide as payment for drugs.  (Yes, Tide the LAUNDRY DETERGENT!).  And some drug addicts have been stealing it in somewhat large and even small quantities in order to pay said drug dealers.  It's gotten so bad until many of the pharmacies that sell it have had to remove the detergent from the shelves and place it under lock and key to prevent it from being stolen.

Why does this work for the dealers?  

In their environment, Tide is a very popular product.  It's not on anybody's "anti-list" like large sums of US or other currency, and it's easy to move by either selling for cash to working single moms or by just trading the cash for something else.  Plus, depending on the drugs in question, they can just get the single moms to bring them certain medicines that are used as an ingredient in making crystal meth that has purchase restrictions instead of cash.  By having a large pool of people purchasing their ingredient that is restricted for trading for the detergent, they kill two birds with one stone while avoiding the whole "what to do with the cash" scenario.  Most of the people who would steal the Tide from a drug dealer are probably known to the drug dealers already, plus the bottles are big/heavy enough that getting away with a high value of it is kind of hard due to its size and weight.

When I first heard about it I couldn't help but laugh.  But maybe they're onto something . . . and maybe we all need to start looking into popular things that can be traded really easily.  Perhaps it's time to start stocking up on popular but expensive wines and liquors not to consume but to be used as a form of payment.

People keep coming up with more and more interesting and amusing methods of money laundering, but this thing with the detergent takes the cake, LOL.

But there's also a downside to Bitcoin taking over when Sweden becomes "cashless".

TPTB can say that Bitcoin is not used for anything except avoiding taxes or tracking and then ban it, claiming it's only used for illegal dealings.

EXACTLY!  The United States Library of Congress website.

The Youtube video doesn't show the original there, I stumbled onto the Library of Congress file somehow after finding the video and then struggling to find the map a day or so later in order to tell a friend about it.

The thing that's most jacked up about the Cyprus issue is, the Cypriot bankers believed the European Union leaders enough to invest bank money into Greek bonds.  The EU acted like Greek bonds were still safe once propped up by EU backing!  So believing the hype put off by the EU leaders, the bankers placed their bets (investments).  So don't go blaming just the Cypriot bankers for this mess.  The EU encouraged it, and EU leaders led the bankers down this path.  Now that it's all gone bad all of a sudden the EU leaders want to step aside and blame the Cypriot bankers for trusting the EU word that Greece was a safe place to invest.  (So if you want to hang bankers, make sure you also hang EU politicians alongside them!)

That's the most disgusting thing about this whole Cypriot bank mess to me, that the Cypriot bankers are being blamed 100% and nobody is placing any blame on the EU, even though it was EU leaders' lies that led the Cypriot bankers to making the bad investments.  And that's why I think this whole "bail-in" is so much hypocrisy.  

One politician is even saying that it's all because A. Merkel wants to appear tough while spending German money on this bail-out is the reason why they are burning the Cypriot bank customers.  He's saying that basically this "bail-in" plan is a job security strategy for Ms. Merkel who comes up for re-election sometime this fall, that she's terrified of not appearing tough enough for the German voters to keep her job after the next election cycle.

Exactly!  EU's sole purpose, destroying nation states to merge them into something else.

Here's something to think about:


http://www.loc.gov/resource/g3200.ct001256/


It's a map called New World Moral Order map.

Look closely enough and at least two things stand out.  

First off, there's a "United States of Europe" there!  But second, look at the DATE of the map's having been filed at the US Library of Congress.  March 31, 1942

Only thing different from today's world in that section of the map that covers the European Union is, Germany is shown as a part of the Soviet Union.  It was after all, a map created prior to the end of WWII.

Here's a Youtube video that explains some of the details.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMQ77fIGInQ

/watch?v=wMQ77fIGInQ

I know that not paying taxes on barter is not legal.  I'm sorry.  My post should have been clearer on that.  However, valuations can fluctuate with barter.  Is the chicken you are trading for a goat worth $1.50 or $3.75?  Or only 50 cents?

To see what I mean, Google "Eduardo Saverin defriends USA".

He moved to Singapore and then renounced US citizenship in the year prior to Facebook's IPO.  Because he could not yet sell his stocks on the open market, he got to choose a lower valuation than the IPO price of $38/share.  People went nuts because they couldn't see beyond his supposedly saving so many millions of dollars by giving the US the kiss-off.

Truth is, depending on his valuation back when he renounced he may have OVERPAID on his taxes even though everybody thought he was saving money.  And I haven't seen Facebook (NASDAQ:  FB) at $38/share since the day of the IPO, it tanked like a rock the first few days and weeks.  And when you renounce, you file one LAST tax return.  If you goof in your valuation you probably don't get to file a do-over in the form of an amendment. 

But that's Eddie Saverin.

Average Joe can choose his valuation in a barter, and as long as it's a reasonable one and he can justify it in case of an audit Joe will likely be fine.  Barter makes it a not-so-exact science.

Another interesting thing is, one can shop with junk silver and buy things for "way cheaper" because someone might prefer the pre-1965 silver quarters you have in your bag to paper bills or coins of today's US Mint and Federal Reserve.

If you buy a car and offer junk silver to the dealer, (s)he may just let you pay at a discount . . . based on the value of the silver content instead of the face value of the coins.  While it does not appear to be savings, when you go to register the car if the sales price is the face value of the coins it's a LOT lower than the silver value.  How does this help you?  If your vehicle registration fees are based on face value coin price, you pay less upon first registration and less every year thereafter.  Meanwhile the dealer who sold you the car can turn around and cash the junk silver in for the full value if (s)he desires . . . or keep it if (s)he thinks the value of silver will go up.

