3 ms·
Except it does. Because as written it includes miners in that group. Miners have no possible way of having the full identity of the parties involved in every
by nightski 5y ago
Except it does. Because as written it includes miners in that group. Miners have no possible way of having the full identity of the parties involved in every transaction they verify and it would be impossible to comply with this reporting. That effectively outlaws it.
- verdverm 5y agoDid you read the amendment? It explicitly exempts miners, the devs, and pure wallets
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- nightski 5y agoThe United States Senate has voted in favor of the Warner-Sinema-Portman amendment to President Biden’s infrastructure bill in a landslide of 68-29 late on Sunday evening. "The Warner-Sinema-Portman amendment has been widely criticized by the crypto community for imposing tax reporting requirements on non-custodial actors like miners and software developers who don’t record customer information." The one that exempts miners has not been adopted (the rival Wyden-Toomey-Luumis amendment).
- jcranmer 5y agoThe reporting on this topic is inconsistent, but there's two amendments in play here. AIUI, this is saying that the first amendment (which enacts the reporting requirement in the first place) has been accepted. The second amendment (which adds the explicit exemptions you mentioned) hasn't been decided on yet as far as I can tell.
- verdverm 5y agoThat explains it, I have not seen the "first" ever reported as an amendment and only as part of the infra bill as if it was already in there