So, since the U.S. declared Bitcoin property not money, how soon should Karpeles expect his Dwolla cash back? He was only selling property.
Shrem wasn't laundering money  lol facking bureaucracies The FBI will clarify that bitcoin is a terrorist weapon, since its stated purpose is to destroy the US government and economy. And the DEA will consider it an addictive drug, for War on Drugs purposes.  You might be closer to the truth than you imagine. Lawsky specifically cited "national security considerations" when asking for investigations/hearings into Bitcoin. This basically means the full surveillance machinery of the NSA becomes at his disposal under the anti-terrorism laws. Law enforcement only need to utter these magic words and the military arm of the police state can be turned from external threats to internal threats (to get around habeas corpus and etc). Then they can go about constructing parallel prosecutions cases using 'guidance' data that is illegally obtained and inadmissible in courts. |
|
|
|
|
And another thing ... can all the people (IRS agents) who are fond of saying things like "if you don't count your coins carefully the men with guns are going throw you in jail where you'll get ass-raped!!", FUD, etc, etc just leave all the scary govt. rhetoric at the door?
We're all just trying to figure out a way to live peaceably and all these threats and innuendo is polluting the discussion, thnx.
|
|
|
|
If they are going to treat it as property, how would mined coins by a company set up as a corporation be treated? My impression is that per the IRS's position, bitcoins mined would be the same as a the creation of a product you create/produce for sale but does not sell. It becomes on the shelf inventory, and there is no taxable event until it sells. This applies to all companies that make products through a process, hard materials or digital. If you own a software application, or a script (plugin) you developed, and sell it for $50 per copy, and make 1000 copies on CDROM, you don't owe the IRS taxes on the copies until they sell. It's all 1s and 0s, so what difference is there between using computers to create scripts or plugins or software, or bitcoins? All property right? You just have to view it from a manufacturing standpoint. And the fact that they have ruled it is property, the manufacturing stance would in my opinion apply. Manufacturing being the creation of something tangible "property" from the use of labor, machines, raw materials, and energy resources. So you mine the coins, put them on paper wallets as inventory to sell. But hold them... For sale at a later date, which would be taxable. You'd have to set up an s-corp to do this, or is my thinking way off??
They are essentially saying that mining is more like receiving in trade than creating it yourself. It's a rule they made, in some sense doesn't have to be logical (as long as they can defend it in court), but if you want a logical basis for it, that's it right there. You could argue that any product you produce or manufacture, digital or hard goods, has value... Whether you are making copies of a script or software package, selling music CDs, DVDs of movies you produce, or you make widgets that have real value in the marketplace... Unless you sell them, there is no taxable event. Mining is a process in which something is made. The bitcoin does not exist before you mine it. The block ledger is not prewritten. If it was, their ruling would apply as it would be a transfer of something that is already in existence. But Bitcoins don't exist before they are mined. Not in any way shape or form. Otherwise people would make them before the block got that far ahead. They are manufactured through a process. After which, they are a product. Shelve them. Fine and good. I trust that you will be the one to argue this before a court? right My $.02.  So you have appointed yourself as a proxy for the IRS to implicitly threaten court action, on behalf of the IRS, for anybody who wants to argue a contrary stance in a public forum? |
|
|
|
So when you say "hold onto" bitcoins ... what exactly are you referring to? The private keys, or a password to a Coinbase account, (or god forbid Goxx account), or something else?
It is just not clear what it means to be in possession of the thing you are referring to ...
An IRS-tax-compliant entity has to reports trades of "property" worth more than $600 in a year under threat of penalty (this is how they enforce tax compliance on a bartering system) Your tax accounting should match up to these reports if you get audited. Seems like lots of the 'Newbies' are suddenly well-schooled in the practices, jargon and expectations of the IRS ... almost like some positive educational messaging campaigns I've seen before. |
|
|
|
I just do not see how they could successfully legally define any part of the system as "property", in the usual context of "property law". Awaiting the court cases with popcorn ready.
