Harris campaign now accepts Bitcoin

[darkangel11]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/top-super-pac-backing-kamala-harris-accept-cryptocurrency-donations-2024-09-05/

Now both major US candidates accept Bitcoin for donations. Great progress for Bitcoin acceptance.

Are you sure about that? Her position about cryptocurrencies is not clear since she never mentioned them but in general her party is strongly against it. In this case it would be free money so of course they are going to accept them but what after that? It even looks like she wants to make Gary Gensler as the new Treasury Secretary, I mean, come on, for real?

She's in the same league as Elizabeth Warren who wanted wallet providers to enforce KYC and wanted all bitcoin holders to be asked to declare their holdings by the IRS.
She wants to delegalize privacy!
Harris only wants donations because she believes people are dumb enough to finance the campaign of someone who wants to later tax their holdings and deprive them of their privacy.
Give me money you dumb animals and if I win I'll take the rest of it. 

[legiteum]

She's in the same league as Elizabeth Warren who wanted wallet providers to enforce KYC and wanted all bitcoin holders to be asked to declare their holdings by the IRS.

She wants to delegalize privacy!

Harris only wants donations because she believes people are dumb enough to finance the campaign of someone who wants to later tax their holdings and deprive them of their privacy.

Give me money you dumb animals and if I win I'll take the rest of it. 

There's absolutely no evidence Harris or Warren or anybody else in the US government wants to "deprive you of your privacy".

The US has has capital gains taxes since the 1930s, under every president of every party. The US will have capital gains taxes forever, regardless of who is elected.

[logfiles]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/top-super-pac-backing-kamala-harris-accept-cryptocurrency-donations-2024-09-05/

Now both major US candidates accept Bitcoin for donations. Great progress for Bitcoin acceptance.

Do not be fooled by politician, folks. They are the absolute devils and will do anything to win an election, but once you hand them the power, that is when you will see their true colors. I know of countries whose Governments would suddenly accept donations via cryptocurrencies after years of FUD just because they are at war and want to win it at all costs. Once things get better, they just continue with the same FUD and demonization of cryptocurrencies.

[bbc.reporter]

She's in the same league as Elizabeth Warren who wanted wallet providers to enforce KYC and wanted all bitcoin holders to be asked to declare their holdings by the IRS.

She wants to delegalize privacy!

Harris only wants donations because she believes people are dumb enough to finance the campaign of someone who wants to later tax their holdings and deprive them of their privacy.

Give me money you dumb animals and if I win I'll take the rest of it. 

There's absolutely no evidence Harris or Warren or anybody else in the US government wants to "deprive you of your privacy".

The US has has capital gains taxes since the 1930s, under every president of every party. The US will have capital gains taxes forever, regardless of who is elected.

Agreed that there is no evidence, however, the government always wants to inquire very much closely on the people and invade their privacy if they want this. There are also these occurrences where they will use force. I am not saying that they do this because they want this, however. They do this because there are threats that might make this necessary. But this is also certainly available for abuse for some government officials.

In any case, it appears that Ripple cofounder Chris Larsen has also endorsed Kamala Harris. This might stop uncle Gary from doing regulation through enforcement on Ripple if she is victorious hehehehehh.



Eighty-eight corporate leaders signed a new letter Friday endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris for president.

Signers include former 21st Century Fox CEO James Murdoch, Snap Chairman Michael Lynton, Yelp boss Jeremy Stoppelman and Ripple co-founder Chris Larsen.

Source https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/06/harris-endorsed-trump-murdoch-yelp-snap-ripple.html

[darkangel11]

The US has has capital gains taxes since the 1930s, under every president of every party. The US will have capital gains taxes forever, regardless of who is elected.

I don't think you understand what I said. They don't want to tax your gains. They can easily tax gains when you sell your coins because you get fiat money that they control.
What they want is that you reveal your holdings so they can tax unrealized gains. Thankfully US politicians are smarter than her and did not allow this to pass... yet.

Agreed that there is no evidence, however, the government always wants to inquire very much closely on the people and invade their privacy if they want this.

What are you talking about? How is there no evidence?
They wanted to make wallet providers ask users for KYC so they can assign wallets to IDs! This was a real legislative act they wanted to push through Congress.
How is that not an attempt to deprive people of privacy?

