Bitcoin Donations To US Campaigns Might Soon Be Allowed

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bitcoin Donations To US Campaigns Might Soon Be Allowed

Posted by timothy on Friday November 8, 2013 @11:11PM from the non-denominational dept.

SonicSpike writes with this excerpt from Politico: "Political campaigns will be allowed to accept — but not spend — the digital currency Bitcoin, under a proposed federal rule released Thursday. The Federal Election Commission draft would require campaigns to first convert any Bitcoins collected as donation to dollars. According to the proposal, the currency will count as an 'in-kind' contribution to a campaign — like a stock or bond. The FEC will not consider them currency. Campaigns are permitted to accept non-monetary contributions like stocks, private stocks, commodities, and equipment— but must list their value in dollars on campaign finance reports. Attorneys for Conservative Action Fund PAC asked the agency in September to decide if and how political candidates and outside groups are allowed to use the digital currency, in addition to U.S. dollars. "

144 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

EVEN CRIMINALS HAVE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS !! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-08 23:13 · Score: -1

It is the law !!
1. Re:EVEN CRIMINALS HAVE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS !! by TheCarp · 2013-11-09 02:28 · Score: 2
  
  Yup, and now they want donations for it too.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
2. Re:EVEN CRIMINALS HAVE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS !! by MobSwatter · 2013-11-09 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  Tough to tell what side of the line is any good anymore. In retrospect I'm surprised politicians didn't see this opportunity coming and have laws already in place for any possibility of being bought long before the one person one vote theater happens in the election process.
3. Re:EVEN CRIMINALS HAVE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS !! by flyneye · 2013-11-09 07:46 · Score: 2
  
  Let's just save some money and do this right for a change.
  First; gather all political donations to ALL candidates regardless of party. In fact,this includes every party right down to the independents only registered in one state.
  Then; organize a 50 states in 50 days tour like Lollapalooza. ( If George Thorogood can do it, someone wanting to be president can do it.)
  Make them all ride in the same bus, no consulting with campaign managers who will be left behind, along with cell phones.
  All day debates on 5 stages. Everyone is given a chance on a level playing field to show their stuff for the voters with no bullshit drama to distract from the naked( so to speak) candidates.Then finally at the end have an all week television debate on network t.v. for those not disposed to crowds. Any remaining money could be spread across charities.
  THIS is the way the voters need to see candidates. Naked, without a net, without aid, talking about what they would do and why, without any interference from "image" protectors or speech writers. Who the fuck cares what a campaign manager tells a candidate to say? The campaign manager is sitting home rich, while his candidate ruins the country. Time for change. Be smart about it this time.
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-08 23:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

Good. But still bad. Great for Bitcoins. A big shame that donations are allowed at all.
1. Re:Well... by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-08 23:15 · Score: 0
  
  So you think that only people who are already rich should run for office?
2. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-08 23:28 · Score: 1
  
  news flash dumbass... 99% of government is governed by the rich. The one with the most money wins most the time. Get money out of politics.
3. Re:Well... by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-08 23:32 · Score: 1
  
  Do we also restrain speech because everything is politics and freedom of the press belongs to the owners of the presses?
4. Re:Well... by Cryacin · 2013-11-08 23:34 · Score: 2
  
  At least it won't be the first time that bitcoins are used for murder.
  
  --
  Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
5. Re:Well... by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-08 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  The only thing bitcoins have going for them is that nobody's bothered to regulate them properly yet.
  Apart from that, they're something way less convenient than pretty much any first world currency or precious metal.
6. Re:Well... by Arancaytar · 2013-11-08 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  Unlike now.
7. Re:Well... by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-08 23:46 · Score: 2
  
  Many successful political parties were created through the union movement in Europe.
  That was just a bunch of working men and women throwing money into a pot.
  It's not about the money, but the propaganda.
8. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-08 23:55 · Score: 0
  
  In 99% of the world ellection campaigns are financed by tax and distributed based on the number of seats held by the party, not donations.
9. Re:Well... by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-08 23:58 · Score: 2
  
  Not 99% at all, but do you understand how that method consolidates existing power?
10. Re:Well... by TheRaven64 · 2013-11-09 00:03 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on the entry requirements. If anyone who can get, say, 500 signatures from a district is eligible for the same funding, then there isn't much of a barrier to entry for any candidate who stands even the vaguest chance of winning. In the UK, candidates must pay a deposit (£500, I think) and they get it returned if they get more than a certain (small, but nontrivial) percentage of the vote. The amount is small enough that if you start with any support it's easy to raise - the Pirate Party managed in a few places, although they lost the deposit in places where they only got a handful of votes.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
11. Re:Well... by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-09 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  Paying the deposit doesn't get you campaign financing, lol. And loads of small parties lose most of their deposits - the deposit being nothing more than a way of limiting the number of people on the ballot paper to the usual suspects. We have no such thing as a write-in candidate in the UK, remember.
12. Re:Well... by killkillkill · 2013-11-09 00:51 · Score: 2
  
  Less convenient than fiat, of course, fiat has had an infrastructure being built around if for quite some time. If bitcoin continues to hold it's own eventually there will me more convenient ways to use it. Less convenient than gold or silver? I can't think of one way that is true.
13. Re:Well... by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-09 00:59 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Gold ownership doesn't mean having to carry around the gold, just having some evidence that you own it.
  And if you lose that evidence, well, at least there's a record elsewhere to confirm it.
  You lose your bitcoin, and it's lost.
14. Re:Well... by Opportunist · 2013-11-09 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  No, but I don't consider a government-for-sale a good idea either.
  I prefer the model our country has: Get more than 2% (IIRC) of the votes and get reimbursed by tax money for your campaign expenses. Not a perfect model either, but I prefer to pay my politicians myself instead of letting corporations do it.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
15. Re: Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-09 02:20 · Score: 0
  
  This is.. Just totally incorrect.
  Loosing your wallet private keys would be the equivalent to you identification. Without it, the public ledger that anyone in the world can use to prove your exact holdings is impossible.
  Without your identification, you also cant cash in any gold bonds.
  If you wanted to "keep your bitcoins safe" you could export the private key of a wallet holding them out on paper and put it in a safe deposit box. The unique benefit here would be that UNLIKE gold, you can store multiple copies of the key wherever you want. (Try keeping multiple copies of your gold! :D)
  Unlike "real identification: you're not allowed to "get it back" once you lose it for one simple reason: you can generate new private keys at will! Try asking your government for a second (or N'th) identity.
  Gold is a useless investment. Keep in mind that gold HARDLY changed in value over time, it's other currency that drops in value against it. Id love to imagine that some time in my lifetime we use the last of all the gold for equipment production, and we all realise how dumb the entire "gold trade" is. (Note: the majority of traded gold bonds dont have sufficient backing to honor them. Its been this way for a LONG time)
16. Re:Well... by tompaulco · 2013-11-09 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  At least it won't be the first time that bitcoins are used for murder.
  Can you go ahead and rattle off a couple of examples of bitcoin being used for murder? Oh, and the silk road thing doesn't count, because nobody was actually murdered.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
17. Re:Well... by Ethereal1 · 2013-11-09 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  I could testify for this. But it really depends on how the whole electoral system works. Here in Argentina, the Electoral Committee will alocate funds for your party, should you pay the deposit and present your support in form of signatures, and that's it. Now, the big problem is, the funding is proportional to the power each party has, so in the end, a small party is always behind in votes and funding to a larger one. And larger parties benefit from having many smaller parties going at each other for a minimal share of votes. Voters fragmentation is just a bad as bipartidism. Back in the 2000's, many smaller parties united into the "Alianza", which ended up winning, yet their candidates weren't what people were expecting and it all ended badly due to mismanagement on their behalf, as well as all the inherited caos that was and will always be our government. So in the end, if the division of funding was equitative and/or limited to a few parties, say around 5, i guess there would always be a cleaner voice.
18. Re: Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-09 02:35 · Score: 0
  
