Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman



Bitcoin vs. The Federal Reserve Andreas Antonopoulos and Stefan Molyneux
Stefan Molyneux and Andreas Antonopoulos discuss the fall of Mt. Gox, the greatly exaggerated death of Bitcoin, the joy of failure within the Bitcoin economy. SUBSCRIBE for Latest on BITCOIN…

By: Economic Collapse 2014

Read more from the original source:

Bitcoin vs. The Federal Reserve Andreas Antonopoulos and Stefan Molyneux – Video

A portrait of Inspector-General of Taxation Ali Noroozi. Photo: Nic Walker

A senior Macquarie Group executive sought to ”engage the assistance” of Inspector-General of Taxation Ali Noroozi in the financial services group’s fight with the Australian Taxation Office, court documents show.

Mr Noroozi’s senior staff agreed to use the financial services group as a ”case study” in a review of ATO policy ”U-turns”, according to the Federal Court documents.

A member of Mr Noroozi’s staff allegedly also told Macquarie the Inspector-General’s office would question ATO officers and require the agency to search its records for information that Macquarie lawyer Peter Speed hoped would ”assist Macquarie’s cause”.

Mr Noroozi told BusinessDay he always acted independently and impartially when investigating complaints about the tax system.

Advertisement

”We are doing a U-turn review; we are looking at the Macquarie decision because it has a real impact Our interest in Macquarie is, because we do not at the moment handle single complaints, not about the rights or wrongs as far as Macquarie is concerned, but is more about the fundamental issue of principle.”

A policy ”U-turn” is when the Tax Office changes its mind about how the law should be applied. While U-turns are allowed, under Tax Office policy they should apply only to new cases.

At present the Inspector-General of Taxation is able to investigate only systematic tax problems, but as part of this month’s budget, Treasurer Joe Hockey said he would give Mr Noroozi the power to investigate individual complaints. How and when the transfer of power will happen is yet to be determined.

The Federal Court fight between Macquarie and the ATO arose out of a long-running audit, after which the ATO alleged Macquarie had not paid enough tax because it was counting expenses against the domestic bank that should have been expenses of the offshore banking unit (OBU).

More here:
Macquarie sought help in U-turn policy

A portrait of Inspector-General of Taxation Ali Noroozi. Photo: Nic Walker

A senior Macquarie Group executive sought to ”engage the assistance” of Inspector-General of Taxation Ali Noroozi in the financial services group’s fight with the Australian Taxation Office, court documents show.

Mr Noroozi’s senior staff agreed to use the financial services group as a ”case study” in a review of ATO policy ”U-turns”, according to the Federal Court documents.

A member of Mr Noroozi’s staff allegedly also told Macquarie the Inspector-General’s office would question ATO officers and require the agency to search its records for information that Macquarie lawyer Peter Speed hoped would ”assist Macquarie’s cause”.

Mr Noroozi told BusinessDay he always acted independently and impartially when investigating complaints about the tax system.

Advertisement

”We are doing a U-turn review; we are looking at the Macquarie decision because it has a real impact Our interest in Macquarie is, because we do not at the moment handle single complaints, not about the rights or wrongs as far as Macquarie is concerned, but is more about the fundamental issue of principle.”

A policy ”U-turn” is when the Tax Office changes its mind about how the law should be applied. While U-turns are allowed, under Tax Office policy they should apply only to new cases.

At present the Inspector-General of Taxation is able to investigate only systematic tax problems, but as part of this month’s budget, Treasurer Joe Hockey said he would give Mr Noroozi the power to investigate individual complaints. How and when the transfer of power will happen is yet to be determined.

The Federal Court fight between Macquarie and the ATO arose out of a long-running audit, after which the ATO alleged Macquarie had not paid enough tax because it was counting expenses against the domestic bank that should have been expenses of the offshore banking unit (OBU).

Read more here:
Macquarie Group sought Inspector-General of Taxation's help in U-turn policy



U.S. states take lead in writing bitcoin rules
Numerous companies in the United States enable customers to pay for goods and services in virtual currencies. But since bitcoins are not regulated by the federal government, users face a maze…

By: travell

Read the original post:

U.S. states take lead in writing bitcoin rules – Video

Dispute: The ATO has calculated that Macquarie owes millions of dollars in tax and penalties.

Macquarie Group has acknowledged that a revised tax bill following a full-scale audit by Tax Office investigators may be market sensitive and could move its share price.

The information, which relates to three years of additional tax, has never been disclosed by the homegrown investment bank to the sharemarket.

