Slashdot Mirror


Japan Considers Treating Bitcoin As Conventional Currency (thestack.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Regulators in Japan are considering officially recognizing bitcoins and other digital currencies as valid methods of payment. The Japan Financial Services Agency (FSA) is in the process of deciding whether to make legislative revisions to regulation that currently regards virtual currencies as objects rather than traditional forms of payment. Under the new proposal, consumers will be able to purchase goods and services using bitcoin and other digital currencies, and also use them as an alternative to legal tender through purchases or trades. The new definition will be submitted during the current session of the Diet, Japan's legislature, which concludes on 1st June this year.

106 comments

  1. tax by turkeydance · · Score: 2

    and more tax

  2. Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies to avoid the need for a government to bless (and therefore control) a particularly unit of money?

    >> consumers will be able to purchase goods and services using bitcoin and other digital currencies

    I believe this is already possible - no government blessing necessary, thank you.

    1. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies to avoid the need for a government to bless (and therefore control) a particularly unit of money?

      But, seriously, whoever believed that it would be magically exempted from government attention?

      I always thought the whole "yarg, it's digital therefore free from teh government" to be ridiculous. Sure, smear yourself in unicorn poop, it has magical properties.

      There was simply never going to be a scenario in which governments went "well, dammit, it's digital and they say it's exempt from us, guess there's nothing we can do".

      Anybody who believed that was delusional.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Intention doesn't indicate reality. Bitcoin isn't even a currency; it's a commodity and, like gold, makes a terrible currency.

    3. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >> like gold, makes a terrible currency

      You lost me there. For most of recorded history, gold has made a terrific currency - the kind you can power regional empires on.

    4. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      Bitcoin is currency. What it's not is money; meaning Bitcoin can't be passed from person to person with liquidity and expressed with a self-explanatory denomination.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    5. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gold makes a terrible currency? Since when?

    6. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by UncleGizmo · · Score: 1

      yeah, try buying a Snickers bar with gold buillon and see how good it is. Currency needs fungibility as well as value.

      --
      Who put this thing together? Me, that's who.
    7. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      Gold by itself is a commodity. But it IS money if it's been minted by a sovereign government; the Golden Eagle coin or the Krugerrand. Now, depending on the value of the metal, both parties may either accept it for face value, or its spot price (commodity value).

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    8. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      No currency actually needs governmental "blessing". Currency is anything that people agree on as a means to represent a value. That which is used as currency only needs a few qualities, the most important one being that generating or producing it has to take more effort than the value it represents. No, scarcity isn't even required. This holds true from commodity money to fiat money. Generating it either has to be more costly or risky than "earning" it and whatever has this quality qualifies as money.

      In the end, what matters is whether someone else deems it valuable enough to accept it as payment. Government blessing only matters as long as there is any faith in that government. As can easily be seen with some third world countries where you can't even buy a bag of dirt with the local currency. Backing by government is only meaningful as a tool to increase faith in a certain currency, or more exactly, faith in its ability to stay valuable, so I can trade it for something else in the future.

      Government backing of currencies serves only one possible other purpose, especially when dealing with fiat money: A promise that they will do what they can to keep forgeries from circulating. That matters little with bitcoins.

      So, in the end, government "blessing" of crypto-currencies only mean something if your faith in the government is higher than that in the currency.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >> try buying a Snickers bar with gold buillon

      Well that's a bad example, since I'm pretty sure I could walk out of my office and find dozens of people who would trade any amount of bullion for a single Snickers bar. A better example would be "try to buy something from Amazon with bullion"...but the statement "try to buy something from Amazon with crumpled dollar bills" would be as equally ludicrous.

      Are we at least agreed that only digital currencies (whether Bitcoin or dollars) are the only real/complete currencies today (due to fungibility)?

    10. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Gold makes a terrible currency? Since when?

      It has high transaction costs due to the need to check against fraud. Intentionally worn coins, gold-plated tungsten, gold-silver-copper alloy, ... Also, the economy has expanded faster than gold can be mined. A gold coin the size of a dime (~.34 cm^3) would be worth ~$250, so good luck getting change.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    11. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, what?

      Fungibility is the property of a good or a commodity whose individual units are capable of mutual substitution. That is, it is the property of essences or goods which are "capable of being substituted in place of one another." For example, since one ounce of pure gold is equivalent to any other ounce of pure gold, gold is fungible.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility

      Pretty bad when you use gold to exemplify non-fungability, while Wikipedia uses it as the primary example of the opposite.

    12. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      No, gold was used as a currency for most of recorded history. It was used as a currency in poor societies where the majority of trade was barter, and where actual money was restricted to a rich elite class who traded in a symbol to remind them that their glorious empire favored them and could make them poor.

      Gold isn't just deflationary, as the naive analysis would suggest--as we find ways to produce a thing with less labor, its representative buying power falls, as it now represents 1/10,000,000 of the people working in the fields rather than 1/10,000. Gold is also relative: maybe today we have a new way to mine or smelt gold with less labor, and so gold ingots are worth a lot less; and next week we realize the mines are running dry, so gold is worth a lot more because we can get the *same* number of tonnes of gold out only by employing *three times as much* labor-hours; and then we find a new mine and gold is suddenly worth very little.