  You seem to have misses how non-american systems work here.
  Its not a deposit, 100% of the money you're allowed to spend comes from that tax input. If you win your campaign, you get access to more tax money.
  Up here in Canada, you can't use any of your own money to campaign. You can accept donations, limited to $1000 per person contributions, and like mentioned you get a few milestones of "input tax" for reaching various levels of support.
  I'm not defending Canada's system though, once elected you can sure accept political donations as much as you like, (though we don't issue tax credits after the first $1000 per person, and unlike the USA, corporations don't get a credit for donating!)
  Most of the world uses similar structures. This limits* the rich from investing in large elaborate campaigns for who they want to win, and puts everyone on level ground for some sense of competition.
  *there's often a board that scrutinizes all campaign spending to ensure that the party did NOT receive additional money without claiming where it came from. This being the case however, it's still up to people to honor the fact that they have to claim all their spending. Its easy enough to get a sign maker to invoice you for "10000 signs" and pur it on your expenses, then to silently pay another invoice for "printing, cutting, full color graphics, etc" and slide it on under personal spending. If it comes out that this happened, you generally get stripped of offi... Who am I kidding. Even here in Canada it generally only results in a fine. Over In Brittan, it gets you kicked out of office and discrased.
19. Re: Well... by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-09 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  Unlike "real identification: you're not allowed to "get it back" once you lose it for one simple reason
  So, when you say "totally incorrect", you mean "totally incorrect except for this little caveat which makes it totally correct".
20. Re: Well... by gmuslera · 2013-11-09 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  So you think that is good that people can only get there owning favors to rich people?
21. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-09 03:21 · Score: 0
  
  news flash dumbass... 99% of government is governed by the rich. The one with the most money wins most the time. Get money out of politics.
  Excellent idea! Only Fox News and MSNBC should be allowed to spend money on politics, I mean, 'News'.
22. Re:Well... by BringsApples · 2013-11-09 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  news flash dumbass... 100% of government is owned by the elite. The ones with the brownest noses win all of the time. Get the elite out of politics.
  There, fixed that for ya.
  
  --
  Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
23. Re: Well... by TheSpoom · 2013-11-09 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  False dichotomy. The government should provide public campaign financing with reasonable rules as to who can access the funds.
  
  --
  It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
  - E. Debs
24. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-09 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  I don't consider a government chosen by 3 TV news anchors a good idea either.
  That is what you are wishing for by your comments. The old days where Walter Cronkite got to choose the next president by burying stories that might hurt his candidate and overblowing ones that would hurt his guy's opponent.
25. Re:Well... by AlphaWolf_HK · 2013-11-09 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  Yes because nobody has ever held people hostage, decapitated, or committed mass killings for the good ol' dollar.
  Oh and did you know that most dollar bills carry trace amounts of cocaine and meth, in spite of new ones always being put into circulation and old ones being destroyed?
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_currency
  I think it's probably safe to say that bitcoin hasn't been used for as much illegal activity as the dollar has in the same time period (even though that may simply be due to it being used less.)
  I can't think of any reason why anybody would attack bitcoin rather than just ignore it unless they just despise the idea that there's a currency out there that isn't owned or controlled by a government (or anybody really.)
  
  --
  Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
26. Re:Well... by denzacar · 2013-11-09 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  Having had to clean up a couple of computers from an infection by a bitcoin mining malware, I don't think that it is a good idea for any organization to accept donations in bitcoin.
  Unlike with government-backed currency, which at worst can be earned through criminal enterprise (which does not change its status as legal tender), the VALUE and the particular bitcoin itself can be A criminal enterprise.
  The mining I.e. creation of the coin being a crime, not a mere product of a crime like money earned from growing and dealing illegal drugs, or forging fake dollars or euros.
  Bitcoins remain legal but that particular coin, while perfectly fine, is stolen property AND its value (created by illegal mining) is also a whole set of other computer crimes.
  Hell, you don't even need a law to make it illegal.
  All that is needed is an insinuation that the Organization X is taking donations which may be a product of computer crime.
  Even better, imagine a Daily Mail article with a photo of someone's grandma being all old and dad cause het power bill grew exponentially before her computer died and a title like "Greenpeace donators suspected of robbing the elderly!"
  
  --
  Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
27. Re:Well... by killkillkill · 2013-11-09 06:53 · Score: 2
  
  Gold ownership doesn't mean having to carry around the gold, just having some evidence that you own it.
  If you are talking about some sort of bond or note backed by gold, well there is nothing stopping one from doing the same with bitcoin. A company that holds bitcoins can take your info and provide you with an "IOU x bitcoins". So we'll call it a tie in that scenario. Now if you want the security of personally owning your bitcoins(keys), then yes, if you lose them... they are lost... same for gold. <snark>Of course you could pull out your backup of you gold you had in another location</snark>
  I'm sure there are many properties in which gold would win, but I still see no added convenience to owning gold as opposed to bitcoin. Using gold for something other that trading in some sort of market/exchange would require carrying it around. Go into a store with a gold note and try spend it. Doubt there will be many takers, (remeber... you can just go to the issuer with your id and get a new record) though I'm sure you could find a few fools. There might be a few more that would take government issued golds coins... a quick search on the internet could provide enough of a value to reach an agreement. However you have to carry the coin and protective sleeve and it's not divisible. Random bullion though? Doubt they are going to take the time or have the equipment to verify the weight and purity. Not that you are going to find many places taking bitcoin at the moment, but it takes little more expertise or equipment than current payment solutions take. If it's a large sum of money you would need to let some time pass for several blocks to verify the transaction, but that's still much easier. Buying something from an online shop? I don't care how hard you push your gold bar into the ethernet cable... it's not going in and come out the other end.
28. Re:Well... by ultranova · 2013-11-09 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  Gold ownership doesn't mean having to carry around the gold, just having some evidence that you own it.
  And if you lose that evidence, well, at least there's a record elsewhere to confirm it.
  
