Bitcoin Almost Legalized in Califonia

[drrussellshane]

comedy moment

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



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

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

[franky1]

comedy moment

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



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

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

[jbreher]

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.

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?

[keithers]

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.

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

[franky1]

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. 

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'

[nwfella]

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

[brian_23452]

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. 

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'

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.  

[64dimensions]

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.

[beetcoin]

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.

[jc01480]

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.

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?

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

[jc01480]

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. 

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'

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.  

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.

[QuestionAuthority]

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

[Ron~Popeil]

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.

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. 

[brian_23452]

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.  

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'

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.  

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.

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.  

[CryptoKilla]

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?

[QuestionAuthority]

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!

[dlzc]

you are a financial expert 

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.

[keithers]

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

[keithers]

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

[dlzc]

Yes, California is a good place

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.

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