      That means commodity currency is unstable. The amount of buying power per unit currency fluctuates greatly because it's tied directly to labor. Fiat currencies approach a unit value approximated by the amount of income divided by the amount of production: all the money paid for all things made and sold is what represents all things made and sold. It's a definition by tautology. (Income / Production) just says "the amount of money we pay for things is equal to the amount of money we pay for those things". This means fiat currencies gain buying power (deflation) as we create new technology to reduce labor used to make things; and, unlike commodity currency (gold, silver, sheep), we can counteract this (neutral) or exceed this (inflation) by printing and introducing more money. We can also print up more money as population expands, leaving production scarcity to control population growth.

      Gold only made a good currency when we had a very small set of extremely rich people and a large population of serfs. The Roman Empire's Equestrian class was 25,000 strong in a population of over 50,000,000 (.05%), whereas our top 10% have a similar proportion of the wealth spread among them (they also have *more* total wealth, and only our poorest are actually less-wealthy than rich Roman senators). The Romans only had to keep their serfs alive and clothed with last year's fashion, which they tossed out of their wardrobes when a new fashion came out, handing down rich people's old clothes as poor people's new clothes. Of course gold was a workable currency for the tiniest sliver of overly-rich assholes running everything; nobody else had to use it!

    13. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Money is a synonym for currency.

    14. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure if I went up to any person and offered a good amount of gold that they would have no problem giving me a snickers bar.

      The only problem you would have to overcome is their belief that your offer is genuine and not a scam but that isn't a problem with the gold but with your presentation. If the person has doubts I could always just keep adding more gold until their greed over comes their lack of belief.

      After all if you believed what I offer is real gold why wouldn't you trade a $0.50-$2.00 candy bar for 1 bar of stamped near pure gold?

      Lets not forget that most metals at the weight of 1 traditional gold bar would be worth at least the amount of a snickers bar even if they aren't gold. This is why people steal copper from live power line poles.

      For the people who will want to make this into an argument about trading the value of gold in the US dollar value of a snickers bar I would like to point out that by definition if the person you are trading the gold with will only accept 1 gold bar for 1 snickers bar than the actual value of the gold, in relation to snicker bars, is 1 snicker bar = 1 gold bar no matter what the gold to USD to snickers value is. It all depends on how desperate you are to make the sale verse going to convert the gold to USD and then going back to buying your candy bar.

    15. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by gstoddart · · Score: 0

      Google tells me that, right now, "1 Bitcoin equals 424.75 US Dollar".

      So, arguably, Bitcoin is an equally terrible currency as gold.

      Does Bitcoin even have pennies?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    16. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by SpankiMonki · · Score: 1

      Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies to avoid the need for a government to bless (and therefore control) a particularly unit of money?

      I'm not sure about those other digital currencies, but the whole point of bitcoin was to be able to process transactions without the need for trusted intermediaries. Government's role (or lack therof) didn't enter into it.

    17. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by slashping · · Score: 1

      Government could certainly try to stop it, for instance by making any service illegal that converts bitcoin into fiat currencies, or make it illegal to buy or sell in bitcoin directly.

    18. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by slashping · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bitcoin fixes the biggest problem with gold: gold is hard to divide into smaller bits, and hard to make sure it's real and the correct amount.

    19. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by SpankiMonki · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Does Bitcoin even have pennies?

      They're called "Satoshis". 1 Satoshi = .00000001 bitcoin = $0.0000042475.

    20. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by slashping · · Score: 1

      Bitcoin can be divided into units of 1/100000000 bitcoin, which are called Satoshis.

    21. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Awesome, now when I get really bad service in a restaurant I can leave a 1 Satoshi tip instead of my current penny to say "fuck you" to terrible wait-staff.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    22. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by slashping · · Score: 1

      what matters is whether someone else deems it valuable enough to accept it as payment

      You also need an open market to trade, and government blessing certainly has an effect there.

    23. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by davidwr · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's both currency (sort of) and money. Currency typically means paper money (or any "hard, tangible" money other than coinage - some currencies are made of cloth or plastic). As opposed to coinage, bank accounts, negotiable-as-cash instruments (think "checks," especially in the old days when 3rd-party and "4th/5th/etc-party" checks were common).

      BC is both money and a currency. An individual "amount" of BitCoin is currency in that you can store it in a wallet or print it out on paper, it's "non-currency" money in that it can be deposited in a "bank account" and co-mingled with other "amounts" of bitcoin in the same wallet or bank account in such a way that when you "withdraw" it, it's no longer the same "individual amount."

      One difference between BC and ordinary currency is that ordinary currency TYPICALLY is re-used over and over again (banks typically trade worn-out currency for fresh currency as needed, but that's after many, many transactions). As a currency, BC "units" typically have a short life, they are, in effect, being destroyed and re-created any time they are co-mingled or split into smaller units. However, you can "print out" BC and trade them like WWII soldiers used unopened packs of cigarettes as currency. It's not all that practical but it has been done as a proof-of-concept.

      --
      Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    24. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

      You're missing one small detail:

      Citizens comprise the government.

      If citizens demand that the government has no jurisdiction of digital currency eventually the government must bends it will to the masses.