The Democrats see self hosted wallets as aiding tax evaders, money launderers, drug traffickers and other criminals. Republicans believe self custody preserves basic freedoms in a digital world.
Representative Sherman (Democrat) compared self hosted wallets to bearer bonds which were banned in the U.S. in the 1980s.
https://www.ledgerinsights.com/self-hosted-wallet-congress-privacy-freedom/

[legiteum]

The US has has capital gains taxes since the 1930s, under every president of every party. The US will have capital gains taxes forever, regardless of who is elected.

I don't think you understand what I said. They don't want to tax your gains. They can easily tax gains when you sell your coins because you get fiat money that they control.
What they want is that you reveal your holdings so they can tax unrealized gains. Thankfully US politicians are smarter than her and did not allow this to pass... yet.

Yes, for people who have over $100 million in gains in a year. Most people like that are pretty public about their wealth since they are billionaires.

Now, do I expect this to pass Congress? I doubt it. Why? Because such a tax actually wouldn't raise very much money since there are only a few hundred people in the US like this.

But the only reason you've been lead to care about this is that the people controlling the media you ingest on a daily basis are... among those hundreds.

They wanted to make wallet providers ask users for KYC so they can assign wallets to IDs! This was a real legislative act they wanted to push through Congress.

How is that not an attempt to deprive people of privacy?

I suspect that any laws that pass Congress will roughly mirror the physical cash controls we have in the US: reporting is only required for very large sums, i.e. amounts that would very likely involve criminal activity. The threshold for cash today is $10,000, but that was passed in the early 1970s, so even the equivalent would be about $100k. This is common sense: the government is after big-time criminals and money launderers, not some average American with $50k in their crypto wallet--it's not worth their time to even check.

And the partisan thing is ridiculous: the law for cash was signed by Republican president Richard Nixon. This is about national security, and every week there's another children's hospital that is crippled in the USA by criminals using crypto for cyberextortion, or another murder-for-hire paid for that way, etc. etc. This Ayn Rand stuff only works on another planet (call it "Atlantis" if you like) where there are no bad people in existence. Here on planet earth there are criminals who steal and hurt people, and we all have to compromise because of that.

Most people aren't criminals, and as such do not care if the government could theoretically scrutinize their holdings. This is why Monero is not more popular than Bitcoin for instance.

[serjent05]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/top-super-pac-backing-kamala-harris-accept-cryptocurrency-donations-2024-09-05/

Now both major US candidates accept Bitcoin for donations. Great progress for Bitcoin acceptance.

Do not be fooled by politician, folks. They are the absolute devils and will do anything to win an election, but once you hand them the power, that is when you will see their true colors. I know of countries whose Governments would suddenly accept donations via cryptocurrencies after years of FUD just because they are at war and want to win it at all costs. Once things get better, they just continue with the same FUD and demonization of cryptocurrencies.

I highly agree, politician are liars.  They will come into terms to anyone even criminals as long as they can win the election.  Harris accepting donation in Bitcoin is not for Bitcoin's advantage, this is a ploy the make them Bitcoin friendly while amassing amount of money in Bitcoin from the Bitcoin enthusiasts/users that were made to believe and supports them.

Yes, for people who have over $100 million in gains in a year. Most people like that are pretty public about their wealth since they are billionaires.

Yes they do but did they tell the truth when they publicly announce their gain or file their annual tax?  Here in the Philippines wealthy people tends to evade tax by providing scholarships where they spend way lower amounts than what they should pay.

[legiteum]

Yes, for people who have over $100 million in gains in a year. Most people like that are pretty public about their wealth since they are billionaires.

Yes they do but did they tell the truth when they publicly announce their gain or file their annual tax?  Here in the Philippines wealthy people tends to evade tax by providing scholarships where they spend way lower amounts than what they should pay.

There are tons of write-offs here as well, and most rich people in the US pay far less as a percentage of their income than the typical household staff they employ. Harris is seizing on that in order to gain votes, but I actually don't see here doing much about it either.

[Abiky]

I suspect neither candidate is going to care about crypto after the election--it's mostly about a few billionaire Bitcoin whales giving them both millions right now. But Americans as a whole definitely don't care about Bitcoin as a serious political issue, compared to issues like abortion, immigration, etc.