  So how does that work? You give me a voucher to some amount of gold? Except that's not enough, the record needs to be updated too. In fact, since I always have to contact the record, we can as well not bother with the vouchers, since they don't accomplish anything; and in fact there's no point in keeping gold in a vault somewhere, since it's never actually used for anything in this system. And of course, at this point, we have an account-oriented fiat currency, and with some refinements Bitcoin.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
29. Re: Well... by Bite+The+Pillow · 2013-11-09 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  Who sets the rules?
  What if you have 1000 people asking for a share of the funds, is it a net benefit to dilute the pool by splitting it evenly, or do we say the crazy guy who mumbles and can't put a sentence together does not qualify?
  If one person does not qualify, where do we draw a fair line?
  How do we set up a system to resist complaints analogous to gerrymandering, where the people who decide the rules seem fair but are manipulated into giving a predetermined answer by apparently unrelated rules?
  If the internet decides to crowdfund a candidate, do we deny that person access to those funds?
  If the crowdfunding comes about as a perceived lack of fairness in the funding rules or decisions, how do we guarantee those concerns will be addressed and resolved in time for the candidate to have a fair shot at redress?
  What happens when a well-known and vocally partial media-savvy group discounts time to a specific candidate, or refuses to take on other candidates, giving that person's equal share of money more effect? Is that group's output banned?
  What if a celebrity who happens to have a movie coming out, unabashedly and without compensation decides to add positive comments to their press junket? Do we silence the positive press because the other candidates cannot afford a similar plant?
  How about when a politically minded Beiber writes a song about how Obama is awesome and Romney sucks it and it circulates on an unregulated medium where "equal time" rules cannot be enforced, such as e-mail inboxes and youtube - while getting no financial backing from a candidate?
  Or the current office holder who is popular shows up at and stumps for their proposed replacement?
  Point is, getting money out will not solve any inequality problems due to existing connections. Money is just one of those connections. Solving for money means you play whack-a-mole with every other kind of influence all the way back to who their parents and grandparents knew.
  Maybe there is a solution, but it is a hell of a lot more complex than "public campaign funds". And since it will be completely ineffective other than paying lip service, I would prefer some of the other issues to be resolved first before taking such a huge and ineffective step.
30. Re:Well... by femtobyte · 2013-11-09 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  And about access to platforms to spread your propaganda, which is often based on... the money. In the US, the wealthy hold near complete sway over the entire media, so "news" consists of one multimillionaire bashing another for not hating unions quite enough. Working-class political movements got their voices out through things like Labor newspapers; good luck finding those in wide circulation in the US. For a while before the 'net caught on in the wide mainstream, there was opportunity for freer discussion; though, reaching primarily upper-middle-class audiences with earlier access to information technology, not focused on working-class issues. Now that pretty much everyone is online, the corporate oligarchy has caught on, consolidating and systematizing propaganda control of online channels, too.
31. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-09 08:12 · Score: 0
  
  > You lose your bitcoin, and it's lost.
  You lose your cash, and it's lost.
32. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-09 08:29 · Score: 0
  
  That is what you are wishing for by your comments.
  That makes no sense. The mere fact that people don't want only those who have money to be able to win doesn't mean they want the winners chosen by 3 TV news anchors. There are solutions to both problems.
33. Re: Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-09 08:34 · Score: 0
  
  What if you have 1000 people asking for a share of the funds
  A simple--though not perfect--solution would be to require candidates to get enough signatures from people before they could receive public funding. Laws could be in place to punish fraud.
  
  What if a celebrity who happens to have a movie coming out, unabashedly and without compensation decides to add positive comments to their press junket? Do we silence the positive press because the other candidates cannot afford a similar plant?
  That's ridiculous. Just because public financing cannot solve 100% of the problem doesn't mean it's not worthwhile.
34. Re: Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-09 09:29 · Score: 0
  
  What if a celebrity who happens to have a movie coming out, unabashedly and without compensation decides to add positive comments to their press junket? Do we silence the positive press because the other candidates cannot afford a similar plant?
  No, we use the microchips from Obamacare that the crazier Republicans are always on about to log thought patterns.
  If your political views are modified by a useless celebrity, we remotely detonate your head.
  Celebrities retain freedom of speech, but we remove useless voters from the pool. Everybody wins!
35. Re: Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-09 11:56 · Score: 0
  
  what are you talking about? "Real Identification" is a private key that was used to identify the acceptance and any spending of the coins that are "yours" in BTC.
  in the real world we don't use identification, we use a series of papers backed by a few other people's words and signatures that validate that "you are who you claim to be". If in the Real World you lose this identification, you go apply for replacements, and some governing body gives it back to you and says "now don't do that again!"
  In the private key world, it's mathematically difficult to determine what made that identification unique. That's not saying you can't brute-force the generation of the private keys for a wallet, but it's not computationally realistic to expect that getting into ONE wallet can be accomplished in a thousand lifetimes.
  I don't know what you're reading in the quoted statement that you seem to have a problem with anyways, If you lose a private key, you can consider it gone forever. Imagine every record of you being born being gone, every document you have ever signed invalidated, every issued document revoked. THAT's losing a private key.
  Losing your "government issued piece of paper tat had your name on it, but being allowed to go get a new one from the person holding your private key" is what happens with "gold bonds" Losing the gold itself, (assuming someone is going to go melt it down and now it's gone forever) is closer to losing your wallet private key, (not quite, but you still lose the goods forever).
36. Re: Well... by jmac_the_man · 2013-11-10 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  (though [Canadian campaign finance authorities] don't issue tax credits after the first $1000 per person, and unlike the USA, corporations don't get a credit for donating!)
  I can't speak with any authority on the Canadian campaign finance system, but in the US, neither individuals nor corporations can deduct campaign contributions from their taxes.
37. Re: Well... by jmac_the_man · 2013-11-10 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  That's ridiculous. Just because public financing cannot solve 100% of the problem doesn't mean it's not worthwhile.
  How does it solve the problem of "$CANDIDATE has views I find reprehensible. I shouldn't have to pay to support that asshole." Free Speech and Free Association (which are natural rights, though I borrowed the phrasing from the US Constitution) implies a right to NOT speak and to NOT associate.
  I'm for free-as-in-speech speech, but not free-as-in-beer speech. If you have a message you want to put out, hit your supporters up for money. It is not the job for any freedom-respecting government to spend THE TAXPAYERS' MONEY on promoting political candidates.
38. Re:Well... by Pseudonym+Authority · 2013-11-10 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  Unlike with government-backed currency, which at worst can be earned through criminal enterprise (which does not change its status as legal tender), the VALUE and the particular bitcoin itself can be A criminal enterprise.
  No. This does not rise to the level that it really even needs a rebuttal, but I will leave you with one other thing to ponder: email.
  
  Even better, imagine a Daily Mail article with a photo of someone's grandma being all old and dad cause het power bill grew exponentially before her computer died and a title like "Greenpeace donators suspected of robbing the elderly!"
  Did you think that this was in any way representative of reality? Kill yourself before your idiocy spreads. The last fucking thing we need is more tabloid garbage spreading propaganda just because you are so incompetent that you struggle to get rid of a simple botnet.
39. Re:Well... by denzacar · 2013-11-10 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  Wow! You make no sensible comment or claim AND your arguments are all ad hominems.
  Your mom must be proud.
  By proud I mean she killed herself cause she couldn't stand bringing such a sorry excuse for a biped to the world.
  
  --
  Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
40. Re: Well... by TheSpoom · 2013-11-11 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  God, you mention a possible solution to corruption and people start complaining "but there are so many variables!" Yes, yes there are. Politics is complicated.
  If we're going to block every idea because it's not simple enough, we're simply going to be paralyzed, and I'm not a fan of that course of action.
  