      The problem isn't the government; it's all the spineless people who allow the government to dictate and micro-manage the citizen's live.

    25. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you not realize that the expansion of the economy is almost entirely due to debt? That is, the economy hasn't expanded much at all, and that we've just written a whole shitload of IOUs.

      This type of expansion is temporary, and when it contracts, the resulting depression will be blamed on everything except that which caused it.

    26. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by slashping · · Score: 3

      If citizens demand that the government has no jurisdiction of digital currency eventually the government must bends it will to the masses.

      You're so naive, it's cute.

    27. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by davidwr · · Score: 1

      It has high transaction costs due to the need to check against fraud.

      Google tells me that, right now, "1 Bitcoin equals 424.75 US Dollar".

      So, arguably, Bitcoin is an equally terrible currency as gold.

      Checking BC for fraud has little or no additional transaction costs beyond the transaction itself.

      Either the transaction will go through and the block-chain will not sense a conflict, which is the typical case, OR

      The transaction will not go through, which is the typical case of fraud or double-spending, OR

      very rarely,

      The transaction will appear to go through but within minutes a problem will be detected and the transaction (and possibly other transactions that took place around the same time) is rolled back, in which case the two parties of the transaction will have to work out how to resolved the issue.

      It's hypothetically possible for fraud to happen in a way that "forks" the block-chain in a way that has to be manually reconciled, but when that happens the entire BC ecosystem breaks down until the situation is restored. I've only heard of the block-chain being in this situation one time, and it was because of a software or code-implementation issue, not fraud.

      What you can't easily tell is if a BC has been stolen. There may be theoretical ways to "flag" stolen BC if it's never been spent, but once it's been spent it's pretty much "sorry you got robbed" for the victim and "oh joy, I got away with theft, woot!" for the thief. But physical gold and paper money also share this property (let's assume there is no physical evidence that can be used to catch the thief, and that for currency, the serial numbers are not recorded anywhere so it is not traceable).

      --
      Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    28. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by SpankiMonki · · Score: 0

      Bitcoin isn't even a currency; it's a commodity and, like gold, makes a terrible currency.

      Uh huh.

      See, the thing is, commodities ALWAYS have utility beyond that of acting as money/currency. If you can tell me what a bitcoin can be used for besides money/currency, I'll believe it is a commodity.

    29. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by davidwr · · Score: 1

      the whole point of bitcoin was to be able to process transactions without the need for trusted intermediaries. Government's role (or lack therof) didn't enter into it.

      We aren't talking about Japan backing BC, we are talking about how the government of Japan will treat BC transactions for taxation and other regulatory purposes.

      If they treat it as a commodity, it may be subject to tariffs, sales and other goods-and-services-transaction taxes, and the like. If they treat it like a currency, then it may be subject to currency-transaction-reporting laws and the like.

      If I buy $10,000 worth of candy and sell it the next day for $10,100, that's typically going to result in sales tax, or it would in most states in the United States at least.

      If I buy $10,000 worth of candy and export it to another country, I have to deal with both the export laws of my country and the import laws of the other country as they relate to candy, foods, and the like.

      If I buy $10,000 of Euro and sell it the next day for $10,100, there is no sales tax (well, I don't think there is anyway). If I export that Euro to another country by wire or by suitcase, it's treated much differently than if I was exporting candy or some other physical commodity (Euro banknotes are not a "commodity" for this purpose).

      Does Japan want to treat BC like it was candy or like it was the Euro for regulatory purposes? That is the question.

      --
      Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    30. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      For most of recorded history, gold has made a terrific currency

      For most recorded history, people crapped in holes out in the back yard.

      So what's your point? For most recorded history, if you wanted to move to a different town, you had to carry all your gold with you in a big sack because there were no banks. For most recorded history, most people didn't have any gold, and thus, didn't have any wealth.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    31. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Some countries require payments be made with a recognized currency, most do not.

      Your statement is silly, because it totally ignores the needs of the person using the currency. Maybe you don't care about the gubermint, but that doesn't tell you how to predict the results of your actions.

      Here in the US, anything you use as a currency is already recognized by the government. There is no whitelist or approval needed, but simply using something as currency invokes various laws such as anti-counterfeiting laws to protect the people using it.

      And if a coupon has cash value, counterfeiting it could be a federal offense.

      As an aside, the summary makes an amusing misuse of the term "legal tender." No, but the article does discuss that the proposal applies to things convertible to legal tender such as bitcoin which has dollar-denominated exchanges. Presumably there is overlapping ignorance about the meaning of the term "legal tender" and governments' limited involvement in private currencies.

    32. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by dr.newton · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think the Government comprises Citizens...

      --
      Just another proletarian malcontent.
    33. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      What if all those people have strong spines, they just disagree with you about what the laws should be and how the government should be run? What then?

      You seem to understand exactly one half of the statement, "Citizens comprise the government." You go off the rails when you wave your hands about the citizens making "demands." They would do that by voting, or by filing a lawsuit if they believe the law already supports their position. Understanding of the first half of your comment renders the second half moot.

