What would this change to the law look like then? And would this apply to all digital currencies, not just Bitcoin? How would the government define it, exactly?
Just remove it without define what's Bitcoin for them.
In order for lawmakers to write... a law, they need to get
very specific or the law will never hold up in court. And you can't write a law about "Bitcoin" anymore than you could write a law about "the Apple iPhone". You need to describe a product in legal terms, and it can't be specific to any single product.
- Friendly Tax: the current administration had plans to increase crypto mining tax by 30%. If not for the lawsuit by
Texas Blockchain Council and Riot Platforms that halted survey by US Energy Information Administration, the tax law would have been implemented. After all the tax was already included in the 2024 budget. Crypto-related businesses should be taxed like other industries.
There is definitely a recurring theme here about energy taxes for crypto miners. While I think this is important, it's just one aspect of the overall digital currency business, and Bitcoin obviously doesn't care what country it's mined in.
In other words, I wouldn't call the mining energy tax issue a broad "crypto issue" but rather one that only effects US miners. You could say that this might slightly increase prices for Bitcoin end-users, but I still don't think it's anywhere near the issue as KYC regulations are, etc.
All that said, the miners have
lots of money to give to politicians and its clear that most of the money being poured into this election cycle is coming from the mining industry. So even though this isn't a huge issue for end-users, it's a bigger deal politically.
-Sensor-free law: The government should stop attacking privacy tools like
privacy tools. Assuming that Bitcoin is used mainly to sponsor terrorism and promote money laundering is wrong. Fiat is the best money for criminal activities. The present administration is attacking these privacy tools with draconian laws.
There have been many, many very serious attacks in the US and elsewhere using ultra-private crypto. Hackers in Georgia cannot attack a US children's hospital in Texas using paper bills. The crypto industry is going to need to compromise around this issue, I think.
-Friendly business laws: Centralized platforms should be regulated but the government shouldn't consciously suppress them. Any exchange that breaks the law should be punished but the government shouldn't make laws to make their business difficult or just to make money from the through fines. Recently, the president of the US said he would veto an anti-crypto law proposed by
SEC chairman Gary Gensler that would have deterred banks from handling crypto customers. This is a good move by the present administration.
I agree that we need to keep working to make a safe environment for consumers. This sometimes goes against the "libertarian" theme of the original Bitcoin community, but the reality is that if we want this business to be BIG, it needs to be idiot-proof
![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
.
All we need is for them to be unobstructive & allow innovation to flourish. We accept regulatory rules but the Biden administration has been obstructive to cryptocurrency throughout their term. They had to be forced by a judge to bend the knee to Spot Bitcoin ETFs. The likes of Gensler & Elizabeth Warren have been a real pain in the butt. So hopefully whichever party wins in November, just allows crypto to flourish & doesn’t make things difficult for us.
The idea behind this thread was to
get specific. When people just complain about one political party or another without mentioning any specific policies, it sounds like they are just pulling for that political party, not advocating for Bitcoin. The US election is going to be decided over things that are far, far more impactful to every American, e.g. abortion laws. They are deciding on whether or not to implement
radical changes to our economy and society this November. Crypto means absolutely nothing in this context.
And the way to
actually get things done in politics is to
get specific and lobby
both sides about what to do. Many Democrats have been the recipient of crypto lobby money just like many Republicans have. That's the way to change things, not taking a side in America's incredibly divisive culture wars.
as for FDIC
[...]
what there needs to be is stuff to prevent future mtgox's and such where it takes 10 years to make settled claims
My hope would be that things would be voluntary: that you can pick a "gypsy cab" broker and maybe get a better deal, but you are taking your chances, or you pick a player with various insurances and certifications that costs more.
My theory would be that, somebody putting $150 of spending cash into a broker would take their chances with a cheap and simple one, and somebody putting their life savings into something would pay the money and/or inconvenience to make sure it's protected.
the way i see things, many people that just want to quick exchange fiat for crypto then withdraw sameday (like travel agent exchange money services) they can escape insurances.. but the proper wall street custodian day traders that lock value in for months, those need insurance
I agree completely. I have written extensively about something I call the
Anon Paradox: that people want anonymity for "small" amounts of money and personal identity for "large" amounts.
I think this bifurcation will solve a lot of problems for consumers and the industry. The only reason somebody wants to keep a million dollars secret is to avoid their government--which is a problem that most people do not have. On the other hand, almost everybody had a need to keep a few hundred dollars secret, because it makes small commerce safer.
as for 'regulations' the current set up is behind the scenes most regulations these days are about policing the customers but the businesses are irresponsibly internally, yet pretends its regulated as some gold badge of responsible operator..
..yet these regulated businesses need to have the business being policed. so we need to reform regulations to be more about consumer protections and not giving businesses a sheriffs badge
Totally agree. Businesses need to be given some rules, and if they follow those rules, they can't be held liable for something going wrong. That's the only way you can run a business for the long term.
But I'd say that the sort of regulation that recognizes Bitcoin, allowing its usage as a form of payment, allowing mining and holding, and reaffirming legality of noncustodial wallets is good legislation.
This is all already legal in the USA. I think we're good there. I don't see anything changing in that area.
Ideally, the tax burden also should not be too high compared to what's the case with other assets in the US. It can be regulated alright as an asset, but it's much better (for tax reasons) if it becomes a legal tender and thus is not taxed as such (in a way that the USD is not taxed, but some operations with it are).
"Legal tender" is not what you think it is, as it is simply a law allowing you to use that payment method to pay your taxes, and also forces all citizens to accept that form of payment whether they want to or not.
The US Dollar is used, for tax purposes, as a
measurement mechanism to determine if the value of your investment increased in value or not. While I personally don't see any reason to change it (sorta like changing the Metric System--why do it?), but it also wouldn't make any difference: laws taxing
capital gains would still apply, no matter how you measure it.
I would love the government to implement a clear policy regarding the safety and the rights of their citizens against scams or hacks when it comes to exchanges, wallets and other platforms usually used in crypto.
Another thing I would like for the government to create a policy of is tax regulations. Some governments file crypto incomes as very complicated and part of a gray area which confuses a lot and creates unnecessary hostility.
In my country, crypto does not have definitive rules which creates complications. The government should be clear about the policies they want to implement regarding crypto to protect their citizens while allowing them the option of freedom.
I think a lot of people here are saying the same thing as this.
Taxes... suck.
![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
Every year we hear politicians say they are going to "simplify taxes", but then then
also say they are going to have "a special exception for XYZ" and the tax code gets even more complicated.
For me, the solution to complicated taxes is... software. (But then again I
would say that since I'm a programmer
![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
).