  --
  It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
  - E. Debs
only an by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-08 23:22 · Score: -1

Obama knucklehead would try to get Bitcoin into FEC rules
Can we have a week without ... by dbIII · 2013-11-08 23:22 · Score: -1, Troll

Can we please have a week without another "it may be real money soon - honestly" story about this pyramid scheme?
1. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-08 23:30 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  This decision is pretty much, "It isn't real money, but something that enough chumps value."
2. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-08 23:42 · Score: 1
  
  The US dollar isn't real money either, and it hasn't been since the FDR regime.
3. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Hognoxious · 2013-11-08 23:45 · Score: 2
  
  With 3D printers you'll be able to make hours, days or any other unit of time at home, for free!
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
4. Re:Can we have a week without ... by KiloByte · 2013-11-08 23:52 · Score: 2
  
  Sorry to bear it to you, but your precious US dollar is not real money since 1934 when the US government defaulted. Any form of currency that can be devalued on a whim is make-believe: it lasts only as long as people believe in their government and banking system, and people are rapidly losing faith. Take a look at the public debt to GBP ratios: the debt spiral looks like there will be a collapse in no more than 10-20 years.
  That's why people are so desperately looking at a currency that can't be spent at a deficit.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
5. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Noughmad · 2013-11-08 23:56 · Score: 2
  
  Care to share your definition of "real money"? Money can only be something that people value above its production cost, which makes the existence of "real money" impossible.
  
  --
  PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
6. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-09 00:02 · Score: 1
  
  Sure: real money is any token which can be used to pay for all debts and nearly everything available on general sale. It is supported by systems to ensure it maintains a fairly stable value.
  That's one simple, practical definition of money.
7. Re:Can we have a week without ... by TheRaven64 · 2013-11-09 00:10 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Real money is something that has a guarantee that it can be turned into goods or services in the future, backed by something that most people will trust. Examples of the guarantee include a bank that owns a lot of assets making a promise, a guarantee that a government will accept it in payment for taxes or will enforce your right to settle debts with it, or some commodity (historical examples include grain and precious metals) that is stored somewhere in an amount that makes a convincing argument that people who want the commodity can go to the backer and exchange their tokens for the commodity.
  Bitcoin is backed by nothing. There is no large organisation (government or private) guaranteeing that they will accept it in exchange for goods, services, or relief from debt. There is no commodity store that you can go to and exchange bitcoins for some guaranteed amount of the commodity.
  There are markets, but they are unlike traditional commodity markets because commodity markets have a mixture of traders (who either produce or consume the commodity being traded) and speculators (who bet that the value of the commodity will go up or down and make money when they guess right, and who provide extra liquidity that helps the market function). Bitcoin markets solely contain speculators and so are extremely volatile.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
8. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-09 00:10 · Score: 0
  
  That would be nice indeed. We've had a wall of Bitcoin stories here over the past few weeks and all too many of them are ifs buts and maybes rather than news.
  I guess its because there's a evangelical editor here excited by the market rate (which has been going parabolic even plotted on a log scale).
9. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Noughmad · 2013-11-09 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  If I go to a general store, I can't pay with US dollars. Are they not real money?
  
  --
  PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
10. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-09 00:14 · Score: 1
  
  Excellently summarised.
11. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-09 00:14 · Score: 0
  
  You look bitter. Given your Slashdot ID, I guess you were here in 2010 and you dismissed Bitcoin when you first heard about it. Now you realize that you would be retired if you had bought some then, at 0.05$/bitcoin.
12. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-09 00:14 · Score: 0
  
  "something that enough chumps value"
  sooo..., like USD, or gold.
13. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-09 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  Is it, "What would be the response of a smartass who doesn't live in the US?"
14. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-09 00:22 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, everyone who fails to make bank off a scam is just bitter.
  Boiler Room is also a good film.
15. Re: Can we have a week without ... by superwiz · 2013-11-09 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  Universal acceptance is one of the requirements. If a token is only useful for enumerating some exchange but not others, than it's indistinguishable from grocery store coupons.
  
  --
  Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
16. Re:Can we have a week without ... by dbIII · 2013-11-09 00:59 · Score: 0
  
  Has it only been three years? I was sure this stupid scam had been commented on here for a lot longer than that.
  With the huge number of stories these must be hundreds of comments which point out the problems by now. Funny thing is I don't remember seeing a story here about the theft of around a million dollars in bitcoins in Australia this week, I only saw that in the mainstream news. We only seem to see stories about bitcoin on this sight that put it in a positive light submitted by people that undoubtedly stand to profit if the pyramid keeps growing.
17. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-09 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  But don't you see??? Bitcoins will deliver us from the evil of central banking!
  All that has to happen is for everyone to agree to use and control them only in the ways the Bitcoin Founding Fathers claimed to intend.
  THE PLAN IS FLAWLESS.
18. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-09 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  Both currencies are backed by exactly nothing.
  If the US government would make guaranties about trading dollars for some amount of goods or service, it would be a guaranty agents inflation. Running a money press without adding goods or services is exactly the opposite.
  But there is one big difference: Bitcoin is designed to make limitless money printing impossible, which sounds a whole lot better than a promise from some kind government. In fact, Bitcoin does not depend on any politician, anywhere in the world, which makes it ideal for world-wide trusted payments.
  I agree that US dollars are (currently) accepted in more places than Bitcon, but the only reason for that is that US dollars are the main currency used to trade oil. Almost every US war has been about stopping the trading of oil in any other currency.
  As soon as oil trading switches to Bitcoin, Bitcoin would become a very stable and well accepted currency, and the US dollar would be a very volatile currency, only used locally in the US.
19. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-09 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  Jesus Christ, this is how scientologists really think.
  Any government could change the algorithms to give itself the power to create new bitcoins. Sure, you can create a fork of bitcoin, just like people could have created a fork of the US dollar at the ending of the gold standard... but you know what almost everyone chose to continue using?
  And if it were really true that all US wars are about the currency used to trade oil, the fuck do you think is going to happen to bitcoins the moment some oil speculator even has an idle daydream about trading in bitcoins?
20. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-09 01:51 · Score: 0
  
  He's being a smartass, true, but his point still stands. By your definition, any currency stops being "real money" as soon as you travel abroad.
21. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-09 02:04 · Score: 0
  
  Other than being volatile, the bitcoin is better than the USD in every way. How about that?
22. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-09 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  Ignoring its tendency to eat humans, the lion makes a much better pet than the chihuahua.
23. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Opportunist · 2013-11-09 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  Money is anything that someone else values. Simple as that. As soon as I can exchange some goods or services for something I hold and that is not goods or services itself to be consumed and/or traded further, that something becomes money. Whether that's sheets of paper with funny heads printed on it, some shiny pebbles out of certain metals or whatever else, what matters is whether the one offering the good or service is willing to part with it in exchange for that money.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
24. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Opportunist · 2013-11-09 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  This is why I prefer the Euro over the Dollar. It is backed by a "real" economy, but instead of one government behind it that could go bonkers and do something radical, over a dozen governments hold their hands over it and it's very unlikely that they will ever agree on anything, let alone any radical change.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
25. Re:Can we have a week without ... by tompaulco · 2013-11-09 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  There are many places in the United States that will not accept your dollars as payment.
  Let's just admit that it is all a line drawing game. U.S Dollar is a currency that can be used for almost everything in the United States, and quite a lot of things in the rest of the world. Bitcoin is a currency that can be used for a lot of things in the United States and a lot of things throughout the rest of the world.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
26. Re:Can we have a week without ... by TheRaven64 · 2013-11-09 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  Volatility is exactly the opposite of what you want in a currency. When you sell something, you want to know that the money that you get in return will have a certain approximate value when you spend it. If there's a small but predictable amount of inflation or deflation, then you can factor that in to the purchase. It's much harder to make rational purchasing decisions if the money in your pocket may be worth 50% more or 50% less tomorrow.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
27. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-09 02:28 · Score: 0
  