Here's something you can point out after you show her the Argentina example for the purpose of demonstrating a trend, that DID happen in the US.

One year there was talk of a budget shortfall, what Timothy Geithner as Treas/Sec proposed and eventually did, was "temporarily borrowed from" the US federal employees' retirement system in order to cover the shortfall.  It was a quickie little dip into the funds, and it was supposed to be paid back.  Was it?  I don't know.  But just the fact that a US Treasury shortfall was covered by basically stealing money out of the federal employee pension system should be enough to let the doubters know that they will use whatever means they have to in order to get the job done, up to and including stealing anybody's retirement funds.  It was a relatively small amount percentage-wise, but a huge amount if you put it in dollar terms.

And this "little" tidbit was actually in the news, not really buried all that much.  It's not like one had to be reading super-obscure private newsletters in order to learn about it because it was on the news, film-at-eleven style for at least a couple of days after they did it.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't wait for it to happen again!

I call that little "dipping into the retirement" trick the Enron run, because one of the reasons the Enron employees lost out so big was because most of their retirement funds were all Enron stock.  Because the company imploded due to accounting "irregularities" and cute little off-the-books "count-funny" tricks, the average employee at the company lost everything, not just their jobs.  A lot of times when people struggle during a job loss they will dip into their retirement fund if they do not have enough money saved up outside it.  But because the company went under, the retirement account was gone, too.  (In somewhat related news, Jeffrey Skilling should be just about ready to get out of prison by now if he isn't already on the outside...)

Obama has already been heard to make a comment or two about having "too much tax-free money inside a Roth" and that "we need to change that" and that "three million is enough".  To me it sounded like a preparatory statement to get people ready for the eventual retirement account grab.  The mention of the cut-off level was just big enough that those who think that is a lot of money will go crazy and say "with all that money they deserve to pay", while anybody who knows reality will say "that's not enough to live on if I have to give the government half of it"!  I mean, bank CDs pay what, 1%?  At 1%, living off the interest of $3 million is just $30,000 a year.  If the government gets their way they'll try to take 35% of that, leaving one with just $19,500.



P.S.  I'm a woman, not a man.  So don't give up, it's not hard to convince all women out there!

The thing to show her is not in the current marketplace in the US, but in the history of what happened in Argentina.  This time is NOT different...

The 401k is a private arrangement that is set up by companies that employees can elect to participate in, or not.  The IRA is an arrangement where anyone who has earned (wages, etc.) at least the amount they stick into the IRA during a tax year..can take personal money that in many cases has already been taxed...the normal IRA is pre-tax money that is taxed upon withdrawal but there is this thing that is called a Roth IRA (that a lot of people went to once it came out) that allows for people to contribute after-tax money but then when they take it out it's supposed to be tax-free withdrawals for anyone above age 59-1/2.  Chief advantage of a Roth IRA is, money grows without deducting for taxes since you already paid the taxes before putting it into the plan.  I say "supposed to be" because well, you know how politicians are.  They give with one hand when the limelight is on them and they can practically glow with the halo of an angel, then figure out a way to take it all back when nobody is looking!

That "take it all back" is likely coming soon...

When the whole Cyprus banking holiday first hit it woke up quite a few people, but not nearly enough.  What was most surprising to me was how they took a bank and severed the good assets and posted them to a "good bank" while taking the bad assets and leaving them with a separate "bad bank".

That doesn't even follow the bankruptcy rules of most common law nations, so at that point it became very hard to figure out what will come next when the template that all the politicians went around saying "wasn't a template" is laid out in the next instance.

I am glad that the OP was involved in Bitcoin at an early enough time that the Cyprus banking holiday did not cause him complete ruin, but he was probably luckier than most.  Ann Barnhardt in her videos calls what's going on the "stealing of people's lifeblood, the theft of their labor", which when you get right down to it, that is all that money is...a physical and extremely negotiable representation of one's productivity in a way that is easily traded for wants and needs when doing business with others when you do not have what they want or need to exchange for it.  The money replaces that so that they can in turn go to get what they want and need from those who have it instead of all of society going back to trading chickens for goats.  One thing that's unique about trading chickens for goats directly without the use of money in the middle, though, is that it's currently a little harder for the taxman to always get his!

And when you can figure out a way to legally short the taxman it becomes something really sexy...!  (And no, I'm not an accountant or a tax lawyer, LOL!)

I know that it's easier said than done.  But the truth is, the pols in this country have been searching for a way to plug the deficit for a very long time, and one way they likely will eventually get around to is capturing the 401k's and IRA's and forcing people to only "be allowed to" invest in government-issued products such as bonds.  It's what happened in Argentina back in 1999-2000 or so, it's likely eventually coming to America.

I know of several individuals who have felt it better to take the tax hit and just "suck it up" so that they could be sure they could have SOME of the money rather than wait for the eventual confiscation that ends with them having nothing.  It's not a confiscation in the Cypriot sense, but more like a confiscation in that the only thing allowed to be in the retirement accounts end up being a rapidly depreciating asset issued by the US Gov't.

How much do you trust your wife, LOL?  (There is a potential exemption buried in divorce law, believe it or not!  It doesn't work for everyone, but maybe it might work for you?)