"Schrodinger's cat" with bitcoins

[remotemass]

Imagine you made a device that would get your bitcoins and send it to a wallet that you would only be able to access in 10 years time. Also, there would be a chance they would be sent to a void wallet.
So during 10 years your coins would be half alive, half dead; just like Schrodinger's Cat. That is, they would be half yours, half not.
Only after 10 years you would know if you actually owned those coins.
So, would you have to declare those coins to IRS for tax purposes?
You could then argue that during those 10 years you coun't know if you owned the coins or not...

[Meuh6879]

try when essential of merchand take bitcoin.
not now ...

[Hiraga]

It's the same as throwing your salary you just received in dollars on the streets and see if it's still there after 10 years.

[will_see]

Umm, what i've just read?
I dont see any clever idea...

[Lauda]

Step 1) Win lottery (or coins)
Step 2) Put it in a box, and send off to random address (to avoid tax)
Step 3) Go to address in 10 years and hope that it is there.
Step 4) Profit 

[Slark]

All I got after reading op's post is that he want to basically toss bitcoin in some random place and check if they still be there after 10 years. But I don't really get why the hell you would like to that? Maybe it is good topic for scientific discussion and experiment with it in perfect world or something... Maybe.

[remotemass]

No, what I'm proposing is that there would be an extremely tiny possibility the coins were sent to void.
But during that time, say 10 years, you wouldn't have to declare the coins as being in your possession because actually maybe they weren't.

[lnternet]

The point is no one can prove you own BTC

[DannyHamilton]

The IRS does not require you to declare possession of bitcoins, they require you to declare income from bitcoins.

They don't tax possession of bitcoins, they tax income from bitcoins.

[Shawshank]

I suppose you will be able to deduct losses in 10 years time if your bitcoins did not arrive to an address under your control. On the other hand, you would only need to declare them if requested by a "wealth tax", but since it is a purely probabilistic situation, who knows.

I suppose things get much more complicated when you randomly send your bitcoins to some addresses you control and some other multisignature addresses at the same time. Taxes for donations may fire there, but how should several merely probabilistic donations to M of N multisignature destinations be treated for tax purposes? Answer: It is simply impractical to even try.

[HarmonLi]

Imagine you made a device that would get your bitcoins and send it to a wallet that you would only be able to access in 10 years time. Also, there would be a chance they would be sent to a void wallet.
So during 10 years your coins would be half alive, half dead; just like Schrodinger's Cat. That is, they would be half yours, half not.
Only after 10 years you would know if you actually owned those coins.
So, would you have to declare those coins to IRS for tax purposes?
You could then argue that during those 10 years you coun't know if you owned the coins or not...

I'm just going to assume, you're obsesses about Bitcoin and just found out about Schrödingers Cat, or are also obsessed about that already (most likely a mathematics or CS student). I don't think the idea translates too well to the Bitcoin landscape!

[Gleb Gamow]

Imagine you made a device that would get your bitcoins and send it to a wallet that you would only be able to access in 10 years time. Also, there would be a chance they would be sent to a void wallet.
So during 10 years your coins would be half alive, half dead; just like Schrodinger's Cat. That is, they would be half yours, half not.
Only after 10 years you would know if you actually owned those coins.
So, would you have to declare those coins to IRS for tax purposes?
You could then argue that during those 10 years you coun't know if you owned the coins or not...

I'm just going to assume, you're obsesses about Bitcoin and just found out about Schrödingers Cat, or are also obsessed about that already (most likely a mathematics or CS student). I don't think the idea translates too well to the Bitcoin landscape!

To the Bitcoin landscape, correct, but to an altcoiner...   ---> PoS'Cat + PoP'Dog = To da Moon!

[rikkejohn]

Imagine you made a device that would get your bitcoins and send it to a wallet that you would only be able to access in 10 years time. Also, there would be a chance they would be sent to a void wallet.
So during 10 years your coins would be half alive, half dead; just like Schrodinger's Cat. That is, they would be half yours, half not.
Only after 10 years you would know if you actually owned those coins.
So, would you have to declare those coins to IRS for tax purposes?
You could then argue that during those 10 years you coun't know if you owned the coins or not...