Not yet. But it will be in the future. Especially when new generations are quite fond of "digitalization". Like it or not, digital currencies are the future of money. Bitcoin will play a huge role in global politics. Just you wait and see. When you notice that only a small portion of the global population holds Bitcoin, you know that the cryptocurrency is still in its infancy. We're still early to the game.

Regardless of whoever wins the US presidential race, we can feel confident that nothing will stop Bitcoin in achieving its purpose. It will ultimately defeat banks and usher a new era in the decentralization of the economy. The key to fixing the world is separating the money from the state. Hopefully, Bitcoin fulfills its mission before it's too late. Fingers crossed America will embrace the revolution to stay ahead of the game.

[legiteum]

I suspect neither candidate is going to care about crypto after the election--it's mostly about a few billionaire Bitcoin whales giving them both millions right now. But Americans as a whole definitely don't care about Bitcoin as a serious political issue, compared to issues like abortion, immigration, etc.

Not yet. But it will be in the future. Especially when new generations are quite fond of "digitalization". Like it or not, digital currencies are the future of money.

There's a very big difference between something being the "future of money" and... somebody's retirement nest egg.

The real future of money will be... very very stable, not a lottery ticket like Bitcoin has proven to be. Bitcoin's price instability absolutely precludes it from being used as a mainstream means of payment.

But if Bitcoin ever stabilized in price then... nobody would care about it anymore, politically speaking. You don't see voters voting for the candidate that will make the USD go up higher in value like you do for BTC right now. Bitcoin is a speculation instrument to most people, which is why voters (insofar as there are any) want Bitcoin to go up. The minute it became a "real" currency people could really use as a currency, it would cease to be a political issue because it would necessarily become... boring.

[CryptoBuds]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/top-super-pac-backing-kamala-harris-accept-cryptocurrency-donations-2024-09-05/

Now both major US candidates accept Bitcoin for donations. Great progress for Bitcoin acceptance.

Do not be fooled by politician, folks. They are the absolute devils and will do anything to win an election, but once you hand them the power, that is when you will see their true colors. I know of countries whose Governments would suddenly accept donations via cryptocurrencies after years of FUD just because they are at war and want to win it at all costs. Once things get better, they just continue with the same FUD and demonization of cryptocurrencies.

What do you think we should do? Should we rebel and overthrow the current government? Or should we stay out and not vote, but does that make any difference when one of the two candidates still becomes president?

The nature of politics is to lie and do whatever it takes to get what they want and everyone knows it. But the harsh truth is that whether we like it or not, we cannot change the fact that they are still the ones who lead the country and control us. So what we can do is vote for the person we think is the lesser evil. Same with crypto, vote for the candidate you think will do the least harm to it.

[bbc.reporter]

Agreed that there is no evidence, however, the government always wants to inquire very much closely on the people and invade their privacy if they want this.

What are you talking about? How is there no evidence?
They wanted to make wallet providers ask users for KYC so they can assign wallets to IDs! This was a real legislative act they wanted to push through Congress.
How is that not an attempt to deprive people of privacy?

The Democrats see self hosted wallets as aiding tax evaders, money launderers, drug traffickers and other criminals. Republicans believe self custody preserves basic freedoms in a digital world.
Representative Sherman (Democrat) compared self hosted wallets to bearer bonds which were banned in the U.S. in the 1980s.
https://www.ledgerinsights.com/self-hosted-wallet-congress-privacy-freedom/

You are very much correct, however, what I was telling the mr. democrat legiteum is there is no evidence that can implicate the government that they are hacking directly on the people. However, because of these laws very much similar to what you have mentioned and these laws like the Patriot Act, the government are giving themselves the right to invade the people's privacy.

I am quite certain Harris cannot mention that she is against CBDC because this would certainly make the rulers from Wall Street and the banking industry very angry heheheh.

[KiaKia]

She's in the same league as Elizabeth Warren who wanted wallet providers to enforce KYC and wanted all bitcoin holders to be asked to declare their holdings by the IRS.

She wants to delegalize privacy!

Harris only wants donations because she believes people are dumb enough to finance the campaign of someone who wants to later tax their holdings and deprive them of their privacy.

