Bitcoin Forum

Bitcoin is being considered as lawful money status in California. More great news for Bitcoin.  :)

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-closer-attain-lawful-money-california/

i think if bitcoin does have a capital/region where it is at the forefront, it's probably northern california. i hope so at least. san francisco has a strong financial industry, and its tech industry is even bigger.

That's awesome, maybe the biggest news of the year.

I thought bit coin banned California.  ;D

i find it kind of funny that californian politicians think they need to legalise something that is not illegal in the first place.

at this precise moment there is no law that makes it a criminal act to mine a bitcoin or use a bitcoin. merchants right now today will not be arrested for accepting bitcoin.

this new law to make it 'money' is useless because it does not make it legal tender (meaning accepted to pay court fee's or tax bills). the classification of an asset means that to hold bitcoins and do business of purely bitcoins and altcoins means that you do not need a money transmission licence.

by calling it money. then cryptocurency exchanges (not touching fiat). if set up in california, will need a money transmission licence.

remember last year, the bitcoin foundation were threatened with legal action for money transmission without a licence when they reserved the conference hall for the bitcoin convention http://www.cnbc.com/id/100838553. they did not get arrested or go to court bcause last year, bitcoin was not money.
if dclared money this year, expect to have to buy a licence if you want to trade in california..

i hope people realise the negative reasons of the word "money" and the positive reasons of "asset currency" in reality the functions are still the same, but alot less red tape and costs by not being 'money'

bitcoin for all intents and purposes has more freedom and less red tape being defined as an asset currency. bitcoin does not need monetary regulation and control. all bitcoin needs is business oversight in the form of consumer protection

EG the better business bureau, not fincen

QFT. There is always an ulterior motive with governments.

I'm not really sure what this means, or rather, if it means anything at all.  I'm not an attorney nor do I play one on the internet, but as far as I know US citizens, including those in California, do not need permission from the state of California to use bitcoin.  So it would be a little like California passing a law that says it's legal to watch TV.  That's nice and all but doesn't really mean anything as you could already do that anyway (actually, if I were a citizen of California I would be somewhat concerned that the state thinks the default position is something is illegal until they grant permission but that is a topic for another day).  
What would be useful for tax purposes at least would be if it was declared actual currency, but then the state of California does not have the authority to do that (the US Constitution is very specific, and the Supreme Court has consistently ruled, that only Congress can do that).  

California was rated as the worst state to do business.  Overtaxed, over regulated...they definitely want their hands on some tax revenue.  But so what , if it helps the cause.

Don't try to understand it. Just realize that California is a massive freak show and if any state can fuck something up it's California. You want proof that California is a freak show? Two weeks ago I was having dinner at the Boulevard (a fairly nice restaurant). I went to the restroom and, while standing at a stall, the guy next to me asked if he could suck my dick. I pretty open minded, considering where I live, so I simply responded, "no thanks". He then asked if I could give him $20 because he was short of cash to pay for his food. I said no and found the manager to report the incident. The manager said, "what do you expect me to do about it, he didn't really do anything wrong". California is a fucking freak show and no one here is willing to do anything about it.

i don't know what a guy wanting to suck your dick in a bathroom stall has to do with california and its regulations.

hell, if you were a gay dude into getting BJs, $20 is a steal  :D

Lol.  I think he means it's a diseased culture of deviants and other misfits, who aren't particularly supportive or knowledgable about business.

comedy moment

a guy named "question authority" says "dont try to understand it" ..........



sorry dude, not a personal attack, just found it funny

Because those same freaks control the government!

I guess I passed up a cheap BJ. lol

A few years ago a withered old bitch sued me in small claims court for $5,000 because my yard sprinkler got her new car wet and ruined her wash job. In what other state would anyone even consider doing that? The people and the government controlled by the people are fucked up.

there are quite a bit of freaks in california, but i still don't see how that ties uniquely to the state's government.

Seriously! You don't see how the diseased voting public ties to the state government? Let me put it this way, our governor used to be the terminator. These dumbasses will vote for anyone and anything.

just because arnie was the terminator does not necessarily make him a good or bad governer.. imo that's just ad hominem logic. i mean, our president was known as an actor before taking his seat.

Yeah, and look how well that turned out. The minds of the people here, elected officials, bureaucrats or citizens are polluted.

I suspect the motive is purely tax related.  California is nearly bankrupt.  When you think of a municipality going bankrupt, you instantly think of California (or somewhere in the northeast where similar liberal policies have made it such a quality place to live). 

Alternatively, the recognition grants a certain legal status to Bitcoin.  For example, if someone were to mug you on the street taking only your Bitcoin (hypothetically), to you and I there was a crime committed.  But to many public organizations, they might not recognize it as a crime at all because Bitcoin is not a unit having any value as defined under state or federal law.  I know, this is a ridiculous example, but you get the idea.  If your home burns down and all your hard drives, paper wallets, etc. go with it, you may have recourse to file that on a homeowner's insurance claim in California.  Anywhere else?  Who the hell knows.

Title is misleading.

Bitcoin isn't illegal in California so therefore there is nothing to legalize.

Good thing is that, that kind of exchange (not touching fiat) can be set up ANYWHERE in the world w/o any affect on exchange itself.

I see what you mean, but then again, in Black's Law Dictionary, to "understand" is to "agree".

i know what you mean
EG
you are under arrest, you do not have to speak blah blah blah. do you understand...

say no

Nonsense. 'Terra cotta planter' is not a unit having any value as defined under state or federal law. But if someone filched one, you don't think the authorities would recognize a crime was committed?