Macquarie’s admission of the scale of its tax problem is contained in an affidavit sworn by the financial services group’s external lawyer, Peter Speed, based on information given to him by company executive Kathryn Burgess.

The affidavit is among documents, obtained by Fairfax Media, that were filed by Macquarie during its recent Federal Court dispute with the Tax Office over treatment of its offshore banking unit between 2006 and 2008.

Advertisement

Offshore banking units, which are bank divisions that mostly used to do business with overseas clients, are taxed at a concessional rate of 10 per cent, compared with the corporate rate of 30 per cent.

In September, the Federal Court ruled against Macquarie’s bid to stop the ATO retrospectively levying the additional tax, which court documents show is at minimum in the millions of dollars.

During the legal case, Mr Speed, a partner at Sydney law firm Speed and Stracey, asked the Federal Court to keep confidential 14 pages of documents filed by Macquarie.

”I am informed by Kathryn Burgess and verily believe that the information concerned is information disclosing or revealing, broadly, amounts of tax which might be at stake between the applicants [Macquarie] and the commissioner [of taxation],” Mr Speed said in the April 2, 2013 affidavit, which has only now been released to Fairfax Media.

The rest is here:
Macquarie Group tax issues may be 'market sensitive'



Bitcoin Will End the Federal Reserve Currency Monopoly
Get the report: http://CrushTheStreet.com/bitcoin.

By: VisionVictory

Follow this link:

Bitcoin Will End the Federal Reserve Currency Monopoly – Video

REXBURG A man who was instrumental in overturning a Second Amendment-based law is coming to Rexburg.

Dick Heller, who was the central figure in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, will be making an appearance at a rally this coming Saturday.

The Second Amendment Idaho Tour will make a stop at 3 p.m. at the Rexburg Tabernacle.

The event is free and open to the public.

The state is sovereign, not the federal government, said Heller in a telephone interview on Monday from his Washington home.

Heller believes every citizen has the right to bear arms and wants as little government intrusion as possible.

The Second Amendment is an incorporated right, said Heller, that takes the power out of the hands of the state to implement gun control.

Heller also believes that gun rights preceded the democracy, which he said means no government should have any control over gun regulations.

Asked if he is advocating no regulations, Heller said, As close to none as you can get as far as the government is concerned.

Heller said responsible gun owners have rigid rules in place, with basic concepts like not pointing a gun at another person.

More here:
Guns to be focus of rally



Election Commission Approve Bitcoin as Campaign Donation
Election Commission Approve Bitcoin as Campaign Donation Bitcoin, the fast-growing digital currency, is coming to political campaigns. The Federal Election C…

By: shakaama

See original here:

Election Commission Approve Bitcoin as Campaign Donation – Video

TREASURE ISLAND Eroding beaches in this barrier island community will continue to be eligible for federal money for replacement sand after a push by Congressman David Jolly.

The Pinellas County Republican made the announcement Saturday while standing on a wide, sandy beach at the City of St. Petersburg Municipal Beach on Gulf Boulevard, joined by local officials and Florida Rep. Kathleen Peters, R-South Pasadena.

Although the narrow strips of sand at Sunset and Sunshine beaches on Treasure Island are scheduled for renourishment this summer, Jolly said authorization for the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers for future Treasure Island projects was set to expire in 2019.

The inclusion of Treasure Island in the Water Resources Reform and Development Act means area beaches would remain on the federal list until 2022 rather than potentially being dropped before the renourishment program is renewed by Congress.

Other Pinellas beaches are authorized until 2030 and beyond.

With the need to import extra sand every four or five years, the cost of these multimillion dollar projects could be saddled on state and local governments if the federal government removes its aid, a big concern for Pinellas tourism officials hoping to protect the areas top economic driver.

Jolly made beach funding a key campaign issue, promising to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor, the late Congressman Bill Young, an influential representative known for bringing major federal dollars to county beaches.

Beach renourishment is one of those issues that local representation has to fight hard for, said Jolly, an Indian Shores resident.

For decades the federal government has covered 60 percent of the cost of beach restoration, matched by state and county funds at 20 percent each.

Congress makes long-term eligibility approvals about every seven years and Pinellas County beaches always have been renewed, thanks in part to Youngs stature in the U.S. House of Representatives, Jolly said.

The rest is here:
Treasure Island included in beach renourishment plan

Federal regulator finds the cryptocurrency qualifies as “money or something of value” but imposes restriction on its use.

Bitcoin

Bitcoins may soon be helping fund an election campaign near you.