The ruling is very narrow in scope and only applies to tax law. Bitcoin earned is taxed at the current value when you receive them as normal income. The profit from Bitcoin that you hold onto will be taxed at lower capital gains rates when you trade them or sell them later. So when you say "hold onto" bitcoins ... what exactly are you referring to? The private keys, or a password to a Coinbase account, (or god forbid Goxx account), or something else? It is just not clear what it means to be in possession of the thing you are referring to ... |
|
|
|
So exactly which part of the system is "property"? Did the gurus at the IRS define that precisely?
Is it the private keys, or the blockchain entry, both, either, niether or something else entirely?
And if it is the private keys, what if they have been destroyed because all I have now is a brain wallet?
I just do not see how they could successfully legally define any part of the system as "property", in the usual context of "property law". Awaiting the court cases with popcorn ready.
Well, they just freakin' did it, so you are going to take them to court over the matter, right? That's what I thought. Thank you for your input. My $.02. Only idiots tax-slave prisoners of USA need to engage in such 'rebelliousness' ... It is amazing, the tax-slaves have just been handed a 28% juice bill for bitcoin wealth creation that had absolutely nothing to do with the government, yet they stand over like mafioso with their greasy palms out.... and the idiots are celebrating like the prisoners just who got a Johnny Cash concert .. |
|
|
|
|
So exactly which part of the system is "property"? Did the gurus at the IRS define that precisely?
Is it the private keys, or the blockchain entry, both, either, niether or something else entirely?
And if it is the private keys, what if they have been destroyed because all I have now is a brain wallet?
I just do not see how they could successfully legally define any part of the system as "property", in the usual context of "property law". Awaiting the court cases with popcorn ready.
|
|
|
|
|
Tax slaves meet CoinJoin, stealth addressing?
|
|
|
|
|
So Money Transmitter Licenses not needed because it is "Property" not a "Currency"?
|
|
|
|
|
Always good to see progress with important FOSS projects like these ...
|
|
|
|
So the more we as a community bother and hound him the more money he will make in the lawsuit?
If I was him, I'd sue too. I wonder if he will actually go forward with a lawsuit. If he does, it will definitely be uncovered if he is actually the Satoshi Nakamoto that Newsweek claims. And how so? detectives, lawyers, judged, private investigators. that's how ... and then magic happens? |
|
|
|
This quote completely fits with my impression of most modern journalists (mostly female) of over-grown forms of the annoying kids from the high school yard doing the "he said, she said" gossip, shit-stirring, name-calling routine. |
|
|
|
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or Finra, on Tuesday issued an investor alert on bitcoin, saying digital currencies are "more than a bit risky." The agency said the alert was intended to caution investors about the risks inherent in buying and using digital currencies like bitcoin. That includes risks from speculative trading and potential fraud related to bitcoin companies, the alert said. The move came after the collapse of the bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox in late February, which filed for bankruptcy in Japan and the U.S. said it lost customers' bitcoins. "Digital currency such as bitcoin is not legal tender," the Finra alert said, which also warned about the lack of safeguards in place for consumers, the irreversibility of bitcoin transactions, and its association with illegal activities. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/finra-alert-says-bitcoin-more-than-a-bit-risky-2014-03-11?reflink=MW_news_stmpThx FINRA. We were all unaware that bitcoin is a speculative investment. Everyone here are also aware that most of the bitcoins are owned by anonymous people, who in all probability and considering the history, are drug dealers, computer crackers or confidence man. By trusting your wealth in bitcoin, you are trusting that this criminal element won't dump their coins to acquire your wealth as their own. Bitcooins are EVIIIIIIIIl, evil i tell you! Witches and goblins own bitcoins, they are the spawn of the devil himself! Gees, could you get anymore melodramatic? Most of the early anonymous people are nothing like you think ... the criminal element was late to the party and looks like the real criminals, wall st., regulators and others are just showing up now ... you're arriving in the best company it seems. How's those sour grapes working out for ya? I heard they play hell on the gutz if you keep scoffing them, ulcers, IBS, all of that ... |
|
|
|
...coin taint...