I'm from CA, and I can tell you that the taxes here are gnarly :(   Other than that it is a pretty great place to live though

the good thing of calling it a asset instead of money, is that if stolen it is classed as a theft of personal possession. like stealing a phone, car, TV etc. meaning cops DO NOT need to contact special financial crimes departments to take over the case. all they need to do is arrest the thief.

also you can take your loss to a debt collection agent and get them to deal with it as another option, but losing 'money' causes too many government agencies to be involved and is harder to prove. so police are less then likely to chase after someone that has stolen 'money'

This is amazing news indeed.  If/when California falls in line hopefully others will be quick to follow.

What?  This isn't true at all.  Some guy walks up to you, puts a gun in your face and demands your wallet.  The police don't contact some special financial crimes department to investigate because it involves money.  Where are you getting this from?  And what does a debt collection agency have to do with anything?  

In any case as I tried to mention earlier the US Constitution specifically grants the US Congress the power to establish currency.  The state of California does not have any legal jurisdiction here whatsoever.  They can pass whatever law they want, it doesn't actually mean anything.  

Dear anti California morons:

1) If California was a separate country, it would have a GDP of $2.2 trillion. This is larger than Russia's $2 trillion GDP. CA is a really a large country and therefore throws around lots of money.

2) The reason's California's tax situation is screwed up is because about 30% of every Californian's federal tax dollars go to some moocher red state to keep their taxes low. California hemorrhages billions per year to the other states.

3) Every UC is ranked in the world's top 200 Universities and any resident graduating from a state JC can gain admittance to one of the state universities.

4) Compare how trashy the roads are in CA as compared to other states.


Here are my guesses on why CA is interested in BTC:

1) CA has always been on the leading edge of most tech trends.

2) When you pay the state for something and use your credit card, CA adds the merchant fee on top of that. Imagine if CA allowed BTC to be used instead.

3) Look at the green angle. Every BTC transaction is documented. How much paperwork and labor would you save?

4) CA embracing BTC would goose the BTC startups in the state.

5) IMHO Ca is bank agnostic unlike NY.

6) If you eliminated cc fees in a state the size of CA, you are literally putting 10's of billions of dollars back into the hands of people. Instant bump in the state GDP.

yeah, i know a lot of people who complain about california.. i don't think it's that bad. if you don't like it, make plans to leave. no one is stopping you.

if i remember correctly, california has balanced its budget. so no, i don't think they are in debt. it's also at the forefront of EPA standards, which is good for the environment.

Yes, poor example.  The insurance claim is a much better example. 

I see your argument.  But, consider this.  A few states have legalized marijuana.  Under federal law it is still completely and utterly illegal to buy/sell.  Federal authorities do not enforce all federal laws pertaining to marijuana in states that have legalized said substance.  States rights frequently trump federal authority when in the best interest of justice. 

How does this relate to Bitcoin?  A state in the union is superseding federal authority yet again.  Ultimately it will come down to how the AG in California decides to pursue defying or siding with federal guidelines.

There is a reason California has high wages. Because everything in the state costs at least five times more than it should. I know a guy that drives a truck to Reno from SF every weekend to buy produce. He's told me that he goes to a regular grocery store called Winco and buys as much produce as he can. He takes it to his little market on Geary Blvd and sells it as "organic produce" for five times what he paid for it. The local idiots rave about the great taste of his fresh GMO laden pesticide filled fruits and veggies. LOL


http://s3.amazonaws.com/static2.postcrossing.com/postcard/medium/21b38ddafb995adbb1164f4630ff36af.jpg

Calling people morons will not convince anyone that your beloved state is some mecca brimming with technology.

Your state is one of the most beautiful places I have ever been to, but your state government is among the worst in the country. The confiscatory tax burden and hyper regulatory climate is chasing business away all the time. Even the film industry is shrinking there because it is so expensive to do business.

It really is a shame. Your state is beautiful and produces some of the best wine this side of the Atlantic. 

Generally speaking federal law always trumps state law, except in cases where the federal government decides not to pursue the matter, as in the cases you mentioned.  The US Supreme court has ruled consistently that the federal government has the authority to control drug use in the states if it chooses to (not withstanding the fact that any "common reading" of the Constitution fails to turn up any authority to do so).  I can't off the top of my head think of a single case where the courts ruled that state law superseded federal law.  And given that it is Federal court that makes such rulings, it seems unlikely that they would ever rule against themselves.   In the drug situations you mentioned, the federal government decided not to pursue enforcement of those laws in those states.  The laws are still there though and who knows when or if they might choose to enforce them later.  In any case though these are two completely incomparable things.  In the case of drugs, the federal ban makes the default position, possession is illegal.  The state laws you mention attempt to reverse that position and make it legal.  In this case, we are talking about something that is already legal.  You can use bitcoin all you want in the state of California already.  They would have to pass a law that actually did something for any of this to matter, and if they were to do so and anyone were to challenge it, a "common reading" of the Constitution easily turns up evidence that they do not have the authority to decide what is and isn't money.  

I don't understand why they feel the need to try to legalize bitcoin when it is not considered illegal. Can anyone explain this to me?

Because California!

you are a financial expert  ;)

I haven't seen many businesses around CA yet, that advertise that they are accepting BTC

You can say that again. In CA, everything is pretty much a violation, until they make it "legal"

Yes, California is a good place