The US Federal Election Committee on Thursday unanimously approved a proposal for political action committees to accept donations in the form of Bitcoin, finding that the cryptocurrency qualified as “money or anything of value” as defined by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. However, with its 6-0 vote, the commission that enforces US campaign finance laws imposed several conditions on its acceptance.

PACs must sell the bitcoins they received and convert them to into US dollars before depositing the proceeds into a campaign account. The commission did not approve the use of Bitcoin to acquire goods and services.

The decision came in response to a proposal by the Make Your Law committee to accept individual Bitcoin donations up to $100. To address the anonymous nature of Bitcoin use, the MYL promised that all Bitcoin contributors would be required to provide their name, physical address, and employer.

While the decision was issued as guidance and not as new regulations, the commission’s vote suggests that other PACs will be allowed to operate under similar conditions.

In its decision, the commission acknowledged that “government agencies, courts and others are grappling,” but said it “expresses no opinion regarding the application of federal securities law, tax law, or other law outside the Commission’s jurisdiction to MYL’s proposed activities.”

Bitcoin’s acceptance has grown dramatically in the past couple of months. Cryptocurrency ATMs have begun to pop up, some casinos have said they would accept digital currency payments, and even eBay has begun allowing for limited sales of Bitcoins on its US and UK sites.

The FEC’s decision comes a day after the US Securities and Exchange Commission issued an advisory warning investors to be wary of Bitcoin and other virtual-currency related investments. Noting that the cryptocurrency is uninsured, unregulated, and volatile, the SEC said its chief concern was the risk of fraud.

View original post here:

Bitcoin wins US election panel's approval for political donations

US political donations in bitcoin approved The US Federal Election Commission has unanimously approved the use of bitcoin for political contributions, so long as certain criteria are met. Crypto Coin Radio set to launch

Read more from the original source:

Cryptocurrency News Round-Up: Bitcoin Political Donations & Crypto Coin Radio



FEC Allows PAC To Start Accepting Bitcoin Donations
For the first time, the Federal Election Commission gave the go-ahead for a political group to accept small amounts of Bitcoin. Follow Jay Srubberg: http://twitter.com/JayStrubberg See more…

By: NewsyTech

Go here to see the original:

FEC Allows PAC To Start Accepting Bitcoin Donations – Video

The Federal Election Commission on Thursday approved the use of the alternative currency Bitcoin for political contributions with limits of $100 per donor per election cycle. The 6-member panel voted unanimously …

Original post:

Bitcoin OK for politics with $100 limits



Opposition To Proposed Monitoring Of Hate Speech By Federal Agency The Kelly File
Opposition To Proposed Monitoring Of Hate Speech By Federal Agency – The Kelly File What Happened To The First Amendment? =========================================== **Please Click Below…

By: Mass Tea Party

Follow this link:
Opposition To Proposed Monitoring Of Hate Speech By Federal Agency The Kelly File – Video



Insight: Free Speech promo
With the Federal Government proposing to remove provisions which “unreasonably limit freedom of speech” in the Racial Discrimination Act, Insight asks just h…

By: Insight SBS

Here is the original post:
Insight: Free Speech promo – Video



New Bitcoin Documentary: Boom or Bust
Original Video by Teen Take check out his channel here http://YouTube.com/TeenTake TRANSCRIPT: pastebin.com/f4XLwQ9k Teen Takes BTC: 13gpU1chSHzpqk3ohfD8ey2YGgHNihWnbd The Federal Reserve…

By: WeAreChange

See more here:

New Bitcoin Documentary: Boom or Bust – Video

A cryptocurrency is a medium of exchange designed around securely exchanging information which is a process made possible by certain principles of cryptography. The first cryptocurrency to begin trading was Bitcoin in 2009. Since then, numerous cryptocurrencies have been created. Fundamentally, cryptocurrencies are specifications regarding the use of currency which seek to incorporate principles of cryptography to implement a distributed, decentralized and secure information economy.

