Bitcoin Foundation wants US Department of Justice investigated Spooked by prosecutions of Bitcoin sellers and pending money laundering rules, The Bitcoin Foundation on Tuesday said the cryptocurrency isn't really money and asked lawmakers to investigate the US Department of Justice's pursuit of merchants selling it. In a letter [PDF] to the US Senate Judiciary Committee, Llew Claasen, the …
My Senator is Rand Paul, who scored a 100% rating for the latest session of Congress (93% cumulative) on the "Freedom Index" for the latest session of Congress. :-)
That's better than Senator Feinstein, who scored a 10% for the latest session of Congress (Cumulative 11%), and is tied with Senator Kamala Harris. :-(
https://www.thenewamerican.com/freedom-index
Dave
P.S. My Representative, Thomas Massie, is one of the highest scoring legislators, at 98% cumulative (100% for the latest session).
"The definition of a money transmitter does not differentiate between real currencies and convertible virtual currencies."
It could be the case that this lack of oversight by the lawmakers is caused by the fact that electronic currencies didn't exist when the law was made. Add to that that "real currencies" != "virtual currencies" (hint: the word "real" in "real currencies"), and you may get the picture.
This way you might understand the reasons why you can't prosecute people for using electronic currency without an adequate legal framework which is, sadly, missing.
Hugs & kisses
It also neglects to note that most currency as we know it is virtual anyway. First, they're fiat currencies, backed only by government word. Second, most transactions are electronic in narure, not requiring the physical transfer of bills/notes or coinage.
So, apart from a lack of sovereign backing, how is an e-currency any different?
"Because the law doesn't yet recognise it as a legal form of tender?"
Does the US have to recognize the UK Pound to be able to trade with it? Not really. That's usually up to the banks and currency exchanges, who make the necessary arrangements. The government gets involved when its own currency gets handles, and that's usually sufficient, given transacting in the home country usually requires home currency.
Similarly, the US government takes the stance that as long as US dollars are used to exchange for Bitcoin, it has a say in the matter. That's why places like Coinbase register with the government to maintain legitimacy. Whether you consider Bitcoin as a currency, a commodity, or something else, as long as US dollars are involved, the US government, by default, is involved.
"If the mafia decide to only trade in "mafia bucks", does it make their trade exempt from tax?"
Where would their mafia bucks come from, then? And how do they turn around and use it to acquire real-world goods? At SOME point, you're going to have to go back to government-backed currency to interact with the real world, and THAT'S when they get you.
That's why countries like the US aren't all that concerned about Bitcoin. Since Bitcoin is not the official US currency, at some point if you want to do things like shop at Walmart (which can ONLY really work with dollars), you're going to have to convert back to dollars, which under US laws is a taxable event.
As legal tender, no, only the Dollar and Cent, especially when it comes to debts (which is the main reason for the Legal Tender Act--to ensure a means of settling debts). Now, if a private enterprise wishes to accept other forms of currency as part of its business (say a currency exchange), then that's up to it, though there may be international agreements in place concerning how they go about their business. And since they're still handling dollars, the US government's going to want to check them out now and then as well.
"So, apart from a lack of sovereign backing, how is an e-currency any different?"
--> Because the law doesn't yet recognise it as a legal form of tender?
That just means I can't pay my taxes with it and public businesses are not =required by law= to accept it.
Crypto inhabits a world of its own, the more well known offerings (BTC, ETH, LTC) are analogous to Customer loyalty stamps (Green stamps anyone?) or points. Some offerings are more analogous to stocks (ICOs that will have periodic payouts much like common stock can have dividends).
It is a product, available for sale, that users agree has value and can be exchanged for other items that have value (as an example - Overstock accepts Bitcoin) including government currency. Because the value fluctuates and one's holdings can increase in value, the US income tax system requires certain record keeping and taxes are levied.
"...most currency as we know it is virtual anyway"...
You're stretching the meaning of 'virtual' a little bit too much, methinks. Or there are many shades of 'virtual'. I agree with the 'fiat' part, though.
"So, apart from a lack of sovereign backing, how is an e-currency any different?"
The point has been made often before that without the laws specifically defining 'virtual currency' as 'real currency', said 'virtual currency' is just 'virtual goods'. Otherwise we may end up with governments taxing things like in-game transactions and such.