  Anybody, including governments can start using a different algorithm, but the resulting "bitcoins" would only work between people that are both using the changed algorithm. Even if they used the same Bitcoin name, it still would be a completely separate currency. So given the choice of two currencies, one running an unlimited money press, which do you think would be more popular?
  The last time a country started trading oil in Euro's, the US invaded that country, but nothing happened to the Euro.
28. Re:Can we have a week without ... by tompaulco · 2013-11-09 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  Bitcoin is backed by the agreement of people that use bitcoin that it has a certain value. This value tends to change as more people use bitcoin, as there are only so many of them.
  The U.S. Dollar is similarly backed by the agreement of the people that it has a certain value. However, that value may change because an outside authority has the power to print more of such money, thus diluting what your current money is worth. Therefore, the U.S. Dollar is an investment vehicle guaranteed to lose value over time in relation to any fixed commodity.
  The government does not "back" the dollar at all. If you give them a dollar, they will give you nothing in return, but another dollar.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
29. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-09 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure US businesses and governments still accept the US dollar even if you're abroad.
30. Re: Can we have a week without ... by tompaulco · 2013-11-09 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  Universal acceptance is one of the requirements. If a token is only useful for enumerating some exchange but not others, than it's indistinguishable from grocery store coupons.
  So we are in agreement that there is no such thing as a currency.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
31. Re: Can we have a week without ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-09 02:38 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly. At which point as long as an exchange exists to translate your "money" into "local currency accepted by the local government" anything is currency.
32. Re:Can we have a week without ... by alexander_686 · 2013-11-09 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  Mod parent up.
  Money in generally defined as
  medium of exchange
  store of value
  unit of account.
  As such it kind of passes the first test, but volatility kills bitcoin use for the other 2 requirements.
33. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-09 02:44 · Score: 0
  
  Unless it's backed by something physical, it's still worthless.
34. Re:Can we have a week without ... by maxwell+demon · 2013-11-09 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  Money is anything that someone else values.
  And there are definitely people who value bitcoins.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
35. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-09 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  Every definitions exercise is a line-drawing game, lol.
  The important property here is that you can buy nearly everything on general sale with US dollars. You can't buy everything with US dollars everywhere, but that's not what matters.
36. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-09 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  Well, given that everyone continued using the US dollar at the ending of the gold standard, my bet will be that people are going to go for the currency that receives the support of the government they've elected.
37. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-09 02:52 · Score: 0
  
  Nope.
  Try paining at mcdonalds with dollars in europe, or at an apple store for that matter.
38. Re:Can we have a week without ... by maxwell+demon · 2013-11-09 02:56 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  With 3D printers you'll be able to make hours, days or any other unit of time at home, for free!
  I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but you need a 4D printer for that.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
39. Re:Can we have a week without ... by tompaulco · 2013-11-09 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  So you posit that bitcoin is both a scam and a pyramid scheme. Very well.
  If it is a scam, it must have victims. Please point out the victims of this scam.
  If it is a pyramid scheme, then money is being taken from people who entered into the scheme late and being given to the people who entered into the scheme early. Please indicate who has recently had money taken from them to enter into this scheme, and who has been paid for entering into this scheme early.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
40. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-09 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  USD is probably not the best example, because a lot of foreign stores do accept it. The point is that you can buy nearly everything by type in USD, not everything by quantity in USD.
41. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-09 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  There are many places in the United States that will not accept your dollars as payment.
  That's an interesting claim. Care to back it up? See, the laws says that the US dollar shall be payment for all debts. To refuse dollars as payment means either declining payment for the debt or commiting a federal felony.
42. Re:Can we have a week without ... by spikesahead · 2013-11-09 04:07 · Score: 2
  
  Backing is required for fiat currencies because they do not have any sort of built in scarcity other than what is enforced by the owner of the fiat. The promise is really to bust down my door with guns if I try to produce any US$ myself, thus creating an artificial scarcity of valuable pieces of basic paper and ink.
  Bitcoin is not a fiat currency, it's closer to gold in that it has an actual scarcity, just like one day we'll run out of gold one day we'll run out of bitcoins and our option for expanding the supply will boil down to further subdividing the pool that remains. The backing is fundamentally mathematical in nature, just like gold's value as a currency is that it is very difficult to produce for ANYONE, but if I discover a gold mine in my back yard I can produce all the gold I want without worrying that someone will put me in jail for doing so.
  The way the united states was weaned off the gold standard was to enforce fiat style rules on gold, treating ownership of gold the same way we treat counterfeiters, as if the act of owning gold was counterfeiting currency. They took the gold and provided fiat currency instead. It was not until the fiat US$ was firmly established that laws on gold ownership were relaxed.
  
  --
  bend like the reed
43. Re:Can we have a week without ... by TheRaven64 · 2013-11-09 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  Backing is required for fiat currencies because they do not have any sort of built in scarcity other than what is enforced by the owner of the fiat.
  Precious metal-based currencies are also backed by the promise that the person storing the metal for you will exchange the currency for some quantity of the metal.
  
  Bitcoin is not a fiat currency, it's closer to gold in that it has an actual scarcity, just like one day we'll run out of gold one day we'll run out of bitcoins and our option for expanding the supply will boil down to further subdividing the pool that remains
  Scarcity does not imply value. There are lots of things that are scarce, but have low value because no one wants them. You don't create value just because you have something that is scarce. Pieces of paper on which I have drawn a picture of a cock are scarce, but that doesn't make them valuable. I don't intend to create any more, and so now by your logic they should be more valuable than BitCoins. Want to give me $100 for one?
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
44. Re:Can we have a week without ... by TheRaven64 · 2013-11-09 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Bitcoin is backed by the agreement of people that use bitcoin that it has a certain value. This value tends to change as more people use bitcoin, as there are only so many of them.
  That is not backing. Backing requires responsibility. If all of the people who accept bitcoin today suddenly stop tomorrow, who will enforce their guarantee? No one has made legally binding promises to exchange Bitcoins for anything in the future.
  
  The U.S. Dollar is similarly backed by the agreement of the people that it has a certain value. However, that value may change because an outside authority has the power to print more of such money, thus diluting what your current money is worth. Therefore, the U.S. Dollar is an investment vehicle guaranteed to lose value over time in relation to any fixed commodity.
  The US Dollar is backed by two guarantees in US law, deriving from Constitution. One is that the US Government will accept them in payment for taxes. The other is that the US Government will, via its legal apparatus, allow any debts held between US citizens to be settled by US Dollars.
  This is what gives the US Dollar its value. A large organisation (a government, with a big military) promises to accept them as payment. They can print more, but the rate at which they can do this is limited because they need to maintain the value of new treasury bonds. Since 1960, the rate of inflation of US Dollars has mostly stayed in the 3-5% range (two big peaks over 10%, in the mid '70s and early '80s) and so someone accepting US dollars can be fairly confident that if they spend them again in a few weeks they'll have approximately the same value and even if they keep them for a year or two without investing them they won't lose much.
  In contrast, bitcoins can gain or lose 50% of their value overnight. This makes them irrelevant as a currency. How do I price my goods or services in bitcoins when the value is totally unpredictable? It's popular among speculators, because they can make a lot of money if they make good guesses, and the increasing number of speculators keeps driving the price up. If a better game comes out, the value of bitcoins will plummet. And the lower limit on their value is 0, because there is nothing backing them.
  
