11–20 of 111 posts
Guess this would mean one could settle state taxes with Bitcoin? That's sort of neat. Also means someone could have a nice dinner and then refuse to pay with anything but Bitcoin, at least under state law, which sounds less fun.
Guess this would mean one could settle state taxes with Bitcoin? That's sort of neat. Also means someone could have a nice dinner and then refuse to pay with anything but Bitcoin, at least under state law, which sounds less fun.
Imagine having to wait ten minutes at the checkout for the transaction to clear.
Seriously, if it reaches that point, sure maybe Bitcoin is not going to work and we will pick something “new,” but for payment processing it doesn’t matter as intermediaries will pop up as they did for cash.
Edit: Disclaimer: I worked and work on that “new” stuff.
Don't get too riled up about this. "Arizona" introduced nothing. State Senator Rogers did. It's probably not going to make it out of committee in the AZ legislature. I'd be surprised if anyone took it seriously. Edit: maybe someone knowledgeable can chime in; I don't think states can even do this. The US Government determines what is legal tender in the US.
> No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
-Article I, Section 10, Clause 1
Don't get too riled up about this. "Arizona" introduced nothing. State Senator Rogers did. It's probably not going to make it out of committee in the AZ legislature. I'd be surprised if anyone took it seriously. Edit: maybe someone knowledgeable can chime in; I don't think states can even do this. The US Government determines what is legal tender in the US.
Don't get too riled up about this. "Arizona" introduced nothing. State Senator Rogers did. It's probably not going to make it out of committee in the AZ legislature. I'd be surprised if anyone took it seriously. Edit: maybe someone knowledgeable can chime in; I don't think states can even do this. The US Government determines what is legal tender in the US.
[deleting, I shouldn't talk about politics from an N=1 sample size]
> A Central American University survey conducted last September found that nine out of 10 citizens in the country didn’t know what bitcoin was, and eight out of 10 said they had little to no confidence in the digital cash.
Don't get too riled up about this. "Arizona" introduced nothing. State Senator Rogers did. It's probably not going to make it out of committee in the AZ legislature. I'd be surprised if anyone took it seriously. Edit: maybe someone knowledgeable can chime in; I don't think states can even do this. The US Government determines what is legal tender in the US.
She's something of an extremist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_Rogers_(politician)
Wouldn't this violate the federal Constitution? > No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money ; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts ; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. -Article I, Section 10, Clause 1
Anything in the constitution is not canonical forever.