It's not a currency, However it's been used for scams and money laundering due to lack of checking who is sending money (=buying & selling bitcoins) and inadequate checking of recipient who can vanish. Never buy on Internet or classified and pay with Western Union.
In EU they have implemented new regulations at offices taking money for WU.
The IBAN (used nearly everywhere except USA and rather more secure than WU or PayPal) is not a currency. It's a way to transfer money that can be in different currencies. Use requires a bank account. Creation of a bank account in most of EU is subject to strict anti-money laundering.
If it looks like a duck....
Money is anything that enough people agree to use as money to make it usable as money.
For Governments, money is anything that enough people use as money where the numbers are such that it's worth sticking their legal/tax beak in.
My unlaunched DodgyCoin isn't money.
Your small scale e-money is money, but if it isn't widely enough used for the government to care, it's like a Local Currency.
BitCoin wasn't money, then it was but unimportant, and now folks, it's got enough traction to be money.
Dear Bitcoin,
You are nice guys with a great vision, but don't play dumb when it comes to playing with governments, they'll have you in the slammer in no time at all if you upset them or tread on their territory. Fundamentally your name more than implies that it's a currency. Call it BitChain or something else more precise.
Bitcoin is a criminal fraud created by bankers..... they all should be put in jail that is where they belong. They have no right to sue anyone. If only the justice system ever worked and wasn't so corrupted these people would have no power and no money.
Let's fret about Bitcoin, despite there being basically zero evidence that it's being used by terrorists.
Let's lickspittle the Saudis, who have an appalling record of supplying terrorist funding and support, as well as one of the most loathsome and repressive regimes on Earth.
What's that I hear you say? Twenty terrorists brought down the Twin Towers and killed over 3,000 American civilians? Most of the terrorists were Saudi Arabian citizens? The atrocity was organised and funded by a Saudi?
Quick, we'd better invade, oh, say, Iraq ...
Forget logic where politicians are concerned. Dishonesty, greed, cowardice and stupidity are a simply unbeatable combination.
Didn't the writers / distributers of the WannaCry Malware want payment in bitcoins. Considering all the potential damage they could have done, especially to the NHS*, then surely they fit most descriptions of terroist? Hence bitcoins are used by terroists.
*As opposed to real damage done by the government.
...But I can't see how you could reasonably argue it's not Monetary Instruments, which in the UK at least means most financial laws would cover both.
Still the trouble of actually tracking down the xcoin users at the other end of the transaction, but one step at a time.
Governments print money which is debt, basically and issue it to fund the business of government. They redeem that debt by taxing people and businesses and destroying the money collected, keeping inflation low enough that people trust the IOUs they issue and use them in their own transactions, between people and businesses (cue "Money Makes The World Go Around"). If gevernments don't tax they risk inflation by printing more money to pay for stuff like running the NHS, operating the military, staffing offices, renting properties, building infrastructure etc. The balance of taxation and who has to pay what is another problem.
Yes it isn't the way libertarians, gold bugs and cryptocurrency boosters think the world works. Colour me surprised, not.
whether it is a Euro, Draka, Dollar or Bitcoin. It is used as money paying for goods or services.
All the laws concerning money is applicable to Bitcoin as Bitcoin is being used in place of or as money.
Bitcoin is sold as money to use instead of the plethora of currencies out there. Therefore it is just like trading Canadian dollars for American dollars. Both can be used to purchase Bit coins and then used for purchases. This makes the justice department correct in treating Bitcoin as legal currency around the world. Otherwise Bitcoin would be made illegal by every country and could be subject to counter fitting and printing a nonexistent currency. Bitcoin owners should just be thankful Bitcoin is accepted as being a form of legal tender.
I don't think the US is treating Bitcoin as a currency per se. They just consider it a tradable good or commodity, much like a foreign currency. They know it's there, they know people sometimes handle it, but it's not the norm within the US, so at some point you have to get it back to dollars, and once that happens, it's back in their control and they can go from there.
So they're not so much legalizing it as simply lumping it together with all the other foreign currencies out there. It's not legal tender in the US (only the dollar; that's specified by law), but you can pass it around like scrip if it's your bag.
All this hatred towards bitcoin...
Just because, just like me - way back in 2010 you looked at it, thought its a neat little idea and I can get 5000 bitcoins for £20 - but it will never take off and well, its not really backed by anything is it?
Aye its a scam, but tell you what - I wish I had brought those bloody bitcoins back then.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
