8 ms·
Federal judge: Bitcoin, “a currency,” can be regulated under American law
- lmartel 13y agoGood luck!
- dnautics 13y agoI think you might be confusing "regulated" with "controlled". Setting aside the question of whether it should be regulated, of course it CAN be regulated. For example, if you're a corporation accepting bitcoins, in order to maintain corporate status, you have to keep good records of who you're receiving bitcoins with, and pay equivalent taxes, etc. etc.
- betterunix 13y agoThat is kind of like saying, "Good luck collecting taxes!" At some point you need to exit the Bitcoin system -- maybe you need your nation's currency, maybe you need a new computer, maybe you just need to buy your lunch, but regulations can and mostly certainly will be enforced at the exit points.
- jaekwon 13y agoI'm sure people used to say the same thing about the dollar or bank notes, and exiting to the underlying asset like gold. It is possible to remain within the Bitcoin system. It may be difficult now, but it's getting easier every day.
- betterunix 13y agoAs long as the government is collecting taxes, and as long as you cannot make tax payments with Bitcoin, you cannot remain within the Bitcoin system. Even if all your other transactions are done with Bitcoin, you'll eventually need to get some dollars to pay your taxes -- and then you'll be hit with regulations. As for gold versus paper money, the above reasoning does not apply. Paper money is accepted for tax purposes (and would be far less popular if it was not).
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- stinkytaco 13y agoThe Bitcoin community is so speculative right now. From the people who are interested in the technology and where it might go and what problems it solves to the people who want to be free from central banks to the people who are just trying to get rich. It sometimes feels like the Bitcoin community has forgotten what currency is for: spending. And if you spend it, someone can regulate it.
- drivingmenuts 13y agoAt some point, you'll have to make a payment to someone who doesn't accept Bitcoin, which is the point of failure. While cash may be anonymous and Bitcoin may be anonymous (the second one is dangerous, in and of itself), you will have to make a conversion to real-world currency and that transaction can be as heavily regulated, including the requirement for non-anonymity. And if you stick to Bitcoin transactions only, it would be very easy for authorities to declare tax-evasion, for starters, which opens up a whole different can of worms, as transactions are occurring in a non-regulated space. On the whole, it seems like Bitcoin-enthusiasts would be far safer in a more regulated environment.
- kbradero 13y agomoney as we know it today had the same problem i guess...
- Guvante 13y agoHaving banks involved has allowed the current regulations. By getting them to follow rules it gets everyone else to do the same. Now, you can still get around it if you are small enough, but it is the same with nearly anything else.
- betterunix 13y agoYou know, each year in April, many millions of Americans send a pile of paperwork to the government detailing their tax obligations. Often this paperwork is accompanied by a payment owed to the government. People also have money taken from their paychecks as tax payments. Yes, regulations and laws are applied at the entry and exit points of the money system, and people who try to avoid those regulations run the risk of being arrested.
- ferdo 13y ago> On the whole, it seems like Bitcoin-enthusiasts would be far safer in a more regulated environment. Speaking as a longtime Bitcoin user, I'd disagree. My bitcoins were easier to trade before the government started taking Bitcoin seriously. They were also safer before the government declared the power to confiscate bitcoins.
- mpyne 13y agoUm, duh? That one is literally right in the Constitution (between regulating Coinage and control of interstate commerce).
- wmf 13y agoSome people were (hypocritically) claiming that Bitcoin is not money and thus any regulations of money do not apply.
- Dylan16807 13y agoBoth pro- and anti-bitcoin groups were rather split on whether it counted as money or not.
- mpyne 13y agoWell the government itself issues money that's worth something simply because they think it is, so considering bitcoin as "money" is at least not inconsistent with what the government is already doing in this sphere. :)
- betterunix 13y agoActually fiat currencies have value because the government promises to accept them for tax purposes (and for various other purposes -- fees, fines, court settlements, etc.). The government does not "think" the money is worth something; the people think the law has meaning and is worth following, and so the law gives money its value. The relationship between money and law is a major reason (maybe the only reason) that currencies tend to be neatly partitioned along international borders.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- Dylan16807 13y agoThose two statements are not inconsistent. "Papers" is not just about pulp, it's about the information encoded onto it. Bits don't have to be more than just bits to be protected. Therefore bits can be 'just information' under both clauses and get the result your original statement would have had. Note: I'm not saying I think this is the most reasonable way of interpreting the law, I'm just saying you haven't shown why it would be wrong.