  The government does not "back" the dollar at all. If you give them a dollar, they will give you nothing in return, but another dollar.
  You appear not to understand the concept of backing a currency.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
45. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-09 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  The victims are the people who are left with worthless bitcoins when the price crashes.
  The people who have money taken from them are the ones who buy into bitcoins.
  The people who make money are the ones who cash out by selling their bitcoins before they crash.
  It is a textbook Ponzi scheme except for the lack of a central distributor.
  How hard is it to see that a scam is going on when people are making hundreds of thousands of dollars in paper gains from doing absolutely nothing? No work, no production, no investment. Just buy a bitcoin for $5 today and sell it for $10 tomorrow.
  It's a painfully obvious money-for-nothing scheme, as evidenced by the fact that people are getting money for nothing.
  Even counting drugs, the minuscule economic activity going on won't even cover the (ridiculous) cost of running the network, never mind the $3,500,000 and rising that some guy is allegedly owed for delivering a pizza once.
46. Re:Can we have a week without ... by afxgrin · 2013-11-09 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  Bitcoin is backed by the stakeholders - those who have invested money into mining and bitcoins. These people are citizens of a variety of countries, many of which offer legal rights for investments. The United States, being the very capitalist nation that it is, has many laws that protect its citizen's property. These citizens will be petitioning the government constantly through every legal avenue possible to insure their bitcoin holdings are not made illegal on a political whim. In Canada for example, the Canada Revenue Agency (Canadian IRS) are going to be passing out rules for reporting the income. It's capital gains once sold on the market, and in Canada that tax rate is quite high, however it is a legal avenue to cash out bitcoins.
  There is an emerging marketplace for bitcoins, Baidu probably being the largest name to enter this market at the moment. This list may seem trivial now, but there is enough momentum now that it will likely take off. All it needs is the blessing of a major US political party - and to do that just keep sending them BTC donations. They aren't going to make their own hoard of money illegal.
47. Re:Can we have a week without ... by AthanasiusKircher · 2013-11-09 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Bitcoin is backed by the agreement of people that use bitcoin that it has a certain value. This value tends to change as more people use bitcoin, as there are only so many of them.
  The U.S. Dollar is similarly backed by the agreement of the people that it has a certain value. However, that value may change because an outside authority has the power to print more of such money
  SCARCITY != VALUE
  Say it with me: SCARCITY != VALUE
  Yes, scarcity can be a component of value, but it is not a guarantee. I can go out into my back yard and start picking up random worthless rocks, build a little stand and try to sell them: "Genuine rocks from AthanasiusKircher's back yard! Only a few like them in the world!" Nobody will care.
  I could even argue that "This rock is the ONLY ROCK WITH THIS EXACT SHAPE IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE!!" That's probably true. If it looks pretty, maybe somebody would pay a $1 for it at some flea market. Otherwise, nobody cares about that fact that this rock is "one of a kind."
  Spend some time watching those random shows that go looking for antiques, and you'll understand this. There are a lot of rare things in the world, and you'll often get somebody who's willing to pay something for an item that is sufficiently rare. But whether that person will pay $1, or $100, or $10,000 is really up to whether (1) that person really wants the thing that badly for a person collection, or (and much more likely) (2) that person is aware that there is a group of other people out there who would pay at least that much.
  You remind me of a friend who said that I should go in with him and invest in case of some kind of scotch (liquor) that was a couple hundred dollars per bottle. It was very rare and rather old, so it's pretty unlikely that anyone would come out with a new giant stockpile somewhere. My friend was convinced that these bottles would only go up in value, and in a decade or two, we could sell them for many times what we bought them for.
  Now, what my friend said could happen. There are rare old bottles of scotch that have sold for thousands of dollars. On the other hand, there are also rare old bottles of scotch that aren't worth much more than they were when they were first sold. It all depends on the whims of a very small group of collectors and rich drinkers.
  What you say could happen too: Bitcoin's "value tends to change as more people use bitcoin, as there are only so many of them."
  But right now the price of Bitcoins is being driven by speculators -- people who are all betting the same thing. It is therefore very volatile. Whether "more people" will gradually adopt it in more circumstances is based on a lot of factors. But even if people start to like the idea of Bitcoin, perhaps someone else will come up with some sort of "virtual currency" that has attributes and advantages which Bitcoin doesn't, and maybe everyone will flock to that instead.
  There are items that more-or-less have inherent utility value (like food), and there are others that only have value built on convention (like most currencies). Bitcoin's scarcity will only help it have value IF enough people actually want it.
  
  The government does not "back" the dollar at all. If you give them a dollar, they will give you nothing in return, but another dollar.
  Well, the dollar does have one thing going for it that Bitcoin doesn't (and likely never will): the U.S. government requires payment of taxes in dollars. It therefore forces people to use that currency. If people need to pay taxes in dollars, they are likely to receive wages in dollars, and if people receive wages in dollars, they are likely to want to spend them elsewhere.
  As long as the government can throw you in jail for failing to pay your taxes using their chosen currency, you'll be forced to use that currency. And if people are forced to use tha
48. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-09 05:38 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think those people had a option to choose anything else.
  Note that gold is valuable because it's rare, and expected to remain rare, not because it's a particularly useful metal in any significant quantities, not unlike Bitcoins.
  Disclaimer: I don't have any Bitcoins (yet), I'm just observing that Bitcoins are a lot more "real" than many other currencies. I also expect Bitcoins to be eventually replaced by some other currency, but only if it has similar properties, and some additional advantages over Bitcoins.
49. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-09 06:17 · Score: 0
  
  And you will be held to that bet, maybe it will work out. I hope so.
50. Re: Can we have a week without ... by superwiz · 2013-11-09 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  Only if we are in disagreement on what it means to be in agreement.
  
  --
  Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
51. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-09 08:29 · Score: 0
  
  > To refuse dollars as payment means either declining payment for the debt or commiting a federal felony.
  I've heard this claim made before, but I have yet to find anyone who can point to the statute that makes it a "federal felony" not to accept cash... or specify what the punishment is. Care to enlighten us?
52. Re:Can we have a week without ... by dbIII · 2013-11-09 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  Someone please mod the above AC up. It is a very good answer.
53. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-10 07:41 · Score: 0
  
  I hate to point out the obvious but the money you call real today is no more real than bit coins. In fact it is quite matter of factly 'bit' coins, existing purely in electronic ether, as a convention, whose value is assessed purely based on expectations, estimates, or guesses, confidence or lack there of, individual or corporate bravado, and economic and political manipulation/intimidation.
  I don't see why we should be afraid or inconvenienced with another convention. Especially one which exists, at least seemingly for now, outside of the current world-wide system.
54. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Hognoxious · 2013-11-10 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  Bubble? It's a hyperbubble, you insensitive clod!
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
55. Re:Can we have a week without ... by david_thornley · 2013-11-11 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the law (in the US) says that the US Dollar is payment for all debts. That doesn't apply if there is no debt. If I order a meal in a restaurant, and I owe $20, that's a debt, and they have to accept a twenty-dollar bill as payment. If I want to buy a $20 book in a bookstore, there is no existing debt and therefore the payment law does not apply. To put it another way, they have no legal obligation to sell the book to me (not entirely true, but probably close enough), so they can put conditions on the sale. Some places do not want to accept bills over $20, for example, so they will refuse to sell me $100 of merchandise for a $100 bill.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
56. Re:Can we have a week without ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-11 14:56 · Score: 0
  