    34. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      For most of recorded history, gold was not generally used as currency. Even famous examples of historical gold coins that were currency, if you look at trade in the period you'll find out that gold was not the standard currency by any stretch, and it would not even be spendable for most transactions that would have been taking place. This should be immediately obvious just by the large size of historical gold coins, and the complete lack of pinhead sized ones.

      Armchair historians need a solid interest in reading lots of history, or they'll fall right out of the chair.

      And consider also; gold coins are still being made, even now that they are not currency. And they often still have an absurdist "cash value" on them, so you could make a technical argument that are currency, but in practice they are not. And yet, a wealthy person could probably pay a debt with them. Lacking ledger-based financial transactions, it would instantly stand out as a way for wealthy people and businesses to move large sums. As such, it would command a privileged place in literature and would receive lots of poetic references including the word "currency."

      Just because you can "power regional empires" on a commodity, such as some sort of mineral wealth like gold or iron, doesn't automatically make them "currency." If you hire a guard to protect your pile of gold, what coins do you use to pay them? Those are the "currency" that are actually in use. ;) Historically the one that stands out the most is copper, and the next is silver.

    35. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      When the "Golden Eagle" is your go-to example, your argument might be self-refuting; see also: "the exception that proves the rule."

      Also note that for most of recorded history, coins haven't had an abstract numerical "face value," generally the price of some basic necessity was declared by the government in the context of a named coin, thereby setting the value of the coin, and the value of already-issued coins would change with that spot-price based on the current politics of the realm.

    36. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      For most of recorded history, the only competition to gold as a currency was chickens and goats. Granted, gold did very well compared to those.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    37. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      false; a government controlled by, in the pockets of and in debt to a banking cartel does not follow the desires of its citizens. examples: USA, UK.

      your childlike naivety is humorous.

    38. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Well you can claim to have bitcoins and sound pompous. You can display your bitcoin holdings on your phone. Isn't that what women do with useless rocks?

      A commodity is a tradeable object--it's a good. Wheat, dirt, rocks, liquid nitrogen, bull semen. Bitcoin doesn't represent ownership of a company, so it's not a stock; and it's not issued by a central bank (even gold bullion was stamped by an official mint), so it's not a currency. It's manufactured by individuals using their own resources, and then traded for money or other commodities.

    39. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> like gold, makes a terrible currency

      You lost me there. For most of recorded history, gold has made a terrific currency - the kind you can power regional empires on.

      You might as well say that for most of human history hand written documents distributed by horsemen was a terrific way to disseminate information. (it was until the printing press then the telegraph then radio then the Internet subsequently made it obsolete)

      Gold worked better than using rice or pure barter, but worse than gold backed bank notes. The relatively recent inovation (recent enough some people still haven't couhgt on) is that the gold was completely vestigial to the gold backed note, and debt backed notes are even better.

      Bitcoin, is a lot like going back to rice.

    40. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      So, arguably, Bitcoin is an equally terrible currency as gold.

      Yes. Alot of people do argue that. What happens when we hit peak bitcoin?

    41. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like gold, the utility of which for most of history was...making shiny things?

      Really, you can argue about technicalities regarding whether Bitcoin is a REAL commodity, but it's a good shorthand to describe Bitcoin's behavior in relationship to other currencies. Without any government backing to force value upon at least some subset of the world population, Bitcoin has no express value from day to day without being compared to other currencies. And compared to other currencies, Bitcoin's value fluctuates (relatively) wildly (and right now it's very hard to exchange any sufficiently large quantity of Bitcoins for any other currency, which is a different issue but worth bringing up). This is just like a commodity.

      Except, as you so rightly pointed out, Bitcoin doesn't have any utility (not even making shiny things) outside of being used to pay for things, so one could say it's even worse than a commodity.

    42. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have forgotten one problem. To keep from being double-spent, you have to run the entire blockchain... all 66 gigabytes of it, on your device. Some you can do a portion, but in reality, those coins you partially verified might just be void when you go to spend them and the person you hand the coins to actually does a complete blockchain check.

      Also, if something happens that does "fork" the block-chain, there isn't anyone that can fix it effectively. Basically whomever has the most cloud wins, and if two parties are fairly large, it might just mean your BTC transactions are OK with one group, but void with another, making the currency worthless.

    43. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by penguinoid · · Score: 2

      Do you not realize that the expansion of the economy is almost entirely due to debt?

      I think you mean, due to massive amounts of automation, international trade, power generating capacity, and modern technology. Do you think in historical times a person who considered himself poor could be expected to be able to buy ~half a ton of wheat for one day's work?

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    44. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by castionsosa · · Score: 1

      Agreed, a currency shouldn't need to be blessed... but it is a lot better than being outright banned, or causing someone to wind up on lists because one uses that currency. Is this a step forward? Who knows. Since BitCoin transactions leave a definite trail behind forever and a day, there might be more criminals using the BTC rope to hang themselves if the currency is more mainstream.

    45. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your faith in your government isn't higher than your faith in crypto-currency, then by all means partake in crypto-currency. But if you live in anything other than the third-world country you described, your faith in your government should probably be higher than your faith in crypto-currency. Though really at that point you're just placing your faith in a different government since Bitcoin is only useful as currency insofar as it can be converted into the currency of a country that has that faith firmly in hand.