When comparing cryptocurrencies to fiat money, the most notable difference is in how no group or individual may accelerate, stunt or in any other way significantly abuse the production of money. Instead, only a certain amount of cryptocurrency is produced by the entire cryptocurrency system collectively, at a rate which is bounded by a value both prior defined and publicly known. In centralized economic systems such as the Federal Reserve System governments regulate the value of currency by simply printing units of fiat money or demanding additions to digital banking ledgers. However, governments cannot produce units of cryptocurrency and as such, governments cannot provide backing for firms, banks or corporate entities which hold asset value measured in a decentralized cryptocurrency. The underlying technical system upon which all cryptocurrencies are now based was created by the anonymous group or individual known as Satoshi Nakamoto for the purpose of creating an economy within which the practice of fractional reserve banking would be fundamentally impossible.[1][2][3]

Hundreds of cryptocurrency specifications now exist; most are similar to and derived from the first fully implemented cryptocurrency protocol, Bitcoin.[4][5][6][7][8] Within cryptocurrency systems the safety, integrity and balance of all ledgers is maintained by a swarm of mutually distrustful parties referred to as miners who are usually members of the public handling cryptocurrency transactions for a small fee. Miners use resource intensive computer software to help secure a particular cryptocurrencys network by increasing that networks ability to solve mathematic equations which the network directly uses to impede fraudulence. Subverting the underlying security of a cryptocurrency is mathematically possible, but the cost may be unfeasibly high. For example, against Bitcoin’s proof-of-work based system, an attacker would need computational power greater than that controlled by the entire swarm of miners in order to even have 1 / (2^(# authentication rounds for this cryptocurrency) – 1) of a chance, which means directly circumventing Bitcoin’s security is now a task well beyond even a technology company the size of Google.[9]

Most cryptocurrencies are designed to gradually introduce new units of currency, placing an ultimate cap on the total amount of currency that will ever be in circulation. This is done both to mimic the scarcity (and value) of precious metals and to avoid hyperinflation.[10][11] As a result, such cryptocurrencies tend to experience hyperdeflation as they grow in popularity and the amount of the currency in circulation approaches this finite cap. [12] Compared with ordinary currencies held by financial institutions or kept as cash on hand, cryptocurrencies are less susceptible to seizure by law enforcement.[10][13] Existing cryptocurrencies are all pseudonymous, though additions such as Zerocoin and its distributed laundry feature have been suggested, which would allow for anonymity.[14][15][16]

The first cryptocurrency was Bitcoin, which was created in 2009 by pseudonymous developer Satoshi Nakamoto, and used SHA-256 as its proof-of-work scheme.[17][18][19] Later, other cryptocurrencies, such as Namecoin (an attempt at a decentralized DNS, which would make internet censorship very difficult), Litecoin (which uses scrypt as a proof-of-work, as well as having faster transaction confirmations), Peercoin (which uses a proof-of-work/proof-of-stake hybrid, and has inflation of about 1%) and Freicoin (which implements Silvio Gesell’s concept of Freigeld by adding demurrage) were also created.[20] Many other cryptocurrencies have been created, though not all have been successful, especially those that brought few innovations.

David Chaum designed a number of electronic money systems such as DigiCash and ecash, which incorporated certain concepts of cryptography to anonymise electronic money transactions, however these were not cryptocurrencys because they did not have a transaction approval system based upon miners providing proof of stake/work, instead the systems used a centralized issuing and clearing system similar to paypal.[21]

For the first two years of existence, cryptocurrencies gradually gained attention from the media and public.[22] Since 2011, interest has rapidly increased, especially during the rapid price rise of Bitcoin in April 2013.

The most widely used proof-of-work schemes are SHA-256, which was introduced by Bitcoin, and scrypt, which is used by currencies such as Litecoin.[20] Some cryptocurrencies, such as Peercoin, use a combined proof-of-work/proof-of-stake scheme[20][23] and one Nxt[24] , exclusively use proof-of-stake.

This is a list of cryptocurrencies. By December 2013 there were more than 60 cryptocurrencies available for trade in online markets.[25]

Link:

Cryptocurrency – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The strength and necessity of our Second Amendment

I was alarmed and concerned, as a freedom-loving citizen, at the actions of our Federal Government, i.e. The BLM vs. one of our citizens i.e., Clive Bundy of Bunkerville, NV. Being unaware of the real reason behind the confrontation, I can only address the standoff situation. The Feds moved in well armed in what threatened to be another Ruby Ridge or Waco massacre. Our fellow citizen/militia moved in armed with our Second Amendment i.e., our right to bear arms.

Notice a big difference. The Feds went in armed, virtually unopposed and not facing armed resistance. When the Feds were met with armed resistance i.e., our citizen/militia, the Feds backed down. The Feds could understandably see no reason to die so Harry Reid and his son and cronies could make more money.

Our citizen/militia moved in armed with our second amendment, facing guns, which could result in deadly opposition. Please acknowledge that our citizen/militia stood for the freedom our forefathers so bravely fought for, facing injury and in many cases death. They didnt run as our not so upstanding and brave feds did.

