5 ms·
What you have to realize though is that none of that matters with a real currency. And the point of the article is that this takes away from Bitcoin being a cur
by jusben1369 13y ago
What you have to realize though is that none of that matters with a real currency. And the point of the article is that this takes away from Bitcoin being a currency. You're going to have to think pretty hard about whether you want to use an average cost basis or whether you want to be trade specific. And once you choose one you can't change track midway. Given the significant fluctuations in Bitcoin's price that's going to matter. Lastly, you'll see "Fiscal Year" events. Bitcoin appreciated a lot this year? No one is going to want to move in and out in that later months due to the ever increasing tax cost of doing so. Come January there'll be movement again. So you'll get all these weird liquidity events.
I'm not for or against BC but the IRS definition is much more significant in terms of the future of Bitcoin.
- BenoitEssiambre 13y ago>What you have to realize though is that none of that matters with a real currency. And the point of the article is that this takes away from Bitcoin being a currency. If you trade foreign currencies you also have to pay capital gains tax. Bitcoin is being treated exactly as other currencies.
- jusben1369 13y agoExcept for the fact that it's being treated as a foreign currency vs a dometic one. Not much difference there (sorry I'm being snarky because you're basically reinforcing my point when arguing against it)
- jtbigwoo 13y agoThe IRS doesn't have much leeway here, I suspect. IANAL, but it's my understanding that U.S. laws specify dollars as the only currency of the U.S. If people can invent other currencies that the government is then required to accept as currency, I suspect it would take an overhaul of our laws. (And isn't there something in the constitution about the federal government having sole minting power?)