      Fundamentally, anything without any utility at all other than as a symbol must be given utility by something like, say, "If you don't accept this slip of paper as equal in value to X, we will come to your shop and arrest you." What is Bitcoin's source of utility?

    46. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, government comprises you!

    47. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Not quite accurate because, if you're a merchant, you are keeping your wallet up-to-date. The more blocks pass from the time the transaction occurred the more mathematically sure you are that it will not, cannot, be undone.

      You are almost certainly safe after 4 blocks. The rule of thumb for financial safety is 6 blocks (about one hour). Of course if you're buying a house or a business worth millions it would be best to wait longer. :-)

      The kicker some have is the issue of small transaction in which you cannot wait an hour for verification such as buying a cup of coffee or other sundry items from a grocery. Double spending can happen (though not probable) so many merchants will take accept bitcoin without verifying across multiple blocks. (At least until criminal gangs find ways of successfully double spending on a mass scale. Something that has not happened yet. AFAIK)

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    48. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Citizens comprise the government."

      Except that's not the case.

      "Intended as an internal document. Good reading to understand the nature of rich democracies and the fact that the common people are not allowed to play a role."

      The crisis of democracy - eBook

      Amazon book link

    49. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If the market is truly open, governmental blessing of any currency matters little. On a true open market you can use whatever currency buyer and seller agree on.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    50. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If you have to force people to accept your currency, your currency is shit.

      Yes, I'm aware that this is the case with the USD and businesses in the US. Same applies to a lot of third world countries, btw, and for some odd reason they are always out of stock of anything you wish to buy if you try to purchase something with the official currency.

      There is NO way you can possibly force a currency to be accepted. I do not have to trade with you. Of course it's not because you try to pay with a currency I don't want to accept. It's because the item is not in stock. Or you were rude and I refuse you service. Or ... gimme a moment, I'll come up with a reason before the cops are here, don't worry.

      The reason why the USD is widely accepted is that people have faith in it. Not because some country claims it can force you to accept it as payment for goods or services.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    51. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And introduces the problem of costing very significant real resources to just keep in existence.

    52. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Just because a government has become a (corrupt) oligarchy currently doesn't mean it has to _stay_ that way.

      The point is, the government "gets away" with corporacy due to apathy of the people. In other words, the people get exactly what they deserve.

      If people want things to change they need to start holding their elected officials accountable. When politicians actually have gasp, integrity, and spend more time on fixing the problem instead of bad-mouthing the competition things will change.

      To simply give up is childlike naivety.

    53. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why on earth would citizens want one currency to be subject to taxation and regulation, and another currency not?

      Either you believe in taxation and regulation - as almost everyone does - or you don't. "Two currencies getting different treatment" is not an acceptable solution to either side of that debate.

    54. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll sell you a BOX of Snickers bars (about $18) (6 lb of 48 count) for a 1oz Golden Eagle (currently worth $1,291 spot). Do be a fucking moron!

    55. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      i disagree, trading volume was immensely higher with the bartered goods, and a shortage of goods would mean disaster for the affected area, while a shortage of gold usually meant one elite was about to bufu another.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    56. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      There was simply never going to be a scenario in which governments went "well, dammit, it's digital and they say it's exempt from us, guess there's nothing we can do".

      Anybody who believed that was delusional.

      Delusion is practically part of the Bitcoin spec it's so deeply embedded in the True Believer.

      And it's really amusing to see someone (the grandparent) who thinks the idea was to be free of governments, when we have been subjected to so many articles where the True Believers were trying to convince us that governments regarded Bitcoin as Really Truly Money.

    57. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citizens comprise the government.

      They compromise each other. However, the checks and balances which bind the two from totally devouring from one another is gone, well at least from the government end it is.

      The spineless people you talk about are simply puppets. They are weak as you say but that's also what gets appointed. I'd say on purpose. Look at how the race for the presidential primaries is going. A ridiculous number of Super delegates (that means _PAID_ delegates) have voted Hillary in well knowing she's not fit for the job. Ah! Perfect special interest groups love that brand of weak. It serves them. But that check and balance totally removed in this case. Paid votes the only things that make a difference if you look how the race is going.

    58. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      what happens when the corruption is legal? accountability to law is then meaningless, there is no mechanism to deal with wrongdoing. And the two party system at federal level runs a corporate bitch on both tickets.

    59. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by slashping · · Score: 1

      If the market is truly open, governmental blessing of any currency matters little.

      The reality is that government controls the market.

    60. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      I will sell you as many Snickers bars as you want for 1oz of gold buillon (each).

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    61. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      So, what's spineless about not making a special case in the laws to exempt bitcoin from all regulation?

      Bitcoin has value, because you can get valuable stuff for it. This has certain implications. If I run a business and get paid in bitcoin, I have to supply some sort of accounting to the IRS. If I buy $500 of bitcoin, and it doubles in value, and I sell it for $1000, I've made $500 in profit, and that has to be accounted for somehow. If I cash in over $10K of bitcoin in the US, the government needs to be notified. That's absolutely no different from any other commodity or currency or whatever.

      You're not going to sell bitcoin as a special legal snowflake to the US population, because there's nothing in it for them. Bitcoin is not universal, and it's not going to become universal, and for the foreseeable future only a minority of the population will use it, and nobody else is going to be interested in constructing a preferential legal framework for something most people don't use.