Give me money you dumb animals and if I win I'll take the rest of it.  

There's absolutely no evidence Harris or Warren or anybody else in the US government wants to "deprive you of your privacy".

The US has has capital gains taxes since the 1930s, under every president of every party. The US will have capital gains taxes forever, regardless of who is elected.

Have you ever seen where Kamala talked about Bitcoin before? Because I haven't, she is pretending mate, this is enough evidence for me, Kamala is backed by that witch called Warren and Joe Biden, if she wins you will see what these people will do, it is not going to end well, this is the same thing I keep telling everyone who are supporting kamala right now.

Kiss Privacy goodbye if kamala takes over, she is accepting donations in crypto because crypto has so many fans in the United States of America, once this is over she will turn into the monster she's been hiding.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/top-super-pac-backing-kamala-harris-accept-cryptocurrency-donations-2024-09-05/

Now both major US candidates accept Bitcoin for donations. Great progress for Bitcoin acceptance.

Do not be fooled by politician, folks. They are the absolute devils and will do anything to win an election, but once you hand them the power, that is when you will see their true colors. I know of countries whose Governments would suddenly accept donations via cryptocurrencies after years of FUD just because they are at war and want to win it at all costs. Once things get better, they just continue with the same FUD and demonization of cryptocurrencies.

What do you think we should do? Should we rebel and overthrow the current government? Or should we stay out and not vote, but does that make any difference when one of the two candidates still becomes president?

The nature of politics is to lie and do whatever it takes to get what they want and everyone knows it. But the harsh truth is that whether we like it or not, we cannot change the fact that they are still the ones who lead the country and control us. So what we can do is vote for the person we think is the lesser evil. Same with crypto, vote for the candidate you think will do the least harm to it.

Vote for Trump, he seems to be the only person we can trust right now, he is surrounded by people who want to see crypto prevail, starting with black rock, Saylor, Elon Musk, and a few others, even JFK, he is the better option than Kamala right now, we can't just fold our hands, I know that politicians will always be politicians but what Trump wants to do is far from trying to deceive his people.

Trump will do less harm than Kamala. Vote wisely

[legiteum]

You are very much correct, however, what I was telling the mr. democrat legiteum is there is no evidence that can implicate the government that they are hacking directly on the people. However, because of these laws very much similar to what you have mentioned and these laws like the Patriot Act, the government are giving themselves the right to invade the people's privacy.

I am quite certain Harris cannot mention that she is against CBDC because this would certainly make the rulers from Wall Street and the banking industry very angry heheheh.

LOL, I am anything but "Mr. Democrat".

There are many millions of Republicans in the USA who oppose Trump:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_oppose_the_Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign

The existing laws about banking in the US are absolutely nothing like... the Patriot Act. That doesn't even make sense.

Harris has not stated whether she is for a CBDC. Harris has also not mentioned her views on C++ versus C, either. Or which side of the toilet paper roll should face outward. I doubt she'll get into that when there are things that Americans actually care about to talk about.

And why would "the rulers from Wall Street" care about a CBDC anyhow? Wall Street is all-in on Bitcoin, and a CBDC wouldn't make any difference to Bitcoin anyhow. And there's essentially no constituency anywhere for a CBDC in the US left, right or center, so... it's not going to happen.

[darkangel11]

Yes, for people who have over $100 million in gains in a year. Most people like that are pretty public about their wealth since they are billionaires.

Now, do I expect this to pass Congress? I doubt it. Why? Because such a tax actually wouldn't raise very much money since there are only a few hundred people in the US like this.

But the only reason you've been lead to care about this is that the people controlling the media you ingest on a daily basis are... among those hundreds.

It may pass, it may not. The deal is, they're trying to do it. In my eyes this is an attack on privacy. I don't care if people choose to be vocal about their investments. The important thing is that it's their choice. Democrats want to take that right to choose away. It's an attack on privacy.

I suspect that any laws that pass Congress will roughly mirror the physical cash controls we have in the US: reporting is only required for very large sums, i.e. amounts that would very likely involve criminal activity. The threshold for cash today is $10,000, but that was passed in the early 1970s, so even the equivalent would be about $100k. This is common sense: the government is after big-time criminals and money launderers, not some average American with $50k in their crypto wallet--it's not worth their time to even check.

