keithers
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1001
This is the land of wolves now & you're not a wolf
|
 |
May 19, 2014, 05:01:11 AM |
|
I was actually wondering what had come of this? I remember reading about CA looking at passing this but then I never heard anything more about it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Bitcoin network protocol was designed to be extremely flexible. It can be used to create timed transactions, escrow transactions, multi-signature transactions, etc. The current features of the client only hint at what will be possible in the future.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
open-mind
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 0
|
|
May 19, 2014, 09:14:44 AM |
|
I wonder what will be result of this petition?
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate
Member
Offline
Activity: 74
Merit: 10
|
|
May 20, 2014, 12:23:53 PM |
|
Involving BitCoin with legislature is only a way to get their greedy food in the door.
The government is like a mexican child trying to sell you gum.
They hand you something and say CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE.
Just because a bill is in favor of BitCoins, does not mean that it is a good thing.
Establishing the governments hold on the BitCoin market will only leave more room for them to change it in the future. Sure the bill says legalize now, but when its repealed, it then becomes illegal.
Everyone needs to take a moment and forget what BitCoin is worth, or what it can get you... All it is is numbers on a page... Does the government really need to be concerned about the number of digits my BitCoin wallet is?
|
|
|
|
|
whtchocla7e
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 392
Merit: 116
Worlds Simplest Cryptocurrency Wallet
|
|
May 20, 2014, 03:27:25 PM |
|
What was the purpose of attempting to legalize Bitcoin in California?
Is Bitcoin illegal in California?
|
▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▅▆█ L E A D █▆▅▃▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
World's Simplest and Safest Decentralized Cryptocurrency Wallet!
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ • STORE • SEND • SPEND • SWAP • STAKE • ▬▬▬▬▬▬
|
|
|
|
LostDutchman
|
|
May 20, 2014, 06:02:18 PM |
|
What was the purpose of attempting to legalize Bitcoin in California?
Is Bitcoin illegal in California?
Exactly the point. Bitcoin is NOT illegal in California, so why does it have to be "legalised"? I'll tell you why. Bitcoin must be "legalised" in order for the government there to gain at least some measure of control of first Bitcoin, then all crypto. |
|
|
|
|
row5_seat47 (OP)
|
|
May 22, 2014, 02:51:18 AM |
|
What was the purpose of attempting to legalize Bitcoin in California?
Is Bitcoin illegal in California?
Exactly the point. Bitcoin is NOT illegal in California, so why does it have to be "legalised"? I'll tell you why. Bitcoin must be "legalised" in order for the government there to gain at least some measure of control of first Bitcoin, then all crypto. One Only need to read the OP article and link to Bitcoin Magazine to see that it is technically not legal in California nor is any other form of alternative currency. It sounds ridiculous. And it is ridiculous. Read the article to find out why. A Bill (act to amend Section 107 of the Corporations Code, relating to business associations) introduced by California State Assembly member and Chairman on Banking and Finance Roger Dickenson on January 15th “AB-129 Lawful money: alternative currency” (PDF) as Amended January 23, 2014 specifies that “current law which bans the issuance or circulation of anything but lawful money of the United States does not prohibit the issuance and use of alternative currency. More: http://bitcoinmagazine.com/10159/california-bill-legalize-bitcoin/ |
|
|
|
|
NewLiberty
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
|
|
May 24, 2014, 04:40:19 AM |
|
What would realistically happen if it wasn't legalized?
Also, what has happened to the bill? What sort of timeframe are we generally supposed to expect here for it to become law?
This is not a new law to "legalize" bitcoin. It is a change to the wording of an existing stupid law that has never been enforced which prohibits anything but lawful money, and changes it to include "alternative currency" as not prohibited. This is understood to include things like Bitcoin and other alternative currencies categorically as no longer prohibited. “…no corporation, flexible purpose corporation, association, or individual shall not issue or put in circulation, as money, anything but the lawful money of the United States.” And its not even making a new law, just adding comments to the existing one to say that this doesn't prohibit bitcoin. It never did, but could have been read to have done so. There are some Bitcoin companies that don't do business in California partly because of this law, so this may be good news for Bitcoin businesses in California, as it removes a legal risk that otherwise might take a legal opinion letter or other document to form agreements. (Agreements to do illegal things are unenforceable) This also closes a legal loophole. If I am a Bitcoin business in California and I contract to pay someone bitcoin in exchange for something, and the price of bitcoin goes up between the order and the payment, and if I were a scoundrel, I could invoke the existing law to make the claim that the contract can not require me to do something illegal and so is unenforceable contract... the debt could then be paid with Legal Tender instead. |
|
|
|
Bruce Price
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 1
Merit: 0
|
 |
May 26, 2014, 11:34:16 AM |
|
I just read that the US is about to legalize the use of Bitcoin by the Federal government, a new task force dealing with the issue of Bitcoin laws had been established http://www.whatsbinaryoptions.com had quoted “David Cotney”, Massachusetts Commissioner of Banks who was appointed as head of new emerging payments task force as saying the nine members of the task force have given themselves a year to complete the book of rules. |
|
|
|
|
fatty_but_happy
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 54
Merit: 0
|
|
May 26, 2014, 03:51:51 PM |
|
What will happen to Bitcoin if no one of the U.S. states does not legalize it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ENEWIT
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
|
May 27, 2014, 02:06:05 PM |
|
I liked your explanation! Thank you! Now I have an additional argument in favor of Bitcoins |
|
|
|
|
|
|
NewLiberty
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
|
|
June 04, 2014, 03:01:54 PM |
|
Even better. Much better. For every new law, it should be required to remove an old one. I'm going to have to send my local Senator some Bitcoin Specie, and New Liberty Dollars. Only to be opened when legal in the state. |
|
|
|
|
Ron~Popeil
|
|
June 12, 2014, 02:19:06 AM |
|
That would be the ideal outcome. I am concerned that this effort is a desire to control and tax it rather than some benevolent attempt to foster our efforts at snatching their power away. |
|
|
|
franky1
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4214
Merit: 4454
|
|
June 12, 2014, 01:06:57 PM |
|
simple solution. bitcoin is not money.
bitcoin is an asset currency..
moving on
|
I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
|
|
|
NewLiberty
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
|
|
June 12, 2014, 03:39:07 PM |
|
simple solution. bitcoin is not money.
bitcoin is an asset currency..
moving on
That solves everything so long as every judge and LEO in the state accepts your definitions without question along with the legal ramifications of it. I'll still be happier when that law is gone and there is nothing to enforce. Maybe then Bitsimple will do business in CA too. |
|
|
|
ShakyhandsBTCer
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
It's Money 2.0| It’s gold for nerds | It's Bitcoin
|
|
June 13, 2014, 01:24:44 AM |
|
What will happen to Bitcoin if no one of the U.S. states does not legalize it?
Something is not illegal by default. If there is not a law regarding a certain action (or in our case, asset) then such action is legal. In CAs case, laws have been passed and proposed that would outlaw certain assets. The law being discussed would repeal that law. |
|
|
|
|
|