      It's reasonable to have different opinions on what the government should or should not do, but calling people "spineless" because they disagree with you will win no arguments.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    62. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      How do you classify old baseball cards? They don't really have any utility, but they are worth money on the market.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    63. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You don't need much of an open market, certainly not a government-blessed one. If I can buy stuff for toenail clippings, and other people think the toenail clippings are valuable because they can buy stuff, then toenail clippings are money.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    64. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Unless the law were specifically against bitcoin, it would have some drastic effects. Nobody wants a law that will make it illegal to sell or trade commodities.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    65. Re:Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies... by slashping · · Score: 1

      And if the government then says that toenail clippings are unhygienic and can cause diseases, and makes trading them illegal, then it's not going to be a very popular form of money.

  3. makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    the venn diagrams of bitcoin, katana and anime enthusiasts are basically a single circle

  4. Good idea. by kheldan · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Bitcoin should not be anonymous. All bitcoin exchanges should be like banks, or part of existing banks, and tracked like every other financial transaction, subject to examination by lan enforcement when a proper warrant is issued. Here in the U.S. they're talking about getting rid of $100 bills and perhaps cash completely, how about you regulate bitcoin first, considering how easy it is to launder money using it? Stop punishing the common law-abiding citizen and go after the real problems first.

    Posted as AC because FUCK YOU, I'm tired of your cunts and your shit attitudes.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:Good idea. by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      subject to examination by lan enforcement

      My god, it's the network police.

      Posted as AC because FUCK YOU, I'm tired of your cunts and your shit attitudes.

      Surprise!!

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Good idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are dumb. You don't need a bitcoin exchange at all to use bitcoin. Also you forgot to post as AC, kheldan.

    3. Re:Good idea. by kheldan · · Score: 1

      ..and seeing as how I managed to pull a Sexconker move (failed to check the AC box), I guess I have to put up with the shit attitudes from cunts anyway. Such is life.. or war, as the case may be. FML.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    4. Re:Good idea. by kheldan · · Score: 1

      I'm more or less just having a shitty day, know what I mean? Probably should have stayed in bed and called in sick.

      Just for the record: Only some of you out there are cunts. The rest of you are a-ok in my book. :-)

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    5. Re:Good idea. by kheldan · · Score: 0

      That's my point: There should be some central control. Bitcoin is a loose cannon and needs to be controlled, has been from the start. Face it: it's a favorite tool for criminals and terrorist types, whether you want to believe that or not. Controlling it was always going to happen sooner or later and you all know that. Just accept that it's going to happen and move on.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    6. Re:Good idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you can't control it. It is decentralized. You are dumb. Plus criminals use US dollars more than bitcoin, because dollars are anonymous and Bitcoin isn't.

    7. Re:Good idea. by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

      --Bilbo Baggins

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    8. Re:Good idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      BitCoin isn't anonymous. Every transaction is recorded and public data. It is pseudononymous, just like the name "kheldan" on Slashdot. When someone attempts to actually use their BitCoins for some purpose other than trading between wallets for personal entertainment, there is a link between the wallet and an exchange of goods or services. Some of the more capably paranoid can do a passable job of not linking their transactions to their legal identity. (similar to how many Slashdotters manage to avoid admitting their real name, job, and skillset whether they wear a number or not)

    9. Re:Good idea. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Bitcoin should not be anonymous.

      Like it or not, BitCoin may be anonymous, but it is 100% tracked. What's generally unknown is who owns which wallet, but EVERY transaction is tracked FOREVER in the coin's block chain so every transaction is tracked. Once you put a wallet to a person, the whole transaction history for that wallet is available.

      Those who fear having their finances known need to seriously consider that BitCoin may be anonymous, but as soon as somebody figures out your wallet id which you need to share with anybody you transfer a coin from or to, they can go get your entire history. I'm not so sure I'd be considering this currency anonymous...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    10. Re:Good idea. by slashping · · Score: 2

      but as soon as somebody figures out your wallet id

      That's why you don't keep all your bitcoin in a single wallet. I make a new wallet every time someone wants to send me bitcoin, so until I spend it, there's only a single input into the wallet. And when you spend part of the wallet(s), you can send the change to a new wallet.

    11. Re:Good idea. by StillAnonymous · · Score: 2

      The biggest criminals in the world are the banks and governments.

      The biggest money launderers are the banks.

      The biggest supporters of terrorism are governments.

      Regulating bitcoin does not stop any of the above. It might inconvenience some small time criminals, but the people it hurts the most are the average citizens. You give governments complete control over a person's financial state, and you will see what crimes against humanity they will commit. This "we're doing it to eliminate crime" is nothing but a lie that the government uses to convince simple minds to go along with the plan.

    12. Re:Good idea. by davidwr · · Score: 1

      Bitcoin should not be anonymous. All bitcoin exchanges should be like banks, or part of existing banks, and tracked like every other financial transaction

      When I walk into my neighborhood bank and ask for change for a $100, they don't ask for ID.

      If I go to the effort to put on a good disguise first, as long as I look like I'm not wearing a disguise they don't blink an eye.