If that average American with $50k is forced to reveal how much they hold and on which address, it won't matter who the government is really after. It's like when you get stopped and searched because they think you might carry illegal substances (but you don't) you don't care who they were after.

And the partisan thing is ridiculous: the law for cash was signed by Republican president Richard Nixon. This is about national security, and every week there's another children's hospital that is crippled in the USA by criminals using crypto for cyberextortion, or another murder-for-hire paid for that way, etc. etc.

Damn! That was brutal. Did you just use the "crypto is used by criminals to cripple children hospitals" argument? I have to save that for future generations who visit this forum.
Please check statistics and tell us all how many children's hospitals were crippled in the US in the last 12 months and how many murderers got paid with bitcoin. I'd really like to see the numbers for that.

[legiteum]

Yes, for people who have over $100 million in gains in a year. Most people like that are pretty public about their wealth since they are billionaires.

Now, do I expect this to pass Congress? I doubt it. Why? Because such a tax actually wouldn't raise very much money since there are only a few hundred people in the US like this.

But the only reason you've been lead to care about this is that the people controlling the media you ingest on a daily basis are... among those hundreds.

It may pass, it may not. The deal is, they're trying to do it. In my eyes this is an attack on privacy. I don't care if people choose to be vocal about their investments. The important thing is that it's their choice. Democrats want to take that right to choose away. It's an attack on privacy.

Republicans want to collect taxes too, and they will respond to crime just like the Democrats do. We already have the same reporting for anybody who puts more than $10,000 cash inside of any US bank, and that's been the law here for the last 50 years.

I suspect that any laws that pass Congress will roughly mirror the physical cash controls we have in the US: reporting is only required for very large sums, i.e. amounts that would very likely involve criminal activity. The threshold for cash today is $10,000, but that was passed in the early 1970s, so even the equivalent would be about $100k. This is common sense: the government is after big-time criminals and money launderers, not some average American with $50k in their crypto wallet--it's not worth their time to even check.

If that average American with $50k is forced to reveal how much they hold and on which address, it won't matter who the government is really after. It's like when you get stopped and searched because they think you might carry illegal substances (but you don't) you don't care who they were after.

There are valid government inquiries and invalid ones. If the authorities have probably cause and go through the correct channels and perform a constitutionally legal search, then what is the problem? Yes, police sometimes break the law, and that's part of our system. But the answer is policing the police, not... anarchy where criminals can just attack whomever they want because there are no police at all.

And the partisan thing is ridiculous: the law for cash was signed by Republican president Richard Nixon. This is about national security, and every week there's another children's hospital that is crippled in the USA by criminals using crypto for cyberextortion, or another murder-for-hire paid for that way, etc. etc.

Damn! That was brutal. Did you just use the "crypto is used by criminals to cripple children hospitals" argument? I have to save that for future generations who visit this forum.

Please check statistics and tell us all how many children's hospitals were crippled in the US in the last 12 months and how many murderers got paid with bitcoin. I'd really like to see the numbers for that.

This took me about five seconds to look this up:

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/providers/cybersecurity-matter-forces-lurie-childrens-hospitals-communications-mychart-offline

I mean seriously, are you going to try to tell me that crypto has never been used for crime? It's like saying cash has never been used for crime, or the internet has never been used for crime, or the telephone hasn't. All of those things have been regulated over the years, and subject to government subpoenas, and crypto will be no different.

[bbc.reporter]

You are very much correct, however, what I was telling the mr. democrat legiteum is there is no evidence that can implicate the government that they are hacking directly on the people. However, because of these laws very much similar to what you have mentioned and these laws like the Patriot Act, the government are giving themselves the right to invade the people's privacy.

I am quite certain Harris cannot mention that she is against CBDC because this would certainly make the rulers from Wall Street and the banking industry very angry heheheh.

LOL, I am anything but "Mr. Democrat".

There are many millions of Republicans in the USA who oppose Trump:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_oppose_the_Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign

The existing laws about banking in the US are absolutely nothing like... the Patriot Act. That doesn't even make sense.