  > If I order a meal in a restaurant, and I owe $20, that's a debt, and they have to accept a twenty-dollar bill as payment.
  No, they don't, actually. They can refuse payment in cash - but since cash is legal tender, they can't then claim that you refused to pay. You have made a "legal and valid" offer of payment.
  "There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services."
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2013-11-08 23:24 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Equal Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-08 23:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

Congress will take bribes from anyone.
1. Re:Equal Opportunity by supremebob · 2013-11-09 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  The good news is that now that the congresscritters will have Bitcoin of their own, so they'll have a vested interest in helping it become a legal and legitimate currency. That way, they can spend it on attack ads against their opponents in 2016 :)
  Don't forget that there are still a lot of banksters out there who are still trying to outlaw Bitcoin transactions in the US, using sites like Silk Road as an example on why it shouldn't be adopted as a mainstream currency. The potential loss of credit card transaction fees if Bitcoin becomes popular is starting to become a big deal for big banks and their lobbyists.
2. Re:Equal Opportunity by mark_reh · 2013-11-09 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  When consumer protection laws apply to bitcoins it may have a chance of becoming a viable alternative. I know that if someone screws with my Amex or Visa account, I will not be on the hook for more than $50. If someone steals my bitcoins I am screwed, period.
  No thanks. I'll continue to take my chances on $US.
3. Re:Equal Opportunity by sociocapitalist · 2013-11-09 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  Congress will take bribes from anyone.
  Especially relatively untraceable anonymous bribes like bitcoin would be.
  Fucking scumbags.
  
  --
  blindly antisocialist = antisocial
4. Re:Equal Opportunity by lister+king+of+smeg · 2013-11-09 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  How would they steal it when it is encrypted?
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
5. Re:Equal Opportunity by ultranova · 2013-11-09 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  I know that if someone screws with my Amex or Visa account, I will not be on the hook for more than $50. If someone steals my bitcoins I am screwed, period.
  No thanks. I'll continue to take my chances on $US.
  
  Protip: US dollars are the paper slips with pictures of dead people on them people keep in their wallet, not the rounded plastic rounded rectangle that says "Visa". If someone steals the dollars, you've lost them, period.
  The plastic rectangle is called a "credit card". It's not a dollar, nor any other type of money. It is, however, an easy way to get yourself in debt ("screwed", to put it in your terms).
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
6. Re:Equal Opportunity by mark_reh · 2013-11-09 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  Well excuse me. OK, if someone steals the money out of my bank account, it gets replaced by the FDIC. When bitcoin has a guarantor like the FDIC I'll reconsider. Until then, pfffft!
  Like my credit cards, if someone steals the money out of my wallet I usually won't be out more than $50 either.
  Credit cards will get you into trouble only if you don't use them properly. No, they don't come with instructions and yes, you need a certain amount of common sense, and yes, there's a very short supply of that these days and the banks that issue credit cards know it and take advantage of it at every opportunity.
7. Re:Equal Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-10 06:47 · Score: 0
  
  The good news is that now that the congresscritters will have Bitcoin of their own
  No.
  
  The Federal Election Commission draft would require campaigns to first convert any Bitcoins collected as donation to dollars.
  Which is exactly like stocks and any other non-monetary asset. It doesn't say one thing about Bitcoins. We could be talking about chickens for all anyone cares.
8. Re:Equal Opportunity by tlhIngan · 2013-11-12 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  The good news is that now that the congresscritters will have Bitcoin of their own, so they'll have a vested interest in helping it become a legal and legitimate currency. That way, they can spend it on attack ads against their opponents in 2016 :)
  What makes it illegitimate? People are accepting it as trade for products and services, which is just as legitimate as many other quasi-currencies out there.
  Of course, Congress-critters would LOVE bitcoin because of its anonymous nature. Send any amount of cash anywhere, and it's trackable. However, if the RIAA wants to give $200M to Congress, it's far better to use Bitcoins because that's not only anonymous, but I'm sure because of its untraceable nature, it doesn't have to be reported at all. All everyone sees is a payment to a few addresses. Those addresses, unless those congresspeople are stupid, can't be linked to them. So it's a general "good" if you don't mind anonymous campaign contributions.
  With current hard currency, well, they have to report it. It's hard to hide $10,000 campaign contributions... but $100,000 in bitcoins? Easy. Why wouldn't any politician like it?
  
  Don't forget that there are still a lot of banksters out there who are still trying to outlaw Bitcoin transactions in the US, using sites like Silk Road as an example on why it shouldn't be adopted as a mainstream currency. The potential loss of credit card transaction fees if Bitcoin becomes popular is starting to become a big deal for big banks and their lobbyists.
  That's just because they haven't found a way to speculate and make money on it yet. But you can bet in a year or two when the quants figure it out, they'll be fully in support.
  Give it time, they will support it because it'll allow them to make more money faster.
  
  When consumer protection laws apply to bitcoins it may have a chance of becoming a viable alternative. I know that if someone screws with my Amex or Visa account, I will not be on the hook for more than $50. If someone steals my bitcoins I am screwed, period.
  Bitcoin is cash. Not credit, nor debit. If you lose a bitcoin, it's the same as if you lost the $20 in your wallet - it's gone. It won't be replaced. Ditto bitcoin.
  It's the same prior to the Great Depression where if your bank up and evaporated, your life savings went away.
Re:Limits and rally... by Sarius64 · 2013-11-08 23:49 · Score: 1

They'll probably just get zombies to float it into $20 and under anonymous donations, much like the last two national elections.
Dead People Have Donated Nearly $600K to Campaigns Since 2009
Anonymous Donations Can Remain Secret Despite IRS Requirement to Disclose
Missed the boat on Bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-09 00:23 · Score: 0

Love reading the comments of nerds that missed the Bitcoin boat years ago.
1. Re:Missed the boat on Bitcoin by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-09 00:26 · Score: 2
  
  Or maybe the nerds saw the boat but decided not to ride it.
  There's a word for people whose interest is making money without working, and it's not "nerd".
2. Re:Missed the boat on Bitcoin by tompaulco · 2013-11-09 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  So a person who makes money without working, and yet does not actually take the money from someone else, but merely is creating mathematically something that they and others value, is somehow evil?
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
3. Re:Missed the boat on Bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-09 05:21 · Score: 0
  