      Now if only I could figure out a way to fool the heatmap-reading cameras into thinking I'm someone else....

      By the way, until the terrorism-inspired (well, that's what THEY say) "know your customer" laws, American banks were a lot more lax about requiring ID on passbook savings accounts. Now if you want to do anything other than make change or buy a one-time-use/disposable low-denomination "Christmas gift" debit cards like the ones you can buy in grocery stores, you have to provide your thumbprint and at least one (or two?) government IDs.

      Thank you Mr. Terrorist. I feel a lot safer now that I have to put my $100 bills under the mattress and face the increased risk being burgled or robbed. *sarcasm*

      --
      Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    13. Re: Good idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which links all your wallets together in sequence, so you might as well have not bothered creating a new wallet in the first place.

    14. Re:Good idea. by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2

      as somebody figures out your wallet id which you need to share with anybody you transfer a coin from or to, they can go get your entire history

      That's not how Bitcoin works. You can have any number of wallets, and most Bitcoin clients support the new "HD" (Hierarchical Deterministic) wallet format, where many "IDs" are generated from a master key using a one-way function. A single key can provide an infinite stream of distinct addresses, one for each transaction. Without the master key there is nothing to link these addresses together. You don't give people "your wallet ID", you give them an address unique to that one transaction. When you spend the bitcoins later you send the change to a different unique address; if you do it right then it won't be obvious to third-parties which output was the expenditure and which was the change.

      The one case that is more difficult to avoid is when you need to combine multiple inputs together to cover a single larger expenditure. The fact that the inputs were used in the same transaction is fair evidence that they are controlled by the same entity. This is where schemes like CoinJoin and mixing services can help to preserve anonymity, by combining many unrelated inputs and redistributing the sums to new addresses in standardized denominations, thus breaking the link between the inputs and the outputs. It is possible to implement this using blinded signatures such that even the mixing service doesn't which inputs are linked to which outputs.

      Then there is the fact that "your entire history" is limited to your transactions on the blockchain, which are still pseudonymous for both senders and receivers—it would take a whole lot of old-fashioned detective work to determine the real-world identities of everyone you've traded with even after their (one-time-use) Bitcoin addresses are known.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    15. Re:Good idea. by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

      I have no idea who kheldan really is, so you are effectively AC to me.

    16. Re:Good idea. by kheldan · · Score: 0

      Know what? You're all wrong, bitcoin is used in crime all the time, whether you want to admit it or not, and who gives a fuck, in a functional sense, whether governments are corrupt, criminal, or not? They always have been, they always will be, and nothing short of a mass die-off of the human race is going to change that -- and even then, you get more than, say, three people together in the same place, you get some sort of inequity, crime, or corruption anyway. Know what else? IDGAF that's what. I think bitcoin is a gigantic troll, have from the beginning, and like stupid toy drones and so-called 'autonomous cars', I wish they'd all just go away. Know what else? YOU ARE ALL COWS, that's what you are, BITCOIN-DEALING COWS. MOOO, go the bitcoin cows, MOOO, MOOO, I SAY, MOOO!!!11!!1! XDDDDDDDD

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    17. Re:Good idea. by kheldan · · Score: 1

      I have no idea who kheldan really is

      ..which is exactly the way it's supposed to be, friend. ;-)

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    18. Re:Good idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because of the blockchain functionality, BTC is a relative easy street for anyone to play LEO, either to find suspects, connect the dots, or amass enough evidence for a trial. Once Alice hands Bob some BTC, that transaction, and the link between the two wallets is out there for the world to see, forever. In fact, it is more auditable than bank transactions, as banks tend to dump logs after a set period (7-10 years), while twenty years from now, people can see the transaction for Bob's stuff that Alice bought.

      With this in mind, BTC is going to be a field day for LEOs. Since there are no realistic ways to anonymize BTC (it is trivial to find tainted coins even if tumbled), it is a perfect way for criminals to do themselves in.

    19. Re:Good idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. I also think cars and their drivers should be tracked everywhere they go since they are regularly used in crime but people don't seem to agree with that. You seem like the type that might understand what I'm saying.

    20. Re:Good idea. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I don't think I've ever seen anyone quite melt down this much on Slashdot. Presumably, it's a new day when you read this. You need a hug? 'Cause I'll let you hug my g/f. She's cute but only a little squishy 'cause she's kind of skinny. I'm not very squishy at all but I'll give you a hug.

      Anyhow, I'm inclined to disagree. The USD is used in crime all the time. Yes, there's some chance that monitoring our activities will result in a safer society. However, I'd rather accept the risk and have more liberty to move about unobserved as well as conduct transactions with less scrutiny. The government needn't know everything and yes, that means that sometimes good people get hurt. There will never be a truly safe society and that's okay. We're humans, we're fallible, and we're going to have bad shit happen.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    21. Re:Good idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That's my point: There should be some central control. Bitcoin is a loose cannon and needs to be controlled, has been from the start"

      People who want and/or advocate control over other are people who are scared and insecure.

    22. Re:Good idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which is exactly the way it's supposed to be, friend

      You're Mitt Romney?

