It wouldn't surprise me if the USA decided to make it an offence for its citizens to hold bitcoins.
Printable View
It wouldn't surprise me if the USA decided to make it an offence for its citizens to hold bitcoins.
The US Congress has already declared bitcoin explicitly legal. The IRS has also officially endorsed bitcoin.
This is from 2 years ago.... but it's still somewhat accurate.... despite being written by Forbes.... http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill ... the-world/
Thailand's central bank ( Bank of Thailand ) has since retracted, or "clarified" their stance on bitcoin. They say that it's perfectly legal to buy it, sell it, hold it, accept it, or spend it...... in Thailand..... ( as long as you're not exchanging it for a foreign currency for others without a license ). Even exchanging bitcoin for baht, and vice versa, is legal in Thailand without any special "money transmittal" license.
Hahaha. I'm loving the way you just make stuff up and then try to pontificate it as fact. The IRS hasn't officially endorsed anything.
In truth, terrorism may be the nail in bitcoin's coffin, given that the EU is already looking askance at its use in transferring funds to and from ISIS. Oh, and just because something's legal at the moment, doesn't mean it'll remain legal in the future.
I've also been following with interest how the US reporting requirements have now made foreign banks reluctant to accept US citizens as customers and many in Central and South America are already refusing to open new accounts and closing down ones that are held by Americans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce_nyc
Nout Wellink, has called dealings in bitcoins a bubble that is тАЬpure speculationтАЭ and тАЬhypeтАЭ and тАЬworse than the tulip maniaтАЭ of the seventeenth century because тАЬat least then you got a tulip [at the end], now you get nothing.тАЭ (from your Forbes link above)
Please resist the urge to copy an hypothesis word for word without acknowledging the original writer. For instance, this sentence is copied from Bloomberg Business ..... http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_17/b3678084.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by bruce_nyc
Mr Mike Dash wrote this, and should given credit for the analogy.
I suppose this is not an official statement. I know. I made it all up. https://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/IRS-Vi ... y-GuidanceQuote:
Originally Posted by Tobi
Those that bitcoin hurts the most... will search for any excuse to attack bitcoin. That is true. They will say that it's used by criminals. But the facts get in the way. 99.99% of all criminal transactions are conducted in cash. So..... they are going to need to outlaw cash first.... in order to maintain any sort of a logical excuse that makes sense to the public. They are feeling *very* threatened by bitcoin.... as they lose their monopoly on the world's money.
Yes. I quoted that one sentence. I thought it was obvious.... since it's not my writing style at all. Sorry. I'll cite my sources more carefully for you next time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiles
Yes. You did. That statement is not an endorsement. Here, let me help you with the dictionary definition of the word endorsement.Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce_nyc
Quote:
"an act of giving one's public approval or support to someone or something".
Hahaha. I'm so enjoying your made-up "facts". Nope. 99.99% of all criminal transactions are not conducted in cash, almost half of all criminal transactions are in fact some form of barter. Oh, and perhaps you think the estimated $1bn of business conducted via the Silk Road before it was closed down was handled in huge wads of 500 euro notes too, huh? =))Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce_nyc
I have to ask, have you ever worked at Enron by any chance? You really remind me of those desperate types who try to rope people into an MLM, pyramid or Ponzi scheme just before it collapses.
This is a great little intro to.... "What is Bitcoin?"
[youtube:149j5o9o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc2en3nHxA4[/youtube:149j5o9o]
You did not quote it, you stole it to use it as your own.Quote:
Yes. I quoted that one sentence. I thought it was obvious.... since it's not my writing style at all. Sorry. I'll cite my sources more carefully for you next time.
True 'quoting' implies a step further, i.e. specific acknowledgement. You used it in order to sound like a Knowledgeable Person - and thus to impress on others that you are in fact 'knowledgeble' when you are in fact nothing but a user of other people's writings. That is to say, a fraud.
Now one wonders, how much more have you used to impress.