They would turn up in 1-world or more.  You would declare the possibility of the coins, and then the IRS could wait 10 years to see if they turned up in your device.

[HarmonLi]

Imagine you made a device that would get your bitcoins and send it to a wallet that you would only be able to access in 10 years time. Also, there would be a chance they would be sent to a void wallet.
So during 10 years your coins would be half alive, half dead; just like Schrodinger's Cat. That is, they would be half yours, half not.
Only after 10 years you would know if you actually owned those coins.
So, would you have to declare those coins to IRS for tax purposes?
You could then argue that during those 10 years you coun't know if you owned the coins or not...

I'm just going to assume, you're obsesses about Bitcoin and just found out about Schrödingers Cat, or are also obsessed about that already (most likely a mathematics or CS student). I don't think the idea translates too well to the Bitcoin landscape!

To the Bitcoin landscape, correct, but to an altcoiner... 

Altcoiners are the strange uncles that come to your family festivities, get drunk and tell your kids inappropriate things. Then they hit on aunt Margaret, yet she is just too offended by his strong cologne...

[Meuh6879]

they tax income from bitcoins.

they tax the merchand that you pay with bitcoin... 

[Hustle2survive]

The IRS does not require you to declare possession of bitcoins, they require you to declare income from bitcoins.

They don't tax possession of bitcoins, they tax income from bitcoins.

So if I buy something directly for Bitcoins in a shop like overstock, i dont need to pay any taxes and what not?

[Meuh6879]

You pay VAT ... and Overstock pay tax via coinbase exchange.
and finally, coinbase pay tax to IRS.

[DannyHamilton]

The IRS does not require you to declare possession of bitcoins, they require you to declare income from bitcoins.

They don't tax possession of bitcoins, they tax income from bitcoins.

So if I buy something directly for Bitcoins in a shop like overstock, i dont need to pay any taxes and what not?

In the U.S. according to the IRS you do.

There are 2 types of tax you'll pay when you purchase something with bitcoins.

You'll be required to pay a sales tax (or use tax) to the local government (typically to the state) based on the fair market value of the item that you've purchased (typically the retail price). This is not mandated by the IRS, but rather by each individual local government.  There is potential for a city sales tax, a county sales tax, a state sales tax, etc.

According to the IRS, when you purchase something with bitcoins, you are receiving barter income. As such you need to pay tax on the capital gains that you experienced between the price you paid to acquire the bitcoins and the value of the products that you received in exchange for the bitcoins.  This is not a tax for possessing bitcoins, it is a tax for receiving an income (an item or service of value) in exchange for the bitcoins when you transfer them to someone else.

[gjgjg]

youre point is actually asking (in a hypothetical sense) who would win in an argument where the property is both yours and not yours simultaniously because youve slightly misunderstood uncertainty: it says that the cat is in BOTH states until its observed (its only until its observed that either state is discounted, until then both are true - its not that its 1/2 one and 1/2 the other, or that you dont know which is true, both are).
 
so the btc is BOTH YOURS and not yours at the same time - until the point its observed. its not that you dont know if its in your possession until you look, until you observe it IS both yours AND not yours - so we KNOW that it is 100% yours + 100% not yours. this is the common misunderstanding that ppl have: its intuitive to think 'we dont know which is true until we look', BOTH are true.

in a practical sense, i would say the auths would win in this debate anyway as i dont think using quantum uncertainty is a sound basis for not declaring wealth for tax purposes... its effectively claiming ignorance of what you own as youre not observing it all the time... so they would just base it on what the last known state of the wealth was.
they would probably say sending it to a location that cant be accessed for x years is just plain hiding it from the auths, or willful ignorance. if its value was recorded and tied to you before it was purposefully moved to an inaccessible place then the auths will probably charge you with avoiding tax or just assume the last known value to be correct - esp if you are the one accessing the destination wallet.  

i think ive taken this thread too seriously and not seriously enough

[remotemass]

-snip-

I have to agree. it makes sense.
Thanks for taking it both seriously and not.