4 ms·

>>This bill is largely irrelevant and pro forma. There was no enforcement of the underlying statute it repeals anyway. This is true until it isn't[1]. 1. http

by smtddr 12y ago

>>This bill is largely irrelevant and pro forma. There was no enforcement of the underlying statute it repeals anyway. This is true until it isn't[1]. 1. http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/560564-the-essence-of-fascism-is-to-make-laws-forbidding-everything http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/560564-the-essence-of-fascis... >>The upshot is that every Bitcoin startup in California is still and will still be breaking multiple laws, possibly including the MTA (which AB 129 has no effect on) and Y Combinator and other VCs are just as liable legally as any of the founders of those startups via federal law. And this is exactly why I'm glad there are people who use legal reforms to chip away at situations like this. Companies & people that are operating in a form that's technically illegal but nobody enforced the law on them. One day, Coinbase or whatever starts getting really big then some back-room deal(extortion) happens where someone says "Look, you either play ball with me or I'll start reminding powerful authority figures about Law ABC of section 123, on appendix XYZ passed 7 years ago as an amendment to a completely unrelated bill nobody was paying attention to that would shutdown your whole operation." I'd also like to see some kind of reform for the ridiculous situation created by IRS declaring bitcoin as property without any clear process of accounting and reporting it on your taxes. Look at this: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tax_compliance https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tax_compliance ...what am I suppose to do here? What this really cause is the creation of 2 kinds of people. Those overwhelmed/intimidated by IRS and just quit bitcoin altogether, then those who choose to just ignore it and thus are now breaking a law that definitely won't be uniformly enforced. Forget about the counter-argument "Well, they choose to break the law so they need to accept the consequences". Those who are thinking of this I invite to read the following: http://www.marco.org/2012/02/25/right-vs-pragmatic http://www.marco.org/2012/02/25/right-vs-pragmatic . It's nonsensical to expect everyone involved in buying/selling bitcoin to suddenly be able to handle the tax implications in this fashion. There was a time I was able to just create a bitcoin QRcode coupon and give it to someone without a second thought. Now it's all mixed up with property tax or something; I dunno.... nobody does. At least that Wiki entry isn't 100% sure and nobody wants to be on the receiving end of IRS's wrath.

esbranson 12y ago
> Law ABC of section 123, on appendix XYZ passed 7 years ago as an amendment to a completely unrelated bill nobody was paying attention to Surely you've read all 150,000 section of the California statutes, 50,000 sections of the federal statutes, 30,000 sections of the California regulations, and 30,000 of the federal regulations. I mean, its not as if the government is purposely not publishing the law in an accessible manner. The government spends billions of dollars to send frogs into space, so surely the law must be so easy to find and read that you can download it in a standardized, machine-readable format from a multitude of sources, for free (as in freedom and as in beer)..
- gknoy 12y ago
  Is it fair to say that the laws are deliberately not published in an accessible manner? It seems more plausible that the sheer volume of the laws and amendments mean that it's hard to publish them in an accessible way. If only we could adopt a git workflow. ;)
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - esbranson 12y ago
    Its often available in a standardized, machine-readable format, but inaccessible nonetheless. E.g., California's laws have been available in XML since the 1990s or something, but they weren't accessible until 2009 or so.[1] Inaccessibility is obviously not a technical problem. [1] http://maplight.org/pr_lawsuit http://maplight.org/pr_lawsuit
gamblor956 12y ago
I'd also like to see some kind of reform for the ridiculous situation created by IRS declaring bitcoin as property without any clear process of accounting and reporting it on your taxes. Look at this: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tax_compliance https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tax_compliance ...what am I suppose to do here? You're supposed to treat Bitcoin just like all other foreign currency is treated for income tax purposes: as property, because it is not currency for U.S. tax purposes. It's not rocket science; the basic principles are generally the same in almost all Western countries and have been for decades.

by smtddr 12y ago

esbranson 12y ago

> Law ABC of section 123, on appendix XYZ passed 7 years ago as an amendment to a completely unrelated bill nobody was paying attention to Surely you've read all 150,000 section of the California statutes, 50,000 sections of the federal statutes, 30,000 sections of the California regulations, and 30,000 of the federal regulations. I mean, its not as if the government is purposely not publishing the law in an accessible manner. The government spends billions of dollars to send frogs into space, so surely the law must be so easy to find and read that you can download it in a standardized, machine-readable format from a multitude of sources, for free (as in freedom and as in beer)..

gknoy 12y ago
Is it fair to say that the laws are deliberately not published in an accessible manner? It seems more plausible that the sheer volume of the laws and amendments mean that it's hard to publish them in an accessible way. If only we could adopt a git workflow. ;)
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- esbranson 12y ago
  Its often available in a standardized, machine-readable format, but inaccessible nonetheless. E.g., California's laws have been available in XML since the 1990s or something, but they weren't accessible until 2009 or so.[1] Inaccessibility is obviously not a technical problem. [1] http://maplight.org/pr_lawsuit http://maplight.org/pr_lawsuit

gamblor956 12y ago

I'd also like to see some kind of reform for the ridiculous situation created by IRS declaring bitcoin as property without any clear process of accounting and reporting it on your taxes. Look at this: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tax_compliance https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tax_compliance ...what am I suppose to do here? You're supposed to treat Bitcoin just like all other foreign currency is treated for income tax purposes: as property, because it is not currency for U.S. tax purposes. It's not rocket science; the basic principles are generally the same in almost all Western countries and have been for decades.