The 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.
[deleted]
The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers
131–140 of 199 posts
Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers
#132The author belies the libertarian quirk of mind that conflates something being regulated with something being made illegal. Quite different things! This strikes me as a cousin to the libertarian intuition that if it is possible to craft an activity that is literally impossible for the government to discover, such an activity simply can't be illegal. (I'm sympathetic to this intuition, but it doesn't take long to see…
Where is the illogic behind it?
The law can say it is illegal, but it is not enforceable is it really a valid claim?
Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't take cash from citizens without proper process through the courts. Simple as that!
What is the proper process?
Probably
i) a court case
ii) a judge giving a decision
iii) proper legal representation, free if needed, for everyone involved
iv) possibly "balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond all reasonable doubt".
Those things would prevent a lot of the abuse that the US Civil Forfeiture system sees.
Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, but if you started a business where your friends gathered to sell each other large enough quantities of bitcoin for cash you would be. (Edited to add that IANAL and none of this is actually legal advice.)
You are wrong, selling any amount of bitcoin for money is considered money transmission and is a crime without licensing.
Surprising. I thought Bitcoin is classed as a commodity. So if I sell some copper for cash, or a second hand book is that considered money transmission?
Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Still, are those benefits really worth it? Seems pretty minor to me but maybe I fail to see the bigger picture. Sounds like these things can be achieved easily with traditional money as well (like how it works in South Korea, where the social tipping you speak of is very popular). How are states supposed to collect taxes if they can't see anything?
I would also add that there are many cryptos, that comes into play in a few ways. One major difference with traditional "money" right now is the wild price fluctuations. You can have $100 worth of a crypto one day and the next its worth $1000. In some ways that is bad, but in others it is very very good!
I am no bitcoin evangelist by any means, but I do try to see both the positive and negatives. With taxes I have a feeling in due time because of the "recorded" nature it will be even easier to track than cash. How is the government supposed to collect taxes if I sell someone a baseball card for $1000 cash? I personally would pay taxes on cash or crypto just to avoid any hassle.
Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, but if you started a business where your friends gathered to sell each other large enough quantities of bitcoin for cash you would be. (Edited to add that IANAL and none of this is actually legal advice.)
You are wrong, selling any amount of bitcoin for money is considered money transmission and is a crime without licensing.
Please link to some information.
Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers
#137The author belies the libertarian quirk of mind that conflates something being regulated with something being made illegal. Quite different things! This strikes me as a cousin to the libertarian intuition that if it is possible to craft an activity that is literally impossible for the government to discover, such an activity simply can't be illegal. (I'm sympathetic to this intuition, but it doesn't take long to see…
Where is the illogic behind it? The law can say it is illegal, but it is not enforceable is it really a valid claim?
Yes, it is really a valid claim. It's not even "un-enforceable," it's just "difficult to discover."
Murdering someone and getting away clean doesn't make murder legal.
Largely because, as an extension of the fact that we're discussing the real world and not a fantasy (https://xkcd.com/538/), everything is eventually discover-able, and if you give the government sufficient incentive, they will discover it.
Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. The problem is that Bitcoin wants to be taken seriously as a currency while at the same time not being subject to all the rules and regulations imposed on currencies. This was predicted years ago by most critics but was most often just hand-waved away by advocates, most responding that it was impossible to regulate the system itself. Well.. yeah, so you regulate assets and income of the people and companies i…
Some of us see P2P cryptocurrencies as a way to opt out of government regulation. Governments can't regulate entities that maintain strong anonymity. Most vulnerable are asset movements to and from meatspace. But there are well-known methods for dealing with that.
> entities that maintain strong anonymity
An impossible task for the vast majority of people. Especially since bitcoin is not anonymous.
Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
Before you run away with your paranoid hat on, think about it the other way around: voters want something done about organized crime, and politicians look for the easy wins. Since large untraceable cash transactions are almost always criminal in nature, it makes sense to lower the weight of evidence required to seize unusually large amounts of cash. And frankly, I'm fairly comfortable with that. It'll never affect me…
There is a simpler solution make it impossible to seize assets of any variety without getting a conviction first. If you can't prove a crime you have no business seizing anyone's assets. Innocent until proven guilty is a thing.
I think we live in a democracy, and the people set the rules. If we the people say that large cash transactions get preemptively intercepted that's ok, because the people are sovereign.
Re: The Slow Criminalization of Peer-To-Peer Transfers
#140The author belies the libertarian quirk of mind that conflates something being regulated with something being made illegal. Quite different things! This strikes me as a cousin to the libertarian intuition that if it is possible to craft an activity that is literally impossible for the government to discover, such an activity simply can't be illegal. (I'm sympathetic to this intuition, but it doesn't take long to see…
> The author belies the libertarian quirk of mind that conflates something being regulated with something being made illegal. Quite different things!
You're understating how blurred the line is. A Texas regulation on abortion clinics was struck down last year for being too close to a ban on abortion. Regulations on tobacco products are introduced and strengthened over time with the goal of eliminating the use of tobacco. Gun control lobbyists commonly push regulations on gun form factors, bullets, magazine bans, and all sorts of other things since a ban on handguns has been consistently ruled unconstitutional.