    23. Re:Good idea. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If bitcoin is controlled somehow (and how would that work?), criminals will find some way to transfer value that isn't controlled. People can get really ingenious when they're doing stuff you don't want them to.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  5. Mt. Gox by saccade.com · · Score: 1

    Japan was the home base for Mt. Gox.. Maybe this is fallout from that fiasco.

  6. Bold move considering their negative interest rate by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

    Japan is already forcing people to horde cash with their negative interest rates.

    http://fortune.com/2016/02/23/...

    Something like bitcoin could prove disastrous for their banking system.

  7. What about gold and silver? by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Sure, they are physical objects, but so are pieces of paper (er, cloth in some countries) and shiny base-metal coins.

    If you are going to treat BC like currency, then treat "commodity" metal like currency and, for that matter, allow anyone who can guarantee the safety of their safe and insure it against theft or destruction the option of "printing" paper- or electronic-currency that is denominated in physical quantities of gold or silver (e.g. a "pre-mined" e-currency controlled by a bank or other institution, with the smallest fractional unit equal to 1 microgram of gold, or paper "gold certificates" backed by the bank or other institution that holds them that were valued in grams-of-gold).

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  8. Bitcoin is not "conventional currency" by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Funny

    If I can't roll it up and use it to snort a line, then it's not money.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  9. Nope by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies to avoid the need for a government to bless (and therefore control) a particularly unit of money?

    Only to those whose grasp of reality is a bit tenuous. There have always been currencies not controlled by a particular government, not to mention bullion and other de-facto currencies. The fact that it isn't a fiat currency is irrelevant. There is absolutely no chance that governments will not get involved in regulating anything resembling a currency. Anyone who thought otherwise is delusional.

  10. Re: Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies.. by Aboroth · · Score: 1

    I don't think you know the definition of the word 'fungible.'

  11. There are reasons we don't use gold as currency by sjbe · · Score: 1

    For most of recorded history, gold has made a terrific currency - the kind you can power regional empires on.,/quote>

    Gold has served as a currency adequately at times (and poorly at others) but I dispute the "terrific" part of your thesis. There are very good reasons why it is no longer the basis of any modern currency.

  12. We shall not crucify mankind on a cross of gold! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This might work ok if they limit it to only Bitcoin.
    But there is no limit to the supply of altcoins, and no clear definition of what is an altcoin and what is just some numbers in a computer.

    Would it be acceptable for Blizzard to pay taxes in WOW-gold? What if they spawned a bunch of extra gold just for the tax bill? Is that ok?

    What if the Japanese government wants taxes from me and I have no money? Can I just create a shitty MMO with no players and do the same thing?.

    *for those who don't get the subject it's a quote from WIlliam Jennings Bryan who ran for president on the slogan. He was in favor "Free coinage of silver"

  13. The thing about hoarding cash by davidwr · · Score: 1

    It's not cheap. A very small negative interest rate is still less costly than renting a safe place to store cash and insuring it against loss, particularly for large amounts.

    If I were in Japan and I had lots of cash, I would be looking at "investing" money I didn't need in the next 2-3 months in a "market basket" of Japan's equivalent of money-market accounts, commercial paper, short-term high-quality bonds, and in market-baskets of currencies of other countries, in the hopes that the ups and downs of these investments would even out to something slightly higher than inflation.

    By the way, for many years or decades, US banks and money-market accounts have paid effective negative interest rates after you factor in inflation, and that's before factoring in taxation on the nominal interest. There's not much before-taxes practical difference between a 5% inflation rate and a slightly-less-than-5% interest rate and a 0.01% inflation rate and a slightly-less-than-0% interest rate. Psychological difference, yes. Taxation difference, yes (sub-0% interest is actually better in most cases), but practical difference, no.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:The thing about hoarding cash by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Well there is the thing with bitcoin. It has the advantages of a bank account. You can use it for electronic payments and transfers. You don't incur the negative interest rate from letting the bank hold your money . For Japan it's just one more way to bypass the banking system. If I were them I would be very worried this would contract their money supply creating more deflationary pressure.

  14. Since you brought up Bitcoin by davidwr · · Score: 1

    For Japan it's just one more way to bypass the banking system.

    To be a good substitute for a bank deposit, something must be liquid and it must have either no loss of value or an acceptable upper limit on the loss of value compared to putting money in the bank.

    Bitcoin is just too volatile. If I put 10,000 Yen in the bank now then withdraw it in 6 months, how much is it going to be worth? Almost certainly at least 9,900 Yen. If I buy 10,000 Yen worth of Bitcoin, how much will it be worth 6 months from now? Maybe 20,000 Yen, maybe 5,000 Yen, who knows?

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  15. Dogecoin by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

    Will the Dogecoin mascot mean it will become popular in Japan?

    If you think Dogecoin will become popular in Japan, increasing its value, send 50 Dogecoins to D9scjyKETYZesSmhjCR4vye4bc6iDqXPd6.

    If you think Dogecoin will NOT become popular in Japan, doing nothing to its value, send 100 Dogecoins to D9scjyKETYZesSmhjCR4vye4bc6iDqXPd6.

  16. Asians like cash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because Asians like cash, bitcoin "feels natural". Japan is not the first Asian country to endorse bitcoins as "legal tender".