6 ms·

The argument is that software developers or miners should not be treated as brokers, the later being akin to ISPs. If you are not going to engage with this argu

The argument is that software developers or miners should not be treated as brokers, the later being akin to ISPs. If you are not going to engage with this argument, why bother?

pembrook 5y ago
Why argue against something that isn't actually in the legislation and is intended to scare people? Sure, if you bend over backwards and squint through one eye, you can contort yourself into the bad faith interpretation that developers will be treated as brokers--given they can engage in "transfers." But just because some entity can be considered to exist on the same "continuum" as crypto brokers, doesn't mean there isn't a clear division between them: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy One could also contort themselves into the assertion that convenience stores engage in transfers with "digital assets" (shifting credit via digitally created loans provided by Visa). Maybe I should publish an article saying this legislation will require 7-Eleven to report to the government every time you buy a twinkie? That'll really get some clicks!
- RHSeeger 5y ago
  If this part is true > the proposal would seek to expand the definition of “broker” under section 6045(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include anyone who is “responsible for and regularly providing any service effectuating transfers of digital assets” Then this appears to be false > something that isn't actually in the legislation Because "digital asset" is extremely broad and can easily be seen to cover things like video game inventory items. Is there a specific and detailed definition of "video asset" in the legislation?
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > Because "digital asset" is extremely broad and can easily be seen to cover things like video game inventory items I believe digital asset is a defined term in this legislation, though the quote doesn’t show any capitalisation.
    - cptskippy 5y ago
      That's the trouble with armchair legislation, no one bothers to read the text in full or understand the rules of the game. Most legislation has a dictionary to define the terms use within. These definitions are critical and updates to modify a definition without modifying the text can still have dramatic affect.
  - throwawaygh 5y ago
    See page 2435. Digital asset is defined as a digital representation of value recorded on a cryptographically distributed ledger or any similar technology. Practically, the Secretary and the courts will decide what this means. If you’re using in-game tokens to represent value and maintain a ledger, then sure, that could count. Which is good. why should it be possible to sidestep this law by creating a coin that is liquid and fungible and has etfs that track it but just happens to be used for in game purchases? That would be a silly and absurd loophole. If your in game currency is one-way, ie can’t be converted back to USD or any other assets, then it’s by (legal) definition not representation of value.
    - RHSeeger 5y ago
      > but just happens to be used for in game purchases Because if I make a game where items drop, and players can transfer items between each other, but not convert any of it to real world money... then making the system, or possibly every single player, be responsible for reporting all activity and participants to the government is... to be blunt, bat-shit crazy?
      - throwawaygh 5y ago
        That would not be a representation of value. I address literally exactly this scenario in my comment.
        RHSeeger 5y ago
        If it is possible to sell in-game items for out of game money (either using in game processes or an external system like a 3rd party site), then would this mean they are "value". If so, does that mean each player that sells items needs to report every transaction? Or that the game system needs to report every in game transaction (transfer of items from one character to another). And that reporting needs to include real life information about the players involved?
        throwawaygh 5y ago
- echopurity 5y ago
  There is no "good faith" when violence is involved.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforcing-the-law-is-inherently-violent/488828/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforci... >>Law professors and lawyers instinctively shy away from considering the problem of law’s violence. Every law is violent. We try not to think about this, but we should. On the first day of law school, I tell my Contracts students never to argue for invoking the power of law except in a cause for which they are willing to kill. They are suitably astonished, and often annoyed. But I point out that even a breach of contract requires a judicial remedy; and if the breacher will not pay damages, the sheriff will sequester his house and goods; and if he resists the forced sale of his property, the sheriff might have to shoot him. >>This is by no means an argument against having laws. >>It is an argument for a degree of humility as we choose which of the many things we may not like to make illegal.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- Matticus_Rex 5y ago
  > Sure, if you bend over backwards and squint through one eye, you can contort yourself into the bad faith interpretation that developers will be treated as brokers--given they can engage in "transfers." Pardon me for having a legal education and knowing that prosecutors are often more than willing to bend over backwards and squint through one eye. If it's possible for a prosecutor to argue it, they will eventually argue it, and most of the time the courts won't push back.
  - SamPatt 5y ago
    The entire history of governance and prosecution is bad faith arguments. They only need the thinnest veneer of legality in order to abuse their power.
- kybernetyk 5y ago
  >Sure, if you bend over backwards and squint through one eye, you can contort yourself into the bad faith interpretation that developers will be treated as brokers You mean that squinting and bending that DAs often do to get some ridiculous plea bargain from some innocent schmuck?

