[arcticbull]

So to be clear the community is encouraging criminality and attempting to brow-beat folks suggesting compliance with the law into accepting said criminality? Sounds healthy, and definitely not like a cult.

It’s not a good look to be on the receiving end of government benefits and services, gloating about your lack of contribution and encouraging others not to. This may look good in crypto circles but here in the real world it makes you look pretty bad, not gonna lie.

I've always wondered how those Bond villains accrued an army of employees on their remote militarized outposts helping them do crime, though I'm beginning to suspect they just slippery-sloped their way into it.

[vmception]

So to be clear, no, that's not what the meme is about. Is your essay from GPT-3?

It's about not offering anything to a discussion as they also don't even know about what tax is relevant. This person follows that rubric exactly, as they "suspect" a tax is involved, when a flash loan wash sale would just as easily not cause any tax at all and they offer no introspection into the nature of the transaction and what questions remain about how it conforms with the tax code. A person borrows money to pretend to transfer an asset to themselves and returns the money. Neither borrowing money or moving the asset to your other account are tax events. The tax remindoooooooor comes to the discussion way after the party, clueless, and says something clueless. Its predictable, its meme worthy. Pretty much everyone in crypto runs into people like them so the memes are made.

[arcticbull]

I mean one could begin by looking at when taxes are due at the transaction of an art piece, and ask an attorney, instead of just assuming no taxes are due and wandering off could one not? The burden is on them. And then when someone suggests doing the bare minimum due diligence on a half billion dollar transaction replying "the tax remindooooooor."

You can see why pretending no taxes are due because "blonkchain" and making fun of someone who suggests that doing some due diligence on a half billion dollar transaction isn't a good look, can't you?

Do you really think it's unreasonable to assume a half billion dollar capital gain isn't a taxable event?

> "... when a flash loan wash sale would just as easily not cause any tax at all"

What's your basis for this guess? Is it because a tax wouldn't be due on the sale of stock you repurchased within 30 days? That's called the wash-sale rule and it only applies to securities. It doesn't even apply to commodities or futures - or crypto. So either it's a security, in which case this is a federal crime, or it's not a security, and the wash trader has to pay taxes on the first transaction - and a hypothetical second transaction would have to be made to generate a loss to cover.

Y'all need to get over yourselves, the toxic community is easily the worst thing about crypto - and that's after figuring in the ruining the world with your emissions so you can gamble bit.

[vmception]

Both my tax lawyer and CPA said no tax event, and that the circumstances about why its a no have nothing to do with the crypto/blockchain component. Because it didn't move between parties. The blockchain just lets that conclusion be made faster because everyone can see the transaction, except the people who wouldnt bother to look (because blockchain) and wouldnt understand if they did look (because blockchain).

You are the only one shoehorning your preexisting notions into a benign comment. There are so many better ways you could apply your energy. Many blockchain skeptics wind up defending the technology more often because their other skeptical friends are saying procedurally generated non-sequiturs. So they wind up in an educational role as their criticisms become more valid, and the education winds up strengthening the space by fixing the criticisms. Right now you’ve been stuck on less valid criticisms, for years. Its not going away so why not help make it better when you learn valid criticisms.

[arcticbull]

> Many blockchain skeptics wind up defending the technology more often because their other skeptical friends are saying procedurally generated non-sequiturs.

I wrote my perspectives, and you are once again just being toxic. This isn't reddit.

We disagree, and we can disagree here, civilly.

[vmception]

We could, but what are we disagreeing about exactly? The meme? The lack of tax event? Something else?

[arcticbull]

My comment about the toxic community you once again exemplified perfectly. You knew the answer to this question and instead of letting the poster know, and teaching them something interesting, you instead chose to make fun of them. And when I pointed out your toxic behavior you chose to mock me. Nice.

[vmception]

I will mock your procedurally generated non-sequiturs on any topic. From my perspective, I say enough to promote introspection on its own. But you do have a point, as you mentioned that it wasnt enough for you to perceive what the meme was about as you instead wrote totally mockable copypasta. So I’ll try to keep it in mind and just lead with the answer so that you think its less toxic.

[TomSwirly]

> Is your essay from GPT-3?

No need to be insulting.

[vmception]

They got the joke wrong and imagined something completely different, that is completely fair game to be made fun of. Is that really whats considered toxic right now? I’m genuinely curious.