Back up 225 years and our Founding Fathers were fighting the same type of tyrannical government that Clive Bundy and our citizen/militia are fighting today. Our Constitutional Framers fortunately gave us our Second Amendment assuming we would need it in event of the tyranny we are now facing.

A few weeks back a couple of contributors to this page referenced our Constitutional Framers in a very favorable view, with which I agree. Please be aware that President Obama referenced these same Framers as rich people who didnt want to pay their taxes. Our Framers referenced it as taxation without representation.

Only the very uniformed can praise our Framers while voting for and supporting Obama. I would suggest these contributors watch the news on ABC, CBS, FOX, CNN or numerous others. Information can fix ignorance.

Long Live Cowboys

Leon C. Batey

Belle Plaine, IA

Original post:
Benton County Letters, April 23, 2014

LOS ANGELES (AP) The Federal Communications Commission is set to propose new open Internet rules that would allow content companies to pay for faster delivery over the so-called "last mile" connection to people's homes, but enhance scrutiny of such deals so they don't harm competition or limit free speech.

Read the original here:
FCC to propose pay-for-priority Internet standards

Abstract

Modern debates about the meaning of the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was apparently never even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted. Early discussions took the basic meaning of the amendment for granted and focused instead on whether it added anything significant to the original Constitution. The debate later shifted because of changes in the Constitution and in constitutional law and because legislatures began to regulate firearms in ways undreamed of in our early history.

The Founding generation mistrusted standing armies. Many Americans believed, on the basis of English history and their colonial experience, that governments of large nations are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. One way to reduce that danger would be to permit the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or similar emergencies, the government might be restricted to using a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received a bit of part-time, unpaid military training.

Using a militia as an alternative to standing armies had deep roots in English history and possessed considerable appeal, but it also presented some serious problems. Alexander Hamilton, for example, thought the militia system could never provide a satisfactory substitute for a national army. Even those who treasured the militia recognized that it was fragile, and the cause of this fragility was just what made Hamilton disparage it: Citizens were always going to resist undergoing unpaid military training, and governments were always going to want more professionaland therefore more efficient and tractableforces.

This led to a dilemma at the Constitutional Convention. Experience during the Revolutionary War had demonstrated convincingly that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense, and the onset of war is not always followed by a pause during which an army can be raised and trained. The convention therefore decided to give the federal government almost unfettered authority to establish armies, including peacetime standing armies. But that decision created a threat to liberty, especially in light of the fact that the proposed Constitution also forbade the states from keeping troops without the consent of Congress.

One solution might have been to require Congress to establish and maintain a well-disciplined militia. Such a militia would have had to comprise a large percentage of the population in order to prevent it from becoming a federal army under another name, like our modern National Guard. This might have deprived the federal government of the excuse that it needed peacetime standing armies and might have established a meaningful counterweight to any rogue army that the federal government might create. That possibility was never taken seriously, and for good reason. How could a constitution define a well-regulated or well-disciplined militia with the requisite precision and detail and with the necessary regard for unforeseeable changes in the nations circumstances? It would almost certainly have been impossible.

Another approach might have been to forbid Congress from interfering with the states control of their militias. This might have been possible, but it would have been self-defeating. Fragmented control of the militias would inevitably have resulted in an absence of uniformity in training, equipment, and command, and no really effective national fighting force could have been created.

Thus, the convention faced a choice between entrenching a multiplicity of militias controlled by the individual states, which would likely have been too weak and divided to protect the nation, or authorizing a unified militia under federal control, which almost by definition could not have been expected to prevent federal tyranny. The conundrum could not be solved, and the convention did not purport to solve it. Instead, the Constitution presumes that a militia will exist, but it gives Congress almost unfettered authority to regulate that militia, just as it gives the federal government almost unfettered authority to maintain an army.

This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that federal control of the militia would take away from the states their principal means of defense against federal oppression and usurpation and that European history demonstrated how serious the danger was.

James Madison, for one, responded that such fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the new federal government was to be structured differently from European governments. But he also pointed out another decisive difference between Europes situation and ours: The American people were armed and would therefore be almost impossible to subdue through military force, even if one assumed that the federal government would try to use an army to do so. In Federalist No. 46, he wrote:

Read more from the original source:
The Second Amendment and the Inalienable Right to Self-Defense



FireFox! Start Your Own Web Hosting Company
Web Hosting Advertise Here $10 a Month Affordable web-hosting
Pierre Teilhard De Chardin




Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism

Sign up below for the Prometheism / Designer Children Discussion Forum

Subscribe to prometheism-pgroup

Powered by us.groups.yahoo.com