the way i see things, many people that just want to quick exchange fiat for crypto then withdraw sameday (like travel agent exchange money services) they can escape insurances.. but the proper wall street custodian day traders that lock value in for months, those need insurance

as for 'regulations' the current set up is behind the scenes most regulations these days are about policing the customers but the businesses are irresponsibly internally, yet pretends its regulated as some gold badge of responsible operator..
..yet these regulated businesses need to have the business being policed. so we need to reform regulations to be more about consumer protections and not giving businesses a sheriffs badge

and with that said yes we should have more services that jsut take in a fiat deposit and ask for a btc withdrawal address to quick exchange, but most of the time the barriers of entry to offer this makes businesses just prefer to become full custodian day trader services because the quick exchange bar is equally high like the day trader portfolio custodian style, thus more profitable to just operate as a custodian day trade operation

I agree with the sentiment that it shouldn't be a partisan issue and that policies themselves are what matters. I don't know the exact details, as planning good legislation is complex. But I'd say that the sort of regulation that recognizes Bitcoin, allowing its usage as a form of payment, allowing mining and holding, and reaffirming legality of noncustodial wallets is good legislation. Ideally, the tax burden also should not be too high compared to what's the case with other assets in the US. It can be regulated alright as an asset, but it's much better (for tax reasons) if it becomes a legal tender and thus is not taxed as such (in a way that the USD is not taxed, but some operations with it are).

In order for lawmakers to write... a law, they need to get very specific or the law will never hold up in court. And you can't write a law about "Bitcoin" anymore than you could write a law about "the Apple iPhone". You need to describe a product in legal terms, and it can't be specific to any single product.


There is definitely a recurring theme here about energy taxes for crypto miners. While I think this is important, it's just one aspect of the overall digital currency business, and Bitcoin obviously doesn't care what country it's mined in.

In other words, I wouldn't call the mining energy tax issue a broad "crypto issue" but rather one that only effects US miners. You could say that this might slightly increase prices for Bitcoin end-users, but I still don't think it's anywhere near the issue as KYC regulations are, etc.

All that said, the miners have lots of money to give to politicians and its clear that most of the money being poured into this election cycle is coming from the mining industry. So even though this isn't a huge issue for end-users, it's a bigger deal politically.


There have been many, many very serious attacks in the US and elsewhere using ultra-private crypto. Hackers in Georgia cannot attack a US children's hospital in Texas using paper bills. The crypto industry is going to need to compromise around this issue, I think.



I agree that we need to keep working to make a safe environment for consumers. This sometimes goes against the "libertarian" theme of the original Bitcoin community, but the reality is that if we want this business to be BIG, it needs to be idiot-proof .


The idea behind this thread was to get specific. When people just complain about one political party or another without mentioning any specific policies, it sounds like they are just pulling for that political party, not advocating for Bitcoin. The US election is going to be decided over things that are far, far more impactful to every American, e.g. abortion laws. They are deciding on whether or not to implement radical changes to our economy and society this November. Crypto means absolutely nothing in this context.

And the way to actually get things done in politics is to get specific and lobby both sides about what to do. Many Democrats have been the recipient of crypto lobby money just like many Republicans have. That's the way to change things, not taking a side in America's incredibly divisive culture wars.



I agree completely. I have written extensively about something I call the Anon Paradox: that people want anonymity for "small" amounts of money and personal identity for "large" amounts.

I think this bifurcation will solve a lot of problems for consumers and the industry. The only reason somebody wants to keep a million dollars secret is to avoid their government--which is a problem that most people do not have. On the other hand, almost everybody had a need to keep a few hundred dollars secret, because it makes small commerce safer.


Totally agree. Businesses need to be given some rules, and if they follow those rules, they can't be held liable for something going wrong. That's the only way you can run a business for the long term.



This is all already legal in the USA. I think we're good there. I don't see anything changing in that area.


"Legal tender" is not what you think it is, as it is simply a law allowing you to use that payment method to pay your taxes, and also forces all citizens to accept that form of payment whether they want to or not.

The US Dollar is used, for tax purposes, as a measurement mechanism to determine if the value of your investment increased in value or not. While I personally don't see any reason to change it (sorta like changing the Metric System--why do it?), but it also wouldn't make any difference: laws taxing capital gains would still apply, no matter how you measure it.