The argument is that software developers or miners should not be treated as brokers, the later being akin to ISPs. If you are not going to engage with this argument, why bother?

pembrook 5y ago

Why argue against something that isn't actually in the legislation and is intended to scare people? Sure, if you bend over backwards and squint through one eye, you can contort yourself into the bad faith interpretation that developers will be treated as brokers--given they can engage in "transfers." But just because some entity can be considered to exist on the same "continuum" as crypto brokers, doesn't mean there isn't a clear division between them: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy One could also contort themselves into the assertion that convenience stores engage in transfers with "digital assets" (shifting credit via digitally created loans provided by Visa). Maybe I should publish an article saying this legislation will require 7-Eleven to report to the government every time you buy a twinkie? That'll really get some clicks!

RHSeeger 5y ago
If this part is true > the proposal would seek to expand the definition of “broker” under section 6045(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include anyone who is “responsible for and regularly providing any service effectuating transfers of digital assets” Then this appears to be false > something that isn't actually in the legislation Because "digital asset" is extremely broad and can easily be seen to cover things like video game inventory items. Is there a specific and detailed definition of "video asset" in the legislation?
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > Because "digital asset" is extremely broad and can easily be seen to cover things like video game inventory items I believe digital asset is a defined term in this legislation, though the quote doesn’t show any capitalisation.
  - cptskippy 5y ago
    That's the trouble with armchair legislation, no one bothers to read the text in full or understand the rules of the game. Most legislation has a dictionary to define the terms use within. These definitions are critical and updates to modify a definition without modifying the text can still have dramatic affect.
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  See page 2435. Digital asset is defined as a digital representation of value recorded on a cryptographically distributed ledger or any similar technology. Practically, the Secretary and the courts will decide what this means. If you’re using in-game tokens to represent value and maintain a ledger, then sure, that could count. Which is good. why should it be possible to sidestep this law by creating a coin that is liquid and fungible and has etfs that track it but just happens to be used for in game purchases? That would be a silly and absurd loophole. If your in game currency is one-way, ie can’t be converted back to USD or any other assets, then it’s by (legal) definition not representation of value.
  - RHSeeger 5y ago
    > but just happens to be used for in game purchases Because if I make a game where items drop, and players can transfer items between each other, but not convert any of it to real world money... then making the system, or possibly every single player, be responsible for reporting all activity and participants to the government is... to be blunt, bat-shit crazy?
    - throwawaygh 5y ago
      That would not be a representation of value. I address literally exactly this scenario in my comment.
      - RHSeeger 5y ago
        If it is possible to sell in-game items for out of game money (either using in game processes or an external system like a 3rd party site), then would this mean they are "value". If so, does that mean each player that sells items needs to report every transaction? Or that the game system needs to report every in game transaction (transfer of items from one character to another). And that reporting needs to include real life information about the players involved?
        throwawaygh 5y ago
echopurity 5y ago
There is no "good faith" when violence is involved.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforcing-the-law-is-inherently-violent/488828/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforci... >>Law professors and lawyers instinctively shy away from considering the problem of law’s violence. Every law is violent. We try not to think about this, but we should. On the first day of law school, I tell my Contracts students never to argue for invoking the power of law except in a cause for which they are willing to kill. They are suitably astonished, and often annoyed. But I point out that even a breach of contract requires a judicial remedy; and if the breacher will not pay damages, the sheriff will sequester his house and goods; and if he resists the forced sale of his property, the sheriff might have to shoot him. >>This is by no means an argument against having laws. >>It is an argument for a degree of humility as we choose which of the many things we may not like to make illegal.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
Matticus_Rex 5y ago
> Sure, if you bend over backwards and squint through one eye, you can contort yourself into the bad faith interpretation that developers will be treated as brokers--given they can engage in "transfers." Pardon me for having a legal education and knowing that prosecutors are often more than willing to bend over backwards and squint through one eye. If it's possible for a prosecutor to argue it, they will eventually argue it, and most of the time the courts won't push back.
- SamPatt 5y ago
  The entire history of governance and prosecution is bad faith arguments. They only need the thinnest veneer of legality in order to abuse their power.
kybernetyk 5y ago
>Sure, if you bend over backwards and squint through one eye, you can contort yourself into the bad faith interpretation that developers will be treated as brokers You mean that squinting and bending that DAs often do to get some ridiculous plea bargain from some innocent schmuck?