Harris has not stated whether she is for a CBDC. Harris has also not mentioned her views on C++ versus C, either. Or which side of the toilet paper roll should face outward. I doubt she'll get into that when there are things that Americans actually care about to talk about.

And why would "the rulers from Wall Street" care about a CBDC anyhow? Wall Street is all-in on Bitcoin, and a CBDC wouldn't make any difference to Bitcoin anyhow. And there's essentially no constituency anywhere for a CBDC in the US left, right or center, so... it's not going to happen.

Heheheeheh it was joke. I am quite certain that you are not a democrat, however, it only appears that you are very angry when someone talks about Kamala hehehe.

In any case, on the Patriot act, banking and the people's privacy. This has a very big impact because the Patriot Act changes how bankers manage bank accounts. Banks are very much closely more monitored, data collection from the people are more strict and any transaction can be suspicious. The implementation of this act is dangerous and it can be certainly abused to invade a person's privacy.

On the bankers, the rulers from Wall Street and CBDC. Do you know how much of control over money will be given to your rulers if a CBDC is used by a country? Also, Wall Street is only all in bitcoin as a speculative investment heheheheh. Do you not understand this?

[thecodebear]

Is she doing this because she needs more donations to help her campaign funding or is she only doing this because she saw how Trump is pro bitcoin and it helped his campaign and she wants to gain that market share?

Like Cameron and Tyler said a couple of weeks back, if she wants to be pro Bitcoin and pro Crypto she doesnt need to wait until she wins the election. She can take a stand now and fire Gary Gensler who is bad for the crypto industry. However its been a couple of weeks and not action really taken.

Which shows she is just doing this to buy votes and nothing more.

Hopefully you realize she has no power to fire Gensler lol. This is the kind of nonsense lies Maga cultists spread, don't be one of those idiots. If you want to see someone completely changing their stance on crypto simply to buy votes and nothing more, look no further than convicted criminal and lifelong conman and traitor to America Donald Trump.

[legiteum]

On the bankers, the rulers from Wall Street and CBDC. Do you know how much of control over money will be given to your rulers if a CBDC is used by a country? Also, Wall Street is only all in bitcoin as a speculative investment heheheheh. Do you not understand this?

Why would a CBDC make any difference whatsoever? Something like 90% of USD is already held digitally. Why especially would making the last 10% that's floating around in paper change anything? The US isn't going to have a CBDC because there's no reason to have one. Physically dollars will be used less and less and eventually they will just be gone from everywhere but eBay in the collectables section. Those physical pieces of paper will be replaced by credit cards, payment services, and (actually scalable) digital currency.

And yes, Bitcoin is, to almost all of it's holders, nothing more than a speculative investment. It requires $30 billion in hardware to process the transaction load of few busy shopping malls at Christmas. Bitcoin is not a threat to become anything else than what it already is, and there's no government or anything else stopping it. Bitcoin's limitations are technical, not caused by some Illuminati conspiracy.

[CryptoBuds]

What do you think we should do? Should we rebel and overthrow the current government? Or should we stay out and not vote, but does that make any difference when one of the two candidates still becomes president?

The nature of politics is to lie and do whatever it takes to get what they want and everyone knows it. But the harsh truth is that whether we like it or not, we cannot change the fact that they are still the ones who lead the country and control us. So what we can do is vote for the person we think is the lesser evil. Same with crypto, vote for the candidate you think will do the least harm to it.

Vote for Trump, he seems to be the only person we can trust right now, he is surrounded by people who want to see crypto prevail, starting with black rock, Saylor, Elon Musk, and a few others, even JFK, he is the better option than Kamala right now, we can't just fold our hands, I know that politicians will always be politicians but what Trump wants to do is far from trying to deceive his people.

Trump will do less harm than Kamala. Vote wisely

If we don't want to get involved in the war between politicians, we can stand aside and watch things unfold. But if we care about the future and want to contribute to the development of bitcoin, I agree with you that let's vote for the person who will do the least harm to it.

Honestly, both Trump and Harris are untrustworthy but what other choice do we have? We rarely have a third option so let's seize every opportunity even if it is fragile and uncertain. And there is no doubt that Trump is more worth our choice and bet on than Harris. Vote and spread support for him, at least we still have a chance while our chance when voting for Harris is zero.