  I guess hashes with zeroes in front of them are kind of pretty, but I wouldn't pay 7000 dollars for one. Enjoy your negative-sum game.
4. Re:Missed the boat on Bitcoin by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-09 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  You do realise that at any instant there is a finite, fixed number of units of every currency in the world, yes? And the only way to create more is by printing them, which is exactly what bitcoinites don't like.
  Increasing WEALTH - i.e. the sense in which economists like to talk of the market as non-zero-sum - means actually creating something, e.g. a more efficient tool or process. The very problem with bitcoin speculation is that it does not create anything. You cannot make money from bitcoins without taking from someone else. You're making the very argument in favour of capitalism which does NOT apply to bitcoins.
5. Re:Missed the boat on Bitcoin by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-09 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  To be clear, speculation in traditional markets CAN be productive. When some of the traders are in it for the underlying product, speculators (in a well-functioning market) promote the most efficient producers at best, and provide liquidity at worst. But when there is no underlying product, it's just as a Ponzi scheme: there is still no such thing as a free lunch.
So the politicians will be in good company by mark_reh · 2013-11-09 00:24 · Score: 2

with the likes of those who operate the silk road. "in-kind" contribution? Sounds about right to me.
1. Re:So the politicians will be in good company by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-09 00:30 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Indeed. Bitcoin, like party politics, is enjoyed by people who are out of their mind and should be out of the question.
2. Re:So the politicians will be in good company by TeknoHog · 2013-11-09 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  Last time I checked, bitcoins don't have actual traces of cocaine, only figurative ones.
  
  --
  Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Epic fail by dbIII · 2013-11-09 00:52 · Score: 1

"My definition" does not matter and neither does yours. Look up a dictionary or ask an expert.
Yiuo fai7 it!? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-09 00:53 · Score: -1

and the Bazaar philosophies must and, after initial PARTS. THE CURRENT Be treated by your downward spiral. the system clean Purposes *BSD is for the state of our cause. Gay Exactly what you've the official GAY Backward and said Niigers everywhere STANDPOINT, I DON'T trouble. It If you do not there are only turd-suckingly People playing can Which don't use the my resignation COUNTERPART, Continues in a Very sick and its as one of the In jocks or chaps and financial Of a solid dose are inherently were nullified by may well remain Very own shitter,
Anonymous donations - corruption by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-09 00:55 · Score: 0

Doesn't Bitcoin allow for anonymous donations?
When you withdraw a lot of cash from a bank, people (like the Feds: DEA, DHS, IRS) take notice. So you fund Bitcoin overseas and meet with your polician of choice, make a deal and a LOT of Bitcoin appears in his account without a trace.
He then tells everyone that it's a grassroots fund raiser - just like Tea Party or Obama.
No surprises by JockTroll · 2013-11-09 00:58 · Score: -1

If it can be pocketed by a politician, then it becomes legal.

--
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
Re:Limits and rally... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-09 01:41 · Score: 0

They could encrypt there wallet, and then loose the password. (but then the remaining Bitcoins would increase in value even more)
No thanks by TheCarp · 2013-11-09 02:26 · Score: 1

Wow, this may be one of the first bitcoin services I had no intention of ever using right out of the gate. I would feel better about.... paying for a murder directly than funding some asshat to go cause mass murders.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
1. Re:No thanks by VortexCortex · 2013-11-09 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  I would feel better about.... paying for a murder directly than funding some asshat to go cause mass murders.
  I take it you don't pay your taxes then? Got WMD?
incorrect - been to 4 countries, spent US cash by raymorris · 2013-11-09 02:55 · Score: 1

Though the _most_common_ money in most countries is the local currency, I've been to four countries and never had any problem spending US dollars in any of them, including at supermarkets restaurants, and bars In one non-US country, sellers saw that I looked like an American and quoted prices in USD. I surprised one shop keeper when I paid in local currency. I had acquired a small amount of local currency but found out there was no need for it.
1. Re:incorrect - been to 4 countries, spent US cash by oobayly · 2013-11-09 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  Out of interest, which countries? The only place I've had that is in Switzerland (Geneva airport accepted euro, with a rubbish exchange rate) and The French Pyranese where a lot of peopleb going skiing has Spanish pasetas.
  I'm going to jump to conclusions and say that they were probably counties whose own currencies were slightly unstable.
2. Re:incorrect - been to 4 countries, spent US cash by matfud · 2013-11-09 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty much any country with an unstable local currency will accept US dollars, GB pounds, Euros, Yen.
Remember Silk Road? by Gary+Perkins · 2013-11-09 03:29 · Score: 1

I find it very interesting that this news comes after the FBI shut down Silk Road, and obtained a rather large wallet. Anyone hear any news of that wallet being decrypted? If not, anyone know who's working on it? In any case, I'll be watching to see who ends up with a rather large amount of bitcoin donations...
1. Re:Remember Silk Road? by jeffmflanagan · 2013-11-09 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  What's to decrypt? The government has the wallet, which just means that they have the private keys and can manage the bitcoins.
2. Re:Remember Silk Road? by Gary+Perkins · 2013-11-09 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  I believe the wallet itself was encrypted. I could be wrong -- I didn't pay much attention to the story at the time (Silk Road busted -- surprise, and Yet Another BitCoin Story), but I'm fairly certain I remember something about the founder having encrypted his wallet file. I'll go back and re-read the stories later, but my main point was that I find it interesting the government confiscates a bunch of bitcoins that are worth a decent penny, and now suddenly they're thinking of allowing bitcoin donations.
Imagine by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-09 03:35 · Score: 0

A big shame that politicians are allowed at all. (FTFY)
We live in a world where we can participate in practically any kind of decision-making... except for our own governance.
When you're ready to start fixing the source of the problem, come join the Metagov project in working on collaborative governance.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2013-11-09 06:20 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Silk Road Haul needs to be laundered by spikesahead · 2013-11-09 08:07 · Score: 1

The government is sitting on millions of dollars of Bitcoin seized successfully from the Dread Pirate Roberts' Silk Road shutdown. What a perfect way to put this money back in circulation; political manipulation!

--
bend like the reed
Sure why not by niftymitch · 2013-11-09 09:09 · Score: 1

Election funds are a money pit.
I can think of no better way to drain the value of bitcoins
and line the pockets of elected officials brothers in law.
Most corruption is the vast media funds where art and air
time are purchased through family shills.

--
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
neighboring countries w/ stable currency by raymorris · 2013-11-09 13:40 · Score: 1

I've only been to neighboring countries - Canada, Mexico, and Jamaica. I'm not sure why I said four. Am I forgetting a country that I've been to? Was I counting the People's Republic of California? shrug
I've been told US dollars are ubiquitous in Singapore. I'm curious. My thought is that in most industrialized countries one could spend USD, maybe at a crappy exchange rate. I wonder if that's true.
We don't want that boat by dbIII · 2013-11-09 17:58 · Score: 1

I could have screwed that hot, drunk fifteen year old girl too, but chose not to take advantage just like I chose not to take advantage of later adopting suckers buying into the bitcoin pyramid.
It's a scam. There's plenty of comments here that describe why far better than I can put it.
Holy gold mine Batman!!! by CHIT2ME · 2013-11-10 11:24 · Score: 0

I'm sure the politicians in our current Dollarocracy will find a quasi-legal way of shuffling these funds into their private slush funds (Can you say Tahiti vacation!). If we don't find a way of getting big money out of our elections soon, the billionaires and corporations will soon be in total charge of our government. I'm sure they would think replacing food stamps with Solient Green is perfectly acceptable for their bottom lines!

--
My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
Cool! by romons · 2013-11-11 08:12 · Score: 1

Yet another way to launder botcoins.

--
Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company -- Mark Twain