I think a lot of people here are saying the same thing as this.

Taxes... suck. Every year we hear politicians say they are going to "simplify taxes", but then then also say they are going to have "a special exception for XYZ" and the tax code gets even more complicated.

For me, the solution to complicated taxes is... software. (But then again I would say that since I'm a programmer ).

Almost all of the money the treasury spends goes to three things: Social Security, Medicare and the Army. There's always money to be squeezed out of a system if you are careful, but we're talking about only a few percentage points at best.


Politicians have talked about "flat tax" for decades in the US, and... the devil is always in the details. And raising the taxes on a single mother making $30k/year is... not going to be very popular . But that's what a flat tax would do if it truly stayed... flat. (So yes, then add this exception, and.... and.... ...you start to see the problem).

But back to the topic at hand, I think crypto gains should be taxed in the same way any other kinds of gains are taxed. You can debate the taxation for gains, but that's a different conversation: crypto shouldn't be treated special.

Why is it difficult for the government to let bitcoin be? The best policy the government will ever do for bitcoin is to allow bitcoin be used the way it was originally created to be used without seeking for means to interfere by trying hard to regulate it and be in control.

I understand that the government might be particularly interested in the income they should be generating from bitcoiners through taxation or the money they would lose if majority of the population choose to carry out transactions with bitcoins. If that be the case, Value Added Tax (VAT) on every good and service purchased with bitcoins should be able to solve the problem so both the bitcoin community and the government can be at peace. No need for further regulations from the government.

Dollar bills are considered to be fungible as well, but that doesn't mean that they can't be traced. They have serial numbers and some of it can be considered dirty money. That's why money laundering even exists. And especially these days value needs to have traceable origin because of AML laws, and those aml laws cover most of the world.

It benefits most the countries in the world to track down criminals and work together, so it's not really about political parties either. It just makes sense for countries to fight against crime, and tracking money value changing hands is one of the best tools for it.

Government regulation and oversight will protect us from fraud and scams in the marketplace, but the price we pay is loss of privacy and more taxes. You can't expect them to protect you while still ensuring your privacy and not making you pay taxes. Everything has its price, nothing is free in this world.

Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies emphasize privacy and freedom, we can protect ourselves from scams and fraud without the help of the government. If you know how to control your greed, don't be greedy, don't participate in projects that promise high interest rates, don't leave money on centralized platforms...no one will be able to scam you.

You're always about that socialist bullshit with single mothers, poor crying children and similar arguments.
A flat tax should decrease to the minimum, meaning that if a single mother is paying 15% right now, everybody should pay 15%. I'd like to remind you that it used to be like that long time ago, but governments found new ways of spending tax money, so they had to find new taxes as well.

On topic, The best and the simplest thing for bitcoin would be a law that protects privacy and treats a bitcoin transaction similar to how cash transactions are treated. When you exchange cash at a store, the owner doesn't have to ask for your name and you don't have to show your ID. It's the same when you do a small job for someone like paint your neighbour's fence and they pay you, you don't have to tell the government about it and it should stay like this.

Full privacy of any crypto-crypto transactions.

No need to declare crypto assets as long as they aren't being exchanged into fiat money.

No unrealized gains taxes for both crypto and traditional investments.

Tax rate for long term holders similar to what Germany did. It wouldn't even have to be 0% like in Germany, but anything below 10% would seem fair.

Right to mine bitcoin accepted in every state.

No lies and baseless attacks like calling people who run nodes money transmitters.

to be a money transmitter you need to facilitate a payment on behalf of someone else for a fee
(EG you receive funds. and then pass on funds to someone else minus a fee)

a bitcoin node is not a money transmitter nor has it ever been deemed even in any draft proposal to call a bitcoin node a money transmitter
however subnetworks like lightning nodes facilitate payments differently to how bitcoin nodes relay transactions, and because the model of lightning facilitate payments on behalf of others for a fee (their routed onion payment method) makes lightning nodes a money transmitter when working as a payment router

in short because bitcoin does receive funds and then sends out funds minus a fee to each peer relay node, the bitcoin nodes are not money transmitters