I thought the IRS decided bitcoin was property, not currency?
The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers
11–20 of 199 posts
Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers
#12In all of these cases, the bitcoin vendors did not register on FinCEN's website. Registering is simple but by doing so the person/company is required to check ID's of their customers and make sure there is no money laundering involved. Including filing reports with the gov't for any suspicious activity and large cash transactions amongst other things.
Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers
#13I thought the IRS decided bitcoin was property, not currency?
The IRS determined that, under tax law, it was property.
That has no bearing whatsoever on how money transmission business law treats it.
Different laws often have different applicable definitions for similar terms.
Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers
#14The value of bitcoin was always to evade taxes and launder money, both of which are criminal enterprises, the only thing that is changing is enforcement.
I don't agree with the idea that the value of bitcoin was always to evade taxes and launder money. Maybe that's a primary motive for many, but I don't think that constitutes the value of bitcoin in toto. I have no skin in the bitcoin game--I've never possessed any bitcoin and don't feel any burning desire to in the near future. As monetary transactions have moved to the electronic sphere, there's been an important sh…
> Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency tries to get back to the idea of peer-to-peer financial exchange without needing that third party
No, it doesn't. Because it relies on validation by a number of third-parties (whose identities and degrees of influence are opaque), who must (collectively, if not individually) be trusted and who (again, collectively, though this can end up fairly narrowly concentrated) control the financial system in the same way as “Ted” in your hypothetical.
Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers
#15The value of bitcoin was always to evade taxes and launder money, both of which are criminal enterprises, the only thing that is changing is enforcement.
While I am sure those reasons play a part I think thats not even close to all of what makes it valuable. Ease of use is a huge one. I can set up a wallet in less than a minute and someone from across the world can send me bitcoin in the time it takes for it to clear the block, other cryptos even faster. One can post their wallet address and make jokes on social media and receive bitcoin just because people like the c…
> Ease of use is a huge one.
Bitcoin is very complicated to use, doubly so to use securely. I've lost count of the number of stories I've read of someone losing everything, and then being chided by the community because "you deserved it, you weren't doing it the ~right way~", and of course there are a thousand mutually incompatible explanations as to what the right way is. This happens so often there's an entire subreddit for it.
(EDIT: For example, 12 hours ago an Ethereum startup burned $13 million because of a typo: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/6ettq5/statement_.... The top comment, of course, is "you deserved it, validate your inputs". I'm not kidding when I say this happens every day)
> I can set up a wallet in less than a minute and someone from across the world can send me bitcoin in the time it takes for it to clear the block.
Which is anywhere from half an hour to days and days, depending on how much you're willing to pay in fees.
> One can post their wallet address and make jokes on social media and receive bitcoin just because people like the content and are happy to support it. (yes that works) You can receive bitcoin without giving anyone your name,address,etc,same with sending it to someone and do so for legal purposes.
I can do all of this with a PayPal account, both more quickly and with lower fees than Bitcoin. I need a real name to cash out, but you need that with Bitcoin too unless you're using a service that's breaking the law and not doing KYC.
> Try to do any of those 3 above with dollar bills and its just not even in the same realm.
Yes, digital transactions are certainly faster and more convenient than physical ones, because that's an apples-to-oranges comparison. On all these metrics though Bitcoin loses to PayPal, and when you're losing to a company that is the embodiment of pure evil, that's not a good look.
Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers
#16The value of bitcoin was always to evade taxes and launder money, both of which are criminal enterprises, the only thing that is changing is enforcement.
While I am sure those reasons play a part I think thats not even close to all of what makes it valuable. Ease of use is a huge one. I can set up a wallet in less than a minute and someone from across the world can send me bitcoin in the time it takes for it to clear the block, other cryptos even faster. One can post their wallet address and make jokes on social media and receive bitcoin just because people like the c…
None of those things necessitate bitcoin, though. If your bank let you setup a public deposit-only account with an anonymized alias, you'd get al the same benefits, except that it would not be viable for criminal enterprises. Electronic payments don't require anonymity to be convenient, which is where all the value you refer to comes from.
Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers
#17The value of bitcoin was always to evade taxes and launder money, both of which are criminal enterprises, the only thing that is changing is enforcement.
Perhaps the value is the fact a central bank can't obliterate the value of the currency based on a whim, using a bunch of esoteric economic logic to justify such policies?
No, instead a small set of Chinese miners can obliterate the value instead.
Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers
#18The value of bitcoin was always to evade taxes and launder money, both of which are criminal enterprises, the only thing that is changing is enforcement.
Don't forget rampant speculation and tulip mania. The author of the article speaks disparagingly of a "money grab" by the government, as if money grabbing wasn't what most bitcoin traders are after.
Government grabs money by force. That is the difference I guess.
Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps the value is the fact a central bank can't obliterate the value of the currency based on a whim, using a bunch of esoteric economic logic to justify such policies?
No, instead a small set of Chinese miners can obliterate the value instead.
How wrong you are sir
Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers
#20The banks and governenrs would never allow a currency that they can't control and tax and which doesn't benefit the rich.