Tvbcof, do you expect coinbase transactions (newly-created coins) to be considered taint free, or will the tainting authorities peel off a bit of taint from all the transaction fees included in that block reward? They'd be introducing the idea of "original taint." Right now, blockchain.info considers newly created coins as untainted but this could be changed retroactively. Actually, right now there is no such thing as taint. There are no entities who can compute it, but efforts are underway and they will be successful to some degree on a technical level. To be successful otherwise simply means forming a relationship with regulators who are working on a 'bitcoin license' for businesses, and I have little doubt that they'll be successful in this sphere. My suspicion is that there will be a phased roll-in culminating eventually in all BTC values which are not declared as property of a specific individual or entity being tainted. This would include 'newly minted' BTC which don't comply by virtue of it being a simple and mechanical requirement. --- If it is not obvious, these are all simply my own conjectures on how things will, or could, proceed. Take them for what they are worth. Better yet, formulate your own! Let's kick them around to figure out how much of a threat they actually are and what we can do about them. Not sure what this has to do with gold but taint as a technical proposition is all but dead ... dyodd. |
|
|
|
I say bring it on. Let's see what these traders can do on a level playing field without a central bank and their buddies in Congress to bail them out. Bring it! let's see what ya got wall st.... men or mice  I think they are afraid of real free markets after having their own little corrupt racket for decades, coddling them, making them fat, dim-witted and slow. |
|
|
|
"Keynesianism is the cult of a government sanctioned Ponzi scheme." Sour grapes seems to be the favourite dish of the cult when Bitcoin was passed over. This is a case of 'sour grapes'. That is, since he didn't plant the grapes and he can't have any of the grapes, they simply must be sour.
His lack of vision firmly implants him in the past. Nouriel, welcome to the has-beens-club. You ranted and raved and pounded on the table and absolutely NONE of your proposed reforms has been given anything more than a nod.
Bitcoin comes along and realizes that if the old rules are as corrupt as Nouriel Roubini says they are, why even bother playing by the old rules at all?
This is a new game Nouriel and you get to warm the bench.
couldn't have said it better myself Just add this: "LOL, Keynesianism is nothing else than the religion of a government sanctioned Ponzi scheme." and it's even better. |
|
|
|
Billyjoeallen has the point go right over his head. Shocker.
My question is a test to see who cares about their ideals and who is just greedy. Judging by your response, it's all about the money for you, which suggests to me your odds of willfully giving anything to charity are extremely low. If that is the case, why should I believe your ridiculous "support through voluntary charity" argument. You clearly don't.
Your question is flawed because it substitutes involuntary action with involuntary action. A question such as "how much do you think you would contribute to charity if you were untaxed" would perhaps be more illuminating (though useless for totally different reasons) What is involuntary about it? It says "let's say you COULD," not "what if the rules changed." It's a voluntary option to get out of paying taxes, and I think it does a pretty good job of simulating what it would be like if we relied on voluntary contributions. The thing is, you all say that support will come from voluntary contributions, but when it comes time to actually, you know, contribute, all of you will be passing the buck. It's because it's not about the ideal, it's about the money, so stop bullshitting and acting like it's not. If the government charged no taxes, I assume a lot of you would care much less about getting rid of it. It's only the statists that insist it is "all about the money" ... you know, the ones for who it really is all about the money because they've got their gaping maws shoved under the sipgot, getting their free lunch. |
|
|
|
Drugs .... drugs, hitmen payments, guns, weapons, money laundering, child porn, hackers, stolen credit card trading, tax evasion and lawyers. Haven't you been reading the nooz?  Bitcoin, doing God's work where noone else will. The question was about Bitcoin's next step, not the stuff that's so easy you can even do it with cash. Ahhh, you mean white collar crime? I heard Wall St. was coming to Bitcoin town. Corzine, Blankfein, Dimon and the other spivs will demonstrate exactly what "doing god's work means" ... Karpeles was a piker. They don't call it "filthy lucre" for nothing. Money is what money does. |
|
|
|
Let's see some specific plans.
Bulldozers not bombs. |
|
|
|
|
Detroit's problems are not at root financial, that is the symptom not the disease.
They are moral, cultural and spiritual. Until those problems are rectified pouring money into a blackhole is sustaining the decay not alleviating it.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