- jakeogh 13y agoThe psychopaths that demand we accept their "protection" want to regulate the exchange of information at all costs. Exchanging numbers is speech. The war on the 1st continues.
- chasing 13y agoHeh. I'm assuming this is some weird sort of parody. In which case: Well done, sir.
- drivingmenuts 13y agoIt's hard to tell. I'd like to see the whole brochure.
- chasing 13y agoYeah, especially since I usually exchange numbers on little folded-over pieces of napkin, instead of with speech. Just easier to remember that way. (And the war on which 1st? Hopefully the 1st of January, because that day's always a mess. But August 1st I like because it's kind of the peak of summer.)
- Dylan16807 13y agoFirst off you have to understand that contracts are just information and don't apply to you. The state has created a legal 'person' with your birth certificate, but as long as you avoid creating joinder you are not bound to this admiralty law and are free from the sea of commerce.
- ante_annum 13y agoI'd love to trade email addresses so that we can exchange numbers in the future! My favorites are 17, 3225, and another one that I don't want to exchange with just anyone. Unrelatedly, there's a problem with calling things only numbers when they're much more than just numbers. If bitcoin were only numbers, nobody would buy them. People buy them because there's an expectation to store and liquidly transfer value. The claim that the government can't regulate atoms won't stand up if the atoms you have are in an arrangement that fires bullets.
- diminoten 13y agoWait, I don't understand - how does the US government have jurisdiction, practically speaking, over Bitcoin transactions occurring entirely outside of the US? Or is that not what this says? Because to me, "can be regulated under American law" means what I wrote above.
- betterunix 13y agoBitcoin transactions are broadcast to the entire network, which includes people who are in the USA. At the very least, American laws apply to those people and can certainly affect foreign Bitcoin users. Really though, what the judge is saying is that Bitcoin cannot be used to evade US laws where those laws apply. No surprises there.
- jaekwon 13y agoIt means they'll pass or enforce laws that require citizens to pay taxes, exchanges to file paperwork & pay fees, etc. It means if you're caught not abiding by the law, then you will get punished. Obviously they don't have natural jurisdiction over and above crypto-anarchy, unless they have the capacity to wage war against the protocol. They probably do. There will be workarounds. So it goes. I believe the ponzi pirate PirateAt40 should be punished, not because Bitcoin falls under the jurisdiction of government as money, but rather because the pirate defrauded people. You can defraud people with beanie babies or baseball cards as well.
- betterunix 13y agoWhy would the government bother attacking the protocol? I am sure the NSA has the necessary resources, but there would be no point. Failing to pay taxes is jail time. Failing to pay fees as an exchange means your business is shuttered, and continuing after that means jail time. Maybe other countries will be more lenient but US Bitcoin users will be in trouble. It is also very likely that any taxes or fees associated with Bitcoin will have to be paid in dollars. If there are no legal avenues for exchanging Bitcoin for dollars then it would be illegal to do business in Bitcoin at all. You may personally skirt the law on that, but your local supermarket will not, and neither will your apartment complex, your auto dealership, or any of the dozens of other businesses you deal with in your daily life.
- daraul 13y agoCalling Bitcoin a currency, and therefore allowing that it can be regulated, is an important factor in whether the government can care about it at all. If they decided that it wasn't a currency and had no value, the case against the Bitcoin Savings and Trust founder would go nowhere. This decision cuts both ways. Without recognizing it as having value, there'd be no fraud to charge and if you were defrauded, no remedy available.
- Dylan16807 13y agoIt doesn't have to be a currency to have value. Defrauding people with baseball cards is illegal.
- julespitt 13y agoBaseball Cards is a good example. I think that different Federal, State and Local agencies should prosecute such things. Meanwhile, the SEC has far bigger fish to fry, as it were.
- julespitt 13y agoSaying it's not a currency is not the same as saying it has no value. IIRC, most definitions provided by Federal Law designate that currency or money is by definition minted by sovereign governments.